Rhoda Grant
Scottish Labour · Scotland
“To correct the minister, I say that the agricultural funding was rolled up into the block grant rather than being Barnettised. The exact same amount of money is being received because of that. Stakeholders are concerned about the lack of detail in tiers 2 and 3 of the rural support plan.”
“It feels a little like groundhog day. South Uist and Barra face yet another chaotic holiday period. South Uist faces an 85 per cent cut in its ferry service during the Easter period. The First Minister knows that this community has suffered from cuts for years, and that has caused businesses to struggle.”
“We have given certainty about what the payments will look like between now and 2030. The funding has been Barnettised—it may well be rolled up into the block grant, but it has definitely been Barnettised. The funds from the United Kingdom Government have been frozen.”
“This will be my last speech in the Parliament, and it feels apt that it is about crofting, because the cross-party group on crofting was one of the first cross-party groups that I was involved in setting up, and it feels as though things have come full circle. It would be wrong of me, in my last speech, not to pay tribute to some people.”
“I thank Tim Eagle for his kind remarks. There will be a lot of thank yous in this contribution, because I also want to thank all those who helped us with our work on the bill, including Parliament staff on the committee and in the legislation team, as well as those who gave evidence to the committee and the bill team and the minister, for…”
“As MSPs, we should remember that we could achieve only a fraction of what we do were it not for those who work with us, so I thank them for their support. I also want to thank our Scottish Labour staff pool and the parliamentary staff who support us so well.”
The complete record
Every one of 428 lines we hold for Rhoda Grant, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 9.
“Failure to attend can also mean that they come off a waiting list altogether. I was told by a constituent of a case in which an elderly resident could access hospital appointments only if they were made on her GP’s day off, so that her GP could drive her to the appointment. That is an absolutely crazy situation. We were also told that, although running a car costs about £50 per week, which adds to the cost of living in rural Scotland, it is necessary for people to carry that cost because it is the only way that they are able to access services. I probably do not need to speak again about mothers from Caithness having to drive to Inverness to give birth. That journey is equivalent to driving from Edinburgh to Newcastle. If people do not have a car, they have to take a train or even a bus, and the journey is much longer.”
“I thank Finlay Carson for securing this important debate. His motion speaks about the impact of urban-based policies on Dumfries and Galloway, and that is reflected in my Highlands and Islands region, where we suffer very similar challenges—I am sure that any member who represents any part of rural Scotland would say the same. This week, the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee took evidence from stakeholders from rural Scotland, who talked about access to services. They told us that car ownership is a necessity to enable people to access services, given the lack of public transport. Even where there is public transport, it can be unaffordable. Accessing the health service is not free at the point of use, because the cost of getting there means that people cannot access the services that they need.”
“I move amendment S6M-19739.3, to leave out from “condemns” to end and insert: “regrets that the Scottish Government asked for the Fishing and Coastal Growth Fund to be devolved without first agreeing a mechanism outside of the Barnett formula that reflected the size and value of the Scottish industry; notes that, since the 2024 election, the Scottish Government has received an additional £5.2 billion of funding compared with previous spending plans; calls on the Scottish Government to plan for the future of fishing, by developing the processing industry to deal with a larger share of fishing in UK waters and encourage new entrants into the industry, especially within the inshore fleet; believes that the Scottish Government must invest in scientific research in order to manage Scotland's fish stocks to protect the industry going forward; regrets that the Scottish Government has not introduced space-based planning of Scotland’s seas to ensure that renewable developments do not put pressure on the fishing industry and other marine users, and calls for the development of a scheme to lease additional quota share equitably in order to end the trading of quota and licences.” 15:50”
“When the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee visited the marine laboratory in Aberdeen earlier this year, we were shocked to see the conditions in which our scientists work. The accommodation was dire. Some of the equipment was warehoused in other institutions. Their lecture theatre was a storage room. I was amazed that they were able to work at all. There are many things that we should be debating and putting in place to ensure that our fishing industry thrives. Sadly, the debate is being used by the Scottish Government to blame someone else and avoid scrutiny of its own mismanagement. Scotland needs a new Government that will work with the industry and put in place structures that allow it to thrive.”
