Seòmar agus comataidhean

It could create challenges, but in designing the reliefs we have sought to incentivise new developments. The reliefs that the committee is considering today specifically concern LBTT. The policy affects land that is either undeveloped or underdeveloped—that is, land that would perhaps not see any development were it not for such intervention. It concerns a reserved area, but the employer national insurance contributions for new jobs that are created will help to mitigate the risk of jobs being transferred from one part of the country to another.

I am ambitious, in the sense that I hope that if there is any displacement it will not be from other parts of Scotland and that people from other parts of the UK and the world will be attracted by those high-quality jobs and so will come to work in Scotland. Speaking as the minister with responsibility for public finance, such highly paid jobs will help to generate revenue to support our public services. There is a real opportunity for us in cutting-edge industries, in which we have comparative advantages and where we can be world leaders, to attract people from outwith Scotland and from other parts of the UK and beyond. I certainly hope that that has happened.

Where we have been able to take action on the shaping of the tax policy—for example, on LBTT—that has been done to incentivise development that would otherwise not take place.

Of course. The convener alluded to the ambitions on job creation at both sites. If those are realised and provide high-quality and high-paying jobs, it follows that there would be a significant return on investment relative to LBTT exemptions, for example.

I have spoken previously about one of the key aspects being consistency with the SDLT arrangements elsewhere in the UK. However, ultimately, the benefit that is going to be conferred is development. I apologise for labouring this point, but it is development that would otherwise not have taken place. It is not as if there is potential competitive advantage for one particular model of company over another, or the potential of alternative development taking place on the site. It is about whether development takes place or not, or whether it takes place to its full potential. That is the rationale that underpins the relief in relation to underdeveloped or undeveloped land.

That aspect focuses on the fact that the relief will be accessible only if development takes place. If there is a transaction and a commitment to development, but such development does not take place within three years, the relief will be withdrawn. There has to be development. The second aspect is the broader parity that we have sought with regard to the arrangements elsewhere in the UK. Laura Duffy might want to comment on where we have sought parity on the arrangements for freeports and where we have diverged.

LBTT relief sits separate from the other reliefs. The way in which LBTT is constructed as a tax is that it is transactional—it is based on the transaction. Earlier I set out the criteria for when that could be withdrawn—that is, when development does not take place within the control area.

As for the broader points on fair work and monitoring, those must be evidenced through the outline business case and go into the full business case. Laura Duffy might want to add to that.

I agree with what Councillor Heddle has said, particularly on subsidiarity and recognising local government’s statutory oversight of community councils. I also agree with his point about not taking an overly prescriptive approach and recognising that different models might be suited to different areas. It is important that we go through the democracy matters process and are collectively open to the outcome. Any next steps would be taken in accordance with the principles of the Verity house agreement, through close partnership working.

Thank you for the questions. I join all of you in wishing our community councils—all roughly 1,200 of them across the country—a very happy 50th birthday. I certainly know, from my experience as a constituency representative, the invaluable contribution that they make to communities in undertaking a range of activities and providing important insight and scrutiny for the decisions that are taken not just by councils but by parliamentarians.

I will ask Mr FitzPatrick whether he wants to come in on any specific aspects of the Verity house agreement. I think that community councils have a very important role to play. As we undertake the second phase of the democracy matters programme and consider the ways in which further power can be put in the hands of communities, I go into that process with no pre-set ideas of what the outcome should be. That could lead to calls or suggestions for a more enhanced role for community councils.

I am conscious that the committee might have some interest in the parish council model south of the border and how that links in with the quite varied landscape of local government in England—there is sometimes almost a tripartite structure, with the district and county councils.

I am not going into that process with any pre-set ideas about what the future of community councils should be. It is imperative that, as the review progresses, any of the ideas that are put forward are considered in consultation and collaboratively with our partners in local government and with communities, recognising that various models, including new models, might emerge from the review process, which might enhance the current structure of community councils.

As I said, community councils do an invaluable job and make a huge contribution to Scotland. I want to work constructively to maximise their impact. If, through our deliberations and engagement, we land on a position that involves an enhanced role for them in statute, I would not close off that option at this stage.

I have two points to add. First, it would be remiss of us not to recognise the huge contribution that many partner organisations that are supported by the Scottish Government, such as the Development Trusts Association Scotland and the Scottish Community Development Centre, make directly to communities.

Secondly, I very much recognise the concerns that the convener has expressed about the funding environment in which we operate. We all understand that a cascading effect occurs when budgets are set by the UK Government, the impact that that has on our ability to forward plan and the subsequent impact that that has on local government and other partner organisations, despite the degree of certainty or confidence that we seek to provide through medium-term financial strategies and indicative budgets. I also recognise the specific challenge that exists around resourcing to provide the level of engagement that we want.

It is important to bear in mind that, when we speak about engagement, for example with local government, there is an element of it almost being viewed as something additional. Part of the agenda of empowerment, the review of local governance and the move to a more participative form of democracy involves no longer viewing such engagement as something additional but integrating it as part of the approach. With community wealth building, the situation is analogous.

When it comes to the economic element and the democratising of our economy, some of the narrative is about that being something additional. Additional support is required in that transitional phase, but the destination is something that is much more integrated and mainstream. That is an important point. Notwithstanding that these are medium-term to long-term aspirations that we will seek to advance in partnership, there is a continuing need for support in the immediate term.

Thank you very much, convener, and good morning to the committee. I will, of course, leave the specific points about community planning partnerships for my colleague, Mr FitzPatrick, to respond to on behalf of the Government, as the lead minister.

With regards to the broader question of community, there are recognised terms such as “community of place” and “community of interest”, but ensuring that communities have space to define and understand themselves is paramount, so that they are able to engage with public services through the shared understanding that they have developed of their own identity as a community. I take that very seriously in the work that I lead on community wealth building and the work more widely around community empowerment, whether that is through participation requests, asset transfers, the wider work that we are doing around the review of the 2015 act or the work that we are undertaking on the review of local governance—the key word being “governance”, not “government”.

Working with communities and exploring, in partnership with COSLA, ways in which we can empower communities further and place more resources and decision-making power in the hands of communities will be paramount to that. Part of that work is recognising that communities have a role in defining and understanding themselves and part of it is finding the models and the range of powers and levers that are best suited to their particular needs.

Yes, I do—they have played and continue to play an important role. It is important to recognise that they operate within a broader context of rights and that they are just two particular mechanisms at our disposal. However, since the respective powers came into force, we have seen some 79 participation requests and more than 200 asset transfer requests, with many more applications having subsequently been made. They are playing an important part in the ecosystem of community empowerment, and they are important tools in enhancing a more participatory approach to our democratic culture and as a key lever and enabler of not only regeneration but community wealth building, specifically with regard to asset transfer requests.

The aspiration is that it will be in the first half of next year. As I indicated earlier, I would be more than happy to appear before the committee to discuss the outcome of that and the next steps once it is published.