Scottish Parliament, 26 March 2025

287 contributions from 64 members. The official report.

Portfolio Question Time

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Good afternoon. The first item of business this afternoon is portfolio questions, and the first portfolio is Deputy First Minister responsibilities, economy and Gaelic. Members who wish to ask a supplementary should press their request-to-speak buttons during the relevant question. There is quite a bit of interest in supplementaries, so I make the usual appeal for brevity in questions and responses.

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the economy secretary has had with ministerial colleagues regarding the contribution that the cultural sector makes to Glasgow and the west of Scotland’s economy. (S6O-04480)

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

We have demonstrated our commitment to the culture sector with an increase of more than £34 million to next year’s culture budget, which takes us more than halfway to our commitment to increase support by £100 million annually by 2028-29. Notably, our commitment means that, through Creative Scotland’s multiyear funding, organisations in Glasgow will receive almost £60 million in funding over the next three years. Although I have not had specific ministerial discussions regarding the culture sector’s impact on the economy of Glasgow and the west of Scotland, I welcome discussions from all colleagues on that.

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

The show “River City” has been a vital training ground for the culture sector in Glasgow and the west of Scotland. In the past five years alone, the show has launched the careers of 22 Scotland-based writers and 10 directors, most of whom are women. It also plays a key role in university programmes such as those in Glasgow Caledonian University, giving pathways to vital jobs in the industry. The issue is not just a cultural one—it is about skills and the economy, too.

What assessment has the Deputy First Minister made of the impact of losing that vital training infrastructure on pathways into the screen sector, particularly for working-class women and mid-career creatives in Glasgow? What action will she take to raise that directly with the BBC?

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

I commend Pam Duncan-Glancy and others for their cross-party support of the screen sector and for recognising the role of “River City” as a BBC production. As she says, the show has provided a pipeline of work for actors and actresses in Glasgow and, in particular, in the Dumbarton location, and she will know that the Cabinet Secretary for Constitution, External Affairs and Culture, Angus Robertson, is very involved in the issue. Only this week, he met Equity members on the matter.

The priority is that there should be no detriment to actors, actresses, the pipeline of work or the screen sector from BBC decisions. As Pam Duncan-Glancy knows, there are growing questions about drama commissions in Scotland, which Angus Robertson has raised with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, Lisa Nandy.

Clare Haughey (Scottish National Party, Rutherglen)

The culture sector across Scotland has had a significant boost as a result of the delivery of multiyear funding. Can the Deputy First Minister say any more about how that is ensuring a thriving cultural scene and supporting employment opportunities in Glasgow and the surrounding areas, such as my constituency of Rutherglen, as well as boosting the growth of creative industries across Scotland?

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

Our investment in Scotland’s culture sector has led to a significant increase in the number of community-based and locally focused creative industries and cultural organisations coming into the multiyear funding portfolio, which better represents the culture and geographical diversity of Scotland, including in Clare Haughey’s Rutherglen constituency.

We are committed to increasing culture budgets by £100 million by 2028-29 to demonstrate the commitment to the sector’s future. I refer Clare Haughey to my earlier answer, in which I said that, in Glasgow alone, that has resulted in securing nearly £60 million over the next three years for the future of key cultural and creative organisations.

David Torrance (Scottish National Party, Kirkcaldy)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the steps that it is taking to encourage investment in Scotland’s green economy. (S6O-04481)

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

The growth and success of Scotland’s green economy are a priority for the Government. Delivering our climate and economic growth ambitions will provide opportunities that support jobs, trade, investment and growth. Our programme for government outlined a commitment to deliver a co-ordinated programme to attract investment in the priority areas of net zero, housing and infrastructure by implementing recommendations from the investor panel. That will focus on improving engagement with investors and strengthening our capacity and capability in delivery. A recent example of action in that area was the global offshore wind investment forum, on 17 March.

David Torrance (Scottish National Party, Kirkcaldy)

It is vital that Scotland sees the maximum economic benefit from the renewables revolution, particularly through the establishment of a strong Scottish supply chain to support green jobs up and down the country. Can the minister say any more about how the Scottish Government is working to encourage regional growth and sustainable job creation across Scotland?

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

The Scottish Government is supporting regional economic growth through our £1.9 billion investment in the national network of city and regional growth deals. That long-term investment commitment enables regional partners to deliver activity, which supports regional job creation.

We are working closely with our enterprise agencies and the Scottish National Investment Bank to enable Scottish businesses to access domestic opportunities in, for example, the clean energy supply chain. This year, we have tripled our capital investment in the offshore wind sector to £150 million in order to support the ports, manufacturing and supply chain facilities that are required, which will help secure jobs and economic benefits at scale in Scotland.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

The minister will recognise the necessity of building a skilled workforce and growing the green economy to encourage investment. He will also recognise the invaluable contribution that our colleges make in fulfilling that task. Given that, can he explain why Ayrshire College has been told that its core teaching grant has been cut, and why, despite 5,000 skilled engineers being required by the area’s businesses, including many related to the green economy, engineering is not being prioritised as an area of growth?

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

Engineering, energy-related apprenticeships and the information technology and digital sectors are being prioritised, because of their role in driving economic growth. In response to employer demand, Skills Development Scotland has ensured that requests for engineering apprenticeships have been met through in-year contract allocations.

We are aware that Ayrshire College plays an important role in supporting the Ayrshire regional economy. Skills Development Scotland oversees the national apprenticeship programme and administers funding on the Scottish Government’s behalf. It conducts an open procurement process via Public Contracts Scotland and, throughout the year, implements in-year reallocations of modern apprenticeship starts to ensure flexibility in responding to employer demand. We encourage Ayrshire College to continue to liaise with SDS and raise any concerns about its contract with the organisation in the first instance.

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

Will the minister commit to progressing the Scottish Offshore Wind Energy Council project for offshore support vessels and crew transfer vessels, which is a shipbuilding opportunity for Scotland, as well as the Malin and Star Refrigeration B-Neatpump renewables project, which shows great potential for significant maritime manufacturing and shipbuilding in Scotland?

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

I recognise the member’s points, and I am happy to engage with him directly on them.

Karen Adam (Scottish National Party, Banffshire and Buchan Coast)

To ask the Scottish Government what immediate and longer-term actions it can take to support and promote the Scottish seafood processing sector, ensuring that it can compete effectively in a United Kingdom and global market. (S6O-04482)

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

The seafood processing sector in north-east Scotland generates more than £100 million in gross value added a year, contributes £700 million of the region’s £2.2 billion food and drink manufacturing turnover and provides more than 4,000 direct full-time-equivalent jobs.

To support the sector’s economic growth, we have provided £10 million from 2023 to 2025 to support the implementation of Scotland’s food and drink strategy, which was developed in collaboration with producers and which outlines how we are driving growth for businesses across various sectors, including the seafood processing industry. In addition, we have since 2014 invested more than £7 million in the Scotland food and drink export plan, which has helped Scottish businesses, including seafood processors, capitalise on key market opportunities both now and in the future.

Karen Adam (Scottish National Party, Banffshire and Buchan Coast)

The Scottish Seafood Association, known for its quality and sustainability, has set out the growing need to increase sales and demand in the UK and across global markets and aligning that with the promotion of brand Scotland. However, with on-going challenges ranging from market access for small and medium-sized enterprises to logistics and skills shortages, it is critical that we not only strengthen our domestic seafood presence but bolster our position on the international stage and collectively work towards increasing the visibility of Scottish seafood as a premium sustainable product. What role can the Scottish Government play in facilitating the growth that the sector so badly needs?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I know that the issue is close to Karen Adam’s heart, given the importance of seafood processing and the catching sector to her constituency. The funding that we have provided for the food and drink industry strategy to date has increased the seafood sector’s value and reputation at home and internationally.

A number of such projects have been led by Seafood Scotland. I am a big fan of the organisation, and in my role as trade minister, I am happy to meet it to discuss any further steps that should be taken to support the international opportunities that are being realised in that fantastic sector.

Tim Eagle (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Karen Adam has raised some incredibly important points. The catching and processing sectors are important to communities across Scotland, but many are very worried that, in future talks between the UK Government and the European Union on a new deal, there might be demands to back down on current fishing rights. What conversations is the Scottish Government having with the UK Government and European officials to protect the processing sector?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

The member has raised an important point, but he will be aware of the obstacles for seafood exporters in Scotland that Brexit created and the damage that those obstacles have caused the sector. I am therefore surprised that he has now reversed his position and is saying that being out of the European Union is causing problems and leading to difficult negotiations. Perhaps his party should not have supported Brexit in the first place, given all the damage that it has caused seafood exporters the length and breadth of Scotland. I am sure that, unlike the member’s party, Mairi Gougeon, the cabinet secretary responsible for the negotiations, takes the interests of the fishing industry very seriously.

John Mason (Independent, Glasgow Shettleston)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the provision of Gaelic-medium education at primary level in the Glasgow Shettleston constituency. (S6O-04483)

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

I commend Glasgow City Council for its commitment to Gaelic-medium education and the good progress that it has made in that regard. Plans are in place for a fourth Gaelic school, which will serve the Glasgow Shettleston constituency and other areas. We understand that planning permission has been granted and that the construction contract is in place. Pupils who will attend the school have already started their Gaelic-medium education at North Kelvinside primary school, and Glasgow City Council expects that they will move to the renovated school in autumn 2026. By means of the £2 billion learning estate investment programme, which is being delivered in partnership with local authorities, we will provide Glasgow City Council with significant funding support for the school project.

John Mason (Independent, Glasgow Shettleston)

The Deputy First Minister’s answer is really encouraging. As she has said, Glasgow will now have four Gaelic-medium schools and, on top of that, an extremely important building in the east end of Glasgow has been saved. Could other councils learn from that example and increase the number of Gaelic-medium schools?

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

The most recent census figures and other evidence show that Gaelic-medium education continues to grow in popularity. As a product of that education, I obviously think that it is a great idea that offers pupils great prospects. We stand ready to support local authorities that want to develop Gaelic-medium opportunities and respond to parents who indicate a preference for placing a child in Gaelic-medium education.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

With a reminder that the question relates to Gaelic-medium education in the Glasgow Shettleston constituency, I call Emma Roddick to ask a supplementary question.

Emma Roddick (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

It is vital that we support Scotland’s indigenous languages and promote Gaelic language and culture through continued education and investment. Will the Deputy First Minister say more about the Scottish Government’s work to support growth of the language and promote its cultural, economic and community value across Scotland?

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

It would be helpful if you mentioned Glasgow Shettleston.

Emma Roddick (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Including in Glasgow.

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

We can all agree on the wonders of the Glasgow Shettleston constituency and its long-standing representative.

Gaelic is Scotland’s language and, if Scotland cannot protect one of its indigenous languages, nobody else will, so I have always appreciated the cross-party support for Gaelic. There are quite a number of encouraging examples of progress, and we will continue to support Gaelic and promote its educational, cultural, economic and community value.

Roz McCall (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to tackle long-term economic inactivity in Fife. (S6O-04484)

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

Economic inactivity is a complex area, which has required the Government to commit to a co-ordinated approach. Devolved employability services are pivotal in supporting people to progress towards and into sustainable fair work. The programme for government prioritises addressing economic inactivity by committing to improving health services and introducing specialist employability support for disabled people across all local authorities.

The Deputy First Minister recently met business, third sector and public sector leaders to discuss what additional measures would have the greatest impact. For example, we know that childcare is important, and Fife is one of the six early adopter communities that are working to develop and test local systems of childcare for families who need it most.

Roz McCall (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The number of registered private sector enterprises fell by 60 in 2023-24 and employment in businesses in that sector fell by almost 2,500 jobs in the same period.

If we dig a little deeper, we find that Fife’s job density as a whole for the period 2018-2022 was only 0.69 jobs for every resident of working age, which is far behind the Scottish average. Fife’s claimant rate remained static in 2023-24, and it remains higher than the Scottish average, with the Kirkcaldy claimant count almost treble that of affluent areas in north-east Fife.

What specific support is the Scottish Government providing to help people in Fife to re-enter the workplace and to address the persistent economic inactivity challenges there?

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

The Opportunities Fife partnership commissioned several projects to support individuals who are economically inactive back into the workplace. As the member will appreciate, it is the local economic partnership that delivers employability support, harnessing the power of regional working with a mixed economy of partners.

The ground that the member covered in her supplementary question illustrates the complexity and multifaceted nature of the drivers of economic inactivity. She touched on the issue of employment opportunities in particular. Through regional growth deals, from which Fife benefits, and community wealth building initiatives, we are seeking to create greater equality between the regions in Scotland.

We are taking a multifaceted approach through investing to stimulate jobs and economic growth, as well as making direct interventions through employability provision.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

Such high rates of economic inactivity are neither good for the individuals concerned nor for our long-term economy, especially as the new cohort of people who are economically inactive tend to be younger and have neurodevelopmental conditions. What discussions has the minister had with his health colleagues about prioritising neurodevelopmental services to ensure that we can get those people back to work, if that is possible?

