Seòmar agus comataidhean

Yes.

I am interested in your various sectors’ views on the proposed Rosyth-Dunkirk ferry. Could that be beneficial for trade? How might having an SPS agreement help with location of border control posts—or might it even make some of those posts irrelevant? Would it help with achieving frictionless trade? Would it help to get the case for the ferry over the line if the agreement were to be implemented?

On the point about cost reduction, are you disappointed that there was not, in the agreement, something on free movement of labour? Presumably—as you have already indicated, I think—free movement of labour benefits you in terms of jobs in processing and other jobs?

We have talked about the need for flexibility in responding to opportunities and the need to look at processing. What are your thoughts on the UK Government’s announcement of the £360 million fishing and coastal growth fund? Where should that fund be prioritised, and what will the outcome be?

Do you think that we could see an increase in the Scottish fleet or increased investment in processing? What discussions have you had about that already, and what do you anticipate or hope will come out of the fund?

Oh—sorry. Go ahead, Adam.

Elspeth, does your organisation have a view on that?

I will not move amendments 6 to 9, and I will not move amendments 147A and 147B, which were debated with earlier groups.

I pass on apologies from Ariane Burgess, who is convening this morning’s meeting of the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee.

Amendment 468 seeks to extend the timeline for the requirement for the Scottish Land Commission to produce its strategic plan from every three years to every 10 years. The reason for that change is practical. The strategic plan covers the commissioners’ objectives and priorities for the plan period. Undertaking that work every three years constrains their ability to plan for the longer term and adds a heavy administrative burden on staff every three years.

Given that changes in land ownership and use occur gradually and that that will continue to be the case under the bill, a requirement for the commissioners to produce a plan every 10 years would free up more of their time and allow them to take a longer-term approach to their work. Following conversations with the Scottish Land Commission, Ariane Burgess feels that the proposed change would better match the long-term view that the commission takes of the pattern of Scotland’s land ownership and use.

Amendment 367 would require ministers to report annually on the operation of part 1 of the bill, including the production of land management plans and the use of the transfer test and lotting powers. The report would also cover the issuing of any fines by the land and communities commissioner and registrations of community interest in large landholdings.

We believe that it is necessary to give Parliament a yearly snapshot of what is happening in Scotland’s land market as a way of scrutinising the effectiveness of the legislation.

I acknowledge that the amendment covers actions that are taken directly by the Scottish ministers, such as the use of the transfer test and lotting decisions, and actions that are taken by the commissioner. However, we believe that the required information is sufficiently high level that collating it for an annual report would not place a burden on ministers or the commissioner.

Monica Lennon’s amendment 503 seeks to do something similar, and the Greens broadly support the intention behind that amendment. We will listen carefully to the cabinet secretary’s comments on amendment 367.

I turn to the other amendments in the group. We are happy to support Bob Doris’s amendment 182. We do not agree with Martin Whitfield’s amendments in the group, as they seem to create grounds for part 1 of the act to be repealed before the new powers have had the chance to bed in. We will be interested to hear his comments on that later.

Similarly, we do not agree with the addition of a sunset clause that would apply 10 years after royal assent, which is proposed in Martin Whitfield’s amendment 386. Such a provision does not exist in other legislation, such as the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, which granted powers to ministers on a range of issues, such as energy efficiency and recycling schemes, although those schemes were not taken forward until several years down the line. We will listen to Mr Whitfield’s comments on his amendments.

I accept the cabinet secretary’s comments about the work on houses being progressed in other ways, but I reiterate the point that that was a recommendation from the Scottish Land Commission. Similar processes are under way in England and Ireland, and we will judge any future progress against that.

To go back to the convener’s point about relative costs, any comparison that looked at how similar processes have worked elsewhere would certainly answer that question.

I will not press amendment 469, but I will talk about Monica Lennon’s amendments, because it feels as if that area of land reform continually gets dropped. Whenever a land reform bill comes forward, people say that considering commonties and common land is too difficult. I recognise that that is probably because a lot of the status of land has been eroded over time. Private landowners may have expanded a garden or private developers may have managed to take over an area—particularly an area of common good land—and develop it without there being clarity as to its legal status. I came across that issue when I was a councillor in Dunblane, and we did a bit of work with Andy Wightman to work out where the common land was. I know that the issue goes way back, probably to the previous Scottish Parliament in 1695.

Those areas of land are held for communities, so we need to give the issue a bit of care and attention. It feels as if another land reform bill has come and gone and, because the work has not been done, there is nothing that we can do legally now, and the problem is just going to sit there. It needs a bit of care and attention in the future.