Scottish Parliament, 11 January 2023

243 contributions from 56 members. The official report.

Constitution, External Affairs and Culture

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Good afternoon. The first item of business is portfolio question time, and the first portfolio is constitution, external affairs and culture. If a member wishes to request a supplementary question, they should press their request-to-speak button or indicate so in the chat function by typing “RTS” during the relevant question. As ever, I ask for succinct questions, and answers to match, in order to get in as many members as possible.

Independence Referendum (Supreme Court Ruling)

Jim Fairlie (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

1. To ask the Scottish Government what further consideration it has given to November’s Supreme Court ruling on whether the Scottish Parliament has the power to legislate for an independence referendum. (S6O-01740)

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

We have been clear that we accept and respect the Supreme Court’s judgment. However, the Supreme Court was not asked to decide, and cannot decide, whether the Scottish Parliament should have the power to hold an independence referendum.

The outcome of that case has demonstrated the weakness of the United Kingdom’s constitution. No matter how the people of Scotland vote or how often they elect Parliaments that support a referendum and support independence, they can be told “no” by the UK Prime Minister. A position that does not allow Scotland to choose its own future without Westminster consent exposes as myth the notion of the UK as a voluntary partnership. In a voluntary union, one part does not have to rely on the agreement of another before it is allowed to think about leaving.

The First Minister has made it clear that she is ready and willing to negotiate the terms of a section 30 order with the Prime Minister.

Jim Fairlie (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

Yesterday’s events at Westminster brought into sharp focus why Scotland requires to be released from the shackles of Westminster. The Tories’ anti-strike bill launches an attack on workers’ rights, and their Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill threatens to revoke vital environmental protections, food protections and workers’ rights without putting adequate solutions in place.

Meanwhile, yesterday in this chamber, the Parliament reiterated its call for the UK Government to respect the right of people in Scotland to choose their constitutional future. How many more times does the cabinet secretary believe that the Tories at Westminster will try to deny democracy before they realise that our cast-iron mandate for a referendum is only growing stronger?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

I am pleased that a majority of members elected to this Parliament by the people of Scotland backed yesterday’s motion calling on the UK Government to respect the right of people in Scotland to choose their constitutional future.

Every member of the Scottish Parliament is here because of the trust that has been placed in us by people in Scotland through their votes. That places obligations on those of us who win elections, and we must do our best to deliver on the mandates that we are given. Should the UK Government continue to deny the Scottish people their right to choose, people in Scotland will have their say on independence at the next UK election.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

The Scottish Government spent £0.25 million on last year’s Supreme Court case. Given that people are struggling to pay their home energy bills and public services are in such a state, has the cabinet secretary reflected over the Christmas period on whether that was a good use of public funds?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

Of course, there would have been no reason to raise a legal challenge if the UK Government had agreed to a section 30 order, as it did after the 2011 election. That would have been the optimal way forward and the preferred option. It is now for the UK Government to respect the views of this Parliament and the result of the most recent Scottish Parliament election and agree to a section 30 order with the Scottish Government. That would not have cost a penny.

Sistema Scotland

Michael Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

2. To ask the Scottish Government when it last met with representatives of Sistema Scotland. (S6O-01741)

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

Neil Gray, the

Minister for Culture, Europe and International Development and Minister with special responsibility for Refugees from Ukraine

, met with Sistema Scotland representatives on 12 July 2022, when he visited the organisation’s big noise programme in the Raploch centre in Stirling. In addition, I was pleased that Nicola Killean, Sistema’s chief executive officer, was able to attend a round-table discussion that I chaired in December. My officials are also in regular contact with Sistema Scotland representatives.

I am proud to support Sistema Scotland, which is a brilliant example of a cultural programme that contributes to many policy outcomes and, in particular, our ambition to tackle child poverty.

Michael Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

I thank the cabinet secretary for that response and for the efforts that he and his colleague have put into meeting the organisation. They will both be aware of the recent study conducted by the Glasgow Centre for Population Health, which found that children and young people who take part in Sistema Scotland’s big noise Raploch are much more likely to achieve positive post-school outcomes and more likely to be in employment. What can the Scottish Government learn from that hugely positive evaluation, and what can the cabinet secretary do to ensure that Sistema Scotland continues to be supported by his Government to deliver those positive outcomes?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

I am aware of the study, which is very encouraging. Do I agree with the member that Sistema Scotland is playing a vital role, including in Douglas in Dundee? Yes, I do.

The excellent work that Sistema Scotland does on targeting disadvantaged communities, tackling child poverty, and significantly enhancing participants’ lives, prospects and health and wellbeing—to name but a few—is uncontested. Sistema Scotland is highly valued and supported by the Scottish Government, and I am pleased that it commands so much support across parties in the chamber.

Coronation (Events in Highlands and Islands)

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

3. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions have taken place with the royal household regarding the coronation of His Majesty the King, in relation to events across the Highlands and Islands. (S6O-01742)

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

The Scottish Government is liaising with the royal household, the Lord Lyon King of Arms and the United Kingdom Government on planning for the coronation of His Majesty the King. The First Minister has already announced that an extra bank holiday will be provided for on Monday 8 May to allow for celebrations to take place across the coronation weekend.

As with previous royal occasions, it is expected that any local events held around Scotland to celebrate the coronation will be community inspired and led.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Once details have been made available by the royal household, does the Scottish Government intend to have conversations with local authorities to ensure that school pupils learn of the importance and significance of the coronation?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

Celebrations of this nature are community led in Scotland. The Scottish Government will facilitate communications between the relevant organisations, including local authorities and Scotland’s lord lieutenants. Conversations will be continuing.

Historic Environment Scotland (Reopening of Sites)

Donald Cameron (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

4. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to accelerate the reopening of historic sites managed by Historic Environment Scotland. (S6O-01743)

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Historic Environment Scotland has completed the first group of inspections in its prioritised inspection programme on schedule and is making progress on the next group of prioritised sites. It will continue to put the health and safety of individuals first, reopening sites when safe to do so.

We continue to provide substantial support to Historic Environment Scotland. In the 2023-24 budget, Historic Environment Scotland’s total operational budget is rising by 18 per cent to £114.5 million, enabling the organisation to invest in fair staff pay, running and maintaining its properties, delivering grants to the heritage sector and fulfilling its advisory and regulatory functions.

Donald Cameron (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

More than 60 of the sites managed by HES remain either closed or partially closed, including, in my region, Kisimul castle on Barra and the Bonawe iron furnace in Taynuilt. The number of closed sites has remained consistently high for some time. Can the minister explain why Scotland’s historic sites have been left to crumble under this Government’s stewardship? What action will he take to protect our vital historic assets for generations to come?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I do not accept that characterisation by Donald Cameron. Historic Environment Scotland is making progress and, as I outlined, the Scottish Government is investing substantially with the budget support that we give it in order to carry out high-level masonry inspections and make sure that facilities can reopen.

For instance, Dumbarton castle, which is an iconic site, is due to reopen in the spring. Progress is being made. Obviously, I am looking for HES to move as fast as possible and we are making investment for that to happen. I will continue to engage with HES, including when I meet its chair and chief executive next week.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I have a number of requests for supplementaries. I will try to take as many as possible, but I will probably not be able to take all of them. I ask for succinct questions and answers.

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Na h-Eileanan an Iar)

Kisimul castle in my constituency, the seat of the Macneils of Barra and one of Scotland’s most iconic sites, has faced an extended closure, with repair work needed. How will the 2023-24 budget support HES’s current high-level maintenance survey and ensure that it is timetabled at a pace that will ensure the safe opening of this site of national importance and others?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Much as I said in response to the previous question, if Alasdair Allan would like to visit Kisimul castle or any other site in his constituency, I would be happy to facilitate a visit, through HES.

The 2022-23 budget sees HES’s costs fully funded by Government grant, and there is rising commercial income, post-pandemic.

We provided HES with significant support while the pandemic reduced its commercial income; indeed, the grant for HES for this year is 80 per cent higher than it was before the pandemic. The 2023-24 budget will see HES’s total operational budget rise by 18 per cent to £114.5 million, to enable the organisation to continue its fantastic work to protect sites, ensure fair staff pay and make grants. I will continue to work hard, alongside HES staff, to facilitate the reopening of our precious heritage as soon as it is safe to reopen.

Foysol Choudhury (Labour, Lothian)

Will the minister please advise members of the Scottish Government’s plans to ensure that Historic Environment Scotland’s properties will be able to open to a sufficient degree to allow HES’s revenue to rise as predicted in the budget?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I thank Foysol Choudhury for pointing out an important fact, which is that the commercial income that HES has been able to derive this year is the result of the reopening process that has been under way for sites that had been partially or entirely closed. As a result, HES has higher than anticipated commercial income, so it will be able to enjoy a much higher budget for next year, as I said.

I commend HES and congratulate it on its work in that regard, and I hope that that will continue. I will continue to engage with HES to ensure that it is supported to allow that to happen.

Beatrice Wishart (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

The minister will recall that I raised the HES Jarlshof site facilities project with him in the chamber in November last year. I have been repeatedly raising the issue, since before the pandemic. Will he facilitate an update from HES on the long-awaited toilet facilities and coach parking project for one of Shetland’s main tourist attractions?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Yes, I will be more than happy to do so and I would be happy to meet Beatrice Wishart alongside HES to make sure that her concerns are put across and that the work that she requests is looked at and facilitated as quickly as possible.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

One of the north-east’s foremost historic sites is the five-star Peterhead Prison Museum. This week, the museum had to shut its café, with the loss of five jobs—it is important to note that the rest of the operation remains open. Will the minister agree to join me in a visit to Peterhead Prison Museum, to explore ways in which the Government might facilitate the reopening of its excellent hospitality facility?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I would be happy to look at the matter in more detail and to consider a visit to Peterhead at Liam Kerr’s invitation, to consider avenues whereby it might be possible for that facility to reopen. I have talked about Historic Environment Scotland’s commercial income success. If it is possible for Peterhead museum to enjoy similar success, I would be happy to look at the issue.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

Can the minister confirm or seek confirmation from Historic Environment Scotland that the technical panel that has been established will, in its determinations, give as much importance to the relative national historic importance of properties and their tourism and economic impact as it gives to the necessary technical, health and safety and construction issues? Will he confirm that the panel is properly staffed to do that?

As I have said before, Linlithgow palace, in my constituency, should surely count as a national priority for work, given that it is the birthplace of Mary, Queen of Scots.

I gently point out that the 80 per cent increase in budget is needed precisely because of the lost commercial income for closed sites such as Linlithgow palace.

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Fiona Hyslop is absolutely right. I was pleased to make a visit to Linlithgow palace last year, which was hosted by the member and Historic Environment Scotland staff, to see the high-level masonry issues there.

I will be more than happy to ensure that her comments and concerns are passed on to HES when I meet the chair and chief executive next week, and to ensure that a response is fed back to her as quickly as possible.

Children and Young People’s Theatre

Paul O'Kane (Labour, West Scotland)

5. To ask the Scottish Government how it is supporting children and young people’s theatre. (S6O-01744)

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

The Scottish Government recognises the important role that theatre can play for young people. We provide £150,000 per year to the Scottish Youth Theatre, which provides theatre training to young people aged three to 25.

In addition, 29 of the 120 organisations that are regularly funded by Creative Scotland, which is funded by the Scottish Government, actively run programmes in theatres for children across Scotland. In order to improve accessibility of theatre for school pupils, the National Theatre of Scotland, which is one of the five national performing companies that receives funding from the Scottish Government, also manages the Theatre in Schools Scotland project.

Paul O'Kane (Labour, West Scotland)

In my region, PACE Theatre Company has served children and young people for more than 30 years and has given children and young people opportunities to benefit educationally, socially and culturally from a variety of performing arts experiences. Its alumni include Richard Madden, Paolo Nutini and one Paul O’Kane. It is embarking on an ambitious project in Paisley town centre to turn a derelict site into Scotland’s first children’s theatre. It has received funding from Renfrewshire Council through the town centre regeneration fund, but it has a way to go. Will the minister commit to supporting that important project, and will he agree to visit the project with me and to meet PACE Theatre Company to see how the Government might support it?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I will avoid the temptation of making the obvious joke about Paul O’Kane’s theatrical ability, but I am happy to endorse the fantastic work that PACE does, based on its merit and because the Minister for Parliamentary Business, George Adam, who is the local MSP, would have my guts for garters if I did not.

I am more than happy to meet Paul O’Kane to discuss the matter. He will be aware that in December 2021, the Scottish Government’s regeneration capital fund awarded Renfrewshire Council £800,000 to help to build PACE’s Exchange young people’s theatre. Independent theatres in Scotland that run programmes for children and young people and which are constituted as non-profit distributing are eligible to apply to Creative Scotland’s open fund. I am happy to discuss all that with Paul O’Kane and PACE, if that would be helpful, and I look forward to corresponding further.

Sharon Dowey (Conservative, South Scotland)

The recent £5.1 million cut to Creative Scotland for 2023-24 will inevitably have an impact on Youth Theatre Arts Scotland, which is in my region. What impact assessment has the Scottish Government conducted to determine the effects of funding cuts on the theatre industry?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

We obviously welcome the fact that Creative Scotland is using the lottery reserves that it has built up to protect the regularly funded organisations in order to ensure that their funding can continue over the next year. We are all facing incredible financial pressures—not least because of the economic situation that we find ourselves in, and not least because of the reckless approach to the economy that is being taken by the United Kingdom’s Conservative Government.

We will continue to work with the culture sector. The Cabinet Secretary for the Constitution, External Affairs and Culture and I meet regularly with stakeholders across Scotland, and that work continues. We will also continue to push the UK Government to make greater investments, which would allow us to do more.

Emma Roddick (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I know from experience that theatre and the arts in general can be a wonderful escape for young people, and that organisations such as the Highland regional youth orchestra allow them to create memories that will last a lifetime. How does the Scottish Government support more young people from less-affluent backgrounds being exposed to the theatre and music?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I thank Emma Roddick for that important question. As someone who also benefited from access to theatre in my childhood, I appreciate the important role that theatre and music can play for children. Through subsidy from the National Theatre of Scotland and Imaginate, tickets costing approximately £2 per child to Theatre in Schools Scotland programmes are available. Schools in low-income areas can also use their pupil equity funding to pay for access to the programme. The pupil equity funding is allocated directly to schools and is targeted at closing the poverty-related attainment gap.

In addition, NTS has approached various local trusts and foundations to enable free or very low-cost performances in economically deprived areas. Our youth music initiative puts music at the heart of young people’s lives and learning, with particular emphasis being placed on widening access and participation through reaching all children and young people. Within that initiative are funds such as the access to music making fund, which supports out-of-school music making for target groups who might otherwise not have such opportunities.

We have heard about the support that has been provided to Sistema Scotland, which is a fantastic organisation that provides access to music across Scotland. Much work is being done, but there is more to do. I welcome Emma Roddick’s input to make sure that the issue is emphasised today.

