Chamber and committees

No, I do not have time.

Listening to the debate, those communities will be bitterly disappointed at the lack of clarity from the SNP, the Lib Dems, the Tories and Reform, which refuse to back a moratorium and refuse to back a pause in the determination of planning applications ahead of the guidance being agreed.

I appreciate that this is a difficult issue for the many SNP members in whose constituencies applications have been made. We have heard from Gary Bouse and Stuart McMillan. We have not heard from David Torrance—I do not think that he is even here yet. I recognise that he will have to explain his position, not just to his constituents in Auchtertool but to his local branch in Kirkcaldy, which was successful in getting its call for a moratorium passed as SNP party policy.

I need to make some progress.

A pause is hugely important. I will tell members why that is the case. There are three applications for hyperscale data centres that are likely to be determined this year, before the Government gets round to revising its guidance. Gary Bouse reminded us that the deadline for consideration of the Larbert data centre application is 4 October, and the predetermination hearing for that application is actually taking place tonight.

Stuart McMillan told us about the application for a data centre in Greenock. The deadline for submissions in relation to that planning application is today. That is the reality of what is happening in our council areas. Planning applications are progressing through councils today. An environmental impact assessment has been done for the Greenock application, but the developers thought that it was appropriate to do an environmental impact assessment relating to a mixed-use housing development. I do not understand whether that will be captured by the new guidance that the minister intends to provide.

[Made a request to intervene.]

Perhaps the line that the Government does not support a moratorium on hyperscale AI data centres was a good one for the minister to finish on. That is the outcome of the debate. The Government is not listening to the communities that are raising concerns.

We have had good contributions from members across the chamber. Hannah Mary Goodlad spoke about the Government getting it right from the start, but the reality is that we are way beyond the start. The Government is now painfully behind. It has been overtaken by events—by the dozens of speculative applications for data centres across Scotland, in relation to which no guidance is in place.

Even today, despite the welcome clarity that Tom Arthur has just provided, there is a lack of clarity on the Government’s definition of a pause, which seems to be a temporary pause before it comes up with and approves guidance, rather than a moratorium. I think that there is even a lack of clarity on what the planning minister said about the application of the guidance in relation to environmental assessment. I am currently not clear about whether every planning application for a hyperscale AI data centre will be required to have an environmental impact assessment carried out. I am not talking about the ones that will be submitted between now and Christmas time. I am talking about the ones that are already in the planning system.

Will the minister give way?

It is quite clear that hyperscale AI data centres have lost their social licence. The call for a moratorium is an early test for the Parliament and for the Government to be clear with the public and with the communities that are calling for action. They are calling for a pause ahead of the issuing of strategic guidance. Members will have the opportunity to vote for that at decision time tonight.

I welcome the fact that developers will have to at least look at and understand what the environmental impacts of an application would be, and that there will be a degree of transparency, but that does not affect the decision making.

I want to thank the communities that have been calling for a moratorium. Members of those communities have had to become experts and lawyers, they have had to fundraise and organise, and they have had to galvanise people in the hope that the Government will do better to protect them.

I will go to Steven Thomson on that. I will also chuck in the fact that, under the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2025, we will have a requirement for land management plans for holdings that are more than 100,000 hectares. A legal requirement is coming in for planning at that scale, too.

It might be useful if SRUC could write to the committee to provide a breakdown of not just the university courses but the college courses that you are offering in different locations, and how you are planning for the future.

That brings us to the end of our witness sessions for this inquiry. I thank everybody who has attended this morning, including those online. We will hear from the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Rural Affairs and the Minister for Agriculture, Marine and the Islands at a future session. We will be asking them about the rural support plan. The evidence sessions that we have held have given us a lot of questions and starting points for our conversations with Government ministers.

I am grateful to everybody who has contributed to this inquiry—not only those who have done so in person but those who have provided written submissions, which have been very useful and will be considered and included in our deliberations.

That is the end of the public session for this meeting. Thank you for joining us.

12:00

Meeting continued in private until 12:27.

Agenda item 2 is a round-table evidence session on the rural support plan with a number of witnesses. We have scheduled two and a half hours for this discussion.

We have had some really great discussions over the past two weeks, covering a wide range of issues related to the plan. This week, we will take a short comfort break halfway. To keep us on time, I would be grateful if questions and answers could be as concise as possible.

I will begin by briefly introducing the witnesses before moving to questions from members. As this is a round-table session, members may direct questions to a specific witness or group of witnesses. Equally, if any witness wishes to respond to a question, they can indicate that by raising their hand and I will bring them in at an appropriate point. As those of you who have taken part in a round-table discussion know, the aim of the exercise is to encourage an open and constructive exchange of views while ensuring that members and witnesses all have an opportunity to contribute.

I would like to welcome to the meeting Dr Vera Eory, reader in sustainable agriculture at Scotland’s Rural College; Michael Halliday, managing director of the Scottish Tenant Farmers Association; Artemis Pana, national co-ordinator for Scottish Rural Action, who joins us remotely; Pete Ritchie, director of Nourish Scotland; Kate Rowell, from Quality Meat Scotland; and Professor Steven Thomson, professor of agricultural economics and policy at Scotland’s Rural College. We hope to be joined later by Dr Mike Robinson, chief executive of the Royal Scottish Geographical Society.

I should note that committee member Emma Roddick joins us online as well.

Finally, I remind everyone that you do not need to operate your microphone. Broadcasting will activate your microphone for you.

I will ask the first question, which is meant to open the discussion by getting quick responses from our witnesses about how they view the rural support plan.

Steven Thomson, in your written submission, you said that

“stability must not become stagnation.”

I am interested in your view on that. Do you think that this rural support plan strikes the right balance between change and stability?