Seòmar agus comataidhean

My concern is about making sure that businesses are allowed to operate in a commercially sensitive environment rather than anything else. I am just picking up on the concerns that the NFUS has already raised on the issue.

We do not support Ariane Burgess’s amendments 313, 314 and 316 as those will make land management plans more onerous. I have lodged an amendment to lessen the burden of their introduction, but those amendments would increase the burden and would act as a disincentive to innovation for farmers and landowners.

We will not support the extension of engagement in Bob Doris’s amendment 20, as that would take us well away from the aims of the bill, which are about community right to buy, and it would make the consultee process too wide and onerous.

I would be interested to hear the cabinet secretary’s response to Rhoda Grant’s amendment 335, on ministers appointing “an independent person” to create a land management plan for crofters.

We will not support Bob Doris’s amendment 33, which allows the commissioner to publish guidance on how owners should comply with requirements that are set out in regulations, as we believe that that provision would cause confusion and overcomplication.

We do not feel able to support Ariane Burgess’s amendment 338, as we believe that it increases the burden associated with the land management plan.

Finally, I am interested in Rhoda Grant’s amendment 340, as there might be instances where a landowner wants to have a single land management plan. I am minded to support that amendment.

I move amendment 10.

I have nothing to add, convener, but I press amendment 389.

I take that point on board. I used the £15,000 figure because I understand that it was brought out during the stage 1 evidence. I am also trying to get across the point that some people, particularly upland farmers, are concerned about the bill’s implications for their agricultural units. However, I appreciate the points that the cabinet secretary has made.

On my amendment 401, the proposed threshold for land forming part of an inhabited island is a single or composite holding that “exceeds 1,000 hectares” and

“constitutes more than 25% of the land forming the island.”

We believe that that land size threshold is too small and that it should be increased to 33 per cent.

My amendment 405 addresses our concerns over the use of the term “composite”. The amendment seeks to require the commission to prepare and publish guidance for the purposes of creating clarity on what constitutes a composite holding. In doing so, the commission would be required to consult appropriate persons.

The bill allows ministers to modify section 1 by regulation, and their powers would allow them to change the land that the ability to impose regulation relates to, and also the persons who may report a breach of obligations. We believe that that power is too wide ranging, and amendment 104 proposes to remove those provisions.

My amendment 105 seeks to prevent ministers from being able to lower the land size threshold in future.

My final amendment in the group is amendment 110. The bill allows ministers by regulation to change the land that obligations are imposed on under section 1. Although our first choice is to remove that power, as set out in our amendment 104, we will look to amendment 110 if amendment 104 is unsuccessful, in order to ensure that the land size threshold that is set out in parts of section 1 may not be reduced in future.

Sorry. I am just enthusiastic, convener.

I will not take long. My amendments 389 and 397 seek to delete proposed new section 44C—which is entitled “Regulations to include obligation to consider community request to lease land”—of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2016.

I believe that the policy intention of section 44C is unclear. I would also welcome more details from the cabinet secretary of what would be in those regulations; for example, what does “give consideration to” mean in practice? I feel that section 44C places an unqualified responsibility on the landowner, and therefore it should be deleted.

As we would prefer to delete section 44C, I am not able to support Rhoda Grant MSP’s amendment 341 at this time.

I move amendment 389.

Thank you.

Your submission sets out that it will be important that

“targets are set ... at the appropriate spatial scale and timescale.”

Can you explain that? Does the framework of the bill ensure that, or is there a need for additional target-setting criteria, as has been suggested by some stakeholders?

Thank you.

Some of this has already been covered, but I am interested in the relationship between the Scottish biodiversity strategy and the statutory targets, which Caroline McParland mentioned earlier. Some written evidence suggests that we have to ensure that the statutory targets in part 1 of the bill align with the 2030 and 2045 deadlines. I am conscious that the strategy document hints at that. It states:

“These targets, like our climate targets, will secure accountability, driving action across Government. They will be focused on achieving the overarching goal of this Strategy”.

Do the witnesses have thoughts about how the targets would work with the 2030 and 2045 deadlines?

What do you think is the value of the statutory targets beyond what we already have in the six-year implementation plans for the Scottish biodiversity strategy?