Scottish Parliament, 28 October 2025

729 contributions from 66 members. The official report.

Time for Reflection

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Good afternoon. The first item of business is time for reflection. Our time for reflection leader today is the Rev Bryan Kerr, parish minister at Greyfriars parish church, Lanark.

The Rev Bryan Kerr (Greyfriars Parish Church, Lanark)

Presiding Officer, First Minister and members, thank you for the invitation to lead you in this time for reflection.

We all long for a better nation with better jobs, homes and care—and even better hope. Some will seek it publicly, others might pray, and still others will work in quiet and unseen ways to make life better for family, friends, neighbours, community and even strangers.

I am in the process of moving from Greyfriars church in Lanark, where I have ministered for almost two decades, to be minister in Kilmacolm. It is daunting when we move to a new community with different people from different backgrounds, yet, as I move, I see the same desire to make the community better. No matter the different circumstances of the community, the core drive of the church—to be love and to make better—remains.

We have a belief that we can do more and be more than we are. In the Bible, the prophet Micah asks:

“What does the Lord require of you but to do justice, to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?”

Those words belong not to any political movement but to the shared moral imagination that shapes our common life, because, whatever differences we hold, most of us want the same things—that no one should have to choose between heating and eating, that children should grow in safety and promise, that work should bring dignity, and that older generations should be honoured and not forgotten.

We long for streets where belonging matters more than background, for communities where no one stands alone, and for a country where our measure of success is not wealth or winning, but kindness and courage. Demanding better unites and does not divide us. Our compassion is our strength, and our mercy is not naive. Our nation ought to be measured not in how loudly we speak, but in how gently we care. Jesus said:

“Whatever you do for the least of these, you do for me.”

Amid the pressure and noise of public life, we can forget that decisions affect lives everywhere. Choices that are made ripple far beyond this place into homes, schools, hospitals, prisons and care homes across our land. Faith still has something to say, not as a voice of certainty, but as a quiet conviction that love, when lived out, can still heal what is broken, mend what is divided and rekindle hope where it has grown dim.

May God grant each of us, in our places of influence, the wisdom to listen well, the courage to act justly and the grace to build together a Scotland that is, in every sense, better.

Topical Question Time

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the prison population reaching a record high of 8,430 prisoners. (S6T-02716)

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

Recognising that there is no single or quick solution, the Government has taken decisive action to address the rising prison population. We have expanded home detention curfew and invested an additional £25 million over two years to strengthen alternatives to custody. We have also optimised prison capacity with 400 additional spaces compared with 2024, and will further increase capacity with new facilities in Inverness and Glasgow. As the member knows, I have also laid regulations for emergency early release.

However, I am clear that we need to look at further sustainable solutions, while continuing our track record of reducing crime and prioritising victims. That is why I established the sentencing and penal policy commission to guide further action. It will be for all parties to consider its recommendations.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The cabinet secretary’s power to effect the early release of what will be more than 1,000 prisoners between now and April comes from the Bail and Release from Custody (Scotland) Act 2023. During its passage, the cabinet secretary told the Parliament that that power would be used only in

“an emergency situation that ... could not be predicted.”

She also stated that it was not to deal with

“changes in circumstances within custody”—[Official Report, 21 June 2023; c 159]

such as overcrowding. Does she therefore concede that the Parliament passed that legislation on the basis of false assurances, that overcrowding was entirely predictable, and that early release is now the Scottish National Party’s default response to its failure to develop a proper strategy to sort prison overcrowding?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

No, I do not accept Liam Kerr’s claims. The 2023 act was passed to give ministers powers over early emergency release. The legislation is clear that such action needs to be proportionate and necessary to protect the health and wellbeing of those who live or work in our prisons. We are now at the stage where the increase in our prison population—not all of which has been predictable when it comes to the rapid rate of rise that we have had at certain intervals over the past two years, which the Scottish Prison Service chief executive spoke to earlier this week—leaves us no alternative, in the here and now, to emergency release.

I stress that emergency measures do not equate to the wholesale population management plan. That plan is to continue to invest in community justice services now and in the future. We have brought Upside on stream to support remand prisoners. We are utilising the estate better. I have doubled the use of home detention curfew. However, as I have always stated, our journey with any intervention that I have made over the past years is far from over, and I anticipate that the findings of the sentencing and penal policy commission will help us all with the next questions with which we have to wrestle and engage.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Despite those attempts at justification, His Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons has said that early release does not

“address any of the root causes”

of the problems. Many have flagged that that approach simply puts the public at greater risk.

The cabinet secretary indicated yesterday that she would not rule out the early release of long-term prisoners. Given the greater danger that that poses to the public and to victims, will she set out what enhanced victim notification she believes will be required in such a circumstance, what analysis is being done of the greater public risk of such a move and whether, on balance, she agrees that long-term prisoners must never be eligible for early release?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

It is always clear to me that Liam Kerr is very articulate about what he is against but never articulates what he is for, to address the fact that Scotland, like England and Wales, is a complete outlier when it comes to our high prison population. We have a high prison population, which does not serve this country well. If we are prepared to follow the evidence, we know that community justice disposals, in many instances, work better than short-term prison sentences.

I know that Mr Kerr understands that the long-term prison population is increasing, and I know that he understands the reasons for that. That means that, collectively, we have to make different decisions in and around, for example, the release of short-term prisoners or, indeed, bolstering robust community justice alternatives. [ Interruption .]

I have heard Mr Kerr shout from the sidelines, “Build more prisons”. That is fine. We are building more prisons. We can, collectively, make the choice to build even more prisons, but that will come at a cost. [ Interruption .] If you want to continue to build prisons that cost millions and, in some instances, billions of pounds, that will come at the expense of health, education, community justice and everything that is required to prevent crime in the first place.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us not shout at one another from our seats, and let us always speak through the chair.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

In relation to the sentencing and penal policy commission that the cabinet secretary mentioned, does she agree that it is incumbent on all parties and the Parliament as a whole to give proper consideration to its report, when it is available? Does she also agree that we should have a grown-up, measured and informed discussion on any recommendations that the commission produces, so that we can properly consider how we can have a safe prison environment that focuses on rehabilitation and reducing reoffending while also ensuring that justice is served?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

Notwithstanding the heckling that I experienced earlier or, indeed, the fact that I raised my voice earlier, it behoves us all to raise our game and raise the debate. It is imperative that we consider, debate and engage with, for example, the findings that come from the commission.

I am heartened that, outside the chamber, the discussions that I have had with Opposition spokespersons have always been on reasoned terms. We have had a constructive dialogue today—outwith the chamber—regarding the safety and rehabilitative purpose of prison, as well as what is required to reduce reoffending and protect victims.

It is imperative that we all focus on solutions. That is what I am focused on, and it will, of course, be better for our justice system as a whole if we can all reach a consensus on what would be better.

We all have the responsibility to address the fact that Scotland, along with countries elsewhere in these islands, is—as I said—a complete outlier in comparison with other European countries in relation to our prison population.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)

His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons for Scotland has been warning for years that releasing prisoners from their sentence early is not addressing the root causes of overcrowding.

We know that one of the underlying issues is the increase in the number of long-term sentences; the number of prisoners serving a sentence of four years or more has increased by 600 over the past two years. What is the Government’s analysis of that trend? Is it that the courts are increasing sentencing for the same crimes, or is it an increase in more serious crime? The Government must give an answer to that question. If the cabinet secretary cannot do so, I do not see how the Government can claim that it is serious about planning its way out of this crisis.

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

I will give one example in response to Ms McNeill’s question in relation to recorded crime versus convictions.

We know that, over the lifetime of this Government, the number of recorded crimes of violence has reduced, but we also all know that convictions for violence have increased. The level of recorded crime can go down, but convictions for violence can be increasing. That is due to the different investigative roles that the police undertake, and the success of our prosecutors and our courts. We are seeing more convictions for violence, sexual offences and historical sexual offences, but we also know that the average length of sentence across all cohorts of prisoners is going up. In fact, the average sentence has increased by nearly a third, and so we are also getting more long-term prisoners who are spending longer in the system.

That is why I spoke earlier about one example—it is not the complete solution—which is to consider different options in relation to short-term prisoners. I support the calls by the Prison Governors Association, the Scottish Prison Service and the inspectorate that immediate action is required. That means emergency early release, with those very stringent safeguards for public protection.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

To ask the Scottish Government what action it will take to help secure the future of Petrofac and its workforce, following the announcement that the company has entered into administration. (S6T-02720)

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

The news yesterday will be deeply concerning for employees of Petrofac and their families. We are engaging closely with the company, trade unions and the United Kingdom Government to monitor the situation, and we stand ready to support anyone who is affected. It is important to note in this first answer that we hope that there will not be an impact on jobs in the north-east.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

I thank the Deputy First Minister for that answer. The Petrofac announcement has caused a lot of worry, stress and concern in Aberdeen and the north-east. I understand and am grateful that cabinet secretary Gillian Martin has already been in touch with Petrofac bosses in Aberdeen. I ask the Deputy First Minister for assurance that the Scottish Government will do all that it can to support Petrofac’s successful Scottish operation and help to retain that workforce in Aberdeen.

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

Kevin Stewart is right—yesterday, the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy spoke with the chief executive of Petrofac Facilities Management Ltd. The cabinet secretary and I have also spoken separately to the UK Minister for Energy, and I intend to speak with the trade unions at the earliest opportunity.

What we understand from the company is that Petrofac has a number of fundamentally strong businesses and is focused on delivering the best possible outcome for them through this process. Its long-established UK and North Sea business continues to operate as normal, and management is working to minimise disruption for clients and employees.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

Again, I thank the Deputy First Minister for that answer. Petrofac has been a top-notch company, and long may that continue. Its workforce has been of immense importance in all that it has done.

On the broader issue, the UK Government’s energy profit levy has destabilised the oil and gas industry, stymied investment and led to job losses. Folk in my Aberdeen Central constituency and beyond are truly worried about their futures. What action is the Scottish Government taking to get the UK Labour Government to see sense and to revisit, revise and reform its policies, which are a threat to livelihoods, investment and communities?

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

One reason why there has been so much focus on the north-east in relation to the news about the future of Petrofac is the wider issues that affect the sector at large. It is clear that uncertainty around UK Government policies is affecting Scotland’s energy sector. We are investing considerable funds of money to support a just transition, but we again call on the UK Government to listen carefully to concerns that have been expressed by businesses more generally about the impact of its reserved energy profits levy.

The EPL was always supposed to be a temporary measure, as introduced by the Conservative Government, but it is now affecting investment and jobs in the north-east more generally, and the UK Government should be considering when the earliest possible end date could be.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

My thoughts are with the workers and their families at Petrofac at this traumatic time. However, I must say that the Deputy First Minister has a brass neck coming here and blaming everyone else for what is happening to the oil and gas sector, when her Government has shown outright hostility to the sector.

Yes, Labour has blocked new licences and ramped up the energy profits levy, but it is the Scottish National Party that has a presumption against new oil and gas developments and which has failed to back Cambo, Rosebank and Jackdaw. It was the SNP that demonised the oil and gas industry when it got into bed with the extremist Greens.

I hope that the jobs at Petrofac are safe, but the truth is that thousands of jobs in the sector have already been lost while the SNP has been asleep at the wheel. When will the SNP Government release its energy strategy, remove its presumption against new oil and gas and finally support our home-grown oil and gas sector?

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

That was a lot of noise to cover up the fact that it was Douglas Lumsden’s party that introduced the energy profits levy in the first place. I think that Conservative members in the chamber all think that we have short memories, but we really do not.

Michael Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

Yesterday afternoon, the First Minister tweeted:

“This is incredibly concerning news for employees of Petrofac, their families, and the wider community. The UK Government must urgently revisit the Energy Profits Levy.”

Had he read the BBC News story that he hastily retweeted, he would have found out that it was actually the holding company of Petrofac that had gone into administration as a result of the cancellation of an offshore wind contract in the Netherlands. I can tell the First Minister that the EPL does not apply in the Netherlands. Petrofac has said clearly—as I am sure it has said to the Deputy First Minister—that its North Sea business will continue “to operate as normal”.

Does the Deputy First Minister agree that confidence in the company is critical? What advice would she give to the First Minister on the judicious and sensible use of his social media accounts?

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

I do not think that the First Minister is in need of any advice from me.

I hope that Douglas Lumsden was listening to Michael Marra’s question, because it set out some facts in relation to the holding company. We have engaged with Petrofac as a company and with Michael Shanks—both Gillian Martin and I have had two separate meetings with him—and we are very hopeful that there will not be an impact on jobs in the north-east.

However, I want to speak to the wider sectoral issues. Michael Marra’s party has accepted that the EPL needs to be replaced; the difference between his party and mine is that we do not think that we should wait five years to do that if we can see the harm that the levy is causing to jobs right now. We want to protect jobs in the north-east as they stand, right now, and we call on the Chancellor of the Exchequer—I hope that Michael Marra will join me in doing so—to use the opportunity in her budget next month to replace something that she accepts needs to be replaced.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

I call Liam McArthur for a brief supplementary.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I apologise for arriving late for topical question time.

The concerns in the Petrofac workforce are not confined to the north-east; those in the northern isles with connections to the company share those concerns. Amid the flurry of accusations about who is to blame, I detected from the Deputy First Minister’s first response that she agrees with United Kingdom ministers that the matter is a growing concern. Is it not in the interests of all those who are connected with Petrofac that that message is reinforced clearly in the chamber?

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

For me, the priority is the employees, who will be concerned, and their families and the wider community. To those employees, I say that we are engaging extensively with the company and with the UK Government and trade unions, we are monitoring the situation very closely and we are very hopeful that there will not be an impact on jobs in the north-east.

I think that the focus on this matter indicates a wider sense of unease about job losses in the north-east, all of which have happened under companies that have cited the energy profits levy as the primary reason for the decisions that they are making. That is why we have called on the UK Government to consider replacing the EPL as a matter of urgency, while at the same time engaging very closely with companies such as Petrofac to avoid any impact on north-east jobs.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

That concludes topical question time.

Business Motion

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The next item of business is consideration of business motion S5M-19440, in the name of Graeme Dey, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, on changes to business. Any member who wishes to speak to the motion should press their request-to-speak button now.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees to the following revisions to the programme of business for—

(a) Tuesday 28 October 2025—

after

followed by Topical Questions (if selected)

insert

followed by First Minister’s Statement: Scotland’s Commitment to International Development

(b) Thursday 30 October 2025—

delete

2.30 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions

2.30 pm Portfolio Questions: Climate Action and Energy, and Transport

and insert

2.00 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions

2.00 pm Portfolio Questions: Climate Action and Energy, and Transport

after

followed by Financial Resolution: Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill

insert

followed by Motion on Legislative Consent: Planning and Infrastructure Bill – UK Legislation

followed by Financial Resolution: Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill—[Graeme Dey]

Motion agreed to.

