Chamber and committees

Would decision makers and investigators take part in that process?

My concern is that there could be two individuals—an agency employee and a staff member—with identical complaints, and one complaint would be handled completely differently from the other. You have explained some of the reasons behind that. Ministers could be criticised because one complaint was not being dealt with effectively because it came from an agency worker.

Would a minister still be aware that a potential complaint was being made from an agency worker?

I asked about the issue of agency workers at the 25 January meeting and I still have a concern about that. I get that agency workers are not employees—they have their own employer, so the approach needs to be different. However, the new procedure says:

“Propriety & Ethics will take steps to assure that any agency worker with a concern about a Minister’s behaviour can have their issue addressed.”

Will that follow a separate procedure? Will the decision makers and investigators get involved at all in that process?

If the Government is so keen on promoting transparency, will it agree to lift the gagging orders that are in place at Ferguson Marine?

When will that be?

To ask the Scottish Government what role prisons have in the assessment of prisoners, including of their mental health, prior to their release. (S6O-00965)

In December 2019, Stuart Quinn was released from HMP Peterhead and, the next day, murdered devoted dad Alan Geddes in Aberdeen. I keep in touch with Alan’s sister Sandra, who strongly believes that her brother would still be alive today if Quinn’s previous convictions and psychopathic behaviour had been properly assessed. Lessons need to be learned to ensure that something like that never happens again. Will the cabinet secretary meet me and Alan’s family to discuss what more can be done to improve the system when a prisoner with a serious, unresolved mental health issue is released from prison?

It is clear that we are facing one of the worst cost of living crises in living memory. Inflation is increasing, bills are going up and energy costs are causing a lot of fear and distress in our communities. We all know the challenges that our constituents are facing and we all understand the concern and worry that they are causing many families across Scotland.

When it comes to a national crisis, Governments must step up. In Scotland, we have two Governments, and they must work together and implement a raft of measures to mitigate the crisis as much as possible. The motion from the Liberal Democrats echoes the belief that Governments have to step up. The UK Government has stepped up and introduced a raft of measures that will help households across the UK. I am sure that it can do more, and I am sure that the chancellor will do more throughout the year. There is a range of initiatives that will help hard-pressed households, although it is not a magic bullet—they simply do not exist.

We will all face increased bills and challenges because of what is happening elsewhere in the world. Maggie Chapman seems to think that the situation exists only in the UK, but it is a global problem. It is not a case of fixing the problem but a case of dealing with it as best we can. I believe that the policies that have been introduced by the UK Government will go some way to tackle the issues and help families to cope better over the coming months.

Where the UK Government is allowed to help while protecting the devolution settlement, it has done so. The cut to fuel duty by 5p per litre helps us all to fill our tanks, but it is of particular importance to people in rural areas, where car travel is essential.

Levelling up funds and city growth deals, which Finlay Carson mentioned, bring huge investment and could transform many areas of Scotland. Freeports will also provide an economic boost to Scotland. The £150 rebate on council tax bills for the coming year, which was thankfully passed on by the Scottish Government, will mean that most properties in bands A to D will pay less council tax next year than they did this year. That is welcome, and I thank the UK Treasury for making it possible. There is also the doubling of the household support fund.

That is all in stark contrast to the increased costs that the Scottish Government is burdening hard-working Scots with, which add to the cost of living crisis. SNP rail fares are going up. As Alex Cole-Hamilton pointed out, the Scottish Government could cut the fares rather than the services. Water charges are up. We have a higher tax bill than people in the rest of the UK. With the car park tax, the SNP and Greens want to tax people for going to work. They could stop that right now if they wanted to. The SNP has now announced that it wants a congestion charge in Edinburgh, meaning more tax and more costs for citizens who are just trying to get to work to pay the bills.

This year, the Scottish Government core block grant has increased by more than 10 per cent, which is the largest increase in the history of devolution. It gives the Scottish Government the means to help households directly, but instead the money might be used to cover the waste that we expect from this Government, such as £250 million on unfinished, rusting ferries; £147 million on a delayed sick kids hospital; and £40 million on the malicious prosecution of the Rangers administrators. That is all money that could have been directed to the cost of living crisis, but instead the people of Scotland are having to pay for the SNP’s mismanagement.

The SNP-Green Government could choose to do so much more, but it does not, because it has one goal and one goal only—to pursue independence. We heard it from Jackie Dunbar and we heard it from Christine Grahame. They do not care—[Interruption.] They do not care about people’s priorities; they care only about their own. It is a disgrace.

The Liberal Democrat motion is correct: Governments need to step up. The UK Government has done so—it is time that the SNP-Green coalition did so too. I support the Conservative amendment.

Will the minister take an intervention?

I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests, which shows that I am still a councillor on Aberdeen City Council.

