Chamber and committees

No—that could not happen through the regulations.

I assure the committee that we are in constant contact with our stakeholders anyway. I do not think that it is our role to plug the gaps in other funds. Ultimately, I come back to the point that the UK Government is spending directly in what is a devolved policy area. That funding should come to the Scottish Government for us to distribute according to our policy priorities. That is the problem with the UK seafood fund at the moment. It is causing duplication and confusion in relation to the activities that we are funding through the marine fund Scotland. That is not an ideal position and it is not where we want to be. It is a source of frustration to us that there is duplication when we should be able to spend according to our own priorities.

That is not the case at all. The SSI will enable us to fund a broader range of activities. I do not think that we should wait for the UK Government before we look to do that or to fund the priorities that we see as being important in Scotland.

My understanding is that that is double the period of scrutiny that there has been for previous national planning frameworks. As I said, and as the minister has outlined, there has been an extensive engagement process leading up to this point and our consultation is open. I would like to think that that would be adequate time for that scrutiny to take place and for any further ideas or comments to be provided.

I am happy to kick off on that. There was a lot in the question, but I will try to answer it as best I can.

On your last point, and returning to what I said at the start, I note that this is all about trying to create thriving local communities and thriving communities in rural areas. Enabling the development of the infrastructure that we need for that to happen is the premise of NPF4. There are lots of different strategies and pieces of work going on across the Government to try to address the issues that you mentioned, including on land, transport and our digital connectivity, but I highlight that none of those pieces of work is being done in isolation. For example, our third land use strategy, which was published last year, makes explicit reference to NPF4, and it has featured in previous national planning frameworks.

You talked about digital connectivity. We have opportunities with home working, which could help to enable people to live in remote and rural parts of Scotland. Of course, we need the digital infrastructure to enable that to happen. The digital fibre network is listed as one of the national developments in the framework because we recognise its importance and we want to enable that development to take place.

The key point that I want to emphasise is that we are not looking at each of the issues in isolation. We are making sure that, as we develop strategies, there is read across to NPF4 and, likewise, that it aligns with the other strategies that we are developing in these areas. I am sure that the minister will want to add to that.

I completely understand the concerns that you have raised about fuel poverty, and when I have visited island communities, I have heard about the levels of fuel poverty, and how rural and island communities are severely impacted by it. Helping to address fuel poverty and enabling energy efficiency are the principles that are embedded within NPF4. Perhaps it would be helpful if the minister outlined the proposals for national developments and how they have come about.

The document is out to consultation at the moment and we are keen to hear the feedback. However, as I said, we are not doing this in isolation, and we will not develop the policies or strategies independently of one another. I emphasise that, as I said, the regional land use partnerships align with what we have set out in the regional spatial strategies.

NPF4 is not being developed in isolation from the land use strategy and other pieces of on-going work. In my response to Jim Fairlie, I referred to the regional land use strategy, the outcomes of which make explicit reference to the national planning framework. The issue has been referred to in previous NPFs. As I said, the two are not being developed in isolation from each other. We obviously want to ensure that there is alignment of outcomes.

There is a lot of cut-across. There are explicit links between NPF4 and the third land use strategy, which was published last year. NPF4 refers to green and blue infrastructure, talks about optimising vacant and derelict land and has a focus on nature-based solutions. The two are not being done in isolation—there is a lot of cut-across and alignment.

I again emphasise that we are not doing this in isolation. A number of other pieces of work are under way. For example, the pilot regional land use partnerships have been established. They are still in the development stage, but they map the areas that have been set out in the regional spatial strategies. It is about making sure that both of those align.

The purpose of regional land use partnerships is to ensure that we are having discussions and collaborating at a regional scale on future land use. That is a collaborative process. At the heart of the process is making sure that we have discussions with communities, landowners and farmers as we try to address some of the issues at scale. Phil Raines might have more details.

Let me say straight off that we are working on the national strategy for economic transformation as well, which will be critically important in addressing some of the points that you have raised. I come back to points that I have made previously: we are not considering these strategies in isolation to each other, and there will be strong links and alignment there. The minister may want to come in.