International Development

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The next item of business is a statement from John Swinney on Scotland’s commitment to international development. The First Minister will take questions at the end of his statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Last week, I returned from a visit to Zambia and Malawi to see some of the projects and partnerships that are supported by the Scottish Government’s international development programme. This was the first ever visit by a First Minister of Scotland to Zambia, and the first by a First Minister to Malawi since 2005.

Of course, Scotland has a close relationship with both countries that has been built over the past 150 years. Therefore, it was important to me to witness those relationships at first hand and to further strengthen them in person, by hearing directly from the people in those countries about the challenges that they face, their aspirations and their goals for our on-going partnership.

The partnerships were initially built through the outreach of institutions such as Scotland’s churches, but, today, they are threaded through every facet of our communities, institutions and Governments. Although they have evolved over time, the strength and depth of those ties have never wavered. I saw that for myself during my visit. I experienced the warmest of welcomes in Zambia and Malawi, and the reassurance that these remain close, innovative and forward-looking relationships, with great potential for future growth.

My visit coincided with the 20th anniversary of the signing of the original co-operation agreement between the Governments of Scotland and Malawi. From that important moment in 2005, we have grown Scotland’s international development footprint and its contribution to global solidarity to the shape and level that we all see today.

Our international development and humanitarian crisis funding reached nearly £13 million this financial year, and we stand by our commitment to increase it to £16 million per annum by the end of this parliamentary session. In addition to Malawi, our international development work now includes partnerships with Zambia, Rwanda and Pakistan. Our support to international communities comes not only through our international development fund, but through our climate justice fund and funding to respond to global humanitarian crises, with a total commitment of roughly £25 million.

Like every other member in the chamber, I know full well that we are in the midst of the most challenging fiscal situation since devolution, and that times are tough for households and businesses across Scotland. My focus on resolving those pressures, within the powers of this Government, is unwavering. However, it is possible—indeed, necessary and right—for Scotland to play her part in the global issues and global challenge that we face. Failure to do so would simply worsen the conditions and inequalities that fuel conflict, deprivation and injustice throughout the world.

Scotland is showing leadership and is offering sustained funding. We Scots are—and will continue to be—good global citizens, and I am proud to serve a country that values its commitments to the world’s most vulnerable.

Many people in the global south live in extreme poverty, and the challenge to their survival is made ever greater by the devastating—and increasing—impacts of climate change, which they, largely, have not caused.

I saw that during my visit. Malawi, the seventh poorest country in the world, is experiencing simultaneous economic and climate crises. In my time there, I met people who are contending with high inflation, the servicing of devastating levels of debt and crippling food insecurity. At the same time, they are enduring the climatic shocks of alternating drought and flooding from tropical storms and cyclones.

However, I also saw the difference that our interventions are making. In both Zambia and Malawi, I saw that our projects, commitment and investment are improving lives. They are working in health, inclusive education, equalities, renewable energy and climate justice. They are rooted in those close relationships between countries and institutions, where they are finding shared solutions and supporting shared goals.

The new Scottish Government-funded Blantyre-Blantyre research laboratories in Malawi and Zambia are a powerful testament to that. Three universities—in Glasgow, Blantyre and Lusaka—are working together to conduct research into non-communicable diseases. Through that shared commitment to collaborative research, they are improving healthcare for all.

At Kamuzu University of Health Sciences in Blantyre, I met Malawi’s first ever cohort of home-grown dentists, whose T-shirts proudly proclaimed them “Locally relevant, globally competent.”

In Zambia, I saw the paediatric operating room installed by Dundee-based Kids Operating Room—I had previously visited its sister operating theatre in Dundee. That health partnership will significantly improve access to safe surgery for thousands of children in Zambia.

I am equally proud of our efforts in Malawi and Zambia to secure equitable access to education for disabled learners and girls. In Malawi, I was able to meet teachers from Balaka secondary school, where we are funding scholarships for girls, as well as critical wraparound services, such as mentorship and career guidance. In Zambia, I met partners and grantees from our women and girls fund, which is a key programme for advancing gender equality and the rights of women and girls. At that meeting, I was able to hear directly from them about the challenges that they face and their determination to tackle gender inequality and gender-based violence in their society.

Our women and girls fund is designed to work at a grass-roots level. That means that we work in partnership alongside groups and communities, and that we learn from them as they advocate on the issues that so directly affect them.

It is the same with our climate just communities programme. On my visit, I met people in Chimbalanga village in Zomba, Malawi, who are taking control of their lives and livelihoods with support from our climate justice fund. That has only strengthened my resolve to ensure that the value of and the vital need for community-led climate finance programmes such as ours are heard loud and clear at the 30th United Nations climate change conference of the parties—COP30—in Brazil and in climate negotiations far beyond that. I am determined that Scotland will continue to support climate justice action in the global south.

Borrowing can be a vital tool for economic growth and development, but when borrowing grows too much or too quickly, it becomes problematic. That is happening across developing countries, where total public debt reached a record $29 trillion in 2023. In 2020, Zambia became the first African country to default on its debt, and the International Monetary Fund recently reported that, in 2024, Malawi’s overall public debt to gross domestic product ratio was around 79 per cent. Across the global south, unsustainable debt repayments are consuming resources that should be used to build schools, hospitals and climate-resilient infrastructure, and to create progress and opportunity.

Climate change is exacerbating the problem. The global south should not be forced to choose between repaying its creditors and helping its communities to recover from storms and droughts. Scotland has consistently advocated for other countries to follow our example of giving funding for loss and damage as grants—not loans—so that countries can recover from extreme climate events without taking on additional debt.

However, there is also a need to look at the structural issues that entrench cycles of debt and dependence. Prior to my visit, I met with the Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund, Christian Aid Scotland and Humza Yousaf MSP to discuss the jubilee debt campaign. That campaign calls for a fairer approach to resolving global debt crises and proposes solutions at a national and international level.

In the face of global debt injustice, I am convinced that Scotland must continue to lead with compassion and conviction. We can and we will continue to use our voice to speak out against injustice. Therefore, I announce to the Parliament our support for the cancel debt, choose hope campaign. I raise my voice, my Government’s voice and Scotland’s voice in support of finding a fair, long-term solution to the global debt crisis.

I have spoken today about our development assistance programmes, through which we provide financial assistance to Malawi and Zambia. Those must be sustained, but we must also find ways to nurture greater economic activity and growth in the global south to foster greater economic freedom.

During my visit, I heard about the determination of Malawi and Zambia to move from aid relationships with the global north to relationships that are based on increased trade and investment. In Blantyre, I met with partners in our Malawi investment initiative, including the NBM Development Bank and the St Andrew macadamia farm. At that meeting—and in a subsequent meeting with Malawi’s President, Peter Mutharika—I offered to use my Government’s convening power to host discussions on boosting investment in developing countries. That is a crucial ingredient for encouraging greater economic activity and growth in the global south.

Some 20 years on from the start of our international development programme, my Government reaffirms its commitment to this work. We remember the relationships that were forged 150 years ago and we are proud of all the good that has come from them. We will continue to grow and deepen those relationships and to evolve them to meet the emerging challenges of our time.

There is, of course, still work to do, but we are committed to doing it. We will continue to work together in partnership to make a positive difference abroad and here at home. We will continue to be good global citizens. Scotland, as she always has, will continue to play her part.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The First Minister will now take questions on the issues raised in his statement. I intend to allow around 20 minutes for questions, after which we will move on to the next item of business. I would be grateful if members who wish to put a question were to press their request-to-speak button.

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

John Swinney wants us to believe that his motives are sincere, but I question why he thinks that foreign affairs should be his focus. There are so many challenges here in Scotland. Those should be his focus.

One in six Scots is on national health service waiting lists. On his final day of his trip to Africa, the Scottish Government revealed that half of all Scottish adults are now living with at least one long-term health condition. Scotland is suffering a dental crisis, but John Swinney uses taxpayers’ money to train dentists overseas. He uses taxpayers’ money to help other countries address climate change while missing almost every domestic climate change target. Furthermore, Scotland’s economy is stagnant, with too few opportunities for young people, and our school system has lost its international reputation for excellence.

Why is the First Minister not focused on those issues here in Scotland? Foreign affairs are not his remit; they are reserved. He keeps saying that we must be “good global citizens” and that Scotland should play its part, but we do. As part of the United Kingdom, we have a long and proud record of helping those in need. Is it not about time that the First Minister focused on the many serious issues here in Scotland?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Let me assure Russell Findlay that I am very focused on the issues and challenges that face the people of Scotland. As a result of that, and as he will have seen from the news this morning, there is data demonstrating that waiting lists are falling and that the number of procedures that are being undertaken in our health service is increasing. Our young people have just delivered a very strong level of performance in the examination system—performance that is back to pre-Covid levels—and we are taking steps to ensure that our public services meet the needs and expectations of people in Scotland. We have also been focused on economic growth in Scotland, as I was last night, when I discussed a variety of ideas with the Scottish technology council to that end.

I will absolutely be held to account for my focus on domestic issues. I will be answering questions again here on Thursday on the basis of my responsibilities, but I am also very happy to be here today to explain to Parliament the Government’s commitment to making sure that Scotland fulfils our obligation as a good global citizen. That is because the issues that will affect Scotland will be affected by what is happening in the global south. It is unavoidable. The climate crisis in the global south will have an effect on us here in Scotland, and the issues that we are wrestling with in health programmes in the global south will have a resonance here in Scotland.

One thing that I am very proud of is to lead a country that is outward looking and focused on working with others, and that is what my Government will do.

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

I welcome the First Minister’s statement, his report back from his trip and his commitment to international development. It is important to recognise that that follows in the footsteps of Jack McConnell and, of course, Gordon Brown, who set up the Department for International Development and led efforts to cancel debt long before the First Minister stepped foot in Africa last week.

It is clear that, when organisations work together, we achieve much more than when they work alone. Whatever amount we spend on international development, even with a record funding settlement from the UK Government, it is crucial for public support that we maximise impact for Scottish taxpayers as well as for those in developing countries. On maximising impact, how will the Scottish Government work with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office? How will Scotland-based aid charities be prioritised with regard to funding support? Will the Government’s support match funding models proposed by organisations such as SCIAF? What will the Scottish Government do to ensure that no international companies make any private profit from any Scottish taxpayers’ money?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

First, I make it clear, as I have made clear in all of my public communication about these issues, that I warmly welcome the foundations of the Scottish Government’s international development programme, which took place under the leadership of my predecessor Jack McConnell. That initiative attracted cross-party support 20 years ago. I am not so sure that such cross-party support exists today, but I certainly assure Mr Bibby of the support of the Scottish Government and the Scottish National Party in that endeavour. I think that the need for our intervention today is even greater than it was in 2005.

In relation to the maximisation of impact and how we will work with the FCDO, I had every support from the high commission in Lusaka and the high commission in Lilongwe, in Malawi, for the visits that I undertook. I put on record my appreciation for the support of the FCDO in that respect.

In relation to Scottish charities, we work with a range of different charitable organisations. Our programmes are refreshed from year to year as we establish how we can maximise their impact. Some Scottish charities are supported in some years and others are supported in other years.

The focus of all our programmes is on making an impact at grass-roots level. That thinking has been brought into our international development programmes, and it serves us well as a means of understanding how the investments that we make can change lives.

Clare Adamson (Scottish National Party, Motherwell and Wishaw)

As convener of the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, I often hear about how Scotland works collaboratively with international partners, the lessons that Scotland gains from those partnerships and the ways in which those relationships are mutually beneficial.

I highlight a project that involved mapping wells in Malawi. It came at a modest funding cost to Scotland, but after the 2019 floods, it came into its own when it served as a mechanism for protecting communities from the effects of waterborne disease following the disaster.

Does the First Minister agree that continuing that support is the right thing to do, and that saving lives is priceless?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I saw at first hand some of the examples of how lives had literally been saved by the programmes that the Scottish Government is involved in. I saw a water supply programme in the Zomba area of Malawi where the application of technology has created the ability to get clean water supplies to the population and to support irrigation projects that are sustaining lives in those communities. It was not lost on me, and a number of our development partners commented to me, that our projects and our investments are literally saving lives in those communities. The people of Scotland should be proud of the efforts that have been undertaken to support those who are much less fortunate than we are today.

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

In the same week that the First Minister was in Africa committing devolved taxpayers’ revenues to countries including Pakistan, Zambia and Rwanda, closer to home, SNP-run Dumfries and Galloway Council was consulting on cuts that include closing leisure centres, scrapping music tuition fees for poorer children and cancelling all funding to citizens advice bureaux.

Given that the First Minister’s first duty is to the citizens of this country and that he is acutely aware that foreign affairs and international aid are reserved, will John Swinney now stop pretending to be the president of an independent state and instead show solidarity with our own communities by fixing the problems that his Government has created over the past 19 years?

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Thank you, Mr Hoy. As you will be aware, the questions should be put on issues that have been raised in the statement. I am not wholly convinced that that is the case with that question.

I call Clare Haughey, to be followed by Sarah Boyack.

Clare Haughey (Scottish National Party, Rutherglen)

I was delighted to see the First Minister visit Malawi this month. As he will be aware, my constituency has strong ties to that country through Blantyre in South Lanarkshire being the birthplace of David Livingstone.

Can the First Minister provide more details on the partnership between Malawi and Scotland through the Blantyre-Blantyre programme—which I understand the Scottish Government supports financially—particularly in relation to how the project can positively benefit our two countries?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I saw at first hand the investment that has been made in the Blantyre-Blantyre clinical research project, which originated as a partnership between the University of Glasgow and the Kamuzu University of Health Sciences in Blantyre, Malawi. The University of Zambia in Lusaka has been added to the project—I saw the new laboratory there—which enables this to be a three-country research programme that looks at non-communicable diseases as well as vaccine efficacy, particularly in relation to vaccination for cholera and Covid.

That work enables us and those universities in Africa to participate as equals in a multinational network of exchange on research issues, making it possible to undertake a more sophisticated research process. That is a combination that leads to collective enhancement of human health.

