Seòmar agus comataidhean

Good morning to the panel. Thank you for joining us. I have a few questions about the minimum all-tenure housing land requirement. First, what are your views on the process and methodology that have been used to establish it? I will start with you, Tony Cain, as you have touched on issues about housing in Lothian. If anyone else would like to come in, I ask them to type R in the chat function.

Congratulations on your appointment, convener. I, too, pass on my thanks to Neil Gray. We will miss his colourful socks in committee, when we are able to meet in person again.

Good morning, minister. I have a few questions that carry on the line that Foysol Choudhury developed. What is the Scottish Government’s view on the merits of a single disability benefit that would apply to children and to working age and older people?

It is an important area, and we should develop it in some of the work that is going on.

I want to return to younger people, because it is important that the system can meet their needs. How has the system been designed to consider younger people? They may not be encouraged to apply or be aware of what benefits are available. How will the situation change compared to what has gone previously?

I have two questions, the first of which is on the back of the letter that you sent to the committee yesterday, about the recruitment of practitioners. We have previously discussed the development of hubs and where people will be located to work. Could you update the committee on that? Also, I discussed with you previously the potential to create local authority hubs where people could go to access practitioners, and how they can help people in their homes as the pandemic regulations are lifted. Where is the Government on the development of potential hubs for such practitioners?

That is helpful. Thank you very much. The last time that we discussed this, it was not necessarily clear whether the practitioners would be located in hubs, so I welcome any additional information that you can provide us with, as and when it develops.

Finally, I want to ask about the financial projections. Information that the committee has been given, specifically that from some of the work of the Scottish Fiscal Commission, suggests that in 2026, spend on ADP could rise to £567 million. The budget for this year looks to be around £38 million. We are debating stage 1 of the budget this afternoon, so are there any updated figures for the current financial projections?

I will try not to get into a debate about Scottish Government policy decisions at this late stage in the committee meeting, so I hand back to the convener.

It would be useful to update the committee on any timelines that the Government is aware of for that independent review, because we are keen to add value to the process where we can.

I want to ask about changes that I think that the DWP has announced today to the PIP application process to try to make it easier for people to start a new claim. Has the Scottish Government captured and been involved in that work? The changes relate to individuals who need assistance to make a claim. For example, a supporting person, rather than the individual making the claim, will be able to make a phone call. Will those changes be captured in any changes to the ADP system, so that we have a system that can be flexible at UK level and in Scotland? Is the minister aware of that?

The committee has received several written submissions expressing concern about possible inconsistencies between the national spatial strategy and national planning policies, which we have already touched on. We know what the policies look like, but language is sometimes a barrier. Different words can mean different things to planners and so change the emphasis. Does the panel have any suggestions of ways to rectify those issues that have been put to us? How can we make sure that local councils and the national planning strategy match up in delivering what we want to see from NPF4? I will bring in Robbie Calvert, who touched on some of that earlier, and anyone else who wants to comment.

Good morning. Professor Sparks, you have put on record your view that the draft NPF4 is poorly worded, but I want to look specifically at the priorities in NPF4 and how those are impacted by the language that is used. Should the priorities be laid out far more clearly? For example, should there be a presumption in favour of renewables when planning departments consider applications? The fact that the meaning of the language that is used is sometimes not clear has already been touched on.

I would like to hear from Professor Sparks on that, but I would be happy to hear from others, too.

Did Ailsa Macfarlane want to come in on that question?