Creative Industries (Workplace Ownership)

Maggie Chapman (Green, North East Scotland)

6. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the culture minister has had with ministerial colleagues regarding what support is available for anyone working in creative industries, including the Belmont cinema in Aberdeen, who may wish to take control or ownership of their workplaces. (S6O-01745)

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I have not been approached by creative industries workers about an interest in control or ownership of their workplaces. I would be happy to discuss that with ministerial colleagues, Creative Scotland, enterprise agencies and relevant partners to see what support is available, if we are asked to do so.

An effective worker voice is critical to fair work, and it underpins all other fair work dimensions. Collective bargaining, social dialogue and an effective voice are key to improving terms and conditions, to worker wellbeing and to developing progressive and fair workplaces—which include social enterprises and co-operatives.

Maggie Chapman (Green, North East Scotland)

The Belmont cinema and its predecessors acted as a focal point for a range of community groups and creative organisations for more than 125 years. The First Minister recently stressed the importance of culture to our communities. We must support not only the big international festivals and organisations, but the local community-owned and worker-owned enterprises. Will the minister meet former Belmont cinema workers and others who are keen to secure a viable and sustainable independent cinema, and will he provide guidance for those who are seeking to protect places like the Belmont for future generations?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Yes, I will. First, I want to echo the First Minister’s feelings about the importance of culture to local communities; I feel that, and the Cabinet Secretary for the Constitution, External Affairs and Culture feels it. I welcome the opportunity to meet stakeholders who are seeking to secure a future for cultural cinema provision in Aberdeen, which I offered to do previously in relation to the Belmont

.

Mercedes Villalba (Labour, North East Scotland)

As we have heard, Aberdeen’s Belmont cinema is an important educational and cultural cornerstone. It is wholly owned by Aberdeen City Council, so it is all the more alarming that such a venue has been allowed to close and to go into administration without the option of saving the cinema being considered. Can the minister confirm what obligation there is on the administrators of the cinema to explore such options, and what financial support the Government can make available to support that?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Mercedes Villalba mentioned that the Belmont cinema in Aberdeen is owned by Aberdeen City Council. There is a legal process under way in the administration of the Centre for the Moving Image; the member will be aware that I am constrained in how much I can say about the process. As I have offered other colleagues previously in relation to the administration of the CMI, I am happy to meet the member to discuss where things are and the concerns that she has—which I share—about ensuring that cultural cinema provision continues at the Belmont in Aberdeen.

Creative Scotland (Budget)

Jamie Halcro Johnston (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

7. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to Creative Scotland’s actions following the announcement of the draft budget. (S6O-01746)

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

The Scottish Government welcomes Creative Scotland’s decision on Monday 19 December to maintain funding for the regularly funded organisations at current levels next year by drawing on its accumulated national lottery reserves.

We have provided Creative Scotland with more than £33 million over five years to compensate for generally reduced lottery funding. We now face difficult decisions about Government funding, so the time is right for Creative Scotland to draw on the lottery reserves that are available to it.

Jamie Halcro Johnston (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

The minister has just referenced the First Minister’s comments on the arts. A headline in

The Press and Journal

on 3 January read,

“Nicola Sturgeon urges Scots to back the arts as sector faces uncertain future”. The article described the First Minister as

“an aficionado of books, festivals, music and movies”,

but decisions by her Government have resulted in one in eight Scottish libraries being permanently closed since 2010; Scotland’s winter festival fund being cancelled; live music venues being under real pressure; and the Edinburgh International Film Festival, the Edinburgh Filmhouse and the Belmont Filmhouse in Aberdeen all ceasing trading. Of course, her Government has also just slashed the funding of Scotland’s creative arts agency. Would a better and more accurate headline not have been: “Nicola Sturgeon urges Scots to back the arts because her Government won’t”?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

No. As I already outlined, we are making decisions to support the creative industries and cultural provision across Scotland as best we can, under the economic situation that we face. However, the situation is largely outwith our control. Across the UK, we face an economic storm that is of the UK Government’s making. Its economic recklessness has meant that not only has the Scottish Government’s budget been impacted by inflation, but the creative and culture stakeholders—whom Angus Robertson and I have met during the past months—have also seen their budgets being impacted by spiralling inflation and spiralling energy costs

.

That is all because of the recklessness of the UK Government and its failure to actively address the problem, so I will take no lessons from the Conservatives on our investment in and support for the creative industries, when they are doing nothing about it.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I can squeeze in question 8 if I have brief questions and answers.

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Kaukab Stewart (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Kelvin)

8. To ask the Scottish Government what recent communication it has had with the United Kingdom Government regarding the potential impact on Scotland of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill. (S6O-01747)

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

On 21 December, I received a response from Grant Shapps to my two letters. Although I am happy to have finally received his response, I am disappointed that our concerns continue not to be addressed and that our amendments—which were drafted to limit the damaging impact of the bill on Scotland—continue to be ignored.

Scottish Government officials continue to work with their UK Government counterparts as part of the programme to identify devolved retained European Union law, yet we are still operating largely in the dark in terms of what the UK Government proposes to do with retained EU law, and therefore in terms of what powers Scottish ministers might need to use to prevent deregulation and to uphold high standards for the people of Scotland.

Kaukab Stewart (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Kelvin)

The absence of any attempt at co-operation on a bill of such magnitude for Scottish democracy is truly ridiculous, especially given the Parliament’s overwhelming rejection of the Brexit freedoms bill. Does the cabinet secretary agree that Westminster must urgently acknowledge the threat that its Brexiteer plans represent to devolution and democracy in Scotland, and scrap the bill?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

I have been absolutely clear that our preference is for the bill to be withdrawn entirely, or for areas of devolved competence to be carved out from the sunset provisions. However, the amendments that we tabled were dismissed by the UK Government in a House of Commons committee.

I agree that the UK Government’s plans to disrespect the Sewel convention should be of grave concern to the Scottish Parliament. We are therefore putting plans in place to identify devolved retained EU law, but it is a significant undertaking that has the potential to impact on officials’ ability to dedicate time to urgent issues that affect the people of Scotland, such as the energy and cost of living crises.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

That concludes portfolio questions on the constitution, external affairs and culture. There will be a short pause before we move on to the next portfolio to allow front-bench teams to change position.

Justice and Veterans

The Deputy Presiding Officer

T

he next portfolio is justice and veterans. If a member seeks to ask a supplementary question, they should press their request-to-speak button or enter “RTS” in the chat function during the relevant question. Again, in order to get in as many members as possible, I would appreciate succinct questions and answers to match.

Justice System Reform (Support for Victims)

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

1. To ask the Scottish Government what can be done to improve the situation faced by victims in criminal court cases who are simultaneously involved in civil proceedings where victim support is required, and how this will be delivered by the Government’s work on reforming the justice system. (S6O-01748)

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

The Scottish Government’s

victim-centred approach fund supports third sector organisations to provide practical and emotional support to victims, survivors and witnesses of crime in Scotland in order to achieve better long-term outcomes.

Although there is no direct role for victim support and victim support organisations in civil proceedings, the Children (Scotland) Act 2020 contains provisions on special measures in some family cases to protect vulnerable witnesses and parties.

In last year’s consultation on improving victims’ experiences of the justice system, we proposed extending the provisions on special measures in the 2020 act to civil cases generally.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

Following the Victims and Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2014, more categories of witnesses were automatically presumed to be vulnerable in criminal cases and now usually have a right to certain special measures when giving evidence.

However, in civil cases, the parties themselves must apply to the court for special measures for victim support; there is no automatic presumption that they should be offered such measures.

As the cabinet secretary has just indicated, the consultation on improving victims’ experiences of the justice system raised the possibility of special measures being available when required for all civil court hearings in Scotland. Can he confirm whether those measures will be automatically applied to vulnerable witnesses in civil cases?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

On special measures, the consultation to which Fiona Hyslop referred suggested following the model, which is not yet in force, in the Children (Scotland) Act 2020 for family cases. Under that model, a witness will be deemed vulnerable if they have a civil protection order against another party or if the other party has committed, or is accused of committing, certain criminal offences against the witness. In those circumstances, the court will have to make an order authorising special measures or order the witness to give evidence without special measures.

The 2020 act also makes provision so that special measures can be made available in non-evidential hearings. At the moment, special measures in civil cases depend on the hearing being evidential—that is, with witnesses. Many civil hearings are not of that nature, so we will consider responses to the consultation to address the point that Fiona Hyslop has made.

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

Numerous rape victims whose cases were not prosecuted in the criminal courts or whose cases resulted in unsuccessful prosecutions have had to resort to DIY justice by bringing a civil case against their attackers. Will the cabinet secretary tell me how many such cases are currently before the Scottish courts?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

No, because I do not have that information. However, I can get it and am happy to correspond with Mr Findlay to provide it.

Public Safety (Glasgow)

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

2. To ask the Scottish Government what action it will take to improve public safety in Glasgow. (S6O-01749)

Elena Whitham (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

Public safety is a central priority for the Scottish Government. In Glasgow, as in the rest of Scotland, we work for a society in which people feel, and are, safe in their communities. To that end, we will continue with our transformative policies, including those outlined in “The Vision for Justice in Scotland” and the programme for government. In doing so, we will engage with a range of partners, including not only the emergency services but wider community safety organisations such as the Scottish Community Safety Network, Crimestoppers and Neighbourhood Watch Scotland, as well as local community safety partnerships.

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

I thank the minister for that answer but more can and should be done. Attacks in Glasgow, including in its parks, have become all too common, which has led Radio Clyde to launch its light the way campaign for lighting in parks at night and Unite to launch its get me home safely campaign, which calls for safe and free transport home at night, including by taxi.

What action can be taken to ensure that Glasgow City Council introduces lighting in Glasgow’s parks and to support the taxi industry so that there are cabs available to help people to get home safely in the city?

Elena Whitham (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

I know that Pam Duncan-Glancy is passionate about the issue. I understand that people need to get home safely, so I am willing to continue to engage with all partners, including Glasgow City Council, to ensure that we make progress.

Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service (Cost of Non-attendance at Hearings)

Mark Griffin (Labour, Central Scotland)

3. To ask the Scottish Government what the average cost to the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service is of non-attendance at court hearings by all parties. (S6O-01750)

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

The managing of non-attendance is an operational matter for the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service. It does not record the costs of non-attendance, so an assessment of average costs is not possible. That said, we know that the costs are substantial and the SCTS employs a range of measures to minimise them. The chief executive of the SCTS will write to the member in response to a similar written question that he has lodged.

Mark Griffin (Labour, Central Scotland)

I have a constituent who, along with his family, has gone through the emotional trauma of attending court on six separate occasions to face the person who is accused of breaking into his property, stealing personal items of huge emotional value and setting fire to his home, only for that case to be postponed every time. Will the cabinet secretary say how many cases have been postponed due to non-attendance by an accused person, what the Government’s view is on the impact that that has on victims and families and on dealing with court backlogs, and what plans it has to raise the issue with the Courts and Tribunals Service to stop it happening?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

Of course, the SCTS has a degree of autonomy and independence in relation to the matter. The scheduling of trials is its responsibility. It tries to mitigate the impact of non-attendance by overbooking to minimise the court time that is wasted. A number of specific measures are also taken—including the summary case management pilot, which is being undertaken in Paisley, Dundee and Hamilton, I think—to ensure that, if time becomes available because of non-appearance, another case can take the place of that hearing. That minimises the time that is wasted for the courts. It does not directly address the point of concern for Mark Griffin’s constituent. However, the management of court cases is for the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service to undertake.

To go back to the original point about cost, the last substantial estimate that was made was done by Audit Scotland. It admitted the difficulties that there were in trying to get a definitive figure but it might be interesting to Mark Griffin and might partly answer his question to know that Audit Scotland arrived at a figure of around 5 per cent for the cost of churn—that is, cases that were not taken. I am happy to provide him with more information in writing about the absolute number if we have the daily number for cases that have been subject to non-attendance.

Beatrice Wishart (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Travel delays and cancellations between the islands and mainland Scotland are impacting on the justice system. What is the cost of non-attendance at court due to travel delays? How many non-appearances in court are due to the transfer of prisoners by private contractors? What discussions has the Scottish Government had with the SCTS about those contractors and the situation?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

We have had discussions with the SCTS and the Scottish Prison Service, because the matter sometimes involves the transportation of prisoners to court, which can be an issue. There have been issues relating to the transportation of prisoners, not least because of some of the problems with employment that the contractor is currently experiencing due to the constrained labour market.

On costs, I refer Beatrice Wishart to the answer that I gave Mark Griffin. I am happy to look into the issue further to see whether, despite the fact that it is difficult to bear down on the figures and identify the costs—Audit Scotland found that, too—there are identifiable costs relating to people travelling to court, which she mentioned. If that information is available, I will supply it in writing.

Antisocial Behaviour (Central Scotland)

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

4. To ask the Scottish Government how it plans to reduce antisocial behaviour in the Central Scotland region. (S6O-01751)

Elena Whitham (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

The Scottish Government will continue to ensure that Police Scotland and local authorities have appropriate powers to prevent and deal with antisocial behaviour in all Scotland’s communities.

Local authorities and Police Scotland are best placed to understand the issues that the communities they work with are facing and to work with them to address those issues through a wide range of options, including the use of antisocial behaviour orders, fixed-penalty notices and formal warnings, alongside positive diversionary and early intervention activities in appropriate circumstances.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I ask about the issue because two elderly constituents of mine in Falkirk are woken every night by their neighbour calling the emergency services—many of the calls appear to be hoax calls. The noise can continue for many hours late at night as the police or people from the ambulance service bang on the door and shout to try to get entry. My constituents have significant health problems that have been caused by living with sleep deprivation and intense anxiety.

The type of behaviour that I have described is not admissible as evidence of antisocial behaviour. If it is not antisocial behaviour, what is it, and how can my constituents get peace?

Elena Whitham (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

I am sorry to hear of the issues that Mr Kerr’s constituents are facing and I am happy to engage with him directly on that, because people have the right to enjoy their own home and to feel safe and secure in it.

Obviously, local authorities and the police have powers in relation to antisocial behaviour and there is a range of options that the local authority could and should be using in that instance. I am happy to engage with Mr Kerr on that.

Recorded Crime in Scotland Statistics

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

5. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the latest recorded crime in Scotland statistics. (S6O-01752)

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

Although the latest recorded crime statistics remain at their lowest level since 1974, showing that Scotland is a safer place since this Government took office, as I pointed out to Craig Hoy, when he asked the same question on 21 September last year, there is much more to do. That is why the recent Scottish budget includes plans to invest almost £3.4 billion across the justice system in 2023-24, with a 5.8 per cent increase in the resource budget, which equates to an additional £165 million. That will strengthen and reform vital front-line services, provide support for victims and witnesses and tackle the underlying drivers of offending.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Nonetheless, the cabinet secretary

knows that the most recent statistics from Police Scotland show a 17 per cent rise in non-sexual violent crime in Perth and Kinross, a 12 per cent rise in Fife and a 10 per cent rise in Stirlingshire. I think that many constituents across Mid Scotland and Fife will think that that is completely at odds with the

cabinet secretary’s claim in the

1919

magazine that

“Scotland continues to be such a safe place in which to live”.

What urgent action is the Scottish Government, in line with our police force, taking to address those serious concerns?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

Nonetheless, it remains the case that crime in Scotland has fallen significantly under this situation.

