Seòmar agus comataidhean

There will be a division. Those who are in favour of amendment 389, please raise your hand. Those who are against amendment 389, please raise your hand. Kevin Stewart has voted against the amendment. Those who wish to abstain, please raise your hand.

For

Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)

Against

Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)

The result of the division is: For 2, Against 5, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 389 disagreed to.

Thank you, cabinet secretary. I call Tim Eagle to speak to amendment 417 and other amendments in the group.

The next item of business is stage 2 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, which is consideration of amendments. I welcome the non-committee members who are here today. This is our first stage 2 meeting on the bill. At the moment, the deadline for lodging amendments is 27 June, but more than 516 amendments have already been lodged, which will require some consideration.

Before we go into the detail of the amendments, I remind members, as I always do at the start of stage 2 considerations in this committee, that I have an interest in a farming partnership in Moray, as set out clearly in my entry in the register of members’ interests. Specifically, I declare an interest as the owner of approximately 500 acres—for those of you who want to know the conversion, it is 202 hectares—of farmland, of which 50 acres, or just over 20 hectares, is woodland.

I also declare that I am a tenant of approximately 500 acres, or approximately 202 hectares, in Moray under a non-agricultural tenancy, and that I have another farming tenancy under the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1991. I also take on grass lets on an annual basis, should I need to.

It is hard to predict how much progress the committee will make today, but I can say with some confidence that I do not expect us to get past section 6 today. I am looking to stop the stage 2 consideration at around 12.30, so that we have time to consider our work programme.

As this is our first stage 2 meeting on the bill, I will recap the process. Committee members should have before them the bill, the marshalled list and the groupings. For those of you who are watching online, those documents are available on the Scottish Parliament’s bill web page.

I will call each amendment in the order that it appears on the marshalled list. The member who lodged the amendment should either move it or say “not moved” when it is called. If that member does not move the amendment, any other member present may do so. The groupings document sets out the amendments in the order in which they will be debated. There will be one debate on each group of amendments. The member who lodged the first amendment in the group will be called to speak to and move the amendment and to speak to any other amendments in the group. I will then call other members who have amendments in the group to speak to, but not to move, their amendments and to speak to the other amendments in the group, if they wish.

I will then call any other members who wish to speak in the debate. If you wish to speak, indicate that to me or to the clerk to make sure that I bring you in. I will then call the cabinet secretary to speak, if she has not already spoken in the debate. Finally, I will call the member who moved the first amendment in the group to wind up and to press or withdraw the amendment. If a member wishes to withdraw an amendment after it has been moved and debated, I will ask whether any member present objects. If there is an objection, I will put the question on the amendment. Later amendments in the group are not debated again when they are reached in the marshalled list. If they are moved, I will put the question on them straight away.

Only committee members may vote in a division, and, because this is a hybrid meeting, voting will be done by roll call. We hope that we will get a result there and then, if the figures tally. If they do not tally, we will do the roll call again until they do—but they will.

That is how it works. There is a huge briefing pack, which is just for today—there is a lot more to come.

Before section 1

I do not think that people who are receiving payments under the farm payments schemes are necessarily receiving them for delivering community good. They are receiving them to cover requirements of regulations, such as those that relate to passports for animals, livestock density, the stocking rate and the use of fertiliser and when it can be used on land. Those are the sorts of things that people receive payments for. However, the suggestion in the amendments is that we go way beyond that with the public interest. It gives me some concern that we would put burdens on people who would not be rewarded.

I listened carefully to what was said on the amendment in the name of Mercedes Villalba on tax residency. I am not sure that I understand where someone would have to reside for tax purposes in order to own more than a certain amount of land—would it be Scotland or the United Kingdom? There are two different tax rates and, indeed, different tax codes to show whether someone is resident in Scotland or the United Kingdom. I am not sure that the amendment is competent because I do not understand that point.

The result of the division is: For 2, Against 5, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 310 disagreed to.

Section 1—Community-engagement obligations in relation to large land holding

Good morning, and welcome to the 20th meeting of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee in 2025.

Our first item of business is to decide whether to take item 4, which is consideration of our work programme, in private. Do we agree to do so?

Members indicated agreement.

The second item of business is consideration of a Scottish statutory instrument. It is laid under the negative procedure, which means that it will come into force unless the Parliament agrees a motion to annul it. No such motion has been lodged.

The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee has made no comment on the instrument. Do members have any comments?

You have been quite careful about making the bill proportionate so that you avoid legal challenge, which is what the evidence that we have heard has called for. Are you suggesting that Mercedes Villalba’s suggestion of 500 hectares would lead to a legal challenge because it would interfere with people’s human rights?

I call Ariane Burgess, who will finally get to speak to one of her amendments, amendment 311, and any other amendments in the group.