���˿���

Does anybody online want to give us a bit of direction on that, too?

That makes me think about the really great work that took place in Dumfries with the Stove Network, which is an arts network that was employed to engage the community on what it wanted for the future of Dumfries town centre. It gave rise to the Midsteeple Quarter, which is one of my favourite community-led mixed-use projects. Perhaps planners and the arts and culture sector could get together and find ways to interpret things.

Neil Sutherland, I loved that you said that NPF4 is a great read and has a great story to tell, but, for some people, it is not written in the language that they use, so we need to think about how we can make it accessible to them. The Stove Network was right there, in front of people, using engaging processes and artistic experiments to get people thinking about their community.

Clare Symonds, I think that you have already spoken on this topic, but do you want to say anything else?

You mentioned the need to be able to interrogate the policy writers. “Interrogate” is quite a strong word. However, do you think that the Government should perhaps roll out a session that would create an opportunity to discuss things with the people who have written the policies? That could be similar to the sessions that Planning Democracy and Action to Protect Rural Scotland have held, where, for 90 minutes or a couple of hours, there is a show-and-tell and people can ask questions. All 33 of the policies could be covered, as well as, potentially, the national policy. There seems to be a bit of a void—there is a lot of wondering going on.

I am delighted to join Mercedes Villalba in suggesting that to Douglas Lumsden.

Another interesting aspect that is in play is that the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Act 2024, which some of us worked on, requires there to be a whole-farm plan. As my colleague Mark Ruskell pointed out, there is enthusiasm and energy among farmers, but there is also a requirement for whole-farm plans to be produced. The work, data and information are already there. Land management plans will ask for that information to be shared with neighbouring communities so that they can have a say, be involved and feel that they have a connection to what is happening on the land around them.

Thank you, convener, for your warm welcome to the committee.

The Green amendments in the group seek to strengthen the provisions on land management plans. Amendment 338 is the most critical and strengthens the duty on landowners from being one of simply preparing land management plans—which I am going to call LMPs so that I do not have to tongue twist “land management plans” a lot—to one of actually implementing LMPs. If plans are prepared but just languish on the shelf, no progress will be made in giving communities a greater say in how land is actually used and it also hinders large landholdings being managed for climate and nature, an idea that was central to the Government’s public consultation in 2023. We certainly cannot have that loophole in the bill.

My amendment 337 would increase the time period to be covered by an LMP from five to 20 years. If, as the Government intended when it consulted on the bill, LMPs are to be a key tool in delivering progress on climate and nature targets, they must take into account the fact that many actions require longer timescales. It could be a decade before some actions begin to produce positive effects for climate and nature, so having longer-term LMPs would mean that climate-positive actions would have time to come to fruition and would be less likely to be chopped and changed every five years. My amendment 311 is consequential to that and my amendments 313 and 314 would ensure that LMPs would still be reviewed every five years, with communities being consulted on developments and revisions.

Finally, my amendment 316 would add a requirement for landowners to submit a report to the land and communities commissioner at the five-year point, ensuring that there is oversight of plans being delivered across 20 years.

I will comment briefly on some other amendments. I am certainly supportive of Bob Doris’s amendments 16, 17 and 20, and probably his amendment 33. I would be interested in understanding why Rhoda Grant believes that amendment 312 is needed and will listen carefully to what she says about amendments 335 and 340 to understand their purpose.

The result of the division is: For 6, Against 0, Abstentions 1.

Amendments 402 agreed to.

Amendments 410, 77, 227, 228 and 267 not moved.

Amendments 403 and 404 moved‰�Shirley-Anne Somerville��—and agreed to.

Amendments 564, 50 and 78 to 80 not moved.

Amendment 405 moved‰�Shirley-Anne Somerville��—and agreed to.

Amendment 406 moved‰�Shirley-Anne Somerville].

The result of the division is: For 6, Against 0, Abstentions 1.

Amendment 406 agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Section 56—Commencement

Amendments 196 to 198 not moved.

The next group is on homelessness prevention: commencement. Amendment 230, in the name of Bob Doris, is the only amendment in the group. I believe that Emma Roddick is going to speak to and move the amendment.

That ends stage 2 consideration of the Housing (Scotland) Bill. I thank members, the cabinet secretary and her officials.

Amendment 445, in my name, is grouped with amendments 554, 447 and 562. I will speak to and move amendment 445, as well as speaking to the other amendments in the group.

Amendment 445 is on co-housing guidance. As well as making homes more accessible to more people, we are committed—through national planning framework 4—to creating space for placemaking. Co-housing is a housing and placemaking model that is well suited to supporting us in that endeavour. It offers communities and local authorities the opportunity to come together, not only to meet housing needs but to provide a neighbourly place where people can engage with and support one another and create a space that meets everyone’s requirements.

That approach to housing, which is mainstreamed in local housing provision in Denmark, is gathering interest in Scotland. Amendment 445 and its consequential amendment 447 seek to support that enthusiasm and positive potential by creating a basis from which co-housing can be scaled up.

Co-housing has a lot to offer. For example, it has been shown to prevent social isolation and the poor health outcomes that go with it. If we can nurture and grow that model, we can move to a happier, healthier society in which people’s housing needs are met, people have a real stake in the places they live in and neighbourhoods become vibrant, all of which can reduce the strain on public services.

When we have spoken about co-housing, the Minister for Housing has been enthusiastic about the possibilities that the model offers. There was Scottish Government-led work on co-housing in previous parliamentary sessions but, unfortunately, it was not prioritised. My amendment, which is backed by Cohousing Scotland, aims to ensure that that work is taken forward. It would require ministers to consult on and produce guidance for co-housing, which would allow the sector to grow.

I am keen to hear what assurances the cabinet secretary can provide to ensure that stakeholders will be supported by the Government to do the work that is necessary to develop a Scottish co-housing model, so that a co-housing sector can emerge in Scotland in the next few years.

Amendment 554 and its consequential amendment 562 would create a housing co-operative advisory function. Along with the financial barriers of land and buildings transaction tax and the additional dwelling supplement, which I spoke about at a previous stage 2 meeting, another barrier that housing co-operatives in Scotland face is a lack of access to official advice. I have been working on that with the Edinburgh Student Housing Co-Operative, which supports students to access affordable, quality accommodation in a location that has become unaffordable for many. When it has sought support on tax and governance issues, it has been passed around various public bodies and organisations without getting the answers that it needs in order to thrive.

What I propose in amendment 554 and its consequential amendment 562 is the establishment of an advisory function within an existing housing or land-related body. That function would be staffed by one or two full-time individuals and would support existing co-ops with tax and governance issues, as well as helping those who want to set up a housing co-op.

Co-operatives should be a flourishing housing model in Scotland. They bring a wide range of benefits and, where they serve communities of the elderly, they can help councils to save money on social care, while those that provide student accommodation can ensure that people from all economic backgrounds can access higher education in places where accommodation is difficult to find and often unaffordable. Making it easier for such co-ops to be established and to function will help to reduce the financial burden on Government budgets.

During our pre-stage 2 discussions, it was good to hear from the cabinet secretary about her involvement with and appreciation of the co-operative movement. I therefore know that she is sympathetic to the aims of my amendment, which is why I am keen to hear what assurances she can give that the Government will provide more support to housing co-ops before I decide whether to press amendment 445 and to move my other amendments in the group.

I move amendment 445.