Scotland is a safer place since this Government took office; recorded crime is at the lowest level seen since 1974; and homicides are extremely low compared with historical trends.

We have also seen a 25 per cent reduction in non-sexual violent crime, as mentioned by Liz—

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

The minister did not listen to the question.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

I do not know whether the member wants to hear the response or to shout instead.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The minister is on his feet, so there should be no sedentary chatting across the chamber. He will respond to the question, and we should listen to his response.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

Since 2006-07, we have seen a 25 per cent reduction in non-sexual violent crime, although, as I said in my original answer, we accept that there is much more to do. To help address that, we will continue to fund the police at a higher level in Scotland. Across almost every rank, we will continue to pay our police more in Scotland, and we will continue to have more police per capita in Scotland than there are in the rest of the United Kingdom. As I have just mentioned, we have increased the budget, despite the constraints that we have because of the Conservatives’ economic mismanagement in England and Wales.

Katy (Labour, West Scotland)

The number of sexual and violent crimes has increased again, and we know that the number of victims, particularly of sexual offences, who do not report is far greater than the number of those who do report. Therefore, the real figures will be even higher. How will the real-terms cuts to the budgets of the Crown Office, the judiciary, the police and the courts help to tackle that issue?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

I agree with the first two parts of Katy Clark’s question. First, there has been an increase in sexual crimes—the number is 6 per cent higher than it was in the year ending September 2021. I also agree with the point that she made about the vast number of sexual crimes that are not reported. We can agree on those two things, but we do not agree on Crown Office funding, which has been increased again—this is from memory, although I am happy to correct it if it is wrong—by more than 3 per cent.

Katy Clark knows full well the constraints of the miserable settlement that we receive from the UK Government, which is, of course, related to its economic mismanagement. Therefore, within a very constrained environment, we are putting more money into the area. I have already mentioned that we fund the police—not only in relation to numbers but in relation to pay—to a greater extent than is done elsewhere. That should help to drive down a problem that is common across the world in many different jurisdictions—a problem that I recognise.

Veteran Medal Replacements Initiative

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

6. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its support for the veteran medal replacements initiative. (S6O-01753)

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

I announced the launch of the scheme to fund the cost of replacing medals for eligible veterans during the remembrance debate in November last year. I am happy to say that the first veteran to be supported through the scheme has now received his medals. In the meantime, my officials have been working with the Ministry of Defence to formalise the arrangements for the scheme. I should mention that I had asked the MOD if it would do that in the first instance, but it refused to do so. We are now formalising the arrangements with the MOD to fund, on an on-going basis, replacement of medals for veterans who are resident in Scotland.

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

It is positive to see that the Scottish Government remains committed to investing in its veterans community, and I note that we have also welcomed a new veterans commissioner. What steps is the Scottish Government taking to ensure that veterans’ voices continue to be represented in policy development?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

Of course, Jenni Minto has pointed out that we are, so far, the first and only Administration within the United Kingdom whose medal replacement costs are being met by the Government. We were the first to have a veterans commissioner and—to get to the point of Jenni Minto’s question—we are also the first to have a veterans commissioner who is female. The role is vital for listening to and representing veterans. In turn, the commissioner’s recommendations to Government help to ensure that veterans’ voices are part of policy development.

The new commissioner is currently involved in the hearing veterans’ voices initiative, which seeks to develop better ways of engaging directly with veterans and their families. That will help to build on the work that has been done by the Scottish Government to engage with the veterans community in developing and refreshing our decisions strategy and action plan, as will our regular engagement with veterans stakeholders to ensure that the issues that veterans face are heard and understood.

Police Officers (Mental Health)

Sharon Dowey (Conservative, South Scotland)

7. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to support the mental health of police officers. (S6O-01754)

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

The Scottish Government welcomes the preventative approach, including proactive measures such as wellbeing assessments, that Police Scotland is adopting to support the health and wellbeing of its workforce.

Police officers and staff can access a range of services to care for their psychological, physical, social and financial wellbeing through Police Scotland’s “Your wellbeing matters” programme. Through the trauma risk management programme, post-trauma support is offered to all officers and staff who are directly involved in potentially traumatic incidents. Police Scotland has also signed up to the mental health at work commitment and standards.

Sharon Dowey (Conservative, South Scotland)

Police officers are often the first to arrive at murder scenes, abuse incidents, suicides and road traffic accidents. In 2021-22, officers and staff in the force missed 76,848 days due to psychological disorders. Given the reports of burn-out, low morale and high turnover among officers, what further steps is the Scottish Government taking to address the mental health challenges that face police officers? Can the Scottish Government update officers on how its proposed police complaints and misconduct handling bill will address the mental health problems that can be caused for officers when police complaints go unresolved for long periods?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

I have previously laid out in the chamber what else we are doing, and I will do so again as we move through the bill process for the police complaints standards initiative that we are taking forward in the proposed bill. The mental health at work commitment standards have, as I mentioned, been signed up to by Police Scotland. They include prioritisation of mental health in the workplace and the taking of a proactive approach to organisational culture—to go back to Sharon Dowey’s point about the forthcoming bill—in order to drive positive mental health outcomes. Those form part of Blue Light Together’s package of support to change workplace culture with regard to mental health and to provide specialist mental health support to emergency responders and their families.

Police Scotland is also working with Lifelines Scotland to provide mental health and wellbeing training, which aims to raise awareness and to support the emotional and psychological wellbeing of the police workforce.

Audrey Nicoll (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen South and North Kincardine)

I am pleased that the Criminal Justice Committee held a meeting with Police Scotland officers to discuss the issue last year. More recently, the Scottish Police Authority hosted a conference on mental health and policing. Both provided valuable insight into the challenges of policing, and of the mental health and mental wellbeing of officers and staff.

I welcome the increase in the police budget, which reflects that policing is a priority for this Government. Does the cabinet secretary agree that the higher pay for officers in Scotland shows that the Scottish Government recognises the hard work and utter commitment of our police officers?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

Absolutely. I am not trying to pretend that just being better paid than police officers in other jurisdictions is enough to deal with some of the mental health pressures—of course that is not the case. However, our officers are the best paid in the United Kingdom, and we recognise the hard work and dedication of the police workforce across Scotland. The starting salary for a constable here is around £5,000 more than it is in England and Wales.

In recognition of the importance of policing, we will provide an additional £80 million to the Scottish Police Authority in 2023-24, which will take the police budget to £1.45 billion. That additional funding will continue to ensure that there is a stable basis from which to improve delivery of policing and to enhance the safety and security of communities across Scotland.

Foysol Choudhury (Labour, Lothian)

In June 2022, I asked the First Minister what action the Scottish Government would take to support police officers who were struggling with the cost of living crisis. The First Minister responded by saying:

“we will continue to value them not just in rhetoric but in action.”—[

Official Report

, 30 June 2022; c 21.]

Will the cabinet secretary please outline what action has since been taken to support police officers with the cost of living crisis to mitigate the potential impact of financial strain on their mental health?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

There are two points to make in answer to Mr Choudhury’s question. The first is that, as I have mentioned, some of the mental health support also covers

support with regard to financial issues. It is very important that police officers are not subjected to extreme financial pressures because of the other dangers of that, particularly in relation to the police’s role. That is done within the police—Police Scotland is the employer and it provides that support.

The Government provides support by making sure that we have the best-paid police officers in the UK. I mentioned that the lowest level—a starting police constable—receives £5,000 a year more than they would in the rest of the UK. That is a substantial amount more than is paid elsewhere. I am not saying that it is the complete answer, but it will help with the cost of living crisis. We will continue to make sure that we support our police officers to a greater extent than we see officers being supported elsewhere in the UK.

Scottish Fire and Rescue Service (Estate)

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

8. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service estate. (S6O-01755)

Elena Whitham (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

Currently, the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service has 357 fire stations, which provide fire and rescue cover to communities across Scotland.

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

Let me give the minister an update, in the absence of one from people on the centre benches. Of those 357 stations, 220 are in poor or bad condition, 150 do not have any shower facilities, 100 lack drying facilities, and 11 have no water supply at all. Is it any wonder that our firefighters in Scotland are 600 times more likely than the wider population to suffer from certain cancers? None of us in this room would work in such conditions; why should our firefighters?

Elena Whitham (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

Jamie Greene raises very important points, of which I am well aware. We have committed to increasing the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service resource budget by £10 million this coming year, and we have protected the capital budget as much as we could.

It is worth noting that, when we merged the former services into one service, that came with a £389 million capital backlog. I will make sure to engage with the service and the Fire Brigades Union in the short term about their priorities for the buildings, fleet and equipment.

Collette Stevenson (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride)

Almost £3.4 billion in funding across the justice system was announced as part of the 2023-24 budget to fund vital front-line services. How will that investment support the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service to deliver the high standard of services that are required to keep Scotland safe?

Elena Whitham (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

As I mentioned, the draft 2023-24 budget includes a £10 million increase to the resource budget for the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service to support service delivery and reform. That will bring the total budget to £362.7 million, which is more than £55.3 million higher than the budget for 2017-18.

Maggie Chapman (Green, North East Scotland)

A research study of emergency service staff in Scotland, t

he results of which were published on Tuesday, found that firefighters’ cancer mortality rate is 1.6 times higher than that of others, which is likely due to exposure to toxic substances while on the job. The World Health Organization classifies firefighting as a carcinogenic profession.

Firefighters deserve the best preventative medical care, education, and support to reduce their risk of cancer, but they also need the right equipment and facilities to enable them to properly decontaminate after attending fires. Will the minister commit to producing a plan of action to upgrade facilities and infrastructure at fire stations across Scotland to ensure that those front-line workers have what they need to be safe?

Elena Whitham (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

I know that Maggie Chapman, like Jamie Greene, has a keen interest in the matter—as do I. Both the Scottish Government and the

Scottish Fire and Rescue Service set as a high priority protection of the safety and wellbeing of firefighters. I know that the SFRS is taking action across all aspects of operations to reduce exposure to contaminants, which includes investment in new fire appliances and facilities. I am keen to engage with it and the FBU on the issue. Difficult decisions have had to be taken on allocation of the finite capital budget that is available to the Scottish Government but—as I said—we have protected the capital budget for the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service as far as possible.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

That concludes portfolio questions on justice and veterans. There will be a short pause before we move on to the next item of business.

National Planning Framework 4

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-07442, in the name of Tom Arthur, on the fourth national planning framework. I would be grateful if members who wish to speak were to press their request-to-speak buttons now. I call Tom Arthur to speak to and move the motion for up to 13 minutes.

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

I am delighted to open this afternoon’s debate on Scotland’s fourth national planning framework.

We are in a somewhat novel situation, with Parliament having created a statutory role for itself in approving the final version of the framework without then specifying what that role should involve. Thankfully, we have managed to work it out for ourselves.

I was pleased to lay before Parliament the revised draft of the

fourth national planning framework—or NPF4, as we all know it—on 8 November 2022.

There was then more parliamentary scrutiny led by the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee, at which I and other stakeholders gave evidence. The committee has now published its report, and this debate represents the final part of the process. I hope that Parliament comes together later this afternoon to unanimously approve NPF4.

During the process, people told us that, although they broadly supported the draft NPF4, there was scope to significantly improve the policies, the practicality and, importantly, the clarity of intent of the document. I gave my commitment that the Government would take its time and consider carefully the views expressed by the Parliament and by everyone who responded to the consultation—and that I would make sure we get it right and return with a revised NPF4.

That is what we have done. I am pleased that the committee recognises that and welcomes the revised draft and the improvements that we have made.

We listened, we reconsidered and we acted on what people told us. In that, I warmly welcome the committee’s conclusion that

“It is clear ... that the Scottish Government has listened to the comments of the Committee and stakeholders”.

Yes, we did, and the revised NPF4 is so much the better for it.

I also welcome the committee’s intention to monitor delivery, and I very much look forward to continuing to engage with the committee on that in the months and years ahead.

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

In light of the minister’s opening remarks, does he accept that there has been a substantial change between the first draft and the revised draft of the NPF in the way that wild land areas are treated, which moves away from a presumption against development in wild land areas? Can he tell us who has been lobbying him to make that U-turn, and can he give us clarity now on what that means?

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

I would, in the first instance, refer the member to the explanatory report that we published in November along with the revised draft of NPF4. It sets out in considerable detail how the consultation process led to the changes that we have made.

What we have seen is a strengthening of the policy that is absolutely consistent with our ambition to put climate and nature at the centre of Scotland’s planning system.

The delivery programme that we published alongside our revised NPF4 in November is, so to speak, a first edition. It is very much intended as a live document, to be constantly actioned, reviewed and updated. It will play a crucial role in bringing together all of the actions to support NPF4’s delivery. It sets out an approach to governance, to new legislation and guidance, to facilitation of investment in development, and to the vital monitoring of progress that will inform future actions and subsequent iterations of the programme. I have already committed to undertaking the first review of the NPF4 delivery programme after six months, and then annually thereafter, to ensure that we get off to a strong start and then maintain the momentum throughout the lifetime of NPF4.

I also note the concerns that the committee heard about getting the balance right where there appear to be potential conflicts between certain policy areas. That balance will be key. However, in essence, is that not what planning has always been about—seeking to get the right decisions about how we manage and develop places to meet a range of policy needs? Those tensions are inherent in the very concept of planning.

Yet, if we are to deliver on this Government’s ambition to make Scotland fairer, greener and more prosperous, it is right that we prioritise key, national policy objectives through the framework’s policies. As I have stated, it was always our intention to put climate and nature front and centre in our planning system. Having listened to calls for greater clarity and strength on that, we introduce in NPF4 a new national planning policy number 1 to ensure that, in all planning decisions, significant weight will be given to the climate and nature crises. That new policy sets out our intention to ensure that positive action is embedded right across the planning system.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

The NPF4 refers to the fact that the A9 and A96 will be improved for reasons of safety. However, one word is conspicuous by its absence from the text, namely the sole word “dualling”. The Scottish Government has commitments to dual the A9 from Perth to Inverness and the A96, in my constituency, from Inverness to Nairn. Can the minister confirm that the absence of a reference to dualling in this planning document implies no dilution of that commitment and that it remains absolutely rock solid?

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

I am very grateful to Mr Ewing for the intervention. I am absolutely delighted to give him that commitment, on the record, here in Parliament.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Will the minister give way?

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

Very briefly. I have a lot to get through.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Fergus Ewing mentioned the A96 between Inverness and Nairn. Can the minister commit that the A96 will be fully dualled between Inverness and Aberdeen?

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

The commitments that the Government has made on dualling of the A9 and the A96 remain. Considerable work is being undertaken to ensure that we can deliver on those commitments.

It was always our intention to ensure that climate and nature were front and centre in our planning system, and we understand what that means for future developments across Scotland. NPF4 does not shy away from the hard decisions that we will have to make about our future, but it enables different opportunities to be realised that will transform our economy and society, such as the redevelopment of renewable energy technologies. NPF4 will support the sustainable growth of the renewables sector while continuing to protect our most valued natural assets and cultural heritage.

I welcome the comment from Scottish Renewables that recognises the revised draft NPF4 as

“one of the most supportive planning regimes for renewable energy in Europe.”

