³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Local Government and Transport Committee, 19 Jan 2005

Meeting date: Wednesday, January 19, 2005

Official Report 317KB pdf

---

Subordinate Legislation

---

Council Tax (Discount for Unoccupied Dwellings) (Scotland) Regulations 2005 (Draft)

I welcome back members of the committee after a relatively short break, particularly for those who had the stamina to stay until the end of yesterday's meeting, which produced the unique effect that David Mundell applied to join the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers. Whether Bob Crow will accept his application remains to be seen.

Under item 1, Tavish Scott, the Deputy Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform, will speak to and move motion S2M-2198 on the draft Council Tax (Discount for Unoccupied Dwellings) (Scotland) Regulations 2005. As is our usual practice when we deal with a Scottish statutory instrument, I will first ask the minister to make an opening statement explaining what the SSI aims to achieve. We will then ask technical questions on the content of the SSI, which the Scottish Executive officials who are here to support the minister may answer as necessary. After that, we will have a question and answer session, during which I ask members to steer clear of engaging in overt political debate. We will then have a debate on the motion.

Thank you for the invitation to come along and deal with this piece of business. Nikola Plunkett and Gillian Russell are with me to answer members' questions. I understand that the committee has another lengthy agenda on railways this morning, so I will keep my remarks to the point.

First, the regulations will remove, with certain exemptions, the mandatory 50 per cent council tax discount that is awarded in relation to second homes and long-term empty properties. Local authorities will be given the discretion to retain a discount of between 10 and 50 per cent, which will allow decisions to be taken locally by people who know their communities best.

Secondly, additional income that arises from a reduction in the discount will be retained locally and routed through registered social landlords for the provision of new-build affordable social housing to meet locally determined housing priority needs. That will provide a genuine boost to the supply of affordable housing for local people.

Thirdly, as the committee would expect, the regulations and associated guidance have been the subject of consultation with, among others, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, local authorities, Communities Scotland, Scottish Water and the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations.

I welcome the measure, for which I have campaigned for more years than I can remember. However, I have a few technical questions for the minister. Is there any specific provision for crofts? Especially in the Western Isles, but also in other parts of the crofting counties, the children of many families that have a croft have to move away, usually for economic reasons. However, in most cases, they are reluctant to sever the connection. I have raised the issue of second homes over the years and have generally supported the measure, but occasions of such support have usually been followed by a wave of virulent opposition from crofters and others who do not wish to sever their connection and who feel that the imposition of the full council tax would be a burden. I have argued in the past for specific provision for crofts. Do the regulations make such provision?

The short answer is no; there is no provision for crofts. Forgive me, but I am not clear whether Mr Ewing is arguing for a special discount for crofters per se. If that is the precise point, the short answer is no.

I was not asking for specific provision, but rather for local authorities to be entitled to exercise discretion and introduce a specific provision, not just for purpose-built holiday homes, but for crofts.

That brings me to the definition of purpose-built holiday homes. I am sure that the minister is aware from the consultation, to which I think that I contributed, that one problem in areas in which there are large numbers of holiday homes, such as west Lochaber and Badenoch and Strathspey in my constituency, where places such as Nethy Bridge, Strontian and Acharacle have a high proportion of holiday homes, is that a number of those holiday homes, whether they are custom or purpose-built holiday homes or even villas—to use a word that has been in the news a lot recently—seem to be let out on the sly. A particular source of resentment among the local population is that their community is something of a mausoleum in the winter months, when the holiday homes or villas are empty, but that they are let out at other times.

It has always surprised me that there has been no effort to ensure that those who obtain income from letting out villas or holiday homes declare that income. Has the Executive taken that issue on board? If it were taken on board, that would have an effect not only on the public purse through increased revenues, but on the propensity of people to take on properties as second homes given the possibility that any income that they made would have to be declared. Of course, I am not making a blanket accusation and I am sure that most people are absolutely law abiding. However, many of my constituents think that the practice goes on, although I have no way of knowing whether it is widespread and common or restricted to a few people. Has the minister considered that important point, which has a strong impact on rural housing—

Give the minister a chance to answer, Fergus. I suspect that we are touching on issues that relate to the reserved matters of income tax and potential income tax evasion. However, I will allow the minister to answer.

