Seòmar agus comataidhean

As I have outlined, we are probably not too far apart in our thinking, but these are new measures that we are introducing so, being responsible in our role, it is only right that we monitor their effectiveness and look at any potential impacts. I do not want to tie the hands of any future Parliaments in relation to that, which is why I propose not to support the amendment. I am happy to have further conversations with Mercedes Villalba after stage 2 as we look towards stage 3, but I am not minded to support amendment 109 at this stage.

Ariane Burgess’s amendments 3 and 4 would lower the threshold for land on which community obligations might be imposed to 500 hectares. For the reasons that I outlined earlier, I believe that that is too low. I want to ensure that the proposals are justified in relation to the policy aim of not having a disproportionate impact on smaller landholdings. The amendments would impose costs on a much more significant set of landowners. As I outlined in my response to Mercedes Villalba, the provisions in the bill are new and it is important that the Government can review and monitor how they are being implemented. We would have the ability to seek to adjust the thresholds in future if that is required. That is why I oppose the amendments.

I thank colleagues around the table for their engagement on the bill more widely, but particularly on the matters that we are discussing in this group in relation to the process for and implementation of land management plans.

I welcome amendment 20, lodged by Bob Doris, which looks to require specifically that regulations ensure that landowners engage with

“tenants, crofters and small landholders with rights associated with the land on the development of, and significant changes to,”

land management plans. That was always going to be the intention of the regulations, so I am happy with that amendment, which makes things more explicit.

Amendment 33 from Bob Doris and amendment 10 from Tim Eagle seek additional guidance on how landowners will comply with their land management plan obligations under the regulations. As it was always the intention for there to be additional guidance, I am happy for that to be made explicit in the bill.

For drafting reasons, however, I ask Bob Doris and Tim Eagle not to move their amendments, and I am happy to work with them ahead of stage 3 to produce amendments that meet the stated aims in both. Each takes a different view on how guidance must be produced, what it should cover and who should produce it; one suggests Scottish ministers, while the other suggests the new commissioner. I agree that the content of both the amendments should be covered in further regulations or in guidance, and I will consider how best that can be reflected in the bill and whether that responsibility should indeed lie with ministers or with the commissioner.

Amendments 21 and 315, on the proposed timescales for the review of land management plans, seek to increase the intervals of reporting. Ariane Burgess’s amendments in this group seek to introduce a new plan period of 20 years, with a review and a report every five years. I do, of course, understand the rationale for that, which is to encourage plans to set out activity for the next 20 years. However, the bill already requires plans to set out a long-term vision, and it is appropriate for guidance and regulations to set out more detail of what that means, including the timespan that the plan should cover.

In its stage 1 report, the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee noted that the five-year reporting cycle that we have set out seeks

“to strike a balance between ensuring plans remain current and not imposing unrealistic or unhelpful obligations on landowners.”

To me, that indicates that what we have set out does strike the right balance, and to that end, I ask members not to support amendment 21 from Tim Eagle, amendment 315 from Rhoda Grant or amendments 311, 313, 314, 316 and 337 from Ariane Burgess.

That would be for review of the plan, not its duration. As I have set out in my comments, we would look to regulations and further guidance to set out what the overall duration of the plan would look like. Hence, I feel that we have struck the right balance in having the review every five years.

It is not for me to set that out right now, because we would need to do more work on the matter and have more engagement across the piece. In relation to what Rhoda Grant and Ariane Burgess have proposed, I feel that there is an agreement to be reached between us, but I do not think that fixing this in primary legislation is the way to do it.

Amendments 390, 18, 391, 19, 392 and 396 from Tim Eagle look to do away altogether with the requirement for regulations to provide for obligations to ensure that there are land management plans and engagement with communities on them. They seek to require regulations only to provide that landowners ensure that they engage with a restricted category of persons—and only on the development of plans, not on significant changes to them—and they also seek to introduce in regulations an ability for landowners to report members of the community. I feel that those amendments are against the spirit of what the bill is looking to achieve, and I ask members not to support them.

I also recommend opposing amendment 340 from Rhoda Grant.

We are addressing that through the measures that we have introduced in the bill by, for example, looking at the management of our land more widely and making that more transparent, and through the transfer test and our lotting proposals. Ultimately, that is about trying to diversify land supply and land ownership in Scotland. That is why we have prohibitions in place so that land cannot all go to one owner. Does the bill address, or would it ever have been able to address, the significant issues in relation to the management and ownership of land in Scotland? No, but we have to ensure that we have an evidential basis for the measures that we introduce, so that they withstand any challenge that could come our way.

I have mentioned other work that is going on that could potentially help in the urban environment. There is also the community right to buy review. The bill is one step right now. It cannot fix all the problems, but we are introducing new measures and policies that I hope will have a significant impact and will be another step on the land reform journey.

I will comment briefly on Douglas Lumsden’s amendments 343 and 344. As I said when I commented on similar amendments from Douglas Lumsden in group 1, the amendments relate to a matter of interest in my constituency. I make it clear that I am here 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. However, the issue under discussion today is distinct from that constituency interest, and my contributions today should therefore be understood as reflecting the Government’s position and not a personal or constituency-specific stance. Having said that, I am not sure how Douglas Lumsden’s amendments would fit with the current drafting of the bill, which is why I recommend that members oppose the amendments at this stage.

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.