Scottish Parliament, 12 November 2024

63 contributions from 22 members. The official report.

Time for Reflection

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Good afternoon. The first item of business is time for reflection. Our time for reflection leader today is Natalie Beal, who is a prison governor and chair of the Prison Governors Association Scotland.

Natalie Beal (Prison Governors Association Scotland)

Presiding Officer and members of the Scottish Parliament, thank you very much for the opportunity to address you this afternoon.

One of the reasons why I have spent the last 16 years in prisons is that, in 1991, I spent a summer sleeping on a church floor in Possilpark, Glasgow. To clarify, I did not break in; I did not trespass; I was part of a short-term missions trip. It was in that church that I first encountered an organisation called Prison Fellowship and spent time talking with men who were recently liberated from HMP Barlinnie. One thing really struck me about those conversations: it fascinated me just how much the men wanted to talk about their experiences, how much they wanted to be heard and the real value that they placed on feeling listened to.

Subsequently, I spent 18 years working in business and then, in a bizarre turn of events, I was recruited and appointed as a prison governor in 2008.

The thing about all our experiences is that, although they have, no doubt, shaped us, it is our reflection on those experiences that gives us insight. My reflection—my insight today—is that the very act of imprisonment not only strips a person of their identity but renders them voiceless. However, having a voice promotes active citizenship. Giving a voice helps people to feel valued and respected. It promotes fairness, justice, legitimacy, dignity and wellbeing. If we work to silence such voices, that is unjust. Having a voice is one of the pillars of procedural justice, whereby individuals are given the opportunity to share their concerns and participate in decision-making processes.

On 17 November, prisoners week will be launched, with the theme “Hear My Voice”. It will serve to raise awareness and encourage action among faith communities on the plight of prisoners, their families, their victims and those working in the justice system, whose voices often go unheard.

We are all called to act justly and, in doing so, to make fair decisions. I would contend that this is not merely about doing what is right; it is about restoring what is lacking. I agreed with the Rt Hon Lord Timpson when he said at the Prison Governors Association conference in October that good leadership, high standards and kindness really matter.

We are all in the business of people. Every person has a story and every voice deserves to be heard. Thank you.

Topical Question Time

Roz McCall (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland’s call for it to introduce “legal protection for children on the use of physical restraint and seclusion in all situations where children are in the care of the state”. (S6T-02182)

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Restraint and seclusion of a child or young person must only ever be used as a last resort to prevent the risk of injury. A statutory framework already exists in many areas, including children’s residential and secure care, for those rare times when restraint or seclusion is necessary.

Last week, we published new guidance for schools on physical intervention, which reaffirms that position and has been drafted in line with our responsibilities relating to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act 2024. It provides further advice on prevention, training and safeguards in relation to the use of restraint and seclusion. The guidance has been developed carefully, with extensive input from key stakeholders, including the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland, young people, parents, staff and the teaching trade unions. We will work with partners to monitor and review its effectiveness by autumn 2025.

I recognise that there have been calls for further legislation, and we are exploring further options to strengthen the legal framework for schools. That includes my engagement with Daniel Johnson’s member’s bill, which I will consider carefully and respond to accordingly.

Roz McCall (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

We are now six years on from the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland’s report “No Safe Place: Restraint and Seclusion in Scotland’s Schools” and two years on from the “in safe hands yet?” report by Enable Scotland, which called for the publication of statutory guidance on restraint and seclusion in schools. However, the new non-statutory guidance on restraint in schools is still leaving children at risk according to teaching unions and the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland.

Despite the First Minister’s assurances in response to my question last week and the answer that the cabinet secretary just gave, the rights of children and young people in Scotland are still not protected, which is unacceptable. Does the Scottish Government accept that its draft guidance is simply not good enough?

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

I thank the member for her question. I know that she raised the issue at First Minister’s question time, and I heard the First Minister’s response. I am sure that the member and I will continue to work outwith the chamber on the issues that she has raised today.

The member spoke about the delay in producing the new, updated guidance, which I accept should have been updated before now. However, it is important to say that the advice on that guidance came from the then children’s commissioner at the time, that his view on the matter changed in 2022 and that the current children’s commissioner is echoing the views of the previous children’s commissioner about the guidance becoming statutory.

The guidance that we have updated is non-statutory, as the member knows. I am very aware of Mr Johnson’s proposed member’s bill on restraint and seclusion. I have committed to working with him and I have been working with him throughout the past year.

The member mentions the views of the teaching trade unions. The teaching trade unions were represented on the physical intervention working group, and the guidance has been developed carefully over time, with extensive input from more than 30 different groups. Those groups included the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland, young people, parents, staff, local government, teaching unions—including the National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers—and those calling for Calum’s law. Therefore, this piece of work has been taken forward by a range of partners.

