Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

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 have a specific question about the impact of likely council tax increases. In a number of evidence sessions, the committee has heard that council tax is often one of the driving forces that pushes people into poverty, as they are not able to pay those bills. The year before the pandemic, council tax debt increased by 25 per cent to more than £95 million.

Cabinet secretary, you have outlined some of the support that is available, but what is your personal opinion on the impact that a potential increase in council tax will have, given what we are seeing in relation to energy prices? What additional support can be given to councils in order to keep council tax increases as low as possible?