Seòmar agus comataidhean

I apologise for missing the start of the debate on this grouping.

I return to the point that I made during the debate on group 1: this legislation needs to challenge the imbalance of power that is in our communities, which comes from monopoly land ownership. At the very least, the bill must deliver an element of transparency. However, the experience on the ground is that communities are being shut out of decision making.

John Swinney will know the challenges that are involved in bringing remote and unaccountable landowners to the table to discuss their long-term plans. Discovery Land Company’s plan for Taymouth castle, Kenmore, Glen Lyon and Aberfeldy is a real-world case in which an aggressive developer has enormous power and is buying up the whole area—land, houses, hotels, caravan parks and shops—for a global business that serves an exclusive clientele. If ever there was a case where transparency through land management plans was needed, it is Taymouth.

However, the provisions in the bill offer little to our communities. Most of the parcels of land and assets that are owned by DLC fall under the bill’s threshold for a plan. They are not treated as contiguous even though they are all part of the same business master plan. I say to Edward Mountain that Perthshire is not alone; there are other examples around Scotland, including Anders Povlsen buying up assets around Tongue in Sutherland without transparency and, importantly, community engagement.

The Scottish Government committed after stage 2 to work on a definition of “contiguous holding” that is stronger than 250m. However, no such amendment has been lodged by the Government at stage 3. That is disappointing.

My amendments build upon an existing understanding of what constitutes “local” through the use of an existing statutory boundary: council wards. Using them would mean that landholdings that are held by the same landowner and that collectively exceed 1,000 hectares within the same council ward or a neighbouring council ward would fall under the provisions. Those landowners would have land management plans, prior notification and lotting provisions attached to their landholdings when those collectively reach 1,000 hectares.

I recognise that the amendments that I am proposing will not address the issue of aggregated landholdings that are held by the same, often corporate, entity around the country on a national scale. Gresham House Ltd’s holdings are one example that was raised throughout the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee’s evidence. However, these amendments would be an important step in recognising and addressing the issue of localised land monopolies. This is what we see at Taymouth: a localised land monopoly and a lack of transparency.

I agree with the cabinet secretary that the legislation could be amended. I know that, later, we will discuss an amendment concerning how the definition of “contiguous” could be reviewed in the future. However, right now, there is an opportunity with the bill to fix the situation. That is why I have lodged these amendments. There is an imbalance of power and we need to address that. We should take the opportunity tonight to do so.

Given that my amendment 238 is consequential to the amendments that I lodged in group 1, I intend not to move it.

Amendment 286 returns to the issue that I raised at stage 2 of cases where community bids to purchase abandoned or neglected land are effectively thwarted by landowners who attempt to bring a portion of that site back into usage.

For Edward Mountain and others, I raise the case of Lower Largo and Largo house and estate, which is a historically significant estate in Scotland. However, it has been very difficult for the community to make a case that it falls under the provisions in respect of abandoned and neglected land. The reason for that is that around 5 per cent of the land of that estate has been developed as a horticultural enterprise. People who visit that estate will look around and see the historic buildings and the old walled garden crumbling away, and the land not being used. However, because a tiny postage stamp of that land has been developed, it is, effectively, no longer abandoned and neglected.

The community right to buy in relation to abandoned and neglected land is not working. People are looking at land and buildings every day that they know need to be brought into community ownership, so that they are not neglected, but are invested in and repaired. However, that is not happening—and it is not happening because of a loophole, which I have called the “Largo loophole”. We need to close that loophole; if not tonight, then in future legislation.

I hear what the cabinet secretary is saying about there being legal issues with the amendment and that it is incompetent and everything else. However, it is unfortunate that the consultation on community right to buy that is happening right now was not concluded ahead of the bill being introduced in Parliament. If it had been, we could have reflected its recommendations in the bill; we could have had a proper conversation about the loophole, and a whole range of other issues, and incorporated them in the bill.

I appreciate that we are where we are, and that there is no way to fix the issue right now. However, I am heartened by the comments of the cabinet secretary; just as she is listening in relation to Burntisland, I hope that she is also listening in relation to Taymouth and a lot of the other constituency issues that I have raised throughout the passage of the bill.

Communities do not feel that there is anything in this bill for them. The community in Lower Largo does not see a way forward in relation to addressing a very commonsense issue about its inability to apply for a right to buy on the basis that Largo is abandoned and neglected land.

Communities will now have to wait for a resolution. They will have to wait for the recommendations of the community right to buy review to be published and they will probably have to wait for another land reform bill before they can take action. That is unfortunate and it feels like a wasted opportunity, but we are where we are.