I recognise the call for further action on the matter, and I commit the Government to working with members across the chamber to address this and to exploring further legislative options. However, the updated guidance is a move forward and, although there have been delays, it has been broadly welcomed across the sector. I again commit to working with any MSP, irrespective of their party, to ensure that we have legislation and support that are fit for purpose and that support our children and young people in their education.

Roz McCall (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am happy to work with the cabinet secretary on the guidance, but I fear that the words of the then Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland, Bruce Adamson, are not fully being taken into consideration. He stated that, with regard to putting the guidance into statute,

“we have moved well beyond a position where this can be just an option for consideration in future legislation.”

I raised with the First Minister last week the case of Isaac Tocher, which was yet another instance of a child being restrained—which resulted in significant injuries—and placed in seclusion. The First Minister reiterated to me that he could conceive of no circumstances in which what happened to Isaac should happen. However, the fact is that it did happen, and it is one of many cases. Experts are saying that new guidance is simply not sufficient to keep all our children safe. Is the cabinet secretary confident enough to guarantee that every child in state care today is safe from unnecessary restraint and seclusion, given the Scottish Government’s new framework, which has just been published?

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

I thank the member for her question. I heard the First Minister’s response and I share the serious concerns that she raised at last week’s First Minister’s question time, which she has raised again today. I echo—very much—the words of the First Minister, who said:

“I cannot conceive of a circumstance under which any of the detail that Roz McCall has put on the record would be justifiable under the guidance”—[Official Report, 7 November 2024; c 25.]

that is provided to schools on restraint and seclusion. I again put on the record that I agree very much with the First Minister’s views in that regard.

The matter goes back to the safety and wellbeing of our children and young people in schools, which are absolutely paramount. Restraint and seclusion must be used only as a last resort, to prevent the risk of injury. The Government supports the intention behind Daniel Johnson’s member’s bill proposal, and I will continue to work with him as his bill progresses.

The fact that we have updated the guidance does not preclude the Government working with Mr Johnson on his bill. The member’s bill process is at an early stage, but I will consider the bill’s contents carefully and will work with and respond to the member in relation to his work on the bill.

The member queries the effectiveness of the guidance, but it is important to say that there has been a clear commitment that the guidance will be updated within the year and that we will respond to and monitor the progress and development of the guidance throughout the year to ensure that it is being used effectively. I hope that Roz McCall hears, from the tone and spirit in which I am engaging with the question, that the Government will work with members from across the chamber. It is really important that we get this right.

I know that there are a range of stakeholder views on the guidance. It is fair to say that we heard some of those views on Friday at the publication of the updated guidance. Beth Morrison, who has been leading work on Calum’s law, said:

“Today is a positive step for children in Scotland”.

She recognised, too, that there is more to be done, and I commit to working with MSPs from across the chamber to do exactly that.

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Anniesland)

I understand that preventative support and early intervention are among the cabinet secretary’s top priorities, with a focus on improving relationships, behaviour and attendance in schools. Will she speak to the most recently published guidance under the behaviour and relationships in schools action plan and on how the Scottish Government is following up its implementation and success in schools across Scotland?

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

The new guidance that we published last Friday, on the use of physical intervention in schools, is the latest part in the delivery of our relationships and behaviour action plan, which I launched at the end of the summer. As Bill Kidd points out, the guidance advises that prevention and early intervention must be our primary approach, because we want to address the underlying causes of any behaviour that poses a risk to the safety and wellbeing of others.

The approach will help teachers and school staff to deliver a safe and supportive learning environment and will avoid the need for restraint and seclusion. I was quite taken by views that were expressed by the Educational Institute of Scotland on the approach, with some teachers feeling that they lack confidence in relation to the current policy. We very much hope that the updated guidance will provide support in that regard.

Local authorities have an important role to play in supporting staff to implement the guidance. I therefore welcome last week’s statement by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities that the new national guidance will enable the reviewing and updating of local policies and practice. Of course, the Scottish Government will work with our partners to monitor and review the effectiveness of the guidance by autumn 2025, as I previously intimated.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

I thank Roz McCall for lodging the question. The guidance takes us forward, and we have clear definitions. The requirement to inform parents within the school day or, at the outside, within 24 hours and the comprehensive recording are both important.

However, in 2018, the children’s commissioner’s report “No Safe Place: Restraint and Seclusion in Scotland’s Schools” found 2,674 instances of restraint used against 386 children. Most concerningly, only 18 out of 32 local authorities were recording such incidents, and fewer than half the total number of local authorities were recording them comprehensively. Is that not why we need the guidance on a statutory basis—so that local authorities have to record and inform? Parents are not being informed in a timely manner and, critically, there is a gap in recording. What steps will the Government take to ensure that all such instances are recorded by education authorities?

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Mr Johnson raises a really important point, and I recognise the work that he is undertaking on this important issue. Reflecting on the commentary from the NASUWT on Friday, I note that it raised the very point that Mr Johnson is raising about inconsistency in the approaches that are being taken by local authorities. Local authorities have an important role in supporting their staff to implement the new guidance and in updating their local policies. The new guidance includes advice on reporting, recording and monitoring restraint and seclusion to ensure that we have a more consistent approach across the piece. The guidance applies to all schools, whether they are local authority, independent or grant aided.

