Seòmar agus comataidhean

In response to your second point, I say that that is about our tolerance for risk and the trust that we have in community organisations to deliver. Clearly, because public money is involved, there is a need to ensure that we get best value and that there is full transparency and accountability. However, I recognise the need to have tolerance for risk. Although the investments that have been made have gone through a rigorous process, we can never eliminate risk, and those investments have been worthwhile.

The local community in Linwood had a very challenging experience—especially the people in Linwood Community Development Trust, who led the project. There were times when their applications for funding were unsuccessful and they had significant setbacks. At such points, many community groups would feel that they could not go any further, but that group had support and was ultimately able to deliver. I take your point on that very seriously, and I reflect on the issue regularly.

When we talk about an entrepreneurial culture, we are not talking only about corporate entrepreneurialism but about community entrepreneurialism, and having risk tolerance is essential, culturally, in realising community wealth building.

In response to your question about centralised resource, I want to say that there is often very significant and sustained engagement between Scottish Government officials and local groups—not only in my portfolio on regeneration, but in relation to land. I invite David Cowan to say a few words about how Government engages directly with local communities at official level.

Those are important points, and I discussed those matters with Professor Sparks earlier this week. As it has scrutinised the matters in detail, the committee will be aware that there is consistency across the range of strategies. Fundamentally, we want to take a place-based approach that includes partnership working and collaboration. At the heart of the review of town centres, and the principle we have adopted, is that town centres are for everyone, but everyone has a role to play in making their towns and town centres a success.

Partnership working is apparent across the range of strategies, but—this came up during scrutiny of NPF4 and the draft NPF4—perhaps there is a need to be more explicit and to communicate more clearly where the links are to allow ease of use and so that stakeholders can have confidence and understanding that there is a joined-up approach. In my response to the Parliament’s scrutiny of the draft NPF4, I reflected on how we can make those links clearer through the delivery plan for NPF4. During my discussions with Professor Sparks and Scotland’s Towns Partnership we considered whether there are products, or lines of narrative in communications, that can be developed to make the links more explicit.

The points that the convener has made are important, and I am reflecting on them. It is implicit that there are connections between the strategies. The links between collaboration on a place-based approach and the importance of community wealth building are apparent in the retail strategy, draft NPF4, “Housing to 2040” and the town centre action plan 2. However, I take the point that perhaps there is a need to make the links more explicit and clearer, so I am determined to do that.

That is another important question. When I made the statement to Parliament on the draft NPF4, I said that that would be a priority—specifically in relation to resourcing and planning. The documents and strategies are nothing if they are not delivered and actioned on the ground.

I have to respect the autonomy of local government to decide how it allocates its resources, but the early action that we have taken from April this year means that planning fees have increased, and there is evidence that that is feeding into increased resources for planning departments across the country. For example, I am sure that you will know that a number of planning positions are being advertised by Fife Council. I am also aware that other local authorities are looking at how they can use the resources that are being gained from the increase in planning fees to enable them to provide additional capacity in their departments.

Another important piece of work is through the high-level group on planning performance. We provided support for Heads of Planning Scotland and the Royal Town Planning Institute to do work on a future planners project. Their report has been received; I am not yet aware of whether HOPS has published it, but I understand that it will do so. We will work very closely, through the high-level group, on how we can action that. That project is about increasing the number of people who come into the planning profession, and about ensuring that we are able to retain those who already work in planning.

We have taken early action on resourcing through planning fees. I am committed to working with the high-level group to look towards full cost recovery. The issue is complex—as the committee is aware—but, through partnership working, we are endeavouring to make progress.

On recruitment and retention, we have supported RTPI and HOPS to do work on the future planners project, and we continue to have discussions about how we can act on some of the proposals in the report.

We all recognise that problem from our own constituencies and regions. We are doing two things. The first and most immediate thing is that we will devolve empty property relief to local government. That will happen from April next year. The second thing is the commitment in the programme for government to reform compulsory purchase orders and to consider compulsory sales orders. The committee will appreciate that that is a complex piece of work that will require time. I understand the need for pace and urgency, but we need to get that right. Our commitment is that we intend to introduce legislation later in this session of Parliament to reform CPOs.

There is a more general need to make it more viable and attractive for property owners to use or rent out properties. I know that the committee heard evidence about the processes that are involved in changing the use class of a property. We are actively consulting on that at the moment: we are consulting on phase 2 of the permitted development rights review. That is a live consultation: we opened it last month and it will continue until August. It is looking at simplifying the process for use class orders and at aspects of permitted development rights.

On tackling absentee landlords, our immediate actions are devolution of empty property relief and reform of CPOs and CSOs.

Yes. Specifically, the ILG will be looking at NSET through a retail lens to see what role retail plays in realising that vision, and to recognise how the priorities within NSET relate to retail. For example, the offer of a lifelong commitment to upskilling is in the national strategy for economic transformation, and that is clearly related to what we are looking to do around retail. We are talking about ensuring that workforces are continuously upskilled as technology-driven change impacts on what it means to work within the retail sector.

Yes. I will correct this with the committee if I am wrong, but from memory, section 80B of Scotland Act allows new taxes to be created. The process requires engagement and agreement with the UK Government and Parliament, but the provision was added—I cannot remember whether it was to the 2012 or the 2016 act, but it is there.

It is important to recognise that since their inception—from memory, the legislation, which is still in force, goes back to 1854—non-domestic rates have been a tax on land and heritages. To move away from that would be a fundamental shift.

Earlier, I referred to the work undertaken by the UK Government that was published in autumn 2021, which concluded that a broad property-based tax is still relevant—if I remember correctly. That was what came out of the Barclay review, too.

There would have to be clarity about what would replace a property-based tax. To date, no proposals have come forward. Different views and opinions are articulated about what could potentially replace a property tax, but they still have a relationship to land and property, so to speak, rather than being a tax that is effectively a sales tax or something along those lines.

We have no plans to move away from the existing systems. However, as I have always said, I am happy to hear ideas and discuss different views if people want to put those forward. The issue has been considered in Scotland and England and there has not been a clear, convincing proposition for what should replace non-domestic rates. At the moment the focus is on maintaining stability in the system, the commitment to the small business bonus and seeing through the revaluation next year.

There has been further legislation since then, most recently in 2020.

We have already discussed at length some of the broader strategic measures that could be taken at national level around planning regulation and taxation. However, many of those matters will be specific to local areas. The local authority, in partnership and through engagement with businesses and the people who live in the community, is best placed to make those judgments.

We have a clear national direction of travel, for example through promoting active travel and 20-minute neighbourhoods. We also recognise that city centres and town centres offer something unique. We understand that retail sits in a spectrum from the functional to the experiential and that town and city centres offer an experience that is not just retail but is also leisure, entertainment and a whole range of activities, as well as often being pleasant places in which to be because of their built environment. Those are all things that town and city centres offer that are unique to their particular place.

As I said in my earlier answers, in order to drive footfall in town centres from outwith town centres, it is crucial to make the most of those assets to make coming into those centres an experience that people want to enjoy. Another important part is increasing residential populations and population density in our town centres and city centres. That provides us with a means to sustain more business locally—even just to provide the functional aspect of retail.

There are two points to make on the retail strategy. Our first priority will be to develop a fair work agreement. The committee will appreciate that powers over employment law are reserved, so there is no way for us to mandate or force through legislation on fair work. We do not have that power in the Scottish Parliament. We therefore use a range of measures in a range of areas, for example through the fair work first approach. There is a commitment in NSET to progress sectoral fair work agreements—