Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will not press amendment 469.

Amendment 469, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 470 moved—[Mark Ruskell].

I look forward to further discussions with Ariane over the summer about how we might deliver the policy intent behind the amendment—which is to have a thriving community renewables sector in which communities feel that they are achieving the benefit, so—

The Government has already made a commitment to expand and develop ScotLIS. The service is a living thing—it is not frozen in time. The frustration is that it is not currently achieving its potential. It could be quite a powerful tool in ensuring that, where public money is being invested in land and in public objectives, we are matching that up to the land of Scotland and are able to see the impacts of strategic policy across the whole of Scotland—I hope that I have managed to give some examples of that.

It is good for councils, national parks and the Scottish Government to have that mapping tool, so that they can see where public money is being spent, and it is also useful for landowners who are working at a landscape scale, as they can use it to see where the economic opportunities are. It would be for Registers of Scotland and the keeper to manage a work programme for how ScotLIS could be expanded.

There is an existing commitment to expand ScotLIS, so I am not suggesting something completely new. The digital land and property information service task force recommended using ScotLIS in a range of different ways. There is a frustration that, with regard to a carbon land tax and a range of other policies with which members may or may not agree, implementation relies on having an accurate map database of land across Scotland. We do not currently have that, and until we do, we will always come up against problems if we want to be ambitious in our land policy.

I will leave it there, convener. I move amendment 375.

The area of licensing has been drawn far too narrowly in the legislation and it does not include those areas where raptor persecution is occurring. We have, effectively, a licensing regime that was, at the outset, somewhat dysfunctional. It is important that it covers the area where the crimes are taking place.

I think that the Government acknowledges that this is a problem. It is somewhat embarrassing that, when the legislation was passed, it was widely celebrated among those who work in conservation, who had been campaigning for it for many years. It is a balanced piece of legislation, but this is clearly a loophole. If there is a commitment from the Government to fix it, I will not press amendment 374.

Okay—I will do my best.

Amendment 469 would require the Scottish ministers to establish a community land forum. That would bring together local authorities, public bodies with duties related to housing, land ownership or community development, and other agencies, in order to identify areas of land that could be made available for community housing developments.

A forum of that kind has been recommended by the Scottish Land Commission, based on its analysis of similar processes in England and the Republic of Ireland. Amendment 469 would be the first step. It would require ministers to facilitate a space in which the main stakeholders and community groups with an interest could discuss land for community housing. A more robust proposal would be for a public body to be charged with acquiring suitable sites for community housing and creating a land bank of such sites that could be portioned out, according to recommendations from the community land forum. That would be ideal.

Highland Council has successfully assembled parcels of land through its land bank fund since 2005. We would like to see more local authorities take that approach. Amendment 469 is the first step towards such a process, and I urge members to support it.

I move amendment 469.

No, I do not.

The duties to restore and support the development of our public land for meeting biodiversity targets are already there, but that approach is not working effectively. I see good land management as being cost effective. It could lead to improvements in biodiversity outcomes. It is being mainstreamed as part of the agricultural subsidy reform that we have seen coming through Parliament. We have nature recovery funds and active private and public investment is going into land management that can deliver on natural capital. I do not see it as contradictory to the good economic management of land to meet biodiversity objectives.

The existing biodiversity duty is not sufficiently understood or complied with. I urge members to support amendment 366.

I move amendment 366.

Today’s statement shows conclusively that Scotland’s emissions are now flatlining. I am really worried that the Government has no big ideas left. No climate change plan has been presented to Parliament, and we do not know when that is coming. What we got today was a revised car use reduction plan that has no action on road user charging, despite congestion in cities such as Edinburgh crippling the economy and the climate. How will the Government use its remaining few months in office to support councils that want to cut congestion and raise revenue to invest in solutions that can benefit ordinary people as they move around?

On the process, do you think that there should be a firmer vision of the proposed national park at the point at which ministers formally propose it? That is a bit ambiguous under the legislation. There was an attempt to get the discussion going locally—from the bottom up and led by local people. Has that worked? Would it not be better, in a way, to have a much clearer vision at the point of proposing the park? The 2000 act does not explicitly require that.

Yes—that is difficult. You are asking people whether they want a national park, but when people ask, “What is it?” you are saying, “Well, you decide.” It is a tricky one.

Another point has been raised with me about guidance and how a suggested area has to meet the criteria under the 2000 act. Does there need to be a bit more guidance on that?