I recognise the issue that Mr Johnson raises, and I look forward to working with him throughout the work that he undertakes on his member’s bill. I hope that he recognises and acknowledges that the new guidance makes specific reference to the issues that he has raised today because of the challenge in relation to inconsistency across the piece.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I support putting the guidance on a statutory footing, but is this whole debate not the result of a failure of the rest of the system? The fact that we are focused on the last resort means that the other resorts are not effective. We have significant problems with behaviour and violence in schools causing distress, and there is a failure to support those with additional support needs. Should we not be redoubling our focus on resolving those issues, so that we can reduce the use of restraint to the greatest possible extent?

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

I agree with the premise of Mr Rennie’s question. Post-pandemic, in particular, some of the challenges that he talks to—for example, ASN and changed behaviour in our schools—have been very live issues to me. As the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills, I spend a lot of time in the chamber responding to challenges on those very points. In Government, we need to reflect on how we can better support local authorities on those issues, because, post-pandemic, things are different.

I was in an early learning and childcare facility in Balmullo, in Mr Rennie’s constituency, recently and I heard what ELC practitioners in that local authority are doing in response to delays in speech, language and communication post-pandemic. It is important to work with local authorities in response to that greater need post-pandemic, and we, in Government, must better resource and support that work.

In the past financial year, we have spent record amounts on additional support needs. We have seen an increase of 725 in the number of learning support assistants, which is welcome news. However, I accept that that is not the end of the story and that the premise of Mr Rennie’s question is that this issue relates to wider issues within our education system post-pandemic. I agree with that.

The Government is in listening mode. We are approaching the budget, and I am sure that, if Mr Rennie has any proposals, my colleagues and I will be happy to engage with him, because we are all singing from the same hymn sheet on this issue and want to improve the support that is available for our children and young people.

Martin Whitfield (Labour, South Scotland)

I apologise to the cabinet secretary, because I am about to amend my question to her and go back to Roz McCall’s third question. The Government and local authorities have talked about review and update, and the Government is going to review the guidance in autumn 2025. So, when will all children be safe?

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

The guidance has been drafted in line with our responsibilities under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act 2024. It gives advice to staff about prevention, training and safeguards relating to the use of restraint and seclusion, and it sets out the types of restraint that should never be used on children and young people. That is really important.

The member asks a challenging question about the use of restraint in schools. We will have discussions about Mr Johnson’s bill in the coming weeks, and I commit to working with him on it. I have heard about the challenge today and I am aware of the inconsistent approaches that are currently being taken by local authorities across the country.

The purpose of the guidance is to provide a more consistent approach across the country, and I commit to working with COSLA and with members from all parties to deliver that, to ensure that our children and young people are safe in school.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

That concludes topical questions. I will allow a few moments for those on the front benches to organise themselves before the next item of business.

Planning (Housing)

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The next item of business is a ministerial statement by Ivan McKee on Scotland’s planning system—supporting investment and economic growth and delivering quality homes. The minister will take questions at the end of his statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions.

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

Planning is an essential building block for a successful and growing economy. What we build and where we build it creates the right conditions for economic growth and prosperity. When planning is responsive and has appropriate resources and expertise, it can unlock economic potential and leverage in investment—in particular, in housing. Planning is a powerful tool for delivering development, including new homes, in a way that supports our commitments to net zero and nature and builds stronger communities.

The delivery plan that I am publishing today sets out the actions that we will take so that planning can play its full part in addressing the housing emergency. We are accelerating those actions to ensure tangible results in the coming months. We have already reformed Scotland’s planning system to set out a strong vision with clear national planning policies for the future, through national planning framework 4.

One key objective of NPF4 is to support the delivery of quality homes for everybody who needs one. The policy is clear that applications will be supported if they are on sites that have been allocated in local development plans. Development proposals for new homes will be supported if they improve affordability and choice and address identified gaps in provision. Proposals for new homes will be supported where they make provision for affordable homes to meet an identified need. Our national planning policy on housing is permissive and not prescriptive, and that will not change.

However, our policy does not support development at any cost. Some members will be hearing calls for the so-called presumption in favour of sustainable development—a policy that pre-dated NPF4—to be reintroduced. However, that would not speed up delivery. Instead, it would take us back to more conflict and delay and do nothing to incentivise completions.

It is useful to remind anyone who is now calling for such a change from within this Parliament of the extensive engagement and parliamentary scrutiny that resulted in the Parliament adopting NPF4 in January 2023. At that time, members agreed that we needed to monitor the impact of NPF4 on housing delivery. In its annual review earlier this year, the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee also agreed that data on that is crucial. That evidence has informed the priorities that I am setting out today.

