Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will just finish the point that I have started.

Mark Ruskell’s amendments 49A and 49B would include non-contiguous areas of land, provided that they are within 10 miles of each other. That figure is much larger than the 250m figure that I suggested, which was based on the recommendations of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee and the Scottish Land Commission. However, I am mindful that our evidence is focused on nearby landholdings. Broadly, the greater the distance that we use to allow non-contiguous landholdings to be treated as contiguous, the further the intervention moves away from the original evidence base, as I have outlined today.

I would like to think that there could be some middle ground in relation to that. Mark Ruskell might well touch on some examples of particular issues that he would like to address that he has referenced previously, so I would like to work with him on those amendments.

I will go back to Mercedes Villalba for her intervention.

It is based on the evidence that has been provided by the Scottish Land Commission. The issue that we are ultimately trying to tackle is the concentration of land ownership and the impacts that it can have on local communities—it means that there is a lack of diversity and of available land supply. Those are the issues that we are directly trying to address. That is not to say that I am not sympathetic to the issues that Mercedes Villalba is trying to address, but we do not have the evidence base to do that. If somebody owns land in other parts of Scotland that falls below the threshold, we do not have the evidence base to show the impact of that on the local community near that area of land, and if it falls below that threshold, it might not be relevant anyway.

I would be happy to share more information with Mark Ruskell and other committee members. As Mercedes Villalba referenced in her comments, we have referred widely to the public interest in legislation, so we cannot just set out what the public interest is in the bill that is in front of us. Amendment 310 is very descriptive—as I set out with reference to the case law, it is too descriptive. It would not be helpful to have a definition that would restrict how “public interest” was interpreted.

I am not concerned about that at the moment. The member will no doubt be aware of the Crofting and Scottish Land Court Bill, which was recently introduced.

Again, there is no obligation; it is about considering requests from crofting community bodies. Although the drafting is not quite right, I support what the amendment is trying to achieve.

In the policy memorandum, we set out why we have taken the approach that we have taken, and whether any alternatives were considered.

It comes back to striking the right balance—not being too prescriptive and allowing for some flexibility—because we recognise that land will be very different across Scotland. However, ultimately, we want to achieve a number of high-level outcomes, such as tackling the climate and nature crises, delivering our vision for agriculture in Scotland and being a global leader in sustainable and regenerative agriculture.

We have been listening to the evidence on that and we are keen to hear the committee’s views in its stage 1 report. As Andy Proudfoot touched on, more guidance will be issued and there will be further consultation on what will be included in the land management plans. However, we hope that the high-level overview of our ultimate ambitions strikes the right balance.

I recognise the concerns and the quite universal call for some sort of de minimis provision in the bill to exclude certain transactions that need not be controversial.

It might be helpful if I briefly explain why we have introduced the provision as we have, and the rationale behind that. With regard to pieces of land that communities might be interested in taking ownership of, the vast majority—I think that the figure is between 60 and 70 per cent—are areas of less than a hectare. They are quite small pieces of land, but they might still be very significant to a particular community. That is why we did not want to prevent from being part of those transactions areas of land that could be significant to or of interest to a community.

We have, however, listened to the evidence that the committee has heard and the subsequent recommendations that have come from the Land Commission on that issue, and we are happy to consider that further.

We have tried to balance that in our proposals, because they really bring in all the issues that you have talked about.

What should the timescale be for a land management plan review and, as I outlined in my responses to earlier questions, how flexible should it be in trying to get a balance between the overarching objectives? What we have set out has tried to achieve that balance. Should the bill pass, further work will be done on the back of that in the wider consultation that we will undertake to look at the final details.

Of course, we want the exercise to be meaningful, as you have outlined, which is why the community engagement provisions are so important. We need communities to feel that they are involved and that they have a say about the land around them and how it impacts on their day-to-day lives. That is really important, and we hope that we are striking the right balance. Again, we are listening to all the evidence and the committee’s views about that.

I recognise the importance of what you have said. In my role, I have visited a number of projects that are looking to tackle such work not just in rural Scotland but in Edinburgh city centre and other such areas.

All of Scotland has a role to play when it comes to tackling the big challenges that we face with climate change and nature restoration. Incredible work is happening in those areas.

I hope that we have been able to set out why we have taken forward the proposals that we have. Again, that does not preclude further work being done. Depending on the outcome of the community right to buy review and any recommendations that come from it, there could be a positive impact on urban and rural Scotland and the rights of communities in that sense.

We want a thriving tenanted sector in Scotland. There is absolutely no question about that. That is why the provisions that we have included as part of the bill will modernise the legislation and bring it up to date. Ultimately, they seek to ensure that tenant farmers can play an equal role in delivering the outcomes that we all want, which we have outlined in our vision for agriculture, and that they can be as much a part of that process as anyone else. Ultimately, that is what this is about.

As you said, whenever land reform provisions come around, we hear a lot about what landlords might look to do in relation to tenancies, but I think that there are always going to be bigger factors at play in that respect. For example, what is coming down the line with regard to the United Kingdom Government’s announcements on its proposed changes to inheritance tax will do far more damage than any of the proposals that we are looking to introduce in the bill.

I recognise the importance of what you have said. In my role, I have visited a number of projects that are looking to tackle such work not just in rural Scotland but in Edinburgh city centre and other such areas.

All of Scotland has a role to play when it comes to tackling the big challenges that we face with climate change and nature restoration. Incredible work is happening in those areas.

I hope that we have been able to set out why we have taken forward the proposals that we have. Again, that does not preclude further work being done. Depending on the outcome of the community right to buy review and any recommendations that come from it, there could be a positive impact on urban and rural Scotland and the rights of communities in that sense.