Chamber and committees

I thank the minister.

I have two things to ask. First, COSLA highlighted that the Scottish Government has not handed on national insurance contributions compensation of around £70 million. Why is that?

Secondly, if this budget is as wonderful as he makes out, why has Iain Nicolson, the leader of Renfrewshire Council and a fellow SNP member, had to write to the First Minister to ask for the settlement to be looked at again?

I absolutely do. As the member outlined, the concerns are shared across the sector, including by the Association of Scotland’s Self-Caterers, the Professional Association of Self Caterers UK, Scottish Agritourism, Scotland’s Best B&Bs, and the Scottish Bed & Breakfast Association, as well as Scottish Land & Estates. What is concerning is that, as Willie Rennie outlined, the views of the sector have not been taken on board, and the workable solution that has been put forward in the form of a registration scheme has been put to one side by SNP ministers. Indeed, the whole short-term lets sector is united in favouring a registration scheme. The sector also has support from the Federation of Small Businesses, NFU Scotland and all short-term lets organisations. It is worth reflecting that several of those bodies are so angry with the Scottish Government that they felt the need to leave the short-term lets stakeholder working group, because they felt that it was a “sham”, in their words, and that it was not addressing their concerns in any constructive way.

I also welcome the comments from my SNP colleague Fergus Ewing, who was mentioned by Willie Rennie. He discovered his independence on the back benches when he said at committee—and I fully agree with this—that

“the licensing scheme is too draconian and unfair”.

Self-catering is an integral and hugely important part of the Scottish tourism sector, in terms of jobs, revenues and the world-class experience that Scotland offers to visiting guests. The sector generates £867 million annually for the Scottish economy. Throughout the passage of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 (Licensing of Short-term Lets) Order 2022, significant concerns have been raised by the sector and those whose livelihoods depend on the income that they receive.

Given the impact that the pandemic has had, we should be mindful of the unintended consequences and the potential negative impact that the new order will have on already fragile tourism businesses. Scottish National Party ministers clearly understood that the previous order was unfit when they withdrew it in February 2021. It has been largely unchanged, and the new draft was laid in January 2022, but the concerns of industry, experts and members have been dismissed by ministers.

I have been working on the matter with other members of the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee. None of us is against the change, but the clear ask was that, given the impact of the pandemic, the Scottish Government consider a registration scheme, rather than a licensing scheme. Will the cabinet secretary say why that suggestion was so categorically rejected and why people had to leave the Government’s working group?

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?

Following on from the convener’s line of questioning, I raise an issue that MSPs, MPs and councillors are always concerned about, which is community building and large-scale housing developments. I have faced that issue over the past five years due to the significant house building that is going on across Lothian and the lack of forward planning in relation to health services, local primary schools and community facilities. That is genuinely how we build communities. How will the latest edition of the national planning framework help to change that?

That is helpful—thank you.

One of the key parts of the jigsaw concerns health boards and the delivery of health services. General practitioners are private contractors to the health service, but when there is an expansion in housing, they often do not receive any additional funding from the health board to provide the additional services that are required.

What change is needed in that area so that the national planning framework also has an impact on health boards from the point of view of the additional funding that is required for the provision of services to a greater number of people? There are often a lot of young families in new-build developments, who will need additional health services.

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?