Chamber and committees

Did Seneca not throw himself into a volcano?

I know for a fact that Mr Ewing and I are completely aligned on this. We are undertaking a process where I hope we will not have to ask a UK Government for these particular provisions to be devolved, because we will have the powers in the Parliament and we can have those conversations in full.

I am conscious of my responsibilities as planning minister to ensure that we all have a clear understanding of what the planning system is for in relation to land use and what it is and is not appropriate for the system to ask of developers in terms of planning obligations.

With my community wealth hat on, I recognise the importance of community ownership of, and participation in, renewables. I have seen at first hand examples right across Scotland, whether at a vast, awe-inspiring scale, as in the convener’s constituency, or the impact that a single turbine can have in supporting fragile and remote communities in northern Lewis not only to sustain populations but to grow them and support local economic development.

From a community wealth building perspective I recognise the importance of community energy. Although I realise that, as things stand, that involves voluntary agreements, I am alive to the huge contribution that they can make locally and the role that community energy can play in advancing the community wealth building agenda.

I invite Neal Rafferty to say a bit more on interactions with existing legislation.

As I said in response to Mr Sweeney, I would be happy to update the committee in writing on those matters.

Certainly, convener.

I will make two points. First, I recognise the perceptions of your constituents, Mr Whittle, and their feeling that there is a lack of engagement or consultation in the planning system. I touched on that earlier, and I recognise that need. With the new national planning framework coming forward, and with the rolling out of the provisions in the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019, we have an opportunity to increase that important engagement with communities.

Earlier this morning, I was giving evidence on town centres and their future. Town centres offer solutions to so many of the big problems that we face around climate change, living local, decarbonising, reducing our carbon emissions and a range of other areas. However, for those solutions to be successful, we need community engagement. People need to feel that they have an opportunity to shape their places. In urban environments, in more rural environments and when applications for energy developments come forward, it is important that communities feel that they have a role in shaping their place. I will not repeat what was discussed earlier, but that is why various measures, such as the reformed PAC process and local place plans, have been introduced—they seek to enhance community engagement and involvement.

My second and broader point is that the planning system is about use of land. That is fundamental. Ownership is not really a part of it; instead, the system is about how we use our land, and it is that way for very good reasons. For example, it is why planning obligations are used; they are quite tightly defined and must relate to an aspect of the development and use of land. It is an established process and, for very good reasons, has been so for quite some time now.

Andy, do you want to say a bit more on that?

That reflects the general reservation of energy in the Scotland Act 1998. The processes that pertain to the consent process in line with that legislation are reserved, too, so we in this Parliament do not have any direct influence over it.

Good morning. You will appreciate that matters pertaining to planning in the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 sit with me, but for developments over 50MW, as you alluded to, they sit with the Electricity Act 1989, which is a reserved piece of legislation. I will ask Neal Rafferty to come in on whether there are flexibilities within devolved competence to modify that threshold.

Just over two months ago, we concluded the public consultation and parliamentary scrutiny process for the draft NPF4. My officials will correct me if I get this wrong, but we received, I think, more than 780 responses. It has been great to see such engagement on the framework. Throughout the consultation process, officials and I engaged directly with a range of stakeholders, including representatives of the renewables sector.

Addressing our contribution to climate change and the nature emergency are central to the draft NPF4. In the draft document, policy 19, on green energy, sets out our position. It is consistent with our ambition to increase onshore wind capacity by between 8GW and 12GW by the end of the decade, and it sets out some detail about how planning can contribute towards achieving that aim. NPF4 is, of course, currently a draft document, and I cannot speculate on what will be in the finalised version that we will bring back to Parliament. However, I assure the committee that we are giving careful and detailed consideration to all the representations that we have received.

I recognise the points that Mr Ewing has articulated. We have to be careful to remember that the role of the planning system relates to the use of land, and planning obligations have to be linked to a material concern about a development. That is a long-standing principle of how the planning system in this country operates, and it operates in that way for very good reasons.

