Seòmar agus comataidhean

When we introduced the bill, the transfer test that we set out, which did not explicitly use the term “public interest”, was framed very much in that way. That is because, as Mark Ruskell spoke about, when we are justifying interference with property rights or any interference with article 1 of protocol 1 of the ECHR, we need to ensure that that is proportionate, that it has a legitimate aim and that we have the evidence base for that intervention. We framed that as a transfer test. In essence, that is a public interest test, which is why I am agreeing to the amendments that explicitly state that, because we have to qualify that and set out why it works in the way that it does.

I cannot support amendment 310, given how descriptive it is. I would have to take advice on the implications of Rhoda Grant’s suggestion, but I feel that we might not be able to support that. I am happy to support Michael Matheson’s amendments because of how they are framed.

Amendment 310 would place duties on the Scottish ministers and on other public bodies for purposes that are completely outside the scope of the bill. Such substantial alterations to public decision making should not be made without more detailed consideration and consultation.

There are also serious issues with amendment 339, which would result in a departure from the policy aim of land management plans improving transparency and engagement between landholders and communities. The amendment would create a complex and potentially quite confusing landscape for the landowner when preparing a plan, and it would risk those plans becoming a box-ticking exercise.

Amendment 342 attempts to provide ministers with powers to amend definitions of land to which community engagement obligations would apply. That can already be delivered through existing powers in the bill to update definitions of land through regulations.

That is why I ask members not to support amendments 310, 339 and 342. I also ask members not to support amendment 348, because it is consequential to amendment 342.

Amendment 427 from Tim Eagle would allow the Scottish ministers to determine that a lotting decision was not required if that was in the public interest. For ministers to be able to make that assessment, they would need to consider information about the landholding and determine whether lotting would be beneficial. That is the same information that they would need to consider to make a lotting decision. It is already the intention that transfers are able to be screened out more quickly when that is appropriate. I know that Michael Matheson’s amendment 156 will allow for further guidance to be set on how that screening will take place.

I ask members not to support amendment 427 or amendment 460, which is reliant on amendment 427.

Amendments 174, 174A and 174B from Mercedes Villalba would introduce a test on buyers of land as well as a presumed limit on land ownership of 500 hectares. The amendments are a significant departure from the bill and are not supported by the evidence base. They would give the Scottish ministers a mechanism to entirely block proposed transfers in a wide range of circumstances, based on their assessment of the public interest or on the evaluation of the buyer.

The interference in property rights that would result from those proposals would require a rational and coherent justification based on evidence. The evidence on which I have proceeded is concerned with the effects of concentration of ownership on communities. There is no rational link between that evidence and the proposals that are set out in the amendments.

I would be happy to have that further discussion with the member. As I have said, no concern has been raised with me directly, which is why I was wondering why the amendment had been lodged.

It would be important for somebody acting on behalf of Scottish ministers to engage in the same way that we would expect of any other large landowner, instead of our expecting a separate person to take on that responsibility. We engage with our tenants and local communities when we develop long-term proposals on crofting estates and gather information on that, and putting that duty on to an independent person or an external party instead of the Scottish Government would amount to an information transfer process, from the Scottish Government to someone else, for the purposes of writing a plan. Such a move would have resource implications, too. It is also important that we undertake our own engagement with tenants and crofting communities on the crofting estates.

For those reasons, I ask members not to support amendment 335. Regardless of that, though, I want to pick up that conversation with Rhoda Grant and get more of an understanding about some of the concerns that she has heard.

Lastly, I urge members not to support Ariane Burgess’s amendment 338, which seeks to place an obligation on the owner of land to implement the land management plan. I have concerns about that, as land management plans are not necessarily intended to control how land is used or managed but to provide greater transparency and engagement on that. I offer to work with Ariane Burgess ahead of stage 3 to see whether we can bring forward an alternative amendment that, ultimately, has the same aim. For example, it could require a landowner to set out in the review of a plan any progress that has been made on the implementation of the actions set out in that or previous plans.

