Chamber and committees

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.

Does the minister agree that, if language is too vague, there will be no consistency across different planning authorities and that that will add to the number of appeals coming through to the Scottish reporter?

Will the minister take an intervention?

After today, the devolved Government is ending overseas trade support for oil and gas service companies. Does the minister agree that it will be left up to local authorities in the north-east to defend the thousands of jobs of workers in that sector, and will he take the opportunity to apologise to the people of the north-east for this latest betrayal by the SNP-Green coalition of chaos?

A chief education officer in Aberdeenshire Council recently broke freedom of information and data protection laws by sending a threatening email to someone who had asked FOI questions about education. It appears that the officer—as a chief education officer—has also breached the council’s statutory responsibility. Should Audit Scotland investigate such breaches? If not, who should investigate local authorities when those rules are broken? Is the Government aware of the questions that led to that serious breach?

It will be no surprise that I am going to ask about local government. Of course, I was new councillor of the year back in 2019, but I do not like to bring it up much, deputy convener. [Laughter.]

I will ask about a thing that struck me when I was reading the report. I asked a question on it of the Deputy First Minister, I think last month. Obviously, local authorities have local outcomes improvement plans, and at the national level we have the NPF. When we are commissioning services at local authority level, one of the first questions to ask is how the services will contribute to the outcomes that we are trying to achieve. That is the golden thread that goes through at local government level—we do not really ask about the NPF.

It is almost as though there are two chains—the Scottish Government chain, which seems to be broken before it gets down to local government, and then there is a chain at local government level. Is that a fair assessment? Have your members mentioned LOIPs not being aligned to the NPF? I guess that the situation is almost like VHS and Betamax: they do the same things, but they are different. How do we combine the two chains?

That was useful. It is probably about awareness as well. At the local level, we pushed awareness of the LOIP. Over the past five years, especially at budget time, everyone was quoting the LOIP back at me, so that obviously worked. Everyone knew that if they were looking for funding it had to align with the LOIP. Organisations are maybe not so aware of the NPF locally because they know that the LOIP is there and that they must align with it.

I have a feeling that we do it within silos almost. I keep banging the drum in the committee that spending more on local government can help to save money on health and justice later. However, I guess that is harder for the Government to do, because it might involve shifting resources from one point to another.

Aberdeen City Council has embedded the LOIP at the start of projects. I think that you mention in your report that it should be embedded right at the start of projects.

The way I read the situation is that it is almost as though it is measured how a project has aligned with the NPF at the end, as opposed to the question being asked right at the start how it will achieve the outcomes of the NPF. Do you have any ideas about how we could change that?

The link between the NPF and the LOIP is broken; organisations that are aware of the LOIP might be less aware of the NPF, at the national level. We should combine them better so that people are aware of both, not just of one or the other. I do not know how to fix that.