Seòmar agus comataidhean

That would be for review of the plan, not its duration. As I have set out in my comments, we would look to regulations and further guidance to set out what the overall duration of the plan would look like. Hence, I feel that we have struck the right balance in having the review every five years.

It is not for me to set that out right now, because we would need to do more work on the matter and have more engagement across the piece. In relation to what Rhoda Grant and Ariane Burgess have proposed, I feel that there is an agreement to be reached between us, but I do not think that fixing this in primary legislation is the way to do it.

Amendments 390, 18, 391, 19, 392 and 396 from Tim Eagle look to do away altogether with the requirement for regulations to provide for obligations to ensure that there are land management plans and engagement with communities on them. They seek to require regulations only to provide that landowners ensure that they engage with a restricted category of persons—and only on the development of plans, not on significant changes to them—and they also seek to introduce in regulations an ability for landowners to report members of the community. I feel that those amendments are against the spirit of what the bill is looking to achieve, and I ask members not to support them.

I also recommend opposing amendment 340 from Rhoda Grant.

I am more than happy to come in on that, convener. We did not come up against those issues with amendment 341, because it specifies that it relates to crofting counties. Therefore, the issue that you raise would not be a concern in relation to that amendment.

I want to quickly touch on the amendments from Tim Eagle. Ultimately, we included in the bill the proposed new section 44C of the 2016 act as part of the overall aim to strengthen and improve transparency and engagement between landowners and local communities. Of course, tenants and crofters should already be engaging with landowners through the land management plan and the community engagement process, but we specifically included section 44C so that regulations would have to be laid to specifically require consideration by landowners of community requests to lease land. That is in recognition of the fact that access to assets, whether land or buildings, can be vital for community development and sustainability. The option to lease might be just as valuable as the rights that are set out under the right-to-buy legislation. That is why I am content that it is appropriate for future regulations to set out the detail of how landowners should give reasonable consideration to requests and how community bodies should make those requests. It is important that we develop those requirements with the benefit of consultation.

On Rhoda Grant’s amendment 341, we did not encounter the issues that you found, convener. Overall, we welcome the intention of the amendment, which seeks to do something similar to what we are already trying to do through new section 44C of the 2016 act—to bring forward the requirement for regulations to oblige landowners to consider reasonable requests from communities to constitute land as crofting land. There is merit in considering the amendment further, in particular to ensure that reasonable requests by crofting community bodies are considered by landowners. However, we have some issues with the drafting of the amendment, because I do not think that it achieves its purpose in the way that the member would—

I thank members for all their contributions to the debate on this group of amendments. We are talking about really important matters. It is clear that, across the committee, there is broadly a strong desire for the public interest to be at the heart of the decisions that we take, but there are a wide range of views as to what that might mean and what that could look like.

I have listened carefully to the clear view that has been expressed by stakeholders and the committee that the transfer test that is set out in the bill should take greater account of the public interest. In my response to the committee’s stage 1 report, I was clear that any reframing of the test would have to be consistent with the evidence base for it, which highlights the damaging impact that concentrated land ownership can have on the sustainability of local communities. I welcome the amendments that Michael Matheson has lodged—amendments 150, 151 and 158—because they will make it clear that ministers will require land to be lotted only when they consider that that is in the public interest, so the amendments remain consistent with the evidence base.

We recognise concentration of land ownership as a problem. The policy aim and ultimate objective here is to address the effect of the concentration of land ownership and its impact on local communities and on the supply of land to local communities. That is why we have set out the measures in the bill and why we are directly trying to address those problems.

But how would you go on to define that? It becomes trickier when you try to do the opposite and impose too much of a definition. That is why I am asking for amendment 391 not to be supported.

Having set out why I do not believe some of the previous amendments should be supported, I turn to amendment 340, in the name of Rhoda Grant, which is supported by Mercedes Villalba. It would allow the land and communities commissioner to advise a landowner with multiple landholdings in scope on whether a combined plan was appropriate for those holdings or whether they should have separate plans. I understand that, ultimately, the amendment supports amendments that would bring in aggregate landholdings across Scotland, but I do not see a requirement for amendment 340. Regulations will make provision for owners of single and composite holdings to ensure that there is a land management plan and that there is engagement with communities.

Amendment 23 from Tim Eagle and amendment 317 from Ariane Burgess deal in different ways with the issue of a new owner of an in-scope landholding. I appreciate the need for clarity that has been suggested on this issue; however, as Bob Doris has already highlighted in the debate, amendment 32 in group 7 is a more suitable way of dealing with that. That amendment would allow the Scottish Government to set out, in regulations, the detailed requirements of how landowners must comply with their obligations in relation to land management plans, including in circumstances in which the ownership of that land is transferred. In relation to that, future regulations could provide the owner with a grace period of a year, in which they would have the option either to keep most of the existing plan or to consult on a new one.

I agree with Bob Doris that much of that detail is best placed in future regulations and developed with the benefit of consultation. It is appropriate that the bill does not prescribe the detail of the manner in which the obligation in proposed new section 44B(1) to the 2016 act, on land management plans, must be complied with. That is why I ask members not to support amendments 23 and 317, and to support amendment 32 in group 7, when it arrives.

