Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

Sorry, I just—

I do not have an answer to that.

Amendment 366 introduces a duty on public bodies to ensure that they are contributing to nature recovery on publicly owned land over a certain size. This is an alternative to Ariane Burgess’s amendment 320, which we discussed last week, which was more about land management plans.

Under the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004, public bodies already have a duty to further the conservation of biodiversity when carrying out their responsibilities. Mandatory reporting on that was introduced in 2011, but a 2016 report on compliance with that duty found that less than half of public bodies had published a biodiversity duty report as required. Introducing a duty that specifically relates to land management practices is therefore an important step.

Amendment 366 also clarifies that the duty is to enhance biodiversity on public landholdings, not just to sustain biodiversity. That reflects our commitments under the 2023 global biodiversity framework, which calls upon countries to enhance biodiversity across 30 per cent of their territory.

The Scottish Rewilding Alliance estimates that about 243 land parcels that are in public ownership are over 1,000 hectares. Those landholdings have huge potential to contribute to Scotland’s ecological recovery in line with our international targets. The existing biodiversity duty is not sufficient.

Members will recall that, just over a year ago, the Parliament passed the Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Act 2024, which introduced a licensing scheme for shooting red grouse in Scotland. The intent behind that legislation was for the whole area of an estate to be included in the licence, given that gamekeepers are normally employed to undertake predator control over an entire estate.

However, a loophole in that legislation is allowing grouse moor managers to specify a particular part of an estate to which the licence is to apply—essentially, the grouse moor itself, rather than the surrounding land of the estate. That is really concerning, given that incidents of raptor persecution often occur outwith grouse moors.

As members will recall, the issue was brought up in evidence at stage 1 of this bill. Even though the scope of the bill is quite narrow, the RSPB and other stakeholders have raised it as an issue. Amendment 374 seeks to close that unintended loophole, clarifying that a grouse moor licence would cover an entire landholding, keeping the licensing scheme in line with the intention of the Parliament when it passed the legislation last year.

I move amendment 374.

—on that basis, I will not press the amendment.

Will Douglas Lumsden clarify whether “energy infrastructure” includes nuclear reactors and any infrastructure that would be required to repower the Peterhead gas-fired electricity generation station? Are all forms of energy infrastructure covered, including nuclear power?

May I clarify, based on what the cabinet secretary said, that the provisions are about businesses that are being sold voluntarily? It is up to the new owner—whether for an entire estate or whether, because ministers intervened, it is lotted—to decide whether to restructure the workforce, close certain aspects of the business down or maybe expand into other areas. It is ultimately a business decision. Selling in the first place is also, ultimately, the landowner’s business decision.

Good morning, everybody. I hope that you all had a restful weekend and are ready for the marathon to come this week.

Amendment 355 seeks to address cases in which a community purchase of abandoned or neglected land is, in effect, stymied by a landowner bringing only a tiny proportion of the landholding into use. I will illustrate that with an example from Lower Largo. In the Largo estate, there is Largo house, which is derelict and abandoned. If you visit the site, you will see that it is clearly derelict and has clearly been abandoned by the landowner.

The site is of historical significance. It includes Wood’s tower, which was a fort that was built in the early 17th century for Scotland’s first sea admiral—it is well worth a visit to see the fantastic and amazing history. The site also includes some of Scotland’s oldest walled gardens.

Having seen that the site has been abandoned and neglected, the community has wanted to use provisions under the community right to buy legislation to take over and restore the site in order to turn it into a wonderful tourism opportunity for the local community. However, although most of the site is clearly abandoned and neglected, about 5 per cent of it has been developed as a horticultural business, and the community believes that that thwarts its ability to buy the land under the current provisions on abandoned and neglected land in land reform legislation.

I have lodged amendment 355 to close the Largo loophole. It would require that at least 50 per cent of a site was brought into use before it was no longer classed as abandoned or neglected. If the vast majority of a piece of land is abandoned and neglected, the commonsense definition of that land is that it is abandoned and neglected, so the community should have a right to register interest in taking it over.

Amendment 355 would close a loophole that has blocked communities taking forward their rights to purchase unused land, and I am interested in hearing the cabinet secretary’s view on that. I recognise that a wider community right to buy review is happening; we have debated that already during stage 2 consideration. The amendment provides an opportunity to close the loophole, and, if we do not do so through the amendment, I am looking for commitments to take that action in another way.

I turn to other amendments in the group. Rhoda Grant’s amendments 356 and 357 look to improve recognition of crofting communities in the community right to buy regulations. I am keen to support those amendments and to listen to the discussion about them. I am similarly supportive of Monica Lennon’s amendment 514 on common good land. I will listen to the cabinet secretary’s comments on that and how the provision can be taken forward. I am not entirely sure what Tim Eagle is trying to achieve through amendment 486, but, again, I will listen to his comments on it. It seems that it would require a review of the community right to buy, and my understanding is that that is already under way in the Government. However, again, I will listen to the debate and offer a few comments in closing.

I move amendment 355.