Seòmar agus comataidhean

No, I do not see why it should do that.

I believe that we are taking important steps in that direction with the bill through a number of means. Looking back to the initial aims of the bill that the convener set out—what it proposes to do—one of the key issues, and the reason why we are introducing pre-notification, land management plans and provisions around those, is the need to increase transparency about land ownership and management and to enable communities to have more of a say in how the land on which they live and work is managed. The bill will enable that.

Because of the scale of some land transfers and the size of some landholdings, the land tends to be sold quite infrequently. We are also seeing an increase in private off-market sales. In previous years, about 60 per cent of estate sales were private and off-market. Sometimes the opportunity to utilise community right to buy mechanisms will have gone before communities realised that the land was becoming available for sale, because they had not anticipated that it would become available or because the land had already been sold, so they would not have had the opportunity to use their rights in legislation.

The steps that we have set out in relation to those measures will help with overall transparency and will enable communities to have another route into right to buy. There are also important provisions about the transfer test and the potential for the lotting of land where we think that it will have a positive impact on community sustainability. That has the potential to increase land supply and the diversity of land ownership in Scotland.

We would have to give greater thought to how that could be done and to the evidence base that we would use if that was to be the proposal.

A variety of views have been expressed on that issue. Probably quite a general view that those who have given evidence to the committee have expressed is that the penalties that the bill sets out are not proportionate and will not act as enough of a deterrent. To give a bit of background, the fines are set at a level that broadly mirrors the penalties in relation to the register of persons holding a controlling interest in land. That also involves a maximum penalty of £5,000, albeit that the penalty is criminal rather than civil. The question always comes back to the point about balance and ensuring that the fine will have the desired effect and act as a deterrent, so we want to consider the committee’s views and any recommendations that members might have.

I will bring in Andy Proudfoot.

Yes, we are. The consultation on the crofting legislation was, I believe, published at the start of this year or towards the end of last year, with the intention that the bill will be introduced in the coming year, although the timetable is to be finalised. I think that that will help to address some of the key issues that have been identified through this committee and through previous iterations of the rural committee. A number of proposals have been made over a number of years. It is important that we are able to address some of the issues with crofting through that legislation before considering steps beyond that.

That is because we have to be specific about the intention of a public interest test. If what you are suggesting is that a broad provision on public interest be included in the bill, I do not know that we could implement that.

You made the point about only communities being able to buy land. I want to ensure that we are not mixing up the pre-notification process with the lotting proposals, which allow for more diverse ownership. I hope that I have been able to set out today the fact that we looked at those other options—I think that some of that information is also set out in the policy memorandum. The only way that we could feasibly introduce the public interest test was at the point of transfer, taking into account the various things that we have talked about today in relation to the aim of the test, which concerns the diversity of land supply. I touched on examples from elsewhere in relation to looking at that and potential tests for buyers. However, it is not possible for us to do that, and, as Andy Proudfoot outlined, it would actually be more restrictive. That is why we have taken this approach.

Ultimately, the latter will allow more detailed engagement to take place to ensure that we get the model lease right in the first instance.

I will hand over to Fiona Leslie, who might be able to provide more information on that.

The proposals are based on consultation of small landholders. According to the agricultural census, there are around 59 small landholders in Scotland, and their preference was to be aligned more with the agricultural holdings legislation rather than to become crofts. Applications can already be made by the landowner to the Crofting Commission in the crofting counties, should they wish that to take place.

Fiona Leslie may have more detail as she has been involved in many of the immediate discussions that have taken place with small landowners.