Seòmar agus comataidhean

First of all, I know, because I heard it quite strongly in the evidence that the committee took, that the view that was expressed pretty much universally to the committee was that the community right to buy should have been included in the bill. As I started to outline earlier, the review of community right to buy is significant, and there are a number of powers in that respect that we need time to review. That review started last year, and we will consult formally on the powers later this year.

However, what we are proposing in the bill will not change that. As I have outlined, it will provide another gateway to part 2 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 and to utilising the existing community right to buy, but it will not fundamentally change it. If, at the end of the review, it were to be recommended that there should be legislative change, that would serve only to improve the provisions that we have with regard to accessibility of the community right to buy. However, we have yet to see the outcome of that review and what the proposals will be. There will be full consultation on that, too.

We are considering the recommendations further. I have set out why we proposed the role in the way that we did, and there is scope for such wider collaboration. The Scottish Land Commission can deal with the governance of that—it has the powers to do so. We need to give the matter more consideration, but we are looking at those recommendations in the light of the evidence to the committee.

It is just a case of teasing that out. I come back to the point about balance. We set out a separate power to rest with a specific commissioner in the commission because the commission has had a largely advisory role. If we provide powers that create a regulatory function, it is important that those powers sit with an individual, notwithstanding the point that there can be further collaboration with other members of the commission, as needed. We have tried to achieve that balance, but we are open to considering the issue to ensure that we get that right.

You raise an important point because we will need to closely monitor some of the measures that we are introducing to see whether they are having the desired impact. We have not set out a specific timescale for what a review of that might look like. There is information in the financial memorandum and the documents that were published with the bill on that, but it mainly relates to when we would look to implement various provisions in the bill. Even that will take time, because we would have to appoint the land and communities commissioner if the bill is passed by the Parliament and then take further steps from there. So, there is an implementation period for various provisions in the bill, but monitoring will be absolutely key. We will be looking at this closely as the measures are implemented to ensure that they are having the desired effect.

I listened really carefully to the evidence that the committee heard from the Scottish Crofting Federation and the Crofting Commission in relation to that. Undoubtedly, crofting has had and continues to have a positive impact in Scotland. I mentioned the other pieces of legislation that are coming through Parliament and other measures that we are introducing. I am keen to ensure that we have consulted on proposals to reform crofting legislation, and there are issues that we would need to tackle first before we consider that suggestion.

You raise important points. The statistics and information that Kevin Stewart outlined paint a stark picture of land ownership in Scotland. Scotland is really an outlier. The ownership situation that we have is not normal when compared with other European countries and other nations. That is why it is important that we take the steps that we have proposed in the bill. Key to that are the community right to buy, which we have already talked about and is already in existence, and the pre-notification proposals, which would enable another route into using those powers. The proposals that we are looking to introduce through the transfer test and the provisions around lotting are also important in trying to increase land supply in Scotland and, therefore, hopefully the diversity of ownership.

As I said in my response to Kevin Stewart, the monitoring of that will be critical, because we have to make sure that the proposals that we introduce have the intended effect. It is important to highlight that our proposals around lotting are a significant step forward in relation to regulation of the land market in Scotland. It is important not to forget the significance of some of those proposals.

We have listened carefully to all the evidence. It might be helpful for me to set out a rationale for why we approached the threshold in the way that we did. In the consultation that we undertook for the bill, we consulted on having a 3,000 hectares threshold, largely because if the provisions applied to estates larger than around 3,000 hectares the bill would take in about 40 per cent of the land area in Scotland.

We are trying to get the balance right when considering the burden that we are putting on landholdings in relation to the land management plan, obligations for community engagement and associated costs. We are considering all the evidence that the committee has taken and we are looking at the recommendations made by the Land Commission. However, ultimately, we are trying to get the balance right so that we do not put a disproportionate burden on smaller landholdings.

I hope that that explanation of our approach is helpful. We are considering the evidence.

I have set out the initial rationale for the threshold, but we are keen to take on board the evidence that the committee has heard, to think about whether the current level is suitable, and to hear whether the committee has any suggestions for alternatives. We want to balance all those considerations, including the impact on smaller landholders of some of the community engagement obligations. We are listening to the evidence that the committee has heard, because we want to ensure that there is transparency.

We have the land rights and responsibilities statement. Some landowners are doing very good things and are looking to engage and involve communities in the decisions that they take. However, that approach is not universal or widespread, which is why we want to introduce the land management plan obligations and community engagement provisions. I am open to views on what the thresholds for those might look like.

Yes.

There will be consultation on exactly what could be included. If the committee is of the view that amendments are needed to clarify that, we will consider that view. However, I come back to the point that we have tried to strike the right balance by ensuring that there is flexibility for different landholdings while setting out our overarching objectives in the primary legislation.