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

The Government takes that extremely seriously. Of course, as is implicit in the point that Willie Rennie makes, it is about not just employability services but mental and physical health services. We are taking an holistic, joined-up approach, recognising the multitude of factors that can determine whether someone is economically inactive.

As I referenced in my earlier answer, the Deputy First Minister has been engaging with a range of stakeholders and partners, including those who operate in the mental health and disability spheres.

I reassure Willie Rennie that the Government is committed to working in partnership at local, regional and national level to ensure that we can provide the most rounded and holistic support possible, to help to address economic inactivity.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

With a reminder that the question is about economic inactivity in Fife, I call Daniel Johnson briefly.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

The issues in Fife demonstrate the need to have an accurate picture of where there are issues with people accessing the workplace. As Willie Rennie referenced, there is an issue with young people. However, at the Economy and Fair Work Committee this morning, Skills Development Scotland said that the real youth unemployment figure is upwards of 10 per cent, and that is not the official figure. Does the minister agree that we need to re-examine our approach to data gathering to get a clearer picture? Has he had discussions with Skills Development Scotland about the issue of youth unemployment figures?

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

I assure the member that we are having conversations across Government, on the point that he referenced in particular. That speaks to the consideration that we are giving to the specific transition points in people’s lives where economic inactivity can begin. We are giving that very serious consideration and I would be happy to engage further with the member on the matter.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on the regulatory approach to AI and any impact that differences between regulations in the United Kingdom and the European Union could have on Scotland’s economy. (S6O-04485)

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

Regulation on AI is reserved to the UK Government, so the Scottish Government does not make direct decisions about AI regulation.

Scotland was the first of the UK nations to publish an AI strategy in 2021, and we continue to provide AI support to business through our enterprise agencies and the Scottish AI Alliance.

Although AI is reserved, the UK Government position can influence devolved responsibilities. We have to continue to engage with the UK Government to advocate that its approach to AI regulation considers the interests of the citizens and businesses of Scotland.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

It is increasingly clear that the rapid development of AI potentially carries great benefits and catastrophic risks. Therefore, only a balanced approach to regulation gives us a chance of gaining the benefits while reducing the risks.

That is what the EU is seeking to achieve, unlike the US or, apparently, the UK, but any divergence on regulations could also impact on Scotland. The AI strategy from the Scottish Government has little to say about risk, but it endorses one of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s principles, which is that potential risks should be continually assessed and managed. Will the minister tell us what specific actions the Scottish Government is taking to systematically carry out such risk assessment? When will it publish a breakdown of what risks have been identified, how they are being managed and what the implications are for regulation?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

Patrick Harvie raises a number of important points. First and foremost is the point about the balance between addressing the risks of AI and capturing its massive benefits at the same time. That should be reflected in regulation. As he says, it is also important that we guard against divergence from EU regulation, given that many of the companies in this country export to the EU. We have a UK Labour Government that is making targeted interventions to address the AI risks, whereas the EU has taken a much more comprehensive approach to the issue. I assure Patrick Harvie that we in Scotland are refreshing our AI plan and we will take his valid points on board.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Is the Scottish Government, together with its UK partners, giving any consideration to concerns around the misinformation that AI can contribute to, in terms of undermining democracy and elections across the world in particular?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

Liz Smith raises a very important point, which we—and I personally—have raised time and again with successive UK ministers, including the ministers in the new UK Government. One of the issues of concern to the Scottish Government is that, although the UK has tended to talk about the long-term frontier threats of AI, that has come at the expense of talking about and addressing the short-term risks of misinformation, deepfake images, or other more immediate threats that the public and business community, which want to use AI in a way that can be trusted, are very concerned about. That is a point that we are conveying to the UK Government.

Evelyn Tweed (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

To ask the Scottish Government, as part of the development and delivery of its economic strategy, what assessment it has made of the contribution of the net zero sector to the economy. (S6O-04486)

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

The Scottish Government set out the opportunities from net zero in its green industrial strategy. The strategy’s mission is to ensure that Scotland realises the maximum possible economic benefit from the opportunities created by the global transition to net zero. The strategy focuses our efforts and resources on specific opportunities, based on an assessment of Scotland’s likely sources of comparative advantage in the net zero economy.

Evelyn Tweed (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

The development of carbon capture and storage, through the Acorn project, for example, will form an important part of our net zero journey. Given that the United Kingdom Government is yet to approve the Acorn project, will the Deputy First Minister outline any on-going discussions between both Governments?

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

The importance of the Acorn project for Scotland’s net zero commitments and economic ambitions cannot be overstated, and the continued delays from the UK Government are not helping. I note that Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce, with support from MSPs in the Parliament, has today raised concerns about jobs, energy security and future investment, all of which is being put at risk by the fact that the UK has not taken a positive decision on Acorn. The First Minister and the Acting Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero and Energy have both recently engaged with the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Energy, Security and Net Zero on the urgent need for a positive decision on Acorn. Scottish carbon capture has suffered two decades of broken promises at the hands of various iterations of the UK Government, and it is time for the UK Government to finally come good on its promises.

Sharon Dowey (Conservative, South Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to invest in the west of the South Scotland region. (S6O-04487)

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

The Scottish Government is investing in a number of actions that will deliver economic growth across the South Scotland region. Those include our £180 million investment across the Ayrshire and Borderlands growth deals. The deals allocate a budget of over £29 million in 2025-26 to South of Scotland Enterprise to promote business growth, and they commit to a total spend of £15.5 million through the regeneration capital grant fund to deliver nine projects in Dumfries and Galloway and four projects in South Ayrshire. All of that demonstrates the Government’s commitment to driving growth and regeneration in our cities and regions.

Sharon Dowey (Conservative, South Scotland)

With the Ayrshire growth deal, businesses want to invest and to provide high-paying jobs in the area. There are also developers who want to build good-quality housing, which would provide accommodation for high-skilled workers, but poor infrastructure across Ayrshire is blocking investment by those businesses and housing developers. The A77 is the slowest A road in this country. The block is all too evident at critical junctions such as the Monkton, Dutch House and Bankfield roundabouts, not to mention the Bellfield interchange. What action can the Government take to work with local authorities to improve infrastructure and unlock the economic potential of the region?

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

Along with net zero, housing and infrastructure, three of the key priorities where the Government has committed to driving forward investment, the member also highlights the critical importance of transport in enabling opportunities to be realised. I reassure the member that the Scottish Government is absolutely committed to continue working with growth deal partners to identify workable and deliverable solutions to support investment opportunities. To that end, I would be more than happy to have further engagement with the member and with local partners on the matter.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

My apologies to those whom I was not able to call. We are tight for time across the afternoon.

That concludes portfolio questions on Deputy First Minister responsibilities, economy and Gaelic.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The next portfolio is finance and local government. There is a lot of interest in asking supplementary questions, so we will need more brevity in both questions and responses.

Clare Adamson (Scottish National Party, Motherwell and Wishaw)

To ask the Scottish Government how the Scottish budget 2025-26 will improve local services in Motherwell and Wishaw. (S6O-04488)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

The Scottish budget for 2025-26 focuses on laying the foundations for Scotland’s long-term success and for directly addressing the priorities of the people of Scotland, including those who live in Ms Adamson’s constituency. The budget delivers £890.2 million for North Lanarkshire Council as part of the record £15.1 billion that is made available through the local government settlement. That record funding will help to ensure that people across Scotland, including those in Motherwell and Wishaw, continue to receive the high-quality local services that they expect and deserve.

Clare Adamson (Scottish National Party, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The Scottish Government’s number 1 priority is the eradication of child poverty, and local services and front-line organisations are integral to that aim. Does the cabinet secretary agree that the United Kingdom Government’s decision to hike employer national insurance contributions, along with the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s brutal cuts to social security that were announced today, will have a devastating impact on Scottish finances, on local and front-line services and on third sector organisations, and that they will have an impact on vulnerable people in my Motherwell and Wishaw constituency?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

It is clear that the increased employer national insurance contributions will have a damaging effect on the funding that is available for public services, including those that are delivered by the third sector. At the same time, the compound impact of the decisions to cut the winter fuel payment, to freeze local housing allowance rates and to continue with the previous Government’s welfare reforms can only increase demand for those services.

We are still digesting the impact of the chancellor’s statement today, but there is a clear threat that the repeated attacks on some of the most vulnerable members of society risk creating a vicious cycle of reduced funding and increased demand. We have had confirmation from the Treasury that there will be cuts to our block grant from the welfare cuts from 2026-27 onwards.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

To ask the Scottish Government what the impact will be on discretionary funding in the current financial year of the international financial reporting standard 16 changes outlined in its spring budget revision. (S6O-04489)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

The IFRS 16 changes will negatively impact on our available discretionary funding this year. Changes in the profile of leasing requirements against original plans require additional budget cover. In contravention of the agreement with His Majesty’s Treasury that the transition period should be budget neutral, the full additional budget cover has not been provided, so we have no option but to manage the shortfall within our overall funding envelope. The difference between the funding provided by HM Treasury and the budget requirement in the spring budget revision resulted in an increased funding gap of £9 million for resource and £40 million for capital.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

Does the cabinet secretary agree that it is shocking that this bureaucratic change has enabled a Labour-led UK Treasury to deprive Scotland of £49.2 million—£8.9 million of resource and £40.2 million of capital—this year? The original arrangement was for the Treasury to provide ring-fenced budget cover. Clearly, however, that has not happened. Can the cabinet secretary advise the Parliament what discussions are taking place with her UK counterparts about the level of funding that should be baselined into our budget as we move into 2025-26 and beyond?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

As Kenny Gibson said, it is shocking, and it is contrary to HM Treasury’s stated position that this technical change should be budget neutral. Despite my frustration about that, I have now moved on to focusing on securing fair treatment as we move beyond the transition period. From 2025-26 onwards, the funding will not be ring fenced, but will be baselined into the block grant. I have repeatedly raised that issue with the chief secretary, and my officials are working to ensure that the upcoming spending review will fairly reflect the future budgetary impact that will arise as a consequence of the continued application of IFRS 16.

Alexander Stewart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Without clear adjustment, discretionary funding in capital figures risks appearing stable or even increased when the reality is that it is being artificially inflated. That undermines transparency and hampers scrutiny of the Scottish Government’s investment record. Will the cabinet secretary provide spending figures that are published on a like-for-like basis? If she does not do that, it can confuse Parliament and mislead the public.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

Far from doing that, I say to Alexander Stewart that we took on board the comments of the Finance and Public Administration Committee and changed the budget comparisons to meet its requirements. We did so in order to provide that additional transparency, which has received acknowledgement from a number of independent stakeholders and commentators, and we will continue to do that.

Oliver Mundell (Conservative, Dumfriesshire)

To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to support local authorities with managing planning applications (S6O-04490)

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

The Scottish Government is taking a range of actions to boost resources, skills, proportionality and long-term resilience in planning. We recently increased planning application fees, and a further increase will follow this summer, putting more money into local authorities. Scotland’s first planning hub is providing direct support to authorities. We also fund the national planning improvement champion, who is working directly with local authorities. Through our future planners programme, we are directly recruiting graduates, and we are trebling the number of bursaries that we offer. Last week, I launched the national planning skills commitment plan, which involves cross-sector commitments to improve skills and resources across planning.

Oliver Mundell (Conservative, Dumfriesshire)

Processing planning applications takes up significant resources, especially for smaller rural authorities. Despite those commitments on planning and development, net expenditure by local authorities was more than 30 per cent lower in 2023-24 than it was in 2013-14. We do not have to look very far to find damaging delays that are holding back growth, particularly in the rural economy. What work is the minister doing to review the work of local authorities and ensure that there is consistency across Scotland?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

We are delighted to work with the national planning improvement champion and his team in the Improvement Service. The Scottish Government funds part of that work, which is focused on working with local authorities through peer-to-peer review, identifying best practice, supporting linking up so that authorities can learn from one other, and helping them to improve their processes to be the best in class.

Through the planning hub, which is focused on housing, the Scottish Government is working initially to identify stalled sites and where we can provide extra resource and expertise to unlock opportunities across the country—particularly, it must be said, in the local authorities that Mr Mundell identifies, which might not have as much resource in the planning team as other, larger authorities have.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I will allow a couple of supplementary questions, but they will need to be brief.

Fulton MacGregor (Scottish National Party, Coatbridge and Chryston)

Can the minister outline how the recently launched national planning skills commitment plan, which he referred to, is set to support our next generation of spatial planners and equip them with the skills that they will need to make efficient planning decisions and overcome many of the challenges that Scotland’s communities face?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

Our national planning skills commitment plan, which I was delighted to launch in Govan in the past two weeks, is intended for people of all age groups and career stages. Immediately post launch, in recognition of the clear need for efficient planning decisions, we made it a priority of the first workshop to focus on the art of processing planning applications for our next generation of young planners.

