To ask the Scottish Government, in light of its recognition of a housing emergency, whether it will take steps to improve the application of policy 16 of the fourth national planning framework in relation to affordable housing. (S6O-03542)

Policy 16 of national planning framework 4 focuses on quality, diversity and sustainability. It gives strong support for the delivery of the right homes in the right places, reflecting local needs and providing choice across tenures. NPF4 has already strengthened the affordable housing policy, compared with previous Scottish planning policy, to require at least 25 per cent of homes on a market site to be affordable unless local evidence justifies higher or lower contributions. It is for decision makers to apply policy on a case-by-case basis, in accordance with the local development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

I think that the problem lies not in the precise wording of the policy but in its application. Glasgow City Council says that it has approved 1,500 homes since the turn of the year, which could have meant hundreds more affordable homes if the policy had been applied. In one example, the Scottish ministers rejected the call from Green councillors to call in the Shawlands arcade redevelopment, which alone could have provided 125 affordable homes. What is the value of the policy if local councils are not being required to apply it and to ensure that private developers include affordable housing as part of their developments?

I am sure that Patrick Harvie understands that the local development plan has a clear role in how the policy is taken forward and that it is up to local planning authorities and councillors to make decisions on that. He will know that Glasgow City Council is gathering evidence for its new local development plan.

He will also know that policy 16 allows for a lower contribution to be justified by certain local circumstances, which can include an “impact on viability” among other criteria. I do not want to talk specifically about the example that Patrick Harvie has raised, but, in cases where viability is important, it is a question not of losing a number of affordable homes but of potentially not having any homes being built at all, which, of course, would have an impact on the overall market.

All of those factors are taken into account locally, as rightly they should be.

Christine Grahame has a brief supplementary question.

I hope that you feel that my question is relevant, Presiding Officer, as it is about affordable homes.

I believe that there are more than 43,000 empty homes in Scotland at large—perhaps this issue is more for the Minister for Housing—including more than 400 in Midlothian and 1,000 in the Scottish Borders. What levers are open to the Scottish Government to bring those homes into the market legally?

Some of that lands in the housing minister’s remit, as the member correctly identified, but planning has a role to play. Work has been taken forward to review compulsory purchase orders, and consideration is also being given to the place that compulsory sales orders might have in helping to support a solution to the problem of empty homes. Updates on that work will be brought back to Parliament in due course.