Seòmar agus comataidhean

There is no doubt that aspects of the process are far from ideal. If you were to design it, you would not design it in the way that it has been done. Some of Mark Ruskell’s comments are perfectly valid and reasonable. Clearly, we always want to reflect on the process, how the issues are handled and how the process will be managed in order to see what we can learn for future parliamentary sessions. However, we cannot get away from the fact that we face a climate and nature emergency and we have a collective responsibility to take action. I could follow Douglas Lumsden and produce a list of what I would describe as flimsy excuses for not supporting the motion, but all that that would do is demonstrate a lack of leadership to deal with one of the biggest global crises that we face.

It seems that significant capital investment will be needed over a number of years to achieve those infrastructure changes.

I am also interested in people’s views about how we can decarbonise the process of climate adaptation as part of infrastructure investment. Is there a risk that we might undermine the progress that we are seeking to make through investing in infrastructure to adapt to climate change and address some of the climate challenges that we are facing, and that we will actually end up increasing our carbon output? What must we do to not only adapt but ensure that the adaptation process reduces our carbon output?

Given that industry is our third-biggest emitter of carbon, what is the Scottish Government doing, policy-wise, to incentivise industry to decarbonise its processes and how it uses energy in different forms? I think that five different areas were suggested by the CCC. What are we doing to incentivise industry to ensure that it operates in a more sustainable fashion and that it decarbonises the energy that it uses?

Yes, thank you. I have considered both amendments, which would, if I have read them correctly, effectively end Crown Estate Scotland’s role and functions. However, I am not clear about a couple of issues.

First, I am not entirely sure whether local authorities have the capacity and capability to undertake devolved foreshore responsibilities, given the significant challenges that they face in dealing with planning matters as it stands. There is a capacity and capability issue.

My second point is about aspects of spatial planning. It appears to me that, in order to ensure that the rationale for the approach that is being taken across the country is clearly understood, it makes more sense to take a consistent approach to dealing with spatial planning matters, on the foreshore and beyond, and to do so in a single organisation.

My third point is that I imagine that the challenge of passing that responsibility to local authorities is likely to result in a potential variation in approach, which will make policy at a foreshore level less transparent. How different local authorities take planning decisions on foreshore matters could also raise fairness issues.

Notwithstanding my interpretation that the amendments effectively do away with Crown Estate Scotland, the issue is whether local authorities have capacity and capability in the first place. On spatial planning, they would ultimately lead to the challenge of different organisations dealing with different things in different parts of the country, which could create transparency and fairness issues when it comes to how the process is applied.

No—oh, sorry. Yes.

I am always getting my numbers mixed up, like you, convener.

Amendment 488 agreed to.

Amendments 489 and 490 moved—[Mairi Gougeon]—and agreed to.

Amendment 508 moved—[Mairi Gougeon].

Amendment 508A moved—[Tim Eagle].

Amendments 138, 139 and 168 are consequential to earlier amendments on sites of community significance that I did not move.

Amendment 181 relates to amendment 178, which was considered earlier, and to the fact that, with the creation of the Scottish land and communities commissioner, there is an opportunity for us to consider expanding the role and functions of the Scottish Land Commission.

Amendment 181 seeks to require the commission to have regard to four key additional areas:

“the contribution of land to the achievement of a just transition to net zero”;

“the relationship between scale of land holdings to the building of community wealth”;

“the desirability of achieving a more diverse pattern of land ownership”;

and

“measures to support the repopulation of land and the sustainability of communities.”

I am conscious that the Scottish Land Commission may have regard to those areas at present, but there is nothing in legislation that requires it to do so. Amendment 181 is a probing amendment to seek clarity from the Government on the role that it sees the Scottish Land Commission having in helping to address what are pressing public issues and the role that land can play in addressing them.

I move amendment 181.

My amendments in the group relate to my earlier amendments on the issue of public interest. My amendments 152 and 153 seek to amend the 2003 act so that a lotting decision must not only specify what the lots will be but also

“provide a statement of reasons as to why Ministers consider the decision is in the public interest.”

That will provide greater transparency in the process.

My amendment 156 also relates to the issue of public interest. It would place a duty on ministers to issue guidance on how lotting decisions are to be made, including the circumstances in which ministers are to instruct the land and communities commissioner to carry out any initial review on their behalf.

My amendment 159 relates to lotting decisions and the requirement to make sure that ministers reference how that lotting decision is being undertaken. It relates to my amendment 158, which was previously discussed.

I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for her comments. I am conscious that the Scottish Land Commission already undertakes aspects of the work that is referred to in my amendment, although that is not in any legislation. On the basis that I will seek to explore the matter further ahead of stage 3, I seek to withdraw amendment 181.

Amendment 181, by agreement, withdrawn.