Chamber and committees

It is a little bit concerning to hear at stage 1 that there is an on-going conversation with DEFRA about the application of the law, but we will have several months over the summer to see what situation emerges.

We took evidence from the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, which is responsible for nature conservation on a four-nations basis. Its view is that we should amend these powers “with very great caution” and that we would make wholesale changes “at our peril”. There is clearly concern among agencies and those who are monitoring the state of nature in this country about any powers in this section.

I will leave it there just now, but that is food for thought.

I was wondering whether there is precedent for having an environmental regulator as an adviser when it ultimately holds power over regulation. Is that something that NatureScot is already doing?

Ms Wilson described NatureScot as having a wider advisory role, but this is quite specific. It is about advising in a particular area on deer management plans, while also having a regulatory function. Is there precedent for how NatureScot and other environmental regulators have managed those two responsibilities? How have they dealt with the perception that there might be a conflict of interest?

It has been put to us that section 8 powers were not used in the past because using them would require a high burden of proof, which could be challenged through judicial review. For many years, there has been the suspicion that there has been an inability to issue a robust section 8 notice in a way that would not be legally challenged on the basis of the evidence. Do you think that the bill changes that, particularly with the new grounds for nature restoration? Does that provide more legal certainty now?

We will come on to Mr Lumsden’s amendments later in the meeting, when I know that his focus will be explicitly on electricity infrastructure. The point that he makes is why defining the public interest in the bill is important. There is a wider public interest in relation to national infrastructure and there is a community interest in that as well. However, it is a mistake to simply have no definition of “public interest” in the bill. The point that he makes about there being little legal precedent for community interest is perhaps well made, and I am sure that we will come on to his particular interest later in the meeting.

I briefly turn to other amendments in the group. Amendment 339 from Rhoda Grant and amendment 174 from Mercedes Villalba also seek to include public interest considerations in the bill, specifically for LMPs and the transfer of large landholdings. The Greens support those amendments in principle and do not have a problem with them, although we believe that amendment 310 provides a more holistic, joined-up approach to ensure that the public interest will underpin all obligations in the legislation.

Amendments 150 and 151 from Michael Matheson would also introduce a public interest consideration for lotting decisions—I will be happy to support those.

Tim Eagle’s amendments seem to work against the bill’s direction of travel, which is fundamentally about democratising Scotland’s land ownership. I am sure that we will have lots of conversations with Mr Eagle later on about his amendments. The direction of travel in those amendments is not one that the Greens will support.

Similarly, Mr Lumsden’s amendment 364 and his amendments in later groups would seem to set limitations on land being used for the purpose of upgrading our energy system and infrastructure. I do not know whether that is just about wind farms and one type of energy infrastructure, or whether there is also concern about small modular nuclear reactors, fracking infrastructure, carbon capture and storage facilities, Peterhead 2 or any other sorts of energy infrastructure. It is clearly in the national public interest to deliver the cheaper and cleaner energy that households need, so the Greens will not support those amendments.

I will close my opening comments there and wait to hear from other members who will move amendments and contribute to the debate.

I move amendment 310.

I am interested in the point about the case law that has come through the courts in relation to defining the public interest. Will you say more about what that case law has shown in relation to the legality of a public interest test?

I am thinking about what you have said about those who are in receipt of subsidy. As somebody who is in receipt of subsidy, do you think that you receive it for delivering community interest? I ask because that is what is in the bill at the moment—it is about a community interest test, rather than a wider public interest test.

Thank you, convener. We are of one mind, so we will channel it.

The debate has been interesting. Mercedes Villalba’s contribution underlined the huge and obscene imbalance in land ownership in Scotland. The fundamental case for reform in that regard is not addressed in the bill—it is absolutely nowhere. Although I support Ms Villalba’s amendments, I do not see there being a majority for them in the committee or in the Parliament, which is very sad. We will need a major piece of land reform legislation, possibly in the next session of Parliament, to start to address those fundamental issues.

I turn to the bill that is in front of us. We have had an interesting debate about what constitutes the public interest, and views on the different flavours in that regard have been presented to the committee. Some of those arguments have been taken up by the cabinet secretary, and I thank her for the conversations that she has had with Ariane Burgess, me and my group on that topic. I am sure that that, in part, has resulted in Michael Matheson’s amendments on lotting, which we will support. However, those amendments do not fundamentally address the issue of where the public interest sits in the bill and, frankly, they do not address the current position in which the inadequate definition of “public interest” is wrapped up with the definition of “community interest”. I am interested in how the definition of “public interest” has been considered in cases that have come to the Land Court and elsewhere—perhaps we can think about that during our long summer recess.

There is still some mileage to go. I take on board the concerns about the particular definitions of “public interest” in amendment 310 and others, but, before stage 3, there needs to be a conversation—between me, Rhoda Grant, the cabinet secretary, Ariane Burgess, Michael Matheson and others—about how to better interpret “public interest” in the bill.

In relation to community interest, our debate this morning has been about groups that are against wind farms, but do they represent the community? I do not know—they might do in some areas. However, that term does not have a strong legal definition and is widely interpretable, so that is not a strong basis for going forward.

Ahead of stage 3, we need to focus on how we can place more of a forward-facing burden on landowners, as Mercedes Villalba said, in order to represent the public interest. There is space for more conversation. At the end of the day, the bill is about land reform, not planning, so it is not the place for issues relating to community concerns about developments or whatever. However, I think that something around the public interest could emerge from further discussion.

I will leave my comments there.

Over the years, I have met quite a few young farmers and new entrants to farming, and what has struck me is that they have a lot of energy and a huge amount of vision and passion for what they want to do. Surely, at the heart of it, a land management plan should be a way to articulate that vision and to have that conversation with the surrounding community. I feel that, when people who come from a farming family and are carrying on the work of a relative set off in farming for the first time—when there is that generational shift—they have new and exciting ideas about how they want to take the business forward. Surely the essence of the land management plan is the conversation. The plan should not be considered a threat, red tape or regulation; it should be about getting the community behind you and having a conversation about the future and what is needed.

?I am interested in how the order will work in practice, and it might be worth us writing to Highland Council about that. I am aware that a number of tourist hotspot areas in Scotland are, in effect, on clearways on major A roads. Often, the coach parties and the large number of tourists who come to those areas result in dangerous parking and those A roads being blocked. In my region, the police have had to actively engage in enforcement action involving clearing cars away and so on. I am interested to know where the work of the police on that stops and where the work of the councils starts.

Another matter is that of hospital parking. There is an issue across Scotland where, in effect, private security firms carry out parking enforcement for the local authority, even though, in some areas, the council has taken on the responsibility for enforcement following the decriminalisation of parking. There is often a mismatch there.

Orders such as this one come to the committee from time to time. They look pretty straightforward, and they are, but there are issues with who is doing the safety and enforcement work. The issue of hospital car parking is a bit of an anomaly that still exists. It would be interesting to see what Highland Council would say on those two points.

Populating the debate and explaining examples is a really good way to proceed. The farm that you describe sounds like a great farm. It sounds as though the farmers already have a plan for what they want to do in the future, including with regard to peatland, and they have a really clear idea about where they are going.

Surely it comes down to the format of the land management plan and the associated guidance. If it was a case of consulting on the land management plan or any access arrangements and their future farm management plan, it sounds to me—because it is a professionally run farm with a farming family at the heart of it—as though all the information is already there. Therefore, a land management plan could be a fairly simple thing to pull together and perhaps the subject of a really exciting conversation with the local community about how it can support and feed into what Cora Cooper and her farm are attempting to do.