Seòmar agus comataidhean

Absolutely—you are right. On some of the other key pieces of work that we have taken forward on the back of the review, we have established the Scottish Aquaculture Council and taken forward a piece of work relating to consenting. As part of that, we set up a working group to look at the consenting issues and to see how we can make progress on the recommendations in the review that relate to regulation. I hope that we will start to see some quite quick progress there.

An immediate change that we made related to changing the marine licence from six to 25 years, for example. That does not change the environmental impact at all, but it brings that into line with the Crown Estate leases. That was one immediate and positive change that we were able to make on the back of that work.

We have also taken some action in relation to science, because there was a recommendation on that. We have asked the Scottish Science Advisory Council to undertake a piece of work to address some of the issues that were raised through the review. We will publish the scope of the work that the SSAC will be undertaking, as well as any final reports that it produces. We want to bring that transparency to the whole process, because it all comes back to the initial question about trust and rebuilding trust in the process. I hope that, through some of the immediate measures that we have undertaken, we will be able to get there.

The situation is critical. We are all aware of the cost of living crisis. My inbox is as full as those of other members in relation to what we are seeing in our own communities. However, rural and island areas are undoubtedly experiencing the worst of the situation and are where we are seeing the highest levels of fuel poverty. That is happening in various industry sectors as well as among households. The other week, I heard that authorities in Shetland have just published information about the impact that they were going to see. Last week I was in Orkney, where I heard about the stark impact that is expected there as a result of energy cost increases.

Addressing fuel poverty is a key strategic objective in “The National Islands Plan”. It is one of the priorities in the plan and will remain so as we move forward. It is vital that we do what we can to tackle such issues as far as it is within our power to do so. We do not have the power to address some of them, such as the fuel cost increases that Beatrice Wishart mentioned.

However, I have previously raised that issue with the UK Government to see what further action can be taken. I will, of course, also raise it with my new counterpart there, who has just recently been appointed. I will do so with the utmost urgency, because the situation is critical for many businesses and communities on our islands. When I was on a visit to a business last week, I was told that its energy costs are expected to increase from £1.6 million per month to £9 million per month. How many people could afford to accept that? That is why we must ensure that we are doing what we can for our island communities.

You are absolutely right to raise that matter. The lack of housing, especially affordable housing, is an issue that has come across whenever I have visited islands. The message definitely came across loud and clear when I was in Orkney last week. There are labour shortages across the piece and across all industries, so there are jobs for people, but people are not able to accept positions that are offered to them—either because there is no housing for them or because they cannot afford the housing that is available. There are a variety of factors relating to that, including second homes and short-term lets.

In tackling depopulation and trying to retain population, no one easy solution will fix everything. Our commitment to introducing a remote rural and islands housing action plan is important in that regard. We have to continue investment and take account of the location of new housing developments, which the member talked about. We are also looking at measures in relation to issues including short-term lets; obviously, there have been moves in that regard, as well. It is an important issue and is part of the islands plan.

In Orkney last week, we launched the Young Islanders Network and invited some young islanders to take part in the national islands plan delivery group. It is important that we have our young people’s perspectives, because they are the people whom we want to remain and to live and work on our islands. They need to be able to feed into that process and our policies.

The work on that has been progressing. Our islands team was in Orkney just before I was and had some engagement on that issue. The work is progressing. I am, of course, happy to keep the committee updated on that.

Again, I am happy to follow up on what I say in correspondence in order to give more detail. I alluded earlier to the pilots that we have been considering through the convention of the Highlands and Islands and on-going work on that. We are working on the addressing depopulation action plan, which is being led by the Cabinet Secretary for the Constitution, External Affairs and Culture, although I have a key part to play in that work in relation to our rural and island areas.

Many different factors affect population, so we must take action on all those fronts, including on issues that I outlined in answering Alasdair Allan’s questions on housing. Again, I am more than happy to follow up on that and to provide more detail on where we are with pilots.

You also mentioned the rural visa pilot scheme. When Sajid Javid was the Home Secretary, the UK Government said that it was open to considering such a scheme. We know that there are differentiated immigration schemes in other countries around the world, so we felt that it was important to consider what that could look like for Scotland. We have been working on such proposals, as well. I will provide an update on that in writing.

