Chamber and committees

Section 26 of the bill confers power on the Scottish ministers to

“modify section 25 so as to change the types of building in relation to which a single-building assessment may be carried out.”

That includes power to amend the last three of the criteria. For example, in relation to the height criterion, regulations could specify a height lower than 11m. Use of that regulation-making power could therefore expand or restrict the scope of the buildings that could be entered into the cladding assurance register in future.

The bill provides a specific definition of buildings that fall within scope, which includes a requirement on their height. However, section 26 allows that to be amended by regulations at a future date, including by adding buildings of heights lower than 11m.

Amendment 47 seeks to prevent the Government from being able to alter the height specifications of the buildings that will fall under the legislation. House builders believe that, for consistency, the height specification definition should align with the Building (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2022, which state that a relevant building should be

“at a height of 11 metres or more above the ground”,

not including

“roof-top plant areas or any ... plant rooms”.

The minister has argued that the SBA is for buildings of 11m or more, and the bill is reflective of that scope. If ministers want to change the scope in future, that would be subject to due consideration through appropriate regulations. The minister has said that he did not want to limit the flexibility by stating the height in the bill.

I do not think that the Parliament should grant ministers the ability to make those changes, which could bring a countless number of homes and properties into the programme. The current position has resulted in a bill whose provisions will be subject to regulation and uncertainty after it has been passed. Developers and residents will find it difficult to act on the obligations under the bill if it is not consistent with existing legislation and if height requirements can change in the future.

What progress has been made on the delivery of the 18 national developments? I know that it is still early on, but do you have any concerns that the delivery of any of them might be off track?

Finally, will this be a bigger issue as we move from five-year to 10-year LDP cycles? An almost nine-year-old document that includes sites that have not come forward during that period now has no safety release mechanism. Will that cause a bigger problem?

Good morning. To kick off, the Miller Homes Ltd v Scottish ministers case decision came through on Friday. Do members of the panel have an indication of whether that decision means that NPF4 and the planning system is working as we would have expected? Does the decision throw up any issues related to how developments will get approval between the introductions of different local development plans? I will go to Craig McLaren first.

I come back to Kevin Murphy to expand on the industry’s response to the decision in the Miller Homes Ltd v Scottish Ministers case on 3 May. How do you understand the impact of that decision on approvals on viable sites over the next few years, until we see LDPs being drafted and implemented?

Previously, when we were getting towards the end of an LDP cycle, if a developer could prove that some of the allocations within an LDP were not viable, and that the figures that the local authority wanted to achieve would not be made under that LDP as it reached the end of the cycle, there was a mechanism that allowed a developer to say that there had not been effective land supply. Does the ruling on Friday in effect stop that happening?

I will follow up on Willie Coffey’s question on the best use of existing homes. Every member of the panel has talked about the proliferation of second or holiday homes. The Government has looked at one side of the tax equation—increasing council tax for those who own second homes—but should it also look at the other side of the tax equation, which is when that holiday home is being purchased? An additional dwelling supplement is in place, which means that people who are buying a rental property or other things must pay a supplement on the land and buildings transaction tax. Given the particular issues that you are raising, should there be a specific category of the additional dwelling supplement for holiday homes or second homes? Would that affect behaviour change, particularly in rural settings?

As the convener has said, we have already touched on the Government’s affordable housing supply programme. The Government’s long-term target is to build an additional 110,000 homes by 2032—and I note that, this year’s budget aside, it has said that it still plans to hit that target—but I am more interested in the 11,000 rural homes target. Does the panel think that that target is still feasible? If not, what needs to change to make it happen? Perhaps I can go from left to right, starting with Ronnie MacRae.

Figures that were obtained in response to a freedom of information request have shown that, between 2018-19 and 2022-23, the number of working days lost to mental health absences soared by 67 per cent among police officers and 165 per cent among police staff. Can the cabinet secretary give an update on the number of mental health absences among police officers and staff and say what impact that has had on the number of crimes that are being investigated?

To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to support the mental health of front-line police officers, in light of reports that reductions in the number of police officers is putting increasing pressure on the service. (S6O-03339)