I appreciate the importance of the issue but, fundamentally, income declaration is a matter for the individual or business concerned and the Inland Revenue, which is the appropriate tax authority. Mr Ewing will know from his intimate knowledge of the Scotland Act 1998 that those powers reside at Westminster rather than with us. If there is a significant problem to which local authorities wish to bring our attention, we would be happy to pass on such representation to the Inland Revenue; I am sure that Mr Ewing would expect us to do that. The Inland Revenue is the appropriate authority to deal with matters relating to personal taxation and business taxation.

Purpose-built holiday homes are one of the classes of dwellings that are referred to in paragraphs (1) and (3) of regulation 5. Is it the case that if a purpose-built holiday home were to be granted exemption, its owner would automatically be liable to pay business rates?

Do you know the answer to that, Nikola?

That is the case if the home is rented out for 140 days or more.

A person is entitled to move over to the non-domestic rating system if their property is rented out for 140 days or more. I think that that is a matter for local authorities to establish. Someone would have to be able to prove to their local authority that they were letting out their property for that length of time—perhaps by demonstrating that it was advertised on a tourist board website, for example.

I thought that there was such a classification, but I could not remember the relevant number of days, so I am grateful to you for that information. However, my point was not about the precise definition; I wanted to check that owners of such dwellings would pay council tax or business rates and that they would not fall between two stools and end up being exempt and not having to pay either. I presume that the thoroughness of the regulations means that that could not possibly occur.

By working with local authorities and local assessors, we would ensure that that was not the case.

My final question is on the financial effects. My interpretation of the Executive's note and the minister's introductory remarks is that the extra income that would be yielded through any decision to remove the existing discount for second homes would accrue to local authorities as genuine additional revenue. There are no ifs or buts about that.

That is correct.

I am grateful for that. From reading the explanatory note and the associated documents, it seemed to me that there would be a delay in the process. Can you explain the mechanics of when—in what financial year—the local authority would have access to the extra yield, how the money would be spent and by whom? I understand that we have the common aim of using that extra income—which, if the removal of the discount were used to its maximum, would amount to about £3 million a year for Highland Council—to provide housing for young people so that they would have a better chance of being able to stay in their own area. Are there any practical impediments, procedural hurdles, difficulties or obstacles that could delay the achievement of that objective, which I believe is shared by my party and your party?

I agree with you on the broad policy, of which I imagine that the Parliament as a whole would be entirely supportive. Constituency members who represent the affected parts of Scotland have all made representations on freeing up cash by such means to help local authorities to make further provision on affordable housing.

You asked about the mechanism. It is for each local authority to decide in which financial year the extra money will be spent. That expenditure will be audited as part of the normal audit procedures and we will keep a weather eye on how the process is undertaken.

The one qualification—or hurdle, if that is how you prefer to describe it—is that we have made it clear that we expect those moneys to be used to meet the policy objective that Mr Ewing has just outlined through registered social landlords, in consultation with COSLA and individual local authorities. As I mentioned at the outset, that was considered to be the most efficient mechanism of ensuring that the moneys that accrue will be used to achieve the policy objective of constructing and maintaining affordable local housing for local people. That mechanism exists and we believe that it is the best way of achieving the policy objective. We will audit it through the appropriate and normal procedures, but we expect to check on each local authority every year to ensure that it is taking advantage of the scheme to ensure a supply of local affordable housing.

The regulations will come into force on 1 April. Given the fact that local authorities will set their council tax levels prior to that date, will the regulations actually come into effect from the financial year 2006 onwards, or will they be applied for the forthcoming financial year?

I would have thought that they would be effective from this financial year. The regulations have been well trailed, and Andy Kerr announced them last summer. The committee will recall that it was felt strongly that, if the announcement was made in time—which was last summer—local authority finance chiefs would be able to make recommendations to their members to enable them to make decisions in time. I hope that the option of using the regulations will be available now, in time for the council tax setting process that local authorities are entering into.

That is useful to know.

Can the minister confirm that local authorities that think that they can have the additional capacity to raise a full council tax on second homes and then use the money in any way that they wish will be disappointed?

I am afraid that they will be disappointed. We have made that abundantly clear from day one, following representations from every political party in the Parliament about the availability of social rented, affordable housing. That is why we have followed that particular avenue.

My second question is about the electoral representation of second-home owners. There appears to be uncertainty about the ability of second-home owners to vote in two council elections when they are registered at two addresses. I am sure that you share my view that it is not appropriate to have full taxation without representation. Will a second-home owner be able to register and vote in both council areas in which they have a home?