I pay tribute to the leadership of the University of Glasgow, which has given tremendous commitment to the venture over a number of years. It is enhancing human health, and we should be very proud of the exchanges that have taken place. Of course, it reinforces the connection that Clare Haughey referred to, between Blantyre, the birthplace of David Livingstone, and the projects that are taken forward, which are deeply appreciated by the people of Malawi.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

The Parliament’s cross-party group on international development had positive feedback about the transformative impact that the Scottish Government’s international development fund delivers on issues such as employment and education for women and climate-resilient food production. However, our report recommended that the Government should provide greater clarity and transparency on such funding, to improve accountability so that we can monitor its impact and the benefits for local communities. Will the Scottish Government now do that?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I am very supportive of such an approach, because it is important that public confidence about the effectiveness of the programmes is maximised. The suggestion that Sarah Boyack puts to me is strong. Twenty years ago, when the international development work was enabled by Jack McConnell’s Government, I felt that it was essential, because it established the partnership and connection between us and other countries and it enabled us to learn from each other and assist others who face acute challenges. In the intervening years, the climate challenge has become ever more threatening to communities in Zambia and Malawi.

I am very happy to explore those issues. I will ask the Cabinet Secretary for Constitution, External Affairs and Culture, Angus Robertson, to explore them in more detail and to take forward the helpful suggestions that have been made.

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

The UK is delivering less than half of the United Nations target for international development. Will the First Minister describe the further evidence, which he heard about on his recent trip, of the damage that has been caused by wider cuts to international aid budgets?

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Answer with regard to issues raised in the statement, First Minister.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

An important aspect that is at the heart of my statement is about the need for us to provide constant support to the global south. If we do not do that, the issues that affect those regions will have ever more acute impacts on us, and we will have to manage the implications. In today’s exchanges it has been suggested that we can somehow just ignore all those issues and that they have nothing to do with us. My opinion could not be more different: those issues have everything to do with us, and we should deploy the support that we can within the agreements that are reached in Parliament to support the programmes to ensure that Scotland can fulfil our international obligations.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

To be meaningful, international development must be rooted in climate justice, as I think that the First Minister recognises. One key ask from Scotland’s International Development Alliance is for the Scottish Government to endorse a fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty. By doing so, it would be joining 143 city, local and subnational governments around the world, including Glasgow and Edinburgh city councils. Will the First Minister add Scotland’s national voice to that growing global call for such a treaty by formally endorsing it?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Patrick Harvie correctly identifies the impact of climate change as an exacerbation of the challenges that the global south already faces. It was evident to me that for people who are already having to deal with acute and desperate levels of poverty, climate change adds another level of threat. I recognise that connection, and that is also why the Scottish Government’s programmes are focused in the way that they are. I will consider the point that the member has raised about the treaty.

Pam Gosal (Conservative, West Scotland)

The First Minister likes to preach about gender equality and the rights of women and girls when he is abroad. However, women and girls here in Scotland will not forget how they were treated by the First Minister’s Government. The SNP Scottish Government has chosen to embrace gender self-identification that threatens single-sex spaces—[ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear the member.

Pam Gosal (Conservative, West Scotland)

—while ignoring the ruling of the Supreme Court on the definition of the word “woman”. When will the First Minister finally listen to the voices of women and girls from his own country, who demand that he protects women’s rights in Scotland?

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Answer with reference to any comment in the statement, First Minister.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Pam Gosal raised an issue that was covered in my statement, which is the impact of gender-based violence against women and girls. Whether such violence takes place in Malawi, Zambia or Scotland, it is completely and utterly reprehensible and unacceptable. I represent a Government that takes that view, which underpins the approach that it takes to public policy in Scotland.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

In an increasingly interconnected world, international development is a necessity, including in Commonwealth countries, where our Parliament plays an important role through the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. Will the First Minister set out why international support is so important for Scotland and the world?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

As I set out in my statement, the issues that affect Scotland and the issues that affect the global south are interconnected. We have to ensure that the actions that we take as a good global citizen assist in resolving some of the extraordinarily acute challenges that people in the global south face. That underpins our policy approach.

I go back to the discussions that took place 20 years ago in this Parliament. At the time, the United Kingdom Government made it clear to the Scottish Government that it welcomed the Scottish Government’s participation in international development activity because it recognised the scale of the challenge that was involved. This Parliament embraced that, which I welcome, and that is the foundation of the answer to Mr McMillan’s question.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I declare an interest as a co-convener of the cross-party group on Malawi. I warmly welcome the visits to Zambia and, in particular, to Malawi. Some will be surprised that that is the first time that a First Minister has been to Malawi since 2005, when Jack McConnell visited.

Although I welcome the funding from the Scottish Government, does the First Minister agree that the strength of the relationship is built on the people-to-people civil society links between communities, from Dumfries and Galloway all the way up to the northern isles, which are not necessarily funded by the Scottish Government? Does he recognise the work of the Scotland Malawi Partnership and the Malawi Scotland Partnership in supporting, connecting and reinforcing the relationships that provide so much good, not only to the people in the warm heart of Africa but to citizens here in Scotland?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I could not agree with Mr McArthur more. I have had the privilege of interacting with the Scotland Malawi Partnership and the Malawi Scotland Partnership, which are two excellent organisations that foster and nurture the community-to-community relationships that Mr McArthur has highlighted.

I recently attended an event in Dunblane with a Boys Brigade company that regularly interacts with a school in Malawi. This year, the young men from that organisation raised more than £100,000 to support developments in Malawi. Next week, they are coming to Bute house to describe to me their experience over the summer, when they travelled to Malawi to undertake the exact work that Mr McArthur has referred to. Yes, the Government plays a part, but the Scotland-Malawi partnerships help to encourage the partnership that Mr McArthur has talked about, which is rooted in the deep relationships between our countries that go back more than 150 years. We should work very hard to nurture those relationships.

Rona Mackay (Scottish National Party, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

Scotland has a history of supporting health systems in partner countries. What innovations and programmes have been brought about as a result of that, and how have they benefited Scotland and the countries that we partner with?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Many of those projects are in fields such as health, education, climate action and tackling poverty. There are mutual lessons to be learned about issues around disease management and vaccination development, which are important public health improvements and benefits that will be shared by all.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

When the First Minister spoke to dentists in Malawi, was he asked why hundreds of Scottish dentists have left the profession in recent years? When he discussed dentistry in Africa, did he spare a thought for any one of the thousands of Scots who cannot get an NHS dentist after 18 years of the SNP being in power?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

As Mr Ross knows, I am acutely focused on the challenges that people in Scotland face, which is why we are taking action through the investments in the national health service and the expansion of provision.

I am very proud of the fact that Scottish institutions have helped to train a cohort of dentists in Malawi, who will significantly improve the oral healthcare of people in Malawi and provide opportunities there. The sense of pride and esteem that was expressed in relation to the advantages and the connections with Scottish institutions was palpable, and Scotland should be very proud of that.

Business Motion

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The next item of business is consideration of business motion S6M-19429, in the name of Graeme Dey, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a timetable for stage 3 consideration of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees that, during stage 3 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, debate on groups of amendments shall, subject to Rule 9.8.4A, be brought to a conclusion by the time limits indicated, those time limits being calculated from when the stage begins and excluding any periods when other business is under consideration or when a meeting of the Parliament is suspended or otherwise not in progress:

Groups 1 to 3: 1hr 45 minutes

Groups 4 to 5: 3 hrs 30 minutes

Groups 6 to 7: 5 hrs 15 minutes

Groups 8 to 9: 6 hrs 30 minutes

Groups 10 to 11: 8 hrs 45 minutes

Groups 12 to 13: 10 hours

Groups 14 to 20: 11 hours 30 minutes

Groups 21 to 24: 12 hours 45 minutes

Groups 25 to 27: 14 hours

Groups 28 to 29: 15 hours.—[Graeme Dey]

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I call Edward Mountain.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I rise to speak against the business motion, which sets out the timings for the important stage 3 debate on the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill. Before I say why, I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests, which shows that my family owns in the region of 202 hectares of land in Moray, that I rent about the same amount of land under a non-agricultural tenancy and that I have a tenancy for about 12 hectares under the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1991.

I have been embedded in land reform since the Parliament was reconvened in 1999. I have seen the 2003 and 2016 land reform acts. As convener of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, I have followed and steered the current bill through stages 1 and 2—listening to witnesses, attending external meetings, visiting community groups and, ultimately, convening stage 2, which took 16 hours and 3 minutes.

I lodged no amendments at stage 2. I chose to listen to the evidence on the 507 amendments that were lodged. I weighed up the strengths and weaknesses of each amendment and then voted independently on them. After stage 2 had concluded, I considered and formulated my stage 3 amendments.

The Government has lodged 245 amendments over stages 2 and 3. One has to ask why. The flawed bill consists of 137 pages that are riddled with errors. It is clear that, when the bill was presented to the Parliament, it had not been fully considered.

Presiding Officer, you do not have to believe me. One of Scotland’s pre-eminent lawyers, Don Macleod, has said that the bill is “junk law” and is

“an appalling mess that deserves no place on the statute book”.

If members do not believe him, perhaps they will listen to one of our most pre-eminent land reformers, Andy Wightman, who has condemned the bill. He said:

“It would be irresponsible of Parliament to impose new, complex, legalistic and bureaucratic mechanisms on the people of Scotland that will not deliver the outcomes that ministers say that they will. That is just making bad law.”—[Official Report, Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, 3 December 2024; c 64.]

The bill is bad, “junk law” that will not deliver land reform or any more agricultural tenants.

On the issue of new tenancies, I believe that the bill will go a long way in killing them off. Who would enter a contract with someone if that contract could be changed unilaterally by somebody else?

However, it is not all bad news. I believe that many of the stage 3 amendments—[ Interruption .] I am sorry, Presiding Officer, but I am finding it quite difficult to hear, given the noise to my right.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Let us hear the member, please.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I believe that many of the stage 3 amendments would help to improve the bill. The problem is that we will not fully debate them. Why? The Parliament is limiting the speaking time for each speaker to five minutes in each group of amendments. That is formulaic nonsense and it is being done because it has always been done that way. That does not make it right. Repetition of a mistake must be a mistake in itself.

Martin Whitfield (Labour, South Scotland)

I am grateful to Edward Mountain for taking an intervention on this point. If we look to the timing motion that is before us today, outreach was made in the usual way, as Mr Mountain defines it, about the times that are available for speaking. Did he have an opportunity to input into that with supporting evidence for why certain areas might have needed more time? That is the practice that has been used in the past and it has led to amendments and recommendations from the Parliamentary Bureau.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I did, and I will come to that. For example, in group 7, a member who has two amendments will get five minutes to speak to them, as will a member who has no amendments. A member who has 15 amendments will also be given five minutes—or 20 seconds for each amendment.

The Parliamentary Bureau was asked for some latitude and to allow speakers up to 10 minutes in groups in which they have numerous amendments. That has obviously been rejected. It could be argued that, if the member with 15 amendments had split those among their colleagues, giving them one each, that would have created an extra 75 minutes of debating time. I am not going to play that sort of game. Ideocracy would perhaps appease some but would increase the speaking time by seven times--that is why it is a nonsensical format.

I am a committed parliamentarian. I am also a realist. I want to debate issues. I want to make good legislation for the people of Scotland that everyone in the chamber can be proud of. I accept that not all amendments will be approved, but preventing them from being fully explored when the advice is that the bill is flawed and ill-conceived is undemocratic.

I urge members to vote against the business motion. It shows the very worst of the Parliament, which is being given an archaic clerical formulary procedure that shuts down debate and increases the likelihood of bad legislation. To be clear, a vote for the business motion is a vote to put timekeeping before debate and over good legislation, which is an affront to democracy. On that basis, I urge members to vote against the motion.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I call Graeme Dey to respond on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau.

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

The Parliamentary Bureau appreciates that the member has a number of amendments at stage 3 and is keen to have an opportunity to discuss them all in the chamber. Equally, we must be realistic about the parliamentary time that is available in any given week and between now and the end of the session. The stage 3 in question is already slated to run into a third day.

I and my fellow business managers know that many members have concerns about late sittings. Providing longer speaking slots for members in each group is likely to mean that the number of late sittings between now and the end of the session will increase as we try to ensure that the legislation before us reaches a conclusion before March. Bureau members are very much alert to competing demands. I believe that the proposal that we have agreed and presented to members strikes the right balance.

I understand that the member did not feel able to lodge many of his amendments at stage 2, given his role as committee convener. However, we must recognise that the decision not to lodge them at stage 2 was a personal one, as it is possible for conveners to lodge amendments to bills that are before their committee. I believe that a number of the amendments in question were lodged by another member, Tim Eagle, at stage 2, so they have received consideration from the lead committee.

We must keep in mind the volume of legislation that we have left to consider in this session and we must ensure that we are being as efficient as we can be with the time that we have left and leave chamber time available for other bills that are coming down the line. I ask members to support the timetable motion.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The question is, that motion S6M-19429 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

There will be a division. There will be a short suspension to allow members to access the digital voting system.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

We move to the vote on motion S6M-19429. Members should cast their votes now.

The vote is closed.

Tess White (Conservative, North East Scotland)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app did not work. I would have voted no.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Thank you, Ms White. I note that your app was not working. Your vote will be recorded.

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Anniesland)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I had a problem with my phone. I would have voted yes.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Thank you, Mr Kidd. Your vote will be recorded.

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

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I had a similar situation to Bill Kidd. My phone would not connect for the vote.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Ms Grahame—

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

Postscript: I would have voted yes.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Thank you, Ms Grahame. Your vote will be recorded.

Jeremy Balfour (Independent, Lothian)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I had a similar issue. I would have voted no.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Thank you, Mr Balfour. Your vote will be recorded.

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I had connection problems. I would have voted yes.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Thank you, Mr Leonard. Your vote will be recorded.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would have voted yes.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Thank you, Ms McNeill. Your vote will be recorded.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The result of the division on motion S6M-19429, in the name of Graeme Dey, is: For 86, Against 29, Abstentions 0.

Motion agreed to,

That the Parliament agrees that, during stage 3 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, debate on groups of amendments shall, subject to Rule 9.8.4A, be brought to a conclusion by the time limits indicated, those time limits being calculated from when the stage begins and excluding any periods when other business is under consideration or when a meeting of the Parliament is suspended or otherwise not in progress:

Groups 1 to 3: 1hr 45 minutes

Groups 4 to 5: 3 hrs 30 minutes

Groups 6 to 7: 5 hrs 15 minutes

Groups 8 to 9: 6 hrs 30 minutes

Groups 10 to 11: 8 hrs 45 minutes

Groups 12 to 13: 10 hours

Groups 14 to 20: 11 hours 30 minutes

Groups 21 to 24: 12 hours 45 minutes

Groups 25 to 27: 14 hours

Groups 28 to 29: 15 hours.

