Seòmar agus comataidhean

I do not know what will happen after today, but I think that we need to hear more about that. Thank you for your answers.

Thank you—no pressure, convener.

Good morning, cabinet secretary. I want to return briefly to the issue of urban land and the convener’s questions about what is not in the bill. In your opening remarks, you talked about the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill being about both the national interest and local needs. It was helpful to hear you talk about the previous recommendations of the Land Commission; however, we are a few years down the line, and quite a lot has changed, including with other bills that the Government is considering.

Will you expand on the Government’s thinking? A constituent in Lanarkshire in my Central Scotland region might be wondering what is in the bill for them, and that will be the same for other communities up and down the country. What amendments are you thinking about?

In addition, related to that, you mentioned other bills, including on community wealth building, and work on community right to buy, purchase orders and compulsory sales orders. What is the Government doing to ensure that the work on this bill will align with those other bits of work? There might be a concern that there are some really good ambitions and objectives, particularly around sustainable development, but that the Government could be too busy, and we could miss the opportunity to make all those connections.

I thought that I had been forgotten there. Thank you, convener.

The committee has had quite a bit of feedback from stakeholders on the bill’s climate and nature aspirations, and I know that you have been listening keenly. You mentioned guidance and further consultation. Might stage 2 amendments be needed to clarify those aspects for landowners and communities?

It is helpful to hear that. The issue with guidance is that we cannot scrutinise it right now, so we are trying to get as much clarity as possible on what could be in the bill and what could be strengthened.

My final question is on urban land, because I think that I understand the points around scale and why there has been a focus on rural areas. In some urban areas, we could be talking about much smaller pieces of land, but there could still be wins for those communities through opportunities to protect and enhance biodiversity and to do work on climate mitigation and so on. Is the Government aware of that? We are behind on our climate and net zero targets in Scotland, so we need to do more and go faster. Can you reassure the committee that we will not miss the opportunity to have bold and ambitious reform in our urban communities?

How would you try to balance public access aspirations with security? Would you consult communities on a land management plan that would set out principles for the short, medium and, possibly, long term? That is the kind of work that you do already—is that correct?

I will ask a final question, because I know that the convener will want to move on. We heard from the first panel of witnesses that perhaps there needs to be more emphasis on biodiversity. Rather than just sustaining biodiversity, the land management plan should be a tool to improve and increase biodiversity. Do you have a view on that?

Yes. Rob, do you have some examples of current land management plans and the consultation that you mentioned? I looked on your website before today and had another look today and, although there was lots of information for investors, I could not find anything on it that was for the community. Where do we find case studies on community engagement and examples of consultation? Can you give us a brief example?

No. However, a number of other points that have been made do not sit comfortably with me. I am thinking about comments on taxation and community wealth that were made by the previous witnesses. We have not talked about the amount of public funding that Gresham House benefits from—for example, from the Scottish National Investment Bank—and the foreign interests that have been reported in the media. We members sometimes struggle to understand how to debunk those things and discover what is true.

Rob Carlow, I think that you have come here today and minimised the influence that Gresham House has. You have said that it is quite a minor player in land ownership. Do you want to leave the committee with the impression that you are very much a marginal stakeholder as regards land ownership and land management, or have you a more significant role in Scotland? Certainly, the impression that you have given is that you are really on the margins of the debate.

I have been asking similar questions to Mark Ruskell’s about land management plans. How do we ensure that the plans add value—instead of being just performative and adding bureaucracy—either on their own or with other processes, such as local place plans? Max Wiszniewski made the point that owning land is a privilege, because very few people in Scotland do so. In relation to rights and responsibilities, what needs to be done to strengthen the bill to ensure that land management plans can add to our net zero ambitions and our climate and nature goals? Is something missing from that part of the bill? What should we advise the Government to do differently in the bill to ensure that land management plans do good things for Scotland?

I see Sarah Madden nodding, so I will bring her in first.