Chamber and committees

That is helpful. My next question is about opportunities to consult stakeholders properly. The committee has expressed concern that its inquiry and work and the Scottish Government’s consultation work are running beside each other. Are there other opportunities for people to feed in views? Are you concerned about that? Given the pandemic, this has maybe not been the best time for making it a priority to ensure that people are aware of NPF4 and can see what it will mean for their communities. I am happy if anyone wants to add anything on that.

We would like to hear those views. Maybe you could provide them to the committee in writing so that we could include them in our work.

I have two further questions. If someone fails to engage with a review of their disability benefit, at what point in the new system would the failure to provide information result in a benefit potentially being stopped?

Will the minister update the committee on the workforce, which we have discussed at length as a committee and, during a visit, with Social Security Scotland? At what stage is the recruitment of the professionals who will be tasked with undertaking this work? I have raised the following question with the minister before. What discussions have taken place with general practice on payments for the provision of information and the expectation for general practice to provide it?

Good morning. I thank the minister and his officials for joining us. What are the Government’s plans on overpayments, which could build up as a result of continuing to pay the benefits? What are the advantages and disadvantages of self-assessment?

That is really helpful; I am grateful for that clarity.

Finally, I will ask about an issue that relates to my initial questions. NPF4 will place a new requirement on developers and planning authorities to assess the life-cycle carbon emissions of certain developments. The developers will carry out the assessments, which will be considered by planning officers. Has an impact assessment been undertaken of that new requirement, or will that be conducted during the consultation? It could be a significant and potentially burdensome process for developers and individual councils.

That is helpful; thank you.

I will move on to the recent planning legislation, which requires Scottish ministers to set out how the NPF will contribute to meeting a series of outcomes, including, in particular, the housing needs of older people and disabled people. There has been criticism from the Law Society of Scotland, for example, which questions whether the approach is compliant with the 1997 act. Will you explain your approach and how those outcomes will be included in NPF4?

I do not know whether Fiona Simpson or Andy Kinnaird wants to respond to that.

The specific section on renewable energy seems to lack clarity. It also seems to contradict itself. That is why there are concerns about different priorities being open to interpretation.

Obviously, the committee cannot amend the draft plan. Is that discussion being held in the consultation that you are having with energy developers? We know that there were a number of complaints about the fact that renewable energy developments were not taken forward, about the time that it takes councils to get them moving, or about the fact that they have been called in by the Government when they are rejected. What learning has taken place for future developments, to make sure that renewable energy comes online as soon as possible to meet our energy needs?

I thank Fiona Simpson and Andy Kinnaird for joining us. I will follow on from Willie Coffey’s line of questioning. There are a number of questions about the signal that the draft NPF4 sends about the presumption in favour—or not in favour—of renewable energy development. How was that designed? Given that we are trying to meet the climate change targets, is it your expectation that there will be a presumption in favour of renewable energy developments across Scotland?

Thank you for that. Before I hand back to the convener, I want to look further at this important issue, which is one that we must seriously consider at this stage.

On life-cycle carbon emissions, we must also look at how technology and other schemes could reduce emissions after developments have been built, such as through the use of community heat schemes. I know that a number of such schemes are already under way in Edinburgh, but there is the potential to have more of them in the future.

I just want to put it on record that it seems that the cart is being put before the horse in relation to many developments. They could actually have a lower carbon footprint, but they might not go ahead if the life-cycle carbon emissions are not taken into account. I do not know whether the witnesses want to come back in on that, but we should be aware that the issue could prevent development.