Seòmar agus comataidhean

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 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.

We will come on to Mr Lumsden’s amendments later in the meeting, when I know that his focus will be explicitly on electricity infrastructure. The point that he makes is why defining the public interest in the bill is important. There is a wider public interest in relation to national infrastructure and there is a community interest in that as well. However, it is a mistake to simply have no definition of “public interest” in the bill. The point that he makes about there being little legal precedent for community interest is perhaps well made, and I am sure that we will come on to his particular interest later in the meeting.

I briefly turn to other amendments in the group. Amendment 339 from Rhoda Grant and amendment 174 from Mercedes Villalba also seek to include public interest considerations in the bill, specifically for LMPs and the transfer of large landholdings. The Greens support those amendments in principle and do not have a problem with them, although we believe that amendment 310 provides a more holistic, joined-up approach to ensure that the public interest will underpin all obligations in the legislation.

Amendments 150 and 151 from Michael Matheson would also introduce a public interest consideration for lotting decisions—I will be happy to support those.

Tim Eagle’s amendments seem to work against the bill’s direction of travel, which is fundamentally about democratising Scotland’s land ownership. I am sure that we will have lots of conversations with Mr Eagle later on about his amendments. The direction of travel in those amendments is not one that the Greens will support.

Similarly, Mr Lumsden’s amendment 364 and his amendments in later groups would seem to set limitations on land being used for the purpose of upgrading our energy system and infrastructure. I do not know whether that is just about wind farms and one type of energy infrastructure, or whether there is also concern about small modular nuclear reactors, fracking infrastructure, carbon capture and storage facilities, Peterhead 2 or any other sorts of energy infrastructure. It is clearly in the national public interest to deliver the cheaper and cleaner energy that households need, so the Greens will not support those amendments.

I will close my opening comments there and wait to hear from other members who will move amendments and contribute to the debate.

I move amendment 310.

I am interested in the point about the case law that has come through the courts in relation to defining the public interest. Will you say more about what that case law has shown in relation to the legality of a public interest test?

The Galloway national park was a once-in-a-generation opportunity for local communities to deliver investment in tourism, the food economy, nature, transport and housing, while getting more local control over forestry and wind farm developments. All that has been lost because of a failure of the Government—and some local politicians, such as Mr Carson—to show leadership and to counter an aggressive misinformation campaign from landed interests. Communities in Perthshire, meanwhile, showed majority public support for a new Tay forest national park, despite facing a similar aggressive misinformation campaign. Will the Government now re-engage with that bid for Scotland’s third national park, or has it simply given up on the idea altogether?

To ask the Scottish Government what action it will take to support transgender people following the recent Supreme Court ruling, in light of reported concerns from transgender people, and their friends, family and allies that it undermines the rights and risks the personal safety of transgender individuals. (S6O-04729)

I thank the cabinet secretary for that sympathetic response.

The real issue here is the fact that the increasing levels of violence and discrimination that trans people face are destroying their dignity. Which toilets people use is an utter red herring. We should focus on the root causes of the real violence and structural oppression that women and trans people face.

How will the Scottish Government engage further with the EHRC consultation on the final guidance to ensure that it does not further infringe on trans people’s dignity and rights, which they have successfully had for decades?

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?