Seòmar agus comataidhean

I again offer apologies on behalf of Ariane Burgess, who is convening this morning’s meeting of the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee.

As the cabinet secretary mentioned, amendment 286 is related to the other amendments in the group that clarify whether the improvements that are currently set out in part 4 of schedule 5 will be moved to parts 1, 2 or 3. Amendment 286 seeks to move two kinds of improvements to part 3, which will mean that a tenant will not need to seek the landlord’s consent or to notify them in order to carry out such improvements.

The improvements in question are

“creating species-rich pasture”

and

“converting the holding (or a significant part of it) to a standard of organic farming that is capable of being accredited by a recognised accreditation organisation”.

It is important that our tenant farmers are able to make such improvements to enable them to undertake more sustainable and regenerative agricultural practices. Those improvements will help to support biodiversity through increasing the amount of species-rich pasture available for insects and vertebrates, while providing more species-rich grazing for livestock. The change in approach will assist tenant farmers in their conversion to organic farming.

I note that the success of the Government’s organic action plan, the increase that we are now seeing in organic conversion across different land classes and the subsequent growth in the market for organic produce are very positive.

I encourage members to support amendment 286.

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its discussions with the United Kingdom Government regarding the asylum right to work pilot proposal, in light of the Home Office reportedly stating that it is unable to commit to exploring the feasibility of the proposal. (S6O-04824)

I will leave the party politics out of it for a moment and ask the Deputy First Minister how we can support the workforce. There is a need to retain the workforce, and there may also be a need for retraining, particularly in the short term. I am aware that Forth Valley College has received some funding support from the UK and Scottish Governments to help the Grangemouth workers to retrain and move into sustainable jobs for the future. What kind of discussions has the DFM had with Forth Valley College about supporting the Alexander Dennis workers?

To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, further to the response to question S6O-04050, what the findings were of the review of the terms and conditions of staff employed by MSPs, particularly in relation to parental leave policies. (S6O-04832)

I thank the member for the confirmation that work is under way.

I attended the dad strike that took place outside Parliament last week. It was a great event that brought together families from across Scotland who are concerned about the lack of parental leave policies—particularly paternity leave policies—more widely in society. I talked to them about the arrangements in Parliament and the fact that, as MSPs, we have provision in our budgets to enable fathers and non-birthing partners to take only two weeks of paternity leave or partner leave. I felt a bit embarrassed about that because although I know that the law says two weeks, I think that public institutions such as the Parliament can and should go a lot further than that. I reflect on my own experiences of having only two weeks after the birth of my two sons, and it is just not enough.

This is the time for the Parliament to lead corporately on the issue and to show leadership. I accept the member’s point that the intention and hope is to have something more all-encompassing in place by the start of the next parliamentary session, but I reiterate that it would be really good for members to have a bit more certainty and an update on that. This is a fantastic place for people to work, but it could be a wee bit better if we had—

Without the right to work, people who are seeking asylum in Scotland are being forced into poverty. Although the architect of this hostile environment is undoubtedly the UK Government, we need to use all of our powers here in Scotland to counter that. The Scottish Government has promised to roll out free bus travel to people seeking asylum, who are, of course, unable to work. However, we have been waiting and talking about that for two years, and we are yet to see any progress on its delivery.

The excessive cost of transport directly contributes to poverty. I know that the minister knows that. Free bus travel would remove that financial strain and help to reduce poverty. As the launch of that scheme is now anticipated, will the minister confirm that it will be delivered before the end of this parliamentary session?

Could I ask Douglas Lumsden to clarify something when he winds up? Is the amendment only about overhead lines? Over the years, I have spoken to a number of farmers who have gas pipelines going through their farms, and that has, at times, had quite a significant impact on the productivity of the soil. Sometimes it takes many decades for that soil to lose its compacted, degraded state and to return to productivity. I am not entirely sure where the fixation on overhead lines is coming from, given that lots of energy infrastructure can pass over farmland and might well have a significant impact on an agricultural tenant.

I reflect on the fact that the alternative to pylons is undergrounding, and in that case you are talking about motorway-sized trenches potentially going through sites of special scientific interest and special areas of conservation and running across riverbeds.

Energy infrastructure has an impact. I am just not sure why overhead lines are being targeted—well, I kind of know why they are being targeted, but I am just making the case. I am speaking up for the environment and the productivity of our farmland, which appears to have been ignored in the amendment, but maybe I am wrong.

Like the cabinet secretary, I think that you make a very strong case for having land management plans. I note that some of your Conservative colleagues are not supportive of the bill’s provisions on such plans, whereas Scottish Greens want to see them strengthened.

Oxygen Conservation has a number of estates around Scotland. For example, the committee has been to see the Invergeldie estate near Comrie, where community consultation is now on a better footing, as it is at Dorback estate in the Cairngorms.

When a new landowner with specific objectives comes into a community, they need to have an important conversation about species management and to carry out consultation with the community—with the people who have lived in the area for many years, who understand local traditions and the way in which land is managed there. The landowner needs to reflect that conversation in a land management plan. I think that strength comes from having such transparency.

If there are specific issues about culling, the number of animals that need to be culled, the traditions around that and the extent of it, those are exactly the issues that we need to see reflected in land management plans, and such plans really are a tool that can be used to crack them.

Yes.