Chamber and committees

On a theme that is similar to the question of how we will assess what local authorities are doing following the publication of the plan, I want to ask about the phrase “have regard to”. That has a well-understood legal meaning, but will you say a bit more about what you understand it to mean?

On a similar theme, a number of people have said to us that the food public bodies landscape in Scotland is a rather crowded or even cluttered one. That was certainly one argument that was put to us against creating a new body. What do you make of the comments that have been put to us about there being quite a crowded landscape already?

The fact that Bòrd na Gàidhlig has engaged in the process, as the minister rightly mentioned, indicates that the future of Gaelic is indirectly bound up with issues such as who gets to live in those communities and whether there are housing opportunities and other opportunities there. Do the points that Bòrd na Gàidhlig and I have made about Gaelic point to the need for interconnectedness between NPF4 and other plans?

Again, if I have picked this up right, you seem to be quite open minded about whether there should be a new body for oversight. We have had evidence put to us that the food world is a very cluttered environment just now. Is that a picture that you recognise?

Finally, on another issue, the bill, or rather the national plan associated with this bill, will make real some of the rights that will be contained in other legislation, such as the right to food in the human rights bill. How important is it that rights around food are connected with other rights? I ask that in the context of the discussion that we have had in other parts of the meeting about the competing problems that families have around eating and heating. How important is it that these things are all connected?

I want to address my question to Mark Hunter in that case. What is your understanding of the requirement to “have regard”? I know that there is a legal meaning, but what can local authorities do to gear up for the bill?

I want to ask a quick supplementary on the back of the point that the minister made there about crofting. I want to ask again about plans tying together and how she feels that achieving those aims that she set out for crofting would tie in with legislation on crofting.

A number of European countries have capped their energy cost increase at 5 or 10 per cent, but the United Kingdom has capped it at 54 per cent. Yesterday, I heard a suggestion that it could be significantly higher than 54 per cent in island areas, which already probably have some of the worst fuel poverty rates in Europe. How can the planning system respond to that? I presume that such a savage increase would have an impact on whether people decide to live in island areas and the kind of balance with which that leaves the community. What levers exist in the planning system—whether it be obligations on developers or other measures—to cope with what will undoubtedly be an extreme situation with fuel poverty on the islands?

I have a supplementary question on 20-minute neighbourhoods. Is the plan agnostic on the way that the housing market operates in some rural areas where, essentially, people have to have acquired capital from property transactions in a city before they can buy or build a house? That has implications for the age profile and the sustainability of many of our rural communities. What can the plan do to address that fundamental problem that many rural communities now face?

Some of the questioning in this session has been about the potential cost of the bill to local authorities and other agencies. What is the potential for spending to save, if you like, given that there is a health benefit here that may impact the work of local authorities?