“It is also about interconnectors, telecommunication cables and fish farming—and the list goes on. The Conservative amendment alludes to some of the pressures on our marine environment. There must be a plan to ensure that we do not have conflict and tensions between industries, and I look forward to hearing what the cabinet secretary has to tell us about that in her summing up. The cabinet secretary also spoke about her concerns about fishing opportunities next year, with total allowable catch reductions on the horizon, so I hope that she will address the science on which we base our fishing catches. Again, this year, there are discrepancies between what the industry believes and what the science tells us. That has long been a bone of contention.”
“That is not happening, and I am sorry that the cabinet secretary has not used this debate to tell us what steps the Scottish Government is taking to do that. We are also concerned about the other pressures on the fishing industry. We are all aware of the scandal of ScotWind and how a ceiling was set for bids to develop renewables projects. However, it is also concerning that those sites were auctioned without discussion with the fishing industry. Although the briefings that we received for this debate include diverging views on a number of things, they all agree that there is an urgent need for spatial planning, which is simply not happening. Tim Eagle: Will the member give way? Rhoda Grant: I need to make progress. It is not just about wind turbines.”
“They can leave the industry but still control it or they can sell their licences and quota to the highest bidder, regardless of who that is or where they live. Any new quota should be leased in the public interest and not sold to the highest bidder. We should build on the Shetland model, where quota is owned by the community and leased to those who live locally and will land their catch in Shetland. Orkney Islands Council and Comhairle nan Eilean Siar also do that with prawn quota. That approach gives the councils the ability to manage the fisheries in a way that benefits their local economies. The UK Fisheries Act 2020 states that quota is a public asset and it requires Scottish ministers to allocate quota using transparent and objective criteria, which should include environmental, social and economic factors.”
“Finlay Carson: I understand how passionate Rhoda Grant is about fishing communities, but does she believe that the reduction from Scotland receiving 46 per cent of the fisheries funding to its receiving a mere 7.78 per cent is fair? Rhoda Grant: I am certainly not arguing that it is fair. I am arguing that the Scottish Government should have agreed a mechanism for devolving that funding—either that, or it should have agreed UK-wide funding, which would have allowed our fishers to get a fair amount of the funding. The Scottish Government also has money within its budget to increase the funds that it offers our fishing industry. We also need to look at how we access quota and how we can manage it differently. Currently, fishing boat owners own the licences and the quota. It is theirs, and they can do what they wish with it.”
“Torcuil Crichton, MP for the Western Isles, has asked DEFRA to look at the methodology again, but the Scottish Government should have done that before it asked for the funding to be devolved. It is late in the day for the Scottish Government to make the same request. Neither is it clear what the Scottish Government will do with the funding. Will it be added to the marine fund Scotland or will it be used differently? The Liberal Democrat amendment to the motion suggests that the Scottish Government should practise what it preaches and provide a greater share of the fishing funding to Shetland. Shetland accounts for 19 per cent of the fish that are landed in Scotland, but it received only 6 per cent of the latest marine fund Scotland awards.”
“I start by paying tribute to our fishing industry. It is a dangerous industry that delivers us food security and economic value in Scotland. The Scottish Government is using this debate to complain about the allocation from the fishing and coastal growth fund, but that was devolved at its request. When it made that request, it knew that the only mechanism to devolve funding is through the Barnett formula, which means that it knew the proportion of the fund that would come to Scotland. In the full knowledge of Scotland’s larger fishing industry, it should have looked to have a UK-wide fund or spoken to the UK Government and at least tried to negotiate a different mechanism to devolve the funding.”
“Ferry passengers in Lewis have been experiencing incredible disruption due to the MV Isle of Lewis being unable to carry any vehicles since last week. That has been particularly difficult and trying for those travelling to and from hospital appointments, because, even if they can get an alternative booking, that adds more than three hours’ drive to their journeys. All road haulage is also disrupted. It feels as if this is the start of another winter of constant disruption with no end in sight. What alternatives have been put in place for Lewis? What alternatives will be put in place for Barra when that ferry returns to its normal route at some point, possibly next week? What steps will the First Minister take to ensure that islanders are never left in this situation again?”
