Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will not press amendment 434, but there are others in the group that I want to move.

Thank you and good morning, convener. My amendment 486 would introduce a new section on a review of the community right to buy. As Mark Ruskell has pointed out, the Scottish Government announced a review of the community right to buy last year, and I have heard from stakeholders that they are disappointed that the bill is proceeding before the conclusion of the review. Amendment 486 seeks to insert such a review in the bill and to include in it consideration of a less onerous pre-registration of interest stage, which would be brought forward if appropriate.

Yes, I was about to say that.

Amendment 24 is concerned with the publication of data in the land management plans. As it is drafted, the bill provides that a land management plan should contain details of the land to which the plan relates and how the ownership is structured. Details of the structure of land ownership are already publicly available and therefore do not need to be included in a land management plan. There are concerns about the publication of commercially sensitive information, so amendment 24 would delete that requirement from the bill.

Amendment 25 is about information on the potential sale of land. As it is drafted, the bill provides that a land management plan should contain the owner’s long-term vision and objectives for managing the land, including its potential sale. Amendment 25 would delete the requirement for information on the land’s potential sale to be included in the plan. I do not believe that it is possible or fair that plans for the sale of land should be in the land management plan in advance.

Amendment 27 seeks to delete reference to the Scottish outdoor access code and the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996. As it is drafted, the bill requires the owner to include in the land management plan details about how the owner of the land intends to comply with a selection of requirements, including the outdoor access code and the 1996 act. It also requires them to detail how they are following the requirements that are set out in regulation. The choice of those two pieces of legislation—the outdoor access code and the 1996 act—appears to be very selective, and the policy intent is unclear. It also seems contrary to the purpose of the bill, which is about community.

Scottish Land & Estates has said that the references to the code and the 1996 act need to be omitted because they muddy the extent of a private individual’s legal duties and that, although landowners can be encouraged to maintain deer responsibly, they are not legally obliged to do so. In addition, of course, deer are not owned by the landowner.

The need to outline in the land management plan how the owner is complying with the obligations set out in the regulations, which include the creation of a plan, adds an unnecessary administrative burden. Therefore, amendment 27 would delete subsection (3)(c) of new section 44B of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2016, on how the owner is complying with the Scottish outdoor access code and the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996.

Amendment 28 takes a similar approach to that of amendment 27. The bill, as drafted, requires the owner of the land to set out in the land management plan how they are contributing or will contribute to various climate requirements. However, I do not understand the selection of legal requirements and consider the non-exhaustive list to be very restrictive, so the intention is much like that of amendment 27. I am also particularly concerned by the reference to

“achieving the net-zero emissions target set by section A1 of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009”.

As I understand it, that obligation is imposed on ministers, not private individuals, and is therefore not really within the control of landowners.

Continuing the theme, amendment 393 would move the priorities for the land management plan into guidance. As it is drafted, the bill will require the owner to include in their land management plan information about how they are managing or intend to manage their land in a way that contributes to a selection of legislative requirements. Rather than list only some of those priorities in the bill, it would be better to move them into guidance. That would allow more flexibility to take into consideration new and emerging national and local priorities, such as the housing emergency.

I am happy to support my colleague Douglas Lumsden’s amendments in this group, but I am unable to support Ariane Burgess’s amendment 26, which would add further requirements on what a land management plan should contain. My amendments aim to simplify the burden that the bill would place on landowners, not increase it, which I believe amendment 26 would do. I also cannot support Ariane Burgess’s amendment 29, which would delete the words “or sustaining” biodiversity, as I prefer the bill as it is originally drafted.

I oppose Ariane Burgess’s amendment 2, which seeks to add another undefined environmental requirement, “restoring natural processes”, which landowners would need to prove that they were contributing towards. The amendment cuts across our amendments, which seek to reduce and simplify the land management plan process. Similarly, I cannot support Ariane Burgess’s amendments 320 and 395, which seek to add a further environmental requirement of “nature recovery” to public bodies, as it is undefined.

I cannot support Rhoda Grant’s amendments 321, 322 and 325 to 329, which seek to add new requirements to land management plans, as they are undefined. As I have already argued, I do not believe that such a list should be included in the bill.

I cannot support Bob Doris’s amendment 30, which seeks to add new requirements that a land management plan should contain, or his amendment 31, which proposes the publication of the plan and the sharing of commercial details in public.

