Chamber and committees

I want to go back to Mr Doris’s point about the decision on whether the threshold should be 3,000 hectares, 1,000 hectares or something in between. Is it fair to say that there is something arbitrary about the selection? We know that 3,000 hectares in one part of Scotland could look very different from 3,000 hectares in another part of Scotland and might bring in quite dramatically different sets of issues in terms of management, local communities, opportunities for housing and so on. We live in a geographically diverse country. Putting into legislation that land of a certain size needs to have a land management plan does not reflect the nature of the land.

Why do you think the Government has chosen the transfer test? Were you asked for advice on the matter?

You believe that there should be consistency between the different measures in the bill—the transfer test and land management plans.

I know that Monica Lennon wants to come in, convener.

We have covered most of the questions that we wanted to ask, but I want to ask you about the definition of community sustainability. What was your thinking when you chose not to recommend that a definition should appear in the bill? Is it too difficult to provide a robust definition? If we do not provide a definition, is there a danger that areas such as community housing, for example, become less considered and less defined in the bill and that missed opportunities might arise as a result?

Okay—thanks.

Is it too earlier to codify some of that work in legislation? Does it need to go into legislation?

I thank the minister for the detail of that answer. ExxonMobil and Shell run Mossmorran. Around 250 workers work there, and many more are employed through short-term maintenance contracts. Any credible just transition plan for the site must be co-designed with the workers and the unions from the get-go, to safeguard their livelihoods. What engagement process does the Government plan to follow to ensure the development of a worker-backed plan? Will the minister join me, alongside site operators, workers and unions, at the summit that I will organise on the issue later this year?

I live in a national park, and I see every day how it hugely benefits businesses, communities and nature. From speaking to local businesses in the stunning Tay forest area, it is clear that they are looking for certainty about the designation of Scotland’s third national park. However, the clock is ticking, particularly for the statutory process to complete by 2026.

Will Kate Forbes personally ensure that this Government leaves a lasting and tangible green legacy for our rural communities by designating at least one new national park ahead of the next Holyrood election?

They may be running for their trains.

Last Wednesday, I was delighted to join passengers on the first train to Leven and Cameron Bridge since 1969. The Cabinet Secretary for Transport was with us, too. It was especially wonderful to join tenacious campaigners from the Levenmouth Rail Campaign. It is clear that those new stations will change lives.

Rail services are permanent and deliver far-reaching economic benefits, and investing in rail connects communities, offering a fixed, greener, cheaper transport option for as many people as possible. As a Green MSP, I have always been a strong advocate of investment in rail, new rail stations, decarbonisation and the reform of fare structures and pricing. I have repeatedly called for the nationalisation of ScotRail and the Caledonian sleeper, and, as the cabinet secretary knows, the Green group secured significant funding for rail as part of the Bute house agreement.

I think that we all agree that radically improving public transport is good for people, the economy and the planet. Back in 2021, I met the four rail unions outside Parliament for the launch of “A Vision for Scotland’s Railways”. We agreed on much in that report, and the removal of ScotRail’s peak-time fares was one of those ideas. We have been proud to fight for and win the removal of peak-time fares on ScotRail services for a trial six-month period, which started in October 2023. Alongside the four rail unions and tens of thousands of passengers who have felt the benefit of this transformative policy, we now call on the Scottish Government to make the change permanent.

Why do simpler and cheaper rail fares matter? Transport is responsible for about a third of our greenhouse gas emissions in Scotland. Road transport alone makes up about three quarters of those emissions, with a significant proportion coming from passenger car use. The Scottish Government says that it is still on track to achieve net zero by 2045. It also has the important target of reducing the number of car kilometres by 20 per cent by 2030. Significant, transformative investment in public transport, including rail, is essential if we are to have any hope of encouraging people out of polluting private cars and reducing Scotland’s carbon emissions.