“That is why we are looking to set up an organisation that is similar to Scottish Mountain Rescue to deal with wildfires, so that appropriate training is given in the same way as it is for mountain rescue teams. I am not entirely convinced that people cannot get insurance. We are still looking into the details of that, and if they cannot, we will take steps to work out how we can get a resolution to the matter. With regard to the service delivery review, which I spoke about in my previous answer to Douglas Ross, that is all part of the on-going work by the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. The SFRS is very alive to the fact that the demands on it are changing, and it is therefore changing the way that it works.”
“We now know, as Douglas Ross has said, that gamekeepers and others are not insured if they help to fight wildfires on neighbouring properties. In the interim, will the Government provide insurance cover for people and equipment, whatever their source, to help with controlling wildfires? That is needed now, otherwise we will be in a really difficult situation. Will the minister also ensure that all fire stations have decontamination equipment to be used for all those who are working to control wildfires? Jim Fairlie: Again, the question raises a number of points. As far as capacity is concerned, there will always be a requirement to have local people on standby.”
“This summer, Scotland experienced the greatest number of wildfires in living memory, with more than 200 incidents. Lives, livelihoods and ecosystems are under mounting threat. The carbon released will have a devastating impact on climate change. The Government’s investment in equipment is welcome, but it does not go far enough. Many retained fire stations do not have decontamination equipment, meaning that those who fight fires are returning home with contaminated clothing, which not only puts themselves at risk but creates risk for their families. Also, there is no mention at all in the statement of the Fire Brigades Union. Most retained fire stations are not fully staffed, so developing a further voluntary service seems impossible.”
“One of the issues with the link was the unreliability of the aircraft. People were maybe not using the link as much as they would have done had it been more reliable. Has the Scottish Government given any consideration to doing the same thing that it did in Barra when the aircraft there was unreliable, by purchasing an aircraft and leasing it to an operator, so that the service is reliable and can be used? The First Minister: I am very happy to explore particular issues. As I said in my answer to Beatrice Wishart, the Aberdeen to Wick PSO is a Highland Council PSO. The Barra PSO is a Scottish Government PSO, I think.”
“The Scottish Government had previously committed to having a £20 million fund by the end of the parliamentary session. That commitment has not been met. As the Parliament goes into purdah, it is estimated that 150 projects, with an estimated value of £23 million, are waiting.”
“The bill also introduces lotting to Scotland. We have not had that before, so we will watch with interest how it might impact on land ownership patterns in Scotland. Land management plans will give communities an insight into the plans of their landowner and an input to how those plans impact on them. Again, it will be interesting to see whether that gives communities a greater say in land use. We will support the bill, but we know that it is unfinished business and that the next Parliament will have to pick things up again. However, one thing that the Government can do here and now to empower communities and encourage community ownership is to ensure the future of the Scottish land fund, which is an essential means of funding community ownership and land reform.”
“Any landowner that does not have the wellbeing of the communities that live and work at the heart of what they do will cause damage to those communities by pursuing their own interests over those of the people who live and work on the land. We are also disappointed that the bill does not extend the community right to buy to urban areas. Empowering communities in those areas would have been a game changer—it would have tackled poverty and ensured that developers could not hold those communities to ransom. What the bill does do—and the reason that we will support it—is stop off-market sales. Currently, land is changing hands without the knowledge of the people who live and work on it. The bill will change that by informing communities of sales and allowing them to consider how they deal with them.”
“Douglas Lumsden: Will the member take an intervention? Rhoda Grant: Very briefly. Douglas Lumsden: If the threshold had been reduced, how many family farms would it have brought into the scope of the bill? The Presiding Officer: I will give you the time back, Ms Grant. Rhoda Grant: Thank you, Presiding Officer. It would have been very few—more than 97 per cent of family farms are below that acreage. Neither does the bill take into scope cumulative holdings, so the landlords of huge swathes of Scottish land will not be brought within the scope of the bill. That is increasingly a problem when organisations are buying up parcels of land to offset carbon. Those organisations seek to greenwash polluting activity elsewhere.”
