Seòmar agus comataidhean

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 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.

No, that is not what I am saying. If you had listened to the comments that I just made—

I said that the proposals were based on recommendations suggesting that the most pressing issues and areas of concern were in rural Scotland and that more work needed to be done on the urban environment. I have heard the evidence that the committee has taken in relation to the issues that exist in urban environments, and I am not saying that there are no problems there. We have taken this focus because of the work that was done and the recommendations that were made at that point.

Absolutely. We have looked at the evidence that the committee has heard on that. You are absolutely right that forestry and others are saying that they are already working to plans that cover longer periods. That is where we tried to strike that balance. Ultimately, if it becomes a yearly exercise, the costs associated with that would be overly burdensome, not to mention the administration costs of that on the other side. For plans of 10 years and beyond, we would have to make sure that they do not become outdated, just as you said.

Five years was the timeline that was selected because the majority of respondents to the consultation agreed with that level and felt that it was an appropriate period. As with most of the matters that we are discussing this morning, we are keen to hear whether the committee has any particular recommendations, but we feel that, with the proposal as it is, we have struck that balance in responding to and accepting the views of the respondents to the consultation and what they felt was an appropriate timeline with the need for review and other considerations.

I appreciate that point, which I have also picked up through evidence.

What is key for us is that our proposals have an evidence base, which is why they are framed in the way that they are. I also completely appreciate the point that you make about aggregate holdings. However, the bill focuses on how communities are impacted by a high concentration of land ownership in an area, which would be harder to evidence if we were looking at overall ownership, which could be in other parts of the country, too. Bringing aggregate land holdings into the bill might not be appropriate to meet that aim and we would have to give that greater consideration.

I hope that that helps to explain the approach that we have taken. The focus is on the concentration of land ownership in an area, which becomes more difficult to evidence when looking at aggregate holdings.

I do not think that any of those issues are particularly easy to work through. Some of them have been on-going, and we have tried to tackle issues in previous legislation. We want to ensure that we get the right balance and address any issues where they exist. The pre-emptive right-to-buy measures that we have brought forward have been discussed largely with the tenant farming advisory forum. Ultimately, it is about trying to make that process clearer, and I want to be clear with the committee that we will discuss any regulations and will develop them very much with the industry.

As part of those measures, we would seek to repeal section 99 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2016. It was felt that, if that section was commenced, there would be a lack of clarity on how the process would operate. There was a general consensus that there should be registration but that the process could be improved.

I hand over to Fiona Leslie, who has been dealing with the issue and will be able to provide the committee with more information.

Absolutely.

The bill is opening ownership up. All that will have to be factored in to the tests and our decisions in relation to lotting. It is a question of what should be taken into consideration as part of that, in seeking positive outcomes for communities. For instance, a housing development trust or a new business might look to buy land. It is about diversity and increasing the supply of land. That will be the key aim of lotting decisions.