We intend to roll out more hands-on learning in the future to respond to demand, and the commitment plan has been designed to ensure that we work to address the different and emerging skills needs of all planners. It is great to see so many young planners coming forward, who can look forward to a very fulfilling career in the profession.

Katy (Labour, West Scotland)

A number of my constituents have got in touch with me to raise concerns about sub-audible sound noise pollution caused by wind turbines. Does the Scottish Government plan to issue guidance to local authorities regarding the siting of wind turbines and the potential health issues associated with living in close proximity to turbines?

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

That subject is slightly off the topic of the substantive question, minister, but you may respond if there is anything that you think it would be useful for you to add.

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

I do not know exactly what guidance is in place, but I am sure that there is already guidance in place with regard to the siting of wind farms. If the member wants to clarify precisely what guidance is in place on the specific issue that she raised, I will be happy to meet her separately on that.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

To ask the Scottish Government when ministers last met with the City of Edinburgh Council to discuss the reported financial pressures facing the capital. (S6O-04491)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

The Scottish Government continues to meet the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and individual local authorities on a regular basis to cover a range of topics, including current and future budget pressures.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

The City of Edinburgh Council receives the lowest level of funding per head of population, yet it has the highest pupil teacher ratio in Scotland. As a result of the United Kingdom Labour Government’s decision to change VAT on independent schools, we are already seeing data that shows an increase in the number of pupils who are entering the state sector.

The cabinet secretary mentioned COSLA. What plans do the Government and COSLA have to review the funding formula to ensure that it keeps pace with potential increased school rolls here in the capital?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

In 2025-26, the City of Edinburgh Council will receive more than £1 billion to support day-to-day services. That is an extra £60 million, or an additional 5.9 per cent, compared with 2024-25. The council will also get an additional capital allocation and support to help it to meet the costs of employer national insurance contributions.

Miles Briggs asked about the funding formula. I am sure that he will be aware that any funding formula has to be agreed within COSLA. That is challenging when there are 32 local authorities, which often have their own interests. The fact that they do not always have the same interests can make the process very challenging.

We cannot impose a funding formula. Were we to do so, that would be received very badly by local government. It will be for representatives of the City of Edinburgh Council to persuade their COSLA colleagues of the need for any changes to the funding formula.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests.

We know that there is a housing emergency in Edinburgh and that there are huge pressures on the health and social care budget. At what point will the cabinet secretary acknowledge that the huge increase in the population of, and the pressures on, Edinburgh are not going away and that our constituents are being let down by the Government?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

In order to support the affordable housing supply programme, we provided a massive increase in the capital allocation for affordable housing in the budget, which Sarah Boyack did not vote for. We also provided a massive increase in funding for health and social care.

That is not to say that there are no challenges in social care—we absolutely acknowledge that there are challenges. The Edinburgh health and social care partnership has been making good progress on delayed discharge. There was real concern about the situation on delayed discharge in Edinburgh, compared with the situation in other local authority areas, but there has been a significant improvement in that regard.

The funding behind all of that is important, which is why the Parliament supported the provision of such funding.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale)

To ask the Scottish Government how much it has allocated in its budget to fund applications to the rural affordable homes for key workers fund, including from housing associations where there have been housing stock transfers from a local authority. (S6O-04492)

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

The Scottish Government has committed up to £25 million as part of the affordable housing supply programme from 2023 to 2028 to support the acquisition of homes in rural communities for key workers. To date, more than £4 million has been committed to support the acquisition of 26 homes, including the acquisition of six homes at a cost of more than £1.3 million in the Western Isles, where the local authority is a stock transfer authority.

Local authority and registered social landlord partners have identified the potential for a further 40 homes to be acquired, and Scottish Government officials continue to actively work with them to maximise the use of the fund.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale)

I do not want to disappoint the minister about “actively” communicating. As we know, the issue of recruiting key workers to rural areas is not new. I was a key worker in a rural area in the 1960s when I moved to a key workers’ house in Galloway as a schoolteacher. However, neither of the councils in my constituency—Midlothian Council and Scottish Borders Council—seem to be aware of the fund. I therefore ask whether it can be given more publicity and made much more accessible, as the councils simply do not know about it.

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

I congratulate Christine Grahame on using this platform, because the many people who are watching the live stream of the Parliament’s proceedings will now be very much aware of the fund. I confirm that up to £21 million is available over the next three years to support this demand-led fund. It is available to local authorities and registered social landlords for the purchase of suitable properties where there is identified need. I encourage MSPs to promote the use of the fund locally. The rural housing and islands housing funds continue to be available for other organisations, including community organisations, to acquire homes to meet local demand.

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government how much it has allocated in its budget for revenue and capital funding for Strathclyde Partnership for Transport for 2025-26. (S6O-04493)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

I am pleased that the 2025-26 budget was agreed to on 25 February. That has allowed for general capital grant funding to be reinstated to the SPT, with £12.4 million to be allocated from the finance and local government portfolio. Additionally, the budget allocated £617,025 in revenue grant funding for the SPT from the transport portfolio. Moreover, £25 million is allocated to the Glasgow subway modernisation programme in capital funding from the transport portfolio.

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

The SPT concessionary travel scheme has provided discounted rail travel to older people in Strathclyde for many decades. However, due to the scheme’s underfunding, those people are facing huge hikes in their rail fares from the start of April. For example, a return from Paisley Gilmore Street station to Glasgow Central station will rise from £1.50 to £3.75, which is a staggering 150 per cent increase. I am sure that we would all agree that that level of increase is too high. Given that budgetary pressures have been stated as the reason for the increase, will the cabinet secretary consider what support the Scottish Government can give to the SPT and local councils to reduce the eye-watering hikes?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

One of the budgetary pressures that is impacting on the SPT is the additional £488,000 that it will be charged each year from the hike in the employers’ national insurance contribution. That will not help the SPT’s position. We have supported the SPT and other organisations with budgets to ensure that they can provide the services that they are required to provide. I will ask Fiona Hyslop, the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, to reply to Neil Bibby on the specific point about the concessionary travel scheme fare issues.

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

A contractual commitment of around £70 million remains outstanding on the Glasgow subway modernisation project, with the key milestone of achieving unattended train operation due by quarter 3 of 2026. Will the Scottish Government commit to ensuring that all capital works will be fully funded to achieve that milestone?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

By the end of 2023-24, the Scottish Government will have contributed £171.9 million towards the subway modernisation programme. We have been working with the SPT on the issues. I will ask Fiona Hyslop to respond to Paul Sweeney on the specifics around the £70 million.

Jeremy Balfour (Conservative, Lothian)

To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the finance secretary has had with ministerial colleagues regarding the allocation of additional funding for health and social care, in light of the Edinburgh integration joint board’s reported plans to end funding for its third sector grant programme. (S6O-04494)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

We understand the pressures that are faced and have invested a record £21.7 billion in health and social care in 2025-26, which includes almost £2.2 billion for social care and integration, increasing investment by £1.2 billion since 2021-22. On top of that, our budget makes a record £15 billion available for councils for 2025-26. However, it is important to note that it is for local authorities and national health service boards to work with their health and social care partnerships to ensure that the appropriate social care support services, including third sector support, are in place.

Jeremy Balfour (Conservative, Lothian)

Many vulnerable groups are negatively impacted by the cuts, including families living with Huntington’s disease, which is a hereditary and currently incurable neurological condition. Edinburgh is served by Huntington’s disease specialists employed by the Scottish Huntington’s Association, who proactively support patients and carers in the community with a view to preventing crisis situations from arising. That service might go.

Does the cabinet secretary agree that cutting preventative spending such as that is short sighted and a false economy? Will she work with me and all stakeholders to ensure that that extremely worrying prospect does not come to pass?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

As I understand it, the Edinburgh integration joint board has been discussing those issues. With engagement between officers and third sector organisation representatives, there has been an agreement to extend the existing grants to at least the end of June.

Like Jeremy Balfour, I very much recognise the role of the third sector in the delivery of social care services. It is a cost-effective way of delivering social care services. Ultimately, those are local decisions, but the funding that we have put in place should ensure that the third sector can continue to provide those vital services.

Ben Macpherson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

I appreciate what the cabinet secretary says, but many of the third sector organisations that face potential reductions after June, such as the Cyrenians, the Ripple Project and the Pilmeny Development Project, do valuable prevention work that serves or is based in my constituency. Therefore, I would be grateful if the Scottish Government would consider undertaking additional engagement with other parties involved about the longer-term impact of those potential reductions, were they to happen after June. Those organisations do remarkable preventative work.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

I am happy to ask my health colleagues to engage with Ben Macpherson on the matter, because we all recognise its importance.

Jamie Halcro Johnston (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Government what ongoing assessment it is undertaking regarding the impact of the visitor levy. (S6O-04495)

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

The Scottish Government continues to engage regularly with the tourism sector and local government, particularly councils that have agreed to explore introducing a visitor levy. In addition, we are working closely with VisitScotland to establish a series of discussions with stakeholders to hear their views and to inform the implementation of the levy.

The legislation requires a national review of the visitor levy within three years of the first scheme being introduced. We would ensure that that assesses the impact on businesses and communities.

Jamie Halcro Johnston (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I opposed the visitor levy legislation as it passed through the Parliament, and I oppose its implementation by local councils in my region. The levy is a tax on visitors, but it is also a tax on the wider tourism sector, local businesses, local communities and even people visiting family and friends in hospital.

At the Economy and Fair Work Committee last week, I was told that Ivan McKee is engaging with the tourism sector to see whether anything can be done on the visitor levy legislation. It is not even a year since it was passed and it appears that the Scottish Government is having to try to make that bad legislation slightly less bad. Does that not just prove that the Scottish National Party got it wrong in the first place?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

It is not surprising that yet another Tory member is standing up and calling for a reduction in funding to local authorities while, probably in their next breath, other Tory members—or perhaps even Mr Halcro Johnston himself—will be standing up and asking the Government to provide more funding to local authorities. The lack of consistency and the level of economic illiteracy across the Tory benches is again on display this afternoon.

On the specifics of the visitor levy, as I have indicated, the Government is absolutely committed to working with the grown-ups in the room, as well as the sector, local authorities, Transport Scotland and others who recognise that a levy is the right step to take to raise more money to support the tourism industry, to work through challenges and to determine the best way to implement the scheme so that it works for everybody.

Beatrice Wishart (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I have raised this matter previously, yet it is still unclear whether patients travelling to different parts of Scotland for national health service treatment will be impacted by the visitor levy. What assessments has the Scottish Government made of the impact on patients who are travelling for necessary treatment? In the interests of fairness and equity of access to healthcare, will a national exemption be considered?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

There are clearly some exemptions in the legislation, but the specifics on implementation are for local authorities to address through the consultation process that the legislation requires them to take forward in their local area to find a scheme that is suitable for their local circumstances.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I apologise to those whom I was unable to call to ask supplementary questions, but we are tight for time this afternoon.

Land Reform (Scotland) Bill: Financial Resolution

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The next item of business is consideration of motion S6M-16960, in the name of Shona Robison, on a financial resolution for the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill. I call Mairi Gougeon to move the motion.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament, for the purposes of any Act of the Scottish Parliament resulting from the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, agrees to any expenditure of a kind referred to in Rule 9.12.3A of the Parliament’s Standing Orders arising in consequence of the Act.—[Mairi Gougeon]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The question on the motion will be put at decision time.

Secure Accommodation Capacity

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The next item of business is a statement by Natalie Don-Innes on secure accommodation capacity in Scotland. The minister will take questions at the end of her statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions.

The Minister for Children, Young People and The Promise (Natalie Don-Innes)

Since my statement in January, the Government has been taking a range of actions to address Scotland’s secure care accommodation capacity.

As I have set out consistently in the chamber, secure accommodation services are the most intensive, restrictive and specialised form of care for children and young people. There are 78 beds across Scotland’s secure accommodation estate, provided by four independent charitable organisations. Based on all known past placement patterns and the higher ends of all evidenced projections, that provision should be sufficient to meet Scotland’s needs. However, in recent months, there has been a considerable strain on Scotland’s available secure accommodation capacity.

Four factors are particularly relevant: the pause on admissions to St Mary’s Kenmure, which limited its secure accommodation capacity from the contracted 24 beds to 12, reducing the capacity across the secure estate by almost 20 per cent, which has displaced demands to the other three providers over the period; the complexity of some children’s needs, which can require the use of multiple beds, and the associated staff, to care safely for a single child; the increased duration of some placements as a result of the increased sentenced and remanded population; and cross-border placements.

As I set out in my statement in January, the Children (Care and Justice) (Scotland) Act 2024 saw Scotland take a major step forward to keep the Promise, by introducing a series of reforms. It is with thanks to secure providers and wider care and justice partners that we can proudly say that Scotland does not imprison our children. Those reforms—although they were the right thing to do and were well prepared for—have required a period of adjustment. That is why, in these early post-commencement stages, it is important that we continue to work with that same collaborative, learning spirit as matters settle.

