Chamber and committees

When we produced NPF4, did we miss an opportunity to look at an urban framework and a rural one? Did we need to go there?

There is a question that I meant to ask earlier that is less about local place plans and more about the funding part. Do you think that the rural and islands housing fund needs to be more flexible—to use the term that Ronnie MacRae used last week—in acknowledging the requirement for all the different pieces of work that need to go together, such as the bat report and so on? Do you think that the funding process needs to acknowledge that better?

Thanks. Ailsa, do you have anything to add?

I have a question on the place principle, which Donna Young touched on when she gave her example of people being told that a two-way street was needed but that did not suit the community. I am interested in hearing from others about that. To what extent does the place principle that underpins the NPF4 delivery plan actually guide the actions of planning departments, developers and others? What could be done to further embed that principle in decision making?

That is a good point. Does anyone else want to comment on how the place principle is being delivered?

I move on to penalties. In its written evidence, the Sustainable Inshore Fisheries Trust set out three concerns about the way in which penalties are dealt with in the SSI. I asked about the first two last week, and I will raise the third point now.

SIFT highlighted that sheriffs tend to impose

“very low penalties ... for fisheries offences under similar legislation.”

It goes on to say that, while the maximum penalty for MPAs is £50,000 in theory,

“imposed penalties tend to be between £2000 and £3500 in practice.”

SIFT is concerned, therefore, that the maximum penalty of £50,000 would not be applied to REM offences either.

SIFT has been calling on the Scottish Government to develop sentencing guidelines; I have raised that with you several times, cabinet secretary. What actions will the Scottish Government take

“to ensure that penalties reflect the seriousness of the offence”,

as SIFT puts it, including the damage, or risk of damage, to vulnerable, valuable ecosystems during our nature emergency?

Before I come to my question on penalties, I would like to pick up on the compliance piece a little bit more, because we have already focused quite a bit on the pelagic piece. The national marine plan’s sea fisheries objective 9 requires

“Management of removals”—

that is, the total catches—

“where necessary, through fully documented fisheries.”

In addition, the result of the recent Open Seas Trust court case confirmed on appeal that the Scottish ministers are legally required to consider the impacts of harmful fishing on the environment, and that they

“must act in accordance with”

the national marine plan. Given that finding, I am interested in understanding whether the Scottish Government will now incorporate analysis of the data from REM systems in its process for licensing scallop dredging, so that it can ensure that it is acting in accordance with its legal duties under the national marine plan.

Do you have a timescale for that?

Under item 2, we will take evidence on rural and island housing from Stuart Black, who is the chief executive of Highlands and Islands Enterprise; Professor Russel Griggs, who is the chair of South of Scotland Enterprise; Ronnie MacRae, who is the chief executive officer at the Communities Housing Trust; Ailsa Raeburn, who is the chair of Community Land Scotland; Pauline Smith, who is the chief executive of the Development Trusts Association Scotland; and Mike Staples, who is the chief executive of South of Scotland Community Housing.

I warmly welcome all our witnesses. We have a number of questions for you. There is no need for you to turn on your microphones, as we will do that for you. I will begin with a broad question to set the scene, and we can then get into the detail.

I am interested in hearing from each of you what challenges we face with regard to place making and housing across rural Scotland. If you feel that your points have been covered, you do not need to comment. There will certainly be time for you to give your views throughout the morning. I also ask you to give a brief overview of your organisations’ roles so that we understand whom we are hearing from, the areas that you cover and what you consider to be the main housing challenges. I will come to you in the order in which I introduced you.

We have talked in the past about the idea of building at scale, and it would be good for the committee to hear more about that idea. Stuart Black mentioned your thoughts about the north-west Sutherland area. It would be interesting to hear about where you got to with that, and whether you still think that that is a useful way to proceed. That also touches on what Russel Griggs was talking about: the need to rebuild SMEs after losing them. The approach that you have mentioned could be a way to encourage them, so I ask you to explain that idea.