Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

Is there a route for developing any of those fish farms? If a fish farm developer comes to you and says that they would like to try it, notwithstanding the fact that the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 has effectively not been implemented beyond 3 nautical miles, what is the route for that? Could they not just go to the marine directorate and ask it for a licence?

Thanks.

There have also been concerns about the target species in that there is a focus on threatened species. There might be concerns about species that are in decline and the need for wider restoration. Do you have any thoughts on the topic areas and the species that get selected for the targets?

Chris Tuckett, do you want to come in? I saw you nodding.

Do you mean climate mitigation, or are you thinking more about how species adapt?

That leads me to a final question in this area, which is about the target topic of ecosystem health. It would be good to get your views on whether the Government and agencies have been doing enough work on that. Is it defined enough that we can set targets for it, or is it an area in which work may come forward in the future? Is it clear how targets for ecosystem health could be set, monitored and worked on?

Could you give us an example of that?