No, they will not be able to register and vote in the area in which they have their second home. However, where they have their second home, they will receive the considerable benefits of being in that area in terms of the services that are provided by the local authority. The argument that your colleague Mr Monteith has made steadily since last summer does not hold any water.

At least you are making that clear. The matter has been unclear.

I welcome the proposal that is before us, but I have some questions about how the money will be used.

Paragraph 10 of annex A to the guidance for local authorities suggests that the money should be routed through registered social landlords. That means that any income from the source will be ring fenced for that purpose, which is not a bad idea. However, will it preclude local authorities using the money to build new council houses?

It will not preclude it. However, under the current legislation and the regime that is operated throughout Scotland, registered social landlords are the primary mechanism for the delivery of new housing stock. That is the route that we have gone down.

I understand that, but the terminology suggests that the money will be ring fenced to go through only registered social landlords. I want to ensure that the guidance makes it clear that, if councils cannot get registered social landlords on an adequate scale in their areas, especially in rural areas, they might use the money to build homes themselves. I would like that to be clear in the guidance.

I would be happy to consider any such examples, but I am not familiar with any area in rural Scotland in which there is not a registered social landlord who would meet the objectives that you and I share of building high-quality, affordable housing for local people. That is what we have sought to achieve across rural Scotland and we will follow that aim.

I might write to the minister with some examples.

Given that the revenue that is raised will be ring fenced, will it go into local authorities' general revenue accounts or into their housing accounts? The latter would be more appropriate and would make for a much easier audit trail so that we could check that the money was being used for the appropriate purpose.

Nikola Plunkett might be able to answer the specific question, but we have certainly put in place arrangements that will ensure that the systems that monitor the resulting additional spending are transparent to ministers and Parliament.

Paragraph 19 of the guidance stipulates that payments should be made to the affordable housing revenue account.

That is good, because it means that there will be no effect on council tax issues; the revenue will be contained within the housing account and no one will be able to claim that the council tax is being kept artificially low because of such activities.

Is there an estimate of the overall income that will be raised? What additional costs are envisaged for the required software changes?

The maximum additional income that could be raised if all Scottish local authorities chose to reduce the discount to 10 per cent is around £24 million. As Mr Ewing mentioned, Highland Council could make the greatest gain, if it wished to do so, at approximately £2.6 million.

I do not know the answer to the question about software and information technology. We could write to the committee on that. Fundamentally, that is an issue for the local authorities but the question is fair. We will reflect on it and see whether we can give you a more considered answer.

The local authorities have told us that there will be cost implications with regard to the software and we have invited them to tell us exactly what those implications are. As yet, no one has got back to us so it is a case of watch this space. We should be able to update the committee at some future point.

I hope that COSLA will be encouraged to ensure that local authorities throughout the country come up with similar software rather than all of them trying to invent their own process for their own area.

You would expect me to adhere to the principles of efficient government and to expect that of local authorities.

Let us ensure that it is said and that it happens.

I hear you, Mr Crawford.

Will you clarify an issue regarding the additional council tax money or water charges that will accrue to Scottish Water? There seems to be a slight contradiction between paragraph 12 and paragraph 13, and I hope that you can confirm that paragraph 13 will take precedence. In many parts of Scotland, problems have arisen in relation to restrictions on development as a result of lack of sewerage infrastructure. Could money that is accrued from the additional revenues be used to deal with some of those issues? That seems to be implied by paragraph 13, but not by paragraph 12.

Paragraph 12 says that when discounts reduce, the water discount will also reduce. It means that extra money will go to Scottish Water as a result of the changes. Scottish Water has a revenue cap, therefore it will have to use that money to reduce charges to customers.

Paragraph 13 says that the money that the councils accrue as a result of the change in policy can be used, if needs be, to provide water and sewerage infrastructure to new homes.

There are two different points. Does that make sense?

Scottish Water will not be able to use the additional revenue to support infrastructure schemes, but councils will be able to do so.

Scottish Water is required to use the money to reduce charges.

Right. That might be a question for the Minister for Environment and Rural Development.

You got an answer, but perhaps it was not the one you wanted.

The key point that I wanted to draw out was that it will be possible to use the money on the infrastructure.

In relation to the money that will be accrued, Nikola Plunkett used the phrase

"can be used, if needs be".

I am not sure what that means. Who will make the decision whether to use the money?

