˿

Skip to main content
Loading…

Chamber and committees

Official Report: search what was said in Parliament

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

Filter your results 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 8 August 2025
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 622 contributions

|

Rural Affairs and Islands Committee

Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 4 June 2025

Rhoda Grant

It is just that they can do that on land that they tenant, not on land where excess numbers of deer are having an impact. I am not saying that properly—what I mean is that the deer move about and, if they are not caught in the act, the occupier cannot do anything.

Rural Affairs and Islands Committee

Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 4 June 2025

Rhoda Grant

Having a separation of powers is a well-known way of working—the person in charge of policing something does not make the regulation. If someone does not agree with what is being proposed in discussions that have been carried out in an open forum, how can people trust them to regulate the implementation of that in a transparent way? You say that the NatureScot members on the panels are public officials and they are bound not to work in a detrimental way, but they are still human beings. That is why we tend to have that separation of powers, whereas it feels like there is a real conflict in the proposal that is before us. It is fine if everything is working and everyone is in agreement, but you would not need those panels if everyone was in full agreement. How do you prevent the conflict?

Rural Affairs and Islands Committee

Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 4 June 2025

Rhoda Grant

This is off the top of my head—I know that we do not have a great deal of time, convener. Let us say that the advisory panel says that we need to get deer numbers down to five per hectare and NatureScot says that 10 per hectare would be fine. NatureScot would have to police getting that number down to five. What confidence could people have that NatureScot would police that when everyone knows that it thinks that 10 is the right number?

Rural Affairs and Islands Committee

Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 4 June 2025

Rhoda Grant

Would the bill benefit from the inclusion of a collection of target-setting criteria such as those that were included in the climate legislation, which could set the parameters for those targets? That was suggested by Open Seas.

Rural Affairs and Islands Committee

Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 4 June 2025

Rhoda Grant

So, it is about co-ordinating the other pieces of legislation.

Rural Affairs and Islands Committee

Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 4 June 2025

Rhoda Grant

If we bear in mind that delegated powers already exist in this area, why is a new, single, overarching power needed to enable Scottish ministers to modify Scottish EIA legislation and the habitats regulations?

Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]

Land Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 3 June 2025

Rhoda Grant

I have heard some concerns in that regard. Is the cabinet secretary willing to look at them and discuss the issue ahead of stage 3, to see whether we can find a way that gives people comfort?

Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]

Land Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 3 June 2025

Rhoda Grant

The definition of land that is of community significance is widely recognised. One thing that is missing from the bill is urban land reform. Michael Matheson’s amendments are proportionate and would give people in urban and, indeed, rural areas an opportunity to do something about bad management of land that is of significance to them.

Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]

Land Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 3 June 2025

Rhoda Grant

I can understand to an extent why the cabinet secretary does not want a description of “public interest” to be in the bill. However, there should surely be a reference to it in the bill so that the whole bill uses that framework, which is legally understood. Would she consider lodging an amendment, in discussion with other members who have lodged amendments, that would cover the whole bill, so that all the actions under the bill would be taken in the public interest?

Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]

Land Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 3 June 2025

Rhoda Grant

Amendment 339 would make land management plans subject to a public interest test, requiring landowners to consider the public interest when pursuing such plans. Owning large areas of land is a privilege and therefore large landowners need to consider the impact of their activities on the wider public when drawing up their land management plans.

Amendment 342 seeks to expand the definition of land that is subject to obligations under proposed new section 44A of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2016 to include public interest determinations. It would also add public interest criteria for applying land management obligations and would allow the Government to impose public goods obligations on large landowners. Too often, we hear of communities that cannot access land for vital community interests such as housing and food production. The amendment would empower the Government to step in where community efforts have failed.

Amendment 348 is a technical amendment that is consequential to amendment 342 and would include proposed new section 44D to the 2016 act in the list of relevant sections.

I support other amendments in the group from Mercedes Villalba, Michael Matheson and Ariane Burgess. It is clear that we need a public interest test for many aspects of the bill for the reasons that Mark Ruskell has laid out, which I will not repeat. I look forward to hearing the cabinet secretary’s thoughts on which amendments would best do that.