Chamber and committees

I move on to the interpretation of NPF4—specifically, the never-ending debate on 20-minute neighbourhoods and the stifling impact that those can have on potential development in remote and rural areas. Are 20-minute neighbourhoods achievable? Why is development being stifled, and how might that be overcome?

Hazel or Esme, does either of you have any comments on 20-minute neighbourhoods?

There is an issue about community understanding of what NPF4 is. We have discussed a lot the idea of engaging with communities directly so that they know that they can advocate. At the same time, they know their areas, as you rightly said. However, there is still a lack of understanding of what NPF4 means and how people can get involved in that process.

Kevin, from a developer point of view—we have communities, but we also have developers—when it comes to local place plans, is the guidance creating a confused landscape?

A community council has raised an issue with me, which goes back to my point about the local place plans. Community councils are becoming hugely frustrated with the lack of progress in getting local place plans approved. A lot has been said about the delay in the timescales and how long it could take to get local place plans in place and local development plans ready and approved. How do we solve that problem? How do we tackle the issue on a council by council basis to create a streamlined approach so that communities feel empowered and developers are aware of land that is suitable for development? How do we get things moving? I feel as though we are hitting another period of stagnation, where we are doing nothing.

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

Following on from what Willie Rennie said, the housing emergency and the introduction of emergency legislation through the Cost of Living (Tenant Protection) (Scotland) Act 2022 highlighted a significant gap in the Government’s understanding of the private rented sector. Given that that sector provides for approximately 13.5 per cent of Scotland’s population, its role in the housing system is not only substantial; it is indispensable. Had a comprehensive strategy been implemented earlier, it is possible that Scotland could have avoided a lot of the housing shortages that we are seeing today. Although I understand why Willie Rennie is wary of bringing in another strategy, his amendments 1 and 2 come from the right place. It is an area that we have to look at as part of this housing bill.

I will touch on amendments 135 and 135A. The charter proposed in amendment 135 would offer a clear and accessible framework to support both landlords and tenants. I hope that the amendment itself would serve as a straightforward tool for communicating key information. I do not want to be overprescriptive when it comes to implementing a charter. The reason for the amendment is to make sure that the rights of the private rented sector are being upheld. The important balance between the sector and tenants would be met through the charter.

Amendment 135A would change when the charter would be published, from 12 months to six months after the proposed new section came into force. I do not intend to move amendments 135 and 135A today, but I would be grateful to hear what the cabinet secretary has to say on the introduction of a charter. I believe that something of this nature—whether it is a strategy, a charter or something else—must be explored as part of the bill.

I understand and am pleased to hear that that work is moving in the right direction. However, will the cabinet secretary please keep the committee updated on the progress that is being made? When it comes to the housing to 2040 board, we are not always in receipt of information, which can cause a lot of frustration to members who are trying to find out where we are, the progress that is being made and the outcomes and objectives that are coming from the Scottish Government and the board.

Amendment 130 relates to the payment of tenancy deposits. It seeks to include a framework for those payments in the bill so that tenancy deposit regulations must include a provision to ensure that a tenancy deposit is paid by the tenant directly to the scheme administrator. More than anything, it is a probing amendment. It will be helpful to hear where the cabinet secretary sits on including the provision in the bill.

I move on to the amendments in the name of Edward Mountain. Amendment 184 would add a fund for improving or securing the provision of social housing to the list of possible uses for transferred unclaimed deposits. I have a great deal of sympathy with that, as does Edward Mountain. The amendment is about ensuring that we utilise unclaimed deposits in a positive way—in this case, by investing them in social housing, which is under huge pressure. The amendment seeks to find better and more positive solutions for the use of that money. Through discussions with the cabinet secretary, I understand that there are other areas where the money could also be better utilised, so I look forward to hearing her response to amendment 184. Any positive use of that money would be of great benefit to tenants.

I want to go back to the really interesting and important issue of guarantors. It is perhaps not an issue that we can solve through amendments today, but it could certainly be solved in the future. We have spoken a lot about students and young people who are trying to access further and higher education, and we need to be able to look after students who are from here but also students who are from elsewhere in order to utilise our education system. We need to be mindful that they have needs and requirements, including housing, and we must ensure that we recognise those issues throughout the bill.

I look forward to hearing the cabinet secretary’s response and the other contributions on this group of amendments.

Good morning, minister. You are on record as saying that

“Planning has not created the housing emergency, but it can help us to find solutions to the challenges that we face.”—[Official Report, 12 November 2024; c 12.]

Surely what is being proposed here goes against what you have previously said about trying to secure more planning developments in order to tackle the housing emergency. As Mark Griffin has rightly asked, will the fact that the consultation said one thing but you are going to do another squeeze out SMEs?

If small and medium-sized developments cannot progress, though, that will not help tackle the housing emergency. Is that something that you would charge for?