In recent weeks, I have been working intensively with my ministerial colleagues and stakeholders to identify how the planning system can help to address the housing emergency in Scotland. Those discussions have exposed that planning is not the only or even the most significant reason for the challenges that we are facing in housing. In a report that was published earlier this year, the Competition and Markets Authority identified that, over recent years, on average, 29,000 homes have been given planning permission annually in Scotland. That figure significantly exceeds local authorities’ land supply targets and it is higher than the target of 25,000 homes that industry representatives have been calling for.

We estimate that, across Scotland, more than 164,000 homes have planning permission but have not yet been built. Looking into it further, we see that analysis of house building applications shows that, in the Glasgow and Edinburgh city regions alone, planning permission has been granted for 121,000 homes that have not yet been built. Of those, around 38,000 units have been started but are not complete. The remainder may or may not be programmed by developers for build out. Land has also been allocated in development plans for a further 60,000 homes that are yet to receive planning permission.

The evidence shows that there is, in fact, no shortage of land, including land with planning permission already in place. What we need now is action to turn those permissions into homes. In the coming year, making progress on stalled applications will be our absolute priority.

There is more that we can and must do in planning to unlock more homes. Today, I am announcing clear actions that this Government will take to ensure that planning is front and centre in our efforts to turn this critical situation around. Those actions are around policy, delivery, efficiency and capacity.

First, on policy, we will continue to work with planning authorities to support them to put the new national policies into practice so that many more homes will be given planning permission every year where they are supported by agreed plans. Guidance will support that. We will also actively progress work to bring homes that have been given planning permission forward. Our work to reform compulsory purchase will contribute to that, and we will identify other mechanisms that could stimulate delivery.

Secondly, delivery is critical, too. We need to be crystal clear about the specific issues that are stalling development. My officials are now working with house builders and planning authorities to examine information that is being gathered on stalled sites. That will identify where well-placed interventions can broker solutions, as well as broader challenges. That group will meet for a detailed discussion later this week to look at the evidence and agree actions. While we will continue to respect the lead role that planning authorities play in determining the future development of their areas, over the next 12 months in particular, we will focus our efforts to help them to proactively enable development.

I announce today that we will establish a further planning hub to support housing delivery. Its approach will be informed by evidence and shaped in agreement with key partners from the public and private sectors, including the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, Heads of Planning Scotland, the Improvement Service and house builders. We want the hub to enable more efficient, responsive and timely decisions and delivery. We are also supporting early adopters of masterplan consent areas and ensuring that new local development plans include a pipeline of deliverable housing land.

Thirdly, on efficiency, it will not come as a surprise to members to hear that making processes and systems more efficient is a passion of mine. In the delivery plan, we have taken a structured approach and reviewed the process from end to end to identify issues that are getting in the way of progress and determine where improvements can be made. For some, unfortunately, the planning process can be unpredictable, costly and lengthy. We will do more with planning authorities to improve and streamline procedures. For example, small and medium-sized house builders have raised concerns about planning conditions, so we are working to promote greater consistency in practice.

We know that we can do more to address proportionality. We are actively working to better align consents, streamline validation and provide a better service through processing agreements. That will help to speed up the planning process and complement the work of the national planning improvement champion, who has already been doing excellent work in the area.

In addition, I can announce that we are taking forward work on further permitted development rights, which could, for example, accelerate the change to residential use of properties above shops . We will consider that, and other options to use that powerful tool, which, essentially, removes the need for planning permission.

I can also advise that work to introduce an infrastructure levy will be stopped. Instead, the focus will be on improving guidance on planning agreements under section 75 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. I know that that announcement will be welcomed by the industry, and I hope that it recognises that we are listening to its concerns.

Finally, we need to do more to support and increase the capacity of planning authorities. The housing planning hub will be part of that. I have already taken steps to increase planning fees to enable authorities to recoup more of the costs that are associated with planning. Although the presumption against ring fencing means that we will not direct where local authorities invest any increased revenue, I expect them to use that income to support their planning services.

We have also initiated efforts to recruit and train additional planners through a Government graduate programme and by promoting skills and training. To encourage more people to consider a career in planning, I can announce today that, next year, we will treble the number of bursaries that are available to postgraduate planning students.

In addition, we need to improve the capacity of local elected members, who are key to the planning process. Planning Aid Scotland is developing a fuller package of training for local elected members to support that.

The First Minister has made it clear that Scotland is open for business and that growing our economy by increasing investment is a key priority. Enabling more homes to be built will help to fulfil that aim, and the measures that I have set out today will benefit wider developments and projects.

However, house building must also be about home making and giving people good-quality places in which to live. We cannot develop at the expense of Scotland’s natural capital and we must continue to work towards net zero. That is how to create a sustainable economy that harnesses all Scotland’s natural and cultural assets for the benefit of current and future generations. Our policies are now designed to incentivise developers to build out their sites more quickly and to support the provision of affordable homes that meet diverse needs. Those policies and the actions that I have outlined will ensure that homes are built in planned locations that will better meet people’s needs.

