Seòmar agus comataidhean

As I set out in my opening statement, the proposals stem from the work and recommendations of the Scottish Land Commission and the report that it published in 2019. As for your points about urban areas, I know from my meetings with stakeholders that there is a concern that such areas have not been covered in the bill. However, the Scottish Land Commission’s initial recommendations focused largely on land reform in rural areas, because that was where it was felt that the most pressing issues were in relation to the scale and concentration of land ownership and the resultant impact on those communities. The commission’s report also outlined that, at the time, it did not have the evidence to be able to consider proposals for the urban environment, but that it would be looking to do further work on the matter in the future.

It is important to point out that we are not going to fix all the issues in either rural or urban Scotland in this one piece of legislation, and to remember that other pieces of work are on-going that will have an impact on urban areas. One key piece of work that we are undertaking at the moment is the review of the community right to buy, and work is being carried out on community purchase orders as well as compulsory sales orders. Moreover, there is legislation planned for community wealth building as well as other measures and bills that are coming forward. It is important to remember all of those things in the round, as they will all have an impact across urban and rural Scotland. However, our focus is on rural Scotland, because the bill stems from the recommendations in the initial report.

I would have to look at that further. The proposals in the bill are quite complex and detailed. As you can see from the number of evidence sessions that the committee has held, there is a lot to get to grips with. I do not think that the two are necessarily mutually exclusive. I do not think that it is the case that, if this bill goes ahead, we will not be able to further develop crofting or deal with the issues that exist; however, I think that the appropriate place to deal with those issues is in any crofting bill that comes forward, rather than by amalgamating those issues into this bill.

For me, it is about ensuring that we strike a balance. We do not want to block out transactions and transfers of areas of land that could be important for communities, so how that might work in practice and how we ensure that we achieve that balance are part of our consideration of the recommendations.

The public interest test as proposed in the bill is about community sustainability. The key question is whether lotting of the land would lead to an increase in land supply, which would have a positive impact on community sustainability. That is the key question that we are looking at, and it would be considered as part of the lotting process. That is how the public interest will be taken into consideration.

I believe that the way that the power has been drafted would not necessarily prevent that from happening. That is why we are considering the matter further.

I appreciate that point. It has come through quite strongly in the evidence that people feel that the time allowed is generally not enough. We have been trying to strike a balance, because you do not want to withhold a sale for longer than is necessary. However, I appreciate that people feel that the period is not an adequate amount of time. Again, we are considering the evidence on that and any potential recommendations that the committee might make.

You are absolutely right about that letter. The work on the amendments that we are intending to lodge is very much on-going. Ultimately, that is about further consolidation of small landholding legislation to try to make it more accessible, as well as aligning it with tenant farming legislation.

I am trying to understand what you mean about crofting. Most of the provisions that we have proposed have been on the back of consultation that we have undertaken directly with small landholders, so the provisions are based on where they would like to be and where they see themselves, as well as how they would like to be aligned with other legislation.

The pre-notification measures that we are introducing are really important. Ultimately, the reason for doing so is to ensure that we address some of the key barriers to community ownership that we know exist at the moment, and which relate to overall transparency. That relates to points that I made at the start of the meeting about off-market sales and transactions and transfers sometimes taking place that communities might not have been aware of and that they could have had an interest in. The pre-notification requirements are hugely important, because they are about ensuring that we enable communities to register interest and that there is transparency about land transactions.

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.

It is helpful to have the work and the report of the Scottish Land Commission about further additions or changes that it thinks would strengthen the proposals that are in the bill. I welcome that.

The committee has undertaken a number of evidence sessions since the bill was published, and we have been listening to the various views that have been expressed throughout, as I have already stated this morning. We have listened, and we are actively considering the proposals that have been put forward by the Scottish Land Commission. We are looking forward to considering its recommendations alongside the recommendations that will come from the committee in its stage 1 report.