I am happy to appear before the committee to discuss the order. As the consequential amendments in the order are not contentious and seek to tidy up existing legislation, I do not intend to address the committee for very long.

The order seeks to amend and repeal primary legislation and to amend and revoke secondary legislation. The changes that the order delivers are consequential to the Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (Scotland) Regulations 2021 and to provisions in the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006, which I will refer to as the 2006 act. The provisions in the 2006 act were commenced last year by way of a commencement order.

The licensing regulations and the relevant provisions of the 2006 act came into force on 21 September last year. The Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 (Consequential Provisions) Order 2022 ensures that existing legislation reflects the recent changes and, where appropriate, substitutes references to now revoked or repealed legislation with references to the licensing regulations.

I highlight that it was not appropriate to bring into force the provisions of the 2006 act that repealed various acts of Parliament until the new Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (Scotland) Regulations 2021 were made. When the regulations came into force, we were then able to commence those provisions of the 2006 act in order to repeal the enactments, because they were then superseded by the licensing regulations.

Now that the enactments have been repealed and new provision has been made in the form of the licensing regulations, the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 (Consequential Provisions) Order 2022 will ensure that the statute book is updated accordingly.

I will end my remarks there.

Amendment 76 seeks to add a further matter to the list of plans, policies and strategies that ministers must have regard to in revising the national planning framework. The existing list was debated at stages 2 and 3 of the Planning (Scotland) Bill in session 5 of the Parliament.

The Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 already includes a general provision that ministers must have regard to relevant policies and strategies in revising the NPF. As the draft NPF4 includes food to the extent that it is able to, food would be a matter for consideration in a future review of the NPF. Ministers would therefore be required to have regard to the national good food nation plan.

Adding to that list might set a precedent whereby future bills might deem it necessary to have supporting policy referenced in the 1997 act. That would dilute the highlighting of certain policies in the current list, and would likely become excessive, unwieldy and burdensome over time. That burden could extend to planning authorities of local councils and national park authorities, and an extended list could create a burden of addressing issues that are less core to the operation of the planning system.

Section 4 of the bill already confers a power for specified functions, the exercise of which requires the Scottish ministers to have regard to the national good food plan to be listed or described. That would be the more appropriate place to consider how to reflect the planning system, given that the committee agreed in the stage 1 report that the bill is a framework bill. Karen Adam’s amendment 59 would require consultation on those specified functions, which would provide a suitable opportunity to involve planning authorities at that stage.

I therefore urge the committee not to support amendment 76.

I am happy to do so, convener. I regret the use of the term “stitch-up”, because I am trying to be open and work with all members on the amendments that are being discussed. What I outlined at the start of my remarks was our commitment in the Bute house agreement and the on-going work that we agreed to carry out on the food commission. However, in the light of the amendments that have been lodged, I want, as I said in my comments, to work with other members on collectively finding a solution before stage 3.

I understand the intention of amendment 54, but I am concerned about the use of the words “adequate” and “effective”, because they could well mean different things to different people.

I am also concerned about including in legislation the requirement that is set out in amendment 54. Such provisions are not included in legislation because they are budgetary decisions, not legal decisions. Placing such a requirement in legislation could result in a scenario whereby a relevant authority could include an ambitious policy in their plan that could make it difficult for the Scottish Government to allocate the funding equitably.

I am fully aware that it will be necessary to ensure that financial support is available for authorities to implement good food nation plans, and we have mechanisms in place to discuss funding for local authorities as well as other relevant stakeholders. Within the scope of agreed budgets, relevant authorities will make decisions about the way to deliver their functions and services, and that is exactly as it should be. Relevant authorities are best placed to make those decisions.

We will continue to discuss the financial impact of implementing the plans with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and local authorities, and any requirement for additional financial support must be taken through existing mechanisms such as COSLA’s formal financial governance processes, including the joint Scottish Government-COSLA settlement and distribution group and COSLA leaders.

In summary, given the issues with the wording, and the established mechanisms that we have in place to discuss any requirement for additional support with COSLA and health boards, I ask the committee not to support amendment 54.

I believe that a date for stage 3 has been set, and it will allow for what you have suggested to happen. Of course, I have committed to discussing the matter with members, and I have also made a commitment to dealing conclusively with it by the end of the bill process. Members have put forward a variety of options and I am keen to have that discussion.