Members will recall that, following its inspection in October, St Mary’s Kenmure was served an improvement notice by the Care Inspectorate. That rightly triggered a pause on new admissions while improvements were made. That total pause on admissions was lifted by the Care Inspectorate on 18 December, but the maximum capacity at St Mary’s has been capped at 12. Following a further visit on 13 March, the Care Inspectorate was satisfied that significant improvements had been made in a number of areas, and it agreed to lift the improvement notice.

St Mary’s has been focusing on meeting the requirements of the improvement notice, and its focus is now on moving towards sustainable restored capacity as soon as safely possible. The centre is redoubling its efforts to augment staff capacity over spring. Work to fill those specialist roles is already in hand, but will, of course, take some time. I will update the Parliament further on that progress before summer recess, and I visited St Mary’s earlier this month to hear directly about the centre’s improvement journey.

As members are aware, secure accommodation demand is complex and volatile—capacity can shift at least daily. This morning, there was one place available in secure accommodation in Scotland, but it is entirely possible that that position could change during the course of my statement. That unpredictability in demand is why our key actions relate not just to restoring capacity, but to improving confidence among practitioners and decision makers when it comes to suitable alternatives to secure care.

Meeting the needs of children who may require secure accommodation is not just about numbers of vacant beds. It is about creating and sustaining environments where children receive the highest quality of care. Those services require a specialist and skilled workforce, and I acknowledge and pay tribute to the dedication of that workforce.

In my previous statement, I outlined the Government’s commitment to work collaboratively with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, Social Work Scotland and others to develop a secure care contingency action plan, and I thank all providers and partners for their contributions. I will write to the conveners of the Criminal Justice Committee and the Education, Children and Young People Committee with fuller details in April.

On immediate priorities, we have moved to restore Scotland’s secure accommodation capacity. I am therefore pleased to announce the establishment of a new four-bed national contingency resource with support from the Scottish Government. Part of Rossie’s specialised residential estate will be repurposed and specially staffed in order to offer a new four-bed secure care provision. That will directly alleviate some of the pressure on secure care accommodation. That fully funded resource is expected to be operational in the next month, subject to Care Inspectorate registration.

I am grateful to Rossie for its agility and innovation in helping to identify a tangible solution. The centre has just had very positive Care Inspectorate gradings, and members can be confident that the new provision will be a significant and effective augmentation to Scotland’s offer.

As well as boosting capacity directly, we are also supporting improved awareness and confidence among professionals working in Scotland’s placing authorities. I am therefore pleased also to confirm that we are funding a dedicated professional lead at Social Work Scotland for the next 12 months. The policy and practice adviser will work alongside officials in Scottish Government to enhance our partnership with local government and improve the co-ordination of relevant services across the country. The post should also enable us to accelerate our collective efforts to evolve Scotland’s secure care provision, in line with the Promise.

We also continue to focus on alternatives to secure accommodation, focusing on early intervention and preventative services. We are backing our contingency actions with up to £2 million this year alone. In addition, following the recent budget, funding of up to £8.4 million is being made available by the Scottish Government to cover the placements of sentenced and remanded children over the next two years. That is a significant further financial commitment to support the system and its sustainability.

Refreshed guidance on community alternatives to depriving children of their liberty has also been prepared and was published last week. I thank the Children’s and Young People’s Centre for Justice and the Youth Justice Improvement Board for bringing that work to fruition.

As members know, secure care should be used only when absolutely necessary. We are also working with third sector organisations to identify high-intensity wraparound services, which are intended to offer credible support to high-need children, and to encourage safe, early step down from secure care. The Parliament will be updated further on that before summer recess.

In the medium to long term, we are committed to developing a more resilient and responsive system of secure care provision, capacity preservation and placement management. Also ahead of the summer recess, we will publish our response to the “Reimagining Secure Care” reports, which will set out our longer-term vision for the future of secure care within a trauma-informed, Promise-keeping context.

I expect that response to confirm the continuing necessity of secure care and to underline the value that we place on those specialist services, but also to cover the need to extend secure care beyond its current configuration. We will focus on a holistic approach that includes preventative measures, improved alternatives to secure care and a stronger focus on transitions to support children to return to their communities, and to their families, wherever that is safe and appropriate.

As with all Promise-keeping efforts, there is a shared responsibility between national and local Government alongside delivery partners. I want us to improve the co-ordination and integration between different parts of the system to ensure that our system is both compassionate and responsive.

Children in secure care often require multiple services, including mental health support, education and vocational training, among others. We therefore need to foster greater collaboration with health services, local authorities, education providers and the third sector. We are also considering where quantitative data, real-time data and enhanced management information can help us to predict and forecast demand.

I hope that this statement reassures members as to our focus and resolve on these matters. It is clear that, since January, improvements have been and are being made. I want to reassure all those who are involved in the provision of secure care, from the children who need its support and the staff in secure care centres to local authorities and community and justice partners. My message is that the Government will work with them to take urgent supportive action where it is needed, and to develop sustainable and integrated solutions. Our priority will always be to ensure that children have access to the care and support that is necessary to keep them, and others, safe.

I am aware that members will have further questions, and I would be pleased to answer those now.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The minister will now take questions on the issues raised in her statement. I intend to allow around 20 minutes, after which we will need to move on to the next item of business. I would be grateful if members who wish to ask a question could press their request-to-speak buttons now, if they have not already done so.

Roz McCall (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I thank the minister for advance sight of her statement.

The strain on Scotland’s secure accommodation provision and the complex factors involved might not have been foreseeable, but they were certainly possible, and I raised those concerns at the time. The fact is that the minister and the Scottish Government were told, time and again during the passage of the Children (Care and Justice) (Scotland) Act 2024, that the situation in which we now find ourselves was entirely possible. It is a shameful dereliction of duty that nothing was done in anticipation.

I welcome the commitment to building contingencies in the system as we move forward. However, the Scottish Government had a long lead-in time to prepare, and a lack of urgency has resulted in vulnerable children being denied the support and protection that they require. That is not good enough.

The Children and Young People's Commissioner Scotland wrote to the minister on 20 February with three specific questions, and the minister was unable to answer those during questioning at the Education, Children and Young People Committee this morning.

So, how many children in each of the past six months have been unable to be placed in secure care? Is the minister still of the view that redundant overprovision would be contrary to the Promise, and if so, how confident is she that the measures that she announced in her statement today will not result in the very same overprovision?

I note the minister’s commitment to working with the third sector to identify high-intensity wraparound services. Again, there has been a lack of urgency, and the issues should have been foreseen. What form will these services take, and how soon will they be implemented?

Natalie Don-Innes

I was actually able to answer those questions in committee this morning.

The first question from the children’s commissioner was about the number of children who have been unable to be placed. As I said in committee this morning, the Scottish Government does not routinely hold case-specific information around that. However, I know that, in instances where the issues of capacity have caused concerns, there have been real efforts between all the different stakeholders involved—whether that is the Scottish Government, COSLA or secure care providers—to come to an arrangement that meets the needs of the child and of the other children in secure care.

The commissioner asked another question on the national co-ordination of secure placements. Our current focus is on the short term and on rebuilding the capacity. The member asked whether we feel that that extra provision will have an impact on the idea of redundant overprovision. I have made it clear—and it is clearly set out in the Promise—that we do not want to have a large estate of secure care that is not utilised; that would not be good for anybody. Instead, we would want to invest that money in appropriate community alternatives or other interventions for the children and young people.

In essence, I do not agree with the member—I feel that extra capacity is required at this moment in time and will help to alleviate the challenges that members have brought to me.

Martin Whitfield (Labour, South Scotland)

I thank the minister for advance sight of her statement.

The minister indicated that 78 beds were available across Scotland—that is according to Scottish Government data that was published for 2022-23. However, the data that was published in February this year for 2023-24 confirms that the number of beds is actually 71. I wonder whether the minister could consider the position and clarify the record in writing.

According to the public website, there are 67 beds and, as the minister indicated in her statement, there is one available bed. As she said, that is due to the situation at St Mary’s Kenmure. When the Edinburgh secure services provision closed in 2023, we had 84 beds. Is 84 beds too much provision? We have hit full capacity on whatever figure the minister would like to dictate is available.

Natalie Don-Innes

For clarity, under the Scotland Excel contract, there are 78 beds, but not all of those are being used at the moment due to the issues with St Mary’s Kenmure. I have been very clear that St Mary’s is working to recruit staff and to restore its capacity—I hope that that will happen as soon as possible.

The member provided a figure of 84 beds. The number of children who are going to secure care has decreased in the past number of years. I am nervous about overcapacity, but I appreciate that we have to have places for children who require to go to secure care. There is a fine balance between the provision that we need and overprovision.

Audrey Nicoll (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen South and North Kincardine)

The minister’s update is welcome, including her announcement on the new four-bed national secure care provision at Rossie.

More broadly, it is vital that care and justice services for children continue to be informed by the views of care-experienced children. Can the minister say any more about the steps that the Government is taking to ensure that young people’s voices are at the heart of its work?

Natalie Don-Innes

As the member knows, that is extremely important to me. The Government commissioned the Children’s and Young People’s Centre for Justice to consider the future needs of children and young people who are in or on the edges of secure care. Last autumn, the CYCJ published its report, “Reimagining Secure Care”, which included specific and detailed information setting out the views of a sample of children in secure accommodation. In the coming months, the centre will also undertake a census study of children in secure accommodation. The views that are captured as part of that study will inform our work, which is under way, on “Reimagining Secure Care”.

Jeremy Balfour (Conservative, Lothian)

I appreciate that the minister had a tough appearance at the Education, Children and Young People Committee this morning, where she was repeatedly unable to provide a timescale for the introduction to Parliament of the Promise bill. I give her another opportunity to redeem herself by stating simply when a bill on the Promise will be laid before the Scottish Parliament, so that the Education, Children and Young People Committee can finally scrutinise the detail.

Natalie Don-Innes

It is my intention to introduce the bill to Parliament prior to the summer recess. I explained in committee that I am not able to give any further commitment or more detail because of the requirements of the legislative process and the on-going work on the content of the bill. I have made it clear that my priority and commitment is to get the Promise bill right for the people who want to see it.

Rona Mackay (Scottish National Party, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

It is right that Scotland is committed to a rights-based approach to youth justice that is focused on prevention and early intervention. With that in mind, what is the Government doing to invest in preventative approaches and alternatives to remand?

Natalie Don-Innes

Wherever possible, children who are in conflict with the law should be supported via appropriate community-based support. In practice, those interventions are often provided via a partnership of statutory and voluntary sector services. That is reflected in our investment in services and initiatives that aim to address the underlying causes of offending and to support young people in the community through funding streams such as the cashback for communities programme or the whole family wellbeing fund. For example, the whole family wellbeing fund has supported the highly regarded third sector organisation Includem to offer its ADAPT project services to local authorities across Scotland.

Other examples of community support might include referral to the Government-funded interventions for vulnerable youth service, which is a national service that uses a multidisciplinary, tiered approach to provide risk assessment, formulation and management for young people aged 12 to 18 who present with complex needs.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)

The increased duration of some placements as a result of the increased sentenced and remand populations is welcome. Will the minister outline whether appropriate mental health support will be given to children who might be awaiting proceedings or trial? In relation to young people who reach the age of 19 and who are in the criminal justice system, has any assessment been made of what support they might need to transition to a young offenders institution?

Natalie Don-Innes

All of that is contained in the conversations around and the plan for the child who is entering secure care. Mental health needs would be recognised. As we have spoken about, the case of every child is taken on a case-by-case basis. Where extra support is required, that would be recognised and implemented.

The transition would be an on-going consideration in relation to the child’s plan. The member will be aware that there are provisions in the Children (Care and Justice) (Scotland) Act 2024 that would allow young people to stay beyond their 18th birthday. Those have still to come into force, and we will be considering that issue in line with the act.

Fulton MacGregor (Scottish National Party, Coatbridge and Chryston)

The steps that the Scottish Government is taking to develop a more responsive system of secure care provision are welcome. Can the minister provide an update on the stakeholder engagement that the Scottish Government has undertaken ahead of responding to the Children and Young People’s Centre for Justice’s “Reimagining Secure Care” report?

Natalie Don-Innes

As I noted in my statement, although the immediate focus is on stabilisation, our efforts must also look forward. In the medium and long term, we are committed to developing a much more resilient and sustainable system of secure care accommodation, in relation to commissioning, resourcing and placing management. The secure care contingency plan is the first step in a broader and more ambitious vision for the future of secure care in Scotland. We are deep into a period of engagement with stakeholders to explore their views on the reimagined vision and options. To date, that engagement has included care and justice partners such as secure providers, COSLA, Social Work Scotland and the Care Inspectorate.

Ross Greer (Green, West Scotland)

One issue that was unearthed by Parliament’s scrutiny of the Children (Care and Justice) (Scotland) Bill was the almost completely unregulated nature of the transport provision that is associated with secure accommodation. Parliament accepted my amendment to begin regulation of secure accommodation transport and to end the inappropriate use of restraints such as handcuffs. Will the minister provide us with an update on how that regulation is being developed?

