Seòmar agus comataidhean

Just to be absolutely clear, and for the record, is the plea that, in that context, the word “may” should be replaced by “shall” or “must” in every instance in the draft, or are witnesses suggesting that there may be some areas in which retaining that vagueness would be welcome?

My question is for Pam Ewen. The written evidence from HOPS suggested that delivering on the ambitions of NPF4 would require a significant culture change. Can you expand on that? Might that culture change extend to councils’ attitude towards planning? There was a reference a few moments ago to budgets having been cut by 43 per cent. Such a budget cut would be well in excess of any change in the budget settlement that the Scottish Government gives to councils. Should there be an attitudinal change in councils about the significance of the planning service?

My second question is about some of the submissions that the committee has received in which concern has been raised about the wording of national planning policies on issues such as 20-minute neighbourhoods, community wealth building, carbon emissions and human rights. The assertion is that the wording is insufficiently clear for decision-making purposes. Do the witnesses agree with that? Is it more about the language that is used or is it the substance of what is being said that is the problem?

I will just throw it open.

My first question is about the changing nature of national planning policy as a consequence of NPF4, where we see an increased focus on issues of place, liveability, wellbeing, and emissions reduction. I am interested in whether the witnesses think that the existing planning system is set up in a cultural and practical sense to deliver on the outcomes and, of course, the changes that are going to be needed.

Do you want me to ask my second question now, convener, or shall I come to that?

Thank you, convener. I am not aware of any interests that have not already been declared in my entry in the register of members’ interests.

Thank you.

I think that David Stewart and Tony Cain are the obvious people to go to initially.

Let me just pick up on that point. Does that then lend itself to a situation in which planners are risk averse or lacking in innovation, because they are fearful that, if they go out on a limb a little bit, they will not be supported by the regime in which they are working?

In recognition of the committee’s busy schedule, I will just move the motion.

Motion moved,

That the COVID-19 Recovery Committee recommends that the Health Protection (Coronavirus) (International Travel and Operator Liability) (Scotland) Amendment (No. 7) Regulations 2021 (SSI 2021/425) be approved.—[Graeme Dey]

Motion agreed to.