I congratulate the Scottish Government on producing a draft framework that has managed to unite many organisations in their criticism of the framework’s complete lack of detail. Like so much that is produced by this devolved Government, it is full of headlines that no one could disagree with, but is lacking in substance. I hope that the new version will address that.

I thank the committee for its work and the excellent report that it has produced. It does not take us long to discover the first big issue, which is capacity in the current planning system, which was mentioned earlier by Graeme Dey.

Local authorities have, quite rightly, bemoaned the lack of consultation on and the timing of the proposals. Coming at the same time as many local authorities are formulating local development plans, the proposals have thrown into doubt the LDPs and have caused a great deal of confusion and worry for our local government colleagues. LDPs are sizeable documents that take years of consultation with local communities. The measures that are outlined in NPF4 have thrown much of that into doubt, with changes to regulations that will put additional strains on our already underresourced colleagues.

The conclusions of the committee report highlight the funding issue as a key concern, and state that it is debatable whether, even with additional funding, it will be enough. Years of underfunding have left our councils in dire straits—a point that was well made by Meghan Gallacher and Foysol Choudhury. Unlike Alex Rowley, who does not blame the minister, I blame the SNP Government. The problem has been caused by many years of underfunding of local government.

The response from Homes for Scotland reveals the framework’s failure to address the on-going resourcing challenges in local authorities, and notes that it adds to planning officers’ workloads with a “raft” of, at times, “contradictory” policies with no clear decision-making hierarchy. Officers will also have to take into account a raft of new technical reports. Reduced budget with more work for our local authorities is a recipe for failure.

The committee raised concerns about the lack of ambition in figures that are proposed for the minimum all-tenure housing land requirement. That is echoed by Homes for Scotland, which points out that the tool that has been used for calculating the MATHLR relies too heavily on past population trends and fails to identify the full range of housing need, with many people being excluded from the count. That follows a recent report that shows that the cumulative housing shortfall since the global financial crisis is now approaching 100,000. The committee report asks the Scottish Government

“to develop a tool that is up to date and fit for all areas of Scotland”.

I hope that the minister will address that in his closing speech.

There are concerns from our rural communities, which we heard about from Finlay Carson and Gillian Martin. Sarah Madden, who is the policy adviser on rural communities at Scottish Land & Estates, commented:

“We fully support the overarching ambition of NPF4, but unfortunately there is a large gap between that ambition and the detail in the framework.

We of course understand that the planning system needs to take the climate crisis into account, but addressing that must not be to the detriment of rural development.”

Many people have criticised the NPF4’s focus on urban environments and the fact that it does not understand our rural environment.

The planning process must take account of infrastructure planning, but the link between NPF4 and infrastructure planning is not clear. The Chartered Institute of Housing Scotland said:

“we also need to see land identification then matched with the appropriate infrastructure changes. And then we need to help planning authorities realise the connection between these national strategic plans and their own ... priorities.”

On infrastructure changes, the framework has little red lines, which it calls “strategic connections”. There is one between Inverness and Perth and one between Inverness and Aberdeen, so the Government must surely now recognize that those connections are strategic and that it should, therefore, get moving on full dualling of the A9 and A96.

I must mention and thank the Scottish Sports Association for its excellent submission to the consultation. From the submission, we can see the opportunity that the framework could bring, so I commend the Scottish Sports Association’s chief executive, Kim Atkinson, for highlighting how important sport and wellbeing can be in a planning framework. As the first line in the submission states,

“Fundamentally, sport is fun, but it is also the golden thread which connects health, communities and equalities.”

I would go further. Sport is one of our best forms of early intervention and prevention, so I urge the Scottish Government to work with the association and to incorporate as many of the submission’s suggestions as possible into NPF4. That will bring real long-term benefits to Scotland’s health and wellbeing.

If the devolved Government is serious about digital, full fibre connectivity should be mandatory for every new home. Throughout the past two years, when working from home has become the norm, we have seen an accelerating need for better digital infrastructure. Although NPF4 goes some way towards addressing that, it is arguable that, in the world that we now find ourselves in, it must to go further. I ask the Government to look at that as it amends the draft and produces the final document. Digital connectivity is particularly important for rural communities such as mine.

NFP4 has much to say about my area—the north-east. Once again it focuses on an idea that we all support—the just transition. The framework needs more detail about how that area will support our drive to net zero. There is no mention of the proposed energy transition zone or of the hydrogen production hub.

The SNP-Green Government is once again full of words, but there is little action. The policy will not deliver for the people of rural Scotland. It will not deliver the homes that are needed or the environmental impacts that have been promised. It does not link up the vital infrastructure that we require. It places undue pressure on local authorities that face continuous cuts from this Government. The framework needs a lot of work, so I encourage the Government to listen to all who have contributed.