Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am aware that an issue has been raised with us, and I am more than happy to follow up with the committee on that. NatureScot has been adding conditions to the licences to try to address the issues that have been raised. We are considering the issue further, but I do not anticipate the bill being the vehicle with which to tackle it. Again, more work needs to be done to find out whether a solution is needed beyond what has already been put in place, and what that solution might look like.

Of course we want to consider any unintended consequences. I will bring in Fiona Leslie on that.

That is absolutely fine. What we are doing with the powers in the bill and with pre-notification is enabling another route in to using the existing community right to buy powers. The review could propose changes that we would need to implement. That would have to be part of consideration once we have consulted, but if changes to the legislation were required to adjust the powers, they would be subject to future legislation.

I am sorry—I hope that I am explaining things and providing some clarity.

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.

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.

I recognise the concerns and the quite universal call for some sort of de minimis provision in the bill to exclude certain transactions that need not be controversial.

It might be helpful if I briefly explain why we have introduced the provision as we have, and the rationale behind that. With regard to pieces of land that communities might be interested in taking ownership of, the vast majority—I think that the figure is between 60 and 70 per cent—are areas of less than a hectare. They are quite small pieces of land, but they might still be very significant to a particular community. That is why we did not want to prevent from being part of those transactions areas of land that could be significant to or of interest to a community.

We have, however, listened to the evidence that the committee has heard and the subsequent recommendations that have come from the Land Commission on that issue, and we are happy to consider that further.

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.

No, that is not what I am saying. If you had listened to the comments that I just made—

I said that the proposals were based on recommendations suggesting that the most pressing issues and areas of concern were in rural Scotland and that more work needed to be done on the urban environment. I have heard the evidence that the committee has taken in relation to the issues that exist in urban environments, and I am not saying that there are no problems there. We have taken this focus because of the work that was done and the recommendations that were made at that point.

Absolutely. We have looked at the evidence that the committee has heard on that. You are absolutely right that forestry and others are saying that they are already working to plans that cover longer periods. That is where we tried to strike that balance. Ultimately, if it becomes a yearly exercise, the costs associated with that would be overly burdensome, not to mention the administration costs of that on the other side. For plans of 10 years and beyond, we would have to make sure that they do not become outdated, just as you said.

Five years was the timeline that was selected because the majority of respondents to the consultation agreed with that level and felt that it was an appropriate period. As with most of the matters that we are discussing this morning, we are keen to hear whether the committee has any particular recommendations, but we feel that, with the proposal as it is, we have struck that balance in responding to and accepting the views of the respondents to the consultation and what they felt was an appropriate timeline with the need for review and other considerations.