Seòmar agus comataidhean

I imagine that, as you have just outlined, a scale would be implemented. We have that in other pieces of legislation. Flexibility exists. That would all be covered. There will be engagement with the land and communities commissioner when they take up their role, to ensure that they are adequately equipped to implement that enforcement regime.

Absolutely. There have been a number of different arguments relating to land of community significance, and we covered a lot of them during the debates on the groups of amendments that we discussed last week. I outlined a variety of issues in that regard. I hope that the approach that I have proposed through the amendments that I have lodged will work better in ensuring that there will be wider engagement and consultation before regulations are made, so that we get the measures right when they are introduced.

I have talked about Tim Eagle’s amendments 422 and 423.

I note that Mercedes Villalba’s amendment 120 aims to bring within the scope of pre-notification any holding that forms part of an inhabited island and constitutes more than 25 per cent of land forming the island. As such a definition would have no minimum area of landholding, it could bring holdings on very small islands within the scope of pre-notification and have a disproportionate and adverse impact on island communities and landowners. That has not been accounted for through our islands impact assessment.

However, I note that some of the other amendments that have been lodged, not just in this group but in other parts of the bill, have considered a variety of different thresholds in relation to our islands. We had removed that condition first of all so as not to disadvantage island communities, but I appreciate that there is still a lot of interest in that area. There is still some work to be done in order for us all to get that right, so I encourage members who lodged relevant amendments in this and other groups—including Mark Ruskell, Ariane Burgess and Mercedes Villalba, although I acknowledge that Ms Villalba is not here today—to have discussions with me.

Amendments 122 and 125 would remove the requirement for single landholdings to be contiguous. We discussed that at the previous meeting and, as I stated last week, we are unable to support those amendments because of the lack of an evidence base to justify the proposal.

Ariane Burgess’s amendment 5 would lower the threshold from 1,000 hectares to 500 hectares. Again, we discussed that last week, so I am not going to rehearse the arguments against it that we made then, but I ask that that amendment not be supported.

My further amendments—amendments 123, 124 and 126—seek to strengthen the definition of “composite holding” that is set out in proposed new section 46K of the 2003 act in relation to land affected by the pre-notification prohibitions. Those are similar to amendments 41, 46 and 48, which we debated in group 3, and to my amendment 49, which relates to another part of the bill and has been previously debated. Amendment 127 allows for non-contiguous areas of land to form a holding, provided that they are within 250m of each other. I ask the committee to support my amendments. I understand that Mark Ruskell has amendments that are similar to amendment 127—amendments 127A and 127B—and, again, further to the discussion that we had last week in relation to previous groups, I ask him not to move those amendments.

Proposed new section 46L of the 2003 act provides a power that ministers can use to amend the length of the second prohibition period and the land to which pre-notification applies. That allows future adjustment of those parameters. The committee’s stage 1 report said that that was an important feature to enable there to be a response to monitoring review.

Tim Eagle’s amendments 131 and 134 would restrict the proper use of those powers by preventing ministers from making regulations, which would reduce the overall threshold for pre-notification. Mercedes Villalba’s amendment 133 also seeks to amend section 46L but, in contrast, specifies that ministers may not make regulations to increase the overall threshold for pre-notification. Tim Eagle’s amendment 129 looks to entirely remove section 46L and all the powers within it. Between them, those amendments unduly restrict the ability of future Governments to alter thresholds, even if the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that they should be altered, which is why I am not able to support them.

Amendment 135 requires ministers to consult before laying draft regulations under section 46L for approval by Parliament and to prepare and publish a report on the consultation. We have lodged a comprehensive Government amendment to require consultation with appropriate people before draft regulations through part 1 of the bill are laid. For those reasons, I do not think that amendment 135 is necessary, and I urge members to oppose it.

As I have said in previous evidence sessions with both the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee and this committee, it is important for the Scottish Parliament to have the appropriate scrutiny powers for each regulation that stems from the bill. I have carefully considered the committee’s recommendations and have lodged a number of amendments in response to many of those.

Some of the recommendations were to include in the bill statutory duties to consult. As I have set out in various responses, I would already expect the Government to undertake the appropriate consultation, but I am happy to add statutory duties to consult across a number of powers in the bill. Amendments 15, 108, 132, 162, 165 and 170 do that.

Amendments 12 and 13 will make a technical change to the power in the proposed new section 44A of the 2016 act, requiring ministers to consult such persons as they consider appropriate before “laying”, rather than “making”, regulations.

Amendment 175 would insert section 67V(4) into the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003, which would provide a power to the Scottish ministers to make further provision for compensation through regulations, including how claims for compensation are to be made and how the amount payable is to be determined. The power is currently subject to the negative procedure, but the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee recommended that use of the affirmative procedure would be more appropriate. Although I considered that use of the negative procedure in this instance would make the regulation-making power equivalent to similar powers in previous land reform legislation, I am happy to accept that recommendation, and amendment 175 will ensure that the power is instead subject to the affirmative procedure. Under amendment 165, there will be a statutory duty to consult on any such regulations.

