Chamber and committees

Go on, give it your best shot.

I believe that I have already wound up.

I think that we are all wound up enough right now.

I would like to press amendment 53.

As I have said, I will not move amendment 5.

Amendments 127A and 127B relate to group 3 amendments on the definition of contiguous holdings, which we debated last week. We have had a constructive conversation with the cabinet secretary and I look forward to discussing, ahead of stage 3, how the bill will work on the ground. I hope that, in those discussions, we can agree a definition of “nearby land” that will reflect the need for community consultation. Therefore, I will not move those consequential amendments.

Amendment 26 would require land management plans to include information about how landowners

“engage with communities in relation to the development of the plan”

and how that engagement

“influenced the development of the plan”.

Including that information would support meaningful engagement between communities and the landowner, improve transparency about how that engagement impacted the plan and address a recommendation in the committee’s stage 1 report. I ask committee members to support amendment 26.

I do not intend to move Ariane Burgess’s amendment 334, which sought to do a similar thing by another route. Instead, I urge members to support amendment 26.

Amendments 29 and 2 seek to strengthen the obligations on landowners to increase biodiversity on their land and the restoration of beneficial ecosystem processes. Amendment 29 would remove the phrase “or sustaining” from section 1, leaving landowners to manage land in a way that contributes to improving biodiversity only. It would not create an inadvertent loophole whereby biodiversity levels would be sustained at the current levels, entrenching the status quo and the poor status of Scotland’s environment. Removing the words “or sustaining” would help to ensure that LMPs are forward looking and ambitious. It would encourage landowners and managers to think about how their actions can improve soil health, restore habitats, bring back native species and support the dynamic self-will processes that make ecosystems resilient and productive. It would align with Scotland’s broader commitments to a just transition, biodiversity targets and nature-based solutions to climate change.

Amendment 2 recognises that, given Scotland’s high concentration of land ownership, a relatively small number of landholdings hold huge potential to contribute to the repair of Scotland’s ecosystems. Figures from the Scottish Rewilding Alliance show that, of the 623 landholdings that cover more than 3,000 hectares, just 19 seek to restore natural processes at scale. On many large landholdings, natural processes have been interrupted and held back by human intervention, such as the straightening of river channels and habitat fragmentation.

Amendment 2 would ask large landowners to consider how their land could be managed to restore natural processes though, for example, river re-meandering, native woodland regeneration and natural grazing patterns. Although other policies, legislation and funding levers exist to encourage large landowners to restore nature at scale, having that requirement in the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill would underline the importance of restoring natural processes in responding to the climate and nature emergencies. It would also underline the targets that will be set in the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill. I thank the Scottish Rewilding Alliance for supporting amendments 29 and 2.

In a similar vein, amendment 320 seeks to place a duty on public bodies to set out in their LMPs how they will manage their land for nature recovery. Publicly owned land should lead by example in tackling the climate and nature emergencies, and the amendment would help to ensure that nature recovery is a core stated responsibility. Scotland’s public land provides a major opportunity to restore natural processes at scale. Those areas can act as demonstration sites for rewilding and ecological restoration. Including nature recovery in land management plans would ensure that public land actively supports the return of functioning ecosystems. When it comes to land in public ownership, there is a particular responsibility to ensure that management decisions deliver the greatest possible benefit for the people of Scotland now and in the long term. The amendment would embed the public interest in land that is managed by public bodies. I am grateful to the Scottish Rewilding Alliance and Community Land Scotland for drafting amendment 320 on behalf of Ariane Burgess.

Amendment 395 continues the thread from the previous group about the growing pressures that are being exerted on Scotland’s land market by the rise in natural capital investing. As more landowners might seek to enter that market in the coming years and convert land use to activities such as forestry planting to create carbon credits, we must make sure that that is done in a responsible manner. Both local communities and nature have to benefit from such schemes, and there is a real risk that, in landowners’ hurry to enter the new market, natural capital schemes could deliver little ecosystem restoration or community benefit. The schemes must deliver genuine biodiversity improvements and be transparent and fair. The amendment would require landowners to set out in their LMP how they intend to comply with the Scottish Government’s principles for responsible investment in natural capital, which have already been launched.

Unfortunately, Ariane Burgess is unable to attend due to her role as convener of the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee, so I will be moving her amendments.

I will speak only to amendment 464, although I note that a number of amendments have been lodged and are being debated today about natural capital and what kind of framework we need for natural capital markets.

Amendment 464 reflects growing evidence, particularly from the Scottish Land Commission, that demand for carbon and natural capital projects is driving up rural land prices and, as a result, an increasing number of sales are happening off market. There has also been a shift away from valuations that are based on agricultural and sporting values towards natural capital and forestry potential. There is a concern that that additional pressure on Scotland’s rural land could, in effect, conflict with the efforts to address the concentration of Scotland’s land ownership. It could also be argued that the fact that many of those sales happen in private undermines communities’ ability to have a say in local land use.

The intention behind amendment 464 is that the Government could do more to get an overview of those markets and ensure that any schemes in carbon offset and natural capital deliver tangible benefits not just for the environment but for the local community. Therefore, in effect, amendment 464 would give the land and communities commissioner explicit responsibility for keeping under review emerging issues in natural capital markets. That would be a specific area for that commissioner to look at, ensuring that there is on-going monitoring in relation to community justice and the important land reform principles that are at the heart of the bill.

I will leave it there.

I will make a couple of brief comments to close this group. First, on who can report a breach, there is a danger that, if that provision is drawn too widely, it will end up with individuals lodging vexatious complaints. Having a list is, therefore, important.

I appreciate the point that the cabinet secretary made to Rhoda Grant about the list that Ariane Burgess proposed, and perhaps there is a way to expand that further, particularly for bodies that are genuinely representative of a community. Rhoda Grant mentioned grazing committees. There might be some possible tweaks to be made at stage 3, but I would certainly be concerned about individuals who have a particular view on pylons, for example, just putting in endless vexatious complaints. There is a balance to be struck there.

Listening to contributions on enforcement, it feels as though most people, apart from Bob Doris, are saying that they expect fines to be pretty regular. I do not really think that that is the case. This is ultimately about a deterrent. Amendment 97A is about saying, “This is a strong deterrent. If you do not comply with this, you will get a fine at some point, eventually.”

Yes, but let me continue a little bit further. There is a need for flexibility and up-front collaborative working. It is good that Tim Eagle has reflected on that with some of his amendments. Ultimately, we are talking about a backstop and saying that the law is the law.

We have seen that, with the register of controlling interests, which is a minor requirement on landowners that was brought in several years ago, there are issues with compliance—we will return to that issue in later amendments. It is important to have the right deterrent in place, as well as ensuring that the right collaborative work with the commissioner and individual landowners can be done. However, let us be clear: this is not about crofters with 5 hectares of inby land; it is about sizeable holdings and businesses with—we have just agreed—1,000-plus hectares. Those are major businesses and if, with all the support that is available, they cannot meet the requirements in the bill, there should be a hefty deterrent and a requirement to fulfil the obligation.

I wanted to address the issue of cross-compliance again, but I am happy to accept the cabinet secretary’s reasoning around amendment 412, which was that, looking at it from the subsidy point of view, requiring cross-compliance with the subsidy regulations in relation to the land management plans and all the other obligations in the bill is probably the right way to do it. The fact that that reasoning is on the record gives me confidence that it is another thing that farmers will have to do before they get subsidies and support.

I will leave it there. Did somebody say that they wanted to come in?

It was you! It has been a long day. In you come, Bob.