Land Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill. In dealing with the amendments, members should have the bill as amended at stage 2—that is, SP bill 44A—the marshalled list and the groupings of amendments. The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for around five minutes for the first division at stage 3. The period of voting for the first division will be 30 seconds. Thereafter, I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate. Members who wish to speak in the debate on any group of amendments should press their request-to-speak button or enter “RTS” in the chat function as soon as possible after I call the group.

Members should now refer to the marshalled list of amendments.

Section 1—Community-engagement obligations in relation to large land holding

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Group 1 is on public rights of way. Amendment 232, in the name of David Torrance, is grouped with amendments 234, 264 and 321.

David Torrance (Scottish National Party, Kirkcaldy)

Amendment 232 is the first of my two amendments to the bill that seek to enable a resolution to the issue of access to Burntisland harbour. The Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 includes, among other provision, a right of responsible access to land, which is commonly called the right to roam. The 2003 act breaks that right into constituent elements—the right to be on the land for a purpose set out in the act and the right to cross the land for a purpose set out in the act.

Amendment 232 provides confirmation that asserted rights of access—for example, rights of way that have been gained by prescription, which means established through use or in accordance with certain further conditions—are included in the right to cross land. It is relevant to recognise that most rights of way and related rights are established by prescription rather than through designation by a relevant authority.

Amendment 232 represents a helpful clarification, rather than an extension, of the law. It simply recognises the reality of rights of way by prescription and helps all to understand that the proper execution of such rights is covered by the act. That is important in its own right, but it is also directly relevant to my subsequent amendment 321, which refers specifically only to Burntisland harbour.

That harbour is the reason that Burntisland exists. It is the subject of the town’s coat of arms. Ships may no longer be built there, millions of tonnes of coal may no longer be exported from there and bauxite for Scotland’s aluminium industry may no longer be imported there, but the harbour remains—or it did until February 2023—a much-loved place of public resort. Dogs were walked there; bikes were ridden; children fed Sammy the harbour seal; whales and boats were watched; and fish were caught by locals and visitors alike, including myself as a boy.

However, in February 2023, for the first time in the town’s history, the community was completely fenced out from all waterfront areas. That historic grade B-listed harbour was out of bounds. Neither locals nor visitors could access the harbour in the way that generations of us had always done.

My constituents, who are represented by the Burntisland Harbour Access Trust, have campaigned relentlessly over the past two and a half years for their rights of access. Recently, for example, hundreds of people marched and rallied in support of harbour access. Thousands have signed a petition against the fence, hundreds have written to councillors and MSPs, expert legal opinion has been paid for by the community and numerous requests for compliance have been made, yet the fence remains.

Two years ago, the Burntisland Harbour Access Trust commissioned a legal opinion from BTO Solicitors, which confirmed that rights of access apply to the harbour. More recently, Professor Roderick Paisley, chair of Scots law at the University of Aberdeen and a prominent legal scholar in the relevant area of law, has taken an interest. His opinion robustly supports the views of my constituents and, following his direct advice, my constituents approached me specifically to lodge my amendments to the bill, which I was happy to do. Through my simple amendments 321 and 232, the Scottish ministers would be required to determine, in accordance with existing law, the areas of public resort and rights of way at Burntisland harbour.

That move is supported by all Mid Scotland and Fife MSPs of all parties. Indeed, all elected representatives of Burntisland, at all levels of government, have given their support for the resolution once and for all of what is a crucial and important issue for Burntislanders and for all the town’s many visitors.

I know that my amendments are imperfect, but I ask the cabinet secretary to consider whether there is a more suitable route forward in addressing the issue, which is crucial to my constituents of Burntisland, and if there is, to set it out.

I move amendment 232.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The key question at the heart of the bill is, does it address the battles over land rights, concentration of power, access and ownership across Scotland that so many communities find themselves struggling with? The amendments in this group are an early test for the Government at stage 3. The concern that I, David Torrance and many other MSPs have raised is a real one that is faced by a real community in Burntisland. Rights of access that have been asserted since Victorian times are being trampled over by Forth Ports, while Fife Council has been completely ineffective at upholding those rights.

That is happening in a green freeport area that we were told would deliver incredible economic opportunities for communities. However, so far, not only have the jobs not materialised in Burntisland, but people are now being fenced out of their own community. They have serious questions about the effectiveness of Fife Council in holding Forth Ports to account, given the deep pockets of Forth Ports and the economic power that it holds locally.

I welcome the fact that members of the community have come to the Parliament today and have engaged MSPs—including, I believe, the cabinet secretary—in conversation about the struggle that they face.

The bill could have been an opportunity to improve the enforcement of access rights, not only for the community of Burntisland but for many more communities across the country.

For example, I have constituents at the other end of my region, in Glen Lyon, who for years have been unreasonably denied access to the North Chesthill Estate. Again, a lack of consistent enforcement action by Perth and Kinross Council has been raised.

In its briefing for the debate, Ramblers Scotland highlights that there is

“a growing concern about a gap between Scotland’s access rights on paper and their effective application.”

Councils, in their roles as access and planning authorities, are, in some cases, proving ineffective at upholding and enforcing those rights, which are long established in common law.

We are now 20 years on from the production of guidance on part 1 of the 2003 act, which was designed to enable councils to operate effectively as access authorities. However, so far, no updated guidance has been produced, despite two decades of real-life experience in working with the act. I therefore ask the cabinet secretary to commit to finalising the review and publishing such updated guidance.

I welcome David Torrance’s amendment 321, which is an attempt to explicitly carve out access to Burntisland harbour in law. It makes an important point.

My amendments 234 and 264, together with amendment 238 in a later group, seek to put in place general requirements for all large landowners to help to facilitate public rights of way over their land and to engage with communities proactively on those specific rights of access. That engagement has been completely absent in the case of Burntisland. I understand from discussion with the cabinet secretary that there are concerns about those amendments and their potential consequences. For those reasons, I will not be moving them.

However, I would like to hear from the cabinet secretary about what commitment she can give to engage with Fife Council on the issue in order to ensure that it is upholding its responsibilities as an access authority and supporting the community, because it has manifestly failed to do so. The Scottish Government must help us to hold Fife Council to account. The amendments are a warning flag that access rights that appear world class on paper are being eroded in Scotland. We need to ensure that enforcement is resourced and that it is effective. In the case of Burntisland, it has not been, and that must change.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

On behalf of the Scottish Conservatives, I put on record our thanks to David Torrance for lodging his amendments, because there is an important point of principle here.

I also pay great tribute to the Burntisland community for the way in which it has gone about its very helpful campaign in flagging up all the issues; it has done a wonderful job in that respect. It speaks volumes that the councillors and the MSPs agree on the issue.

Nonetheless, it is clear from what the member said that there are issues. We understand that there are potentially legal issues that need to be explored. I am keen to hear from the cabinet secretary exactly what those are and how they can be dealt with in order to proceed, so that we ensure that the Burntisland community has justice when it comes to the whole issue.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I am interested in the points raised in Mark Ruskell’s amendments in relation to the Scottish outdoor access code. As he will well know, I have been trying to get that code reviewed for the past five years, which the Government has steadfastly refused to do—on what basis, I do not know. My view is that it is 20 years old and it probably needs updating. I am not sure that I could have supported Mark Ruskell’s amendments, if he had decided to move them, so I am glad that he is not going to.

In relation to Mr Torrance’s amendment 232, what slightly concerns me is how one asserts a right of access. Some rights of access will be asserted because they have been taken with consent, with payment, or as a fact of law. I am not sure whether those grounds would still stand under his amendment, but I understand what he is trying to do. Bearing in mind what the local MSPs are saying, I will follow their lead on whether it is a good one, once we have heard from the cabinet secretary. However, I am worried that amendment 232 is a bit wide ranging and does not define where access lies and how one goes about asserting rights.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Through their amendments in this group, David Torrance and Mark Ruskell are trying to find a pragmatic way of addressing the current restrictions on public access to land at Burntisland harbour and to address any similar circumstances elsewhere. The amendments in the name of David Torrance apply specifically to the historic east dock at Burntisland harbour, recognising that the community has a particular set of circumstances. It is a breakwater that was originally built in Victorian times and has a heritage of public use that existed until fences were erected and gates were locked. It is currently home to a sailing club, a redundant caustic tank, derelict land and a pallet factory that depends on road transport.

Access to that land is something that matters a great deal to many in the local community, as is evidenced by the correspondence that I and other members representing Burntisland have had on the matter, and there is a strong local campaign to restore access.

Prior to its closure, the dockside land was used by fishermen, dog walkers, cyclists, nature lovers and visitors, and many in the community feel that the closure was unjustified. The amendment does not assert that a public right of way exists; it requires a proper review and determination to be made as to whether that is the case, while allowing the concerns of the landowner and the port operator to be addressed. I believe that that is a balanced approach that can provide a means of progress on the matter.

One of the challenges for those who are campaigning against the removal of public access has been securing appropriate legal advice, which the local authority was not permitted to do. The amendment would seek to resolve that by ensuring the provision of expert advice alongside sufficient time for a definitive decision that would resolve the issue and be binding on those party to it.

For decades, people have been able to enjoy the waterfront as part of their daily lives, freely walking on the breakwater and enjoying the harbour environment, just as many other communities around Scotland are able to do. Burntisland Harbour Access Trust is looking not for confrontation but for us to listen to the voices of those affected and to provide them with clarity and a potential solution.

Although the amendments in Mark Ruskell’s name are not specific to Burntisland, they offer a general mechanism that would allow communities in a similar position to seek a solution.

I attended the meeting today with the cabinet secretary and members of the campaign group. The cabinet secretary indicated that she was not minded to support the amendments, and I will listen carefully to her arguments. If Mr Torrance and Mark Ruskell decide to withdraw or not move their amendments, I will have to ask what the Government suggests the solution is.

To be clear, if the members move the amendments, we will support them this afternoon. However, if the amendments are not taken forward today, the campaigners will be sorely disappointed and they will feel further from a resolution than ever. They have highlighted a valid concern and an inequality in resources when attempting to challenge a decision that they do not accept. I urge the cabinet secretary to pay attention to the situation that is faced by the Burntisland community and to commit to finding a solution that balances the rights of all involved. I will be seeking those assurances before making a decision on how we go forward with the amendments. The amendments in the group seek to strike a balance between those in the community who have an interest in walking and using the harbour and Forth Ports, which has raised concerns around safety, liability and operating requirements.

Our role here, as legislators, is not to determine the outcome of that debate but to facilitate clarity and resolution, which these amendments seek to do. They offer a way to apply the bill’s underlying principles of accountability for landowners, fairness to communities and clarity of rights to reach a specific and tangible solution.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Ms Baker, can you bring your remarks to a close, please?

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I do not believe that the amendments are heavy handed or that they prejudge the outcome. Instead, they commission the proper review and determination that the community deserves.

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

I will deal with amendments 232, 234 and 264 together, because they aim to achieve essentially the same thing, which is to place an obligation on landowners to identify rights of way and ensure that people can exercise their rights to use the identified routes.

Public rights of way are traditional routes that are established under common law, with no single statute governing them. To be a right of way, a route must meet a set of four conditions, which relate, in summary, to its long-term use between two defined points. However, Scots law does not require a right of way to be recorded. Any route that meets the conditions to be a right of way is a right of way. If it is not agreed that a disputed route meets the necessary conditions to be a right of way, it is up to the courts to decide whether the criteria are met.

The right of responsible non-motorised access to land, which was conveyed by part 1 of the 2003 act, is world leading in terms of its progressive nature, its extent, its scope and its clarity. The act’s statutory guidance, the Scottish outdoor access code, defines both how individuals should exercise their access rights responsibly and the responsibilities of landowners with respect to access rights.

There are already provisions in the 2003 act that empower local authorities to remove “Prohibition signs, obstructions” or “dangerous impediments” where landowners have failed to comply with written notices requiring remedial action and that give authorities the ability to take measures for safety and protection with respect to both access rights under the 2003 act and to public rights of way. The amendments are therefore not necessary, for two reasons. First, there is no requirement to record rights of way in Scotland. Secondly, the new requirements that it is proposed should be imposed on owners through the amendments would duplicate provisions in the 2003 act that already help to ensure the proper exercise of non-vehicular rights of way.

Although the amendments are clearly intended to deal with specific cases in which individuals have identified issues with the way in which access is managed, they would, in practice, impose a significant new burden on a very wide range of people, which is not justified. The requirements for land management plans already require the owner to set out how they are complying or intend to comply with the Scottish outdoor access code, and the regulations can then set out further detail to require land management plans to set out information about access rights and rights of way and how those are being supported.

I turn to the substantive amendment that we are discussing, which is amendment 321. Mark Ruskell had invited representatives of the Burntisland Access Trust into Parliament today, and I really appreciated the opportunity to meet them and hear directly the strength of feeling that there is on the issue, which I am also picking up from MSPs across the chamber today. I completely understand that deep frustration, and in a moment I will turn to what I think needs to happen.

For now, however, I cannot, in good faith, support amendment 321 and promise that it will deliver a solution, because it would not deliver the intended outcome. It has a number of drafting issues. For example, the phrase “places of public resort” is not defined in legislation, which means that the amendment would not clearly give ministers or other authorities the ability to overrule decisions that are taken by the port authority, the council or any other body that has a role in the decisions to which the trust objects. That is, in large part, because the amendment would not change the roles and responsibilities of the local access authority—in the case that we are discussing, the local council.

There is also a high risk of unintended consequences. That is particularly true because some matters relating to port access are reserved to the United Kingdom Government under the Harbours Act 1964. Far from bringing a solution, therefore, the uncertainties in the amendments could cause such confusion and complication that a solution would be more difficult to achieve. I do not think that any member in the chamber would welcome that. We should all be wary of the potential for good intentions to lead to even more challenging outcomes.

That being said, I take these issues seriously, and, following the specific ask from David Torrance, I will set out what action I intend to take. First, I am deeply concerned by what I have heard, both directly from Burntisland Harbour Access Trust and from other MSPs. I am happy to make the commitment for which Mark Ruskell asked, and I will be seeking a meeting urgently with both Fife Council and the port authority to seek greater clarity on the issue. I want to ensure that that happens at pace.

Secondly, it is particularly worrying that there are concerns in the local community about how the council, as the local access authority, is fulfilling its duties. In my representations to the council, I will be seeking to understand how it has been carrying out its duties under the 2003 act.

Thirdly, I want to meet with the Burntisland Harbour Access Trust and with the local MSPs, to better understand the issues myself. I will discuss these matters with all relevant authorities in order to satisfy myself that everything possible is being done to ensure that our world-leading system of access rights is being respected and upheld and that we are, ultimately, looking for a solution.

Fourthly, I am aware that guidance for local authorities on these issues has not been updated in some time, and I am happy to meet with MSPs who are involved in the matter to discuss the process for updating that important guidance.

