���˿���

With regard to the committee’s consideration of the instrument, I would like to see some further information about the areas that it will cover and its scope. If we have time to explore that, whether it involves inviting the minister or writing to them, that would be useful.

That is helpful. Some of the evidence we have had on settlements with flood defences has shown that it is becoming proportionately difficult to take them forward. Catriona Hill, did you want to come in on that?

How could that be reformed? We can think of planning gain and the amount of money that a new build house, for example, provides a local authority. People will often complain that that money has been lost in the system or lost in translation in relation to a new primary school and, especially, GP surgeries. Here in Edinburgh, that is one of the biggest issues, given the amount of new build homes that we have had and will have, and the predicted developments that we will be seeing. Does that need to change so that the money that is allocated has to go to the projects that the community has been led to believe that they would enjoy? It seems to happen with retail in communities, so why not public services? Why is that not necessarily being better managed within NPF4? From what you have said, it does not seem as though that has really improved the picture.

I want to ask a question that follows on from Gordon MacDonald’s earlier line of questioning about town centre regeneration. Here in Edinburgh, a lot of former office sites are being changed to housing and other sites have become student housing, for example. I know that some colleagues across Parliament from more rural areas have seen their high streets completely disappear where, in the past year, NPF4 does not seem to have facilitated any real change. It could help to look towards housing being part of that. What different model needs to be provided to make that stack up financially for developers to look at town centre regeneration in a completely different way and facilitate that? Do you have any views on what currently is not in NPF4 that could help to shape that?

Good morning to the witnesses, and thanks for your initial thoughts.

Collaboration between partner organisations and community engagement are key to building rural homes. You have all touched on that. How are local authorities, especially large rural councils, which many of you will be working with, supporting community-led development of houses?

It has been a year since the Scottish Government established a £25 million rural key workers housing fund. According to the most recent data, which I asked the Scottish Government for, that fund has not delivered a single home. Can you outline the role that rural housing enablers play in that? The Government established the fund, so why is it not being accessed? Is the Government not providing the money in the best way? How could the fund be better utilised to take into account the very different needs of the communities in your areas?

Last year, there was also the one-off reprofiling of public-private partnership debt, which is probably reflected in those figures.

I have previously raised issues regarding the funding formula that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities uses. Has the commission done any work, or does it intend to do any work, on the effect of population growth on demands on councils? Lothian is expected to experience about 80 per cent of all growth in Scotland, but there is expected to be depopulation in other council areas, such as Argyll and Bute. Will the commission be doing further work on that?

Amendment 49 is my only amendment in the group; it, too, is a probing amendment. The minister has clarified—this is important for developers—what works will need to be undertaken and the detail that will be in the cladding assurance register beyond the single building assessment. My specific concern is in relation to additional information that might come forward with regard to orphan buildings, and that potentially resulting in a delay for funding for related works.

Has the minister taken any advice on that issue? It has already been highlighted that limited funds will be available for works on orphan buildings. Will the requirement to provide more and more information create a situation that could limit the scope for the Government to progress works on orphan buildings? For those of us who represent people who live in such buildings, we do not want that to happen.

Given that we are at stage 2, it is important that we have clarification on that, especially in relation to orphan buildings. Although they are not being looked at in two separate categories, it is important that we try to make sure that it is clear that work on such buildings will be supported. I am happy not to move the amendment at stage 2, but I would appreciate engagement ahead of stage 3.

This goes to the heart of what was said by those who gave evidence to the committee and those who are angry that we have not seen any real progress in Scotland on the issue. They have faced an information vacuum. That is not fair and needs to be addressed. That is why I have lodged amendment 2, which seeks to introduce a duty to inform by calling on the Scottish Government to inform occupiers of buildings of the results of the single building assessment and give residents on-going information that they will want to be made aware of.

We do not have a timescale for when all the assessments and works that may be needed will take place, but it is important that those who live in those buildings are put at the heart of that. That is why I want amendment 2 to be passed and for it to be put in the bill that the people who live in those buildings should know what is going on and should be given the information that they are entitled to. That has not happened to date.

I hope that the Government will accept amendment 2 today or take it forward as a working amendment at stage 3, because those who are affected need to be put at the heart of the bill. That is what I tried to achieve through my work on the committee and through the stage 1 debate, when all that was highlighted.

Amendment 5, in the name of Graham Simpson, could provide a lot of good additional information. Properly collating the information on residents who own their property or who rent it would add value. As communications are taken forward, those who rent—they are not owners but are occupiers—should be given the same information. I see no reason for any difference.