Seòmar agus comataidhean

Does anybody online want to give us a bit of direction on that, too?

That makes me think about the really great work that took place in Dumfries with the Stove Network, which is an arts network that was employed to engage the community on what it wanted for the future of Dumfries town centre. It gave rise to the Midsteeple Quarter, which is one of my favourite community-led mixed-use projects. Perhaps planners and the arts and culture sector could get together and find ways to interpret things.

Neil Sutherland, I loved that you said that NPF4 is a great read and has a great story to tell, but, for some people, it is not written in the language that they use, so we need to think about how we can make it accessible to them. The Stove Network was right there, in front of people, using engaging processes and artistic experiments to get people thinking about their community.

Clare Symonds, I think that you have already spoken on this topic, but do you want to say anything else?

You mentioned the need to be able to interrogate the policy writers. “Interrogate” is quite a strong word. However, do you think that the Government should perhaps roll out a session that would create an opportunity to discuss things with the people who have written the policies? That could be similar to the sessions that Planning Democracy and Action to Protect Rural Scotland have held, where, for 90 minutes or a couple of hours, there is a show-and-tell and people can ask questions. All 33 of the policies could be covered, as well as, potentially, the national policy. There seems to be a bit of a void—there is a lot of wondering going on.

I am delighted to join Mercedes Villalba in suggesting that to Douglas Lumsden.

Another interesting aspect that is in play is that the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Act 2024, which some of us worked on, requires there to be a whole-farm plan. As my colleague Mark Ruskell pointed out, there is enthusiasm and energy among farmers, but there is also a requirement for whole-farm plans to be produced. The work, data and information are already there. Land management plans will ask for that information to be shared with neighbouring communities so that they can have a say, be involved and feel that they have a connection to what is happening on the land around them.

Thank you, convener, for your warm welcome to the committee.

The Green amendments in the group seek to strengthen the provisions on land management plans. Amendment 338 is the most critical and strengthens the duty on landowners from being one of simply preparing land management plans—which I am going to call LMPs so that I do not have to tongue twist “land management plans” a lot—to one of actually implementing LMPs. If plans are prepared but just languish on the shelf, no progress will be made in giving communities a greater say in how land is actually used and it also hinders large landholdings being managed for climate and nature, an idea that was central to the Government’s public consultation in 2023. We certainly cannot have that loophole in the bill.

My amendment 337 would increase the time period to be covered by an LMP from five to 20 years. If, as the Government intended when it consulted on the bill, LMPs are to be a key tool in delivering progress on climate and nature targets, they must take into account the fact that many actions require longer timescales. It could be a decade before some actions begin to produce positive effects for climate and nature, so having longer-term LMPs would mean that climate-positive actions would have time to come to fruition and would be less likely to be chopped and changed every five years. My amendment 311 is consequential to that and my amendments 313 and 314 would ensure that LMPs would still be reviewed every five years, with communities being consulted on developments and revisions.

Finally, my amendment 316 would add a requirement for landowners to submit a report to the land and communities commissioner at the five-year point, ensuring that there is oversight of plans being delivered across 20 years.

I will comment briefly on some other amendments. I am certainly supportive of Bob Doris’s amendments 16, 17 and 20, and probably his amendment 33. I would be interested in understanding why Rhoda Grant believes that amendment 312 is needed and will listen carefully to what she says about amendments 335 and 340 to understand their purpose.

The result of the division is: For 6, Against 0, Abstentions 1.

Amendment 406 agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Section 56—Commencement

Amendments 196 to 198 not moved.

Thank you for bringing that up, convener. That is not the intention of the amendment. I will explain what we are trying to do with it.

It is about creating land management plans that adhere to the need to address the climate and nature emergency, which is what everything, including the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Act 2024 and the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill, is pushing us towards. We will—we hope—have plans that help us meet our 2045 climate targets and address the 30 by 30 commitment to having 30 per cent of Scotland’s land and sea protected by 2030, which is not very far away.

In that context, the amendment is about trying to ensure that plans do not chop and change and are about long-term action on the ground in relation to things such as peatland restoration, forestry and conservation. That is the intention, convener.

To pick up on the point about national concentration of land ownership that Mercedes Villalba has been raising, if the bill is not the legislative vehicle to address that, what assurances can the cabinet secretary give the Parliament that we will address the national concentration of land ownership and the issue of aggregate landholders, because that has an effect on communities? I recognise that the bill is about land that is directly affecting a community of place, but we need to find a way to address the effect of the national concentration of land ownership.

The result of the division is: For 2, Against 5, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 200 disagreed to.

Schedule

Amendment 395 moved—[Shirley-Anne Somerville]—and agreed to.

Amendment 563 not moved.

Amendments 396 to 401 moved—[Shirley-Anne Somerville]—and agreed to.

Amendment 266 not moved.

Amendment 402 moved—[Shirley-Anne Somerville].

Amendments 3 and 4, alongside amendments in later groups, seek to lower the threshold to 500 hectares. That would bring significantly more land into the scope of the bill, furthering Scotland’s progress on land reform. I recognise that the cabinet secretary said that that could happen at a future date and that the Scottish Government is keen to monitor the situation with the threshold set at 1,000 hectares. However, the Scottish Land Commission’s research suggests that 93 per cent of land sales are for areas that are greater than 500 hectares, so that would be a proportionate change to the threshold.