I hope that I can go some way towards meeting Tim Eagle’s intentions and what he is trying to achieve with his amendments in the group. His amendment 417 would create a pre-laying procedure for regulations to modify chapter 2 that are made under proposed new section 44M of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2016. I appreciate that a pre-laying procedure was recommended by both this committee and the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee. Again, I want to ensure that Parliament has the appropriate scrutiny powers, but the Parliament will have to agree to any such regulations that are made as they are already subject to the affirmative procedure, and there will be a statutory duty to consult. The bill already specifies the land in relation to which those obligations may be imposed by regulations—that is in proposed new section 44A of the 2016 act and in the list of persons in proposed new section 44E(2). Any regulations that are made in future would really be to modify what is already there rather than to introduce new powers. It is more common to see a pre-laying procedure for the latter. That is why I recommend that the committee opposes amendment 417.

Amendment 458 would attach a similar procedure to the power in proposed new section 67V(4) of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 to make further provision about compensation. The DPLR Committee recommended that that power be subject to the affirmative procedure, and my amendment 175 will ensure that it is. The DPLR Committee also recommended a statutory requirement to consult, which my amendment 165 will introduce. It did not recommend a pre-laying procedure, which is why I ask the committee not to support amendment 458.

Amendment 161 is similar to my amendment 162. It would add a statutory duty to consult in relation to the power in proposed new section 67S of the 2003 act, but it includes a requirement to prepare and publish a report on the consultation. It is standard practice to publish the details of any consultation, so that seems unnecessary. In addition, the amendment suffers from a drafting flaw, because the requirement for regulations that are subject to the affirmative procedure should be that there is consultation before they are laid rather than before they are made. I therefore ask the committee not to support amendment 161.

Amendment 165A would amend my amendment 165, which creates a statutory duty to consult in relation to the power in proposed new section 67V of the 2003 act, in order to require ministers specifically to consult a person who is an accredited valuer of land. Given that that section concerns compensation, the seeking of advice from accredited persons or appropriate bodies would be an expected part of the development of regulations, so I do not think that amendment 165A is necessary. It would also be unusual to require an individual to be consulted, rather than a category of persons or a professional body. Those are the reasons why I ask the committee not to support amendment 165A.

However, I am keen to work with Tim Eagle on the remainder of his amendments in the group—amendments 217, 219 and 220. Like others, they would expressly require Scottish ministers to consult people that they considered appropriate before making regulations under certain paragraphs of the schedule. I am open to including in the bill a requirement to consult in relation to those powers in order to reflect the intention of those amendments. If Tim Eagle is happy not to press them, I will be content to work with him on them ahead of stage 3.

I move amendment 12.

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—

The amendments would significantly interfere with property rights, and I do not believe that we have the evidence base to connect those aspects, which is my serious concern with the amendments.

I have other concerns about the amendments. For example, if they were to be agreed to, there would be significant resource and financial implications for the Scottish Government.

For those reasons, I ask members not to support amendment 174 and its related amendments. Amendment 459 is dependent on amendment 174, so I ask members not to support it, either.

Amendment 433 from Tim Eagle would allow ministers to offer to buy land before making a lotting decision. That would be a departure from the bill as it is drafted, because it is unclear how public purchase in that way would reduce concentration of land ownership. Ministers and public bodies already have powers to purchase land by voluntary agreement when that is justified. The bill also allows ministers to offer to purchase land in certain circumstances following a review of lotting decisions. I therefore ask members not to support amendment 433.

Before turning to amendment 364, which relates to transfers for electricity infrastructure, I want to make a few comments, because this is a matter of interest to my constituency. I want to make it clear that I am appearing before the committee in my capacity as a minister of the Scottish Government. The position that I am presenting reflects the collective view of the Scottish Government and concerns a matter of law and policy for which I have ministerial responsibility. Separately, and in line with the Scottish ministerial code, I have made my views and those of my constituents known to the responsible minister in the appropriate way. The issue under discussion today is distinct from that constituency interest, so my contributions should be understood as reflecting the Government’s position—I am not taking a personal or constituency-specific stance.

Amendment 364 from Douglas Lumsden is unrelated to the provisions of the bill as introduced. It would block voluntary transfers of any land—not just land that forms part of a large landholding—for the purposes of constructing electricity infrastructure. That would interfere with an owner’s property rights. The justification for the proposed provision is not obvious from the amendment, especially as the amendment does not appear to address the main legal mechanisms by which electricity infrastructure is delivered, such as under the Electricity Act 1989, which is UK Government legislation relating to a reserved matter. I therefore ask members not to support amendment 364.

But how would you go on to define that? It becomes trickier when you try to do the opposite and impose too much of a definition. That is why I am asking for amendment 391 not to be supported.

Having set out why I do not believe some of the previous amendments should be supported, I turn to amendment 340, in the name of Rhoda Grant, which is supported by Mercedes Villalba. It would allow the land and communities commissioner to advise a landowner with multiple landholdings in scope on whether a combined plan was appropriate for those holdings or whether they should have separate plans. I understand that, ultimately, the amendment supports amendments that would bring in aggregate landholdings across Scotland, but I do not see a requirement for amendment 340. Regulations will make provision for owners of single and composite holdings to ensure that there is a land management plan and that there is engagement with communities.

