Seòmar agus comataidhean

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?

Previously, the Scottish Government introduced a council tax freeze and provided local authorities with the resources to meet that. All local authority leaders have expressed concern that they now face £371 million of cuts and that that will lead to council tax increases. Given all the pressures on household budgets, why have the resources not been provided to meet a freeze this year?

I think that your response represents a commitment to at least match previous funding commitments, but it is important that we see more transparency and better monitoring of how that money is spent.

I move on to a question that I asked you in a previous evidence session with regard to the tackling homelessness budget. In your letter to the committee of 1 October, you said that the £16 million was still to be allocated for the coming financial year. We have three or four months of the current financial year left. I wonder how that money has been allocated.

That would be helpful. I take it that the money will be allocated before the end of the financial year, given that we are almost there. In political terms, with four months to go, it is important that the finance is not rolled over and lost when organisations desperately want to access it and make a difference.

My other question is on advice services. The cabinet secretary was at the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee on Tuesday, when we discussed the local government settlement. Martin Booth, the director of finance at Glasgow City Council, expressed severe concerns about where councils might need to make cuts, and one of his concerns was about advice services. In this committee, we have taken a lot of evidence on the importance of advice services being protected and supplied to some of the most vulnerable people in our society. Given the concerns that councils are expressing about cuts, how will advice services be protected?

I have some questions about homelessness, which you touched on in your opening statement. I think that rapid rehousing transition plans are the right approach, but significant resource will be required to implement them properly, especially here in my city of Edinburgh. What funding will be attached to rapid rehousing transition plans? Will you match previous commitments on them?

We know that, during the pandemic, a significant number of fellow Scots have become carers and taken on a carer role. In many cases, it has been women who have taken on those roles. How does the budget as a whole allow women in Scotland to realise their potential and get back into employment if that is what they want? How does it support carers who, in many cases, are now taking on caring roles that local authorities previously supported but which were cut during the pandemic?