I will not support Ariane Burgess’s amendment 334, as I feel that it would make land management plans more onerous.

Finally, I prefer my amendment 24 to Rhoda Grant’s amendment 336, as it sets out that no operational business information should be included in land management plans.

I move amendment 24.

Amendment 418 seeks to define “community body”. Section 2 of the bill will add procedures for applications to register an interest in land. This amendment seeks to ensure that those who can make such an application are within the legally recognised definition of “community body”. That definition is found in section 34(4) of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003, which states:

“A body is not a community body unless Ministers have given it written confirmation that they are satisfied that the main purpose of the body is consistent with furthering the achievement of sustainable development.”

I turn to my amendment 113. As drafted, the bill will allow the prohibition of sale under proposed new section 46B of the 2003 act to be lifted after 30 days. That 30-day period will begin when ministers publicise

“that the owner ... intends to transfer the land”

and

“how a community body can register an interest in some or all of the land”.

Amendment 113 would still allow for the prohibition to be lifted following 30 days, but the 30-day period would begin when ministers receive a request for the prohibition to be lifted under proposed new section 46C of the 2003 act or the owner of the land proposes to transfer that land under section 48 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2016. I am concerned that there could be scope for delay if the lifting of the prohibition is based on ministers fulfilling duties under proposed new section 46D of the 2003 act, which would unfairly prevent the landowner from selling their land. My amendment seeks to prevent that.

Following on from that is my amendment 114. As the bill is drafted, ministers will be required to give notice to a person who has notified their intention to transfer land, under proposed new section 46C or section 48 of the 2003 act, that the prohibition on transferring the land is lifted after a period of 30 days after ministers fulfil their duty under proposed new section 46D. Amendment 114 proposes that ministers should be required to publish the notice to be given under this part of the legislation.

My amendment 116 regards the registering of community interest. Proposed new section 46F allows for ministers to prohibit an owner of land from transferring that land under a number of circumstances. In allowing that prohibition, ministers need to be satisfied of a number of conditions, including that

“there is a reasonable prospect of that application resulting in a community interest in the land being registered.”

Amendment 116 adds the condition that ministers are satisfied that the person noting an intention to register community interest

“would have sufficient resources to purchase the land.”

I believe that the amendment would add protection for the seller by ensuring that those who are lodging a community interest would be able to buy the land. That would avoid landowners being caught in a situation in which sales are delayed when those expressing the community interest would be unable to buy the land.

My amendment 419 would allow ministers to add by regulations to the short list of land that could be excluded from prohibitions as cases are thrown up after the implementation of the bill. I believe that that would add flexibility to the legislation.

My amendment 420 allows ministers to disapply the prohibitions if it is considered to

“be in the public interest to do so”.

I am in favour of a public interest test to some degree being included on the face of the bill. However, I believe that the other proposals that have been made for a public interest test are too wide ranging.

My amendments 421 and 423 would remove references to “composite holding” from the definition of land in section 2. That change follows on from my amendments to section 1. I believe that the definition of “composite” in the bill raises significant problems.

My amendment 422 seeks to increase the land size threshold, which is 1,000 hectares in the bill, under section 2, to 5,000 hectares. That follows on from my earlier amendments to section 1.

My amendment 129 seeks to delete the section in the bill that allows ministers to alter by regulations the period for which a prohibition lasts and the land size threshold.

My amendment 134 relates to amendment 129. Although my first choice would be to delete proposed new section 46L, amendment 134 would ensure that regulations that are made under section 46L do not lead to reduction of the land size threshold.

In a similar way, my amendment 131 seeks to avoid ministers being able to reduce the land size threshold in the future under their powers under proposed new section 46L of the 2003 act to modify section 2 of the bill by regulations.

My amendment 135 seeks to improve consultation. Currently, section 2, via proposed new section 46L, allows for ministers to make regulations to change the time period of prohibition and the land size threshold. Amendment 135 would require them to lay any such regulations before the Scottish Parliament and consult anyone who is considered appropriate when making such changes.

Amendment 24, which is my final amendment in the group, is a drafting amendment.

I do not have much to add, so I will reiterate the points that I have made. I do not support land management plans, as has become obvious. I am trying to ensure that they are as unprescriptive as possible and that we are careful that there is no chance that businesses will have to put commercially sensitive information in them.