Amendment 23 from Tim Eagle and amendment 317 from Ariane Burgess deal in different ways with the issue of a new owner of an in-scope landholding. I appreciate the need for clarity that has been suggested on this issue; however, as Bob Doris has already highlighted in the debate, amendment 32 in group 7 is a more suitable way of dealing with that. That amendment would allow the Scottish Government to set out, in regulations, the detailed requirements of how landowners must comply with their obligations in relation to land management plans, including in circumstances in which the ownership of that land is transferred. In relation to that, future regulations could provide the owner with a grace period of a year, in which they would have the option either to keep most of the existing plan or to consult on a new one.

I agree with Bob Doris that much of that detail is best placed in future regulations and developed with the benefit of consultation. It is appropriate that the bill does not prescribe the detail of the manner in which the obligation in proposed new section 44B(1) to the 2016 act, on land management plans, must be complied with. That is why I ask members not to support amendments 23 and 317, and to support amendment 32 in group 7, when it arrives.

Amendment 17 seeks to ensure that all land management plans are publicly available in a single portal. Although I appreciate and agree with the intent behind the amendment, I cannot support it as drafted, as it would put a requirement on a landowner to ensure that a public body took action. Instead, the landowner should be required only to share the land management plan or to make it available, and the requirement for publication on the portal should sit with the public body. I am happy to work with Bob Doris ahead of stage 3 to ensure that we get that amendment right.

Amendment 16, which has also been lodged by Bob Doris, would insert the word “accessible” into the proposed new section 44B to the 2016 act, requiring landowners to ensure that there is a publicly available land management plan in relation to the land. I am concerned that the amendment does not provide sufficient detail or clarity on what exactly is to be “accessible”. Does the word relate to the language used in the plan or is it a requirement to ensure that the plan can be easily obtained? I appreciate the reasoning behind amendment 16, but I ask Bob Doris not to move it, and I will be happy to work with him ahead of stage 3 to ensure that we get the drafting right.

Rhoda Grant’s amendment 312 overcomplicates the process by seeking to introduce a requirement that land management plans be made in a format specified by Scottish ministers. We will already have powers, through proposed new section 44A of the 2016 act, to set out further detail relating to land management plans, including the information that they have to contain. Amendment 312 is therefore unnecessary, and I ask members not to support it.

Amendment 335 seeks to require that Scottish ministers appoint an independent person to complete the land management plan for crofting estates that ministers own. So far, we have heard no evidence to suggest that that view is shared by crofters on Scottish Government-owned estates, nor have concerns been raised directly by the Crofting Commission or the Scottish Crofting Federation. We already exercise our land management functions in a transparent, accountable and inclusive way, which brings significant social, economic and environmental benefit for rural communities.

The definitions for connected persons are already set out in the bill. I am more than happy to have a discussion with the member ahead of stage 3 if there are particular issues in relation to the amendments that I have brought forward that he feels are not being addressed. I am not sure whether we are talking at cross purposes in terms of what we are trying to set out, but my amendments do not cover aggregate holdings. I do not know whether that is the point that the member is trying to bring forward.

As Michael Matheson outlined, the purpose of amendments 11, 35, 42 and 106 is to extend the land to which community engagement obligations may be imposed to include sites of community significance.

I am keen to ensure that the bill is as simple and clear to understand as possible but, as I have set out today, the measures that we introduce need to be proportionate and justifiable. Following Scottish Land Commission recommendations, the bill focuses on addressing issues with the concentration of land ownership in rural areas. That is why the provisions apply to those larger landholdings. If we were to introduce sites of community significance, that would significantly complicate the provisions that we have set out in the bill. It would invent a whole new designation process that meant that land anywhere in Scotland could be subject to provisions in the bill that were intended only for large landholdings.

It is based on the evidence that has been provided by the Scottish Land Commission. The issue that we are ultimately trying to tackle is the concentration of land ownership and the impacts that it can have on local communities—it means that there is a lack of diversity and of available land supply. Those are the issues that we are directly trying to address. That is not to say that I am not sympathetic to the issues that Mercedes Villalba is trying to address, but we do not have the evidence base to do that. If somebody owns land in other parts of Scotland that falls below the threshold, we do not have the evidence base to show the impact of that on the local community near that area of land, and if it falls below that threshold, it might not be relevant anyway.

Would you like me to come in at this point, convener?

I will just finish the point that I have started.

Mark Ruskell’s amendments 49A and 49B would include non-contiguous areas of land, provided that they are within 10 miles of each other. That figure is much larger than the 250m figure that I suggested, which was based on the recommendations of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee and the Scottish Land Commission. However, I am mindful that our evidence is focused on nearby landholdings. Broadly, the greater the distance that we use to allow non-contiguous landholdings to be treated as contiguous, the further the intervention moves away from the original evidence base, as I have outlined today.

I would like to think that there could be some middle ground in relation to that. Mark Ruskell might well touch on some examples of particular issues that he would like to address that he has referenced previously, so I would like to work with him on those amendments.

I will go back to Mercedes Villalba for her intervention.