Seòmar agus comataidhean

As someone who was not formerly a serving councillor either, I have to say that it is good to have some company at this morning’s meeting.

I can think of quite a number of examples. However, before I go through them, I have to say that one of the points that I frequently make about preventative spend is about the importance of Government and the Parliament going hand in hand on this. We are going to get into this again over the next few months, but I would simply note that, every year, Parliament scrutinises—and quite rightly so—those budget lines that go down as well as those that go up. As you will know from your years as health spokesperson, Mr Briggs, the problem with preventative spend is that additional spend in one area—in other words, prevention—means an equal and opposite decline in other spending areas. When I have come before the committee, previous members have asked me why, for example, I am not spending more on environmental measures to reduce future health harms. Mr Briggs will know as well as I do that, if we were to reduce spend in acute health areas and move that money into, say, more parks—I do not mean to be facetious, but you will understand what I am saying—there would be a bit of an outcry. That is what we have to do with regard to preventative spend.

One example that I would highlight would be our spend on active travel and low-emissions zones, both of which have, as you will know, a direct impact on lung health. As a result, although that spend is part of the transport budget line and has to be accommodated there, the benefits are seen in the health budget. We need to start scrutinising overall budgets. Perhaps the committee could take up that matter, given its diverse range of subject areas, but we have to get into the spirit of looking at what is happening in one budget line versus what is happening in another.

Another area in which the committee might take an interest is community wealth building, which involves us investing in local economies and community economic development rather than in big national economic development, knowing that, when you invest in local communities and create jobs at a local level, that inevitably has a bigger impact on, for example, the amount of spend on welfare support. If we are spending on creating jobs, we are not spending on welfare support, because individuals will be earning sufficient sums of money to support themselves and their families.

Those are two examples, and there should be more. In order to get more, we need to take a more holistic approach to the way in which I set that budget and, more importantly, the way in which the budget is scrutinised.

Yes, there will be on-going support. If I can be a little tongue-in-cheek here, it takes us back to the core question for the committee, which is about ring fencing versus maximising local authority discretion, and I look forward to the committee’s steer on that. We will certainly provide on-going support—not only financial support but support in kind—as we develop the approach, and we will help to facilitate work and provide expertise and guidance. However, when we are developing new strands of work, the big question for us, and for the committees, is whether we ring fence funding for specific outcomes and purposes, and that includes community wealth building.

Community wealth building will play an important role in our wider economic strategy. I want that strategy to have a strong local dimension, which will require local authorities to think creatively about their role in helping to develop local economic strategies. We will continue to provide support and encourage local authorities to keep on doing what they are doing: working with local communities to develop bespoke local economic strategies.

I will answer, but if Andy Kinnaird wants to add anything, he is welcome to do so. The climate emergency is the overarching priority for NPF4, so NPF4 will make a fairly urgent and radical shift in our spatial plan and policies to meet our targets and it will prioritise the reduction in emissions in a way that also responds to the nature crisis. NPF4 will play a key role in integrating land use and transport; it will focus on place-based outcomes when it comes to the climate emergency; it will support green economic recovery; it will promote nature-based solutions; and it will apply the concept of 20-minute neighbourhoods.

All those things are geared towards responding to the climate emergency. There are key themes but, if you want one overarching priority that brings everything in, it is responding to the climate emergency. Planning has such an important role to play, because we have a choice with every planning application—do we improve how our communities live and work together or hinder that in a way that increases or reduces emissions?

That is a helpful opening question. Let me tackle it in two ways. First, we are mindful—as committee members will be, as members of the Scottish Parliament—that many people are still grappling with the immediate impact of Covid. I have just said that I am self-isolating; other families are self-isolating, too, and that will have financial implications. As we consider the long-term recovery, we cannot lose sight of the fact that many families are grappling with the here and now. Therefore, the first point is that we must try to support families as much as possible, and we must support the public, private and third sector organisations that are critical when it comes to dealing with the immediate impact of the virus—for example, in relation to insecure employment and children’s education.

The second part of my answer is about how we deal with the long-term economic recovery—I think that you alluded to that. During the pandemic, it has been said more times than I can count that we need to recover in a way that delivers for people. We cannot just recover the status quo; we must go further in tackling the inequalities that have been exacerbated by the pandemic and in ensuring that we deliver in the ways that we were grappling with prior to the pandemic.

Let me talk about the areas in which the committee has a direct interest. First, we have to ensure that there is warm, safe and secure housing for families up and down the country. That comes from our commitment in “Housing to 2040” and the significant spend on affordable homes.

Secondly, local government has been a key partner during the pandemic. We need to make sure that it is resourced with sufficient funding and sufficient levers of control and influence to enable it to respond.

The final part of the committee’s name is “Planning”. The fourth national planning framework, which will be a long-term plan that looks to 2045, presents an opportunity to ensure that we have the development and the infrastructure that are needed to support sustainable and inclusive growth.

I will stop there, rather than go on. As we look at the long term, we cannot lose sight of the immediate challenges, and this committee is one of the most essential committees of the Parliament when it comes to supporting and delivering for families and communities.

Paul McLennan is another former councillor with a wealth of experience. It is wonderful to have you in the Parliament and on the committee and I look forward to working with you.

