���˿���

Members will recall that, just over a year ago, the Parliament passed the Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Act 2024, which introduced a licensing scheme for shooting red grouse in Scotland. The intent behind that legislation was for the whole area of an estate to be included in the licence, given that gamekeepers are normally employed to undertake predator control over an entire estate.

However, a loophole in that legislation is allowing grouse moor managers to specify a particular part of an estate to which the licence is to apply—essentially, the grouse moor itself, rather than the surrounding land of the estate. That is really concerning, given that incidents of raptor persecution often occur outwith grouse moors.

As members will recall, the issue was brought up in evidence at stage 1 of this bill. Even though the scope of the bill is quite narrow, the RSPB and other stakeholders have raised it as an issue. Amendment 374 seeks to close that unintended loophole, clarifying that a grouse moor licence would cover an entire landholding, keeping the licensing scheme in line with the intention of the Parliament when it passed the legislation last year.

I move amendment 374.

—on that basis, I will not press the amendment.

Will Douglas Lumsden clarify whether “energy infrastructure” includes nuclear reactors and any infrastructure that would be required to repower the Peterhead gas-fired electricity generation station? Are all forms of energy infrastructure covered, including nuclear power?

May I clarify, based on what the cabinet secretary said, that the provisions are about businesses that are being sold voluntarily? It is up to the new owner—whether for an entire estate or whether, because ministers intervened, it is lotted—to decide whether to restructure the workforce, close certain aspects of the business down or maybe expand into other areas. It is ultimately a business decision. Selling in the first place is also, ultimately, the landowner’s business decision.

Good morning, everybody. I hope that you all had a restful weekend and are ready for the marathon to come this week.

Amendment 355 seeks to address cases in which a community purchase of abandoned or neglected land is, in effect, stymied by a landowner bringing only a tiny proportion of the landholding into use. I will illustrate that with an example from Lower Largo. In the Largo estate, there is Largo house, which is derelict and abandoned. If you visit the site, you will see that it is clearly derelict and has clearly been abandoned by the landowner.

The site is of historical significance. It includes Wood’s tower, which was a fort that was built in the early 17th century for Scotland’s first sea admiral—it is well worth a visit to see the fantastic and amazing history. The site also includes some of Scotland’s oldest walled gardens.

Having seen that the site has been abandoned and neglected, the community has wanted to use provisions under the community right to buy legislation to take over and restore the site in order to turn it into a wonderful tourism opportunity for the local community. However, although most of the site is clearly abandoned and neglected, about 5 per cent of it has been developed as a horticultural business, and the community believes that that thwarts its ability to buy the land under the current provisions on abandoned and neglected land in land reform legislation.

I have lodged amendment 355 to close the Largo loophole. It would require that at least 50 per cent of a site was brought into use before it was no longer classed as abandoned or neglected. If the vast majority of a piece of land is abandoned and neglected, the commonsense definition of that land is that it is abandoned and neglected, so the community should have a right to register interest in taking it over.

Amendment 355 would close a loophole that has blocked communities taking forward their rights to purchase unused land, and I am interested in hearing the cabinet secretary’s view on that. I recognise that a wider community right to buy review is happening; we have debated that already during stage 2 consideration. The amendment provides an opportunity to close the loophole, and, if we do not do so through the amendment, I am looking for commitments to take that action in another way.

I turn to other amendments in the group. Rhoda Grant’s amendments 356 and 357 look to improve recognition of crofting communities in the community right to buy regulations. I am keen to support those amendments and to listen to the discussion about them. I am similarly supportive of Monica Lennon’s amendment 514 on common good land. I will listen to the cabinet secretary’s comments on that and how the provision can be taken forward. I am not entirely sure what Tim Eagle is trying to achieve through amendment 486, but, again, I will listen to his comments on it. It seems that it would require a review of the community right to buy, and my understanding is that that is already under way in the Government. However, again, I will listen to the debate and offer a few comments in closing.

I move amendment 355.

I simply wind up by asking the cabinet secretary whether the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill could contain more consideration of the duties that are put on public bodies. The Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill will establish targets, some of which will be applied to public bodies. There is a requirement in the bill for public bodies to have regard to national park plans, which will establish targets for biodiversity as well.

I will leave the point with the cabinet secretary that what is happening at the moment is not working. Public bodies are not restoring nature at the scale and to the extent that we need them to in order to meet future biodiversity targets and the objectives that are in the biodiversity strategy. More work is required, whether it is in this bill or in the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill. Perhaps a further conversation with Ariane Burgess might be useful ahead of stage 3 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill and ahead of stage 2 of the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill.

I would like to withdraw it.

Amendment 366, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 367 not moved.

On the process, do you think that there should be a firmer vision of the proposed national park at the point at which ministers formally propose it? That is a bit ambiguous under the legislation. There was an attempt to get the discussion going locally—from the bottom up and led by local people. Has that worked? Would it not be better, in a way, to have a much clearer vision at the point of proposing the park? The 2000 act does not explicitly require that.

Yes—that is difficult. You are asking people whether they want a national park, but when people ask, “What is it?” you are saying, “Well, you decide.” It is a tricky one.

Another point has been raised with me about guidance and how a suggested area has to meet the criteria under the 2000 act. Does there need to be a bit more guidance on that?

Thinking about the national park plans that we have and their status as planning documents and as the guiding vision for the local area, I am wondering how they could be strengthened through the bill. Do you have any reflections on park plans in particular?