Seòmar agus comataidhean

Good morning. Pamela Clifford, how has the introduction of the new minimum all-tenure housing land requirement—MATHLR—figures in NPF4 impacted on the identification of land for housing?

Do you have an idea of the figures in the various planning authorities? The Scottish Government has been very clear that what is set out in the NPF4 is a minimum, so have planning authorities been bringing forward the minimum plus 1 per cent or plus 10, 20 or 30 per cent, for example? Do you have an idea of what each planning authority is doing?

I apologise for missing the earlier part of the session.

A lot of the discussion has focused on those facing the greatest harm as a result of the housing emergency and, when we have 40,000 homeless presentations and over 10,000 kids in temporary accommodation, that is absolutely right. However, beyond those at the sharpest end, we know that 700,000 people are in some form of housing need in Scotland. If we turned every single building and every single house in Scotland into a home, we still would not address that housing need. The only way to address the housing need of those 700,000 people is to build more houses.

My question is directed at Fionna Kell, as it is her members who will, I hope, build those houses. What are the blockages in place now to ramping up house building activity to the level that we saw 10 or 15 years ago, so that we start building a way out of the emergency? That is the only way it will happen.

What impact has the establishment of the minimum all-tenure housing land requirement in NPF4 had on the identification and availability of land for housing that is ready to develop on?

Does anyone else want to talk about the impact of the MATHLR figures?

My second question is more general and is on housing delivery. I go back to Kevin Murphy again. Will it be possible to deliver more housing under NPF4 than would have been possible under the previous regime?

When local authorities are researching their individual MATHLR figures, they are doing their housing needs and demand assessments locally. Do you have a view as to how comprehensive those assessments are when it comes to reaching the figure that they then propose?

Given the slippage in local development plans coming forward, do you think that it is important to reintroduce the presumption in favour of sustainable development in policy 16(f)? Would you call for that?

Hazel, would you like to comment?

We have heard clearly from the cabinet secretary and other members that this is a common problem across Scotland. As the convener said, a quarter of properties across Scotland have some kind of factoring arrangement. The difficulty that has arisen is that, where home owners are not getting the level of service that they expect—where they are paying for an entirely substandard service—the customer service is deplorable to the point that, in response to complaints, home owners are either stonewalled and met with silence or factoring companies, acknowledging the power imbalance, just say, “Well, there’s nothing you can do about it”. That is a direct quotation that constituents with a bad experience of factoring arrangements have heard from poorly performing factoring companies, which know that, in legal terms, it is so hard for residents to remove a factor that they just do not care. It cannot be fair that a factoring company can give up a contract and have an alternative factor appointed with no consultation or even awareness on the part of residents who pay for it.

Pam Duncan-Glancy raised an example in Cambuslang, where the first time that residents found out that a new factoring company had been appointed to maintain the common areas was when they received their first bill from that company. It cannot be fair that the factoring companies can be changed with no limit, but residents need to get together, hold a public meeting, and get agreement through a vote of more than 50 per cent of residents before a factor sits up and take notice.

I do not intend to press amendment 507 at this point, but I plan to bring a suite of amendments at stage 3. I hope that the Government has heard loud and clear from members around the table the real desire for change to factoring arrangements. The status quo is simply not an option. Residents have waited for a long time for change from the Government, but it has not been forthcoming. I therefore hope to work with the Government between stages 2 and 3 to give residents a more solid list of the changes that we would like to see to support them.

I seek the committee’s agreement to withdraw amendment 507.

Amendment 507, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 387 moved—[Shirley-Anne Somerville]—and agreed to.

Amendment 508 not moved.

Amendments 388 to 392 moved—[Shirley-Anne Somerville]—and agreed to.

Amendments 509 to 512, 415, 513, 504 to 506, 514 and 476 not moved.

Section 51 agreed to.

After section 51