Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will continue on that theme. I have heard some concerns about the way in which housing development happens in communities. Developers own land and, as I understand it, the local planning department puts out a call for land—the generosity element that we have spoken about. People have raised with me that, until recently, we had not realised how important it is to protect our peatland and—as we move forward, given that we want to shorten our supply chains and grow more food locally—how important our farmland, of which there is a limited supply, will be.

What do we do about situations in which developers have land that would, in the long run, given the just transition and the shift to doing things more locally, be better for farming or better as protected land than it would be for being built on? How do we handle that?

Okay. We will move on.

I will come in with another question. Put an R in the chat box, Fiona and Andy, if you want to come in on this. Can you set out how the national developments that are included in NPF4 were chosen and how they will align with other Scottish Government policy documents? None of the national developments appear to feature in the infrastructure investment plan.

Yes, please.

I want to pick up on a couple of points. Fiona Simpson said that one focus of NPF4 is about growing the rural population. She also spoke about renewable energy supporting the rural population, because it will bring jobs. As a Highlands and Islands MSP, I am picking up a tension in that regard, which is more to do with onshore wind than with offshore wind. The places that happen to have a lot of wind seem to get a lot of planning applications for renewable energy schemes. I hear from people who have or are growing a tourism business that there is a tension between inviting people to a really beautiful Scottish landscape to enjoy their time in Scotland, and the need for renewable energy and planning applications. What help is there for thinking well about whether we concentrate renewable onshore wind in certain places? Is consideration being given to that?

I call Miles Briggs.

Do you want to come in on that, Andy?

We move on to questions from Meghan Gallacher.

Thank you for that. That is important, because we are creating a document that, although it is somewhat evidence-based, is also abstract with a lot of changing contexts in relation to the climate and nature emergencies. It is therefore good to hear that there is potential flexibility and that reviewing is considered to be an important part of that.

That ends our questions. Thank you very much for joining us. It has been helpful to hear the thinking behind how the complex document came into being, and to hear what you have laid out about how, from the beginning, so many different stakeholders were engaged in the process. It has been very useful evidence.

As agreed, as part of our approach to NPF4 we will now consider in private the evidence that we have just heard.