Seòmar agus comataidhean

You will be aware of an issue that the committee has heard about, in that communities need to come up with about £110,000 before they can even access the money that is available in the funds. Is that being considered in the plan? I am also interested to hear what the timescale is for the plan.

Thank you. That would be very welcome.

We move on to a new theme: grant subsidy benchmark levels and progress with delivery. I invite Mark Griffin to lead on those questions.

Willie Coffey joins us online.

Yes.

Thank you very much for offering to update us on the remote, rural and island housing action plan. That will be very much appreciated.

I am also interested in hearing about the setting up of the innovative finance steering group. You said that that will be done before the end of the year. We would appreciate updates on that and an understanding of its timescale. How long will that group be in existence? It would also be useful for us to know its remit.

Our final item in public is consideration of an instrument that is subject to negative procedure. As it is a negative instrument, there is no requirement for the committee to make any recommendation. As members have no comments, does the committee agree that we do not wish to make any recommendation in relation to the instrument?

Members indicated agreement.

I thank the minister for his opening statement.

If members have no questions, we move to agenda item 3, which is consideration of the motion on the instrument. I invite the minister to move motion S6M-05578.

Motion moved,

That the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee recommends that the Scottish Social Housing Charter: November 2022 be approved.—[Patrick Harvie]

Motion agreed to.

The committee will in the coming days publish a report setting out its recommendations on the social housing charter.

I briefly suspend the meeting to allow for a changeover of witnesses.

My question is about funding. The committee is well aware that we spend more than £500 million on agriculture support payments each year and that we need that money to work for the climate, for nature and for food production. The PFG sets out a commitment to shift

“50% of direct payments to climate action and funding for on-farm nature restoration and enhancement”,

although I trust that, in time, that percentage will increase.

I am delighted that the PFG commits to exploring

“capping and/or tapering base-level payments to release additional funding to meet the goals of our agricultural vision”.

Does the cabinet secretary have specific policy measures or objectives in mind that would benefit from that additional funding?

Is part of the thinking behind tapering off the payments and putting that money aside for potential measures that some of those opportunities will emerge as we start to understand what farmers will need to make the shift to a more sustainable and regenerative farming that responds to the climate and nature?