Chamber and committees

Thanks for that. Did you want to comment, David?

I want to go back to the issue of community consultation on land management. When I was looking at the evidence, I saw NFUS’s comment about

“informal practices that have taken place for generations”

in rural communities. I feel that that sort of thing is probably a bit patchy, having lived in rural areas most of my life. It is probably the case that some good and some not-so-good things happen. To what extent do you believe that voluntary engagement with communities is strong enough to effectively obviate the need for a statutory requirement in the bill? I am interested in your thoughts on that. The convener has already alluded to our visit to highland Perthshire, where we saw some pretty good practice, but we have also heard about some less-than-good practice, some very disengaged landowners and frustrated communities.

Shall we go back round again, kicking off with Sarah-Jane Laing?

If land ownership in Scotland is more concentrated, an intervention will impact a much smaller number of people than, say, an intervention in Denmark, which would impact a much greater number of people. If a small number of people would be affected, what weighting is that given when considering the impact on the private property interest?

That would be useful. David, do you have anything to add?

I know that there was discussion with the previous UK Government about the introduction of a carbon tax. That was an option at one point, although I am not sure whether it was intended to run alongside an ETS or as a replacement of an ETS.

It would be useful to get your thoughts on whether a carbon tax is now off the agenda and whether everything is now completely focused on an ETS.

I note that Norway also has an ETS—presumably aligned with that of the European Union—but that it also has a carbon tax on both its oil and gas sector and the production emissions from oil and gas. The fact that it has an ETS and a carbon tax means that the industry makes a significant contribution to the Norwegian state.

I am interested in where the discussion is. Is a carbon tax on or off the agenda? Are we simply considering this instrument as the main way to decarbonise?

Would it come down to guidance, then? Would the detail of the guidance determine whether the approach was too prescriptive or not prescriptive enough?

I will come to the other witnesses later, but do you have any evidence of how the public interest regulations that put more regulation on land and land ownership have been successfully challenged across Europe?

The committee deals with climate change, among other issues, and we know that land use and management is now the biggest cause of emissions. Do you think that the biggest holdings, or those that generate the most emissions, should be obliged to adapt and to mitigate climate change? Should there also be reporting of that? Do you accept that, or do you contest it?

I think that, if you take out carbon sinks—wetlands and woodlands, which we are not planning to change—the land use sector, as a direct emitting sector, is now the highest emitter. That needs to be addressed.

You mentioned forestry strategies, local place plans and lots of potentially overlapping forms of local engagement and active planning. Do you have thoughts on how those things can be brought together? Is that what the land management plan is for, or is there nothing that brings all the overlapping parts together in a way that allows people to say, “Yes, I can see what’s happening in my local area” or “I want to see X and Y. I wonder what that conversation with my local estates is looking like”?