I will take hope from the cabinet secretary’s comments on the issue. I hope that future cabinet secretaries will listen and close this loophole and a number of the others that I have raised this evening.

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the proposed ferry route between Rosyth and Dunkirk. (S6O-05048)

The minister will be aware that, before the summer recess, the First Minister gave assurances that his Government would “welcome the ferry route” and do

“everything that we can to remove any obstacles that are in the way.”—[Official Report, 5 June 2025; c 20.]

Four months on, the biggest barrier remains the border control post designation. I believe that that is resolvable. The ferry route is a significant opportunity for the local community, the Scottish economy and our connection to Europe. How will the Government support the delivery of the ferry route in the coming months? Time is ticking away; we will lose the ferry route and the direct connection to Europe. We cannot afford to lose this opportunity, and I think that the First Minister knows that, too.

I find it incredible that Parliament is being asked to back a set of carbon budgets with no accompanying plan that spells out the action that is needed to deliver them. Members have talked about learning the lessons from 2019. Surely the biggest lesson from that was that, if we are going to set ambitious targets, we need to face up to the action that is required to deliver them and the benefits that will come from doing so.

I must tell the cabinet secretary that, when Douglas Lumsden, Sarah Boyack, Patrick Harvie and Willie Rennie are all reflecting the same concern, she has lost the confidence of the chamber on the issue. It is really important that we give sectors the confidence to go forward, but that requires detail. We have sectors that are prepared to step up, such as the air-source heat pump industry. Willie Rennie mentioned other sectors that want to go further and faster, but they need certainty now about what will be in the plan.

I do not believe for one minute that the draft climate change plan is not ready. Of course it is. Of course it has been signed off by the Cabinet, because it will be laid in a matter of weeks. Why does the Government refuse to let Parliament see its proposed action ahead of setting the carbon budget? Is it because the plan spells out policies that are so radical that the fear is that members of the Scottish Parliament would not back the budget, or is it that the commitment to real action on buildings, transport and agriculture is so weak? Time will tell, but we are being asked to back a level of ambition without a clear, credible plan for action. It is for those reasons that the Greens will abstain on the regulations tonight.

The Government has taken a pick’n’mix approach to adopting the Climate Change Committee’s advice—and it is entitled to do so. However, action must still add up to the carbon budget. To be clear, the Government has ignored the Climate Change Committee’s advice on reducing livestock numbers. On that policy alone, 1 megatonne of emissions will now have to be cut from somewhere else in society. Who will deliver that missing megatonne?

The cabinet secretary for net zero said in committee that transport will pick up the slack, but when the Cabinet Secretary for Transport came to the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee yesterday, there was no clarity—there was just hope and enthusiasm for the sale of electric vehicles. There will not even be a commitment to incorporating the findings of the A96 climate compatibility assessment into the climate change plan. How do we know where we are going? How do we know that the Government’s actions will add up and that we will be able to deliver the reductions in the budget?

It is not good enough. A lack of ambitious action already means that we will not reach the goal of cutting emissions by three quarters until 2036. We have lost six years in the middle of a climate crisis. Without credible action, Scotland risks overshooting the even weaker carbon budgets. We cannot afford to do that. The planet cannot afford to wait. People cannot afford to wait for a greener, fairer Scotland. We need climate action now to deliver that. That is why it is important that the detail comes forth. It should have been here, ahead of the regulations being laid in Parliament, but it has not been delivered. We will wait to see whether the Government’s actions add up.

I appreciate that the design of any schemes needs to be a very local decision, because there are local factors. However, is there an issue that that creates uncertainty? You now have a climate change plan that has a big hole in it. The cabinet secretary with responsibility for net zero said that transport will be filling that hole, so there will be an acceleration of actions on transport.

If many of those actions are being delivered at local level, and if it is in effect up to councils to decide whether to use congestion charging or demand management, is there a danger that major projects or things that you are relying on in the climate plan will not come forward because councils are reluctant, so we might end up with a big black hole in our attempts to reduce carbon emissions? How would we fill that? We cannot completely fill it with EVs; there must be new and innovative policy. How can you ensure that action will be taken at local level, that projects will come through and that policies will be enacted, if that all depends on local councils?

I am sure that we will see the plan at some point.

It needs to add up.

Right, but that was the message that we got a year ago—that we are in the final stages and that there needs to be further consultation—so is it fair to say that it is now a year behind? What is a realistic timescale—will we get it in December, January or February or at dissolution?