Seòmar agus comataidhean

Yes. We do not know how many appeals there will be or their complexity, but, in general, that is the intent.

It is important to recognise that the costs need to be recovered from somewhere. If we do not recover them through this process, they will have to be covered by councils. I think that everybody around the table will agree that councils are in a challenging financial situation, and everyone involved in the planning system and the development of housing will recognise that it is important to get more resource into the system. This is one way of doing that. If we did not raise the money through this route, we would need to raise it through another route, but I think that this is the most effective way—that is, by charging those who seek to make an appeal on that basis. We will be able to get more money into the planning system through that route, rather than through any other route.

No, I do not think that that is the case at all—quite the opposite. What that does is to get more resources into the planning system, which everyone recognises requires extra resources. As I have said, the data shows that, on average, local authorities recover only about two thirds of the cost of running the planning system from fees, so it is important that we address that. A range of measures has been taken, including linking fees with inflation, to support resource going into the planning system, which everyone will tell you is a significant part of the problem.

On the issue of SMEs, I have already addressed that point. If we charged for smaller appeals according to how much it costs the system to process them, the cost of smaller appeals would be higher than it is in the proposals that we are taking forward. We recognise that the fees need to be weighted more heavily against larger developments than against SMEs, and that is embedded in the proposals that we are taking forward.

We monitor the data on the number of appeals, the level of fees and the amount of resources that come into the system on a regular basis, and we will continue to do so. If we found that there were issues, we would look at them.

Yes to all of that. We are approaching the estate strategy on two levels. Longer-term work is going on in the cities—Glasgow and Edinburgh in particular—to determine what longer-term solutions might be. Basically, the golden rule is that you do not renew a lease without having a serious conversation about whether you need to renew it and where else the public bodies concerned could go. Regularly, we decide not to renew a lease, which enables public bodies to co-locate, more effectively, elsewhere.

That is just an on-going process. It has the advantage of not just saving lease costs but making it easier for organisations to co-locate services in the back office, and—this is probably the biggest win, to be honest—easier for them to talk to each other more and have a closer working relationship, which allows them to integrate more effectively the services that are delivered to the public, understand what they are all working on, and improve co-operation and integration. That is absolutely a key part of what we are doing.

We are always looking for good examples of that. That could be what you are talking about: SPCB bodies co-locating with other public bodies that have space, as many do, in their buildings.

We are also working increasingly closely with local government and health boards in that. There are examples of health boards now sharing premises with local authorities and so on. We encourage that work and create the space to enable it to happen, because, as I said, it leads to a plethora of benefits beyond cost savings.

That question came up when I was in front of the Finance and Public Administration Committee on this subject. As part of the budget process, the Parliament engages with the Government on its budget settlement, and I believe that the Parliament would take into account its requirements in order to support such bodies. That is the mechanism for resolving issues relating to administrative support and so on, but committee time is clearly a different resource, which I have already commented on.

As I said, the budget process should deal with that, because the cost of a commissioner would be added to the Parliament’s budget, which would then be put to the Government.

It is a good question. There are many different categories of public bodies. Are there too many different types? That might be worth looking at. Again, this is not something that we sat down and designed; it has grown over a period.

As executive agencies, some bodies have a slightly different set-up, but, to all intents and purposes, they are effectively part of the Government. There are others that operate independently but are funded and guided by the Government, typically in the delivery space, where we want them to perform a function that is delivering services, having an economic impact or whatever it happens to be. However, there are also bodies that, for very good reasons, we would want to have the independence to be able to provide information and comment on what Government is doing. For example, the work of the Scottish Fiscal Commission absolutely needs to be seen as its own and not influenced by the Government. Having that clear distinction on its independence is important.

I would be very open to discussing whether some of those bodies could or should be under the aegis of Parliament rather than the Government.

Absolutely.

You are right. The advocacy role has come out in your evidence. I cannot remember who it was that said that MSPs have a very important advocacy role: a lot of people come to our door and then we make a case for them by setting out the situation that they find themselves in and how that can be addressed. I suppose that it is important to parse that out to the regulatory bodies.

Not that we would, but if we said that we did not think that the Scottish Information Commissioner or the Ethical Standards Commissioner should be doing what they are doing—