���˿���

To rewind a little, amendment 49 from the cabinet secretary aims to create a definition of a “contiguous” holding, which addresses evidence that we heard at stage 1 that a holding might have a railway line running through the middle of it and therefore might not be seen as contiguous. I appreciate what the cabinet secretary is trying to do.

In seeking to amend amendment 49, I am replacing the suggestion of using 250m as the definition of “contiguous” with the figure of 10 miles. That goes back to the cabinet secretary’s comments on what people understand as being nearby or within an area. It is important that landholdings that belong to the same owner and have boundaries within 10 miles of each other are treated as contiguous. I think that most people who live in those communities would see such holdings as being broadly contiguous as those are holdings of nearby land that those people want to have a stake in and want to have a conversation about with the landowner. The switch from 250m to 10 miles would address cases where multiple landholdings within communities are being bought up by one owner and are effectively being managed as a single entity.

A number of witnesses told the committee about the example of the Taymouth castle estate and the Glenlyon estate, and the issue was also raised at a town hall meeting that we attended in Aberfeldy. In that example, Discovery Land Company owns both those estates, along with a number of other assets in the community. The company’s proposals have been less than transparent and the feeling in the community—no matter whether people are broadly against or broadly supportive of what DLC is attempting to do—is that people do not really have a full understanding of what the final vision is or what the final plan will be for two estates that are effectively being managed together. That lack of transparency or of a long-term plan is causing a lot of division in the community. I see that in Kenmore and I see that in Aberfeldy. I know that the First Minister, in his role as the constituency MSP, has been asking DLC for its long-term management plan for the area so that people, whether or not they are broadly supportive, can at least know what is coming.

All that we really have at the moment is the planning system, which throws up minor applications for buildings to be built on estates or for the change of use of particular assets but does not really provide a full picture of how a community might change, for better or for worse. The point about what the cabinet secretary called nearby land and the need for transparency is really important.

I appreciate that bringing down the threshold from 3,000 hectares to 1,000 hectares might have some benefit. In that particular case, it would include the Glenlyon estate in the purview of the land management plan, but it would not include Taymouth castle estate or the other assets and land that DLC operates in the area, which still leaves a question about the overall vision and the community’s involvement in that.

Michael Matheson made a point about sites of community significance. I think that that is important, and the bill might have missed an opportunity by not dealing with the urban aspect of that. I hear what the cabinet secretary says about there being more reforms to come, particularly on community right to buy. That is also an issue in the Loch Tay area, because DLC has bought hotels, tourist accommodation, caravan parks and shops, but people do not really know how those are being managed. I hope that, if a version of the amendment were to go through and a land management plan applied to all such assets, that would also provide some clarity on sites of community significance.

Ultimately, communities will judge the bill on whether it improves the situation locally and brings transparency. Right now, my constituents—certainly, the folk we met at the town hall meeting—would call that into question. They do not think that the bill will change the situation locally and provide transparency. I hope that we can agree on something at stage 3—whether that involves a contiguous holding being defined as being within 10 miles of another holding or in some other way—that provides much more of a commonsense understanding of what constitutes nearby land and of the kind of conversations that need to be had on the back of the transparency that a land management plan would bring.

I appreciate the cabinet secretary’s offer to discuss the matter further and to look at the definition again ahead of stage 3. That will be of interest to people on both sides of the debate around Perthshire.

I press amendment 310.

We will come on to Mr Lumsden’s amendments later in the meeting, when I know that his focus will be explicitly on electricity infrastructure. The point that he makes is why defining the public interest in the bill is important. There is a wider public interest in relation to national infrastructure and there is a community interest in that as well. However, it is a mistake to simply have no definition of “public interest” in the bill. The point that he makes about there being little legal precedent for community interest is perhaps well made, and I am sure that we will come on to his particular interest later in the meeting.

I briefly turn to other amendments in the group. Amendment 339 from Rhoda Grant and amendment 174 from Mercedes Villalba also seek to include public interest considerations in the bill, specifically for LMPs and the transfer of large landholdings. The Greens support those amendments in principle and do not have a problem with them, although we believe that amendment 310 provides a more holistic, joined-up approach to ensure that the public interest will underpin all obligations in the legislation.

Amendments 150 and 151 from Michael Matheson would also introduce a public interest consideration for lotting decisions—I will be happy to support those.

Tim Eagle’s amendments seem to work against the bill’s direction of travel, which is fundamentally about democratising Scotland’s land ownership. I am sure that we will have lots of conversations with Mr Eagle later on about his amendments. The direction of travel in those amendments is not one that the Greens will support.

