Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you for bringing that up, convener. That is not the intention of the amendment. I will explain what we are trying to do with it.

It is about creating land management plans that adhere to the need to address the climate and nature emergency, which is what everything, including the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Act 2024 and the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill, is pushing us towards. We will—we hope—have plans that help us meet our 2045 climate targets and address the 30 by 30 commitment to having 30 per cent of Scotland’s land and sea protected by 2030, which is not very far away.

In that context, the amendment is about trying to ensure that plans do not chop and change and are about long-term action on the ground in relation to things such as peatland restoration, forestry and conservation. That is the intention, convener.

To pick up on the point about national concentration of land ownership that Mercedes Villalba has been raising, if the bill is not the legislative vehicle to address that, what assurances can the cabinet secretary give the Parliament that we will address the national concentration of land ownership and the issue of aggregate landholders, because that has an effect on communities? I recognise that the bill is about land that is directly affecting a community of place, but we need to find a way to address the effect of the national concentration of land ownership.

Amendments 3 and 4, alongside amendments in later groups, seek to lower the threshold to 500 hectares. That would bring significantly more land into the scope of the bill, furthering Scotland’s progress on land reform. I recognise that the cabinet secretary said that that could happen at a future date and that the Scottish Government is keen to monitor the situation with the threshold set at 1,000 hectares. However, the Scottish Land Commission’s research suggests that 93 per cent of land sales are for areas that are greater than 500 hectares, so that would be a proportionate change to the threshold.

As I have just said, the Scottish Land Commission’s research suggests that 93 per cent of land sales are for areas that are greater than 500 hectares, so it would be a proportionate change to the threshold. It would also increase the number of landholdings that we would require to produce land management plans, which would give more communities a voice in the management of local land. We believe that that is at the heart of it.

I am grateful to Mercedes Villalba for her work on thresholds. Over the years, she has bought the issue strongly into the public discourse, and I am grateful that she will support my amendments 3 and 4. I note that the Government’s amendments would reduce the threshold to 1,000 hectares, and I understand that the cabinet secretary has lodged amendments to harmonise the thresholds of 3,000 hectares and 1,000 hectares for simplicity’s sake. I appreciate that it makes sense to have clarity and one threshold for everything.

To go back to our earlier conversation about the national concentration of land ownership, I do not want to put words into her mouth, but I believe that what Mercedes Villalba is trying to get at is the concern about land that is under the threshold being owned by the same landowner but being scattered all over Scotland. We absolutely need to address that and bring it into scope, although not necessarily in the bill. However, I would like to hear the Scottish Government’s assurances about what we can do to address the issue.

I understand all the relevant aspects, such as compulsory sales orders, compulsory purchase orders and the community right to buy review, but we need to address the issue collectively and find a way forward. It is not necessarily about more communities taking ownership of land; it is about how we address the issue of aggregate holdings and, in a way, their power over Scotland.

I will just finish my sentence, convener. That is why I offer to work with Rhoda Grant if the amendment is not moved right now. I am more than happy to work with her on that. I have concluded my comments, convener, but I am happy to take a point from you.

I am delighted to join Mercedes Villalba in suggesting that to Douglas Lumsden.

Another interesting aspect that is in play is that the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Act 2024, which some of us worked on, requires there to be a whole-farm plan. As my colleague Mark Ruskell pointed out, there is enthusiasm and energy among farmers, but there is also a requirement for whole-farm plans to be produced. The work, data and information are already there. Land management plans will ask for that information to be shared with neighbouring communities so that they can have a say, be involved and feel that they have a connection to what is happening on the land around them.

Thank you, convener, for your warm welcome to the committee.

The Green amendments in the group seek to strengthen the provisions on land management plans. Amendment 338 is the most critical and strengthens the duty on landowners from being one of simply preparing land management plans—which I am going to call LMPs so that I do not have to tongue twist “land management plans” a lot—to one of actually implementing LMPs. If plans are prepared but just languish on the shelf, no progress will be made in giving communities a greater say in how land is actually used and it also hinders large landholdings being managed for climate and nature, an idea that was central to the Government’s public consultation in 2023. We certainly cannot have that loophole in the bill.

My amendment 337 would increase the time period to be covered by an LMP from five to 20 years. If, as the Government intended when it consulted on the bill, LMPs are to be a key tool in delivering progress on climate and nature targets, they must take into account the fact that many actions require longer timescales. It could be a decade before some actions begin to produce positive effects for climate and nature, so having longer-term LMPs would mean that climate-positive actions would have time to come to fruition and would be less likely to be chopped and changed every five years. My amendment 311 is consequential to that and my amendments 313 and 314 would ensure that LMPs would still be reviewed every five years, with communities being consulted on developments and revisions.

Finally, my amendment 316 would add a requirement for landowners to submit a report to the land and communities commissioner at the five-year point, ensuring that there is oversight of plans being delivered across 20 years.

I will comment briefly on some other amendments. I am certainly supportive of Bob Doris’s amendments 16, 17 and 20, and probably his amendment 33. I would be interested in understanding why Rhoda Grant believes that amendment 312 is needed and will listen carefully to what she says about amendments 335 and 340 to understand their purpose.

The result of the division is: For 6, Against 0, Abstentions 1.

Amendments 402 agreed to.

Amendments 410, 77, 227, 228 and 267 not moved.

Amendments 403 and 404 moved—[Shirley-Anne Somerville]—and agreed to.

Amendments 564, 50 and 78 to 80 not moved.

Amendment 405 moved—[Shirley-Anne Somerville]—and agreed to.

Amendment 406 moved—[Shirley-Anne Somerville].

The result of the division is: For 6, Against 0, Abstentions 1.

Amendment 406 agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Section 56—Commencement

Amendments 196 to 198 not moved.

The next group is on homelessness prevention: commencement. Amendment 230, in the name of Bob Doris, is the only amendment in the group. I believe that Emma Roddick is going to speak to and move the amendment.