Business Improvement Districts
UNISON Scotland's response to Scottish Executive
Consultation on Business Improvement Districts in Scotland
October 2003
Executive Summary
-
UNISON wants to see the return of the powers
to set non domestic rates to local government. We believe
this is a more democratic, fair and transparent way of involving
business in partnership work with local governments to improve
our communities.
-
Given BIDs are being encouraged in Scotland,
UNISON believes legislation should ensure fair, accountable
and transparent operations of any BID, with a clear leadership
role for local authorities, given their democratic status.
Introduction
UNISON Scotland welcomes the opportunity to respond
to the Scottish Executive's consultation on Business Improvement
Districts. UNISON is Scotland's largest trade union representing
150,000 members working in the public sector. Over 100,000 of
our members work in Scottish local government and voluntary organisations
providing a range of services. Our members are providers and users
of local authority services, and are participants in the democratic
process.
UNISON has participated in a range of previous Scottish
Executive and Parliamentary consultations and discussion on improving
local services and developing responsive local government. In
all of our submissions we are clear that public services should
be provided in an open, accessible and transparent basis, and
should be democratically accountable, and responsive to the needs
of the communities they serve. We believe these principles are
essential to modernise and reform public services.
This paper constitutes UNISON Scotland's response
to the Scottish Executive's consultation on Business Improvement
Districts.
General Comments
UNISON Scotland believes that the best way to involve
the business community in improving communities and in working
with local authorities is to return the powers to set local business
rates to local authorities. Local businesses should have a stake
in local communities and services, and the most transparent and
democratic means to do this is to enable local authorities to
set business rates. UNISON has consistently argued for the return
of non-domestic rates to the control of local authorities. We
believe this is a positive way to revitalise local government
finance, enable local authorities to have greater control over
the finances they are able to raise, and to give local businesses
a stake in the communities in which they are based.
Returning non domestic rate setting and collection
to local government has the necessary checks and balances to ensure
that those who should pay do so, and that those making the decisions
on how to spend the rates are accountable to all stakeholders.
They also enable local authorities to be ambitious in their plans
for communities, rather than just providing basic local authority
services. With the advent of the Power to Advance Well Being,
and the drive to Community Planning, local authorities are able
to make use of greater powers, and to work with other stakeholders,
such as the community and voluntary sector, trade unions and businesses
to improve services for local people.
UNISON is concerned that the proposals for Business
Improvement Districts will potentially divide communities and
create greater social exclusion, rather that promoting communities
and social inclusion. Businesses will only be interested in developing
a BID in an area which is attractive, successful and worthwhile
investing in. In the more run down, deprived areas the private
sector will see no interest in investing and working with what
little community structure exists.
UNISON believes that we should move away from this
piece meal approach to community development, and focus on the
existing democratic, transparent and representative structures
we have to build and develop our communities.
Responses
Question 1
Given the Scottish Executive's enthusiasm for the
BIDs proposals despite our reservations over non-domestic rates
and new Community Planning opportunities, UNISON believes that
BIDs legislation should allow for fair and transparent operations
of any BID. Legislation needs safeguards as to the democratic
structure of the BID to ensure that a business can't simply take
over and impose a BID project on others. The Local Authority,
as a democratically elected body, should play a leading role in
the BID, and act to safeguard and promote the interests of the
local community.
Question 2
UNISON is concerned with the current proposals for
voting. The voting system arguably favours big business, given
larger businesses are likely to have higher rateable values, therefore
can dominate both the voting criteria. The threshold of having
at least 50 per cent of non-domestic rate payers who vote, contrasts
with, for example, the system set up for employees wanting their
employer to recognise a trade union. To gain automatic recognition
a trade union has to demonstrate that it has in membership over
50% of the total bargaining unit. If it cannot do this then a
recognition ballot is held where 40 per cent of the total workforce,
not just those who actually cast a vote, must agree to union recognition.
In the BID proposals only a minority of rate payers could participate
in the vote, but as long as the majority of them support the BID
it would be approved. It therefore seems as if there is one rule
for business and a different rule for workers.
Question 3
We do think that a minimum percentage of businesses
should have to vote for the vote to be valid to ensure maximum
representation. We are also interested to know how businesses
decide how they will cast their vote. For example do they take
into account the views of their employees, shareholders, owner
or customers? Clearly the Executive is not able to determine how
businesses decide to vote, but this is an issue which should be
considered.
Question 4
UNISON believes that there should be a minimum level
of support in the BID area, and that the local authority should
be supporting the initiative before any vote goes ahead. This
will help to ensure that resources are not wasted on the voting
process. It is important the local authority is on board with
the BID to give some democratic legitimacy to the initiative.
Question 5
UNISON agrees that the maximum number of years for
a BID mandate should be five years. Five years gives BIDs the
same time scales as local councils, and allows for sufficient
time to develop and implement a project.
Question 6
We agree that a local authority should have the
right to veto a BID scheme if they consider it is not in the interests
of the local community and economy. In our response to question
4 we suggest that the vote for the BID should not go ahead unless
the local authority is supportive.
Question 7
BIDs impact on specific local areas and it is appropriate
that the decisions to go ahead with BIDs are made by the local
authority. UNISON believes that local authorities, as the elected
bodies for a specific area should have the right to veto a BID.
Question 8
Occupiers and owners should be encouraged to participate
in the BID. However, we appreciate the fact that in some respects
owners and occupiers will benefit if the BID successfully improves
the area, but may feel they are losing if this increases the rateable
value of the property or increases their property's financial
burden in some way. This is one of the dilemmas which would not
arise if the Scottish Executive simply decided to return non-domestic
rate collection to local authorities, and local authorities were
able to take decisions in the interests of all of the community,
accountable to the people at council elections.
Question 9
As we've stated above we believe the return of non-domestic
rates to local authorities is preferable to the introduction of
BIDs. This would also assist rural areas allowing local authorities
to vary business rates to attract new companies, and have a greater
say in how such rates are to be allocated.
For Further Information Please Contact:
Matt Smith, Scottish Secretary
UNISONScotland
UNISON House
14, West Campbell Street,
Glasgow G2 6RX
Tel 0141-332 0006 Fax 0141 342 2835
e-mail matt.smith@unison.co.uk
Submissions index |
Home
|