Chamber and committees

I am completely supportive of what you have said about community empowerment and ensuring that communities are absolutely involved in development plans. We have local place plans, which communities are very much involved in. However, if we are not going to rely so much on the private sector, who on the public side of things is going to provide funding? That is the sticking point, as local government is completely up against it in terms of its finances. What are your thoughts on using public finance, rather than private finance, for developments? I do not think that we can have one without the other. We very much need the private sector to tackle the housing emergency.

This should not have happened in the first place. We are talking about convicted criminals—some of them violent or sexual offenders—whose records could, at any point, be obscured through self-identification and a legal name change. The cabinet secretary needs to provide clarity—I am pleased that she did so in her response—because we cannot have further instances happening in the future. We need to ensure that victims, women’s groups and the wider public have faith in the justice system when the Government looks at such issues, because we need to know whether there have been instances of authorities having missed a person’s criminal record because they changed their gender. Is the cabinet secretary absolutely sure that that instance was an isolated one? Is she sure that we will not return to the chamber to hear of any more such instances in the future?

To ask the Scottish Government how many transgender prisoners have had their criminal records erased, following a self-identification process and changing of their birth name. (S6T-02590)

We are hearing the same thing time and time again. It is always someone else’s fault when it comes to the SNP failing to achieve its targets.

Over the years, the Scottish Government has promised to deliver a number of policies to eradicate child poverty, such as free laptops, free bikes, smaller classroom sizes, new swing parks and closing the attainment gap, to name just a few. However, not one of those policies has been delivered in full.

I want to go back to the important question that was raised by my colleague Liz Smith about the mitigation of the two-child cap. The issue comes down to finances. As Liz Smith rightly pointed out, the mitigation of that policy will contribute significantly to worsening the pressure on the social security budget. I will simply repeat the question, because I do not believe that the cabinet secretary answered it when Liz Smith asked it originally. How will that be funded?

My next question relates to the point about data. Campaigners have called for a review of Police Scotland and Crown Office policy following the story that emerged in the press at the weekend. Given that a name change allowed an individual to separate himself from his criminal past, there needs to be a further investigation into the processes that Police Scotland and the Crown Office followed. We should not have had to wait until the initial incident took place and was reported in the press.

Record keeping is vital, especially in circumstances in which an individual changes—or can change—their name. Will the cabinet secretary commit to ending any practices by which a criminal can obscure their criminal record via a change of name or gender, to stop convicts hiding in plain sight before the authorities? Most importantly, can the cabinet secretary assure me and other members that safeguards will ensure that records are not misplaced in the system—which, as it stands, may be open to abuse, as we have seen through the story that was reported in the press?

Perhaps that is a question that we should take to the minister.

Yes, because it is right that we consider the letter in relation to what we are doing here.

I will pick up on what Esme Clelland said in her exchange with my colleague Mark Griffin.

It was interesting that Esme mentioned that point 1 of NPF4 is about the nature and biodiversity crises. No one is going to argue against that, but NPF4 was developed before a housing emergency was declared. She also mentioned that “hierarchy” is not the right word to use. We want to manage nature and biodiversity while ensuring that people have safe, secure and affordable homes. We need to look at the issues in that context. That is an important consideration when it comes to how we look at NPF4.

My first question relates to the adoption of NPF4. A lot of associated advice and guidance has been produced—some of which has been implemented, but some of it has not—and we have had working groups. What impact has that had on the ability of communities to engage meaningfully with the planning system?

I will start with you, Esme, because I picked up on the point that you made. Is NPF4 helping or hindering the development of local place plans?

I was intrigued to learn that Homes for Scotland has asked for a minimum target to be established of 25,000 new homes to be built each year. Could you expand a little on that minimum target, Kevin? What would it mean in the context of the housing emergency, which we have been speaking about this morning? What about the practical side of things? How could that target be achieved?

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.