I do not know whether Andy Kinnaird wants to add anything.

Again, they cannot relate to a general concern about ownership; they must relate to the use of land. It is very important to remember that. I am sure that members understand the reasons why the planning system operates in that way.

The draft NPF4 also contains a clear commitment to onshore wind and recognises that it has an incredibly important role to play in meeting our obligations to reach net zero by 2045 and, indeed, to achieve our reductions by 2030.

That is a really important question to which there is no easy answer, although I can say that there is a range of ways in which we do that. In planning, for example, the Scottish Government supports Planning Aid for Scotland, which in turn provides support. We have also agreed with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities a target of 1 per cent for participatory budgeting, and we have a shared ambition to move away from having dedicated pots of money for that activity to mainstreaming it. That, again, is about continuing engagement. If the committee wishes to explore that, I can point you to a fantastic example of PB in Ferguslie Park in Renfrewshire.

That approach helps to engage people and gives them agency and a say in their community, which can have a catalysing effect. After all, when people get involved in one issue or project, it encourages them to get involved in more issues.

I recognise the point that the views of groups that are defined as the voice of the community are often not necessarily recognised by everybody within that community, so ongoing work has to take place on that.

Local place plans have recently been introduced through regulations that came about through the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019, and they provide people with more opportunities. We recently finished consulting on new-style local development plans, on which we will publish our response in due course. That response will examine how we can increase community engagement with, and involvement in, the planning system. We are all aware that when it comes to planning, engagement often takes place at a point of conflict rather than through collaboration. The earlier in the process communities engage with the planning system, the more likely it is that they will feel that they have agency and a role in shaping their community, rather than that they are reacting to proposed changes.

There is a range of support available through local place plans, participatory budgeting and the support that we provide to communities directly through the community asset transfer process or through our empowering communities programme, for example. However, fundamentally, some cultural change will also be required, and that will take time, so work needs to be continuous.

Community empowerment is one of my responsibilities. With the forthcoming review of the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015 I am very alive to that and am keen to continue dialogue about how we can maximise involvement and engagement from all communities—not only on the future of our town centres and planning, but across a range of areas and service delivery.

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to the draft order, which relates to the provision of extracts of documents that are held in registers under the control of the keeper of the registers of Scotland.

The keeper plays a vital role in the Scottish economy by safeguarding property rights through the registration of documents in the land register and register of sasines, in addition to the registration of documents in a number of other registers that support the legal profession.

Extracts are copies of registered documents that have an evidential status equivalent to that of the original and which can, therefore, be used in lieu of the original, including in court. Prior to the pandemic, they were mainly issued as paper documents in line with how customers interacted with ROS at the time. However, since the pandemic began, the majority of extracts issued by ROS have been in digital format. That reflects the way in which ROS’s and the legal profession’s work has shifted towards the use of digital services where possible.

The provision of digital extracts has proven hugely popular with stakeholders. Strong support has been expressed informally and through public consultation for enabling the provision of digital extracts across all the keeper’s registers. The order seeks to achieve that in the following ways.

The register of deeds in the books of council and session has, until this point, remained paper based due to its primary function as a way of preserving documents. However, the register will open to electronic documents on 1 October this year, and the order makes provision that extracts can be issued in electronic format from that time.

The order also sets out the default form of extract to be issued, depending on how the registered document was submitted. Extracts for paper documents will be provided on paper, and extracts for electronic documents will be provided electronically. In both cases, electronic or paper extracts are available on request if the default format is not suitable for the customer.

The order also makes provision that extracts of deeds registered in the register of sasines can be issued in electronic format. That brings the register into line with existing provision governing the other property register—the land register.

Finally, the order makes a number of clarificatory amendments to the Writs Execution (Scotland) Act 1877 in support of the provision of digital extracts and removes reference to legislation that is no longer in force.

I am joined by Harry Murray from Registers of Scotland and Megan Stefaniak from the Scottish Government legal directorate, who will be happy to assist me in answering any questions.