“It is looking to sell to a person who will take seriously their duties to the community. The property details specify that bids should include a statement—which will be shared with the community—that sets out how they will use the castle and how they will support nature, and promote the sustainability, culture and economy of the Isle of Rùm. If that is required for Rùm, should it not be required for every community? We were keen that smaller areas of land should have been included in the bill. We welcome the reduction of the minimum size of included areas of land to 1,000 hectares, but that brings only 754 holdings into the scope of the bill. We would have preferred to see land areas of 500 hectares included—that would have brought 2,641 landholdings within the scope of the provisions.”
“Land is an economic driver, and the wellbeing of a community that lives on the land depends on the actions of the landowner. The landowner can either develop a community or be a dead hand upon it. We have seen that, where communities have bought their own land, economic development has increased and co-operative working, joint enterprise and private business have flourished. It is in the interests of a community landowner for that to happen; they are answerable to their community and honour bound to work in the public interest. That is not the case for private landowners, and nothing in the bill imposes duties on a landowner to work in the public interest. Scottish Labour proposed a public interest test for those who buy land, but, sadly, it was voted down. The Scottish Government is selling Kinloch castle on Rùm.”
“I thank the legislation team, which helped to draft amendments, and all the parliamentary staff who have assisted with the bill and those who have worked late to allow the late sessions to happen. I also thank those who gave evidence and helped with our deliberations. A special thanks must go to Dr Josh Doble and Community Land Scotland for their help. That said, it is disappointing that the next Parliament will have to return to the issue of land reform. The review of the community right to buy took place at the same time as this bill was passing through the Parliament. That review should have been part of the bill. We are also concerned that the bill is timid—it will not make a huge change to land ownership patterns in Scotland. We wanted a public interest test to underpin the bill.”
“I remind members yet again that they agreed to make speeches of up to six minutes and to the timings for the debate, which the Parliament has approved. 16:17”
“James Bingham told the Caithness Health Action Team: “The geographical distance and transfer times between Caithness and Raigmore is greater than that accepted to be safe for a primary birthing unit.” We need a plan B. There is a plan B in Orkney, which allows babies to be born there, but there is no plan B for Caithness. Should we be using the Scottish specialist transport and retrieval service to provide that? Presiding Officer, I finish with— The Deputy Presiding Officer: Please conclude—you are over your time, Ms Grant. Rhoda Grant: I finish with a quote from a mother in Raigmore, who said: “Women don’t feel safe any more. It’s barbaric. We don’t matter up here. That’s what it feels like.” The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, Ms Grant.”
“There was no space in the unit in Inverness, and she was told that he would have to be flown to another hospital. She was asked whether she wanted her husband to stay with her or to go with their newborn baby. What kind of choice was that? It was made worse, because many hours later, worrying about what was happening, she discovered that her parents were waiting outside the hospital to be with her— and that her husband and baby were in the Inverness special care baby unit, because a bed had become available. It does not need to be like that. We need to make sure that midwife-led community units are safe. For low-risk births, they are, but when something goes wrong, there must be a plan B.”
“Whistleblowers have said that staffing and accommodation are inadequate, which puts intolerable strain on the staff who work there, yet the Scottish Government has put on hold the capital spending to upgrade the unit, and there is no prospect of that work being carried out. Recently, I met a young mum who went to Inverness to be induced. She could not get into the maternity unit but was eventually given accommodation. Her partner was also given accommodation, but it was in a totally different building. She had already been induced and was in pain; she was in a strange place, on her own, with no one to turn to. When, eventually, she was taken into the maternity unit and gave birth, she was told that her baby was unwell and needed special care services.”
“Being turned away is very common, because women who are not close to giving birth are not admitted to the Inverness maternity unit, due to the lack of space. Instead, they are asked to wait somewhere else—to walk around the retail park while they are having contractions. Many have been asked to travel many hours back home and return again when they are closer to delivery. Those women live in Caithness, Wester Ross, West Sutherland, Skye and Lochaber—many miles from Raigmore hospital. Surely, driving long distances on poor roads, with someone beside you having contractions, cannot possibly be safe. To travel three hours from Skye, only to be told, late at night, to go home and return in the morning, is inhumane. However, there is not space in the Inverness maternity unit to cater for those who cannot go home.”
