Chamber and committees

In that case, perhaps it is something to pick up separately. It is a big concern. You know the programmes that we have and, if you do not, I will happily bring you out to Falkirk and let you see them. The issue is very concerning for the people there.

That is not a problem. You have to take the opportunity.

We move on to questions about planning. Again, I declare an interest in that I have been on the planning committee in Falkirk Council for nine years. I know that there are challenges in planning, including time limits being a frustration for councillors on planning committees. When will the changes come through to move planning forward? What will they look like? One of the biggest issues in planning is the public’s perception of their representation in the system, which faces a big change.

Most importantly—I am sure that you are not surprised at this next question—is the Scottish Government working on new planning policies, guidance, definitions or procedures for proposed data centres? If so, will you outline those proposed changes? If not, will you explain why we are not considering that?

I am sure everyone on the committee supports that and wants to help if there is anything that we can do.

On non-domestic rates, I have an issue to put to Mr Storrie, which I know that the minister is aware of and which is something that concerns me greatly.

There is a worry that the review might undermine our tax increment financing schemes in Scotland. I will refer particularly to the one in Falkirk, which has been very successful and has generated jobs and investment in the area. Will the review consider the effects that the revaluation will have on tax increment financing schemes? They are important.

I appreciate that some planning committees are looking at that. I am talking about planning committees all over Scotland, not just an individual one. I can see the potential for challenges in planning offices and planning committees. I hope that there will be some sort of training or education that will move that forward. Are there any plans to do that? If the chief planner—rather than the minister—can work with committees and with planners, that would probably assist, as it would clarify a lot of things. Decisions must be made, but they must be the right decisions. That is always the concern.

I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests. I am a sitting Falkirk councillor, a former resources portfolio holder and a housing portfolio holder.

We are talking about the three-month programme, and we have heard about the challenges, particularly in Glasgow. There are different challenges in different areas of every part of Scotland, but local councillors do a lot of good stuff. We have been hearing all the negatives, which I understand, but the minister and cabinet secretary—sorry, I should have welcomed them—are looking to bring out the positives.

I know the positives and negatives in the area that I represent, but there will be other areas that will be able to help us. We will be able to overcome challenges by learning from other councils—not always the next-door neighbour councils; lessons could come from all over. Will that be a big part of the review?

Are we looking to produce additional guidance on artificial intelligence data centres, or are we relying on NPF4?

My question touches on something that Michael Rovatsos said about the problem with predicting the future. Does that bring in a risk element that will be a particular challenge for local authorities and Government bodies? In my experience, private businesses have adopted a good bit of AI and have had the sense to say, “Okay, we’ve lost jobs in certain areas, but we’ll train those people up so that they can do other jobs in dealing with AI.” In that sense, AI can become a big benefit.

The council that I was in, which was Falkirk Council, has used AI and seen some benefits from it. However, does the big leap that you guys seem to be looking for represent a big risk of AI becoming a problem, whether that is a matter of presentation or of intelligence about where people have taken that big leap? I promise you that I am genuinely not a Luddite and that I believe that AI is the future, but how do we get over that risk factor? Change is risk and, particularly when we are dealing with public money, that becomes a big challenge.

I want to make a point that Rich Wilson touched on, because I know a couple of young people who are involved in art and music, and their dislike—I will use that word rather than others—of AI is huge. They are finding that their work has been copied or stolen—“stolen” is probably the right word for it—but there is no legal recourse for them to bring it back, which is a big challenge.

However, my bigger question is on Heather Thomson’s point about the £23 billion increase, and this follows on from the questions asked earlier about hyperscale data centres. That is quite an astounding number—and I think that Heather said that that would be by 2035, if I picked that up right. Would that be dependent on having such centres close by? I understand that that is a potential draw for businesses. That is what we are being informed—or sold, if you wish; whatever way you want to put it. Is the £23 billion dependent on having local hyperscale data centres? Just about everybody is happy with data centres for up to 50MW, but the big concern is the hyperscale data centres, as the proposals that have come forward have been rather clumsy. I think that that is hurting what you guys do every day, because people probably look at that side of it. Do the growth, which is so welcome, and the data centres tie together?

You have answered my follow-up question perfectly, which was going to be about legislation.