³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

That is helpful.

That is helpful. There is no doubt in my mind that we are experiencing more intense local weather events than we have experienced historically. At times, such events overwhelm existing infrastructure, no matter how well maintained it is, because it is not able to cope with the intensity, so the need for climate adaptation is becoming more and more apparent here. Given the nature and intensity of such events and the frequency with which they are occurring, you are suggesting that greater climate adaptation through infrastructure planning will become more important.

You will have a good understanding of where the hotspots are in relation to existing infrastructure that is struggling to cope and is resulting in a negative impact on our environment. If Scottish Water, for example, knows such information, is there shared understanding between it and SEPA, as public bodies, of the key infrastructure investment that should be made to maximise mitigation of the risk of negative environmental impacts? Is that reflected in Scottish Water’s infrastructure investment plan? You probably cannot speak for Scottish Water, but do you have a single shared plan that addresses the environmental risks and deals with the infrastructure investment that is needed to mitigate risks?

It would be helpful to understand that. I understand that, from a regulatory point of view—and you emphasised that SEPA has an advisory role as well—it is important to try to manage waste as close to source as possible, while reducing it as much as possible to fit in with the principles of the circular economy. We do not have sufficient capacity in particular areas of waste management, so we need to look at increasing that capacity in order to deal with more of our waste here. Further, in areas where we have no capacity at all, we have to look at developing capacity for that waste to be managed here. I am trying to get SEPA’s perspective and the advice that you give on that

I am trying to understand. I know that the issue does not all sit with you, as Zero Waste Scotland and others have an interest in it, but you work in partnership with them, as you mentioned. I am trying to get a picture from you—the regulator—of your advice and what we need to do to increase our capacity in waste management in Scotland. Are you able to provide that?

Okay. I will take that as you being open to persuasion on the possible timeframe.

I turn to the way in which land management plans are to be taken forward and who is to take them forward. As the bill stands, the land management plans are intended only for pieces of land of more than 3,000 hectares, and that is limited to single, composite and contiguous holdings.

The cabinet secretary will be well aware of the significant commercial holdings of land that are owned by companies and that are all under the threshold, although in some cases those companies are in the top five landholders in Scotland. They would be left out. They would not be covered by the existing definition of how land management plans should be applied. Has any thought been given to including aggregated or corporate holdings in a way that would allow us to make sure that we are capturing what are very significant landholders who, because of the nature of the parcel of land that they own, fall under the threshold for a land management plan?

I understand your point. However, if the transfer test is a public interest test in essence, albeit not in name, I am still not clear why we cannot be more specific in statute about exactly what will be taken into account in terms of the public interest. I understand that we have done that in the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019 and in the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015, so I struggle to understand why this bill should be treated differently.

I understand that, but I do not understand why you are asserting that it is not necessary to spell that out in the bill, given that, as I understand it, we spell it out in other legislation. Why not spell it out in this bill, too?

So, there is nothing to prohibit such a test’s inclusion, then. It is just that at the present time how you have drafted the bill is your preferred option.

You will be aware that, in its supplementary evidence to the committee and in its advice to ministers, the Scottish Land Commission made two recommendations on how the new commissioner should operate. The first is that the land and communities commissioner should consult the land commissioners and the tenant farming commissioner on their investigations before submitting a report or making recommendations to ministers. The second is that, if the new commissioner investigates breaches that pertain to the duties around land management plans and makes recommendations, they should consult the land commissioners and the tenant farming commissioner on their findings and recommendations. Are you minded to support those recommendations?

Part of the challenge is ensuring that land management plans are a meaningful process for communities to engage with and that they deliver greater transparency with regard to how land is going to be managed but in a way that is not unduly burdensome to the point that managing the plans is not practical. How do you envisage achieving that balance, given the competing tensions of what different people are looking for from land management plans?

Okay. Thanks.