“Halfway through the journey, when the birth of the first twin was imminent, they stopped at the community hospital in Golspie. There are no maternity services there. The first twin was born with the assistance of hospital and community staff, who rallied to the cause. The first twin was then separated from their mother and travelled in the incubator in a second ambulance to Inverness, where the second twin was subsequently born. The trauma of that is unthinkable, yet NHS Highland has not risk assessed that journey, despite being asked about that on numerous occasions. On another occasion, a woman was turned away at the door of Raigmore hospital after travelling for more than two hours in labour, and she then had to travel on to Aberdeen and Dundee.”
“Finlay Carson: I want to put on record, for Clare Adamson’s benefit, that the maternity service in Stranraer—the birthing suite, which used to be one of the 10 busiest such services in Scotland—is closed, as a result of a lack of midwives, and women in Wigtownshire are expected to make a 140-mile round trip. That is a fact. Rhoda Grant: That is the case in many parts of Scotland. Even when planning takes place, things do not always work out. Jackie Baillie highlighted the case of the twins who were born in separate hospitals, in different counties, during a transfer from Caithness to Raigmore. Were it not for the quick-thinking ambulance staff, who took an incubator with them when they left Caithness, the outcome could have been very different.”
“There is an excellent midwife-led unit in Caithness, but it is 100 miles away from obstetricians and paediatricians, so the risk of a lengthy transfer has to be factored into decision making. The roads are poor, and they can be absolutely treacherous in winter. Therefore, the vast majority of Caithness births take place in Inverness. Women are being forced to plan to be induced, with all the attendant risks of more acute labour pain and complications. Giving birth in a delivery unit, hours from home and away from family and friends, is now the norm, sadly, in large parts of rural Scotland.”
“Centralisation of maternity services has forced mothers to travel long distances, often in dangerous conditions, to reach consultant-led units. We have heard harrowing stories. One woman gave birth at the side of the A96, instead of at Dr Gray’s hospital in Elgin, after being forced to transfer to Aberdeen because the unit was closed. How can that be a safe alternative? I am glad that, after much campaigning, maternity services have been reinstated at Dr Gray’s hospital. Sadly, that is not the case elsewhere. In Caithness, the consultant-led maternity unit was downgraded in 2016, due to a tragic incident when there was no paediatric support available.”
“The consultation has just closed, and it is important that we analyse the results to see what amendments could be needed to the various community rights to buy to ensure that those powers are easy for communities to use to tackle some of the issues that are right on their doorsteps. I look forward to engaging further with Rhoda Grant as that work develops but, as I said, the consultation has only recently closed, so we need to examine the outcome of that first. Fishing and Coastal Growth Fund 5.”
“Mairi Gougeon: Rhoda Grant has raised some important points, as Paul Sweeney did when he spoke on some of the amendments that we discussed in our stage 3 consideration of the bill. The approach that we are taking through the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, which is focused on rural land, is based on the recommendations in the Scottish Land Commission’s report as to where the issues are more pressing. However, that does not mean that we forget about urban areas and the pressures that exist there. I have outlined some of the work—Rhoda Grant touched on it, too—such as the consultation on and review of community right to buy. I also touched on the consultation in relation to compulsory sales orders and compulsory purchase orders.”
“The Scottish Government’s Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, which we are currently considering at stage 3, excludes urban Scotland and other settlement types unless they are situated on large land holdings. There is no mechanism to ensure that the public interest is considered in urban land management or urban land sales. My colleague Paul Sweeney MSP has highlighted that, in Glasgow, 53 per cent of the population live within 500m of derelict land. The Scottish Government has long stated that work is under way, including the current review of the community right to buy. However, can the cabinet secretary tell us what steps the Government will take to deal with the matter and when we can expect that work to happen?”
