Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is an important point. As you know, raptor protection is an emotive issue. How do we balance the management of a grouse moor with raptor protection? We have RSPB Scotland involved in that matter. We are trying to get a balanced approach to it. There are two sides of that debate and the purpose of the group is to try to hear both sides of it, have an informed discussion and move forward together if we can. There will not always be agreement on all the issues, but it is important to try to discuss and debate them because there is a lot of legislation and a lot of things are happening in the sector. It affects all parts, urban or rural, so it affects most constituencies in Scotland.

Thank you.

Thank you. It is good to be back at the committee, although in another guise. To give a bit of background, East Lothian is a rural constituency. In my first few months as an MSP, I was touring some of its areas and there are about seven grouse moors, for example. When I was speaking to some of the landowners and other groups about that, it became clear that there was a need for the CPG because there are different views.

The purpose of the group is to try to bring together those different views. A lot of legislation is going on in this sphere; topics to discuss include biodiversity, climate change issues, grouse moor management, deer management and the just transition. The purpose is to bring together those with different opinions to try to get a reasoned debate and inform legislation. That is the main idea behind the group and that is why quite a wide range of organisations—again, with differing opinions—will be involved as group members.

The intention is to bring people together. We looked at existing groups—there are CPGs on rural policy, crofting, animal welfare and other areas, as we mention in the application form. There might be an opportunity to work with some of those groups as we develop our work programme, but we believe that there is a specific need for a group on sustainable upland management.

The CPG will bring together groups that have different opinions to try to get a reasoned discussion. It has been a very emotive issue over a number of months and years, so the purpose is to see whether we can get some mutual co-operation and mutual understanding around the issues that are out there. That is the reasoning behind the CPG.

We have had initial discussions on the issues around the right to roam and the right to access. Again, that is probably an example of the need to try to balance different opinions. I have similar issues in my own constituency and I know that there are issues in other constituencies. The matter has been discussed and part of it is about education and engagement with different groups and organisations. I am sure that it will be raised in the group meetings.

I get that point. We are talking about grouse management and deer management. Those are predominantly but not exclusively for uplands management. There is an opportunity to consider lowland management. It is a good point to raise. If the CPG is approved, we can say at the next meeting that there is an issue with lowland management and ask whether we can discuss it.

A lot of the groups that are involved in the CPG will also be involved in lowland management. We have tried to include as diverse a range of groups as possible in the CPG membership. It is a relevant point to address. How do we define “uplands”? Where do lowlands become uplands and vice versa?

I visited Schiehallion a few months ago. People there were talking about that issue and asking about where the border was between uplands and lowlands for deer management. That was a specific issue, but the overall point is relevant and I will take it to the next discussion that the group has.

How do we define uplands management? Where does it stop? Does it have to take place above a certain height? There is no clear definition of what it is, but, when something becomes uplands management, it goes into issues that can prove to be controversial. Raptor protection is a relevant one. I am sure that we have all had correspondence on that.

My next question is for Robbie Calvert, and then perhaps for the other witnesses. Some concern has been expressed about timescales for consulting on the draft NPF4, and I note that the Parliament and the Scottish Government are running concurrent consultations. Do you have any concerns about that? Are there any implications for stakeholders involved in the process?

Thank you. That is another issue for the committee to consider.

I want to move on to housing. The policy approach that is taken to housing in the draft NPF4 includes the minimum all-tenure housing land requirement. Will that result in the homes that people need being built where there is demand? I will go to Dr Brown first and, after that, I will see if anybody else wants to come in.

You will know that we have been discussing that topic in the committee for the past few weeks. Obviously, there are measures that local authorities can take.

Professor Hague or Professor Sparks, do you want to come in on that?

That is certainly vital. Perhaps Clare Symonds can respond before I move on to my other question.

Is there a danger that, with all these studies and consultations going out together, there is no coherent strategy behind it all? Some policies could, for example, have an impact on others. Do we need to stand back a little bit, look at what needs to be done—and at what time it needs to be done—and see what the impact might be on other consultations? Is there any impact in that respect, or is it just a resource issue?