However, that does not mean any development in any place. Wind energy is not being supported in national parks and national scenic areas. Drawing on consultation responses, we have, as was touched on earlier, included a more explicit policy position on wild land, subject to an impact assessment and appropriate mitigation, management measures and monitoring. That also recognises that wild land areas are partly included in national scenic areas and national parks. Wider NPF4 policies also include protections for peatland, nature conservation sites and protected historical assets.

Another key objective of NPF4 is to help people live well locally in the future, by embedding the principles of local living and 20-minute neighbourhoods into how we design and create places and communities. I note some stakeholders’ concerns that that approach might result in the entrenchment of inequalities in neighbourhoods, but is that not what the current system—as well as much wider social and economic change over time—has inadvertently resulted in, particularly in many urban areas?

Our fresh approach to spatial planning will allow us to create places that have improved access to the facilities and amenities that people require in their daily lives and which support thriving, sustainable, healthy communities and protect and enhance our environment. The aim is to create more balanced, diverse communities and neighbourhoods.

However, I acknowledge the need for clarity on how the local living and 20-minute neighbourhoods approaches can be applied in rural settings. Scotland’s geography and population sparsity demand that the application of the template differs according to the unique circumstances, opportunities and aspirations of individual places.

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

I am afraid that I do not have time, but I am happy to take an intervention when I conclude the debate.

To support that important principle for new development, we will publish and invite views on new guidance on local living and 20-minute neighbourhoods.

It will take extensive collaboration and commitment across sectors to deliver NPF4. Local authorities are key partners. The strength of NPF4 is in connecting planning with wider work, through the place principle, which involves everyone. To aid that work, a new planning, infrastructure and place advisory group is being established to oversee the delivery and support the implementation of NPF4.

The committee rightly highlighted concerns about capacity and skills, and we are already acting to address those issues. Last April, I increased planning fees to provide additional resource for planning services across Scotland, and a further increase was implemented last month to support the assessment of applications under the Electricity Act 1989. I have been working closely with the high-level group on planning performance to explore how planning fees can move towards full cost recovery, in order to more accurately cover the cost of handling applications.

However, funding is only one part of the solution. I agree with the committee that

“all endeavours must be made to ensure that there are sufficient numbers of planners in place to deliver on the ambitions of NPF4.”

Work is already under way with the high-level group to enhance people resources and skills. The future planners project, which sets out a number of practical actions, is a good example of that. I am also liaising with the relevant Government ministers to ensure that planning features in the recently announced skills review and as part of our green skills activity.

I also note that, in its conclusion, the committee states that

“It is not satisfactory to simply assume that planning policy is now set for ten years and can be left as it is”.

I assure Parliament that no such assumption has been made by me or this Government. This year, we will bring forward regulations that will set out how we can make changes to NPF4 in the future.

NPF4 is not an aspirational document; it is a plan for action, to be proactively pursued and delivered. If approved today, and once adopted, NPF4 will form part of the statutory development plan and have a substantial influence on all planning decisions.

Should the Parliament give its approval to NPF4, the Government will move quickly to adopt it next month. I will first lay regulations in the Parliament to commence the provisions of the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019 so that NPF4 becomes part of the statutory development plan immediately following its adoption. I can confirm that, prior to adoption, we will also issue transitional guidance to help to smooth the shift from the old system to the new one over the early weeks and months. In the coming weeks, I will also lay regulations and publish related guidance that will pave the way for the new-style local development plans that will sit alongside NPF4.

It is important to remember that NPF4 is one part of a wider statutory development plan. In all cases, NPF4 will be taken together with local development plans to form the basis of decisions, and decision makers will also take into account material considerations. With those intrinsic links between planning policy at both the national and local levels, the detailed reforms to local development planning, alongside NPF4, will set the arrangements for producing stronger place-focused plans and will reinforce the plan-led system.

There is no doubt that there is a lot still to do to turn NPF4 from good intentions into reality. Although much of planning is procedural and practical by its very nature, we risk losing sight of its purpose if we focus solely on its component parts. Planning is far from prosaic. It helps to form the very foundation of policy making. From it, all else flows.

Planning is undoubtedly about place, but it is also about people. It defines and enables development in every aspect of our lives. It informs the where, what and how of living, working and travelling. It plays a crucial role in attracting investment and in facilitating the type of development that we will need in order to build a wellbeing economy, and, by necessity, it deems what we should not do, where we should not do it and how to prevent undesirable development.

The Presiding Officer

You must conclude, minister.

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

That

last aspect is crucial to a country such as Scotland, where we are blessed with a rich and abundant natural environment and landscape. We have assets that are worth protecting and nurturing, and they will help us to effectively tackle the twin crises of nature and climate, while creating new economic and social opportunities for future generations.

The Presiding Officer

Thank you, minister. I must ask you to conclude at that point.

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

In conclusion,

the fourth national planning framework seeks to further our ambition for Scotland—

The Presiding Officer

Minister, please conclude now.

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

—

to be a fairer, greener and more prosperous country by changing how people in Scotland will live in the future through planning.

The Presiding Officer

Please conclude, minister.

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

I am proud to move,

That the Parliament gives its approval, as required by section 3CA(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, to the draft revised National Planning Framework 4 laid in the Parliament by the Scottish Government on 8 November 2022, enabling the Scottish Ministers to proceed to adopt and publish the Framework in accordance with the provisions of that Act.

The Presiding Officer

I call Ariane Burgess to speak on behalf of the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee.

Ariane Burgess (Green, Highlands and Islands)

Thank you, Presiding Officer, for giving me the opportunity to contribute to the debate, in my capacity as convener of the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee, by underscoring a few points that the committee has made.

Today, the Parliament is invited to approve NPF4, but that should not be seen as the end of the process of parliamentary scrutiny. The critical part of NPF4 will be how it works in practice. Throughout the session, as a committee, we will continue to hold the Scottish Government to account on the effectiveness of NPF4.

Although we are yet to see the impact of NPF4, the committee welcomes the improved clarity and consistency in the document—in particular, its focus on the climate and biodiversity emergencies. It is clear to the committee that the Scottish Government has listened to the comments of the Parliament’s committees and stakeholders, and the minister and his officials should be hugely commended for their efforts.

Although this draft reflects a significant improvement on the previous draft, stakeholders have highlighted to us ways in which it could be further improved. Although the minister has been clear that this will be the final draft, we welcome his commitment to consider changes and updates following implementation. The test will now be in how NPF4 is implemented and whether it delivers its ambitions.

The committee welcomed the delivery programme that accompanied the draft. However, we had very limited time to consider it and, therefore, we welcome the opportunity to revisit the programme in six months’ time. We will also be closely scrutinising its effect throughout the parliamentary session.

Most critical, if the ambitions of NPF4 are to be fully realised, we need properly resourced and staffed planning departments. The absence of a sufficient number of planners is clearly the greatest obstacle to the delivery of NPF4. However, it is not just a case of having more planners; it is about having planners with the necessary skills—such as expertise in climate and biodiversity planning—to deliver on NPF4. I was therefore heartened to hear the actions that the minister is taking to ensure that there are sufficient planners in place and with the right skills to deliver on the ambitions. We will be closely monitoring that.

NPF4, as conceived, should have a transformational impact on Scotland. For that to happen, it should impact all aspects of life. If that is to be achieved, the Scottish Government needs to adopt a cross-cutting approach. The committee notes that, in Ireland, cabinet ministers must set out how their departments intend to deliver policies that are set out in their equivalent framework, and we would welcome a similar commitment from the Scottish Government.

The success of NPF4 is also reliant on how it is translated into local development plans by planning authorities. The guidance and regulations on local development plans must be brought forward as a matter of urgency. I would welcome an update from the minister on when we should expect to see guidance and regulations.

As I said previously, this is not the end of the process of parliamentary scrutiny of NPF4. We welcome the minister’s commitment to lay an annual report before Parliament, and we will scrutinise that report. We are also keen to hear from all stakeholders on their experience of NPF4 and the extent to which it is achieving its intended outcomes. In particular, we will be keen to hear from local communities about how they are able to shape the places in which they live through local place plans.

This is a much improved document and one that provides a sound foundation for shaping Scotland for the next 10 years. However, we have a long journey ahead to ensure that it makes the transformational change that it seeks to achieve, and the committee will closely monitor the effectiveness of NPF4 in making that change.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

Without wanting this to sound like an Oscar awards speech, I start by thanking the clerks of the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee for their help and support during the passage of NPF4 through Parliament, as well as the hundreds of individuals, charities, interested parties and organisations that have provided incredibly helpful briefings and input in trying to improve NPF4. It has been a pleasure—I am sure that the minister agrees—to engage with all those people, who have a passion for our planning system and really want to contribute to the conversation on how to improve it.

From the outset, we, on these benches, have engaged constructively, and I welcome the fact that the Scottish Government has made many changes. I specifically put on record my thanks to the minister for the positive approach to discussions that he has had, which has been—sadly—a refreshing change from how the Parliament sometimes operates. Indeed, in recent years, we have seen limited outreach from Scottish Government ministers following the Bute house agreement and the formation of a Scottish National Party-Green majority Government. I hope that we see a change in that situation after this new year. I put on record my thanks to the minister for how he has conducted himself during the passage of NPF4.

We all recognise the importance of tackling both the climate emergency and the nature crisis through our planning system. However, from the outset, I have called for the housing emergency to be central to the development of the new NPF4 if we are truly to ensure that Scotland’s housing needs are met in the future. As Homes for Scotland says in its briefing, it

“remains disappointed that the housing crisis is not specifically mentioned”

and is

“concerned over the seeming lack of ambition”

in NPF4

“to address it.”

It is most likely that housing—whether private or social—will be delivered in spite of NPF4 rather than because of it, with underwhelming minimum all-tenure housing land requirements doing little to drive forward the number of new homes that Scotland requires.

To date, we have seen a lack of transitional guidance, which risks causing considerable unnecessary delay to applications that are already in the planning system and to decisions on those applications.

The fact is that the SNP-Green Government has failed to address Scotland’s housing crisis, which is making it harder for people to get on the property ladder and get the homes that they need. The Scottish Government’s latest housing statistics, for example, reveal that housing completions across all tenures in Scotland are still below pre-Covid levels.

Why does putting the housing crisis in NPF4 matter? Today, there are 28,000 homeless households across Scotland—32,592 adults and 14,372 children are registered homeless. I hoped that NPF4 could help to address that situation and could ensure that our focus is not just on the climate and nature emergency, but also on the housing crisis. I do not think that we have achieved that, which is disappointing.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

On the issue of housing, does the member agree that, although the content of NPF4 in respect of housing in rural Scotland is, to some extent, to be welcomed, it is still very restrictive and very caveated, that it is very difficult to build houses in rural Scotland and that there are strong arguments that rural Scotland—farmers, in particular—can do much more to address the housing crisis, which I think we all agree is a serious one for Scotland?

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

I absolutely agree with that point. A key aspect that needs to be addressed is that, given the additional costs faced by small-scale builders, many of which might not survive any coming recession, we need to look at the potential for more small-scale investments to be supported. I would like there to be a rural homes delivery agency to drive forward progress on the targets in the way that Fergus Ewing mentioned.

NPF4 has the potential to help to drive sustainable growth and deliver new jobs in key sectors, especially in the renewables sector, where we have seen a shift, which I welcome. However, I am concerned that the housing sector could be impacted negatively by NPF4, as Fergus Ewing indicated. I have outlined to the minister on a number of occasions my concern about future land supply. There is still no mechanism in NPF4 for fixing a land pipeline that is underdelivering if longer-term sites cannot be found to fill the gap. It is unclear how an underdelivering pipeline can or will allow further land to be found in the event that there are no deliverable brownfield sites.

I do not want to rehearse the arguments that I have made in relation to Edinburgh, but there is real concern that most development sites that we have in NPF4 and in local plans in Edinburgh are currently being used by viable businesses such as car dealerships. There are such businesses throughout the Seafield part of the city, which I represent. The sites in that area are allocated for housing, but there is no future development plan showing where those businesses are meant to go in order to allow those houses to be realised. Ministers must look at how that will be delivered.

Planning policy should be clear, concise and written in such a way as to not allow or result in misinterpretation. I hope that the minister has taken on board the key concerns that businesses have outlined in that respect. There continue to be concerns over a number of specific policy areas, including the inclusion of policy 27(d), which is unnecessarily restrictive and puts at risk future job creation. Although I welcome the comments that the minister made in committee about working to make sure that that policy is not misinterpreted, the guidance will need to provide clarity and must be sufficiently specific in order not to result in unintended consequences.

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

I said in committee that I would meet stakeholders. I have met stakeholders, including a large organisation that has many drive-through premises, and I have committed to my officials working together with their team to ensure that we get the guidance on that absolutely correct. My officials will—as will I—meet other representatives of sectors that are affected by the policy in question. I give the reassurance that we are actively taking forward the commitment that I gave.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

I very much welcome that. To avoid unintended consequences of any policy that the Parliament introduces, it is important that the guidance does not result in a potential slowdown in the economy or in job creation. None of us would want that to happen.

We also want there to be a better focus in the planning system on the delivery of community projects and infrastructure. In Edinburgh, I have been campaigning to take forward the development of an urban greenway along the old Powderhall site. From the outset, NPF4 should have provided an opportunity to make it easier for communities to pursue planning applications for such developments. That has not really happened, and I would like there to be more focus on that. The minister said that he is willing to consider having more consultation on how we can transform that situation and give communities the opportunity to present their own plans for the development of infrastructure. I do not think that that has been captured in NPF4. The minister has touched on the issue and I hope that there will be more focus on it in the future.

The Royal Town Planning Institute Scotland and Planning Democracy have made it clear that we can deliver proper planning only by having properly resourced local authorities. I welcome what the minister said about planning departments and the funding of planners. However, the sad fact is that many planning departments are underfunded and understaffed at present, and their budgets have been allowed to be cut over many years. We can see the consequences of that situation. That must change, and I welcome what the minister said about that.

I do not think that anyone believes that the passing of NPF4 today will signal the delivery of the planning system that Scotland needs to meet all the challenges that communities currently face. The delivery of the plan will be possible only through system change, as the convener outlined in her remarks. NPF4 should be a key document that influences the Scottish Government’s decision making across all portfolios—most importantly, perhaps, the health portfolio—and that serves as a core for future policy development in Scotland.

The devil will always be in the detail. I hope that the minister will now work to deliver the critical guidance that industry asks for and communities demand, and that we can see the flexibility that will ensure that any potentially needed changes and fixes are brought forward as soon as possible.

The Presiding Officer

Please conclude, Mr Briggs.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

Although I welcome much of what has been changed in NPF4, it is not acceptable in its current form, and therefore the Scottish Conservatives will not support it at decision time.

Mark Griffin (Labour, Central Scotland)

NPF4 is a vitally important document—not for Parliament or Government, but for the communities, local decision makers and businesses that desperately need long-overdue detail about how planning will work for the next decade.

I echo the thanks for the considerable input from stakeholders—especially the communities most affected by the planning framework—that has got us to this point, as well as for the work of the committee clerks, the minister and officials.