Planning has not created the housing emergency, but it can help us to find solutions to the challenges that we face. Everyone who is involved in planning has a role to play in achieving that—including, not least, the Government. Through the national planning policy on housing and the delivery plan that I am publishing today, the Government is taking urgent action to hasten development and to create the homes all across Scotland that people need and deserve.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The minister will now take questions on the issues that were raised in his statement. I intend to allow around 20 minutes for questions, after which we will move on to the next item of business. I would be grateful if members who wish to put a question were to press their request-to-speak buttons now.

Meghan Gallacher (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I thank the minister for advance sight of his statement; however, it was an admission of defeat. I was hoping for some ground-breaking planning legislation to build more homes, and a plan to fix the challenges that we face right across our housing sector, yet we have been left with another hub and an increase in planning application costs that will deter future housing developments.

The minister has the brass neck to turn up today to say that he needs to be crystal clear about the issues that are stalling development. It is his Government that is standing in the way of building more homes. How does the Government reconcile the aim of delivering more quality homes with the decision to propose rent controls both during and between tenancies, when the minister perfectly understands that that will restrict rental income flexibility and deter vital investment?

The burning question is, if the hub is designed to be the saviour of our planning system, why was it not included in the initial drafting of the Housing (Scotland) Bill? Is it the Government’s last-ditch attempt to save that failing housing legislation?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

Wow. In asking us to speed up the process, Meghan Gallacher asks us to bring forward more legislation, which would take years and would not add anything to the legislation that we already have.

She complained about rises in fees, but if she spent any time at all talking to those in the sector, she would understand that the sector is very comfortable with paying more fees, provided that the money goes into increasing capacity in the planning system.

She ridiculed the idea of a hub, but if she spent any time talking to those in the sector, she would know that the first ask is for a hub to be set up to help accelerate planning applications through the system.

Right across the piece, Megan Gallacher is absolutely wide of the mark, and has clearly spent no time at all talking to those in the sector or looking at any of the 23 actions in the delivery plan that was published today, which includes actions to speed up the process and make it more efficient; the master plan consent areas that are in the legislation; the fact that we are accelerating work to treble the number of young people coming through the bursary route into the system; or the many other actions that we are taking.

We are serious about the role that planning can take in tackling the housing emergency, but Megan Gallacher should also recognise that the data published by the Competition and Markets Authority shows that, on average, 29,000 homes a year have been given planning permission during the past few years, which is far in excess of the asks of the sector. That land is there to be built out already, with planning permission.

Mark Griffin (Labour, Central Scotland)

It seems that the minister has been listening to the sector, to an extent, and there is a lot to be welcomed this afternoon. However, although the minister says that our national planning policy on housing is “permissive, not prescriptive”, which is technically correct, I am not quite sure that that sentiment is shared by house builders.

Based on the statistics that were released yesterday and the actions that were outlined in his statement today, when does the Government expect processing times to start to fall for major applications? The processing time is now more than a year, against a 16-week statutory timeframe.

Planning applications for sites with permission that have not been developed cost developers significant sums of money—money that they cannot borrow for. That money generally comes straight out of their cash flow, so it is not in their interest to sit on those permissions. Will the minister commit to an audit of the approvals and the sites that have been zoned for housing in the system on the basis of deliverability and the time that they have had that approval, so that we can get an accurate understanding of the capacity to build the homes that we so desperately need?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

I welcome the member’s recognition that we have been listening to and engaging closely with the sector. The Government stands ready to work with all parties in this place and people across the sector to deliver what we need for Scotland’s planning system, housing needs and wider economy.

I absolutely commit to working to identify stalled sites as a first priority. I have asked for information on stalled sites to be pulled together so that we can understand what is in the 164 homes that have already been given approval. I have also asked for sight of large planning applications that are going through the system across all 34 of our planning authorities, so that we can better focus the resources of the hub on providing a brokerage service to address the priority need to shift the dial on the number of homes that are being given planning permission each year and to speed up processing times, particularly on the larger developments, where processing times make a difference.

I will be honest. That data is held at the local authority level. We are reaching out to local authorities to secure it, so that we have visibility on where best to apply and focus resources to support them. We are also reaching out to Homes for Scotland and others in the sector to ask them to provide information on applications that are stuck in the system, so that we can help to move them forward. As I said, we are very keen to work with all parties to make a big difference.

Emma Roddick (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

The minister indicated in his statement that the Scottish Government has already made significant reforms to planning policy. Although Labour down south has also promised significant reform, I will not be alone in feeling that the proposed actions fall short. I hope that the Scottish Government has more ambition. Does the housing sector need further reform to enable more house building? What is the minister planning to do to move that reform forward, and how does that work compare with what is being progressed by the United Kingdom Government?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

As I indicated earlier, we are happy to work with anyone who can help us to move the agenda forward.