Natalie Don-Innes

Absolutely. As the member will be aware, there are a number of regulations—I just referred to those relating to children staying in secure accommodation beyond their 18th birthday. I am more than happy to write to the member with an update on those specific provisions following this statement.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

It is utterly shameful that the minister has presided over cobbled-together provision for people who are in desperate need of secure accommodation. We were promised that, through the Children (Care and Justice) (Scotland) Act 2024, there would not be a problem, but she has repeatedly come to the chamber to try to fix the very problem that she created. Can she guarantee that there is no two-tier system in which those who go through the courts versus those who go through the hearings system are dealt with differently?

Natalie Don-Innes

I can guarantee that. As I have said, every child is looked at on a case-by-case basis. I disagree with the member’s idea of cobbled-together provision. He has raised issues with me in relation to children not being able to enter secure care from the children’s hearings system, but there should always be a plan in place. There could be a multitude of reasons why a child cannot enter secure care, over and above the capacity challenges that we are faced with just now.

Conversations should always take place around where would be safe for a child if they cannot enter secure care. There are already plans in place. I feel that they are robust and that the conversations that take place between all the stakeholders that are involved in a child’s placement are strong enough. The measures that I have come to the chamber with today, on the restoration of capacity, will only strengthen them.

Ben Macpherson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

The minister has previously advised that work is being undertaken to consider effective alternatives to secure care so that children and young people receive the care that they need in the setting that most appropriately suits their needs. With consideration of all that has been said so far, can the minister say any more about such alternatives?

Natalie Don-Innes

Maximising alternative measures is absolutely critical to ensuring that no child is deprived of their liberty unnecessarily. The core responsibility for developing and delivering those alternatives lies, rightly, with the implementation authorities, but the Government is supporting them with those responsibilities.

Only last week, new guidance on community alternatives to depriving children of their liberty was published. It will aid those who work with children who might require secure accommodation to consider alternative options for them. Funding of up to £8.4 million is also being made available by the Government to fully cover secure placement costs for sentenced and remanded children in 2025-26 and 2026-27. That is a further financial commitment to support the system and its sustainability.

Meghan Gallacher (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I find it difficult to believe that the minister has come to the chamber this afternoon to announce that four additional beds will solve secure care accommodation capacity issues. I am not convinced that the minister believes that four additional beds will solve the problem either, given that capacity has already been reduced by almost 20 per cent.

I find the timing quite odd, because we have had a statement this afternoon, but the secure care contingency plan has not yet been completed. Why not? How has the minister managed to arrive at the conclusion that four additional beds are sufficient? Will MSPs have to come back to the chamber in a few months’ time, when the number increases yet again?

Natalie Don-Innes

Capacity was not reduced by 20 per cent—

Meghan Gallacher (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Yes, it was.

Natalie Don-Innes

It was originally, but it has improved now, because there has been a further restoration of capacity at St Mary’s Kenmure.

I believe that the four secure care beds will make a difference. If the member has been following the numbers over the past few months, she will be aware that adding such a number is an appropriate response, because we do not want there to be overprovision. We want to invest money in our children and young people, rather than waste it on empty beds.

The member made another point, which I do not recall. If she is happy to write to me on that, I am happy to respond.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

The minister has previously spoken about the use of cross-border placements. Can she comment on how the secure accommodation situation in Scotland compares with the situation elsewhere in the United Kingdom? Can she say more about the Scottish Government’s latest engagement with the UK Government regarding the use of cross-border placements?

Natalie Don-Innes

Absolutely. Scotland is not alone in facing such a situation. It is well known that placements across the rest of the UK are volatile, and children are often placed in secure accommodation in Scotland due to the limited availability of placements in England and Wales. I understand that the UK Government is currently working on those issues, as per its recently announced Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill.

The Scottish Government is clear that cross-border placements should occur only in exceptional circumstances and when such a placement is in the child’s best interests. We have made provision through the Children, Care and Justice (Scotland) Act 2024 to allow ministers to further regulate cross-border placements in residential care in Scotland. We are currently developing a bolstered regulatory framework, with the overarching aim of safeguarding and promoting the welfare of every child who is placed into care in Scotland from other parts of the UK.

Michael Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

In relation to the national contingency resource, I am sure that the minister will agree that Rossie should be provided with stable financing to allow it to recruit and retain crucial staff. Can the minister assure me that those beds will not be paid for by usage alone?

Natalie Don-Innes

We have provided Rossie with funding for the contingency resource. I am confident that the funding has been well received and will go a long way towards alleviating the pressures that I have discussed today.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

That concludes the ministerial statement. There will be a brief pause before we move to the next item of business to allow front-bench teams to change.

Land Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-16892, in the name of Mairi Gougeon, on the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill at stage 1.

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

I think that today is a good day. Spring is upon us, and it is a time of renewed hope and optimism. It is on that note that I am proud to open today’s debate on the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, which marks the next step on our land reform journey.

I thank the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, the Finance and Public Administration Committee and the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee for their detailed scrutiny of the bill, and I thank everyone who gave evidence during stage 1. Hearing from a wide range of grass-roots voices from right across Scotland has been invaluable, and it is a mark of the strength of our Parliament. I look forward to working constructively across the chamber as we progress this important bill, and I hope that we can all agree to support its general principles, as the majority of members of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee recommended in its stage 1 report.

Land reform has been a long-standing priority of the Parliament; indeed, it was one of the driving forces that led to the Parliament’s reconvening in 1999. The bill marks the next staging post on the land reform journey, as it builds on the land reform acts that have been passed by successive Scottish Governments.

I am sure that members across the chamber will join me in paying tribute to past and present members of our Parliament, stakeholders and individual campaigners who have worked tirelessly to shape and implement positive and progressive land reforms that have helped create opportunities for communities and individuals across our nation. They include pioneers of community ownership in places such as Eigg and Assynt, who demonstrated a positive alternative to the status quo—that is, that communities, crofters and tenants did not have to accept being frozen out of decisions that affected their lives.

In Scotland, we have one of the most concentrated patterns of land ownership in the world, with 421 landowners owning 50 per cent of privately owned rural land. We are an outlier in comparison with Europe, where more diverse land ownership is the norm. That long-standing unfairness and the negative impacts on our rural communities have previously been raised by the Scottish Land Commission and others. Scotland’s land must be an asset that benefits the many, not the few, and it must play a leading role in sustaining thriving rural communities, tackling the climate change and environmental crises and continuing sustainable food production.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The majority of people who gave evidence to the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee were of the opinion that the bill would not realise the aims that have been set out. How would you react to that?

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Always speak through the chair.

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

I thank Douglas Lumsden for raising that point. I listened very carefully to the evidence that the committee received and to those concerns. There was broad support for a range of the proposed measures, but I want to ensure that the bill is as strong as possible, which is why I welcome the recommendations that the committee made in its stage 1 report. I look forward to working with Douglas Lumsden and others across the chamber as we look to strengthen the bill’s provisions.

Our land reform journey goes to the heart of the debate about the kind of Scotland that we want—a fairer society and a land of opportunity. Land and tenancy reforms are not new. From hard-won rights in the early crofting acts to more recent reforms, people and communities have always been at the heart of the need for land reform.

The Agriculture (Scotland) Act 1948 reformed agricultural tenancies to provide tenants with security of tenure, thereby enabling them to invest in and improve their farms for increased productivity and ensuring food security during a critical period. In the same way, the proposals in part 2 of the bill will enable our tenant farmers to access support, deliver climate and biodiversity goals and provide sustainable food production, thereby ensuring a prosperous future for tenant farming families. All those reforms were controversial at the time, but they were the right thing to do. Then, as now, the reforms were about people, fairness and dignity.

Previous land reforms have improved the lives of ordinary Scots, just as our proposals will. There were early changes, such as the abolition of the feudal system, and the Labour and Liberal Democrat Executive introduced the landmark right to roam and community rights to buy. There have also been more recent improvements, such as the introduction of assignation and relinquishment reforms for retiring tenant farmers and compulsory community rights to buy.

The establishment of the Scottish Land Commission in the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2016 by one of my predecessors, Richard Lochhead, was another milestone, ensuring that we have a continuing focus on land reform. The Land Commission has made a significant contribution, developing policy and driving positive change on the ground, and the tenant farming commissioner has been instrumental in improving relationships between tenants and landlords.

It is easy to take for granted the rights that we have in Scotland. Assets amounting to more than 200,000 hectares—or 2.7 per cent of the total area of Scotland—are in community ownership, and we have seen tenant farmers using their pre-emptive right to buy their farms, creating opportunities for their families to invest and develop their businesses.

People across Scotland are able to benefit from responsible public access to Scotland’s land. In England, the public have access to only about 8 per cent of the country and have no community right to buy. Things are better in Scotland, and we should be proud of our land reform successes.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

I will give way Rachael Hamilton, as I have already taken an intervention from Douglas Lumsden.

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

Does the cabinet secretary believe that there could be a conflict of interest, given that Scottish ministers have to be answerable to decisions made on land owned by the Scottish Government, which amounts to 728,000 hectares or 10 per cent of the land overall? That issue was not addressed in stage 1.

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

The member raises an important point. I recognise that the Scottish Government is a significant landowner in Scotland, but I do not believe that there is such a conflict of interest in the proposals that we have introduced.

I want to set out how the proposals in the bill will deliver for communities, small landholders and tenant farmers across Scotland. Land management plans will mean that owners of the largest landholdings will need to engage with local communities and publish a plan showing how they use their land and how that use supports community sustainability and priorities such as climate change. I know that some landowners already do that, but there are also communities that are in the dark about the plans, and even the identity, of the owners of the land on which they live and work. The bill will mean that transparency and community engagement will not depend on a community being lucky enough to have a good landowner.

The bill will also require greater transparency of land sales, expanding options for community right to buy. Large landholdings often do not sell for long periods, meaning that communities can be unprepared or even unaware if the sale takes place off market. Our proposals will mean that local communities are informed and have greater opportunity to make a community right-to-buy application.

Moreover, the bill will, for the first time, give Scottish ministers the power to intervene in large land sales on the basis of the public interest. Where it would help to support local communities, ministers could require land to be sold in a way that allowed for a wider range of buyers. The bill will create the potential to spread opportunity, putting the wellbeing of our rural communities at the heart of decisions on how land of this scale is sold.

Despite the new powers, I know that some people believe that we are not going far enough. I understand the frustrations of those who would like us to go further and faster, and I am listening and stand ready to work across the chamber to build and improve on the provisions in the bill.

Mercedes Villalba (Labour, North East Scotland)

Does the cabinet secretary recognise that, provided that their bank balance is big enough, there is currently nothing to stop someone from buying up all of Scotland’s land with no questions asked? Is it not time that that changed by introducing a presumed limit on how much land anyone can own?

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

I thank Mercedes Villalba for raising that point. There are all sorts of issues in relation to that, but I believe that our proposals, which the committee has scrutinised, go a long way towards making land ownership more transparent, involving communities in that process and, generally, increasing the diversity of ownership of land in Scotland.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

I am sorry, but I have to make progress.

We have to recognise that reform must be carried out in a way that is fair to all parties, is supported by evidence and is deliverable within the resources and current powers of this Parliament.

The measures in part 2 are essential reforms that are needed to deliver equality of opportunity to Scotland’s small landholders and tenant farmers. We want to offer our tenant farmers a future that we would want for ourselves—one with security and dignity at its heart. We want a vibrant tenanted sector, ensuring that we have opportunities for the next generation.

More diverse land ownership is not incompatible with those aims. All that we have to do is look to Europe and examples in France and the Republic of Ireland of how a vibrant tenanted sector can be achieved. The key difference is that they have the fiscal powers that are necessary to encourage those changes.

I will keep working with all partners and across this Parliament to ensure that momentum continues to build for a stronger, more resilient tenancy sector. The bill will ensure that tenants today and those in the future have a level playing field, enabling them to deliver improvements to the land that they farm in order to become more sustainable and productive, and enabling tenant farming families to better access the new agriculture support and rural framework so that they can play their part in delivering on key Government priorities. After all, tenant farmers make up a quarter of Scottish farmers, and our provisions in part 2 of the bill will mean that they are treated with fairness and dignity, including if they choose to leave their tenancies.

By modernising small landholder legislation, we are ensuring that no part of land tenure is left behind. The new model of lease for environmental purposes—the land management tenancy—will provide a new tool for land management, enabling people and communities to undertake a range of hybrid land management activities through one lease and helping achieve Scotland’s net zero, biodiversity, and sustainable and regenerative agriculture ambitions. The bill cannot solve all the issues that land tenure is facing, as many are outwith our control, but we remain committed to delivering a fair and vibrant tenanted sector.

