Chamber and committees

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?

My comments relate to a wider issue; they are on the letter that we received from Mary McIntosh. She is from my area, and she was present during the evidence sessions regarding this matter. If we approve the revised statement today, does that mean that we will have to send her a response? My concern is that she has a bee in her bonnet about this issue.

I highlight the concerns that were raised in the Social Justice and Social Security Committee on amendment 230. We were considering Bob Doris’s amendment as part of a series of other amendments lodged by other colleagues on that committee, and we had to wait for the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee before we were able to hear the debate surrounding it.

I fully support the amendment, but I have to question the process, given that it was not considered as part of the homelessness prevention work that was undertaken by the Social Justice and Social Security Committee. That is more of a reflective comment than anything else, but I am glad that we are here now and are able to discuss it—although it has been a very long time coming, and the direction that the Parliament has taken has not been good for stakeholders’ morale, as they have had to wait for so long before we have been able to discuss the amendment today.

Hazel, will you touch on local place plans in the round?

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?

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.

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 thank the minister for advance sight of his statement.

Despite knowing for years that RAAC presents a serious safety risk, the Scottish National Party has failed to take action to address the issue. While councils face mounting repair bills to fix RAAC in public buildings, local government budgets have been cut year on year.

At the same time as politicians prioritise the debate on the use of toilets at Holyrood, thousands of homeowners who have been forced out of their homes are having to make mortgage payments on properties that they cannot access, while the value of those properties plummets.

In Aberdeen, SNP councillors refused to commit funding for RAAC repairs, which means that affected homeowners will have to shell out thousands for a new roof or see their home demolished. It is a complete injustice that, through no fault of their own, homeowners in RAAC-affected properties find themselves living in defective homes with little to no resale value. Does the minister think that that is an acceptable situation for homeowners to be in? Why will the SNP not step in, at either local or national level, to support people who are affected by the scandal?