I am just back from a British-Irish Council meeting last week, where I had close engagement with not only the Northern Irish Government but the Welsh Government, the Government of Ireland and the UK Government’s new housing minister in the House of Lords. We had a very useful conversation about what we can learn from each other. It is interesting to note that we all face the same challenges.

We have had a close look at what the UK Government is proposing, and we are already either doing or working on delivering pretty much everything on its agenda.

The calculation method is interesting. When we use the UK Government’s proposed new calculation method for housing targets against our housing landscape, we find that it delivers a lower number than we already have in place through the housing need and demand assessment and minimum all-tenure housing land requirement system.

The UK Government is taking forward a five-year housing land supply requirement, which is already in place through our local development plans. It talks about a 10 per cent affordable target, and we are already at a 25 per cent affordable target. The UK Government talks about brownfield and community infrastructure activities, which are already in NPF4 policies. It also talks about increasing fees, which we have already taken steps on, and about 300 more planners, which we will more than match on a proportionate basis.

We are working closely with others and learning where we can, but it is interesting to note that we are already delivering on much of what the UK Government is proposing.

Alexander Stewart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The minister’s statement does not address the impact of the Government’s proposed rent controls between tenancies, which is a policy that continues to be of major concern to investors. How does the Scottish Government plan to mitigate the likely decline in housing supplies as a result of those restrictions?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

Mr Stewart might not be aware that, today, we are talking about the planning process and how it can help to support house building.

With regard to rent controls, my colleague, the Minister for Housing, has already lodged amendments to the Housing (Scotland) Bill to address those concerns.

As I identified in my statement, we need to address many factors in order to resolve the housing emergency. Planning has a significant role to play, but many other parts of the system are working hard across Government to deliver on other aspects.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale)

Good housing is central to health and wellbeing, but it is difficult in rural areas, such as the Scottish Borders, to have house builders engage in small developments. Some communities might feel that they will be sidestepped in the interests of accelerated house building, and many, as we know, only become engaged in the planning process late in the day.

I welcome reference to Planning Aid Scotland. Frankly, local members should be well aware of its functions, but most of the public are not. What can the Scottish Government do to help communities to engage with Planning Aid?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

Planning Aid Scotland is an excellent organisation that I was not aware of until I became planning minister. I have had a number of meetings and events with the organisation over the past months. To give it a plug, Planning Aid Scotland uses the services of current and retired experienced planners to support individuals who are engaging with the planning system. I thoroughly commend the work that it is doing. Communities and individuals who want to avail themselves of those services should reach out and engage with Planning Aid Scotland.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

The minister is correct to identify the need to bring on more planners to deliver against those targets. However, he knows that the workforce of planners currently sits at its lowest, with 1,205 town planners working in local authorities. Skills Development Scotland estimates that we need 700 more planners to replace people leaving the workforce and meet demand. The University of Dundee is the sole institution that is training planners, and the bursaries that he mentions fund just 10 planners at present. Can he confirm that his proposals will increase that number only to 30? Will we have more centres to train planners? When will the Government bring forward more detail on the work-based training for planners that is outlined in the action plan?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

That is a valid point. One of the things that struck me in my engagement with planning authorities and the planning ecosystem is the demands on planning resource. That is a consequence of a number of factors. As the system has become, rightly, more complicated and we have more challenges to address—such as climate, flooding, biodiversity and the housing emergency—and as other private sector organisations require more planning resource in the housing space, in energy and in many other aspects of the ecosystem, the supply of planners has not kept pace with the demand. That is why we are addressing the issue.

Adding 30 more planners a year to the total is not an insignificant thing to do. That is one element of what we are doing through the bursary scheme, which is the quickest, most cost-effective way to deliver planners—and I am absolutely open to increasing that further if there is capacity in the system. Very soon, we will bring forward information on the proposal for graduate planners to be employed within the Scottish Government as they go through their courses, in parallel with the bursary scheme. That will add a significant number of additional planners into the pipeline, and that will be targeted to start in the next academic year—in 2025.

In parallel with that, we have identified a need to encourage retired planners to come back and perhaps work part-time, and to identify where those who have left the planning profession mid-career can come back into the system. It is also a matter of identifying roles that can be played in the planning system through digitisation, automation or process improvement, or by individuals who are not fully trained planners. In all those aspects, we are taking forward work that we believe will have a cumulative impact on the resource within the planning system.

Ben Macpherson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

How will today’s announcements help in areas of rapidly growing populations, for example here in the capital? Will they help to progress the Granton waterfront development, for example, as a strategic site? Can the minister reassure the Parliament that stopping work to introduce an infrastructure levy will not affect the provision of necessary services in those areas of rapidly growing populations, such as general practices, primary schools, secondary schools and road infrastructure?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

Those are all very good points. We absolutely recognise the points that the member makes about the infrastructure levy. When we considered the issue, we came to the conclusion that the existing section 75 provisions, which raise far more money than the proposed infrastructure levy would do, represent the most effective way to continue to provide infrastructure.