Land reform is a journey. The bill offers hope; it will deliver positive progress and, in so doing, build trust with the people of Scotland. I hope that we can come together today to stand behind the bill’s principles, as they are same principles that have been supported by successive Governments since the Parliament was reconvened in 1999.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I call Edward Mountain to speak on behalf of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I am pleased to speak in this debate on behalf of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee.

In accordance with parliamentary rules, I will make a full declaration of my interests so that there is no dubiety. I declare that I have an interest in a family farming partnership in Moray, as set out in my register of interests. Specifically, I declare an interest in approximately 200 hectares of farmland, of which 20 hectares is woodland. I am a tenant of approximately 200 hectares in Moray on a non-agricultural tenancy, and I have a farming tenancy of approximately 5 hectares under the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1991. I also declare that I sometimes take grass lets on an annual basis.

I thank my committee colleagues for their diligent work in considering the bill. I acknowledge the useful input from the Finance and Public Administration Committee and the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee. I also thank our clerking team for its support, especially in getting our report out so promptly after it had been agreed.

The committee began its work on the bill in April last year, when we issued a call for views. We started taking oral evidence in June, and we heard from 13 different panels of witnesses. We also got out and about in rural areas to meet people on the ground. We held a successful panel event at the Royal Highland Show and an online engagement event with tenant farmers. I thank all the people who contributed to our work.

The bill is split into two distinct parts. Part 1 sets out new methods of land reform and part 2 relates to the leasing of land. Each part has raised separate issues, and I will take them in turn.

On part 1, stakeholders were fundamentally split on a central intention of the bill, which is to diversify land ownership. Those who were supportive of that highlighted that Scotland has a more concentrated pattern of ownership than most international comparators. They said that that creates an imbalance of power and can prevent rural communities from feeling in charge of their own destinies. Their view was that reform has lost momentum and that further change is needed to address that imbalance.

Those who were opposed to part 1 often considered it hard to justify the interference with property rights, and they were also concerned that the bill would scare off investment. They considered large estates to be better able to deliver change at scale, making them assets in tackling the twin climate emergency and biodiversity crisis.

Mercedes Villalba (Labour, North East Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I will if I have time, Presiding Officer.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

There is time, but it is very limited.

Mercedes Villalba (Labour, North East Scotland)

Is it fair to say that those who opposed part 1 tended to be representatives of those who own large amounts of land in Scotland?

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

That is not entirely true. Some of the people who opposed part 1 were people who manage land holdings across Scotland, whether in the private or public sector.

Whether stakeholders were supportive of further land reform or not, there was consensus that the bill as drafted risks not delivering on its aims. There was a clear fear that the proposed changes would be burdensome and bureaucratic without delivering any real benefit.

On the detail of the bill, the committee is supportive of the provision to allow Scottish ministers to create community engagement obligations. However, only a majority of the committee think that the land size threshold for community engagement obligations—which is 3,000 hectares for mainland estates—is too high. The committee is not agreed on the appropriate thresholds for landholdings to allow the bill’s obligations to kick in. However, we agree that, when they are adopted, those thresholds must be kept under review by the Government.

One community engagement obligation that is set out in the bill is for large estates to produce land management plans. The committee is supportive of such plans, as they could create an accessible one-stop shop for information about large parcels of land, which would improve transparency about estate ownership and use. That provision in part 1 gained clear support, but we heard pleas not to allow it to become a box-ticking exercise with a long list of things to say in those plans, which could remove the local and distinct tailored elements that are required to make the plans truly useful documents.

We also heard concerns about the potential cost to estates of producing plans. However, it is difficult to assess those concerns fully when the details of the obligations for what will be set out in the plans will not be set out until later, in regulations. The committee was not in a position to assess the unknown. That is why our report recommends that there should be additional parliamentary scrutiny of regulations that set out community obligations.

The committee supports the principle of extending communities’ right to buy land. However, the changes in section 2 are unlikely to accomplish much on their own. A wider review of the community right to buy is under way, and we are disappointed that it was not completed before the bill was introduced. It would have been much more useful to consider the matter in the round.

We support giving Scottish ministers the ability to determine that large landholdings should be sold in lots. However, the basis on which such decisions would be made is unclear. We recommend that the transfer test in the bill be reconsidered to make it clear that the public interest will at least be at the heart of lotting decisions. We also recommend that guidance be produced to provide more clarity about the circumstances in which Scottish ministers would or would not expect to make lotting decisions. We are broadly supportive of the new role of land and communities commissioner.

Turning to part 2 of the bill, I note that the most significant changes in that part relate to agricultural tenancies. The starting point for those changes is a consensus that the tenanted sector is in long-term decline and that things need to change. Taken together, the changes in the bill could be said to rebalance the landlord and tenant relationship by giving more rights to tenant farmers. However, some stakeholders thought that those changes would make owners even more loth to offer tenancies in the first place. We are deeply concerned about the risk of a further decrease in agricultural tenancies, so we have recommended broader consideration of how to actively encourage the leasing of land for agriculture.

Although we support most of the individual provisions in part 2, we recommend that the Scottish Government considers how best to proceed with the provisions on resumption. Resumption is when the landlord takes back part of the tenancy. The methodology for compensating that, as proposed in the bill, has faced significant criticism. The view is that it perhaps rebalances compensation too far in favour of the tenant.

We need to clarify the meaning of “sustainable and regenerative agriculture”. That is a central feature of many of the changes in part 2, but it is as yet undefined. This is a familiar discussion for those who have been involved with the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Act 2024. That act requires a code of practice to be created, which would provide meaning to the term.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

Will Edward Mountain give way briefly?

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I think that I am short of time, but I would like to give way.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

There is a limited bit of time in hand.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

The bill proposes legal measures that would, I gather, be applied retrospectively. Is the committee at all concerned that that might contravene the European convention on human rights, as was indeed the case with the agricultural holdings legislation two decades ago—the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 2003?

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I think that the committee was more concerned that constantly changing agricultural tenancies retrospectively could cause problems for the letting of land in future, because it would give landlords no surety that what they agreed with a tenant would be carried forward.

We also talked about the need for sustainable regenerative agriculture to be included. We think that that should be in the bill.

Overall, the bill needs significant changes to make it fit for purpose. Although it is normal for a bill to undergo some adjustments at stages 2 and 3, the changes that are needed in this case appear to be more fundamental. That puts pressure on us, as a committee and as a Parliament, to make sure that we get things right at the amending stages, and that we take the views of experts and stakeholders as we do so.

A majority of the committee supports the general principles of the bill. However, we want the Scottish Government to engage constructively with our recommendations to ensure that the bill can be improved.

Tim Eagle (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests, which states that I am a small farmer. I also have a couple of short limited duration tenancies. I apologise in advance for speaking a little quickly; I have a lot to get through.

I wish that I could share the enthusiasm that the cabinet secretary showed at the start of her speech. It is a nice day outside, but I do not think that it is in here.

I will start with a wee quote:

“My analysis suggests that the impact of these provisions on the pattern of land ownership in Scotland will be vanishingly small at best and zero at worst. Importantly, no amount of amendments at Stage 2 or 3 will change the underlying mechanisms being relied upon in the Bill.”

I could tell members that that pretty cynical quote is from a known Government critic or perhaps a large lobby organisation, but no—it is from Andy Wightman, a former Green MSP and a leading figure on land reform. I do not agree with his view on land reform, but what a quote that is, and he is not alone—the Scottish Land Commission, Scottish Land & Estates, NFU Scotland, the Law Society of Scotland and others have all raised significant concerns about the bill.

The policy memorandum to the bill says:

“These proposals deliver the Bute House Agreement commitment to deliver legal mechanisms to tackle scale and concentration of land ownership.”

The moment that I read that, I realised what the bill actually is—nothing other than a measure for the Green Party’s consistent desire to take away rights from individuals—[ Interruption .] You can groan all you like, but that is despite many of those landholdings delivering on climate change goals.

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

Will the member take an intervention?

Tim Eagle (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Go for it.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Although it was not lacking in courtesy, I note that that language was a bit relaxed.

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

Is the member against the proposals that we are taking forward to ultimately make things fairer for our tenant farmers and our small landholders across Scotland? Is he against diversifying land ownership and tackling the concentration of land ownership that we have in our country?

Tim Eagle (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I am just about to come on to that—wait, and I will get to it.

I was tempted to go for the full Richard Leonard experience with this speech and shout from the back benches about the grotesque, unjustified big state intervention against the most basic of human rights for what appears to be nothing but envy politics—but I have decided instead to remain a little calmer. However, I cannot express enough my utter horror at the bill. In the year that I have been here, it is by far the worst bill that I have seen. That is for three key reasons: I do not agree with the principles of what the bill is trying to achieve, the bill is fundamentally unworkable in its current form, and the legal implications could be far reaching and lead to challenge.

Let me take those points in order. First, the bill—and, for that matter, large parts of land reform—seems to make the major assumption that owning a large landholding is inherently wrong, or perhaps that large landowners do not care about the land that they manage or the communities that they are part of.

Mercedes Villalba (Labour, North East Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Tim Eagle (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I apologise, but I do not have time.

However, my experiences are somewhat different. I know landowners who have given plots of land for local people to build a house at next to nothing in cost, and large landholdings that are leading the charge on peatland restoration, large landscape projects along rivers, tree planting and land for community projects. I note at this point that there is a challenge in every sector of life where the few can impact the many. It is vital that those who work in the industry, and the organisations that support it, work to make sure that all landowners meet their responsibilities. However, major legislation is not required to ensure that.

Secondly, the bill is fundamentally unworkable in its current form. There is a risk of consultation upon consultation. An area of land for, say, housing that is already going through the statutory planning process will face public consultation and discussion, and it is vital to avoid duplication. Why has size been chosen as the key measure for who is impacted by the bill? Why not value? There is a huge difference between 3,000 hectares of moorland and 3,000 hectares of agricultural land.

The Law Society of Scotland has pointed out that proposed new section 44B(3)(c)(iii) that the bill seeks to insert in the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2016 requires that a land management plan must contain information about how

“the owner is complying or intends to comply with ... the code of practice on deer management”.

That creates a compliance duty in relation to a voluntary code of practice.

Proposed new section 44A(4) of the 2016 act mentions the land rights and responsibilities statement. It looks as though that provision puts on to a statutory footing the voluntary approach to developing a stronger relationship between landowner and communities that is set out in the 2016 act.

As someone who has worked in this area, I am not sure that whoever wrote the bill actually understands it. It is very common for land sales to take place for small pieces of ground, such as a little bit of garden ground or a new site for a local teacher or doctor. As the bill stands, it will require all sales to be notified to the Scottish ministers. What a huge blockage that will create, and that is before we get to the administrative nightmare and the huge cost that it will introduce.

Sarah-Jane Laing from Scottish Land & Estates said:

“Lotting provides uncertainty. Any intervention in the land market that places obligations on you or reduces your ability to liquidate your assets—which is what we are talking about here—will impact on your ability to borrow from the banks.”—[Official Report, Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, 19 November 2024; c 48.]

Given the lack of timescale for Government decisions, there is a great risk that lenders will see the inability to dispose of land as a large risk. In turn, that will create uncertainty in the market, and markets do not like uncertainty. As well as affecting people who bring their land to the market voluntarily, the lotting provision will have an impact on the wider land market and the attitude to land value and risk in Scotland.

Mercedes Villalba (Labour, North East Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

Will the member take an intervention?

Tim Eagle (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I will bring in Fergus Ewing.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

Does Mr Eagle agree that the emphasis should be far more on working with existing landowners and encouraging them to invest in things such as the provision of additional rural housing, rather than on imposing on them ever more regulations, which will discourage investment and new tenancies, dampen the rural economy and prevent us from achieving the opportunities that exist in rural Scotland?

Tim Eagle (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I apologise to Ms Villalba for missing her out.

That is exactly the point that I am about to come on to. There are different ways of doing what the Government wants to achieve.

I had better skip forward. There is so much that I could go into. NFU Scotland has expressed concern that the changes will simply put landowners off any tenant farming, thereby further damaging the tenant farming market. I could do a whole speech on that alone. For example, resumption changes, such as the extended notice period, enhanced compensation and a public interest test, will undoubtedly worry any prospective owner who would consider letting land. That is what happened following the passing of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003.

I could mention other things, one of which is that there is a huge risk of legal challenges in relation to compliance with the bill. Clarity is needed on compensation for value other than agricultural value. There is significant potential for legal crossed wires when land is part of a large landholding but is also a registered croft.

As the Scottish ministers own 10 per cent of rural Scotland—I think that my colleague Rachael Hamilton mentioned that—they will have to make decisions about themselves, which will highlight significant conflicts of interest.

There could be legal challenges to do with the expropriation of land and the adequacy of compensation; failures to adequately support the enforcement of new regulations; the requirements for community engagement; property rights; the criteria used for lotting decisions; and the criteria for determining public interest in lotting decisions. The issue of addressing off-market sales to ensure that communities have the opportunity to buy land could lead to legal disputes over the transparency and fairness of the process, and landowners and investors could argue that the bill’s provisions deter investment in rural land and negatively affect the economy.

