���˿���

I want to touch on leadership, accountability and whether there is a role for audit in the CPP process. The committee has heard some great examples of CPPs that are working particularly well in a number of areas of Scotland, but that is not uniform; some CPPs might need some assistance and help to improve, and one of the ingredients that we think might contribute to that is effective local leadership. I want to find out whether you agree with that.

Someone who gave evidence to the committee made the really useful comment that effective leaders

“should leave silos, logos and egos at the door”,—[Official Report, Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee, 7 March 2023; c 69.]

which struck a chord with members.

Broadly speaking, minister, do you agree? Is there a job of work to be done in sharing good practice in local leadership to make CPPs more effective?

Councillor Heddle, can you offer a few comments on the leadership issue? Across COSLA, you must see really good and effective community planning partnerships working and, perhaps, some that need to improve. Is the successful ingredient local leadership that provides dynamic engagement with local people on the ground? In your view, is that something that we can share across most authorities in Scotland?

Thank you for that. While we wait in hope that Councillor Heddle comes back in, I will move on and ask the minister about broader accountability and the role for audit. We know that CPPs are not formal accountable bodies, but they are very much part of the reporting process that sits with the agencies that the planning partnerships work with. Where should the accountability line for CPPs go? Should there be a formal accountability channel?

I remember that Audit Scotland did a report on CPPs and their effectiveness about 10 years ago, on the 10th anniversary of the setting up of CPPs. One of Audit Scotland’s comments at the time was that it was unable to show that CPPs had had a significant impact on delivering local outcomes. I think that that has changed significantly in the past 10 years—you have given us a number of examples. Where do you see the accountability and audit role sitting? Should it sit with Audit Scotland or the Accounts Commission, should there be some other mechanism, or should it not happen at all?

Good morning to you, Joe. For the benefit of the committee and anybody who is watching, will you say a wee bit more about the gate-checking exercise? What is it? Is it a series of tests that need to be applied to verify, almost, that the LDP is compliant across a broad range of issues? That is my estimate. Broadly, what is it, and will it be the same in every local authority, or do the local authorities get to define it themselves?

Thanks for that. Another query, minister, is about the online map-based provision for the plans. Certainly, I am aware of the capability of East Ayrshire Council’s planning department in online mapping systems. Is that broadly available across Scotland? Are you aware of any technical resource requirements or issues for authorities in the implementation of those systems?

Many thanks for the answers to those questions, minister.

Excellent.

Minister, I again highlight that the system that I have seen at East Ayrshire Council is really good, and the local people really engage with it.

Do you envisage any resource implications in that process? Do you anticipate any additional resource requirements to ensure that the process is smooth?

That is a great point. A number of issues were raised with the committee when we looked at this previously, as well as with me in my role as a constituency member. I will just share an example with you and ask for your opinion on it.

A retired person bought a flat and subsequently wanted to sell that flat, only to discover that it had no fire safety measures and no sound insulation. They are now having incredible difficulty, as you might imagine, in trying to sell it. There is a debate about where the responsibility falls—there is the builder’s responsibility and then, of course, there is the responsibility of the local authority to inspect, and so on. It is in that territory. Whose responsibility is it to assure a person who is about to buy a house that it is fit for purpose, especially in relation to fire safety and other measures such as sound insulation?

I was going to come to you anyway on that point, John-Paul, to see whether you could assist with that type of inquiry.

Is the process thorough enough to find deficiencies that are as serious as those that I mentioned? In that particular case, it clearly was not thorough enough, so I wonder whether the new standards that we have introduced will give people the assurance that that kind of thing cannot happen in the future—particularly for fire safety but also for other matters that I have mentioned. Has the process improved? Could that circumstance happen again?