Similarly, Mr Lumsden’s amendment 364 and his amendments in later groups would seem to set limitations on land being used for the purpose of upgrading our energy system and infrastructure. I do not know whether that is just about wind farms and one type of energy infrastructure, or whether there is also concern about small modular nuclear reactors, fracking infrastructure, carbon capture and storage facilities, Peterhead 2 or any other sorts of energy infrastructure. It is clearly in the national public interest to deliver the cheaper and cleaner energy that households need, so the Greens will not support those amendments.

I will close my opening comments there and wait to hear from other members who will move amendments and contribute to the debate.

I move amendment 310.

I am interested in the point about the case law that has come through the courts in relation to defining the public interest. Will you say more about what that case law has shown in relation to the legality of a public interest test?

I am thinking about what you have said about those who are in receipt of subsidy. As somebody who is in receipt of subsidy, do you think that you receive it for delivering community interest? I ask because that is what is in the bill at the moment—it is about a community interest test, rather than a wider public interest test.

Thank you, convener. We are of one mind, so we will channel it.

The debate has been interesting. Mercedes Villalba’s contribution underlined the huge and obscene imbalance in land ownership in Scotland. The fundamental case for reform in that regard is not addressed in the bill—it is absolutely nowhere. Although I support Ms Villalba’s amendments, I do not see there being a majority for them in the committee or in the Parliament, which is very sad. We will need a major piece of land reform legislation, possibly in the next session of Parliament, to start to address those fundamental issues.

I turn to the bill that is in front of us. We have had an interesting debate about what constitutes the public interest, and views on the different flavours in that regard have been presented to the committee. Some of those arguments have been taken up by the cabinet secretary, and I thank her for the conversations that she has had with Ariane Burgess, me and my group on that topic. I am sure that that, in part, has resulted in Michael Matheson’s amendments on lotting, which we will support. However, those amendments do not fundamentally address the issue of where the public interest sits in the bill and, frankly, they do not address the current position in which the inadequate definition of “public interest” is wrapped up with the definition of “community interest”. I am interested in how the definition of “public interest” has been considered in cases that have come to the Land Court and elsewhere—perhaps we can think about that during our long summer recess.

There is still some mileage to go. I take on board the concerns about the particular definitions of “public interest” in amendment 310 and others, but, before stage 3, there needs to be a conversation—between me, Rhoda Grant, the cabinet secretary, Ariane Burgess, Michael Matheson and others—about how to better interpret “public interest” in the bill.

In relation to community interest, our debate this morning has been about groups that are against wind farms, but do they represent the community? I do not know—they might do in some areas. However, that term does not have a strong legal definition and is widely interpretable, so that is not a strong basis for going forward.

Ahead of stage 3, we need to focus on how we can place more of a forward-facing burden on landowners, as Mercedes Villalba said, in order to represent the public interest. There is space for more conversation. At the end of the day, the bill is about land reform, not planning, so it is not the place for issues relating to community concerns about developments or whatever. However, I think that something around the public interest could emerge from further discussion.

I will leave my comments there.

Over the years, I have met quite a few young farmers and new entrants to farming, and what has struck me is that they have a lot of energy and a huge amount of vision and passion for what they want to do. Surely, at the heart of it, a land management plan should be a way to articulate that vision and to have that conversation with the surrounding community. I feel that, when people who come from a farming family and are carrying on the work of a relative set off in farming for the first time—when there is that generational shift—they have new and exciting ideas about how they want to take the business forward. Surely the essence of the land management plan is the conversation. The plan should not be considered a threat, red tape or regulation; it should be about getting the community behind you and having a conversation about the future and what is needed.

?I am interested in how the order will work in practice, and it might be worth us writing to Highland Council about that. I am aware that a number of tourist hotspot areas in Scotland are, in effect, on clearways on major A roads. Often, the coach parties and the large number of tourists who come to those areas result in dangerous parking and those A roads being blocked. In my region, the police have had to actively engage in enforcement action involving clearing cars away and so on. I am interested to know where the work of the police on that stops and where the work of the councils starts.

Another matter is that of hospital parking. There is an issue across Scotland where, in effect, private security firms carry out parking enforcement for the local authority, even though, in some areas, the council has taken on the responsibility for enforcement following the decriminalisation of parking. There is often a mismatch there.

Orders such as this one come to the committee from time to time. They look pretty straightforward, and they are, but there are issues with who is doing the safety and enforcement work. The issue of hospital car parking is a bit of an anomaly that still exists. It would be interesting to see what Highland Council would say on those two points.

Is there a route for developing any of those fish farms? If a fish farm developer comes to you and says that they would like to try it, notwithstanding the fact that the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 has effectively not been implemented beyond 3 nautical miles, what is the route for that? Could they not just go to the marine directorate and ask it for a licence?

Thanks.

There have also been concerns about the target species in that there is a focus on threatened species. There might be concerns about species that are in decline and the need for wider restoration. Do you have any thoughts on the topic areas and the species that get selected for the targets?