Organisations such as the RSPB, Homes for Scotland, Heads of Planning Scotland and Scottish Renewables have welcomed the significant improvements since the first draft. The revised draft delivered necessary improvements to structure and readability, and to the clarity and consistency of policies and the flexibility around them. As we set out at committee, the original draft was not the greatest.

The committee concluded that

“there are still elements of NPF4 that could be improved”,

that a cross-Government approach to implementation is still found wanting, and that a decimated planning profession lacks a pipeline to deliver on the ambition in the framework.

We have heard reports that one of our higher education institutes will be ending its undergraduate planning programme, which will leave only a single higher education institute in this country with a planning school. If that comes to pass, that will put even more pressure on the pipeline of planning professionals.

Our most fundamental concern is that the framework does not do enough to tackle Scotland’s housing crisis. The fact is that we need to build more homes, because our housing crisis has got worse since the previous framework, not better.

We need to build more homes that are warmer, safer and more accessible for an ageing, changing population in which people are living alone in greater numbers. That needs to be done while balancing the views of local people and protecting our natural and existing environment.

Homes must be built in greater numbers, because too few have been built for years now. Under the previous Government, an average of about 24,000 homes were built each year by both the private and social sectors. Despite the Government’s ambitious affordable housing supply programme, barely 18,000 new homes a year have been built since the previous framework was introduced.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

I agree with what Mark Griffin is saying about the numbers of homes, but the types of homes are also critically important. A freedom of information request by the Scottish Conservatives has shown that there are 24,000 disabled people on housing waiting lists. That is up from 9,700 in 2017. The types of houses need to change, and we have not really seen that in NPF4.

Mark Griffin (Labour, Central Scotland)

Absolutely. That is the point that I made about the changing demographics of this country. We have an ageing population of people who are living alone more and more, and we do not seem to reflect that change or the needs of our disabled population when planning the houses of the future.

The NPF4 document does not offer a great deal of comfort

to the 180,000 households who are on a waiting list for a home or the 30,000 households assessed as being homeless or threatened with homelessness last year.

One element of the housing market is that, since the previous framework was approved, the number of homes that are empty on a long-term basis has grown by 12,000—so 12,000 more homes have been taken out of the property market. If we include second homes and short-term lets, we find that 3 per cent of homes are not being used for their primary purpose—that is, for people to live in—so we have to build more to compensate for that.

The lack of housing is an issue that my constituents in Central Scotland raise week after week. They see the connections when policies such as NPF4 are launched. They see that the housing crisis seems not to be given the recognition that it deserves. They see family homes lying empty. Homes that their sons, daughters, nieces, nephews or friends could be living in right now are going to waste.

Much is made of 20-minute neighbourhoods in the framework. That is an admirable objective, but my constituents want homes near their support networks and families, who can help with childcare or drop in with some messages or for a quick catch-up. That is what makes things easier for people and makes for a better quality of life.

When the revised draft was published, I asked the minister why the Government had dismissed concerns that the all-tenure housing targets are based on historical, secondary data, which was gathered through the housing need and demand assessment process. The process is not robust or evidence based. It is estimated that up to 86,000 households, particularly households of young adults who are still living at home but want to get their own homes, have not been counted. They might be concealed households, living in their childhood bedrooms, or overcrowded households, in a home that is too small for the adults who live in it. The crucial point is that such households are not counted unless they are both concealed and overcrowded. That leads to a huge undercounting.

It is estimated that about 1 million households are uncounted in England, so the problem is not unique to Scotland. However, it is a problem that we have not addressed. The Government asserts that the HNDA tool is the optimum tool at its disposal and that the minimum land requirement is simply a minimum, with planning authorities expected to go beyond those numbers. However, it ignores the fact that the numbers are treated as targets. The result is a lack of robust data, which means that inappropriate developments can be driven like a horse and cart through local development plans.

We will support the motion on NPF4 at decision time, but we are clear that it is by no means a finished document. We look forward to scrutinising the transitional guidance that the minister has committed to produce.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

This has not been independently verified but, if there was a prize for the most passionate and enthusiastic Holyrood planning minister ever, I think that Tom Arthur would get the award. He made a comprehensive and passionate speech earlier and I admire him for that, because this is a difficult policy area that involves myriad documents from all parts of Government. He has to try to bring all that together—his passion is needed to make that work.

The NPF process has been ratcheted up in the two decades since it was created. It has more weight and significance now, and the power that it gives to central Government is much greater than it was when the process began. I am cautious about that. I am not necessarily against the measures in the document, but I am cautious about the transfer of power from local communities and local authorities to the centre. It is good to encourage and spread good practice but, as a Liberal, I am anxious about approaches becoming statutory and centralised. Over time, we must check ourselves when it comes to the accumulation of powers to the Parliament and the Government. However, the significant weight given to the global climate change and nature crises is a significant change that should be welcomed.

To achieve what is wanted, we will need to have robust policy that gives confidence to not only councillors but planners to make the right decisions. They already face challenging decisions, so to add to their area of required expertise will make things more challenging.

That adds emphasis to the points that other members have made about the resourcing and expertise of planning departments. It is not as if the nature and climate crises have not been a factor for planners before, but the greater emphasis now requires greater expertise. As we all know, planning departments have been bedevilled for years by the lack of experience, constant turnover and shortage of staff. Some of the lead times for planning applications go on for ever, which does not give anybody great confidence.

The minister set out that he has a high-level group that will make some real changes, and difficult decisions will have to be made on full cost recovery, if we are going to pursue that. How can we make sure that we keep the best planners in planning departments and that they are not attracted to go off to work in construction companies, which often offer better pay than planning departments ever could? I hope that there is a change, because getting the 600 to 700 extra staff it is estimated that we require will be a big challenge for the high-level group to achieve.

After the statement in November, I asked a question about permitted development rights. The minister replied enthusiastically—as he always does—that he is making real progress on permitted development rights for renewables, particularly solar. I hope that, in summing up, the minister makes reference to the progress that he has made. He said that an update on progress would be available early in the new year. This is the new year, and it is early.

A business called Metaflake in Anstruther is keen to put solar panels of more than 50kW on its roof, but it has to apply for planning permission and pay extra business rates. Those are two disincentives. I know that the second one is changing, but that should not be the case. England has been marching ahead on the matter for some time. It has greater limits for solar across its policy areas. I hope that the minister will respond positively on that.

The minister is right when he says that planning is all about competing demands. It is about meeting various competing demands, but they are even greater now. Building homes on brownfield sites can often be expensive—let us be blunt about that. They are difficult-to-access areas, and perhaps land needs to be reclaimed or cleaned up. The environmental costs of that are not cheap.

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

I take Willie Rennie’s point that it is difficult to build on brownfield sites. That is one of the challenges that I have found. Does he agree that we need to enable our laws to support local authorities to do whatever they can to address brownfield sites?

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

Emma Harper is absolutely right. The challenge is what we do. To be blunt, some of those sites require extra money, because they would not wash their face financially if it was left to the open market. Will Government funds be used to incentivise companies to build in difficult-to-build areas?

That includes flats above shops. We would have thought that those flats would be full of people. There is nothing to stop those properties being developed, so why are they not getting done? That is because that is difficult and expensive, and there are security issues. There are planning restrictions on the frontage of the buildings that mean that developing them is more expensive. Rather than putting extra burdens and requirements on them, what will the state do to incentivise that development to happen?

We will produce more documents like NPF4 for decades on end, but nothing will actually change.

The Presiding Officer

You must conclude, Mr Rennie.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I have a lot more to say, but I will stop.

We need to review the document. The ideals are brilliant, and I embrace an awful lot of them, but the deliverability will be an awful lot more challenging. That is the message from today, and I am sure that the minister, with all his passion, will be able to deliver.

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

I am delighted to speak in this afternoon’s debate as a member of the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee. The committee has held numerous evidence sessions, received many briefings and held many individual meetings during the past year or so. I thank the minister, Tom Arthur, for the open and consultative approach that he has taken to get the national planning framework 4 to this stage. I also thank the chief planner, Dr Fiona Simpson, and her colleagues for their support, as well as my fellow committee members and the committee clerks.

We cannot overestimate the impact of NPF4 on Scotland’s economy and its climate. I am disappointed that the Tories are not supporting the motion, as the committee’s approach has been very collaborative. Willie Rennie touched on the point that NPF4 is a document but there are many policies around it, such as HNDA and the minimum all-tenure housing land requirement, which we have talked about. The committee is aware of the process and its role in that, and the minister is also aware of that.

One of the key issues is how all of that fits into the national strategy for economic transformation, which states:

“Scotland has extraordinary economic potential. Our natural resources, heritage, talent, creativity, academic institutions and business base in both established and emerging sectors are the envy of many across the world.

Every citizen holds Scotland’s economic potential in their hands. Our economic growth and prosperity over many decades has been the result of entrepreneurial, talented and motivated workers in every sector”.

NPF4 has to give us the right balance to enable us to fulfil that. It is important to note that NPF4 will raise the framework for local development plans. That is the next stage and, again, it will drive forward local economies.

The foreword to the strategy goes on to say:

“This strategy recognises the opportunities and the challenges facing Scotland. It sets out how, over the next ten years, we aim to deliver economic growth that significantly outperforms the last decade, so that the Scottish economy is more prosperous, more productive and more internationally competitive.”

It says that the Scottish Government will do that

“in collaboration with ... other partners, building on our strengths in sectors like energy”

and housing, as we have heard. It also says that we will look out for new opportunities in

“technology, space and decarbonisation.”

To achieve the objectives that are set out in the national strategy, we need a national planning framework that sits alongside it and will help Scotland to become a more prosperous and greener independent country, and NPF4 will continue to do that.

I want to focus on a few issues in the time that I have left, and the first is renewables. Yesterday, the Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero, Energy and Transport, Michael Matheson, stated:

“We are at a pivotal point in Scotland’s transition to net zero and the strategy charts a clear course for the transformation of the energy sector—one of Scotland’s most important industries—to 2030 and beyond. That transition must be achieved in a way that delivers for the people of Scotland to enable us to embrace the opportunities of a green economy.

This is a time of unprecedented uncertainty in global and national energy markets. High energy prices are impacting people, communities and businesses across Scotland.”—[

Official Report

, 10 January 2023; c 48.]

I agree with him. We need to have energy security and to grow the sector, and the NPF needs to be able to support that.

Earlier, we heard from the minister about the endorsement of Scottish renewables. Scotland’s rich renewable resources mean that we can not only generate enough cheap, green electricity to power Scotland’s economy, but generate a surplus and open new economic opportunities for export. I believe that NPF4 will allow that through its support for renewables.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

The member is talking about a very important aspect of NPF4. Will he acknowledge the work that the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee has done to identify and provide additional advice and push the Government to support the renewables sector a bit further? Only this morning, that was supported by Claire Mack, chief executive of Scottish Renewables, when she gave evidence to the Economy and Fair Work Committee, which is also taking a keen interest in the issue.

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

Absolutely. One of the key aspects of our consideration of NPF4 was to seek input from other committees such as the

Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee

, and the minister has taken a collaborative approach. I note the endorsement from Claire Mack.

The other important issue that I want to mention is climate change. Part 1 of NPF4, which is entitled “A National Spatial Strategy for Scotland 2045”, states:

“The world is facing unprecedented challenges. The global climate emergency means that we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to the future impacts of climate change. We will need to respond to a growing nature crisis”.

In his opening remarks, the minister talked about the importance of tackling climate change in moving that forward, and he also talked about biodiversity.

The NPF4 goes on to say:

“Scotland’s rich heritage, culture and outstanding environment are national assets that support our economy identity, health, and wellbeing. Many communities benefit from great places with excellent quality of life and quality, affordable homes. Many people can easily access high quality local greenspaces and neighbourhood facilities, safe and welcoming streets and spaces and buildings that reflect diverse cultures and aspirations.”

We have already talked about 20-minute neighbourhoods, which the document also mentions. I believe that NPF4 gives us the opportunity to deliver the change that we need.

On Monday, I met the Royal Town Planning Institute to discuss resource. The RTPI previously gave evidence to the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee and it sent us a briefing for today’s debate. It estimates that, over the next 10 to 15 years,

“the planning sector will have demand for an additional 680 - 730 entrants into the sector”.

That additional resource would support not only economic development in our areas and in relation to housing, but the renewables sector, which is incredibly important. I know that the minister is well aware of those issues.

One of the key things that the RTPI talks about is the need for the Scottish Government to

“provide additional resource and enhanced support”.

It wants to ensure that planning fees, which the minister talked about, are ring fenced and used to support planning purposes. It also wants the Scottish Government to

“increase planning fees to ensure they meet ... costs, or introduce a subsidy for planning authorities to overcome this shortfall”.

I know that the minister recognises the need for additional resource and is engaging with the RTPI and others on that issue.

The minister also mentioned the committee’s desire to monitor NPF4 on an on-going basis. We are discussing with him how we can continue to monitor it over the next 10 years. It is a working document, so how we will monitor it and work with the minister on it is an important matter.

The national planning framework 4 will help us to deliver a more prosperous, fairer, greener and more inclusive Scotland, and I urge all members to support it.

Alexander Stewart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am grateful for the opportunity

to scrutinise the revised national planning framework 4. These are challenging and uncertain times, and Scotland is facing challenges from many different directions. With an on-going housing shortage, with the nature of our town and city centres continually changing and with the reality of the journey to net zero becoming clearer than ever, there has never been a greater need for an effective planning framework.

There will, no doubt, be different opinions from members across the chamber regarding the proposals. However, Parliament will be in agreement about many of the stated priorities in the framework.

It is surprising that certain important aspects of planning are not featured in the revised NPF4 as prominently as they should have been and as we thought they would be. For example, a successful planning framework should be clearer about how it will improve the form of buildings as well as their function.

We can all agree that principles such as ensuring a just transition, promoting local living and revitalising rural communities fully deserve to be placed at the centre of this important framework. Indeed, given the importance of NPF4, it is perhaps disappointing that stakeholders were not given more time to fully scrutinise the proposals. Certain stakeholders, such as the Association of Scotland’s Self-Caterers and Heads of Planning Scotland, have even suggested that the process has felt rushed. Planning authorities need clarity about the direction of NPF4, but it is important that stakeholders are fully involved at each stage of the process and that they are given enough time to fully reflect.

That being said, I welcome the fact that the revised draft includes improvements compared with the original draft that was published in November 2021. Those improvements were made in response to an array of stakeholder comments, as the minister acknowledged in his opening remarks. I particularly welcome the addition of a delivery programme for the framework, although, as stakeholders such as Scottish Renewables and Homes for Scotland have highlighted, much more still needs to be done on that. The programme has been recognised by many in the sector, but we need to think about what is planned.

Heads of Planning Scotland is right to highlight that the current delivery programme fails to provide enough clarity on issues such as funding for local councils and partner organisations. For example, there is still uncertainty about the resourcing of local authority planning departments. That point has already been raised by a number of members and I have no doubt that it will be raised again before we conclude this afternoon.

Heads of Planning Scotland has also stated that there are still “serious concerns” about resources. That has to be looked at in the context of the current situation. Our Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee has stated that the issue appears to be the biggest obstacle to delivery of NPF4 and that clear assurances are needed from the Government on how things will be funded.

