Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is a really important question that goes to the heart of regeneration. If I have understood you correctly, your point is that regeneration is a process and not an event. It is not about rolling into town, opening up a new facility and that being the end of it; it is about what comes after that.

I will give one example from my Renfrewshire South constituency. I was there in a ministerial capacity to officially open a new community centre—Mossedge village centre. Everyone on the committee will be familiar with the history of Linwood, what happened 40 years ago when the car plant shut and the severe impact that it had. Indeed, the name has become synonymous with de-industrialisation in the west of Scotland, and the area still faces significant challenges.

However, in 2009, a group of local residents—all women—got together round the kitchen table and asked, “How do we respond to this?” They were incredibly frustrated with the state of their town centre in Linwood, and they wanted to do something about it. That is interesting, given that a lot of people in 2009 would have been thinking about how to respond to the economic catastrophe of the financial crash. We saw some responses to that, but those women sat round the kitchen table and said, “Right—we need to do something for our community.” As a result, Linwood has gone from having various unflattering descriptors applied to the state of the town centre to having a redesigned town centre with active participation and engagement from the local community and a new bespoke community centre and cafe.

The community centre received support from the Scottish Government totalling £1.4 million, but I think—David Cowan will correct me if I am wrong—that the total investment was about £2.4 million, with money leveraged in from outwith the Scottish Government. We were able to provide support, but, through various funding streams from outwith the public sector, the people involved were able to leverage in additional resource, and they now have a thriving community cafe. They will require continued support, but they also have a clear vision for becoming sustainable.

In remarks that she made at the official launch of the centre on Friday morning, the manager, Kirsty Flannigan, who has been at the heart of that activity for the past 13 years, said something that I was really struck and encouraged by. As someone whose title includes the phrase “community wealth”, I am conscious of the varying degrees of knowledge and awareness of community wealth building, but, at that event, she said that, in order to be sustainable, they would have to look at the Linwood economy—or, as she put it, the Linwood pound. With the cafe, for example, they have employability schemes in partnership with the local college, they are employing local people, and they are partnering with St Mirren Football Club. They have also said that they will procure locally—using the local butcher and baker, for example—which means that any money that is spent at the cafe will go back into other Linwood businesses.

In relation to the land and property pillar of community wealth building, the community now owns that asset through a community development trust, having gone through the asset transfer process and been helped by regeneration capital grant funding. Under the workforce pillar, local people are being employed, and the wage that those people get gives them disposable income to spend in the local community. Under the spending pillar, in procuring the products that they will be selling in their cafe, they will be looking at other small businesses in the area. It is an example of community wealth building in action. Of course, no one called it community wealth building or used that label, but, all the same, it has evolved organically out of the community empowerment process.

That is just one example of a regeneration intervention that is moving towards self-sustainability—and not just for itself. It is also turning the dial and promoting a cultural shift to a system of economic pre-distribution rather than redistribution, given that wealth is being retained in the local community. The area might well be classed as lower income or disadvantaged, and it has had to face the long-lasting challenges of de-industrialisation for four decades, but things are happening there now and they are being done by the community.

There are, I know, countless other examples. When Phil Prentice was in front of the committee, he talked in some detail about my home town, Barrhead. It has demonstrated what can happen when significant public sector investment is used to establish council offices and a health centre and to refurbish a sports centre to provide a community hub. That draws people into a town centre, and that passing trade supports the local economic ecosystem.

Such investments can be catalysts for further change. Opening a public sector building will bring in people to spend locally, but if you support a local group in taking over an asset, the key thing is that, in the early years, they get the resource support—which we provide—that will get them to a self-sustaining position. When they reach that point, that sort of intervention is no longer required. Ultimately, that intervention has not only built an asset but changed the culture and attitudes and built the human capacity and capital required to take forward not just that particular project but others.

People might consider that area to be more challenging or more deprived than others, so what has happened is an exemplar of what regeneration can achieve—by that, I mean regeneration not as an event but as a process that is fundamentally changing the local economy.

I do not want to pre-empt the short-life working group’s work on data. We understand that there is not always a direct relationship between rateable value and the performance of a business—that is self-evident. The key issue is the lack of data, as the Fraser of Allander Institute report identified. In order to have an informed discussion and more informed engagement on the future of non-domestic rates, we must first address the data issue. Although, as I said, I do not want to pre-empt the work of the short-life working group, I do not see that as the end—rather, it is the beginning—of the process. I recognise the issues that you have raised.

As I am sure you will appreciate, Mr Beattie, I have on-going engagement with a range of sectors on non-domestic rates.

I add that we provide the most generous package of reliefs anywhere in the UK, which has totalled £1.6 billion since the start of the pandemic. This year, it is estimated that NDR reliefs will have a value of about £802 million and that the small business bonus scheme will lift 111,000 properties out of paying non-domestic rates. I am sure that, if any of us were to go on to an assessors portal and look at the high streets in our own constituencies and regions, we would see many businesses that benefit from non-domestic rates relief. That is why it is no surprise that the Federation of Small Businesses has been so clear in its calls for the small business bonus scheme to be maintained. As the Fraser of Allander Institute report has recognised, it is also clear that many small businesses see the scheme as being of immense value to their profitability and viability.

I am happy to take that away. These conversations will become more regular as we move towards introducing legislation that will reform CPOs and deal with CSOs as well. In particular, we will be thinking more broadly about land assembly and unlocking opportunities in town centres where, for example, one building that is not in public ownership can be the barrier to a regeneration project taking place.

I have made this point several times, but we all recognise that the existing assets—the community and the people—are fundamental. The approach must be driven by the local community and the pride that they take in their place.

When it comes to the support that is provided, design must be carried out and decisions must be taken at the local level, with support for delivery coming from other partners. Cultural interventions must be made with the community and must reflect the community’s identity, values and history. They are most impactful when that happens.

That brings us back to the point that regeneration is about not just bricks and mortar but a state of mind. Culture can have an important role in changing attitudes to a place and helping to reframe how people think about their communities. That is an important part of the regeneration journey.

David, do you have any comments to make about how culture has informed the work that has been going on over the past decade in regeneration?

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.

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.