Chamber and committees

I thank the cabinet secretary and his officials for joining us in person for this evidence-taking session.

We move on to our fourth theme, which is planning. That theme includes national planning framework 4 and local place plans, which we have already touched on.

The upcoming national planning framework 4 provides a vital opportunity to underpin and encourage public-led planning that will benefit people and the planet and will ensure that national developments fulfil climate and biodiversity criteria. It might be difficult to answer this question without having seen a draft of the framework, but I would like to hear about any policy areas or aspects that witnesses expect to see in national planning framework 4 and that they think merit parliamentary scrutiny.

Thank you for raising that point.

I will ask my questions all together, but I will ask them slowly so that you catch them.

The first one is for Pete Ritchie from Scottish Environment LINK. Pete, you mentioned in your opening statement that you are keen for the good food nation bill to be a framework bill against which to judge future policies. What would you like to be in the good food nation bill to lay the groundwork for a strong and coherent agriculture bill?

I also have a follow-up question for Pete Ritchie. The Scottish Environment LINK written submission recommends that a proportion of farming support payments be redirected to local government. Would you like that to be in the agriculture bill? How much of the farm support budget would you recommend goes to local government? Can you give us examples of how local government could use that support to accelerate the transition to agroecological farming and healthy diets at a more local level?

My third question is again for Pete Ritchie, but I would also like to bring in Miranda Geelhoed. It is about potential announcements that the Scottish Government might make for new targets and commitments on farming to coincide with COP26, the 26th United Nations climate change conference of the parties. I would love to hear from both of you—and other people, if we have time—on what you would like the targets and commitments to include.

Onekind and Cats Protection have raised the possibility that the amending regulations may enable rehoming to be used as a cover for illegal kitten trading. Will any measure be put in place to monitor this situation and ensure that illegal kitten trading does not increase as a result?

I have a supplementary question on agroforestry, which Mike Robinson mentioned. I am hearing that it is going to be big and important, but he mentioned that there are tensions related to it. Will he unpack that for us?

I will direct this question to Mike Robinson. The bill that we are talking about is proposed to include enhanced conditionality of support against public benefits, with targeted outcomes for biodiversity gain and low-emissions production. Do you agree with the Soil Association that the conditions for support should align with those in the EU farm to fork strategy, such as reducing chemical pesticides by 50 per cent by 2030? I am also interested in what other criteria you and others involved in the farming for 1.5° inquiry would like to be included as conditions for subsidies. For example, should support be contingent on certain levels of carbon and methane reductions or use of agroecological practices that support nature to regenerate itself?

I thank all the witnesses for sharing their views on that. Staying with somewhat the same theme, I will bring in Miles Briggs, who has a supplementary question on the national care service.

We move to our fourth theme, which is community wealth building. I ask Elena Whitham to open the discussion.

Yes.