Although I am unable to support the amendments in this group, for the reasons that I have set out, I hope that the commitments that I have set out to members today will satisfy both David Torrance and Mark Ruskell, as well as other members across the chamber, that I take these matters seriously and that I want to find a way forward. With that, I ask them not to press or move their amendments.

David Torrance (Scottish National Party, Kirkcaldy)

I welcome the cabinet secretary’s commitments and I recognise the legal issues around the amendments that I have proposed. Everything that the cabinet secretary says is most welcome, especially to Burntisland Harbour Access Trust and to my constituents. I know that she will be held to account to keep those promises, not only by me but especially by the community of Burntisland. I will not press amendment 232 in my name.

Amendment 232, by agreement, withdrawn.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Group 2 is on the obligations to consider the public interest. Amendment 115, in the name of Rhoda Grant, is grouped with amendments 233, 129, 261, 43 to 45, 15, 76 and 76A.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Amendment 129 would ensure that the public interest was at the forefront of land management plans. Acting in the public interest is a well-understood concept and should be at the very heart of this bill, but, sadly, it is missing.

The public interest test also outweighs individual interests. Land management plans could be an effective tool for making Scotland’s land work in the public interest and, in some circumstances, lead to diversifying land ownership. Therefore, the bill needs to be strengthened.

These amendments have taken on board discussions at stage 2 about the bill’s narrow focus on community sustainability. This is the policy goal as stated by Scottish Government, and amendment 129 reflects changes from stage 2 to incorporate some, but not all, of the public interest considerations relating to community sustainability.

Greater clarity is needed on the considerations that will shape the guidance underpinning land management plans, in order to more firmly centre the public interest in LMPs. This would make it more transparent from the outset for landowners, communities, the land and communities commissioner and the Scottish ministers the types of considerations that should underpin land management plans. Amendment 261, therefore, would require Scottish ministers to publish guidance on how landowners incorporate that into their land management plans.

Amendment 115 is consequential to 129, and amendment 233 is consequential to amendment 261.

I also support Mercedes Villalba’s amendments 76 and 76A, which seek to ensure that buyers of land also face a public interest test.

Ariane Burgess’s amendment 15 seeks to do something similar, but it is the same as Mercedes Villalba’s amendment at stage 2, which was not supported by the Scottish Government. Although I support both amendments, I hope that the Scottish Government and the cabinet secretary will take into account the update to the amendment that Mercedes Villalba submitted and that they will now support it.

I move amendment 115.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

My amendments in the group are to do with lifting the prohibition order. Amendment 43, if enacted, would add a general public interest ground. That would mean that ministers would have to lift the prohibition on the transfer of a large landholding if they deemed that it would not be in the public interest to continue to apply the prohibition.

In the bill as drafted, there is a fundamental flaw: the Government might want to buy landholdings and so would prohibit their sale on the basis that it is in its self-interest to do so. In my mind, frankly, that is not good practice.

Amendments 44 and 45 are consequential to amendment 43.

Amendments 129 and 261, in the name of Rhoda Grant, would place huge obligations on landowners, including breaking up farms, transferring their energy resources to communities, giving up land for housing and creating new crofts, which may be outside crofting areas. All those obligations would make it virtually impossible for landowners to function and run their businesses. That would have an adverse effect on their ability to gain finance to carry out the projects that they wish to action. The fact that those powers would then be devolved to the Scottish Government—to identify how they would be enforced in each management plan—would add an unhelpful and bureaucratic level of administration and complexity.

I find Ariane Burgess’s amendment 15—which would, apparently, mean that land could be sold only to someone who lives in Scotland—strange. I am sure that Ms Burgess knows that the large foreign investment in Scottish landholdings has been hugely beneficial to Scotland. For example, we could argue that Anders Povlsen of Wildland and Danish companies in the Highlands have contributed to building up sustainable communities and, in the case of the latter, ensuring that the local community’s school is kept open, despite the fact that the local council wanted to close it. Limiting the future sale of that land will limit the desirability of that investment, and Ariane Burgess probably knows that running large estates costs a huge amount of money—something that the Government does not have.

Fergus Ewing (Independent, Inverness and Nairn)

Does Mr Mountain agree with me that, if Ariane Burgess’s amendment had existed in law some years ago, the aluminium smelter at Fort William would have been shut? It was a foreign owner that kept it alive.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I am not sure that I will quite go with Fergus Ewing on that point. There is a question about the agreements that were made with the foreign owner to keep the aluminium smelter, which may come back to haunt the Government in the future.

Running, say, a 20,000-hectare estate will cost in the region of half a million pounds each year, and that comes from taxed income. Therefore, it is a true investment. I really do not like amendment 15.

Although I understand the aim of Mercedes Villalba’s amendment 76, it relies on the Government approving of the future management of land. In 40 years of land management, not everything that I have done regarding land management supported the Government’s objectives. For example, on climate change, the last thing that I would do is introduce beavers all over the countryside to eat the trees that we have spent years funding. I do now know why we now consider that beavers are better for trees than the deer that we spent years trying to kill.

The Government is in a position to make the decision, but I struggle to understand whether it would prepare guidance in the short term. My concern is that we could be waiting another 10 years and that, by then, it will be time for another land reform bill, because the other ones will be considered irrelevant.

I will leave my comments there, Presiding Officer, so that I do not incur your wrath at this stage, as I may do later.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

It is never a good idea to give the chair warning of the potential for incurring the chair’s wrath.

Ariane Burgess (Green, Highlands and Islands)

This bill has been long in the making. Yet, after many hours of deliberation, it seems that it has not progressed much further from where it started. I remain deeply concerned that these measures do not go far enough in addressing the issue at the heart of land reform, which is that the majority of Scotland’s land is owned and controlled by a minority. Let us see where we get to over the next two days.

A key concern that I have about this legislation is that it does not do nearly enough to ensure that public interest considerations are at the heart of the new measures. The need for a public interest test has been discussed at length over the course of the bill’s progression. It formed part of the Scottish Land Commission’s recommendations for the legislation and it was included in the Government’s public consultation. Several variations of public interest amendments from several parties were discussed at stage 2, but none of those made it into the bill.

The transfer test that was introduced by ministers is a disappointing watering down of the Scottish Land Commission’s original recommendations. In general, the bill as drafted has drifted away from the commission’s original premise for it. A critical element that is absent is ensuring that the buyers of a large landholding or lotted land will act in the public interest. Scotland has a deeply unfair concentration of land ownership in the hands of a minority, who are often absent and seek only to extract wealth for themselves, rather than redistribute it.

My amendment 15 would introduce a public interest test on prospective buyers of large landholdings. It would require that the buyers of large landholdings are up front about how they intend to manage the land.

The test would also introduce two key criteria. First, a prospective buyer who already owns more than 500 hectares would not be able to pass the test, unless it could be shown that their management of the land would have significant environmental or community benefit. That would help to end the growing concentration of power in our land ownership pattern. Secondly, ministers would have to consider the prospective owner’s tax residency—

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Will the member take an intervention on that point?

Ariane Burgess (Green, Highlands and Islands)

I will not take an intervention; I have a lot to get through and I think that we have time considerations.

With increasing numbers of overseas investors looking to buy up Scotland’s rural land, any public interest test must take tax residency into consideration.

In the original consultation for the bill, the Government asked respondents for their views on a proposal to explore the possibility of introducing a requirement that those who seek to acquire large-scale landholdings need to be registered in a European Union member state or in the United Kingdom for tax purposes. Sixty-seven per cent of respondents agreed with the proposal. It would start embedding the principle that there are restrictions to land ownership in Scotland, and that, ideally, landowners will be paying tax in this country and more broadly contributing to the collective wealth of the country.

I thank the Revive coalition for its support on my amendment, and I thank Community Land Scotland for its thoughtful discussion over many months about how we can work public interest considerations into the bill.

I note that Mercedes Villalba’s amendments 76 and 76A seek a similar outcome and I will listen to her contribution with interest.

Mercedes Villalba (Labour, North East Scotland)

I thank Community Land Scotland, which is here today, and the Scottish Parliament legislation team for their support in drafting my amendments in this group. I also thank everyone out there who is engaged with the land reform process.

Amendment 76 seeks to insert proposed new part 2B to the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill 2003, which would apply a public interest test to a proposed new buyer in relation to transfers of large landholdings. It would work by requiring the Scottish ministers to have regard to the identity and management proposals of the buyer, including how much land they already control and any plans they have for the land.

Amendment 76A seeks to amend that new part by inserting a presumed limit on ownership, the presumption being that a transfer to a buyer who already controls more than 500 hectares would not be in the public interest unless otherwise demonstrated through environmental benefits, community sustainability or other means.

Members might remember that I consulted on those issues in my proposed land ownership and public interest (Scotland) bill earlier in this parliamentary session. That followed an investigation into issues that are associated with large-scale and concentrated land ownership in Scotland by the Scottish Land Commission, which found that

“harmful concentrations of power in relation to land do exist and appear to be causing significant and long-term damage to the communities affected.”

The SLC went on to recommend that a public interest test at the point of transfer of significant landholdings be introduced, but the Scottish Government’s bill included no such test. At stage 2, I lodged amendment 174 to insert a forward-facing public interest test into the bill and amendment 174A to insert a presumed limit on ownership. Unfortunately, at that time, the Scottish Government was not able to support my amendments. The cabinet secretary said:

“The amendments are ... not supported by the evidence base ... The interference in property rights that would result from those proposals would require a rational and coherent justification based on evidence. The evidence on which I have proceeded is concerned with the effects of concentration of ownership on communities. There is no rational link between that evidence”—[Official Report, Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, 3 June 2025; c 20.]

and a public interest test on a buyer. Having worked with Community Land Scotland on the evidence base on the issue, using research from the Scottish Land Commission, and having made revisions to focus on the public interest connected to community sustainability, I have brought back the amendments today.

I recognise that the bill now contains reference to the public interest test, but that is a test on the landholding itself rather than a test on landowners. It is the buyer that matters, because of their plans, interests and priorities. Public bodies such as NatureScot have shown that it is possible to sell using a test on the buyer, so we know that it can be done.

Scotland’s land is becoming concentrated into ever-fewer hands, so we know that we need to act. What I am proposing today is the most basic of considerations on buyers of large landholdings, because a double standard exists between wealthy landowners and the rest of us. If my constituents want to rent a room or buy a house, there seems to be no end of checks that they must pass to demonstrate that they are suitable tenants or prospective owners. Can they afford it? Are they in debt? What is their credit score? Where did they live before? Who else will be living with them?

The list goes on and on, yet anyone, anywhere in the world, can buy up as much of Scotland as they like, no questions asked. It does not matter what they will do with it or how their plans would affect their neighbours. It is absurdly unjust. The Scottish Government cannot expect my constituents to believe that rules that apply to them are vitally necessary due diligence, yet no checks can be applied to prospective buyers of land because of property rights.

I am calling on the cabinet secretary to do the right thing, to be bold, to take the first step in righting this wrong and to support amendments 74 and 74A today.

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

I thank members for their contributions so far to the debate on this group.

I will begin by responding directly to the amendments lodged by Ariane Burgess and Mercedes Villalba. The concentration of land ownership in Scotland is an issue that has been hundreds of years in the making, and the bill will finally give ministers the powers to split up landholdings when that is in the public interest. That is a huge step forward, but it is only the first step.

Addressing the inequality in Scotland’s landownership will not be quick or easy, and we can expect that those who currently own vast portions of Scotland’s land will resist that progress at every step. I believe that land reform is crucial to a fairer Scotland and that it is worth the fight, but we must ensure that we do not make things easy for those who want us to fail and that, when we make proposals, we can be confident that they are supported by evidence, that they will work and that they are proportionate.

Fergus Ewing (Independent, Inverness and Nairn)

Rather than creating division, bitterness, expense and bureaucracy with, one suspects, very little consequence if the bill passes in the end, would it not be a far better and more effective strategy to work with landowners, many of whom provide immensely to their areas, even if some do not? Would it not be a better strategy to work with landowners, rather than creating division, animosity, rancour, ill will, tension and conflict that will likely prevent the very aims that we both wish to see being achieved in rural Scotland?

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

I must disagree with the case made by Fergus Ewing. He is absolutely right that some landowners do fantastic work. I know of some close to me who involve their communities and invite people into their land and who are, ultimately, doing what the measures to be introduced by the bill are intended to achieve. We want to spread more of that good practice and to see all landowners doing that, but whether those activities take place should not be dependent on the good will of the landowner. We have seen for years that, without those interventions, the concentration of land ownership is getting worse. That is why the interventions are so important and why I hope that members will support the bill.

Although I understand the intention behind the amendments in this group from Mercedes Villalba and Ariane Burgess, I regret to say that they do not meet the tests that I have set out. The amendments would result in property transactions automatically being rendered of no effect at any time before or after a transaction takes place if ministers decide that the transfer is not or was not in the public interest. Despite the significance of that, the amendments make no provision for compensation and there is no indication of how the new requirements would operate alongside the lotting provisions already in the bill.

Amendments 15 and 76A attempt to introduce a presumed limit on landownership of 500 hectares. Introducing that at stage 3 without consultation, evidence or any assessment of the impact on forestry, farming or other key sectors would be reckless and risks creating legislation that does not work. For example, the amendments do not consider the other land owned by a buyer and consider only the land in which the buyer has a controlling interest. According to those amendments, if a seller had a controlling interest in more than 500 hectares of land in Scotland, Scottish ministers should allow the transfer only if it meets the requirement set out. However, if that same seller directly owned all the land in the area, or if they owned 10,000 hectares across Scotland, that would not be relevant. That would create a gaping loophole in the provisions, which would not deliver the policy intent set out by Mercedes Villalba or Ariane Burgess.

Agreeing to any of those amendments would not strengthen the bill but would wholly undermine it, jeopardising its other policies. Supporting the amendments would be a gift to those who want to maintain the status quo and want the bill to fail, which is why I encourage Mercedes Villalba and Ariane Burgess not to press the amendments but instead to engage with me on how we can build on the foundations laid by the bill.

Mercedes Villalba (Labour, North East Scotland)

I will, of course, continue to engage, as I have already done, but I would like to hear the cabinet secretary explain what work she is committing the Scottish Government to and when that work will start.

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

I am sure the member recognises that this has been a long process. The focus has, quite rightly, been on delivering this legislation and the key measures within it. If the bill is passed by Parliament, the next step will be a move to implementation, when we will work to build the evidence that will allow us to take those measures forward in the future. The review provisions in group 12 will be vital to that.