It is for the local authority to decide whether new homes require new water and sewerage infrastructure.

If building takes place in an existing development, where there are already water and waste water facilities, there is no need to install any new facilities there. The expression "can be used" takes that into account.

So the phrase

"can be used, if needs be"

relates to the moneys that the local authority will gather, as opposed to the moneys that Scottish Water will gather.

That is correct.

I apologise for missing the minister's earlier remarks. I am afraid that ScotRail still has a job to do.

Is the discretion within local authority areas determined at the level of individual units, or must there be area-wide discretion? Our briefing notes refer to areas within local authorities.

Our understanding is that an area-based system would be used.

We assume that the local authority would choose to use postcode areas or electoral wards. Such decisions will be at the discretion of the local authority. In any event, discretion will be at an area level.

If a local authority designates an area with respect to the removal of a current discount, would an appeal procedure be available for individuals in that area? I am thinking of parts of Scotland with traditional but-and-ben-type holiday homes, rather than the more affluent, nouveau riche type of holiday homes. I am a bit worried that everyone might get caught in the one situation.

I understand Tommy Sheridan's point. I ask Gillian Russell to comment on the legal aspect of that question.

There is no legal appeal but, within a local authority area, it would be for the voters to exercise a political sanction, ultimately.

If one area within a local authority area is designated for a loss of discount whereas another area in the same local authority area, where there are some second homes, is not designated, that would appear, prima facie, to present a legal basis for appeal against the authority's decision on the basis of discrimination. Has that been looked into?

In the short term, local authorities will have to consider the issues and decide what they want to do. It would be dangerous for me or any of my officials to second-guess what local authorities will do this year and to get drawn into complex areas of hypothetical legal judgment. Local authorities will make judgments on how they wish to apply the discount, if at all, using the powers that they will have if the order is agreed to. We will keep a close monitoring eye on what happens. The principle that is being applied is the devolution of the powers to local authorities. That is what we all sought to achieve, on a cross-party basis. It would be wrong to start second-guessing at this stage what local authorities will wish to do with their powers.

I appreciate what you are saying, and I recognise the cross-party support for the thrust and the principle of the proposals. I am merely trying to examine some of the possibilities that, it is to be hoped, will not occur, although they could occur.

I understand that.

On the potential generation of extra revenue, you mentioned £24 million as the top level of the estimate for Scotland as a whole. You then referred to Highland as, potentially, the top gainer. What is the situation for the more urban authorities, in particular Glasgow?

We do not have the relevant table with us, but we could provide it very quickly in a letter. Indeed, we could get it to the committee today, if that would be helpful.

That would be useful, minister. Thank you very much.

That brings us to the end of questions to the minister. We now proceed to a debate on motion S2M-2198. I invite the minister to speak to and move the motion.

I thank the committee for its consideration of the issue. I do not have anything to add to what has been said. In my opening remarks, I made three points about why the measure has been taken forward, and there has obviously been quite a lot of discussion over the piece. As Mr Ewing fairly said, some of us have discussed the matter for a long time. I rest at that and leave the matter for the committee to consider.

I move,

That the Local Government and Transport Committee recommends that the draft Council Tax (Discount for Unoccupied Dwellings) (Scotland) Regulations 2005 be approved.

I am delighted to speak in favour of the motion, which seeks the committee's approval of the draft Council Tax (Discount for Unoccupied Dwellings) (Scotland) Regulations 2005 because, as many members have said, many of us have looked for such a motion for a long time.

The way in which the Scottish Executive has decided to implement the proposal will have a double benefit. The main benefit will be the removal of one of the fundamental and underlying unfairnesses of the council tax, which is that people who have second homes or holiday homes are entitled to a 50 per cent discount, but a family that lives next door on the same site might have to pay the full council tax, irrespective of its means. That has led to distortions in the housing market in many communities. As many as 40 or 50 per cent of homes in some communities are second homes, which makes getting into the property market extremely difficult for local families to afford.

That is where the second benefit of the regulations comes in. Not only will the measure address the fundamental unfairness in the council tax system that I have mentioned, but it will direct money towards people who are particularly penalised by the policy—that is, those who cannot afford to buy a house in their local community. That things are being done in such a way is extremely important. I welcome the fact that some of the money can be used to address infrastructure issues, for example, to which I referred earlier. That is important for many communities in which there is not only a shortage of affordable housing, but a block on development as a result of the lack of sufficient sewerage infrastructure.

