Seòmar agus comataidhean

No—oh, sorry. Yes.

Yes, thank you. I have considered both amendments, which would, if I have read them correctly, effectively end Crown Estate Scotland’s role and functions. However, I am not clear about a couple of issues.

First, I am not entirely sure whether local authorities have the capacity and capability to undertake devolved foreshore responsibilities, given the significant challenges that they face in dealing with planning matters as it stands. There is a capacity and capability issue.

My second point is about aspects of spatial planning. It appears to me that, in order to ensure that the rationale for the approach that is being taken across the country is clearly understood, it makes more sense to take a consistent approach to dealing with spatial planning matters, on the foreshore and beyond, and to do so in a single organisation.

My third point is that I imagine that the challenge of passing that responsibility to local authorities is likely to result in a potential variation in approach, which will make policy at a foreshore level less transparent. How different local authorities take planning decisions on foreshore matters could also raise fairness issues.

Notwithstanding my interpretation that the amendments effectively do away with Crown Estate Scotland, the issue is whether local authorities have capacity and capability in the first place. On spatial planning, they would ultimately lead to the challenge of different organisations dealing with different things in different parts of the country, which could create transparency and fairness issues when it comes to how the process is applied.

I am always getting my numbers mixed up, like you, convener.

Amendment 488 agreed to.

Amendments 489 and 490 moved—[Mairi Gougeon]—and agreed to.

Amendment 508 moved—[Mairi Gougeon].

Amendment 508A moved—[Tim Eagle].

I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for her comments. I am conscious that the Scottish Land Commission already undertakes aspects of the work that is referred to in my amendment, although that is not in any legislation. On the basis that I will seek to explore the matter further ahead of stage 3, I seek to withdraw amendment 181.

Amendment 181, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 138, 139 and 168 are consequential to earlier amendments on sites of community significance that I did not move.

Amendment 181 relates to amendment 178, which was considered earlier, and to the fact that, with the creation of the Scottish land and communities commissioner, there is an opportunity for us to consider expanding the role and functions of the Scottish Land Commission.

Amendment 181 seeks to require the commission to have regard to four key additional areas:

“the contribution of land to the achievement of a just transition to net zero”;

“the relationship between scale of land holdings to the building of community wealth”;

“the desirability of achieving a more diverse pattern of land ownership”;

and

“measures to support the repopulation of land and the sustainability of communities.”

I am conscious that the Scottish Land Commission may have regard to those areas at present, but there is nothing in legislation that requires it to do so. Amendment 181 is a probing amendment to seek clarity from the Government on the role that it sees the Scottish Land Commission having in helping to address what are pressing public issues and the role that land can play in addressing them.

I move amendment 181.

My amendments in the group relate to my earlier amendments on the issue of public interest. My amendments 152 and 153 seek to amend the 2003 act so that a lotting decision must not only specify what the lots will be but also

“provide a statement of reasons as to why Ministers consider the decision is in the public interest.”

That will provide greater transparency in the process.

My amendment 156 also relates to the issue of public interest. It would place a duty on ministers to issue guidance on how lotting decisions are to be made, including the circumstances in which ministers are to instruct the land and communities commissioner to carry out any initial review on their behalf.

My amendment 159 relates to lotting decisions and the requirement to make sure that ministers reference how that lotting decision is being undertaken. It relates to my amendment 158, which was previously discussed.

He is just checking that we are paying attention.

My amendments in this group relate to my original amendments in group 3, which were to do with community significance. These amendments are consequential to those earlier amendments, so I will not be moving them.

On that point, convener, my reading of amendment 97 is that it would provide for exactly what you suggest, namely that someone could receive multiple consecutive enforcement notices that imposed a fine if the breach remained unremedied. Therefore, it would be perfectly within reason for those imposing the fine to start at a lower level and then to progress the fine to a higher level on the basis of multiple breaches, through enforcement. I think that amendment 97 makes provision for what you are looking for, but it sets the cap at £40,000.