NPF4 states that planning authorities will be key stakeholders in delivering the framework. That is correct. However, as things stand, it is not clear whether departments are equipped to step up to the role, which is disappointing, and addressing the issue has only made some of the challenges more fundamental.

The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has set out that the Scottish Government’s most recent budget means that council services will be at breaking point. The risk that that will have a knock-on effect on the delivery of any future planning framework should be understood. Going forward, the onus will be on the Scottish Government to ensure that successful delivery of NPF4 is not hindered by local government funding cuts.

I will touch on how the framework might affect small businesses, and particularly those in the tourism sector. The Association of Scotland’s Self-Caterers has pointed out that the traditional self-catering sector is already facing an increased burden due to the introduction of the short-term lets licensing scheme. Policy 30 and the further restrictions that it might impose on the sector risk adding a further regulatory burden. That is not where we want to be when we are trying to support small businesses.

In taking NPF4 forward, the Government must ensure that it carefully considers how policy 30 will work in practice and whether the self-catering sector will be able to properly thrive. Members on the Conservative benches have made it clear that NPF4 must be a framework that protects the interests of local communities. It must deliver on housing and on environmental and biodiversity goals, and it must achieve that while ensuring that businesses have the freedom that they need to fully prosper. They need to survive and thrive, and the framework should be there to ensure that they do that. However, certain areas in NPF4 are causing businesses real concern.

To support businesses, the Scottish Government must ensure that local government is properly resourced. It must ensure that it listens to the feedback of all stakeholders and businesses. Clarity is important when it comes to communities, which want to see the process work. Communities across the length and breadth of the country have engaged with the process, but they remain concerned that there is still some way to go.

Although the Parliament will, no doubt, have a role to play in improving the framework in the future, communities should be placed at the centre of the process. That is an important idea behind the framework. As things stand, however, more work still needs to be done and more communities need to be listened to. When the framework is delivered, it must be community led and it must be delivered according to the priorities that have been set. We are not yet sure that that will be the case.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

I start by warmly thanking the minister for his unequivocal reaffirmation of the Scottish Government’s commitment to dualling the A9 from Perth to Inverness and to dualling the A96 in my constituency. That commitment is very welcome, so I look forward to his ministerial colleagues coming before the Parliament in a matter of weeks to flesh out the details of how and when that dualling will be implemented. In exchange for the minister’s commitment, I will support the motion, just to allay any frisson of concern to the contrary that might exist in the whip’s office. [

Laughter

.]

Seriously, though, I have caveats. Without in any way to detract from the good work that the minister has done, which has rightly been recognised across the chamber, I will raise a serious matter that needs to be looked at carefully—certainly in implementation of the framework, if not in the framework itself—regarding some of the detail in the wording. The matter relates to rural Scotland—its housing, farmers, crofters and land managers.

In the NPF4, which I read this morning—I do not pretend to be an expert—I saw references to aquaculture, forestry, and life sciences in rural Scotland, and there is a lengthy section on tourism, which is welcome. The document says that those are really important to rural Scotland. However, there is one glaring omission: farming. I could find scant reference to it. In fact, I could see that farmers were mentioned once—although maybe I missed mention elsewhere.

However, perhaps more important is that there is no clear statement that we value what our farmers, crofters and land managers do. They look after the land and our soil, they conserve water, they produce healthy food and they are the caretakers of mother nature. Before the term became common parlance, they were conservationists. They did not realise it, but they were, and have been for centuries. Furthermore, they have the collective responsibility for looking after nearly 80 per cent of Scotland’s land.

The first point that I make to the minister is that there should be high-level recognition that we value farmers, that we value the food that they provide for us and that we value the contribution that they make to food security, which we can no longer take for granted. With war in Ukraine, Brexit and global disruption, we cannot assume that everything will be on our plate and that everything will be on the shelves of every supermarket every day. The world ain’t like that anymore.

I urge the minister to consider stating those high-level commitments. That would show farmers that we care and that we value what they do—I think that, by and large, that is the case across the chamber—because farmers feel beleaguered, at the moment.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

During his time as cabinet secretary with responsibility for rural affairs, Mr Ewing will have been aware of the need for new entrants to enter the sector, often to replace older farmers who leave farming. I feel that that issue has been missed in the national planning framework. Does he support calls for the Government to do more work on that?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

There should be a greater emphasis on that. To be fair, it is mentioned in the detail of the section on rural places, but I agree that more needs to be done in that regard, although doing it is not easy.

As well as high-level commitments, some detail is needed. When I was not a humble back bencher, but an important person like the minister, I sought to ensure that we could do what is being done in England. We should be able to learn from England sometimes. In England, there are permitted development rights for every farm to have up to five houses. There are, I admit, caveats to that, but why do we not have that policy?

The average net worth of an owner-occupied farm in Scotland is £1.4 million, and the latest statistics that I have seen state that the average net worth of a tenanted farm is £373,000. There are 50,000 holdings in Scotland, so those figures amount to tens of billions of pounds of capital that is sleeping.

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

I would like to, but I do not have time.

Why not put that capital to work by allowing farmers, crofters, land managers and estates to use their land more flexibly and with less difficulty? In rural Scotland, development is the Cinderella issue. I have learned that over the course of 23 years of struggling on behalf of constituents who desperately want to do something with their land, their lives and their property to benefit their families, but are all too often held back by pettifogging matters that are of microscopic significance.

To be fair, the policy makes some progress, but I think that the restrictions are far too complicated. A farmer can erect housing on their farm, but only if it is affordable housing. What about mid-market rental housing? If farmers want to diversify, they have to prove that that will not harm the farming effort. How do they do that, and why should they have to do it, since diversification adds significantly to the income of farmers, raising it from £37,000 for a non-diversified unit to £53,000?

I hope that I have got my point across to the minister today. Again, I thank him for, and note the collegiate agreement to, the commitment regarding the A9 and the A96. It might be that I will mention that issue again in Parliament, before long.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I am sure that you will,

Mr Ewing.

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

I rise to support in principle the idea of the national planning framework and what it is trying to achieve, but I cannot help

but continue to feel that it is a bit of a missed opportunity, because a lot of what is described in it is not exceptionally different to what has gone before. In many cases, we see the same generalities; that is what worries me.

Although, on the face of it, nothing is desperately concerning, how the framework translates into local development plans will be the test of whether it is successful. That is where we still have great potential for NPF4 to fall flat, particularly given that the context is that it will be loaded on to planning departments that have already had vast cuts to their resources.

I am thinking in particular of Glasgow, which has had a headline budget cut of 10 per cent over the past decade. When that is projected on to the planning department, we see that there has been something of the order of a 60 per cent cut over the decade, because planning is the kind of back-office function that councils try to hammer first, in order to protect services such as social work.

I am worried that attempts to get the framework working will fall on fallow ground, in terms of resources. Although aspects of NPF4 are laudable, I worry that such things get hacked quite regularly by pretty canny developers. Within the national spatial strategy, a good example is the discussion of reusing vacant and derelict land, enhancing natural and built environments and protecting heritage assets. I declare an interest as a trustee of the Glasgow City Heritage Trust, and as someone who regularly spars with developers that are trying to destroy Glasgow’s built environment. The four definitions in NPF4 of what constitute permissible reasons to demolish a listed building are regularly abused and hacked by developers. I encounter that quite frequently.

Here is a good example. One reason is that a

“building is incapable of physical repair and re-use as verified through a detailed structural condition survey report”.

Those surveys are regularly produced by people who are in cahoots with the developer, who completely lack professional integrity and who will lay it on thick to justify demolition of perfectly salvageable buildings in order to maximise profit for the developer who wants to build something more cheaply. By doing so, they avoid incurring VAT at 20 per cent for renovation of the building, and instead incur 0 per cent VAT for demolishing it and building something new. That creates a perverse incentive. Frankly, there is a whole ecosystem of corruption around that, which militates against preservation of our historic environment. I am afraid that the four rules that are defined in the framework are so vague and loose that they are regularly hacked by pretty unscrupulous characters.

I encourage the minister to look at that matter in particular, and to engage to tighten it up. One example of how the system could be improved would be to ensure that surveys of buildings—on whether they are structurally capable of repair—are carried out by conservation-accredited structural engineers. Only two firms in Scotland are conservation accredited, but if that were made a statutory requirement it would immediately improve the integrity with which the process is carried out.

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Na h-Eileanan an Iar)

I sympathise with the point that the member is making about VAT and perverse incentives. Would he call on the United Kingdom Government to remove that perverse incentive?

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

Absolutely. I regularly made that plea to the Chancellor of the Exchequer when I sat in the House of Commons. Certainly, there are other ways that the Scottish Parliament could address the issue. For example, I know that Historic Environment Scotland has been looking at ways to create an offset or VAT rebate scheme for buildings that are on the buildings at risk register. Perhaps there are targeted ways in which we could try to ameliorate that issue in Scotland.

An interesting proposal for a demolition levy—which Paul McLennan, a member for East Lothian, has been looking at—has been made by the Chartered Institute of Building. That levy could, at least, move the playing field the other way by ensuring that someone who wants to demolish a building would have to pay a fee. That would offset the perverse incentive. The institute suggests that the levy would raise a conservative estimate of £1.5 million per annum, which could supercharge Historic Environment Scotland’s heritage and place fund, for example.

There are things that we should be looking at. I encourage the minister to look at how we connect that suggestion to economic incentives and price signals in order to drive good behaviour and bake it into the standards that we set for local development plans. The provision of an overarching national framework, through something like a demolition levy, could help to reinforce what local authorities can achieve.

Similarly, that could be achieved through measures such as compulsory sale orders, as opposed to compulsory purchase powers, which actually represent a significant financial constraint on local authorities. They tend to pursue compulsory purchase only for buildings such as the Barclays complex in Glasgow’s Tradeston, where one of the minister’s predecessors, Patricia Ferguson, successfully protected the Beco building from Glasgow City Council’s attempt to demolish it about 20 years ago. That building has now been converted into Barclays Eagle Labs. The B-listed warehouse came off the buildings at risk register, despite the efforts of Glasgow City Council 20 years ago. That was done as a result of back-to-back compulsory purchase orders to clean up the messy ownership. There were 20 or 30 owners, some of whom were dead or living in the Virgin Islands or Cayman Islands.

In order to clean such situations up and get ownership packaged and transferred so that buildings can be developed, we need to start bringing such mechanisms into the system so that we achieve effective and positive outcomes and get buildings off the buildings at risk register. About 108 buildings in Glasgow are on the register. As we speak, there are 2,659 empty homes in Glasgow and, in the city centre, there are more than 3 million square feet of unused floor space and 450 vacant buildings, which is equivalent to the size of the Freedom tower in New York.

Glasgow city centre itself has the lowest population density of any city centre in the United Kingdom, with only about 30,000 people living there. Manchester city centre has more than 100,000. That low density introduces all sorts of problems when it comes to creating so-called 20-minute neighbourhoods. Therefore, to crack the issue, we need to get price signals sorted, which is where I think NPF4 does not connect properly. Although, on the face of it, the framework is good, we need to do much more to get price signals sorted, because there are so many perverse incentives.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I advise members that there is no time in hand, so members will have to stick to the time limits, including if they take interventions.

Ruth Maguire (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

As the minister said in opening, planning is not just about place but about people. The final national planning framework 4 makes it clear that Scotland will not compromise on the climate crisis and empowering communities. Although the document and this debate might not get much public attention, NPF4 is really important to how we live, work and play. It is a plan for the type of Scotland that we want to live in.

Welcome proposals in NPF4 include enabling more renewable energy generation to support the transition away from reliance on fossil fuels, while protecting national parks and national scenic areas and supporting emerging low-carbon technologies, such as hydrogen and carbon capture, and developments that unlock the transformative potential of offshore renewable energy. As the cabinet secretary laid out in his statement yesterday, the opportunity that that provides to grow Scotland’s highly skilled energy workforce and increase jobs in energy generation and the supply chain, while enabling communities and businesses to prosper, is vast and welcome.

Over and above protecting national parks and national scenic areas, which are, of course, very important, I am keen to see brownfield sites used for such projects, and I would welcome—as I believe would the majority of my Ayrshire constituents—the use of previously developed land that is not in use, rather than having new developments on land that is currently used for farming or leisure, wherever that is possible.

In the chamber, I have previously mentioned my constituents in Lylestone, who told me that they feel that they are in a David and Goliath fight with a company that is proposing to build a large solar farm on farmland next to their village. They expressed worry and anger about the fact that the company concerned was acting as though the project was a foregone conclusion. I sought and received reassurance from the Scottish Government that that is absolutely not the case, and that the concerns and objections of residents of the village who would be most impacted by the proposed development would be taken seriously. Impact assessment and mitigation remain vital to community wellbeing, and I note that NPF4 policies do not give a blank cheque to developers to build on wild land.

Community consent to large-scale renewables projects is important, and I think that there is more work to do in that regard, particularly around so-called community benefit. A few thousand pounds for a community council to distribute does not cut it any more, I do not think. Citizens should benefit from clean, green energy being produced.

NPF4 facilitates active travel infrastructure, low-carbon transport, and more green spaces, which is good news for the nation’s health and wellbeing.

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

To pick up on that last point, would Ruth Maguire welcome the introduction of a dedicated policy on community wealth building? From her part of the world, she will be very familiar with the tremendous work that is under way in community wealth building. Does she agree that that is a mechanism by which we can harness many of the economic benefits to come from increasing our onshore renewables?

Ruth Maguire (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

Absolutely. There is huge potential in that, and I welcome it.

NPF4 facilitates active travel infrastructure, low-carbon transport and more green spaces, which is good news for the nation’s health and wellbeing. We know that opportunities to be outdoors and active not only have a restorative impact on those with existing physical and mental health issues but can prevent ill health in the first place.

I note that, in developing active travel infrastructure, it is crucial to consider all users who will be walking, wheeling or cycling. The news this morning highlighted a shared space not far from us here, in Leith Walk in the capital, that does not seem to do that. That underlines the importance of meaningful consultation and dialogue and consideration of all citizens in developing our public spaces.

NPF4 adopts a planned and evidence-based approach to delivering good-quality and affordable homes that benefit communities. Good-quality affordable homes, as well as being good for health, support valuable local jobs. They are an excellent example of the wellbeing economy that we want to create. I note what colleagues have said about the targets within that, and I acknowledge that M stands for “minimum”. Evidence-based minimum requirements set an achievable starting point. I think that local development plans can be more ambitious, and it is locally that the knowledge about the scale and mix of housing that is required in our communities will sit.

A fairer and greener planning system can tackle long-standing challenges and inequalities to the benefit of all our communities in Scotland, the environment, and our economy. Better places will be an important part of our response to the strategic priorities of net zero, addressing child poverty, and growing a wellbeing economy that benefits all our citizens. Planning can also play a critical role in delivering the national strategy for economic transformation—and, again, the community wealth building that the minister mentioned.