Mercedes Villalba (Labour, North East Scotland)

Will the cabinet secretary expand a little further on the threshold or bar for that evidence? I am hearing that, once the bill becomes an act, further evidence will be gathered to see whether something like my proposals can come forward, but the cabinet secretary has not outlined what evidence she needs to gather to meet the threshold to introduce such proposals. I hear from her an acknowledgement that there is a problem with the concentration of land ownership but no tangible commitment to work beyond the bill.

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

That is not a fair assessment of what has been set out. The measures in the bill are an important step forward. Of course, when we introduce measures, we need to monitor them, see how they are working and capture evidence, which we can build on for the future. We have powers in the bill to modify any provisions.

On Rhoda Grant’s amendments 115, 233, 129 and 261, although I agree with the public interest objectives that are listed, regulations are the right place to set out the detail of what will be required under community engagement obligations. However, I want to highlight that I will support similar amendments that Rhoda Grant has lodged on that, and particularly amendment 187, which is in group 10.

Rhoda Grant’s amendments in this group would require all the duties that are listed to be imposed on all landowners, regardless of the type of landholding, when preparing a land management plan. For example, a hill sheep farmer would need to prove that they had regard to securing a greater proportion of community-owned energy when preparing their land management plan. That would not be proportionate, and it would risk plans turning into box-ticking exercises. It is better for requirements to be developed through consultation with those affected and specified in future regulations, rather than being in the bill.

My colleague Michael Matheson has lodged amendment 269, which would place a duty on ministers to issue guidance about the community engagement obligations on landowners. That wider duty would cover the kind of guidance that is being sought by Rhoda Grant’s amendments, but it could also cover guidance on other aspects of the obligations. Because of that, I ask members to reject amendments 115, 233, 129 and 261 and to accept amendment 269, which will be considered as part of a later group.

On amendments 43 to 45 from Edward Mountain, the bill as drafted already allows for prohibitions to be lifted where a landowner can evidence financial hardship. That is a proportionate approach that reflects the Government’s support for community ownership. I therefore recommend that members reject amendments 43 to 45.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I call Rhoda Grant to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 115.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I will wind up quickly. With regard to the public interest test, the aims that are highlighted in amendment 129 are the things that we desperately need for our communities to thrive. Their absence is what leads to depopulation. It is not surprising if a landowner does not understand their importance, but they are a group of things that underpin the need for land reform. They are the things that community landowners do as a matter of course, and we see the difference that that makes with repopulation and economic development.

On Mercedes Villalba’s amendments 76 and 76A, NatureScot is rightly looking at who will buy Kinloch castle on Rum and it is putting in place checks and balances to ensure that the right buyer is found. That is because of its pivotal role in that community. The situation is the same for all large landowners. If NatureScot can do it, I do not see why we cannot impose the same restriction on all landowners.

Just for clarification, with regard to the 500 hectares, it is correct that similar amendments were lodged at stage 2. Those were discussed and, indeed, widely consulted on by Mercedes Villalba when she sought to introduce her own legislation on the issue. Therefore, it is not true to say that the amendments were not consulted on.

I press amendment 115.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The question is, that amendment 115 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

There will be a division. As this is the first division of the stage 3 proceedings, I suspend for around five minutes to allow members to access the digital voting system.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

We will proceed with the division on amendment 115. Members should cast their votes now.

The vote is closed.

Fergus Ewing (Independent, Inverness and Nairn)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app froze, but I would have voted no.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Thank you, Mr Ewing. Your vote will be recorded.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app also froze. I would have voted no.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Thank you, Mr Gibson. Your vote will be recorded.

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I wish to clarify whether my no vote was registered.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Your vote was recorded.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The result of the division is: For 23, Against 89, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 115 disagreed to.

Amendment 233 moved—[Rhoda Grant].

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The question is, that amendment 233 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

There will be a division.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The result of the division is: For 23, Against 88, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 233 disagreed to.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Group 3 is on the power to impose obligations in relation to large landholdings. Amendment 116, in the name of Ariane Burgess, is grouped with amendments 117, 16, 118, 132, 263, 133 and 269.

Ariane Burgess (Green, Highlands and Islands)

Scotland’s land register is a publicly searchable database of land and properties that have been bought and sold. It shows the price paid for and the boundaries of the landholding. Indeed, those who have bought and sold their own homes will be familiar with the process. However, many of Scotland’s largest estates have not been entered on the land register, either because the land simply has not been sold or because it has not been entered on the register voluntarily.

Together, my amendments 116 and 132 would add a requirement that owners who have to prepare a land management plan must also ensure that details of their ownership are entered on the land register.

Recently, I met Registers of Scotland staff, who explained their process of transferring ownership records detailed on the old sasines register over to the new land register. It is a slow process that will take many years to complete—if, indeed, it can be completed at all. My amendments in the group are a small measure towards speeding up that process.

Simply put, any landowner who was required to produce a land management plan would also have to enter information about their landholding into the land register. Surely they would have to map their land anyway, as part of making their land management plans. That would add another trigger point for an entry in the land register in addition to the point of sale, and it would bring greater transparency over the ownership of some of Scotland’s largest landholdings. Having that information centralised and accessible, ideally in a cadastral system, would be an important building block for the introduction of some form of land value tax in future years.

I turn briefly to other amendments in the group. The Greens will support Rhoda Grant’s amendment 263, which would support the creation of new crofts. We will also support Michael Matheson’s amendment 269, which clarifies community engagement obligations on large landowners.

I also wish to express briefly my concerns that Edward Mountain’s amendments in the group could weaken the obligations in part 1.

I move amendment 116.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Amendment 263 would enable a community body to approach a landowner and ask that they consider creating new crofts. The bill already allows for a community body to request that land be leased, but in the crofting counties, the creation of new crofts is much more in keeping with local land management. Although crofting is facing huge challenges, in the past it has helped to retain populations in rural areas and to give security of tenure. The very nature of crofting is environmentally friendly and community focused.

Amendment 133 is similar, but given that the Scottish Government helped to draft amendment 263—I am grateful for that—I will not move amendment 133 in the hope that the Scottish Government’s involvement with amendment 263 indicates that it will support it.

Amendment 117 is consequential to amendment 263.

Edward Mountain’s amendments 16 and 118 are similar. They look to ensure that regulation is proportionate to the size of the landholding. We are minded to support amendment 16, but we cannot support amendment 118, because it refers to the resources that are available to the landowner. We all know that land ownership is often used to bury resources to avoid taxation. It would therefore be easy for an unscrupulous landowner to beg a lack of resources in order to take themselves out of the bill’s obligations.

Ariane Burgess’s amendment 132 would ensure that regulations made under section 44A must require the land that is referred to have its ownership registered. We often hear of people not being able to contact the owner of the land that they lease, so it is only right that ownership of that land is transparent and registered.

Michael Matheson’s amendment 269 would oblige Scottish ministers to issue guidance on the obligations imposed by regulations made under section 44A. Again, that improves the bill.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

My amendments in the group are to do with proportionality and community engagement. Amendment 16 would provide that ministers must ensure that community engagement obligations are proportionate to the size of the landholding, the number of communities that are involved and the size of those communities. That is based on evidence that we heard at stage 2.

Amendment 118 would define proportionality in relation to the resources that are available to the owner, the size of the holding and the number and size of communities in the vicinity of the holding. In previous comments, the cabinet secretary has alluded to the fact that land management plans are intended to be high level and will not put an undue burden on landowners. My amendments seek to ground those reassurances in legislation—I am sure that she will be delighted to support that.

On the point that Rhoda Grant made about amendment 118, I encourage her to look on the bright side of life and not always on the negative side, which is what she suggests when she says that it would all be about giving landowners loopholes in land management plans.

Turning to amendment 132, in the name of Ariane Burgess, I have no issues with declaring publicly who owns what. In fact, my party and I recognise and support that approach. However, what is being proposed must be proportionate and reasonable. To move amendment 132 now, on the basis that the registrar is still trying to comply with the requirement to register all land at ownership, would be, frankly, unreasonable. I cannot therefore support the amendment.

Turning to amendments 263 and 133, Rhoda Grant will know that I am a great fan of crofting, but it is with such sadness that I have to say that the Government has failed to carry out crofting reform, despite what it said that it would do in 2016. The draft legislation that it has now put before the Parliament is, at best, fiddling round the edges.

Jim Fairlie (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

Will the member recognise that there is a crofting bill going through the Parliament as we speak?

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

In your excitement in jumping to your feet, Mr Fairlie, you did not hear what I said—

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Through the chair, please.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I said that the draft law that is being considered at the moment is, at best, fiddling round the edges.

I remind the Parliament that Mr Ewing said in 2016 that he would bring forward a crofting bill, which would be perfect and would replace the existing crofting acts. The trouble is that that bill failed and disappeared. The Government failed to grasp the nettle then; it has also failed to grasp the nettle effectively with smallholdings, so that they may be properly considered. To my mind, all that the Government has done is park smallholdings on the back burner—which is a failure of the Government and of the minister.

Michael Matheson, in lodging amendment 269, is getting the Government out of a pickle, I believe—which shows the inadequacies of the bill. He is seeking to find what is required under community engagement, which is an issue that the committee brought up and that the Government has failed to address at stage 2 or stage 3. I respect Mr Matheson’s position on the matter, and I am sure that he drafted his amendment without the help of the Government, which is probably thankful for his intervention. I am concerned, however, that the amendment will allow yet more legislation to be implemented by regulation, which I find difficult, as the best part of legislation should be in the bill.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

I do not consider amendment 269 an attempt at

“getting the Government out of a pickle”.

I hope that the amendment helps to provide clarity around the bill. One of the key measures in the bill is the provision for land management plans to give local communities and individuals who live next to large estates in particular the opportunity to engage with the landowner, and to give the landowner the opportunity to engage with those local communities on how they intend to manage and use the land in the years ahead. Key to that is developing the land management plans in a way that engages the local community and allows people the opportunity to influence the process and the outcome of the plan. That is why the community engagement provisions in the bill are extremely important and helpful.

It is worth noting that some of our landowners do very good work in engaging with local communities directly, notwithstanding the provisions in the bill. I know that from my experience spending some time with Patrick Colquhoun at Luss Estates prior to the stage 1 process. There has been extensive engagement with the local community in Luss around how the land is managed.

Amendment 269 will require ministers to consult on and “make publicly available” guidance in relation to the new community engagement regulations that are provided for in the bill. The details of the community engagement obligations will be set out further through regulations, which, clearly, the Government must consult on. I believe that amendment 269 will help to ensure that there is guidance to support understanding of how the community engagement obligations should be developed. In that way, the amendment benefits both the local community and the landowner in providing greater clarity.

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

I welcome Michael Matheson’s amendment 269, which will create a duty on ministers to consult on, issue and make publicly available guidance in relation to the new community engagement obligations. I said at stage 2 that I was happy for that to be made clear in the bill, and I urge members to support that amendment.

Edward Mountain has introduced two amendments in this group that would force ministers to tailor community engagement obligations to the individual circumstances of each and every large landholding that is subject to the provisions in the bill. They would place a significant and unjustifiable resource and administrative burden on ministers, given that they would require an assessment of each and every large landholding. It will be far better for ministers to develop proportionate rules following that appropriate consultation with the relevant stakeholders, because that will ensure that obligations address all types of landholding in Scotland as consistently as possible.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I understand the merits of some of the arguments that the cabinet secretary has put forward. However, we heard in committee at stage 1 that the costs of producing land management plans will probably be in the region of £10,000, at a minimum, and for a large estate they could be considerably higher than that. With my amendments in the group, I am trying to ensure that a small farmer with, say, 1,000 hectares does not have to spend £10,000 getting in specialist people and taking advice. If you are not going to support my amendments—

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Through the chair, please.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

—perhaps the cabinet secretary will be clear that that is indeed her aim, and that it will be covered in regulation.

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

I hope that, in what I set out, I was clear about what I will aim to do, because I absolutely appreciate Edward Mountain’s intent in his amendments. That is why I said that it is important that we develop those proportionate rules following that appropriate consultation with relevant stakeholders, but that we do that in a way that ensures that we deal with landholdings in a consistent manner. I provide that assurance. As I said, I urge members to vote against his amendments.

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

My recollection of our committee proceedings at stage 2 is that we heard that the cost of a land management plan will be about £5,000, not £10,000-plus, and that many landowners are already doing the good work that will be involved in those plans. However, notwithstanding that, cabinet secretary, do you agree that the significant increase that my stage 2 amendment made to the fine for not producing a land management plan was quite sage, if the cost could be as much as £10,000 to £15,000 in the first place?

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Always through the chair.

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

Yes. I completely appreciate the important point that Bob Doris raises. We will return to some of those issues in the debates on later groups.

Rhoda Grant’s amendments 263 and 117 seek to introduce a duty on landowners to give consideration to reasonable requests by community bodies or crofting community bodies for the landowner to apply to have land designated as a croft. I think that Rhoda Grant said that she will not move amendment 133, but, if she does, I ask members not to support it, because it has a narrower scope than its counterpart amendment 263, which we will support.

I turn to Ariane Burgess’s amendments 116 and 132. I fully support transparent ownership, which is a vital part of land reform. It seems that the amendments would require all landholdings that are registered on the sasines register to be transferred to the land register. However, the information that is contained in the sasines register has been made more easily accessible. The unlocking sasines project that Registers of Scotland has taken forward in recent years has been a significant step in enhancing visibility and accessibility of the register, which is the oldest national public land register in the world.

I appreciate the benefits of a completed land register and I fully support the improved transparency that Ariane Burgess is looking for. Unfortunately, however, there are a number of issues with the amendments. They are drafted in such a way that they would place a legal duty on landowners to ensure that their details were in the land register. However, responsibility for registration of those details in the land register rests with the keeper, once an application for registration is made. We cannot place a responsibility on landowners that is out of their control, given that the responsibility for the register sits with the keeper.

In addition, the process that is involved in moving to the land register sometimes involves significant conveyancing, surveying and other legal costs. None of that has been considered and there has not been a business and regulatory impact assessment. The costs to a range of landowners—including local authorities, charitable trusts and public bodies—could be significant. It would not be fair to impose those costs without proper consideration and consultation. We also have to consider the impact on Registers of Scotland, which was not consulted before the amendment was lodged and is not resourced to process the increase in registrations that would be generated.

However, I point to the consultation that we will undertake on the content of the land management plans, which is in development. Owners will have to include details of the land, including how ownership is structured, but there is scope for further detail, such as maps, to be included. Land management plans will be publicly available and free to access online, thanks to amendments in the name of Bob Doris that we will consider in the next group, which I intend to support. As part of that wider consultation on land management plan regulations, we will consider whether the power to impose the community engagement obligations or other available powers could be used to introduce further measures to address the aims of Ariane Burgess’s amendments.

