³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Yes, we are absolutely committed to our targets on affordable housing.

The regulations will add public bodies to the appropriate schedules of the 2017 act. As such, they are within the broader context of existing data protection measures, including the general data protection regulation, the Data Protection Act 2018 and the need to comply with the European Convention on Human Rights. All those provisions are in place; public bodies have a duty and an obligation to adhere to them.

I will bring in Albert King to give a bit more detail about what the existing protections are. He can set out the broader data protection landscape in which the measures exist.

Mr Burnett said that he had three questions. Did I mishear him?

Good morning. I thank the committee for the opportunity to discuss the draft Digital Government (Scottish Bodies) Regulations 2022, which are technical regulations that will add certain Scottish bodies to the debt and fraud schedules of the United Kingdom Digital Economy Act 2017. That will provide the bodies with the potential to better identify and manage debt and fraud against the public sector, through responsible sharing of information.

I will set the draft regulations in context. Part 5 of the Digital Economy Act 2017 introduced new information-sharing powers to reduce debt that is owed to, or fraud against, the public sector, while ensuring that robust safeguards and protections are in place to prevent unlawful disclosure. To be able to use those information-sharing powers, public authorities must be listed in the debt and fraud schedules of the act. That provides a legal means for them to share information with other listed public authorities for debt and fraud purposes. The act does not compel data sharing, so there is no requirement for the public bodies to use the powers and share data.

We all want to be confident that our rights to privacy are protected, that there are adequate protections against exploitation of our personal information, and that that information is held securely and used effectively for public benefit. I want to highlight three of the robust safeguards and protections that are in place to prevent unlawful disclosure of information.

First, data protection law, which governs how personal data is processed and shared, continues to apply, as does the Human Rights Act 1998. Secondly, data can be shared only for the specific debt and fraud purposes that are set out in the 2017 act and not to achieve other objectives.

Thirdly, public bodies must also have regard to a code of practice that provides details on how the debt and fraud information-sharing powers should operate. The code provides that all information sharing under the debt and fraud powers be initially run as a pilot before the process becomes business as usual. That allows for the benefit of the data sharing to be explored, and for identification of any potential impacts and ethical issues.

There have been two public consultations to seek views on Scottish bodies being included in the schedules. I am pleased to say that responses on the proposals were overwhelmingly positive.

Providing our public bodies with the potential to better identify and manage debt and fraud against the public sector could provide significant additional investment in our public services.

I am happy to take any questions that the committee might have.

I hope that that assures Mr Burnett. The process is similar to the one in the 2017 act. Of course, because it uses the affirmative procedure, there will be an opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny, just as there is this morning.

I cannot speak about the duration of individual pilots. However, the review board mechanism, which will be analogous to the new provisions that are in place in England, will obviously provide a means of assessing pilot proposals. In the process of transitioning a process from pilot to business as usual, the independent review board will have a key role in terms of the recommendations that it makes to ministers. Obviously, individual proposals will have to be considered case by case. The service that will be provided by the review board will help to inform ministers’ decisions.

I will start with the last point, about overlap. There is a UK provision regarding relevant bodies in England and bodies that deal with reserved matters, so there is no overlap or duplication. The regulations refer specifically to Scottish bodies.

Alexander Burnett asked about the review board and the register. Once we have a pipeline of pilots, that will inform how we set up the review board. We will ensure that it is independent and we will look to secure voices from relevant specialisms, such as in academia. I anticipate that the review board and the register will broadly reflect the approach that has been taken in England.

Mr Burnett will appreciate that the decision about which bodies to include in the regulations has been informed by consultation. Mr King can comment on the process for any future amendment to the list of bodies.

The key word there is collaboration. The land use strategy captures many of the points that you have raised. When it was published, the land use strategy made much reference to the emerging draft NPF4—you will be familiar with the fact that a great deal of alignment exists between the two.

I will bring in Fiona Simpson to talk more about the links between land use strategy and what we are doing in NPF4.

To preface a more general point, I note that, specific to NPF4, we have six universal policies under sustainable places. We previously discussed policy 2, on the climate emergency, and the significant weight that should be given to it. That runs throughout.

More generally, there is a job, which is best done by local planners, in balancing competing priorities. Ultimately, planning is about mediating space and creating places, which is a job that planners have to do. They have to balance competing priorities, which involves a judgment call. It could be argued that planning is as much an art as it is a science. We cannot have planning by algorithm. We cannot automate the planning process or take out all the human agency or decision making that is involved in it. Planners will continue to have the role of judging and balancing competing priorities on the basis of local knowledge.

Having said that, I recognise the points that have been made about the language and whether that should be made more detailed in order to avoid unintended consequences or to ensure that the policy intent is fully delivered.

The document must be read in the round. It is holistic. I know that there is a huge amount in it, but planning is broad and touches on almost every aspect of our lives. That is, unfortunately, unavoidable. It is why we depend on the expertise and skill of our planning professionals.

Fiona Simpson may want to add to that.

That is a good question. I will give some background on how we got to the position that we are in. We developed our thinking through carrying out a lot of specific research on how planning policy could support strong and vibrant rural communities and economies in the coming years. We engaged extensively with rural interests, including the Scottish rural parliament, the Crofting Commission and rural heads of planning, and with a huge number of rural stakeholders through meetings and community roadshows.

Through the draft NPF4, we have sought to enable the rural development and diversification to which Mr McLennan refers, to strengthen the resilience of communities and to enable infrastructure in the areas that they need. However, to come back to the point about flexibility, although we have a policy on rural places in the NPF4, not every rural area is the same, so there has to be a national policy that is broad enough to recognise the requirements of different rural areas. The work on how to deliver that policy on the ground comes through the local development plan process and the engagement that takes place.

I will give some examples. Beyond a rural policy, we have draft policies on employment, new homes, and community facilities, services and shops that recognise rural needs. That includes diversification to support farm shops and local access to fresh produce. On sustainable transport, we recognise the need for private vehicles in rural areas, and we are supporting electric vehicle charging in such areas. In addition, our policies on aquaculture, digital connectivity, green energy, heat networks and facilities for a circular economy recognise the rural aspect.

There is also recognition of rural needs in our national developments, which apply to all of Scotland. Examples are national development 5 on circular economy materials management facilities, and national development 7 on islands hub for net zero, which recognises that particular environment.

One of our spatial principles is balanced development. That recognises the need, when thinking about our planning obligations across Scotland, to get the balance right. That means recognising concerns around sustainability and more pressured areas, as well as recognising where we need to support population retention and increase the population in other areas that are under pressure. Fiona Simpson might want to add some detail on that.