At NPF4’s core lie measures that will reduce carbon emissions, tackle climate change, and restore nature while providing our communities in Scotland with sustainable, liveable, and productive places. It is time to get NPF4 in place and begin implementation at pace to the benefit of Scotland’s communities, environment, and economy.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

This fourth national planning framework comes at an absolutely critical time—2023 must be the year of transition and change, and of bold action to protect people, communities and our planet. Put simply, we cannot afford to waste any more time in making that transition. Of course, what we plan today could either lock us into climate pollution for decades to come or free us from fossil fuels over time.

It is therefore crucial that, for the first time, the climate and biodiversity crisis has been placed at the heart of the national planning framework.

We have got a better strategy as a result, which will help us meet our targets on climate change and nature recovery in the years to come. It sets the groundwork. This is no longer a plan that prioritises only economic growth above everything else; our climate, our nature and our wellbeing are finally being considered on an equal footing in the planning system.

Critically, all planning decisions must now give significant weight to the climate and nature crises. Development proposals must minimise greenhouse gas emissions as far as possible, and they will have to contribute to biodiversity enhancement. This NPF is finally putting us on the right path. However, like previous frameworks, it of course sits alongside and in tandem with other strategies, including the strategic transport projects review, the biodiversity strategy and, of course, the new energy strategy that was announced for consultation only yesterday. Taken together, those strategies will chart the course for Scotland’s net zero future.

The NPF also sits alongside the fresh commitment that the Government has made to develop a net zero budget test to accelerate spending away from high-carbon and towards low-carbon capital projects. The picture here is that everything now must point in the direction of net zero, and NPF is a critical part of that landscape.

Let us consider energy policy in the NPF. We are in a climate crisis and we desperately need transformation. NPF4 lays the ground for significant expansion of renewables in Scotland. Onshore wind is the cheapest green energy source and it has a huge role to play in cutting emissions and our energy bills at the same time. Expanding our onshore wind capacity was a central commitment in the Bute house agreement. The onshore wind policy statement that was announced last year confirmed the ambition to install an additional 8GW to 12GW of onshore wind capacity, which would be a huge increase.

Scotland has an abundance of wind resources and this new policy will put them to use while ensuring that local communities and the whole country benefit from investment and green jobs. NPF4 will help us get there by transforming our planning system to facilitate the expansion of renewables while protecting our beautiful natural environment.

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

Mark Ruskell is making a very important point. I want to ask him for more detail about district heat networks, particularly the potential for one building to meet the requirements by putting in air-source heat pumps but, in doing so, undermine the critical mass needed for a community district heat network. Perhaps more definition could be delivered in the local development plans to make sure that we do not undermine that potential and have a tragedy of the commons.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

That is a good point. I think that the member will be aware that the local heat and energy efficiency strategies that councils have been tasked to complete will be looking at that mix of installation of embedded renewables in buildings alongside district heating. It is an important thing that councils need to plan for at that level.

Development proposals for all forms of renewables, including solar and wind, will obviously be supported in the planning system. There will also be protection against inappropriate development in national parks and national scenic areas. All developments must minimise the negative impact on natural places, local landscape and wild land through improved mitigation measures. We are seeing an NPF that has been strengthened by a biodiversity policy that ensures that it pays attention to the biodiversity mitigation hierarchy and learns from a lot of the good practice that is out there. Developers must also minimise negative impacts on local communities and consider issues such as public access through the implementation of walking and cycling routes.

Those changes in planning have been recognised, in the words of the renewables industry, as “a remarkable ... step forward”. It is clear that acceptable renewable developments, in the right places, must be accelerated instead of being let to languish in the planning system for years on end. There is simply no time to waste.

NPF4’s success will be measured by what it delivers, not by what it says on paper. The review of the delivery plan after six months will be a critical checkpoint. To turn the vision into reality, we must support everyone who is involved in that delivery, as much in council planning departments as in our local communities. People must feel empowered to shape the spaces around them. We must also ensure that NPF4 facilitates the action that is needed to tackle the climate and biodiversity challenges. Those things do not need to be in conflict.

A number of members have mentioned the resourcing of planning authorities. That is an incredibly important point. Westminster also needs to understand the importance of renewable energy and to ensure that, in its planning systems, it is not approving developments such as new coal mines but is looking progressively at renewable energy sources such as onshore wind, which can make a lasting contribution to the UK’s ambitions to cut climate emissions and deliver energy security.

The Greens welcome this national planning framework. We welcome the scrutiny that Parliament has given it, and we welcome the progress and the action that are to come on the back of it.

Audrey Nicoll (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen South and North Kincardine)

I am very pleased to speak in the debate in support of the fourth national planning framework.

I thank all the organisations that provided briefings for the debate, including First Bus, Scottish Land & Estates, Homes for Scotland, Scottish Renewables and others. For me, they were an extremely important additional source of reference. They also illustrated the breadth and reach of NFP4 in underpinning reform in our planning system so that we are positioned to play a key role in addressing the challenges of climate and nature.

The revised draft NPF4 reflects a range of changes that were made in response to the representations that were made during the consultation and the report that the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee prepared. I commend the committee’s follow-up report, which contains its response to the concerns that were raised about the original draft. I will come back to the work of the NZET Committee on NPF4 later in my speech.

I note the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee’s positive response to the significant improvements that were made in the revised draft: the new emphasis on climate and biodiversity, and the increased clarity and focus that that will offer decision makers. On the monitoring of NPF4, I am pleased to note the committee’s desire to hear from planners on their experience of applying climate change and biodiversity principles and the extent to which they have sufficient clarity and support to make their decisions.

The north-east is rightly positioning itself as a centre for energy transition. However, I believe that, to date, the debate on that issue has derived from an industry context. NPF4 now offers an important opportunity to refocus the debate on how our transition will impact our land use and development.

In my north-east constituency, planning continues to appear front and centre in constituent concerns and inquiries. For example, there is the transport infrastructure around the new south harbour that is under construction, which is featured in NPF4, and there are pollution concerns relating to an energy-from-waste plant that is under construction. Perhaps the biggest issue is the inclusion of a community green space for development in the Aberdeen City local development plan that is likely to be the subject of a future renewables planning application. Those are all significant projects, and they all are within metres of some of the lowest-standard council housing in the city.

Therefore, it is no surprise that local folk feel that, to date, there has been little evidence of a planning system that supports

“our quality of life, health and wellbeing”,

enables community benefit for everyone, and improves and strengthens

“the special character of our places”.

Those descriptors were included as suggested questions in the Scottish Government guidance for community events on NPF4 in order to stimulate thinking about how the planning system might be delivered.

Planning really matters to our communities—as others have highlighted—to our businesses, to public services and to the future wellbeing and prosperity of generations to come. I welcome the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee’s view that

“For NPF4 to succeed it is critical that communities are not only engaged in the planning process, but that their ambitions for the areas in which they live are realised. ”

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

Does the member agree that the lack of accessibility of the planning system is a massive impediment? There are often huge, very complex documents to digest, and the onus is on communities to organise themselves to deal with all of that in fleeting moments. Does she agree that we need to look at making the process more accessible for communities?

Audrey Nicoll (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen South and North Kincardine)

Yes, I agree 100 per cent. I thank the member for his intervention. I totally agree with that, and I have had a lot of contact with constituents who have had that very experience. I wholly welcome anything that makes the process more accessible.

I am sorry—I have lost my place. As I said, those significant projects are all within metres of some of the lowest-standard council housing in the city. Therefore, it is no surprise that people feel developed on.

Earlier this week, the Scottish Government published its “Draft Energy Strategy and Just Transition Plan—delivering a fair and secure zero-carbon energy system for Scotland”, which outlines Scotland’s transition away from fossil fuels. In its briefing, Scottish Renewables outlines that NPF4 provides a key opportunity to deliver a net zero-driven planning system that will support Scotland in reaching its net zero target while also supporting low-carbon investment, caring for our environment and, importantly, reducing our reliance on fossil fuels.

I will pick up on the point made by the NZET Committee about the delay and churn that are associated with the fact that applications take too long, which potentially puts projects at some risk. I have raised that issue in the chamber in the past, and I will monitor it closely going forward, so I am interested in any comment that the minister has on that.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

You need to conclude.

Audrey Nicoll (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen South and North Kincardine)

I welcome the draft NPF4, and I look forward to hearing the minister’s response to the issues that are raised in the debate.

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

It is an absolute pleasure to take part in the debate today. The very fact we are having the debate is down to amendments for which I was responsible and which were voted through during the passage of the Planning (Scotland) Bill in the previous parliamentary session. Members might do well to reflect on the fact that, if that bill was going through Parliament now, I do not think that those amendments would get through. However, it is good that they did.

Kevin Stewart was the minister responsible for the bill, and it was certainly a stressful time for him. We ended up with a bill that was better than it was at the start, although it was not perfect, and I think that that is where we are today with NPF4.

The first draft NPF4 was flawed in many ways. The final version is better, although it still has some holes in it. However, we have in Tom Arthur—for whom I have a lot of time—a minister who has listened and made changes for the better. Any minister who does that should be praised, and I do praise him, but in planning, as he knows, we can never please everyone.

I will start with the good bits. I strongly believe that the planning system has not been robust enough when it comes to protecting the environment, particularly in three areas: woodland, wild land and the green belt. Wording matters when it comes to planning policy, and woolly wording provides developers and landowners with loopholes that they can exploit. Paul Sweeney made reference to that. The first draft of NPF4 would have made it too easy for woods to be erased and for wild land to be built on.

I met the John Muir Trust and the Woodland Trust—of which I am a member—to discuss what we could propose to the minister to make the wording better. We came up with something, and I sent the wording to Mr Arthur. Mr Briggs and I then had a virtual meeting with him and one of his officials. I heard nothing after that, but the revised draft is considerably better and people are generally happy, because the wording is better than it was.

However, policy 6c is an example of the woolly wording that I referred to. It says:

“Development proposals involving woodland removal will only be supported where they will achieve significant and clearly defined additional public benefits in accordance with relevant Scottish Government policy on woodland removal.”

Canny developers will be able to argue that their fantastic scheme with footpaths and swing parks will achieve just that, when it will not.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

Does Mr Simpson acknowledge that forestry operations, including those relating to felling and planting, are very much controlled by forestry standards, which are not part of the planning system and ensure good practice, and that the ills that were committed in the 1980s relating to misplanting and so on cannot take place now? NPF4 does not set out to control the mischief that he is arguing exists; it is not the responsibility of NPF4 to do that.

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I am sure that Mr Ewing is right, but I was referring not necessarily to forests but to areas of woodland, which are slightly different.

The policy goes on to say:

“Where woodland is removed, compensatory planting will most likely be expected to be delivered.”

Most likely? That is pretty meaningless and, in any case, compensatory planting will never be the same as what was there previously. The wording is better, but it is still not quite good enough for me.

The references to wild land are much better, and policy 8 on green belts looks pretty robust. However, in relation to Fergus Ewing’s earlier point about farmers, it should not be the case, as it is at the moment, that farmers have to pretend that new houses are being built for workers in order to get them built.

The planning system can play a huge role in helping to drive down emissions, and I note the gushing response of Scottish Renewables to Mr Arthur’s offering, but I will never agree with the Scottish Government’s view that nuclear should play no part at all in that.

Miles Briggs and others have mentioned the lack of policies to deliver enough housing of the right quality in the right places. A big debating point has been around targets, how to set them and how to ensure that they are then delivered. I have to agree with the house-building industry that there are flaws in NPF4, which will not deliver enough housing. As the RTPI has said, it is vital that enough resources are provided, because councils will have to deliver on all this.

The Planning (Scotland) Act 2019 introduced 49 unfunded duties on councils. Those duties could cost up to £59 million over 10 years to implement, but councils are not being given the money. How on earth are they meant to deliver all Mr Arthur’s exciting policies if they do not have enough planners? The NPF4 is good, but it could be better.

Katy (Labour, West Scotland)

The way in which we use land and the type of development that we allow are vital matters for all communities. The questions of whether we have industrial development, whether we build houses and how we construct them, and the issues around the demise of our town centres, the continuing closure of high-street department stores and the expansion of out-of-town shopping centres, are all affected by the decisions that we make here and the detail of NPF4 and local development plans. As has been said, the process transfers power from communities and local councils, so we need to get the detail right.

This is an important debate, not least because the planning system is imbalanced and communities do not have the same rights as developers to appeal planning decisions. As has been said many times in the debate, the resources that developers have create an imbalance also. A number of community campaigns with whom I have been meeting attempt to consider hundreds of pages of documents in order to respond to proposals that affect their communities. Hundreds of community and environmental groups back the campaign for equal rights of appeal, which are still absent from planning law in Scotland. That is an important aspect of the debate. I therefore welcome the repeated comments by the minister, the convener of the committee and many others about the importance of engagement and consultation.

Like many others in the chamber, I have spent literally hours with campaigns, community organisations and individuals in trying to get their voices heard in the planning process. Sometimes, they have been successful with their campaigns. I listened with interest to what Mark Ruskell and Ruth Maguire said in relation to planning applications for renewables, because one of the local community campaigns that was successful focused on the proposal for the Rigghill wind farm near Skelmorlie, which almost every part of the community for many miles around opposed and which took many years to defeat. Most of us would agree that it is only when constituents have something happen near them that they begin to realise the importance of the debate that we are having today, NPF4, the local development plans and all the work that goes into those documents and how they affect people’s lives.

I welcome the fact that the Government has looked again at the initial proposals that came forward. All the representations that have been made say that considerable improvements have taken place in the documents that we are considering today. However, much needs to be done to improve our planning process. Several references have been made to the cuts to staffing levels in planning departments, which is a real issue that affects councils up and down the country. The real-terms cuts to local government core revenue budgets will obviously not help in ensuring that adequate resources are put in place around the issues.

We all know that we are in the midst of a housing crisis. At any time in this country, an estimated 112,000 properties are unoccupied, nearly 30,000 of which have been empty for more than a year, and more than 130,000 people are homeless or on housing waiting lists. Homes for Scotland has pointed out that

“There is still no mechanism for fixing an under-delivering land pipeline if longer-term sites cannot come forward to fill the gap”.

I know that a different approach exists in England, where there are proactive attempts to get building in certain places. Given that we are talking about local development plans that are set to last for another 10 years, the position that we are in is concerning. We need to seriously consider how we can intervene to ensure that land is available for housing development where it is needed. That is the case in areas where we have brownfield sites and on islands such as Arran, where a shortage of land for housing is a major problem.

It is welcome that the Government has made changes to the draft NPF4. I note everything that has been said about the incorporation of climate change and environmental standards, which must, of course, dictate the operation of the planning regime. However, we must also consider how we ensure that the voices of individuals and communities are far stronger in planning processes and that it is not a top-down system that does not reflect what communities say. Communities often know what is best for their locality, and we must ensure that they have a strong voice in the process.

As we move forward with the framework and the local development plans, we must consider how we can ensure that the voices of individuals and communities are heard strongly when individual decisions are made.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The final speaker in the open debate will be Emma Harper. We will then move to the closing speeches, for which everybody who has participated in the debate will be expected to be in the chamber.

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

I am pleased that we are having

this debate on national planning framework 4, which clearly focuses on empowering communities to make change, and I support the motion.

