Seòmar agus comataidhean

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?

I agree. The move towards regenerative agriculture brings all of that together, and it is great to hear that work is being done in that regard.

What is the timeframe for the survey that you mentioned?

I come back to the issue of spatial squeeze. We have heard about the importance of our waters and about all the things that we are trying to accomplish in that regard. Highly protected marine areas will be an important tool for strategically protecting key areas of our inshore waters. The Bute house agreement specifies that HPMAs will cover at least 20 per cent our seas, including parts of our inshore waters. Users of the inshore space will want to know what that means for them. I have met inshore fishers and other folk about that, and it seems as though people are quite worried, because they do not know what the change really means, what the timescale is and how they can be involved. Could the cabinet secretary outline the next steps for HPMA designation and confirm whether there will be genuine no-take zones that are closed to all fishing, aquaculture and other extractive or depositional commercial activities?

On the issue of community engagement and involvement, will there be scope for co-development and co-design of HPMAs with coastal communities?

I want to be clear that, when I am talking about coastal communities, I am including in the mix people who work in the fishing industry. Over the summer, I met a community in Argyll. It was fantastic, because everyone came together round the HPMA issue and what it means. They all want to work together to work through the process. How can the Scottish Government tell them when the moment is to get engaged? We are inviting a big change that is absolutely necessary for the future of our fisheries, so I am looking forward to communities being invited to help shape what HPMAs will look like.

Thank you.

Thank you, convener. The next time the cabinet secretary comes, I think that we will need three hours to get through all these very important issues—with a break, of course.

I understand that the Government is also furthering, in parallel with the Griggs review recommendations, many of the recommendations that were made by the previous session’s Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee. A key recommendation from the REC Committee in its 2018 report was that

“the Scottish Government should, as a matter of priority, initiate a spatial planning exercise with a view to developing strategic guidance specifying those areas across Scotland that are suitable or unsuitable for siting of salmon farms. This work should”,

among other things,

“incorporate an assessment of the potential impact of salmon farms on”

marine protected areas and priority marine features

“and the species which inhabit them.”

I understand that various forms of spatial planning are already under way or are being planned, and the PFG notes the importance of spatial planning as a means of guiding development. Can the cabinet secretary advise whether those processes will include an assessment of the impact of salmon farm pollution on MPAs and PMFs, as the REC Committee recommended? I am also curious as to whether any work is being done to assess the current use of each area, including creeling and the use of the coast by locals and tourists, and the loss of use that a salmon farm could cause?

Agenda item 2 is an evidence-taking session on affordable housing provision in Scotland as part of this year’s pre-budget scrutiny. We are joined in person by Professor Ken Gibb, who is director of the UK Collaborative Centre for Housing Evidence, at the University of Glasgow; Aaron Hill, who is director of policy and membership at the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations; and Fionna Kell, who is director of policy at Homes for Scotland.

We are also joined online—I think that I can see you all—by Ailsa Raeburn, who is the chair of Community Land Scotland; Sherina Peek, who is acting policy manager at the Association of Local Authority Chief Housing Officers; Mike Callaghan, who is policy manager in the communities team of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities; and Gary Fairley, who is director of corporate services at Midlothian Council, who is also appearing on behalf of COSLA. I welcome you all.

I will open the session to questions from members and will begin by asking about national targets and outcomes, which I am interested to hear from the panellists about. Before I dive in, however, there is a little bit of housekeeping to do with regard to how I will run the session. Because of time constraints, members will possibly direct their initial question to one of you, but if anyone else wants to come in, please indicate that to me or the clerk. Those who are attending online should indicate as much by typing an R in the chat function.

On national targets and outcomes, do panellists think that the Scottish Government targets for housing needs and outcomes are clear? Furthermore, do the targets need to be revisited? I will start with Mike Callaghan and then bring in Professor Gibb and Sherina Peek.

Ken Gibb, what are your thoughts on the targets?