Seòmar agus comataidhean

Amendment 366 introduces a duty on public bodies to ensure that they are contributing to nature recovery on publicly owned land over a certain size. This is an alternative to Ariane Burgess’s amendment 320, which we discussed last week, which was more about land management plans.

Under the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004, public bodies already have a duty to further the conservation of biodiversity when carrying out their responsibilities. Mandatory reporting on that was introduced in 2011, but a 2016 report on compliance with that duty found that less than half of public bodies had published a biodiversity duty report as required. Introducing a duty that specifically relates to land management practices is therefore an important step.

Amendment 366 also clarifies that the duty is to enhance biodiversity on public landholdings, not just to sustain biodiversity. That reflects our commitments under the 2023 global biodiversity framework, which calls upon countries to enhance biodiversity across 30 per cent of their territory.

The Scottish Rewilding Alliance estimates that about 243 land parcels that are in public ownership are over 1,000 hectares. Those landholdings have huge potential to contribute to Scotland’s ecological recovery in line with our international targets. The existing biodiversity duty is not sufficient.

Members will recall that, just over a year ago, the Parliament passed the Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Act 2024, which introduced a licensing scheme for shooting red grouse in Scotland. The intent behind that legislation was for the whole area of an estate to be included in the licence, given that gamekeepers are normally employed to undertake predator control over an entire estate.

However, a loophole in that legislation is allowing grouse moor managers to specify a particular part of an estate to which the licence is to apply—essentially, the grouse moor itself, rather than the surrounding land of the estate. That is really concerning, given that incidents of raptor persecution often occur outwith grouse moors.

As members will recall, the issue was brought up in evidence at stage 1 of this bill. Even though the scope of the bill is quite narrow, the RSPB and other stakeholders have raised it as an issue. Amendment 374 seeks to close that unintended loophole, clarifying that a grouse moor licence would cover an entire landholding, keeping the licensing scheme in line with the intention of the Parliament when it passed the legislation last year.

I move amendment 374.

—on that basis, I will not press the amendment.

Will Douglas Lumsden clarify whether “energy infrastructure” includes nuclear reactors and any infrastructure that would be required to repower the Peterhead gas-fired electricity generation station? Are all forms of energy infrastructure covered, including nuclear power?

May I clarify, based on what the cabinet secretary said, that the provisions are about businesses that are being sold voluntarily? It is up to the new owner—whether for an entire estate or whether, because ministers intervened, it is lotted—to decide whether to restructure the workforce, close certain aspects of the business down or maybe expand into other areas. It is ultimately a business decision. Selling in the first place is also, ultimately, the landowner’s business decision.

Good morning, everybody. I hope that you all had a restful weekend and are ready for the marathon to come this week.

Amendment 355 seeks to address cases in which a community purchase of abandoned or neglected land is, in effect, stymied by a landowner bringing only a tiny proportion of the landholding into use. I will illustrate that with an example from Lower Largo. In the Largo estate, there is Largo house, which is derelict and abandoned. If you visit the site, you will see that it is clearly derelict and has clearly been abandoned by the landowner.

The site is of historical significance. It includes Wood’s tower, which was a fort that was built in the early 17th century for Scotland’s first sea admiral—it is well worth a visit to see the fantastic and amazing history. The site also includes some of Scotland’s oldest walled gardens.

Having seen that the site has been abandoned and neglected, the community has wanted to use provisions under the community right to buy legislation to take over and restore the site in order to turn it into a wonderful tourism opportunity for the local community. However, although most of the site is clearly abandoned and neglected, about 5 per cent of it has been developed as a horticultural business, and the community believes that that thwarts its ability to buy the land under the current provisions on abandoned and neglected land in land reform legislation.

I have lodged amendment 355 to close the Largo loophole. It would require that at least 50 per cent of a site was brought into use before it was no longer classed as abandoned or neglected. If the vast majority of a piece of land is abandoned and neglected, the commonsense definition of that land is that it is abandoned and neglected, so the community should have a right to register interest in taking it over.

Amendment 355 would close a loophole that has blocked communities taking forward their rights to purchase unused land, and I am interested in hearing the cabinet secretary’s view on that. I recognise that a wider community right to buy review is happening; we have debated that already during stage 2 consideration. The amendment provides an opportunity to close the loophole, and, if we do not do so through the amendment, I am looking for commitments to take that action in another way.

I turn to other amendments in the group. Rhoda Grant’s amendments 356 and 357 look to improve recognition of crofting communities in the community right to buy regulations. I am keen to support those amendments and to listen to the discussion about them. I am similarly supportive of Monica Lennon’s amendment 514 on common good land. I will listen to the cabinet secretary’s comments on that and how the provision can be taken forward. I am not entirely sure what Tim Eagle is trying to achieve through amendment 486, but, again, I will listen to his comments on it. It seems that it would require a review of the community right to buy, and my understanding is that that is already under way in the Government. However, again, I will listen to the debate and offer a few comments in closing.

I move amendment 355.

I simply wind up by asking the cabinet secretary whether the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill could contain more consideration of the duties that are put on public bodies. The Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill will establish targets, some of which will be applied to public bodies. There is a requirement in the bill for public bodies to have regard to national park plans, which will establish targets for biodiversity as well.

I will leave the point with the cabinet secretary that what is happening at the moment is not working. Public bodies are not restoring nature at the scale and to the extent that we need them to in order to meet future biodiversity targets and the objectives that are in the biodiversity strategy. More work is required, whether it is in this bill or in the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill. Perhaps a further conversation with Ariane Burgess might be useful ahead of stage 3 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill and ahead of stage 2 of the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill.

I would like to withdraw it.

Amendment 366, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 367 not moved.

Having listened to the debate, I am minded not to press amendment 375 or move amendment 376.

To come back to the cabinet secretary’s point about whether there is a big problem with the use of security declarations, Rhoda Grant and I have both come across incidents in which, disappointingly, the police were unable to take the necessary action to ensure the landowner’s compliance. I would therefore look to the cabinet secretary and the Government to consider whether that is a larger-scale problem. We are now several years down the line from the roll-out of the register of controlled interests, which is an important tool in the box that enables us to build much more transparency about how land in Scotland is owned and managed. Clearly, there are examples of situations where compliance is not happening.

It seems odd that the bill contains provision for a fine of up to £40,000 for failure to produce a community consultation on a land management plan, whereas a failure to declare who is financially behind the ownership of land in Scotland attracts only a £5,000 fine. I understand the difference: one of those actions could result in a criminal conviction. However, in the small number of cases that have come through, we have seen that the likelihood of securing a conviction is vanishingly small. For the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service to even take on such a case would require a lot of specialist research by the police. I do not know whether we would ever get to a point where that might help to secure a criminal conviction.

I am not clear whether such a penalty would be a deterrent against non-compliance but, until there is a bit more review of whether the register of controlled interests is working, we can only guess, because we have only anecdotal evidence. On the face of it, that provision appears as though it is quite misaligned with others in the bill, not just as they stood at stage 1 but as they have changed as we have progressed through stage 2.

Okay—go.