The revised draft NPF4 lays out sustainable policies to guide Scotland’s net zero planning approach for the next decade. I have been actively involved in NPF4 in two specific areas, which I will focus on in my speech: vacant, abandoned and derelict sites, especially in our rural towns, and permitted development rights. The minister has been very supportive of my position on both of those matters.

I will turn first to vacant, abandoned and derelict sites, which is an issue that I brought to Parliament’s attention just before the recess. The legacy of Scotland’s industrial past means that almost a third of the Scottish population currently live within 500m of a derelict site. There are 11,000 hectares of derelict land, which is equivalent to 9,000 football pitches. The Health, Social Care and Sport Committee took evidence on the fact—research shows this—that living near an eyesore or a blighted or derelict site affects the mental health of a community, so the benefits of addressing derelict sites are obvious. The Scottish Land Commission says that heels are being dragged when it comes to bringing about the change that is needed. It also says that the task of addressing derelict sites has been dumped on the “too difficult” pile. It is interesting that the commission believes that the issue is seen as being too big, too complex and too expensive to fix. That simply isnae true. We need to stop telling ourselves that it cannot be done, and we need to recognise that transforming derelict sites is a massive opportunity.

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

As 1,000 of the football pitches that Emma Harper mentioned are in Glasgow, it is a big issue for my city, for sure. Does she agree that we need to look at ways in which we can communicate to the owners of such sites the negative way in which they transmit blight to a community? Perhaps we could do that through a punitive rates charge, for example, so that such owners are forced to do something with the site or sell it on to someone who will.

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

Paul Sweeney makes a great point. I will come on to issues around owners.

Many proposals in NPF4 make reference to policies that will address derelict sites, such as incentivising brownfield regeneration, including for derelict sites, which will allow brownfield sites to be transformed into housing, community spaces or whatever the community chooses. I can give two examples of regeneration: the Clyde gateway project, which the minister visited recently, and Cunninghame Housing Association’s transformation of the vacant primary school in Lockerbie into a community hub. I would be happy to facilitate a visit by the minister there, too.

The revised NPF4 makes it clear that Scotland will not compromise on the climate crisis and empowering communities. We have many derelict sites in Dumfries and Galloway and in the Scottish Borders, such as the George hotel and the east pier in Stranraer, the Interfloor/Gates factory in Dumfries, the Central hotel in Annan, the Mercury hotel in Moffat and the N Peal and Glenmac buildings in Hawick, as well as many others. In trying to address those sites, I have faced numerous challenges with the owners and local authorities. Councils respond to me by saying that they have limited powers, and it is hard even to elicit a response from registered owners. One of the challenges is in figuring out what we can do about that.

I want to highlight what local authorities can do, and then I will show how that is enhanced by NPF4. Local authorities can issue a waste land notice that requires an owner or a responsible person to take specific action on a site. If the responsible person refuses, the local authority can carry out the work itself and claim back the cost from the owner under the Town and Country (Planning) (Scotland) Act 1997. Under the Building (Scotland) Act 2003, councils can issue a dangerous buildings notice. Additionally, the local authority or community can make a compulsory purchase of a building or land under the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003. Those are not unsubstantial powers, and the Government is committed to introducing compulsory sale orders in the future.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

rose—

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

I do not think that I have time to take an intervention from Mr Briggs. I am sorry.

NPF4 will be powered through significant public and private investment, with cross-Government co-operation. It will identify funding streams through the infrastructure investment plan and the place-based investment programme. It will open up the possibility of local authorities and private investors accessing funding streams, which could allow the transformation of our derelict brownfield sites. That is welcome, but I ask the minister to clearly communicate with local authority and private sector partners regarding what the funding possibilities are and how NPF4 can transform our derelict sites.

I will turn briefly to permitted development. I welcome the fact that NPF4 will address a legal loophole that has caused numerous issues in my region. Shooting activity, including shooting using high-velocity weapons of up to 50 calibre, is currently allowed to take place without planning permission because permitted development rights are used. Permitted development rights for class 15 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992 allow the temporary use of land for a different purpose for up to 28 days in a calendar year, other than as a caravan site or an open-air market. The 28-day rule has been capitalised on for a range of shooting activities. I thank the minister for listening to me on that matter and for the commitment in NPF4 that permitted development will be reformed. I look forward to seeing progress on that.

NPF4 marks a turning point in Scotland’s planning system and a boost to our just transition journey. It is time to get NPF4 in place and begin implementation.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

We move to closing speeches.

Mark Griffin (Labour, Central Scotland)

In my opening speech, I said that NPF4 is not the finished product. I made it clear that we will give our approval at decision time but will look for the minister to make good on his commitments to deal with the issues that we feel are outstanding. We still do not have the confidence that we should have that the framework will be enough to end the housing crisis that is gripping our country, which is particularly affecting young people, who are largely ignored by the HNDA figures. We think that fewer starter homes that families can rent or purchase as their first home will be built as a result of their being ignored in those figures.

In his speech, Miles Briggs alluded to the fact that, this morning, the Royal Town Planning Institute Scotland issued its verdict on NPF4. It welcomed the framework but said that success depends on there being planners to do the job and that new resources to support the delivery of NPF4 are required, and it gave the stark reminder that planning department staff have been cut by a third since 2009. Speaker after speaker in today’s debate has hammered home the fact that those cuts have consequences.

The waiting time for the processing of major housing development applications, of which there are not enough to tackle our housing crisis, was an average of 54.3 weeks last year. That number has spiralled in a way that is probably inversely proportionate to the number of staff we have in local authorities to deal with applications.

The institute says that planning authorities are overstretched and that

“significant upskilling of the planning workforce”

is needed. It says that the delivery programme, which is still wanting and needs to be made fit for purpose, should include

“a comprehensive skills and resource strategy”.

According to the RTPI’s research, the profession already has a stretched pipeline and more than 680 entrants into the sector will be needed over the lifetime of the new framework. Given the 49 unfunded duties for local authorities, which could cost almost £60 million over the same period, planning departments are creaking at the seams. That will have a huge impact on the delivery of many laudable ambitions that we support and would like to come to fruition.

I have asked the minister about that in the past. He told me that he is working closely with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and Heads of Planning Scotland to make sure that there is a common understanding of the pressures that planning services face. Fees have increased, but it is the opinion of planners that they do not stretch far enough.

I echo the points that were strongly made by a number of members about progress on promoting and protecting our natural environment. The extent of nature depletion in Scotland over recent decades has been frightening, so it is right that priority is given to the nature and climate crises throughout the document.

Many speakers welcomed measures in that regard. The RSPB has also welcomed the measures and thinks that the framework can deliver positive effects on biodiversity. However, the RSPB has outstanding concerns about a key area: the wording of policy 4(b), which relates to European sites. If the issue is unresolved, the RSPB thinks that there could be significant risks for our most important protected sites for nature; it thinks that the wording should be tightened.

I have had representations from West Lothian Council, which expressed concern that its local nature reserves, which have statutory designation under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, are not included. Given that such sites will be key nodes in the make-up of nature networks and delivery of the 30 by 30 target, that should be rectified.

The proposed natural environment bill presents an opportunity to bring in a legal requirement to enhance biodiversity. In England, the Environment Act 2021 has established targets and created a step change in attitudes to and action for biodiversity in planning and construction.

As I said, NPF4 is by no means a finished product. There are outstanding issues to do with guidance and monitoring and there is a need for a proper delivery plan and resources. Scottish Labour will approve the framework at 5 o’clock, but we look to the minister to deliver on his commitment to deal with the outstanding issues. He has his work cut out.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I thank all members for an interesting debate. I also thank the organisations that emailed helpful briefings to all members over the past couple of weeks.

I congratulate the minister on two things. First, it is obvious that he listened to concerns about the previous draft and came back with an improved version. The revised draft is better, but it still falls short in key areas, as we heard from previous speakers. Secondly, I congratulate him on his foreword to NPF4, where he admits that planning is “fully devolved” but says that everything would be better if we were independent, thereby showing, in black and white, that this SNP-Green devolved Government will take any topic and try to turn it into an independence debate.

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

rose—

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I first encountered NPF4 as a council leader at COSLA, where many concerns were raised. To be fair, it is heartening to see that many of those concerns have been addressed.

I agree with Graham Simpson that the planning system has not been robust enough when it comes to protecting the environment and that there remains a disconnect between local communities and residents, and our planning system. I recognise that the NPF4 attempts to bridge that gap, but only time will tell whether it will be successful or not.

I welcome the fact that the minister will come back with details on how 20-minute neighbourhoods can work in rural areas. It is too simplistic to ask communities to abandon their cars and move to public transport when no public transport is available, or when there is, it is unreliable, slow and often uncomfortable. Roads will still be important.

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Does Douglas Lumsden have any idea what a 20-minute neighbourhood is? Because I do not.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The member raises a very good point. I hope that we will find out more when the minister responds.

As Fergus Ewing once said, we should be anti-emission, not anti-car. I welcome the fact that the minister said that his Government is committed to fully dualling the A9 and A96. I remind him that the commitment was to fully dual by 2030. Like Fergus Ewing, I will remind the minister and his colleagues about that commitment. I note that

The

Press and Journal

is reporting today that the free ports will be in the Forth and in Cromarty, so the A96 dualling will be vital for the north-east.

One place we will not need a road to is drive-throughs, because it seems that the devolved Government wants to ban drive-throughs. Once again, the junior partner in this coalition of chaos is pulling the strings. The ban seemed to come from left field, with no opportunity for the affected businesses to give comment, because the policy had never appeared before.

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

Will the member give way?

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

No, I will not.

The minister may not like drive-throughs, but they bring jobs, pay rates, bring investment and provide a service, so the policy is just plain wrong. I welcome the minister’s earlier comment about a potential U-turn, but we should not be in this situation.

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

I am conscious of the reports following the publication of the revised draft of 8 November. To be categorical and absolutely clear, there is no ban on drive-throughs. I have been very grateful for the opportunity to meet representatives of the sector, and my officials and I will be undertaking work with the sector to make sure that the transitional guidance and the guidance on local development plans are clear.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

As I said, I welcome that, but surely we should not be in a situation where many organisations feel that a ban is coming. I hope that the minister can clear that up.

I agree that we should have a town centre-first approach, but I am concerned that the framework will make it hard for businesses such as garden centres that need to be out of town to be granted permission. Time will tell on the interpretation, but I would have liked to see guidance issued on what out-of-town development will be permitted.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member give way?

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I do not have time; I am sorry.

Another area of concern is housing. I have been a member for 20 months now, and housing is a topic that comes up time and again. We have a housing crisis, but this Government continually misses its housing targets. We need to build good-quality, affordable and energy-efficient homes, and we need to build them faster, but to do that we need land to build on. I do not see enough in the framework to solve our housing crisis.

As Miles Briggs told us, there are 28,000 homeless households, and Mark Griffin said that the actual number could be a lot higher. Miles Briggs also pointed out that land that is earmarked for housing is occupied by car dealerships and the like. Where will those businesses be sent?

Willie Rennie and Emma Harper mentioned brownfield site issues. It is not easy to develop on those sites, and it is expensive. What incentives or, as was also pointed out, penalties may be put in place to encourage those developments?

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

I was up on my feet earlier attempting to intervene. We have talked about derelict sites, and Paul Sweeney

made a valid point on VAT. You said that planning is completely—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Through the chair, please, Ms Harper.

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

The member said that planning is completely devolved, but VAT isnae, and it is an inhibitor for developing sites. Will the member reflect on that?

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I will reflect on that; let us see what comes forward in the future.

Another issue that I want to raise—and it has been raised time and again during the debate—is the capacity of councils to deliver the changes and the policy. When I looked at this as a council leader at COSLA, we asked over and over whether extra resource would be available, but we have seen cuts to local government in successive budgets. Colleagues such as Alexander Stewart pointed out that that will be an issue with the framework. The SNP-Green devolved Government continually pushes more burdens on to local government by removing its funding and capacity to deliver. In the words of a COSLA resource spokesperson, council services are “at absolute breaking point”.

Today, we have heard concerns from Fergus Ewing about the impact that this policy will have on farming and rural communities. It lets them down and it lets down our towns and cities and our Government partners. I look forward to seeing how this will progress in future, as it will need to improve.

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

I begin by thanking colleagues across the chamber for their measured and thoughtful contributions this afternoon and all colleagues who have engaged with me—directly or through the work of the committee—during the long process of getting NPF4 to the state in which we are considering it today. I thank the committee for its diligent work, which was highly constructive throughout the process and strengthened the NPF4 that we are considering today. I also thank the more than 740 people who responded to our consultation following publication of the draft NPF4 in November 2021 and all those who engaged with our original call for ideas and responded to the draft position statement that was published in November 2020.

I want to give two other, particular, thank yous. I thank the chief planner, Fiona Simpson, and her team in the Scottish Government, who have been absolutely magnificent and have delivered an incredible piece of work. It has been a mammoth undertaking, much of it carried out against the backdrop of Covid, which—as it did for every other facet of government—led to huge challenges for our planning system. I commend all the officials in the Scottish Government who worked so hard to deliver NPF4.

Finally, I want to pay a very personal tribute to and thank my predecessor as planning minister, Kevin Stewart, who initiated the process. Without his hard work, both in piloting the Planning (Scotland) Bill through and in setting the ball rolling on the draft NPF4, we would not be at this point.

A number of issues have been raised during the debate, and I am afraid that time will not allow me the opportunity to respond to them all in detail. I will try to cover as much as I can, as well as respond to some specific points that members raised.

Housing is one of the most contentious areas in the planning system; we all recognise that. In planning, we really learn what the meaning of opportunity cost is, because a piece of land can be used only once. There are those who would favour a more liberal approach and those who would prefer a more regulated approach. Through the NPF4 process, and in fulfilling our statutory commitments under the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019, we have sought to ensure both that we have a plan-led system for housing in Scotland that is suitably flexible and dynamic enough to respond to circumstances and that planning plays its role in delivering the houses that we need.

I suggest that planning has a role to play, but planning alone does not make up the totality of factors that enable housing to be delivered. There are a range of factors, and all members will be conscious of the significant impacts on the construction sector caused by supply chain difficulties, challenges in labour recruitment and escalating costs due to the cost crisis—indeed, there are challenges in market appetite for housing as a consequence of rising interest rates. A number of factors come into play in ensuring that we develop the housing we require.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

I understand what the minister is outlining, but is he not concerned that there is no mechanism for

fixing underdelivery in the land pipeline,

and that NPF4 should have taken that forward? Will he commit to outlining how that will be monitored, because we need those homes.

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

The member is absolutely correct to recognise the importance of monitoring. I met Homes for Scotland shortly before Christmas to discuss the issue in detail. He will know that I gave an undertaking at committee that my officials would engage with Homes for Scotland on its proposals for review of the HNDA system. That is important because, ultimately, the proof of NPF4 will not be in the high ideals that it embodies but in its delivery—that will be the imperative. Monitoring will therefore be important.

Guidance and clarification could be used to respond to any issues raised through monitoring. Local development plans have a significant role to play and there will be provision to allow for the amendment of NPF4, should that be required.

However, in the first instance, it is important that we observe carefully what is happening on the ground following NPF4’s adoption—subject to Parliament’s agreement this evening.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

Very briefly. I am pushed for time.