I therefore ask Ariane Burgess not to press amendment 116 and not to move amendment 132. I offer to have further discussions to identify how we can work together on some of the issues that she has raised.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I call Ariane Burgess to wind up and press or withdraw amendment 116.

Ariane Burgess (Green, Highlands and Islands)

I am disappointed that the cabinet secretary cannot support my amendments, but I welcome the point that she made that consultation on land management plans is in development, with potential for the inclusion of maps. I underscore that, if we are to move forward with the modernisation of our taxation system to focus on wealth and its redistribution, rather than income, we need to have an up-to-date public record of land ownership and the valuation of that land. I look forward to the Government taking that forward as a matter of urgency.

I press amendment 116.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The question is, that amendment 116 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

There will be a division. Members should cast their votes now.

The vote is closed.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. According to the wonderful message on my screen, the digital platform could not be started. I would have voted no.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Thank you, Mr Gibson. I will make sure that that is recorded.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The result of the division is: For 27, Against 87, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 116 disagreed to.

Amendment 117 moved—[Rhoda Grant].

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The question is, that amendment 117 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members

: No.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

There will be a division.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The result of the division is: For 86, Against 27, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 117 agreed to.

Amendment 234 not moved.

Amendment 16 moved—[Edward Mountain].

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The question is, that amendment 16 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members

: No.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

There will be a division.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The result of the division is: For 48, Against 66, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 16 disagreed to.

Amendment 118 moved—[Edward Mountain].

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The question is, that amendment 118 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

There will be a division.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The result of the division is: For 28, Against 86, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 118 disagreed to.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Group 4 is on land management plans. Amendment 235, in the name of Bob Doris, is grouped with amendments 236, 237, 119, 238, 17, 18, 239, 120, 121, 240 to 244, 19, 122, 20, 245 to 248, 21, 123, 124, 249, 125, 250, 251, 253 to 258, 126, 127, 127A, 128, 260, 22, 130, 131, 262, 276, 40 and 308.

I draw members’ attention to the procedural notes on amendments in this group, as set out in the groupings.

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

Those who followed the stage 2 proceedings on the bill—which I am sure includes most members currently in the chamber—will be aware that I worked with Community Land Scotland to ensure that land management plans should be transparent, available and accessible in one place. Having a single website on which all land management plans across Scotland are located and updated timeously would ensure that the public could know whether the plans had been complied with, as people could access and scrutinise them for themselves. The Scottish Government agreed and has therefore worked with me on amendments 258, 235 and 276, which would make provision for that.

Amendment 258 would clarify that future regulations imposing the obligation to have a plan could make the necessary provision to require that the landowner submits it to another person so that it can be published on a single website.

Amendments 235 and 276 would give ministers the ability to confer functions on any public authority, including themselves, and would allow for future regulations to require a body to establish such a website. It would mean that ministers could require that a public body should publish land management plans in a single place. That could be the means by which landowners make the land management plans available.

It would also allow for the setting of a reasonable administrative fee—a modest one—to be paid by landowners, while keeping those plans accessible and free of charge for people who wish to search for and look at them. My amendments set out that consultation would have to be carried out before the regulations were laid, and that they should be laid under the affirmative procedure.

My amendments 239, 260 and 262 would replace and update the amendment that I lodged at stage 2 to require ministers to publish a statement setting out reasons when they lay regulations that exclude land from the obligations in the bill regarding land management plans. I lodged a similar amendment at stage 2 as I believe that it is important for ministers to be transparent about their reasons for removing any land from the scope of those obligations.

Amendment 239 would remove the drafting that was added by my stage 2 amendment. Amendments 260 and 262 would add back in the requirement for a statement to be made following the standard drafting approach for statements of this kind. The requirement on ministers to make a statement would apply if they exclude land from the land management plan obligations, and additionally from obligations to consider community requests to lease land under section 44C.

My amendments 256 and 257 would clarify that community engagement obligations would be able to set requirements for how landowners should comply with the obligations, including when there is a change of ownership.

I felt, as did Community Land Scotland, that the previous wording could be interpreted as meaning that the landowner “may”, as opposed to “must”, comply with the obligations. My proposed change would make it clear that the regulations could include mandatory provisions that landowners must comply with, as well as allowing for flexibility where appropriate.

I recognise that it could make sense to provide options and offer flexibility—for example, to allow a new landowner to either update a previous plan or create a completely new one if their plans for the land differ significantly.

I look forward to listening to other members on their amendments in this group.

I move amendment 235.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Amendments 236, 237, 243, 244 and 250 are largely tidying-up amendments, which would move the reference to consultation with tenants and crofters into the subsection that deals with consultation with communities. I thank the cabinet secretary for her assistance with those amendments.

The cabinet secretary’s amendment 130 not only pre-empts my amendment 131 but takes out a section that relates to an owner who has two or more holdings. My amendment 131 would make it clear that, where a landowner has two or more holdings totalling 500 hectares, they would be obliged to have a land management plan for those holdings. I ask members to vote against the Government’s amendment 130, as cumulative landholdings should be subject to the obligations set out in the bill. It is now very common for people and organisations to buy up multiple pieces of land that, individually, would not be subject to such obligations but, when added together, would make a substantial landholding. Often, such holdings are used to offset carbon emissions elsewhere.

I agree with Edward Mountain’s amendment 22, which would establish a database of land management plans, and with Bob Doris’s amendment 258 in similar terms. Scottish Labour members would support both of those amendments.

I feel that the proposal in Ariane Burgess’s amendment 119 would be too onerous. Very little progress would be made in a year, and it would quickly become a paper exercise that, in reality, would not be meaningful.

Edward Mountain’s amendment 17 would change the review period from five years to 10 years, which seems reasonable given that change happens slowly in relation to large landholdings. Any changes to the plan during those periods would also have to be consulted on.

Mr Mountain’s amendment 18 appears reasonable, but his amendment 120 would undermine the purposes of the bill in that the requirement to have a land management plan needs to consider whether a landowner has the resources to develop one. I will not rehash my concerns in that regard, because I have stated them before.

Douglas Lumsden’s amendments largely relate to renewable energy and transmission. To be frank, addressing such aspects is what the planning system is for. I have some sympathy with amendment 254, which would require communities to be consulted on energy developments. Scottish Labour tried to introduce a third-party right of appeal when the planning bill was going through Parliament, but that was voted down, and that is where those principles should have been enshrined. To put that provision in the current bill would give communities input on one type of development only, and it would further complicate planning law. That said, communities would be consulted on land management plans that are created under this legislation, which will include all developments on land, and that would give them greater input than they currently have. Therefore, I believe that amendment 254 is unnecessary.

Ariane Burgess (Green, Highlands and Islands)

This bill has been before Parliament for more than two years. Over that time, we have spent many hours considering the implications of land management plans, how they could be made effective in addressing community needs, and what would be reasonable expectations to place on land managers. I remain deeply concerned that, despite all those hours of discussion at stages 1 and 2, there is still nothing in the bill to require land management plans to be implemented by land managers.

As the bill stands, large landowners would need to produce land management plans and, as part of that, they would need to engage with local communities and take their feedback into account. However, there is nothing to require that such plans be put into practice.

I recognise that there are instances in which plans that are made with the best of intentions cannot be carried out. Another period of bad weather like that experienced during storm Amy earlier this year could hamper tree-planting efforts, and there could be times when sudden economic shocks mean that different priorities must come to the fore.

My amendment 119 seeks to strike a balance between a blanket requirement for plans to be implemented and the current absence of accountability in the bill. It would require landowners to submit

“an annual progress report ... to the Land and Communities Commissioner”,

which would provide light-touch oversight of how LMPs are taken forward in practice. That would be to provide transparency about how plans are progressing, and it would not require the land and communities commissioner to follow up on reports.

We must ensure that the measures in the bill are robust and that LMPs are not reduced to paperwork that languishes on a shelf or a hard drive. I urge members to support amendment 119.

I turn to my other amendments in the group, which address an issue that I raised at stage 2 with regard to asking large landowners to consider how their plans could contribute to nature recovery in Scotland. Members should by now know the dire statistics: Scotland is one of the most nature-depleted countries in Europe, and one in nine species here is at risk of extinction.

The proposed section 44B(3) that the bill would insert into the 2016 act currently requires that land management plans set out how land would be managed to help meet Scotland’s net zero targets and aid climate adaptation. However, Scottish Greens believe that the bill needs to include an equal requirement to set out how plans would aid nature recovery efforts.

I have proposed two options for that. Amendment 123 would delete the words “or sustaining” from section 44B(3), leaving a clear requirement for land management plans to set out how they will contribute to increasing biodiversity. Amendment 124 would take an alternative approach, requiring that plans set out their contribution to meeting

“any biodiversity targets set under the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004”.

Members might be aware that the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill, which is currently before the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, will, in due course, set such biodiversity targets. Amendment 124 would ensure that there would be parity between the focus on climate targets and that on nature targets with regard to how Scotland’s largest landholdings are managed. I thank the Scottish Rewilding Alliance for its support with those amendments.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I call Mark Ruskell to speak to amendment 238 and other amendments in the group.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Given that my amendment 238 is consequential to the amendments that I lodged in group 1, I intend not to move it.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I call Edward Mountain to speak to amendment 17 and other amendments in the group.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Thank you, Presiding Officer—I have 16 amendments in this group, but I will be as quick as I can be. My amendments fall under four key themes: the development of land management plans; the contents of those plans; the proportionality and costings of community engagement; and the development of an online database for plans.

Amendment 17 would change the management plan review period from five years to 10 years. I am surprised that the Government has not listened to the clear evidence that we heard at stage 2 that five years for a management plan is incompatible with good land management and with achieving what is set out in the plan. Land management plans tend to last for long periods of time—20 years is not unheard of—and forestry plans last for much longer than that. Therefore, saying that a plan needs to be reviewed after five years is, to my mind, unhelpful. That is why my amendment would take the period to 10 years, which is a far more sensible timescale that is based on the experience that I have in the industry and as a farmer of more than 40 years’ practice.

Amendment 18 would impose an obligation on all parties to work reasonably regarding the development of, and changes to, the management plan. I know that the amendment is not supported by Scottish Land & Estates—it is good that I do not always have to toe its line—but we accept that there are people who might not act reasonably. They could be landowners or people in the community, and the behaviour of both needs to be curbed to ensure that the new legislation is not hindered but works as intended. I expect that the Government will feel that the obligation is not enforceable, but, in my view, inserting in the bill a requirement to work reasonably together would give the land and communities commissioner sufficient stick to bring either side back into the fold.

Turning to the contents of management plans, amendment 19 would remove the reference to the Scottish outdoor access code, so that landowners would not have to detail within their management plan how they intend to comply with the Scottish outdoor access code. That is not required, because complying with it is law.

Amendment 122 is an alternative to amendment 19. It would improve the subsection by clarifying the requirement to include within the management plan details of how the landowner intends to comply with the Scottish outdoor access code

“insofar as it imposes duties upon the owner”.

Therefore, there is a choice there for the Government.

Amendment 20 would remove the requirement that landowners detail in the plan how they will comply with the code of practice on deer management.

Amendment 245 is an alternative to amendment 20. It would require, instead, the disclosure of “the extent to which” landowners intend to comply with the code of practice on deer management.

Amendment 21 would remove the requirement to detail within the plan how landowners will manage the land in a way that contributes to increasing sustainability and biodiversity.

Amendment 125 is a wording change: rather than detailing “how” a landowner will comply with the local place plan, they would have to show “the extent to which” they will comply.

Amendment 246 is similar. Landowners would have to detail “the extent to which” they intend to manage the land in a way that will contribute to the achievement of the net zero emissions targets that are set out by the Government.

Amendment 248 would clarify that the achievement of net zero targets is a matter for ministers and that landowners’ efforts towards achieving those targets are just a contribution. As the targets are an obligation that is imposed on ministers rather than on landowners, that would be an important change to the bill, to make it legally viable.

Amendment 242 would ensure that a landowner’s obligation to include information about their potential plans to sell the land would be required

“only insofar as such information is not commercially sensitive”.

The cabinet secretary stated at stage 2 that management plans would not be expected to contain commercially sensitive information, and amendment 242 reflects that intent.

Amendment 120 would introduce a subsection to mandate that the engagement regarding land management plans must be “reasonable and proportionate” to “the resources available” to the landowner and relevant to the scale of the communities and the size of the landholding.

Amendment 128 would ensure that the cost of producing land management plans was proportionate. I heard what Mr Doris said earlier, but my experience tells me that £10,000 would probably be the minimum that a complicated land management plan would cost and that a more complicated one could cost considerably more—perhaps up to £40,000 or £50,000. There are members in this chamber who would question those figures, but, in the period from 1998 to 2003, when I was working on behalf of my client to resolve woodland grant schemes, it cost the client £45,000-worth of my time. That was not for a management plan—that was for a woodland grant scheme, which was fairly complicated.

Turning to the online database, amendment 22 would oblige the minister to

“establish an online database for the publication of land management plans”.

Amendment 308 would insert a function for the land and communities commissioner in relation to the maintenance of the online database that would be established by amendment 22.

Amendment 40 is a technical amendment that is consequential to amendment 22. It would help the Government by allowing ministers to modify this chapter if required.

Creating an online database for the publication of land management plans would be simple and straightforward. I know that the NFUS does not like amendment 22, but, even though I am a farmer, I do not have to agree with everything that it says. When it comes to this matter, we need to move with the times. Nearly everything that we do can be found online, including the NFUS’s policy strategy, which is why I am happy to see this proposal.

Presiding Officer, have I time to turn to the other amendments in the group?

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Very briefly.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

If my time is that brief, suffice it to say that I do not support any of them except for Douglas Lumsden’s amendments, which I find entirely sensible and reasonable.

Tim Eagle (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Before I debate my amendments at stage 3, I draw members’ attention to my entry in the register of members’ interests. I run a small farm in Moray and have a couple of short limited duration tenancies.

The bill currently requires landowners to include in their land management plans details of their long-term vision and objectives for managing the land, including plans for its potential sale. My amendment 241 would remove the need to include any information about the potential sale of land. I do not see how it can be right or reasonable that a landowner has to speculate in plans about future sales, which they will most likely not be ready to discuss. If the bill is passed as drafted, there will already be a right for communities to register an interest in land. Therefore, forcing landowners to highlight potential sales is not necessary in the context of the land management plans.