“Encouraging news was relayed last week in a response to a Government-initiated question, which set out that the Scottish Government is moving in the right direction on the matter, but it is concerning that it is looking only at developments under 50MW. There is no reason for that cap. The Government’s new proposals are also only being piloted and will do nothing to compensate Cowal Community Energy for the lost opportunity. We should never again find ourselves in a position in which a community stands willing to develop renewables but a Government agency says no.”
“I speak in support of amendment 207. Earlier this year, Cowal Community Energy attempted to take over the operation of Cruach Mhor wind farm, but the Scottish Government rejected its bid in favour of one from a private developer. Since that disappointing outcome, Cowal Community Energy has fought to highlight its case and the wider case for community energy. That was seen as a test case for the Scottish Government to turn its ambitions on community empowerment into action, but, sadly, it failed to do that. Community-owned wind farms generate, on average, 34 times more income per megawatt for the local community than is generated by privately owned wind farms.”
“In those schemes, Scottish farmers are absolutely in line with the work of the Scottish Government, because we are doing them by co-design.”
“However, people were not guaranteed to get funding just because they were in those categories, because applications had to be robust in relation to the objectives in the first place. We had a total of more than 7,000 claims, but only 4,000 of them were actually eligible. There have been some calls to look into why certain claims in certain areas were not taken forward, but they were not eligible for a range of reasons. I am happy to write to the member to tell her what those reasons are. The overall picture is that the scheme has demonstrated a huge appetite from the members of the farming and crofting community. They want to get involved in the scheme and we want to make sure that we are delivering on that. We have kept the basic support for farming, the Scottish upland sheep support scheme and the voluntary coupled support.”
“There is absolutely no way that what we have done has excluded crofters or islanders. We have the croft house grant scheme and the crofting agricultural grant scheme, so there are funds available—[Interruption.] Presiding Officer, I am having real difficulty hearing. I keep getting chuntering from the left side. The Presiding Officer: I am having difficulty, too. I am keen to bring in everyone who has pressed their request-to-speak buttons, and that would be more straightforward if we could get through the questions and responses. Jim Fairlie: I would really like to try to give some proper answers to the questions, so I beg your forgiveness for asking members to stop talking. There is no way that islanders have been downgraded in the scheme. We were very clear that we wanted young farmers, crofters and new entrants to get the funding.”
“We have already seen changes introduced by the Government that have a negative impact on our island farmers and crofters, such as the 410-day calving interval and aspects of the whole farm plan. The minister gave assurances that he would be cognisant of islanders’ needs when bringing forward policies, yet only a tiny fraction—less than 1 per cent—of the funding is going to the Western Isles, as highlighted by Donald MacKinnon, an active crofter and former chair of the Scottish Crofting Federation. We also hear reports of a huge number of rejected applications across the Highlands and Islands. Why was less than 3 per cent of the funding used to support islanders despite there being no shortage of applications? Was an island communities impact assessment carried out? Jim Fairlie: Rhoda Grant raises a number of points in that question.”
“If we manage deer properly, the investment that we put into natural forest regeneration may not be required because, if we remove deer pressure, forests will regenerate themselves naturally. However, we must reduce deer numbers. When we do that, animal welfare must be at the heart of it, because it is important that we do it properly and do not waste the venison that is created from the cull of deer. We have heard about initiatives in Jura and other places where venison is making its way into school meals and providing nutrition to our young people. We need to learn from that. Scottish Labour very much welcomes the bill and will support it. However, we want to work with the Government on lodging amendments that will improve it in future, which I hope we can do at stage 2. 15:38”
“I fear that any change may rebalance the aims and lead to conflict. When we first introduced national parks, there was a clamour to have them in other areas, but that clamour seems to have disappeared. Indeed, the Government’s attempt to create another national park has failed. Instead of changing the aims, perhaps we should help our national parks to flourish, and look at whether our national parks are meeting our aspirations, with post-legislative scrutiny for example. Perhaps we should look at community aspirations for our existing national parks, which might encourage others to consider developing national parks in their areas. Part 4 of the bill concerns deer management.”