Amendment 17 seeks to ensure that all land management plans are publicly available in a single portal. Although I appreciate and agree with the intent behind the amendment, I cannot support it as drafted, as it would put a requirement on a landowner to ensure that a public body took action. Instead, the landowner should be required only to share the land management plan or to make it available, and the requirement for publication on the portal should sit with the public body. I am happy to work with Bob Doris ahead of stage 3 to ensure that we get that amendment right.

Amendment 16, which has also been lodged by Bob Doris, would insert the word “accessible” into the proposed new section 44B to the 2016 act, requiring landowners to ensure that there is a publicly available land management plan in relation to the land. I am concerned that the amendment does not provide sufficient detail or clarity on what exactly is to be “accessible”. Does the word relate to the language used in the plan or is it a requirement to ensure that the plan can be easily obtained? I appreciate the reasoning behind amendment 16, but I ask Bob Doris not to move it, and I will be happy to work with him ahead of stage 3 to ensure that we get the drafting right.

Rhoda Grant’s amendment 312 overcomplicates the process by seeking to introduce a requirement that land management plans be made in a format specified by Scottish ministers. We will already have powers, through proposed new section 44A of the 2016 act, to set out further detail relating to land management plans, including the information that they have to contain. Amendment 312 is therefore unnecessary, and I ask members not to support it.

Amendment 335 seeks to require that Scottish ministers appoint an independent person to complete the land management plan for crofting estates that ministers own. So far, we have heard no evidence to suggest that that view is shared by crofters on Scottish Government-owned estates, nor have concerns been raised directly by the Crofting Commission or the Scottish Crofting Federation. We already exercise our land management functions in a transparent, accountable and inclusive way, which brings significant social, economic and environmental benefit for rural communities.

The amendments would significantly interfere with property rights, and I do not believe that we have the evidence base to connect those aspects, which is my serious concern with the amendments.

I have other concerns about the amendments. For example, if they were to be agreed to, there would be significant resource and financial implications for the Scottish Government.

For those reasons, I ask members not to support amendment 174 and its related amendments. Amendment 459 is dependent on amendment 174, so I ask members not to support it, either.

Amendment 433 from Tim Eagle would allow ministers to offer to buy land before making a lotting decision. That would be a departure from the bill as it is drafted, because it is unclear how public purchase in that way would reduce concentration of land ownership. Ministers and public bodies already have powers to purchase land by voluntary agreement when that is justified. The bill also allows ministers to offer to purchase land in certain circumstances following a review of lotting decisions. I therefore ask members not to support amendment 433.

Before turning to amendment 364, which relates to transfers for electricity infrastructure, I want to make a few comments, because this is a matter of interest to my constituency. I want to make it clear that I am appearing before the committee in my capacity as a minister of the Scottish Government. The position that I am presenting reflects the collective view of the Scottish Government and concerns a matter of law and policy for which I have ministerial responsibility. Separately, and in line with the Scottish ministerial code, I have made my views and those of my constituents known to the responsible minister in the appropriate way. The issue under discussion today is distinct from that constituency interest, so my contributions should be understood as reflecting the Government’s position—I am not taking a personal or constituency-specific stance.

Amendment 364 from Douglas Lumsden is unrelated to the provisions of the bill as introduced. It would block voluntary transfers of any land—not just land that forms part of a large landholding—for the purposes of constructing electricity infrastructure. That would interfere with an owner’s property rights. The justification for the proposed provision is not obvious from the amendment, especially as the amendment does not appear to address the main legal mechanisms by which electricity infrastructure is delivered, such as under the Electricity Act 1989, which is UK Government legislation relating to a reserved matter. I therefore ask members not to support amendment 364.

The definitions for connected persons are already set out in the bill. I am more than happy to have a discussion with the member ahead of stage 3 if there are particular issues in relation to the amendments that I have brought forward that he feels are not being addressed. I am not sure whether we are talking at cross purposes in terms of what we are trying to set out, but my amendments do not cover aggregate holdings. I do not know whether that is the point that the member is trying to bring forward.

As Michael Matheson outlined, the purpose of amendments 11, 35, 42 and 106 is to extend the land to which community engagement obligations may be imposed to include sites of community significance.

I am keen to ensure that the bill is as simple and clear to understand as possible but, as I have set out today, the measures that we introduce need to be proportionate and justifiable. Following Scottish Land Commission recommendations, the bill focuses on addressing issues with the concentration of land ownership in rural areas. That is why the provisions apply to those larger landholdings. If we were to introduce sites of community significance, that would significantly complicate the provisions that we have set out in the bill. It would invent a whole new designation process that means that land anywhere in Scotland could be subject to provisions in the bill that were intended only for large landholdings.

I want to make it clear that that is why consultation and engagement on what the land management plan will include are hugely important. That will be a vital part of the process.

You also raised some examples of the costs that will be associated with the plan. Figures have been set out in the financial memorandum, and the £15,000 figure has been mentioned a couple of times today. However, that was an expected cost for a complex and quite extreme example. Also, it is not as though that would be a recurring cost every five years. Again, we need to consult people and ensure that we get the level of detail right, which is why we have set out the process. I hope that the member recognises that in relation to the amendments that we are considering and our discussions on the bill today.

Would you like me to come in at this point, convener?