Chamber and committees

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?

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.