An infrastructure-first provision is part of the planning process in national planning framework 4, so we absolutely recognise the need for joining up infrastructure provision with housing development. We think that there are other ways to deliver on that more effectively.

On the Granton waterfront, the member will not be surprised to know that, as planning minister, I will not comment on any individual applications. More generally, in Edinburgh and other parts of the country that are experiencing rapid population growth, we will be identifying stalled sites and applications that have been in the system for a considerable period of time, working closely with planning authorities to see what needs to be done to unblock them and move them forward through the brokerage service to be provided by the new planning hub.

Ariane Burgess (Green, Highlands and Islands)

I welcome the move to promote the change of use of properties, such as those above shops, to residential use. That measure will support us in creating three homes for the price of one.

Will the planning hubs enlist ecological specialists and provide an opportunity to fund empty homes officers to be deployed where needed?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

I am glad that the member welcomes the focus on change of use. She is right that that can provide additional capacity within the system to bring more homes on to the market. We have carefully considered how best the planning hub can deliver on the need to increase significantly the number of houses that are available as they come through the planning system. For that purpose, the work of the hub will be closely focused on those large stalled sites where we see that there is scope to make a difference quickly.

We also absolutely recognise that work needs to be done with small and medium-sized enterprises on smaller sites. We are taking that forward in parallel with other provisions that we have described in the delivery plan that I have outlined today.

The member is right that, in the increasingly complex planning system, there is a need for other professions—and environmental services is absolutely one of those. Flooding experts, biodiversity experts and a whole range of other skill sets are required in the system and in the hub, which will be designed specifically to reach out to experts in adjacent professions to move forward applications in the planning system that are taking longer than they should.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

I am very keen that all members who have pressed to put a question have an opportunity to do so. I would be grateful for slightly more concise responses, minister.

Evelyn Tweed (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

Today’s statement made reference to potentially expanding permitted development rights, but in England that has led to inappropriate conversions that have often resulted in the creation of poor housing. How will the minister ensure that such outcomes are avoided here in Scotland?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

The member makes a valid point. We recognise the issue. We are open to considering more development rights, but I know that that can be a blunt instrument and that a careful approach is required to avoid unintended consequences, as the member outlines.

We can learn lessons from the experiences in England. We absolutely do not want the experience of homes in industrial areas, overcrowded conversions and poor-quality living accommodation to be replicated here. Instead, our starting point will be to explore how PDRs can help us to deliver town centre living, reuse empty buildings in a sustainable way and support rural communities.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

The minister knows that change is essential, following the housing conference that he and I spoke at recently. It seems sensible to progress a more pragmatic way of making the current policy work more effectively, but I am concerned about the availability of usable development land, which is clearly a problem in certain parts of the country. Is the minister prepared to look again at the policy to ensure that sufficient land is available?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

It is important to recognise that there is a balance between the need for housing development and the need to ensure that developments are in the right place. Developments should not be on prime agricultural land that is without infrastructure and not adjacent to transport links, or in places that do not meet planning authorities’ local development plans—that is not the direction that we want to take.

I have outlined the numbers. There is already a significant amount of land with planning permission and significantly more land that is in local development plans but has not yet been brought forward for planning permission. We have a lot to go at there.

The member would agree that we do not want to be in a position where land that is being brought forward for planning permission runs counter to our need to maintain good-quality agricultural land or is challenging in terms of biodiversity, climate change, flooding provisions or other very important aspects of NPF4.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

There is a need to encourage registered social landlords to build the new properties that are needed and wanted by tenants, including in my Greenock and Inverclyde constituency. How will today’s announcement support an acceleration in the provision of social housing, and how will the Scottish Government ensure that registered social landlords buy into the aim to speed up delivery alongside planning authorities and developers?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

Clearly, that work happens at a local level. Local authorities are the statutory housing authority, with a responsibility for assessing housing requirements locally and for working with RSLs and others to identify priorities for affordable housing delivery as part of a strategic housing investment plan.

My colleague the Minister for Housing works closely with local authorities and RSLs through Scottish Government area teams to oversee delivery of affordable housing programmes. It is important to recognise that the Scottish Government has a strong track record in housing, through its support for the delivery of more than 133,000 affordable homes since 2007, with more than 94,000 of those being for social rent.

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

The problem is that council planning departments have been hollowed out for many years. It is a question of funding, but I do not see anything in the statement that addresses that. The minister seems to be pinning his hopes on a rather vague planning hub, but that will work only if it has the ability to deliver. Will it have any powers to do that, and will it have a budget?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

It is interesting that Graham Simpson asks about the resources going to planning departments. The member who is sitting next to him was complaining just a minute ago about us increasing fees.

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

That was not my question.

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

—and it is important to recognise—[Interruption.]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear one another.