I am happy to press amendment 24.

Most of the amendments in this group relate to fines and periods of time with regard to the enforcement of community engagement obligations. Amendment 407 considers the commissioner’s decision to investigate; as drafted, the commissioner is able to investigate an alleged breach that is reported to them. If the commissioner is not satisfied that the report of the breach is enough to constitute an investigation, they can request more information to be provided by the end of a period that they have specified.

Amendment 407 seeks to replace that undefined period with a set period of 90 days. As landowners, particularly farmers, need to have clarity and assurances with regard to any deadlines that are set forth by the Scottish Government, it is important that that period be specified in the bill.

Amendment 82 seeks to reduce the level of a fine. I do not favour the stick approach. As the bill is drafted, the commissioner can impose a fine no greater than £1,000 on someone who does not provide information as requested by them. I believe that that is too high, and instead I have suggested a maximum of no more than £500.

I believe that I heard the cabinet secretary say that she supported amendments 408 to 410, 414 and 415, and I thank her very much for that. The bill sets out the conditions for when the commissioner can impose a fine for a breach of an obligation, with the individual

“given an opportunity to make an agreement with the Commissioner”.

My amendment changes the wording from “make” to “reach” an agreement, because I believe that, just because an agreement has not been made, that does not mean that the willingness to reach an agreement is not there, and it should be clear that parties will be penalised only if they do not actively participate with the process.

The bill currently allows the commissioner to judge it not appropriate to give the person who committed a breach the opportunity to remedy it, which is one of the conditions that will allow them to impose a fine. Amendment 411 seeks to remove that part. I believe that everyone should be given the opportunity to explain and engage, and previous misdemeanours should not be used as a reason why a party cannot be given the opportunity to remedy a potential breach.

My amendment 90 also seeks to reduce the level of fines. As drafted, the bill allows the commissioner to impose a fine on someone for breaching their obligations, with the maximum amount that can be imposed currently standing at £5,000. I believe that that is far too high, given that farmers who will come into the bill’s scope are often cash poor, and the figure should be limited to £500.

I do not feel that I could support Bob Doris's amendments 83, 89, 91 and 97 to 100, which impose fines of up to £40,000. That is a massive fine, and it could bankrupt farmers and landowners who might fall foul of these provisions. I would be interested to know how the member can justify such a very large sum.

That is what I have tried to lay out. A lot of great work already goes on in communities across Scotland. That does not necessarily mean that it is all written down in a plan. For example, deer management plans are present, and an application for a grant for outdoor access might be written down, so it might be possible to lay that out very easily. Agri-environment schemes would be the same. However, we are talking about an extra imposition that would involve writing everything into a further plan. I do not agree that everyone will be running to their local library to look at such a plan because, for much of Scotland, the work is already occurring on the ground and we would have been better focusing on where that work does not occur, as opposed to putting the obligation on everybody.

There are ways to do that. The changes to deer management that we are looking at under the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill do not impose obligations on everybody. They just say that, where things go wrong, we will look at what we can do, and NatureScot can come in. I am not sure that everyone will agree with me, but I think that such an approach might have been better under this bill. I reiterate the importance of the many good things that are going on out there in rural Scotland. I am worried that, ultimately, the requirement will be a burden, not a help.

I move amendment 111.

If the convener is happy, I am happy to take another intervention.

I will not take long, but I want to come back on a couple of wee points. Monica Lennon said that there was a contradiction in my position. I do not think that there is a contradiction in what I am saying. I am not the cabinet secretary—although, in my dreams, I could be. I cannot believe that the Scottish Parliament could not have found another way of putting in place a law that would have targeted those who do not do what the cabinet secretary is seeking to ensure that they do, which is to implement a land management plan.

More often than not, I see the Government imposing an ever-greater administrative burden—an example of that is the whole-farm plans in agriculture. That is putting pressure on rural businesses, which they do not need at this time.

Mark Ruskell asked how much more difficult it would be to bring together all the plans that are already produced. Estate offices and agricultural businesses—which might simply have a desk in a shed—are not quiet places. They are already busy. It will be burdensome to pull the information together and to get it out there. The community engagement part of the process will definitely be burdensome.