The UK Government had announced that it would be starting a spending review last year but, for understandable reasons, that was delayed. We hope that it will be delivered this autumn, but we will wait and see what the UK Government does. The Chancellor of the Exchequer signalled his intent to publish a comprehensive multiyear spending review later this year.

The challenge for us is that, because local government is such a substantial part of the Scottish Government’s budget—more than £11 billion every year—it is very difficult for us to provide that long-term security without having long-term security ourselves. How the Scottish Government’s budget works is that, although we are given funding, which is gratefully received, it can be revised up or down. You can appreciate that if, for example, we commit next year a particular amount of money for local government, the risk is that our budget might be revised down, which would leave a shortfall. If local government planned on the basis of that funding, we would have to deal with a gap.

We desperately want to provide that long-term security and we desperately want that long-term security ourselves so that we can make long-term plans, which we have been unable to do because of year-to-year budgets. My sincere hope is that we will get the spending review this autumn, which will allow us to embark on our spending review and provide multiyear certainty to local government.

Until we have that security, it would not be prudent for us to provide it, because there are too many risks attached to our ability to deliver on the funding amount that we might confirm. We want to give that security because I know that local government wants to give security, for example, to some of the third sector organisations that it supports, which often appeal to local government for a multiyear settlement. It is a domino effect, but my hope is that that might change this autumn.

I will ask Andy Kinnaird to come in on that question, because it is about process and development. As I said, the national planning framework is long term and is a national plan—[Inaudible.]—in communities. In other words, it is about how we create liveable places, the wellbeing economy and better green places. It is about sustainability, places that can be invested in and places that can be inhabited.

If it is okay, I will ask Andy Kinnaird to talk about the process, the role of local consultation and local government’s ability to feed in.

You will know that, over the past two years, I have chaired a cross-party group on the reform of council tax—again, unfortunately, that had to be suspended because of Covid. The commitment is to look at council tax more generally and, hopefully, to invite a citizens assembly to consider the reform of council tax. I think that the issue should be seen in the wider context of local government flexibilities and taxation, but the commitment is to conduct a review of council tax as part of a wider consideration of local government fiscal powers. To go back to Elena Whitham’s question about what reform of the fiscal framework would look like, we need to see council tax as part of that wider conversation.

We need to ensure that planning departments in national parks and local authorities, as you mentioned, have the resources that they need to implement and deliver NPF4. There will be a programme of engagement with local authorities to understand the need for delivery and implementation and respond to that. We cannot divorce the policy from its delivery. Planning is one of the most obvious policy areas that will work only if it is delivered and implemented. Planning departments and policies are front facing as they engage with the public.

Andy Kinnaird might have something to add about the process, but I confirm absolutely that we will engage and are engaging with planning authorities to ensure implementation and delivery.

I am concerned about the levelling up approach for two reasons. The first is the complete lack of clarity. It is doubly concerning that you, as a member of the committee, are not sure how the approach works and that I, who am responsible for appropriate funding of infrastructure and local government services, do not have much, if any, clarity on how it will operate. That is concerning, because we have to make decisions and we are trying to use our money as prudently as possible to make it go as far as possible.

The problem in my engagement with local authorities is that that process feels like a complete lottery: local authorities are bidding for funding but do not know whether they will secure it. They have to make decisions for the benefit of their communities, and it feels quite unfair that getting that money should feel like a lottery. The lack of clarity is concerning.

Just to give absolute clarity, we have had no input into the fund and we have no evidence of how it will meet the needs of Scotland’s people and places.

My second concern is that I have had no clarity that there will not be an impact on the Scottish budget. My concern about the increased use of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 and the increased unionisation of spend—if I can use that phrase, by which I mean the UK Government leapfrogging the Scottish Government or normal processes—is that the money has to come from somewhere. That money will be taken from the Scottish Government’s budget and used elsewhere. We saw that in last year’s budget when, on the one hand, the chancellor talked about an increased capital spend while, on the other hand, the Scottish Government’s capital was reduced by 5 per cent. That might sound like small fry, but that is money that goes on schools, hospitals and public infrastructure.

Those are my two concerns. On the one hand, there is no clarity for local government or for the Scottish Government and, on the other hand, the money might not actually be additional funding; it might just be money that is redistributed by alternative means.

Thank you for that question; I will be happy to follow it up with a bit more detail. This is an area of focus in the economic strategy. You will know about our vacant and derelict land fund, which was announced as part of this year’s budget to incentivise the use of brownfield sites and derelict land for economic development and regeneration.

I had the privilege of visiting a good example of that last week when I went to Ravenscraig, where substantial investment is being made by the private and public sectors to regenerate an area that is emblematic of a challenging time. That is the kind of thing that we want to do.

My question is about how we incentivise the use of such brownfield sites for the purposes of economic regeneration and development. I am always looking at things such as how we can use our tax system for that, although our scope there is limited, because we really only have a property tax in the shape of non-domestic rates. We are also looking at the funding that might be available to unlock the potential of such sites.

If I can provide more information that is specific to Meghan Gallacher’s local circumstances, I would be happy to do that. If she thinks that we are missing things that would enable the use of those brownfield sites, I would be interested to hear more, particularly in advance of setting this year’s budget.