A number of councils—including Fife Council, which covers my area—have already decided to implement the policy, and I hope that they will find it helpful that the additional money will be put to use in addressing affordable housing shortages. In saying that, I am referring to many parts of Fife in particular. There is an estimated shortfall of 3,000 affordable houses in North East Fife, particularly in St Andrews and the east neuk. I hope that the money will go some way towards addressing that fundamental problem. Therefore, I am happy to support the motion.

Recently, a young couple who attended a surgery of mine in Badenoch and Strathspey said that they could not afford to continue to live in the area because they could not find a house that they could afford. They were forced to leave the area despite the fact that both held important jobs that were useful to the community. They are exactly the kind of people whom we hope would be able to stay in the area.

The measure will not be a solution in itself, but it will be part of the solution. I have campaigned for the measure for a long time—certainly since the mid-1990s, when I pushed the issue through at an unsuspecting Scottish National Party conference—and I am delighted that it will become law.

If I may, I will uncharacteristically offer the Executive a word of criticism. When in 1999, as a newly elected MSP, I advocated the measure to Mr Scott's predecessor, Mr Peacock, I was rebuffed, despite the fact that Mr Peacock had been the convener of Highland Council and had espoused the policy in that role. However, that is enough of that.

It is important to stress that I do not think that the minister and I are against holiday homes per se. I know very well that the construction of such homes creates work for local builders and that, when constructed, those houses create work for local small businesses and the other companies that service them. By and large, people in my constituency do not have a nimby mentality. They, too, are not against holiday homes per se, or their contribution to the local community; however, they are concerned about unconstrained development in small towns whose size would be effectively doubled by developments. I am disappointed that no provision is made to allow councils to have the option of making a particular decision in relation to crofters, but perhaps that can be built on.

I am interested in the idea that holiday home owners should have two votes, which would create a new type of person in the universal franchise. Some people are obviously more equal than others. I wonder whether the Tories will extend that measure to other types of property ownership, such as shareholdings, and propose that people who have shares registered in more than one country should also have two votes.

I am also slightly puzzled by the Tories' suggestion that people who do not use services should not have to pay the council tax—after all, the Tories introduced it. I should point out that some people who occupy houses use no services. If people should pay only for what they use, why did the Tories bring in the tax in the first place? Perhaps that is not directly relevant to the debate, but Mr Mundell raised the matter.

I warmly welcome the draft regulations, which will make a difference in my area. However, they address only one part of a very serious problem. Much more must be done to create affordable housing for purchase and rental throughout Scotland, and especially in my constituency.

At least I find myself agreeing with something that Fergus Ewing said. Indeed, it is important that he put his view of the situation on record, because the matter is not always portrayed in such a way. Many people who own second homes contribute enormously to the communities concerned and we must rebut the perception that second home ownership is a bad thing per se.

I also find myself agreeing with Mr Sheridan, which is something that happens occasionally these days. There is support for the general thrust of the draft regulations, but they still raise some concerns. Although I very much support any measure that leads to the provision of affordable housing, some councils and councillors will be disappointed to find that this money is ring fenced, because there was an expectation that it would be available more generally. However, that is the Executive's policy decision.

I do not accept Fergus Ewing's comments about the second vote. Our proposal relates only to council elections in council areas where people are being asked to pay full council tax. The principle of no taxation without representation is valid. The minister has helpfully clarified the Executive position on the matter, because there has been a lack of clarity in that respect. However, I have to say that the issue still raises serious concerns.

Given that the Tories have not controlled a single council since local government reorganisation, Mr Mundell's proposal is an innovative way of trying to create a Tory revival.

I do not know whether Tommy Sheridan welcomes Mr Mundell's support, but I will give him the opportunity to respond.

Thanks, convener. Members will recall that in 1996 the Tories' last attempt to gerrymander the councils backfired spectacularly when they lost through the reorganisation plan even the councils that they had formerly controlled. David Mundell will have to go back to the drawing board if he wants to secure local authority control by any Conservative administration.

I want to make two points. I realise that the minister will be invited to respond to this debate. I hope that he will take that opportunity, because the guidance on these welcome regulations says:

"The additional income will be retained locally and routed through Registered Social Landlords … for the provision of new-build affordable social housing to meet locally-determined priorities."