“However, it is clear that something in the bill will have to change to provide that protection. We have an open mind as to how that happens. Our legislation needs to be future proofed and it is right for checks and balances to be in place. Part 3 of the bill updates the aims of national parks. When Sarah Boyack was Minister for Transport and the Environment, I was on the committee that scrutinised the original national park legislation and, like her, I remember many difficult debates and negotiations that were needed to get the balance right for the aims of national parks. No one has given a substantial reason for the changes in the bill. I feel that, if legislation does not need to be changed for any particular reason, we should leave it as it is, because those aims have borne the test of time.”
“I am glad that the Scottish Government and the cabinet secretary, in her speech today, have acknowledged that there are issues with that, and that the cabinet secretary said that she will look at lodging amendments at stage 2. We look forward to seeing those amendments. As others have said, if amendments are not made, we might need to look to remove part 2 of the bill. Mark Ruskell: The issue about keeping pace is important. Does the member agree that one way to tackle that would be to ensure that the sunset clause in the continuity bill is removed, so that we in this place can continue to update European legislation that protects the environment? Rhoda Grant: That was one of a number of suggestions given to the committee, which will need to scrutinise the evidence.”
“The Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management told the committee that habitat regulations were more flexible than indicated by the Government, albeit that that flexibility was often underused. It gave an example from my constituency of the Mallaig to Fort William road upgrade, where there was a loss of oak wood in a special area of conservation. However, that was allowed because of the public interest in upgrading the road. Others cited the flexibility that is contained in the Energy Act 2023, which has the power to make changes for renewables and electricity infrastructure. The keeping pace power that this part of the bill seeks to replace is due to expire and could be extended or replaced in a much more constrained fashion.”
“However, as others have said, part 2 has caused much greater concern to those who gave evidence. It gives the Scottish ministers unprecedented powers to modify environmental impact assessment legislation and habitats regulations. Many of those who gave evidence were concerned that the powers were far too broad. Stakeholders argued that ministers already had powers to amend those regimes and that the existing powers work well and give enough flexibility for different features to be protected. They also said that existing powers allow for the alteration of designations for features that can no longer be protected or are no longer there, which is often due to issues outwith our control, such as climate change. Those who gave evidence believe that the powers create the right balance and provide enough flexibility in any circumstance.”
“I add my thanks to those who provided evidence to the committee on the bill and to the committee’s support staff, who helped us in our deliberations. Others have been mentioning that they are nature champions, so I need to name-check the wildcat, for which I am the nature champion. I also pay tribute to the work of the Highland wildlife park and the Royal Zoological Society of Scotland, which have done a huge amount of work on breeding wildcats in captivity and on reintroducing wildcats that have continued to breed in the wild. That is a good-news story, and I hope that we can continue to build on it. As others have said, the bill has four distinct parts. Part 1—on targets—appears largely uncontroversial, albeit that it will need strengthening at stage 2.”
“I hope that it would also smooth decision making and mitigate any disagreement. We are supportive of Ariane Burgess’s amendment 392, which seeks to allow the commissioner flexibility as to the bodies that might receive a copy of the report. As we know, bodies that would have an interest in land might vary depending on local circumstances.”
“The lotting mechanisms within the transfer test are, potentially, a vital way of diversifying ownership and reducing concentration of ownership in a specific local area, and those mechanisms must be strengthened and enhanced at stage 3. A crucial means of doing that will be to add further detail to the bill on what the guidance that underpins lotting decisions will contain and to make clear the centrality of the public interest test. That detail includes references to how the Scottish ministers must have regard to community wealth building, local housing provision and furthering community ownership, among other things. That would make it more transparent from the outset for landowners, communities, the land and communities commissioner and the Scottish ministers what types of considerations should underpin lotting decisions.”
“Amendment 65 would require ministers to bring forward guidance on lotting decisions that includes information on how they will consider crofts, agricultural tenancies and smallholdings on the land. The amendment would ensure that crofting and tenanted agricultural land are explicitly considered when Scottish ministers decide whether and how to divide land into lots. I hope that the guidance would ensure that ministers did not approve land division in a way that might disrupt crofting communities, farms and on-going agricultural use, and would thereby avoid arbitrary divisions that could harm rural livelihoods. 16:15 Amendment 187 seeks to impose a public interest test on lotting decisions.”