Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

I appreciate that interesting point. My understanding of being in opposition is that I am here to scrutinise and question the Government. That seems fair. The cabinet secretary has a wealth of advisers behind her who support her in creating and introducing a piece of legislation but, to be honest, I do not have that—I have a couple of people who help me to do this.

The point that you raised related to an early discussion that I had with my colleagues about how we could have a completely different proposal for the bill that would address some of the issues that I have raised, but it became apparent that we just did not have the time or ability to bring forward that proposal. I am now trying to question and scrutinise the Government, and I am saying, “I don’t think what you are proposing here will work.” I am happy to say that on record here; I already said it at stage 1, and I will say it again at stage 3.

To an extent, my hope for rural Scotland, which I think we all agree we are passionate about, is that the bill will work, but I do not think that it will. I think that it will be burdensome, and I do not think that it will improve the good relationships that are already out there.

I thought that this discussion would be slightly quicker than it has been, convener.

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.

Will you take an intervention briefly?

I agree with Bob Doris that it is all about collaboration. My problem with the £40,000 figure is that it is disproportionate, and I worry that it might be against article 6 of the European convention on human rights. In addition, issuing fines of that amount is quite a big power to give to one commissioner. Do you agree that that may be pushing it? I get your point about collaboration and the fact that we should not have to use that power, but do you agree that that £40,000 figure is a little bit too high?

If it is easier, convener, I will just say that I will not move amendment 62.