However, to prevent those houses from being sold off, we have to deal with the problem and stop continually pouring water into the bath without putting the plug in. Any new homes that are constructed by housing associations and councils inevitably face the threat of being sold at a later date. That problem is not being addressed, so my first point is that I hope that the minister will take the opportunity to make some statement of intent about the removal of the ridiculous right to buy. There should be a right to a decent home at a decent level of rent rather than a right to buy.

Secondly, I ask the minister to address the extra revenue that will be generated by the proposed measures. We are talking about £24 million, which is a not inconsiderable sum of money. Has any discussion taken place with the Westminster funders—I almost said "owners"—of the Parliament about the confines of the Scotland Act 1998 and the generation of extra funding in Scotland? As we know, there has been discussion about the ability of the Parliament to take measures to generate extra finance that could then lead to reductions in block grant. I want an assurance from the minister that that will not be the case, particularly in relation to council tax. We have to keep checking with the Liberals, but I think that they still support the abolition of the council tax, as my party does. If we abolished it, we could be looking at the potential loss of some £300 million in council tax benefit—

I think that you are a bit wide of the mark, Tommy. Please return to the subject of the draft regulations.

Will the extra revenue generated by this measure come into the ambit of the discussion about the potential loss of revenue from an Executive-determined policy to abolish council tax? That abolition would be widely welcomed throughout Scotland.

That is a separate debate.

I welcome the draft regulations because, as everybody said, the way in which they are constructed means that the moneys generated will go into much-needed affordable housing. I agree with everything that Iain Smith said. He spoke about waiting lists in the north of Fife and we have exactly the same situation in my Stirling constituency. The regulations are needed all over Scotland.

David Mundell's comments lead me to address the issue of ring fencing. I have great sympathy with the idea that local authorities should have flexibility, but there are one or two areas in which needs are so great that I welcome the channelling of the money into affordable housing. I fully support ring fencing in this case.

I am pleased that everybody thinks that affordable housing is so important. I am sure that a lot of ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ who are new to the cross-party group on affordable housing will come to the group's next meeting to help us to deal with the important aspects that Tommy Sheridan listed, such as the right to buy and pressured area status.

Unlike in Fergus Ewing's constituency, holiday homes are not an issue in Glasgow Springburn, although we are working towards them.

I support the draft regulations, and I tell David Mundell that the democratic right to vote should not be based on the payment of council tax. We have a democratic right to vote regardless of whether we pay council tax at the two different addresses to which David Mundell referred. We should recognise that people are entitled to that right to vote. It is wrong to suggest that someone who pays council tax in two places should be entitled to register for two votes. I oppose that suggestion strongly.

A number of members have made representations on this issue and a number of considered approaches have been taken. That is why I support the proposal.

I do not have a lot to add, but I am grateful for all members' points. Our overall and abiding interest is in the creation of more affordable housing in the rented sector for people in our communities who need it. I agree with those members who said that the draft regulations are only part of the solution. That is why we put so much more additional resource into affordable housing throughout Scotland in the spending review that has just concluded. The draft regulations are part of the solution, along with a number of other mechanisms and resources that we have been able to deploy because of the spending review.

I will make two other brief points. I confirm to Mr Sheridan that the £24 million that might be accrued through the measure has played no part in our on-going discussions with the Treasury. He will also be familiar with the fact that the independent review on local government finance is due—I think—to publish its request for evidence this week. That will give us all an opportunity to contribute.

In relation to housing guidance, Mr Sheridan will also be familiar with the terms of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001, which relate to pressured areas. If he wants to pursue that point, he should take it up with the relevant portfolio minister, Mr Chisholm.

I finish by agreeing with Mr Ewing: I suspect that there will be many unsuspecting SNP conferences, as he mentioned earlier.

The question is, that motion S2M-2198, in the name of Tavish Scott, be agreed to. Are members agreed?

No.

There will be a division.

For

Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Sheridan, Tommy (Glasgow) (SSP)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)

Abstentions

Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)

The result of the division is: For 8, Against 0, Abstentions 1.

Motion agreed to.

That the Local Government and Transport Committee recommends that the draft Council Tax (Discount for Unoccupied Dwellings) (Scotland) Regulations 2005 be approved.

Agenda item 2 is a briefing on the evidence taken to date on the UK Railways Bill. Our adviser will give us his initial views on that evidence. We agreed previously to take the item in private.

Meeting continued in private.

Meeting continued in public.