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

It is important to recognise that, on average, only approximately 65 per cent of the costs of council planning departments are covered by fees that are collected from planning applicants. We recognise that increasing fees, alongside improving services, will be critical to providing the resources that are required.

The hub itself will have a budget and will focus on unblocking the stalled sites around the country that already have planning permission. In particular, it will focus, as I described, on working through what is preventing applications for sites that are in the planning system from proceeding more rapidly through that system. It will be targeted and focused on working with planning authorities in local councils, which are the statutory providers in delivering that process.

Again, I note that if the member has spent any time at all talking to those in the sector, he will recognise that they have absolutely been calling for the planning hub.

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

Planning authorities and planning committees in local authorities often have to make decisions on applications on the basis of evidence that has been commissioned by the applicant. That can be particularly problematic in contentious cases that involve, for example, the demolition of listed buildings.

Would it be possible for the minister to look at options to enable planning authorities to commission independent adjudication or advice on things such as structural condition surveys, which can then be billed to the applicant? That would ensure that there is integrity in the planning process and that we do not have people shopping around to get the outcome that they want, which can lead to the unnecessary demolition of our national heritage.

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

The member makes an important point. Again, that is among the many aspects that have to be considered in the round—in NPF4, there are 33 different policies. National heritage, and the cultural importance of historic buildings, is an important part of considerations.

I think that it is true to say—if I am not mistaken—that planning authorities already have the ability to commission independent advice as required. When applications come to the Scottish Government on appeal through the reporter process, work is done to consider the independent advice that has been brought forward as part of the process in order to ensure that all sides have been considered. Nevertheless, I take on board the member’s point, and it is important that we ensure that our national heritage is considered as part of the process.

John Mason (Independent, Glasgow Shettleston)

In his statement, the minister referred to net zero, nature and building stronger communities, all of which suggests the use of more brownfield sites and fewer greenfield sites. As it is, the minister’s constituency and mine have a number of brownfield sites, and yet we see building going on and on to the extent that, one of these days, Glasgow might even get to Coatbridge.

Can the minister reassure us that brownfield sites will be used even more through this statement?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

Absolutely—the member is right to identify net zero, biodiversity, nature and building communities as policies in NPF4, and those need to be considered in the round. There is a presumption in favour of brownfield sites, and I recognise what the member identifies with regard to our constituencies in that respect. That is critical to our focus, and as the hub works through those sites that are stuck in the planning system, or which already have permission but have not been taken forward, I have no doubt that many of those will be on brownfield sites. Work to join up different partners to help unlock those sites will be a key part of what the hub takes forward.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

That concludes the ministerial statement.

Business Motion

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The next item of business is consideration of business motion S6M-15430, in the name of Jamie Hepburn, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, on changes to the business programme.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I will be very happy to move the motion. It seeks to add a statement on Thursday of this week, after the scheduled portfolio questions on education and skills, which have already been agreed. Upon request from other parties, being the accommodating person that I am, I am very happy to add the statement to the schedule.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees to the following revision to the programme of business for Thursday 14 November 2024—

delete

2.30 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions

2.30 pm Portfolio Questions: Education and Skills

and insert

2.00 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions

2.00 pm Portfolio Questions: Education and Skills

followed by Ministerial Statement: Ministerial Events

Motion agreed to.

Decision Time

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The next item of business is decision time. There are three questions to be put as a result of today’s business.

The first question is, that amendment S6M-15382.1, in the name of Annie Wells, which seeks to amend motion S6M-15382, in the name of Jenni Minto, on the women’s health plan 2021 to 2024, progress and next steps, be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

There will be a division.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The result of the division on amendment S6M-15382.1, in the name of Annie Wells, is: For 48, Against 67, Abstentions 5.

Amendment disagreed to.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The next question is, that amendment S6M-15382.2, in the name of Carol Mochan, which seeks to amend motion S6M-15382, in the name of Jenni Minto, on the women’s health plan 2021 to 2024, progress and next steps, be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The final question is, that motion S6M-15382, in the name of Jenni Minto, on the women’s health plan 2021 to 2024, progress and next steps, as amended, be agreed to.

Motion, as amended, agreed to,

That the Parliament acknowledges the longstanding health inequalities faced by women and believes that it is vital that services and health outcomes are improved for women and girls; notes the progress made through implementation of the Women’s Health Plan as a first step towards addressing these inequalities, in particular the appointment and work of the first Women’s Health Champion; thanks hard-working NHS staff and all those who have contributed to the progress to date; welcomes the commitment from the Scottish Government to work with women and girls across Scotland in developing the next iteration of the plan; thanks everyone who has contributed their lived experience to the priorities of the Women’s Health Plan; is concerned by the slow progress in addressing stubbornly high health inequalities experienced by women, and calls on the Scottish Government to ensure that the next plan sets out concisely when and how each of its actions will be fully implemented across Scotland.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

That concludes decision time.

Members’ business will be published tomorrow, Wednesday 13 November 2024, as soon as the text is available.