Seòmar agus comataidhean

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 have referred to the public interest test. The key question is about increasing diversity in land supply. Will the provisions be positive for the community, and will they improve community sustainability? We have had to frame our consideration in that way, because certain conditions must be met when a public interest test is introduced. It is important that considerations are about the evidence, the basis of what we are doing, the proportionality of what we are introducing and the aim of the measure. That is why the test will apply at that point, rather than conditions or obligations being put on a future buyer.

Ultimately, the bill is about increasing diversity in land ownership.

We are listening to concerns that have been expressed about the potential for that. The only provision that we have at the moment is that, if land were to be lotted, a person could not buy multiple lots. We must be alive to potential loopholes—we want to avoid them wherever possible. We might need to take other factors into consideration, because we want to ensure that the measures that we introduce have the intended effect.

We are considering that as well. I recognise that it came through quite strongly that going to the tenant farming commissioner to appoint a valuer should be the next option and not necessarily the place to start.

As I said, work has been done on that and it will inform future guidance, which is the place to deal with that.

That is one of the things that would depend on individual circumstances and whether a tenant has been given rights by the landowner to control the deer.

There are a number of factors. The matter was part of the consultation that was undertaken, and we have outlined some aspects in the policy memorandum.

In other countries, interventions or obligations after the point of sale, or obligations on potential buyers, tend to fall into a couple of areas. We think that there is an example of authorisation of buyers in Australia, but that is more about national security risks.

There are alternative purchase models. The Land Commission has done work on the SAFER model in France, for example, whereby a public body or an interim body would buy the land, and the owner of the land would be compelled to sell. The body would hold the land for an interim period before determining use of the land.

We have introduced the transfer test and the lotting procedures as we have because we could not identify an option that would allow lotting to be applied where the test was on the buyer. That is why lotting will apply before that point.