---

Planning-gain Supplement (Preparations) Bill

We have already heard a number of references to history this afternoon, and my hon. Friend has provided yet another. I genuinely believe that there are concerns in the Labour party in Scotland about how the arrangements might operate in practice, and I tabled the new clause partly to facilitate debate. I shall attempt to set out the detail for my hon. Friend, but his point is well made. In England, the Government have said that the planning gain supplement will operate in addition to the established system of section 106 agreements. In Scotland, such arrangements are popularly referred to as section 75 agreements, in this case relating to the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. In England, the Government have stated that in return for developers having to pay the planning gain supplement, section 106 agreements will be scaled back—but conversely, they have been less forthcoming about how the system will operate in Scotland. Perhaps via our new clause we can tease more information out of the Minister this afternoon about how the Treasury believes this will operate on the ground north of the border. The reaction of the Scottish Executive to the proposed implementation of the PGS has, to say the least, been quite critical. In its official response to the original consultation on the proposed planning gain supplement in May 2006, the Scottish Executive—I reiterate that it is Labour-led and has Liberal Democrat support—commented that the new tax was ““misconceived””, that it would render otherwise sustainable economic developments ““economically unviable””, that it would place extra burdens on the delivery of affordable housing and that it would act as"““a break on development in most areas of the United Kingdom.””" In a particularly telling quote, the Scottish Executive stated:"““We see Section 75 agreements as a key tool in bringing improvements to accompany development at a local level and at the right time. This is, as you know, an area of devolved responsibility and we would be keen to preserve the full flexibility to design our policies on these agreements as we see fit.””" In addition, the Scottish Executive specifically requested an opportunity for greater communication with the Treasury on all of this, as our new clause actually suggests. As the Executive response stated:"““We will be keen to work with your officials in gaining a greater understanding of the full implications of potential costs of this proposal in the devolved context—its practical workability, the costs to be incurred, the effect of differing planning systems and other policies and ensuring the effectiveness of the investment funded throughout the UK.””" In response to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz), the Scottish Executive did not formally ask us to table the new clause, but in their response to the consultation they certainly asked for much greater clarification, so we have in a sense responded to their request in spirit, if not entirely by the letter.