Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

I fear that I will take longer than Bob Doris, but I will be quicker than the cabinet secretary. I will try my best.

I appreciate the cabinet secretary’s thoughts on my amendments 398 and 402. However, I see a significant difference between an estate with multiple portfolios and an agricultural holding, which might be just an upland sheep farm. I have a genuine concern about the potential consequences for those who are purely in the agricultural sector, for whom the burden of a land management plan would be too much.

My amendments 399 and 403 seek to address concerns relating to the thresholds of land. The thresholds seem a bit arbitrary as they are not based on evidence of particular outcomes or dependent on a particular scale. For community engagement, there should be additional criteria that are markers for what success looks like—in effect, there should be a threshold-plus test. Amendment 403 would add the additional criteria that

“there is not a disclosure statement or management plan in relation to the land”

and that

“the owner has not engaged with a community body in the vicinity of the land in relation to the management of the land within the last 5 years.”

Amendment 37 is consequential to amendment 41. On amendments 41 and 44, I note that the bill says that obligations may be imposed on land that is either a single holding or a composite holding. A composite holding is one that consists of any number of single holdings. I do not believe that it is rational to include composite holdings. We are concerned that they could include holdings that are located nowhere near each other and have widely different land management requirements. Amendment 41 therefore seeks to delete “composite holding”, and amendment 44 seeks to delete all references to composite holdings in the section.

NFUS gave the example that, if a landowner is selling or transferring an area of land in the Highlands, it has no relevance to another landholding in East Lothian. It will not impact the same community and it should therefore not be included.

In my speech in the stage 1 debate on the bill, I asked why size rather than value had been chosen as a key measure for who will be impacted by the bill. In my mind, there is a huge difference between 3,000 hectares of moorland and 3,000 hectares of prime agricultural land. Although I am not sure that I fully understand the rationale for using size as the measure, my amendment 39 seeks to remedy the issue by increasing the threshold from 3,000 hectares to 5,000 hectares.

Scottish Land & Estates has also disputed the idea of using the size of an estate as an indicator of adverse impacts on Scotland. It said:

“There appears to be no evidence that there is detrimental impact on Scotland due to the scale of land holdings. The Scottish Land Commission’s own evidence points to the issue being potentially one of concentrated land ownership in specific areas, rather than scale itself.”

In addition, NFU Scotland believes that the bill could have “significant implications” for Scottish agriculture. It expressed concern about the delivery of the bill, saying that the

“proposals around land market regulation have the potential to severely compromise farming. Economies of scale have meant that farms have to get bigger to survive.”

I am seriously alarmed by and absolutely opposed to the cabinet secretary’s and Ariane Burgess’s amendments that seek to reduce the threshold figure. This is the very heart of the bill, and to lower the threshold at stage 2 with, as far as I am aware, no prior consultation with stakeholders such as SLE and NFU Scotland is bad law making. Dropping the figure to below 1,000 hectares will catch too many farms and landholdings that, although large in acreage, are not large in income terms.

One farm that would be caught by the new threshold is Tardoes farm, which is a sheep farm in the Muirkirk uplands in east Ayrshire. Cora Cooper, who runs the farm, recently briefed us on the challenges that the farm faces. The farmers are first-generation farmers with 2,023 hectares, and they have a peatland restoration plan to restore 800 hectares of damaged peatland. Cora told me that they are already facing increased costs from Labour’s national insurance rise, that they have a business loan to pay off and that the SNP Government is now planning to impose on the farm a £15,000 administrative burden for a land management plan every five years. They feel that they are doing everything right. Why would we want to penalise them?

That is a good point. I do not know whether you have spoken to Cora—she is very keen to speak to people. My understanding is that she and the whole unit are already very actively involved in the local community. However, they asked us why they are being drawn into the bill’s provisions when they feel that they are already doing everything that the Government is asking them to do, and they made the point that feel that they do not yet have the detail of what the land management plan will include. If it will literally involve a process of bringing together the plans that they already have, you are right that that might not be overly burdensome, but they are not clear about that, which is what they expressed to us. I hope that, over the next few weeks, we will learn that and that we can move forward.

I was not going to make much of a closing statement, other than to thank the cabinet secretary for her responses and to say that I will take them on board. In light of what she has said about working with me as we move towards stage 3, I will not press amendment 10.

Amendment 10, by agreement, withdrawn.

I draw members’ attention to my entry in the register of members’ interests. I thank the committee for welcoming me this morning to speak to and move my amendments to the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill.

My amendment 427 seeks to add a proposed new section—section 67DA—to the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003. It seeks to stop land being subjected to a lotting decision if that would not be in the public interest. It would also allow the Scottish ministers to make further determinations under that provision.

My amendment 433 seeks to add a proposed new chapter—chapter 1A—to the 2003 act, which would add a further element to the lotting provisions. It would allow the Scottish ministers to buy land that is subject to a lotting decision if they are satisfied that it is in the public interest to do so. In addition, it sets out that that must be a market value offer.

My amendment 460 would require regulations that are made under those provisions to be subject to section 98(5) of the 2003 act. That means that any statutory instruments that are made under the provisions must be laid before Parliament and approved by it.

I support my colleague Douglas Lumsden’s amendment 364. As a member for the Highlands and Islands, I know of the very deep concerns that many of my constituents have about the number of pylon applications across Scotland.

As the cabinet secretary said, many of my amendments in the group relate to parliamentary oversight. I appreciate her comments on amendments 217, 219 and 220.

My amendment 417 is about improving parliamentary oversight of regulations that will be triggered by this framework bill. It would require all draft regulations that are made under proposed new section 44M of the 2016 act to be laid before Parliament and the views of relevant committees sought on those matters.

My amendment 161 seeks to amend proposed new section 67S of the 2003 act, which states:

“Ministers may offer to buy land ... following a review of a lotting decision only if they are satisfied that it is likely that the fact that the land has not been transferred since the lotting decision was made is attributable to the land being less commercially attractive than it would have been had the lotting decision not prevented its being transferred along with other land.”

There are already a number of conditions in the bill relating to how that would proceed. Proposed new section 67S(6) will allow ministers by regulation to make further provision about buying land. My amendment 161 would require ministers, before they make regulations under that section, to consult relevant persons and prepare and publish a report on that consultation.

My amendment 165A seeks to amend the cabinet secretary’s amendment 165. It simply provides that, during the consultation, one of the consultees must be

“a person who is an accredited valuer of land”.

My amendment 458 also seeks to improve scrutiny of regulations that are made under this framework bill. It applies to proposed new section 67B of the 2003 act, which will allow ministers to make regulations relating to compensation. The amendment would require any draft regulations to be laid before Parliament and the relevant committees to be consulted.

My amendment 220 concerns when ministers may make regulations to modify the basis on which a valuer may assess the compensation that is payable and the consideration to be given to certain matters by the valuer in doing so under chapter 1 of part 4. The amendment would require ministers to consult people whom they considered appropriate before making such regulations.

Amendments 219 and 220 are similar, but they relate to different regulation-making powers. It is essential that ministers consult those who have knowledge and understanding before making changes. That will allow unintended consequences to be avoided and ensure that the views or interests of all those who are involved are taken into account.

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.

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?