Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will indicate my support for some of the amendments in the group. I support Rhoda Grant’s amendment 82, which would require ministers to make provision for publishing information about rural support that is provided. Rural land management impacts all of us, through its large impact, both positive and negative, on the environment, climate and our food supply.

For many people in Scotland, there is a sense that the wealthiest landowners receive the most public money simply for owning land, and that is unjust. For transparency’s sake, it is only right that the public can find out who is supported, how much they receive and why, and what public goods are enabled by that support.

For similar reasons, I support Richard Leonard’s amendment 13. If some landowners are not applying for support directly but are using third-party businesses to do so, the public and the public purse still have a right to know who is the ultimate recipient of that support. That would help to close any loopholes that might allow large landowners to receive support above the capping level, if they apply through more than one business.

I take on board the cabinet secretary’s point about the lack of a clear definition in Scots law of “beneficial ownership”. If we had a system, the information that would be published—thanks to Rhoda Grant’s and Richard Leonard’s amendments—could support the creation of a cadastral system for Scotland, which the Scottish Land Commission has recommended. That would be a set of records and maps that described the ownership boundaries, value and use of land, as is used in other countries such as the US and 14 EU members.

Having all that information in one place would be crucial for a carbon emissions land tax or any land-based replacement for council tax. If the information needs to be collected for those purposes anyway, there should be no reason not to publish it for transparency, provided that data protection is properly considered.

Publishing that information would also allow an external body to conduct a value-for-money assessment of the support that is provided, which I intend to propose at stage 3.

I am interested in discussing this further and in bringing together the folks in the forestry sector and the RSE to get clarity in relation to the misunderstanding of how forestry EIA regulations work. The RSE has done a tremendous body of work. It would be helpful to keep it on board and to get some kind of collaboration going with the society.

I am done.

No, because we need to focus it in that direction.

Clare Symonds wants to come in.

We hope that we will have you back—or somebody from the CERG—to talk about that a year from now. I will run along the line from Morag Watson to Esmé Clelland, then Clare Symonds, specifically on work on biodiversity.

Thanks very much. I will ask the same general question of Clare Symonds, if you have anything to add. You have been doing a lot of research on biodiversity policies, so it would be interesting to get an outline of what you have been finding.

Who wants to pick that up?

Thank you. Esmé Clelland, what are your thoughts and perspective from Scottish Environment LINK?

It is noted that this is the last phase of the Scottish Government’s permitted development rights review. It is suggested that the committee may wish to write to the Scottish Government asking it to set out its next steps and what it intends to do to consider the impact of the changes made through the three phases of the review. Do members agree that we should write to the Scottish Government in those terms?

Members indicated agreement.

Again, I feel that we have just scratched the surface of the topic, but I hope that we will get a fuller picture from hearing from all our panels. Thanks so much for joining us this morning. It has been really helpful.

I will suspend the meeting briefly to allow our witnesses to leave the room.