The bill also currently requires the land management plan to contain information about how the owner is managing the land in a way that contributes to achieving the net zero emissions targets that are set by section A1 of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009. There is no doubt that protecting our environment is important, although I accept that we have differences of opinion on how that might best be achieved. However, section A1 of the 2009 act puts requirements on Scottish ministers to set net zero emissions targets; it does not directly put those targets on landowners. Farmers and landowners are already actively working to cut emissions and increase their efficiencies, and there has been a 13 per cent reduction in emissions since 1990. With them ready to go further, I do not support the administrative burden that that part of the bill would impose. As one farmer has warned publicly, we must avoid elevating environmental concern to the premier league while relegating food production to the second division. If we maintain such attitudes, the reality will be empty shelves. I fear that this is a step too far.

My amendment 127 seeks to simplify the land management plans for hill sheep farmers, who work in an industry that I am quite passionate about. The land management plans will impose numerous administrative, time-consuming and potentially costly burdens on farmers, including engaging with communities and providing explanations of legislative adherence and substantial details of ownerships and future plans for the land. The financial memorandum that was published with the bill suggested that a landowner could be faced with a £15,000 bill just for drafting their land management plan, and further costs have been predicted, such as up to £3,600 for mapping their holding. Hill farming is an industry that has a history of being the backbone of livestock production in Scotland. However, it is a fragile industry and it is dependent on support. Through my amendment 127, I have tried to find a balance between the greater transparency that the bill is trying to establish through the land management plans and an easing of the burden on this particular category of farmer.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Will the member accept my abject apology that I failed to talk about his sensible amendments in this group? I will, of course, be supporting them, because they make a lot of sense.

Tim Eagle (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I am delighted to hear that. I thought that the member was going to tell me how much he admires sheep, as I do.

This will be quite unique, but there will be a few cases of hill farms, particularly in the west of Scotland, that are over the 1,000 hectare limit that is likely to be imposed through the bill. I urge members to recognise the effect that the plans will have on the purely upland sheep farms and to back my amendment 127.

My amendments 127A and 121 are drafting amendments.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

There is a theme to most of the amendments that I have lodged at stage 3—I am nothing if not predictable.

The Scottish National Party Government talks about community involvement and giving communities a say, but, when it comes to energy infrastructure, communities feel ignored. Communities right across Scotland are angry with the scale of the monster pylons, battery storage and substations that are appearing across much of rural Scotland. It is not just the look of these monster pylons that people are angry about; people are seeing their property prices slashed and they are concerned about the loss of countryside, the impact on health, the impact on tourism, safety and the destruction of farmland.

Amendment 240 would require “high quality agricultural land” to be identified in a land management plan—I do not think that there is anything contentious about that. Amendment 249 sets out that the high-quality agricultural land that is identified

“is not used for major energy infrastructure.”

We often hear about energy security, but what about food security? We should not destroy our farmland; we must protect it for generations to come.

Amendment 251 is just about looking for some transparency. If land will be used for pylons, that should be in the land management plan that the local community can have a say on. If a landowner intends to enter an agreement to allow the construction of pylons, amendment 253 would obligate the landowner to take the “cumulative impact” of energy infrastructure into account. Communities are also concerned that it is not just pylons that will come into the area but other infrastructure that will come on the back of pylons, such as substations, battery storage and hydrogen plants. It is the cumulative impact that is so devastating to our communities.

Jackie Dunbar (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

I have a quick question. You have been discussing pylons. What size of pylons do you consider to be unacceptable? Some pylons are more acceptable than others. I genuinely would be interested in knowing your answer to that.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I do not have a view on pylons. Always speak through the chair, Ms Dunbar.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I am disappointed that the Presiding Officer does not have a view on that.

When we look at the applications from Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks, we see that the pylons are much greater in size—they are up to 50m tall, if I am not mistaken. They are much larger than the pylons that are in place just now, and people have concerns about that. They also have concerns about the sag height of the cables, and operating farm equipment under them is a big concern, too.

Amendment 254 would require a landowner to set out what mitigations had been incorporated if pylons were planned for an area. Those mitigations should be made with an independent expert with knowledge of pylon construction.

Amendment 255 would ensure that, if pylons were proposed, it would be set out why the line could not be undergrounded instead.

If the Government is serious about transparency and giving communities a greater say when it comes to monster pylons, I am sure that it will support my amendments.

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

My amendment 126 seeks to overturn an amendment from Rhoda Grant that was agreed to at stage 2 that would require the Scottish ministers to appoint an independent person to fulfil the community engagement obligations of crofting estate that is owned by the Scottish ministers.

I want to be clear that I want us to be able to set a leading example for how landowners should engage with people who live and work on their landholdings. I do not think that it would be appropriate if, when every other owner of a large landholding is required to undertake that engagement, the Scottish ministers were hiving off the duty to someone else. That would leave crofters on those estates with worse rights on engagement with the landowner than others.

Additionally, it is unclear who the independent person should be, how they would be appointed and how they could fulfil the duties when they are not representing the landowner. That would be confusing and could lead to significant and unnecessary costs for the public sector, which is why I ask Rhoda Grant not to continue to press for that change.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

My point is one for any Government; I am not casting aspersions on the current Government. What would happen if a community on land owned by the Scottish Government feels that its rights under the legislation are not being attended to? The appeal would be to the Scottish Government to do something about that—but the Scottish Government cannot police itself.

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

The member is absolutely right. I would not expect that to happen either, and that is exactly what the position of the land and communities commissioner, which is independent of the Government, is for. I would expect it to treat us in exactly the same way as it would treat other bodies and landowners who are subject to the measures that we are introducing in the bill.

Another amendment from Rhoda Grant that was agreed to at stage 2 covers what is to happen if a landowner is required to produce land management plans but the land that leads to that requirement is spread over multiple holdings. It was suggested that, in that case, the commissioner should direct landowners. I think that the amendment was meant to support other amendments that did not pass at stage 2, which looked to remove requirements for the landholdings counting towards the threshold to be contiguous with one another.

As the bill requires land to be contiguous to count towards the 1,000 hectare threshold, that change is not necessary. Importantly, the provision also has a number of drafting issues, because it does not specify which commissioner is to direct landowners, and the definitions of land are inconsistent with the rest of the bill, which means that they will not cover the holdings that they should. It also makes no provision for enforcement of the commissioner’s direction and, therefore, brings uncertainty and confusion into the bill. That is why I intend to undo the change through my amendment 130, and I urge members to support that.

Rhoda Grant’s amendment 131 suffers from similar flaws to the amendments of hers that were agreed to at stage 2 that I have just described. I urge members to reject that amendment.

I turn to Bob Doris’s amendments 235, 258 and 276, which allow further provision in connection with community engagement obligations to be made in future and will enable ministers to legislate for a central accessible portal for all land management plans. The detail of that would be set out in regulations, subject to the affirmative procedure, following appropriate consultation.

I think that we would all agree that it is important for LMPs to be easily accessible and to maximise our transparency objectives, and I completely understand the intent of Edward Mountain’s amendments in relation to the matter. Unfortunately, I cannot support those amendments, because they would require the online portal to be delivered by ministers directly and maintained by the land and communities commissioner. That is not necessarily the most appropriate or cost-effective way of hosting the LMPs.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I thank the cabinet secretary for giving way. I think that you will find that my amendment gave the option for you to amend the chapter, should it so require. The principle is to have an online database of land management plans. You could accept my amendment, if you were being generous, and then amend it by regulation afterwards, as you are doing with so many other parts of the bill.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Again—through the chair, Mr Mountain.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Of course.

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

That is why I support Bob Doris’s amendments on the matter—because they allow more flexibility. That is why I am unable to support Edward Mountain’s amendments.

I support Rhoda Grant’s amendments 236, 237, 243, 244 and 250. In line with discussions at stage 2, those amendments make it clear when the development of a land management plan will require specific engagement with tenants, including crofters and small landholders. I urge all members to support the amendments.

I also support Bob Doris’s amendments 239, 262 and 260, because they relate to the statement that ministers need to make if they are excluding any land from the obligations around land management plans. In some rare cases, it might be appropriate for land not to be subject to those obligations. In those situations, it is right for ministers to set out the rationale for the decision. Those amendments improve similar amendments that were passed at stage 2, and I encourage members to support them.

Edward Mountain’s amendments 120 and 128 are concerned with making LMP obligations proportionate to the landholding size, the make-up of nearby communities and the resources that are available to the landowner. As I highlighted in the previous group, the regulation-making powers for land management plans are the appropriate way to consider those issues, because they can be considered in the round. When we are designing the regulations, it will be essential that we consider all the issues. However, the amendments are too prescriptive and could give any unscrupulous landowners too much scope to avoid meaningful engagement just by asserting that they consider it to be disproportionate.

Amendments 121, 127 and 127A, from Tim Eagle, seek to introduce different requirements for landholdings that are mainly used for sheep farming. I do not think that it is appropriate that we distinguish large landholdings by land use in the bill. In addition, it is unclear who would make the judgment call about land use and how the decision could be challenged. For those reasons, I am unable to support those amendments.

Of other amendments in the group, amendment 119, from Ariane Burgess, would require all landowners to submit an annual report on their land management plans to the land and communities commissioner. An annual report is a significant undertaking, and the impact on landowners of requiring one has not been properly considered and could be substantial. We also have to think about the burden that that could put on the land and communities commissioner.

I completely understand the amendment’s intent. Landowners should give updates on their progress against the plans that they have set out, but that issue can be covered appropriately in regulations. For example, the reviews of the LMP that are required every five years would be a suitable place to set out how progress has occurred since the previous review or plan. I ask Ariane Burgess not to move amendment 119.

Amendment 17, from Edward Mountain, works against the intent of the bill by undercutting community engagement obligations and would require LMPs to be produced and engaged on only every 10 years, instead of the current five years. I ask members not to support that amendment.

Amendment 18 should also be opposed. It imposes obligations on communities relating to land management plans and seems to take responsibility away from landowners. I have been clear throughout the process that landowners are responsible for engaging communities and producing LMPs. They are the ones who own the land and they should take responsibility for the plans, and I do not think that it is reasonable to shift that responsibility to communities. I urge members to oppose the amendment.

I encourage members to support amendments 256 and 257, from Bob Doris. They further clarify amendments that we supported at stage 2 about the type of provision that could be made regarding compliance with community engagement obligations, including in circumstances in which the ownership of land is transferred.

I turn to the amendments that relate to the content of land management plans. Tim Eagle’s amendment 241 seeks to remove the requirement for regulations to require landowners to include information about the potential sale of a landholding from its LMP. Edward Mountain is also looking to water down that requirement through amendment 242, which would require that information about a potential sale need be included only if the information “is not commercially sensitive”.

Both amendments completely miss the point of the engagement requirement. Communities that are close to large landholdings should be consulted on and made aware of significant changes, such as the sale of land that they live and work on. That is why I ask members to oppose those amendments.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I am surprised that the cabinet secretary does not accept the words “commercially sensitive”. When it came to buying Glen Prosen, for example, none of the information was made available to the public, because it was considered to be commercially sensitive. It appears that what is good for the Government is not good for a landowner. Will the cabinet secretary respond to that?

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

I have been clear in the evidence that I have provided multiple times at the committee on these issues that we would not expect such information to be published. I disagree with Edward Mountain’s assertion on that, as that is simply not the case.

On the proposed nature and climate provisions in the group, Edward Mountain and Tim Eagle appear to be working together to remove or reduce the effectiveness of some of the provisions in new section 44B of the 2016 act, which sets out some of the detail that will be required to be set out in LMPs.

Edward Mountain’s amendment 21 would delete any reference to how landowners are increasing or sustaining biodiversity, and Tim Eagle’s amendment 247 would take the same approach by removing any requirement for landowners to set out how they are managing land in a way that is consistent with net zero targets. I recommend that those amendments be opposed, and that Edward Mountain’s amendments 246 and 248 should also be opposed, as they also look to water down the nature provisions in the bill.

In that regard, I support Ariane Burgess’s amendment 123. However, I cannot support her amendment 124, because it contains references to provisions in the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill, which is still under consideration and subject to changes as well as a final vote by Parliament. The issue could instead be picked up when we are consulting on the detailed requirements on the land management plan content.

A number of other amendments that Edward Mountain has lodged—amendments 19, 122, 20, 245 and 125—would all weaken the measures in the bill and make it easier for owners of large landholdings to do less to fulfil their duties. I urge members to oppose those amendments.

Douglas Lumsden has lodged a number of amendments relating to electricity infrastructure across this group, group 6 and group 11. That is a matter of interest in my constituency, so I want to make it clear that I appear before the Parliament today in my capacity as a minister of the Scottish Government and that the position that I am presenting reflects the collective view of the Scottish Government and concerns a matter of law and policy for which I have ministerial responsibility.

Separately, and in line with the Scottish ministerial code, I have made my views and those of my constituents known to the responsible minister in the appropriate way. The issue that is under discussion today is distinct from that constituency interest, and my contributions today should therefore be understood as reflecting the Government’s position and not a personal or constituency-specific stance.

I will not discuss each of Douglas Lumsden’s many amendments in detail, because they all have the same fundamental issues. Land management plans are about transparency and supporting engagement with communities, and they are not the right place to address the issues that are covered by other legislative and policy frameworks, such as the national planning framework and consents processes. A number of the issues that Douglas Lumsden raises that are connected to energy infrastructure are also reserved to the UK Government. Although I appreciate the issues that Douglas Lumsden is raising, the bill is not the right vehicle to fix them, which is why I cannot support amendments 240, 249, 251, 253, 254 and 255.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

I call Bob Doris to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 235.

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

I will make some very brief observations. First, I welcome the Scottish Government’s support for the amendments in my name.

Ariane Burgess’s amendment 123 would mean that the intention of land management plans is to increase rather than sustain biodiversity. I have been in contact with many constituents who were keen for me to support that amendment, so I am pleased that she has won the argument with the Scottish Government. I hope that the amendment will be agreed to today. I have also spoken to the Scottish Rewilding Alliance about that.

I thank Mr Mountain for the efforts that he has put in at stage 3 and for clarifying a wee bittie more what he means when he talks about how much land management plans could cost. He mentioned particularly complex plans, which gives some light and shade to the discussions that we had on the issue at stage 2, and I welcome that.

Mr Mountain is keen for land management plans to be extended to a 10-year period. Of course, there is nothing to prevent a landowner from having a land management plan for 10 years and reviewing and updating it after five years, which I think would be good practice and would be within the provisions of the bill.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

For a farmer, a land management plan of 10 years will not mean anything. Land management plans for farmers tend to cover a much longer term than that. If someone invests in machinery and livestock, they do not invest for 10 years; they probably invest for 20 years. Does the member not believe that five years is a blink of an eye when it comes to management of land, livestock and landholdings, and that 10 years would be more reasonable?