Seòmar agus comataidhean

Having listened to the debate, I am minded not to press amendment 375 or move amendment 376.

To come back to the cabinet secretary’s point about whether there is a big problem with the use of security declarations, Rhoda Grant and I have both come across incidents in which, disappointingly, the police were unable to take the necessary action to ensure the landowner’s compliance. I would therefore look to the cabinet secretary and the Government to consider whether that is a larger-scale problem. We are now several years down the line from the roll-out of the register of controlled interests, which is an important tool in the box that enables us to build much more transparency about how land in Scotland is owned and managed. Clearly, there are examples of situations where compliance is not happening.

It seems odd that the bill contains provision for a fine of up to £40,000 for failure to produce a community consultation on a land management plan, whereas a failure to declare who is financially behind the ownership of land in Scotland attracts only a £5,000 fine. I understand the difference: one of those actions could result in a criminal conviction. However, in the small number of cases that have come through, we have seen that the likelihood of securing a conviction is vanishingly small. For the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service to even take on such a case would require a lot of specialist research by the police. I do not know whether we would ever get to a point where that might help to secure a criminal conviction.

I am not clear whether such a penalty would be a deterrent against non-compliance but, until there is a bit more review of whether the register of controlled interests is working, we can only guess, because we have only anecdotal evidence. On the face of it, that provision appears as though it is quite misaligned with others in the bill, not just as they stood at stage 1 but as they have changed as we have progressed through stage 2.

Okay—go.

I will not press amendment 469.

Amendment 469, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 470 moved—[Mark Ruskell].

I look forward to further discussions with Ariane over the summer about how we might deliver the policy intent behind the amendment—which is to have a thriving community renewables sector in which communities feel that they are achieving the benefit, so—

The Government has already made a commitment to expand and develop ScotLIS. The service is a living thing—it is not frozen in time. The frustration is that it is not currently achieving its potential. It could be quite a powerful tool in ensuring that, where public money is being invested in land and in public objectives, we are matching that up to the land of Scotland and are able to see the impacts of strategic policy across the whole of Scotland—I hope that I have managed to give some examples of that.

It is good for councils, national parks and the Scottish Government to have that mapping tool, so that they can see where public money is being spent, and it is also useful for landowners who are working at a landscape scale, as they can use it to see where the economic opportunities are. It would be for Registers of Scotland and the keeper to manage a work programme for how ScotLIS could be expanded.

There is an existing commitment to expand ScotLIS, so I am not suggesting something completely new. The digital land and property information service task force recommended using ScotLIS in a range of different ways. There is a frustration that, with regard to a carbon land tax and a range of other policies with which members may or may not agree, implementation relies on having an accurate map database of land across Scotland. We do not currently have that, and until we do, we will always come up against problems if we want to be ambitious in our land policy.

I will leave it there, convener. I move amendment 375.

The area of licensing has been drawn far too narrowly in the legislation and it does not include those areas where raptor persecution is occurring. We have, effectively, a licensing regime that was, at the outset, somewhat dysfunctional. It is important that it covers the area where the crimes are taking place.

I think that the Government acknowledges that this is a problem. It is somewhat embarrassing that, when the legislation was passed, it was widely celebrated among those who work in conservation, who had been campaigning for it for many years. It is a balanced piece of legislation, but this is clearly a loophole. If there is a commitment from the Government to fix it, I will not press amendment 374.

Okay—I will do my best.

Amendment 469 would require the Scottish ministers to establish a community land forum. That would bring together local authorities, public bodies with duties related to housing, land ownership or community development, and other agencies, in order to identify areas of land that could be made available for community housing developments.

A forum of that kind has been recommended by the Scottish Land Commission, based on its analysis of similar processes in England and the Republic of Ireland. Amendment 469 would be the first step. It would require ministers to facilitate a space in which the main stakeholders and community groups with an interest could discuss land for community housing. A more robust proposal would be for a public body to be charged with acquiring suitable sites for community housing and creating a land bank of such sites that could be portioned out, according to recommendations from the community land forum. That would be ideal.

Highland Council has successfully assembled parcels of land through its land bank fund since 2005. We would like to see more local authorities take that approach. Amendment 469 is the first step towards such a process, and I urge members to support it.

I move amendment 469.

No, I do not.

The duties to restore and support the development of our public land for meeting biodiversity targets are already there, but that approach is not working effectively. I see good land management as being cost effective. It could lead to improvements in biodiversity outcomes. It is being mainstreamed as part of the agricultural subsidy reform that we have seen coming through Parliament. We have nature recovery funds and active private and public investment is going into land management that can deliver on natural capital. I do not see it as contradictory to the good economic management of land to meet biodiversity objectives.

The existing biodiversity duty is not sufficiently understood or complied with. I urge members to support amendment 366.

I move amendment 366.

I think that the challenge will be to get robust evidence. I heard the cabinet secretary’s remarks that some people might have a security concern and, therefore, would be exempt from providing information, but we do not know. We are where we are; we are discussing the bill, it is before the Parliament, and there is a desire to change and fix a lot of things that we think are problematic. We might be reliant on the Government making commitments to change regulations or carry out reviews in the future, but now is the time to pin down such commitments so that there is some assurance for the committee, here and now, that we know what will happen as we go forward.

That also brings us to the subject of ScotLIS. We all agree that it is a powerful and useful tool, but that it could be more so. Again, we are fishing around to see what the next stage of its development might be. The cabinet secretary admitted that it would cost more money to make the service better and more effective, but what is the Government’s commitment on that? Is ScotLIS a priority, or not? If it is not a priority, we should name it and say, “There is no programme to expand ScotLIS. The commitments that were made in 2015 by the digital working group will not be carried forward, and we will deal with what we have at the moment.” I am aware that another committee would scrutinise the work of the keeper and ScotLIS, but it is so fundamental to our work on land reform that I think it important to bring that into the discussion.

I will not press amendment 375. I will not move amendment 376, but I will move amendment 470. We will see where we get to with Monica Lennon’s subsequent amendments 475 and 477. Although her amendments are supportable, I would like to test with the committee the idea of putting something into legislation now.

Amendment 375, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 376 to 378 not moved.