Chamber and committees

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.

Very briefly, yes.

I will speak to amendments 53 to 56, in the name of Ariane Burgess, and to my amendments 412, 413 and 97A. I will briefly mention other amendments in the group, too.

In relation to amendment 53, the community engagement obligations in the bill are important, and we need to have appropriate routes for any breaches of those obligations to be reported to the land and communities commissioner, who can then take appropriate action. As introduced, the bill allows only local authorities, Historic Environment Scotland, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, NatureScot and community bodies—as defined in the community right to buy legislation—to report breaches. It is right that there are some limits on who can submit a statutory report of a breach in order to ensure that the land and communities commissioner does not need to investigate vexatious or spurious complaints. However, additional bodies should have the ability to report a breach. Amendments 53 to 56 would allow community councils, the Crofting Commission, the enterprise agencies and national park authorities to report a breach. I therefore ask the committee to accept those amendments.

Amendments 412 and 413 seek to ensure that there is cross-compliance on entitlements to public subsidies where a landowner breaches their obligations under this legislation. That would ensure that a landowner who is in breach and is being fined by the state cannot simultaneously access public money for other land management or land use.

Go on, give it your best shot.

No—that is fine. Between the two committees, I was just getting it clear in my head that that has been resolved.

The other week, NatureScot said that it could make those changes if there was guidance from the Government. If there is a big issue with features encroaching on to existing designated sites, why does the Government not just issue guidance to NatureScot about how regulation 9D could be used?

It seems that this is the only issue that has come up in committee beyond the submission of PDF electronic documents. I am struggling to hear from any industry sector body how the current provisions of the habs regs are restricting economic growth and other benefits. I am hearing about PDFs and a technical issue about site designation; I am not hearing any other reasons. I still do not understand why this power is needed.

NatureScot says that if the Government gives it guidance, it can act on it. Why are you not giving guidance to NatureScot when DEFRA is clearly giving guidance in England?

Rhoda Grant raised the issue of invasive non-native species. I can barely remember this, but I think that INNS came up in 2004, in the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Bill. In fact, I might have lodged an amendment on the issue, back in those early days. The issue is getting worse. I have become aware of NatureScot’s powers to access sites, emerging issues around the expansion of Sitka spruce into native woodland restoration areas and growing issues around a pheasant population that is exploding. Those were not necessarily huge issues 20 years ago, but there are now big issues to do with INNS that could restrict our ability to restore ecosystems. Would you be open to looking at those issues in the bill? It feels like this is an opportunity to make a change, given that the previous bill that considered INNS was in 2004—a long time ago.

Okay. If there is a way to introduce some agility into the bill now to sort an issue in future, that would be worth having a conversation about.

Okay. You are saying that the issue that the Government said existed in relation to offshore wind ambitions not being achievable in the current system has, by and large, been resolved by the Energy Act 2023 and the LCM for the UK bill.

That is fine. Thank you.