I am speeding through my speech because there is so much to talk about. There is a lot that I have not touched on, including the need for the land and communities commissioner.

The Scottish Conservatives, sadly, cannot support the bill. I say “sadly”, but it is not really sad. We simply cannot support an unworkable bill, and because of the risks associated with the bill, we cannot support the financial memorandum, either.

I say to the cabinet secretary that I think that I could make the bill a great bill if I really had to. I would keep the land management plans, because I think that what the Government really wants to do is to put community engagement on estate plans on a statutory footing. That is what Fergus Ewing meant when he spoke about the need for us to work with the estates to deliver what we want to see in rural areas.

The Government should scrap everything else and allow the review of the community right to buy to be completed. It should then review its findings with stakeholders and work together with them to simplify and implement any conclusions from that review. At the same time, it should set up a proper agricultural holdings review to explore everything that has happened over the past 50 years and how we can take forward tenancies in the interests of owners, tenants and communities.

In the meantime, I am confident that there will be legal teams across the country that will be happy to help the Government to develop clauses to ensure that leases can be tailored where the main reason is to relate them to climate change goals. That approach would be much better than the one that is taken in the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill. Frankly, the bill is unworkable. The approach that I have suggested would create good law; the bill will not.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I call Rhoda Grant to open on behalf of Scottish Labour.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

The Scottish Labour Party supports the general principles of the bill, but, like others, including many of the stakeholders who are in the gallery today, we want the bill to go further.

Donald Dewar gave Labour’s enduring view on land reform in a 1998 lecture. He said that change was required “on grounds of fairness” to increase “local involvement and accountability” and deliver “greater diversity” in land ownership because there was

“too much control in too few hands”.

After 17 years of SNP Administration, the concentration of land ownership is getting worse—0.025 per cent of Scotland’s population still owns 67 per cent of Scotland’s rural land. As it is currently drafted, the bill will not change land ownership patterns, nor will it deal with the power that is vested in those who own land to hold communities to ransom.

The purpose of land reform is to empower communities, build economies and retain populations. Those things impact service provision, national and community wealth and the sustainability of the Gaelic language.

Stakeholders are very disappointed with and critical of the bill. They do not believe that it will make any change to communities owning land, nor will it change land ownership patterns.

Central to the bill is the setting of two thresholds in defining “large landholdings”: 3,000 hectares for the requirement to have a land management plan and 1,000 hectares to require prior notification of a sale that might trigger a community right to buy or a potential lotting decision. It is confusing and unnecessary to have different thresholds for different purposes, and it is widely felt that those thresholds, even if unified at around 1,000 hectares, are still too high. A reduction in all thresholds to 500 hectares would keep all crofts and 97 per cent of all farms out of the scope of the bill.

The bill does not include urban land reform. A new criterion to allow communities to register an interest in land of significance to them could be a measured way to trigger urban communities getting prior notification of sales and the right of pre-emption.

The bill will create a new land and communities commissioner within the Scottish Land Commission to oversee the land management plans and make recommendations on the potential lotting of land. The new commissioner will be part of the Scottish Land Commission, but they will be completely autonomous from the commission in their work. That looks ill considered, as the commissioner will lack any corporate responsibility and adequate accountability.

Proposals for a public interest test on land transfers have also been completely ditched. Public interest tests are well understood in law, so to change that and to use a transfer test will risk having the legislation held up in the courts. Labour wishes to see amendments to reinstate a public interest test.

Land management plans will be introduced for landholdings of over 3,000 hectares to enshrine community engagement in large landholdings. That is not cumulative and it is set at a level at which very few landholdings in Scotland will be affected. A fine of £5,000 for not producing a plan will not incentivise compliance. There should therefore be a system of escalation of sanctions for non-compliance.

The bill will allow community bodies to have the opportunity to be informed about certain sales of over 1,000 hectares and will give them 30 days to register an initial interest in buying the land. Communities will get a subsequent 40-day period to get consent to make a right-to-buy application. Those timescales are unworkable, given that it can take the Scottish Government two months to approve the constitution of community bodies that are able to make the application. The 1,000 hectare cut-off threshold again means that very few transactions will be caught in that provision.

The bill will introduce lotting for the first time for landholdings of over 1,000 hectares. Those landholdings may be required by Scottish ministers to be sold in smaller lots rather than as a whole, and the owners can seek compensation if that impacts on the value of the sale. That process appears to be complex with no community involvement at all.

Prior notification of any sale over 1,000 hectares is designed to put a restriction on the secretive off-market sales that have been increasing of late. However, that is a relatively high limit, which means that fewer than seven cases a year are likely to be impacted.

Part 2 of the bill seems less controversial, but there are still issues that need to be dealt with. Partial resumption and compensation need to be dovetailed with a whole-farm resumption, so that there are not any incentives to resume the whole farm, rather than the part that is required by the landowner for development. Where possible, such resumptions should be done in negotiation between the landowner and tenant, with the land commissioner having a role should the negotiations fail.

Many people welcome the new environmental lease, which will allow a move towards using land for environmental purposes. We all know that we need to reach net zero, and we hope that the environmental lease will allow tenant farmers more scope to do that in their holdings. Land management plans and whole-farm plans also need to be dovetailed for the small number of farmers who will need both.

As it stands, the bill is unlikely to bring about any change in community ownership or the desired diversification of land ownership. Urban Scotland is also excluded. The thresholds to define large landholdings are set so high that they exclude most land from the bill’s provisions. This weekend, we heard that Clan Donald Lands Trust is selling its assets and land in Skye. I am unaware of any approach being made to the community ahead of the sale. It is also unclear what difference the bill would have made to the sale and community involvement.

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

The member has chosen a topical example that goes to prove why the measures that we are introducing in the bill are important. They could have prevented the situation from coming about or, at least, the community could have been notified that the land would become available for sale. I hope that she welcomes that.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I sincerely hope that that would be the case, but the timeframes in the bill would make it nigh-on impossible for a community with no knowledge that the sale was coming up to act in time. Perhaps the cabinet secretary will reflect on that to ensure that communities have the time that they need.

We will work in good faith with the Government to strengthen the bill in the hope that the consequent act will make a step change in land ownership patterns in Scotland.

Ariane Burgess (Green, Highlands and Islands)

The bill is the latest step in Scotland’s land reform journey. As we heard from the cabinet secretary, Scotland is an outlier when compared to many of our European neighbours. Ownership of land is highly concentrated. Although the Parliament has made great strides in rectifying that since devolution by granting the right to roam and the community right to buy, we are still only at the start of the land reform journey.

The bill is part of other work that is on-going to address fairness in land ownership and how public money is deployed. It also links with steps to tackle the climate and nature emergencies that are set out in the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Act 2024 and the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill.

The Scottish Greens support the principles of the bill at stage 1 but, as the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee and many stakeholders outside the chamber noted, the proposed legislation before us is disappointingly lacking in ambition. There are still many barriers that need to be addressed for the Parliament to achieve its goal of diversifying who owns land in Scotland.

Although there remains much unfinished business in land reform, several improvements can be made to the bill at stages 2 and 3. I will run through several of those and my colleague Mark Ruskell will pick up on additional areas in his closing remarks.

The first improvement relates to thresholds. I note the broad consensus in the committee’s stage 1 report that the thresholds in the bill need to be revised. There is a strong case for the thresholds for lotting and the creation of land management plans to be harmonised; indeed, the Scottish Land Commission recommended that change. Further, the thresholds for both should be significantly reduced.

Committee witnesses suggested that a 500 hectare threshold would exclude around 96 per cent of all agricultural holdings, so crofters and family farms would be exempt. I understand concerns about the cost of creating plans, but are those costs not already part of the cost of business for many large landowners? Are we suggesting that landowners do not carefully plan how they use their land and think carefully about the future of their businesses?

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Ariane Burgess (Green, Highlands and Islands)

I do not have time to take an intervention. I apologise for that.

On lotting decisions, I firmly believe that a lower threshold is the only way that the bill would have a significant chance of diversifying land ownership in Scotland. However, as it stands, the lotting process is somewhat orphaned in the bill. What will ministers take into account when making lotting decisions? How will we know that the decisions are of benefit to the public as a whole?

That brings me to the matter of the public interest, which I know that the committee has discussed at length. I agree with those witnesses who have suggested that the transfer test in the bill must be replaced with a public interest test, and I urge the cabinet secretary to continue her consideration of that. That is what the Government consulted on, and it was supported by 72 per cent of respondents.

Lotting provisions must also include safeguards to prevent lots simply being brought back together at a later date. I also question the rationale for not including contiguous landholdings. It must be clear that lotting decisions are made on the basis of achieving the public interest test, and I am keen that we see a definition of the public interest test spelled out in the bill.

Land management plans, commonly known as LMPs, are an idea with much potential, particularly for progressing action to meet our climate ambitions and to restore Scotland’s nature. However, some key changes are required to strengthen those provisions. First, we need to see a requirement for LMPs to be implemented, otherwise the process will be reduced to a bureaucratic exercise. Cross-compliance can help in that regard, and Mark Ruskell will say more on that in closing.

It should also be made clear how plans have taken the views of the community into account. Community consultation should not simply be a tick-box exercise, but should be given serious consideration.

The five-year limit timescale for plans also needs to be reconsidered, particularly for plans involving changes in land use that would benefit the environment. From tree planting to habitat restoration, several years—in fact, decades—are often needed for those changes to take root. We need longer duration of LMPs and we need their objectives to be locked in for successive owners. We have seen that approach being taken in relation to forest dedication schemes, and we need the same here.

The bill should also be updated to make it clear that LMPs should not only take into consideration how biodiversity can be enhanced, but support efforts to restore natural processes at scale. The Scottish Rewilding Alliance submitted important evidence on that.

I, like others, am disappointed that the review of the legislation on the community right to buy has not been aligned with the bill. Community Land Scotland raised important concerns about the time that is given to communities to prepare applications.

The bill presents us with an opportunity to tackle the issue of increasing off-market sales of land, particularly for the purpose of engaging in the trading of carbon credits on the financial market.

Mercedes Villalba (Labour, North East Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The member is concluding.

Ariane Burgess (Green, Highlands and Islands)

That is an increasing barrier to community land ownership. One route to addressing that is to have a new public body to oversee Scotland’s carbon credit market. Ahead of stage 2, I would like to explore with the cabinet secretary how we can address some of the growing concerns about the bill, with a view to addressing the issue more substantially in the next parliamentary session.

Finally, I thank the many stakeholders who have shared their views over the past year and who have taken the time to meet me and my colleagues, and I thank the committee clerks and Scottish Parliament information centre colleagues who have kept members such as myself, who were not on the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, abreast of the discussions that have taken place.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I start by congratulating the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee on its report and its convener on an Olympic-standard declaration of interests. I thank those who gave evidence to the committee and who have provided briefings for the debate, including our former colleague Andy Wightman—it is right that his voice is being heard in the debate, although it will probably surprise him that it has come from the front bench of the Conservatives.

I also thank the cabinet secretary and her officials for their engagement with me on the bill. I put on record my disappointment at her decision not to stand at the next election. She is a good friend and a respected colleague, and she will be missed.

As others have observed, land reform is an issue with which successive Governments and Parliaments have grappled, dating back to the act that ended feudal tenure being passed in the year that the Parliament was first re-established. However, despite those interventions and the laudable intentions of MSPs across parties, the concentration of land ownership appears to have increased over the years. Research shows that 2,588 landowners own 70 per cent of privately owned rural land in Scotland today, which is down from 3,161 in 2012. The committee rightly acknowledges that patterns of land ownership in Scotland are unusually concentrated and that levels of regulation are low by international standards.

I accept that what matters is a question not solely of ownership but of how land is used. Even so, those figures suggest that land reform has to date fallen short and, as the committee suggests, lost momentum, and that has consequences. We know that a lack of available land can create problems for rural communities and can impact on, for example, the quality and availability of local services, affordable housing and economic development.

That said, it is important to acknowledge in the debate the fact that rural landowners and land managers are often at the forefront of efforts to tackle climate change and restore nature, while also producing food and providing jobs and economic growth. Indeed, big is not necessarily bad, with estates of scale often delivering wider public goods.

Mercedes Villalba (Labour, North East Scotland)

Will Liam McArthur take an intervention?

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I will not take an intervention, I am afraid.

Any legislation must strike an appropriate balance between rights and responsibilities. In that respect, when I read the committee’s report, I was struck by the fact that, although there were fundamentally opposing views on the objectives and intentions of part 1 of the bill, there appeared to be a broad consensus that its approach is potentially burdensome, bureaucratic and unlikely to deliver. I wholly agree with the committee’s view that

“If Part 1 becomes law, it should set out processes that are as simple as they can be”

and that

“are not an administrative headache”.

That is the best way, if not the only way, to deliver the positive change that people and communities expect and require.

