Seòmar agus comataidhean

I think that Mr McArthur was first—sorry, Ms Duncan-Glancy.

I say to Pam Duncan-Glancy that that is a debate for stages 2 and 3.

I do not think that I will stand in the way of the financial resolution, but I will not be in a position to support it.

Can I make this point first? I will then take Mr McArthur’s intervention, if the Presiding Officer permits me to do so.

I am seeking quite substantial stage 2 amendments in relation to the role of social work, which may have quite a significant cost. My amendments in relation to palliative care were ruled inadmissible because the bill was deemed to be too narrow. However, there is a policy intent there, and a substantial additional cost.

My question to the Government, which was my reason for making this point, is: will the Scottish Government keep under review the costs associated with the bill under the financial resolution? Many members want to make sure that, if the bill goes on to the statute book, it is costed and workable—not workable as a policy intent in itself but workable with all the safeguards that many of us would like to see, even if we may not vote for the legislation itself.

Mr Mountain said that £40,000 is “an arbitrary figure”. He is proposing £20,000, which I suppose is an arbitrary figure, too, while £5,000 is an amount that the Conservatives believe is much less than it would cost to produce a land management plan. How did you arrive at the figure of £5,000, Mr Eagle?

Will the member give way?

Those who followed the stage 2 proceedings on the bill—which I am sure includes most members currently in the chamber—will be aware that I worked with Community Land Scotland to ensure that land management plans should be transparent, available and accessible in one place. Having a single website on which all land management plans across Scotland are located and updated timeously would ensure that the public could know whether the plans had been complied with, as people could access and scrutinise them for themselves. The Scottish Government agreed and has therefore worked with me on amendments 258, 235 and 276, which would make provision for that.

Amendment 258 would clarify that future regulations imposing the obligation to have a plan could make the necessary provision to require that the landowner submits it to another person so that it can be published on a single website.

Amendments 235 and 276 would give ministers the ability to confer functions on any public authority, including themselves, and would allow for future regulations to require a body to establish such a website. It would mean that ministers could require that a public body should publish land management plans in a single place. That could be the means by which landowners make the land management plans available.

It would also allow for the setting of a reasonable administrative fee—a modest one—to be paid by landowners, while keeping those plans accessible and free of charge for people who wish to search for and look at them. My amendments set out that consultation would have to be carried out before the regulations were laid, and that they should be laid under the affirmative procedure.

My amendments 239, 260 and 262 would replace and update the amendment that I lodged at stage 2 to require ministers to publish a statement setting out reasons when they lay regulations that exclude land from the obligations in the bill regarding land management plans. I lodged a similar amendment at stage 2 as I believe that it is important for ministers to be transparent about their reasons for removing any land from the scope of those obligations.

Amendment 239 would remove the drafting that was added by my stage 2 amendment. Amendments 260 and 262 would add back in the requirement for a statement to be made following the standard drafting approach for statements of this kind. The requirement on ministers to make a statement would apply if they exclude land from the land management plan obligations, and additionally from obligations to consider community requests to lease land under section 44C.

My amendments 256 and 257 would clarify that community engagement obligations would be able to set requirements for how landowners should comply with the obligations, including when there is a change of ownership.

I felt, as did Community Land Scotland, that the previous wording could be interpreted as meaning that the landowner “may”, as opposed to “must”, comply with the obligations. My proposed change would make it clear that the regulations could include mandatory provisions that landowners must comply with, as well as allowing for flexibility where appropriate.

I recognise that it could make sense to provide options and offer flexibility—for example, to allow a new landowner to either update a previous plan or create a completely new one if their plans for the land differ significantly.

I look forward to listening to other members on their amendments in this group.

I move amendment 235.

The bill enables any landowner to prepare a land management plan that covers as long as they like—15 years, 20 years or 30 years. However, anyone involved in farming and agriculture who does not review their business at least once every five years is doing something remiss. What Mr Mountain looks for is already contained in the bill.

I say very quickly that Mr Eagle’s amendment 241 seeks to remove the line “including its potential sale” from the list of information that a land management plan must contain, and Mr Mountain’s amendment 242 is linked to that. We are not asking for a business to set out its asking price for any potential land sale that it is thinking about, but if a business is looking at options for how to manage its land in the years ahead, and if disposing of that land is one of the potential options, it is a reasonable position to hold that the community should be aware of it.

My last point is on amendment 247. Mr Eagle spoke about removing regulatory requirements for land management plans to specify how they will contribute to

“achieving the net zero emissions targets”.

Mr Eagle, let me tell you: we all have a part to play.

Yes.

I will make some very brief observations. First, I welcome the Scottish Government’s support for the amendments in my name.

Ariane Burgess’s amendment 123 would mean that the intention of land management plans is to increase rather than sustain biodiversity. I have been in contact with many constituents who were keen for me to support that amendment, so I am pleased that she has won the argument with the Scottish Government. I hope that the amendment will be agreed to today. I have also spoken to the Scottish Rewilding Alliance about that.

I thank Mr Mountain for the efforts that he has put in at stage 3 and for clarifying a wee bittie more what he means when he talks about how much land management plans could cost. He mentioned particularly complex plans, which gives some light and shade to the discussions that we had on the issue at stage 2, and I welcome that.

Mr Mountain is keen for land management plans to be extended to a 10-year period. Of course, there is nothing to prevent a landowner from having a land management plan for 10 years and reviewing and updating it after five years, which I think would be good practice and would be within the provisions of the bill.

My recollection of our committee proceedings at stage 2 is that we heard that the cost of a land management plan will be about £5,000, not £10,000-plus, and that many landowners are already doing the good work that will be involved in those plans. However, notwithstanding that, cabinet secretary, do you agree that the significant increase that my stage 2 amendment made to the fine for not producing a land management plan was quite sage, if the cost could be as much as £10,000 to £15,000 in the first place?