Skip to main content
Loading…

Seòmar agus comataidhean

Official Report: search what was said in Parliament

The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.  

Criathragan Hide all filters

Dates of parliamentary sessions
  1. Session 1: 12 May 1999 to 31 March 2003
  2. Session 2: 7 May 2003 to 2 April 2007
  3. Session 3: 9 May 2007 to 22 March 2011
  4. Session 4: 11 May 2011 to 23 March 2016
  5. Session 5: 12 May 2016 to 5 May 2021
  6. Current session: 12 May 2021 to 15 July 2025
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 5973 contributions

|

Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]

Land Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 3 June 2025

Edward Mountain

I will consider that amendment when we get to it, Mr Doris. I am speaking to Ariane Burgess’s amendments in this group, about which I have concerns.

Finally, on a point of clarification, I believe that 20 years is a reasonable figure when it comes to land management plans, because it is a long-term figure. However, if the committee is not minded to support that proposal, I would find it easier to support Rhoda Grant’s amendment on 10-year plans, instead of supporting plans of five years, which, in the scheme of land management, is virtually the blink of an eye.

On that note, I will end what I am saying. As no other committee member wants to say anything, I hand over to the cabinet secretary.

Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]

Land Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 3 June 2025

Edward Mountain

Just so that I understand, you are proposing that we stick with a five-year management plan cycle.

Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]

Land Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 3 June 2025

Edward Mountain

I will be very careful not to make this into a conversation, as I am sure that I will disallow conversations later in my role as convener, but can you clarify your thought process and what you think the duration of a plan should be? It is fine to say that you will come to it later, but do you think that it should be 10 or 20 years?

Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]

Land Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 3 June 2025

Edward Mountain

I call Bob Doris to speak to amendment 16 and any other amendments in the group.

Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]

Land Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 3 June 2025

Edward Mountain

I thank the cabinet secretary for that. I will leave my comments there.

I invite Michael Matheson to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 11.

12:00  

Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]

Land Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 3 June 2025

Edward Mountain

Amendment 389, in the name of Tim Eagle, is grouped with amendments 397 and 341. I call Tim Eagle to move amendment 389 and speak to the other amendments in the group.

Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]

Land Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 3 June 2025

Edward Mountain

The question is, that amendment 310 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]

Land Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 3 June 2025

Edward Mountain

Amendment 10, in the name of Tim Eagle, is grouped with amendments 390, 16, 311, 312, 17, 18, 391, 19, 313, 20, 21, 315, 314, 316, 392, 23, 317, 335, 337, 396, 33, 338 and 340. I remind members of the pre-emption and direct alternatives in this group, as set out on the groupings paper. I call Tim Eagle to move amendment 10 and speak to all the amendments in the group.

Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]

Land Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 3 June 2025

Edward Mountain

Thank you very much, Mercedes. I call Douglas Lumsden to speak to amendment 364 and other amendments in the group.

Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]

Land Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 3 June 2025

Edward Mountain

Thank you, Douglas. As no other member wishes to say anything, I wish to talk about amendments 310, 339, 150 and 174, which relate to public interest.

I understand the need to address public interest, and I have heard what has been said about it during the course of this stage 2 debate. My concern is that a certain amount of conflict would be created by the list of things in subsection (2) of the proposed new provision that amendment 310 would introduce. When you draw up a management plan as the owner of land, you cannot keep everyone happy—that is for sure—and you cannot afford to do everything that everyone wants to do. There is no definition or clarity in any of these amendments about public interest in relation to who is going to pay the person who delivers the public interest and whether, in fact, that person should be rewarded for that.

At the moment, the system pays agricultural subsidies for achieving various aims. I put my hand up and say that I am in receipt of agricultural subsidies for delivering public good in relation to the production of food.

Proposed new subsection (2)(k), as set out in amendment 310, is about contributing to food security and food system resilience. Another paragraph in proposed subsection (2) relates to a requirement for diversity. The problem is that, sometimes, intensive grazing of land to create food security is the best way forward but it might not be in the Government’s interest. At the moment, the Government is struggling to come to terms with the advice of the Climate Change Committee on whether to reduce livestock numbers across Scotland by 30 per cent. That might destroy farms and farmers who would not be able to achieve the scale needed to carry out their business. I am concerned, and I do not think that any of the tests that have been put forward under amendments 310, 339, 150 or 174 define how public interest and its delivery will be rewarded.