The creation of land management plans by landowners on the basis of community engagement is certainly a sound principle and should result in greater and necessary transparency. On the disagreement among stakeholders and within the committee over thresholds, I will continue to listen to the debate. I certainly sympathise with the view that a threshold of 3,000 hectares is on the high side but would like to fully understand the implications of reducing it to 1,000 hectares, particularly in the context of the earlier point about avoiding unnecessary administrative headaches.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Liam McArthur makes an interesting point about reducing the size of the threshold for land management plans. The costs are interesting, too. Does he agree that, once you get to small-scale farms of 1,000 hectares or less, funding £10,000 for a management plan every five years is prohibitive?

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

That is certainly a concern that I would have. Whether a 1,000-hectare farm would be referred to as a small-scale farm would be open to debate, but, as I say, we need to fully understand how that will impact people and who it will impact. On balance, the committee is right to recommend that the Government keeps the issue under review, for those very reasons.

Like the committee, the Scottish Liberal Democrats support extending community right to buy as a means of further empowering and revitalising communities. However, including such provisions in the bill before the review into community right to buy has concluded is regrettable and, I would argue, risky. Indeed, it is part of a pattern of the Government introducing legislation either in haste or before it has done all the necessary preparatory work.

The proposal for lotting makes sense if we are to achieve greater diversification of ownership. Again, I support the committee’s call for the transfer test to be revised and to ensure that it is very much driven by public interest.

I turn briefly to the provisions in part 2 relating to the leasing of land. They appear to be a bit of a mixed bag, with some welcome elements alongside other aspects that give rise to concern. For example, however well intentioned, legislating in ways that retrospectively impact on existing contracts seems legally dubious and politically inadvisable—a point that Fergus Ewing made.

Definitions require further clarity, not least in relation to sustainable and regenerative agriculture. At a time when there is already a worrying decline in the number of agricultural tenancies, care must be taken to avoid creating uncertainty that would simply undermine what we should be seeking to achieve through the reforms.

Finally, I note with concern the Scottish Land Commission’s view that the bill will require fairly fundamental revision at stages 2 and 3. All bills are subject to amendment, but it places the Parliament in an invidious position if it is expected to radically overhaul legislation during the scrutiny process. With good reason, the Parliament expects Government to undertake robust pre-legislative consultation and preparation. For whatever reason, that does not appear to have been the case in this instance.

Notwithstanding that, the Scottish Liberal Democrats will support the general principles of the bill this evening, in the interests of kick-starting a process of reform that has stalled, and with the aim of re-energising our rural communities.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

Like the convener, I am grateful to those who took the time and opportunity to give evidence to the committee. Some of that evidence was very considered, covering both parts 1 and 2 of the bill. Organisations such as the Scottish Tenant Farmers Association, NFU Scotland and Community Land Scotland, and a range of individuals, provided us with a wide body of evidence in written form and presented evidence to the committee.

I also put on record my thanks to Patrick Colquhoun of the Luss estate, who kindly invited me to visit the estate to discuss the proposed changes in the bill. That engagement was valuable to me in considering some of the issues relating to that particular estate.

As a number of members have highlighted, the issue of land reform has been a thread of policy running through the Parliament over the past 26 years. As the cabinet secretary rightly said, we have been on something of a journey in this Parliament over more than a quarter of a century, and at times some of the debate around land reform in Scotland has been very politically divisive, with stark divides in the positions that individuals and parties have taken.

I recall the first debate that we had on the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, which became the 2003 act. During consideration of the bill in Parliament, the debate became very politically polarised. I recall—correctly, I think—that the late Phil Gallie, in a contribution in Parliament, described the bill as a Robert Mugabe land-grab policy.

I do not think that any of the members who are currently sitting on the Conservative benches served with Phil Gallie. As those of us who have been in Parliament for a few years will know, he was often adept at using colourful language in describing various issues of concern. However, I say, with all due respect to Phil, that I think that history will show that he was wrong in the light of what the 2003 act has contributed—

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

Will Michael Matheson give way?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

I give way to Mr Ewing, who I suspect was involved in that debate back in 2002.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

Michael Matheson’s suspicion is correct, and I feel that I should stand by the memory of my friend, the late and much-missed Phil Gallie. To be fair to Mr Gallie, is it not the case that a provision in the 2003 act—namely, that there be retrospective changes to limited partnerships—was deemed by the courts to be confiscation of property, and therefore in breach of article 1 of the first protocol to the ECHR?

All the officials who are sitting at the back of the chamber today should be looking at their law books to see whether history will not repeat itself here.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

I am not disputing the position that the courts have taken on a particular provision in the 2003 act, but I think that history will show that, in general, Mr Gallie was incorrect. Despite the political sabre rattling that often goes on when it comes to land reform legislation, I think—no, I know—that there is a broad consensus on the need for continued reform.

It is worth reflecting on the progress that has been made to date. A primary land reform objective is to seek to reduce the concentration of land ownership, and to see greater diversification of ownership of land, in Scotland. Despite the repeated pieces of legislation that have been passed over the past 25-plus years, however, very limited progress has been made.

There have been some successful community buyout projects, but—as Liam McArthur pointed out in his contribution—land ownership continues to be very much concentrated in a few hands, as the work by Andy Wightman clearly demonstrates.

The committee’s recommendations are focused on strengthening the bill. If the Government is minded to take forward some of those recommendations, it will significantly improve the bill and what it seeks to achieve.

I will touch on three particular areas that I hope the minister would be open to considering for stage 2 amendments. The first relates to the public interest test provision. I understand that the Government’s position is that a combination of the lotting provisions and the transfer test provisions ultimately delivers a public interest test in the bill. However, the original consultation was clear on the need for a public interest test, and I hope that we can consider putting a public interest test policy objective on a statutory footing in the bill.

The second area relates to sites of community significance. The bill could go further on that and make provision for clear procedure and criteria for how applications for sites of community significance could be provided.

The third area would be to improve the prior notification process. Although that is moving in the right direction, the bill could go further on that. Rhoda Grant was correct to highlight the announcement this week of the Clan Donald Lands Trust sale of the Sleat peninsula. My understanding is that the community has very little engagement with the landowner and has had no notification that half of the peninsula was about to be sold. The landowners have not engaged with the local community in any meaningful way in developing their local plan. That is a very good example of exactly what should not be happening and why the bill is needed. I hope that the strengthening provisions that have been suggested by the committee, if the Parliament agrees to them, will help to address that type of issue in the future.

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

I will start my contribution in the same vein as Michael Matheson. I remember our late Presiding Officer, Sir Alex Ferguson, warning me when I first took up my post as an MSP to avoid land reform and deer management. Sadly, I am standing here talking about land reform, and in the coming weeks, I will be dealing with deer management in our discussions on the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill.

It has become evident that the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill poses a significant threat and will add to the damage that has already been inflicted on rural Scotland by the SNP Government. First, let us consider its economic implications. Scottish Land & Estates has voiced its apprehensions, highlighting that the bill would impose

“disproportionate and unfair legislative proposals”

on rural businesses. SLE’s chief executive, Sarah-Jane Laing, has warned of an era of “wanton damage” to our rural economy if the bill is passed without substantial amendments. We cannot afford to ignore those warnings.

NFU Scotland has raised concerns about the bill’s potential impact on Scottish agriculture. Although we understand the Government’s desire to share the benefits of land ownership, the proposals for land market regulation could severely compromise farming. Economies of scale have necessitated larger farms so that they can survive, and the bill threatens to undermine that foundation.

The bill’s focus on large-scale holdings, particularly the requirement for land management plans, is another area of contention. The Agricultural Law Association has pointed out the burdensome nature of those plans on large landowners. The cost and administrative burden of preparing and publishing those plans must be justified by clear benefits, but that justification is currently lacking.

Additionally, although SLE supports improving transparency of land ownership and use, it believes that changes must be made to reduce costs and increase the associated timescales. NFU Scotland also emphasises maintaining the 3,000 hectare threshold to avoid burdening smaller landholdings with unnecessary costs and bureaucracy.

Furthermore, the British Association for Shooting and Conservation has raised significant concerns about changes to agricultural holdings. The bill’s efforts to widen the scope of compensation and liabilities for landowners when game damage a tenant’s crops raise issues of fairness, legal complexity and practical enforcement. Such changes could have far-reaching consequences that we must carefully consider, and NFU Scotland supports ensuring that tenants are left no better and no worse off as well as the avoidance of retrospective changes to agricultural tenancies in order to maintain confidence in land letting.

The background to the bill stems from the Scottish Government’s definition of land reform as the on-going process of modifying, reforming and modernising land ownership and distribution. Although to some the intentions might be noble, the execution leaves much to be desired. The Scottish Land Commission’s investigation into large-scale and concentrated land ownership in Scotland concluded that concentrated land ownership is causing damage to communities. However, the commission’s own evidence suggested that the issue lies in concentrated ownership in specific areas rather than in the scale of ownership itself.

Tenant farming, which is a key component of Scottish agriculture, is also at risk. The bill introduces changes to the right-to-buy process for agricultural holdings and to the provisions on resumption and compensation for game damage. Although those changes are aimed at improving the system, they could lead to disputes and further complications in the Scottish Land Court.

SLE has highlighted that the bill would place an unwarranted bureaucratic burden on landowners, who are at the forefront of tackling climate change, restoring nature, producing food, providing jobs and growing the local economy. That burden would inhibit their ability to continue delivering those essential services. Research is clear that scale is a key enabling factor in the delivery of multiple benefits that are considered to be of national importance. The bill’s use of scale as the metric for fragmenting partnerships of land ownership is not the same as tackling concentration and risks making it harder to deliver those benefits.

It might well be possible to meet the Scottish Government’s original objectives of greater transparency and community engagement without inflicting the damage to rural businesses at taxpayers’ expense that the bill threatens. Extensive provision for community ownership already exists, and the need for prior notification of all sales over the threshold will lead only to further costs and delay, both for businesses and the public purse. As drafted, the bill would hold up sales to sitting tenants or local businesses.

The lotting provisions are both alarming and unworkable. They could lead to taxpayers being lumbered with substantial compensation payments and, at the same time, could wreak havoc in the land market and kill Scotland’s natural capital investment market. There is no demand for those provisions, and they must be scrapped.

There are serious concerns that part 2 of the bill risks discouraging landowners from letting land, which is contrary to its aims. Decades of excessive legislation have created that challenge, and adding to the imbalance in regulation will not solve it. Tenant farming policy must focus on encouraging landowners to make land available to new and existing tenants instead of deterring landowners from doing so, and legislating to retrospectively amend tenancy agreements to change resumption clauses will not move the sector in the right direction.

Although a majority of committee members supported the general principles of the bill, it is clear that part 1 risks not delivering its intended outcomes. The approach is seen as potentially burdensome and bureaucratic, and the land size threshold that operates across the bill should be reconsidered. The committee’s concerns about the lotting and resumption provisions highlight the need for a thorough review and significant amendments. We must strike the balance between reforming land management and supporting rural Scotland, and the bill in its current form fails to do so.

I urge members to oppose the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill at stage 1 and to work towards a more equitable and sustainable solution for our rural communities.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn)

As a member of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, I thank all our witnesses who, for a prolonged period, gave their time to provide valuable evidence on the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill. That evidence has supported the committee in completing our stage 1 report on the bill, the principles of which were agreed by the majority of MSPs on the committee, myself included.

Before I go into detail on some of the bill’s provisions, I wish to make a general point. It is clear from our report that there is a desire for Parliament to shape the legislation and take it further than where it currently stands, and it is likely that there will be a considerable number of amendments. That shows that our committee system in this place is working well. The Scottish Government’s response to our report shows that the Government has found that scrutiny to be beneficial, and it is up for many of those amendments. I look forward to working in partnership on such matters.

I want to look at the threshold for the duty on large landowners to produce a land management plan, which I think is important. Our committee asked the Scottish Government to reflect on the threshold of 3,000 hectares, given that there have been many calls for it to be lowered. I will simply reiterate what I said at committee: Glasgow’s botanic gardens and grounds, which sit in my constituency—in part, anyway—would fit 150 times into 3,000 hectares. It would seem remarkable that, if the gardens fitted only 149 times into an area of land, that land would not be required to have a land management plan. The gardens would fit 50 times into a threshold of 1,000 hectares, and I think that most fair-minded people would say that an area of land that is 50 times the scale of Glasgow’s botanic gardens should have a plan. It seems like a no-brainer to me. For me, that part of the bill certainly needs to be looked at again.

The Scottish Government has said that such a reduction would double the number of large holdings required to develop such a plan to 700, which, to me, is not burdensome but positive. The Scottish Government noted that lowering the threshold could add cost, as it would increase the number of landowners who had community engagement responsibilities. I say this to the Government: the committee heard on several occasions that good landlords will already have most of the elements of a land management plan in place, because that is what good landowners do.

We were told a similar thing with regard to community consultations. Good landowners, as a matter of course, consult with communities living on or beside their land on an on-going basis. We were told that time and again. If they are good landowners, as most will be, I cannot for the life of me see why large landowners would be concerned.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?