I am not ruling anything in or out at this stage, because we have not yet introduced a threshold of 1,000 hectares. It is important that we review and monitor how that is implemented and see how it is operating once it has been introduced.

Mercedes Villalba’s amendments 43 and 47 would remove the requirements for single landholdings to be a contiguous area of land and for composite holdings to be contiguous with each other. That would mean that, if a landowner owns more than 1,000 hectares in total across all their Scottish landholdings, the provisions in the bill would apply.

I appreciate that some members and stakeholders more broadly want landholdings where there is a larger distance between holdings to be brought into scope. I have sympathy with that, but the evidence base that underpins the bill as introduced focuses on the concentration of ownership and its impact on local communities. We do not have the evidence base to justify measures that tackle aggregate holdings across Scotland, as I outlined in my response to Douglas Lumsden.

Community views are hugely important, and I will turn to that issue later. The mechanisms to deal with those processes—ultimately, through planning—are important in ensuring that those views come through.

Amendment 310 from Ariane Burgess and amendments 339 and 342 from Rhoda Grant seek to introduce a definition of the “public interest” in the bill for various purposes. Although I support the aims that have been referred to in relation to a definition, I do not think that it is necessary or helpful to attempt to define the public interest in the bill in that specific way. That is consistent with the opinion of the Court of Session. In the case of Pairc Crofters Ltd v the Scottish ministers, Lord President Gill noted:

“The public interest is a concept that is to be found throughout the statute book. There is no need for a general definition of it. It is for the Land Court and the Ministers to assess the public interest on the facts and circumstances of the case. A general statutory definition of the public interest, if one could be devised, would be unhelpful”.

It is unclear how ministers or landowners would be expected to fulfil the duty that is set out in amendment 310, which would require ministers and other public bodies to

“have regard to the public interest in land reform.”

That would include many objectives that are listed in the amendment and guidance that is produced by ministers in relation to functions in a wide range of legislation, much of which is not even related to land reform.

Yes.

Our position has not changed throughout the discussions that we have had on the bill. The key point that we are trying to address, and all the measures that have been introduced, are based on the Scottish Land Commission’s recommendations on addressing the issues that are associated with the concentration of land ownership in Scotland and the impact that it has on local communities. It is with large landholdings in a specific area that we see some of the issues arise, and that is the point that we are trying to address with the measures in the bill. Our position has not changed.

I said earlier that I would be more than happy to have a conversation about that, but I repeat that, because of some of the issues that have been raised, I would need to seek advice to gauge whether that would be possible.

I have nothing to add, convener.

Amendment 12 agreed to.

Amendment 13 moved—[Mairi Gougeon]—and agreed to.

I am more than happy to come in on that, convener. We did not come up against those issues with amendment 341, because it specifies that it relates to crofting counties. Therefore, the issue that you raise would not be a concern in relation to that amendment.

I want to quickly touch on the amendments from Tim Eagle. Ultimately, we included in the bill the proposed new section 44C of the 2016 act as part of the overall aim to strengthen and improve transparency and engagement between landowners and local communities. Of course, tenants and crofters should already be engaging with landowners through the land management plan and the community engagement process, but we specifically included section 44C so that regulations would have to be laid to specifically require consideration by landowners of community requests to lease land. That is in recognition of the fact that access to assets, whether land or buildings, can be vital for community development and sustainability. The option to lease might be just as valuable as the rights that are set out under the right-to-buy legislation. That is why I am content that it is appropriate for future regulations to set out the detail of how landowners should give reasonable consideration to requests and how community bodies should make those requests. It is important that we develop those requirements with the benefit of consultation.

On Rhoda Grant’s amendment 341, we did not encounter the issues that you found, convener. Overall, we welcome the intention of the amendment, which seeks to do something similar to what we are already trying to do through new section 44C of the 2016 act—to bring forward the requirement for regulations to oblige landowners to consider reasonable requests from communities to constitute land as crofting land. There is merit in considering the amendment further, in particular to ensure that reasonable requests by crofting community bodies are considered by landowners. However, we have some issues with the drafting of the amendment, because I do not think that it achieves its purpose in the way that the member would—

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.