Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

I will speak to my amendments first, before covering other amendments in the group. During the stage 1 debate, I committed to strengthening the bill, including by ensuring that the enforcement options that are available to the land and communities commissioner would act as a sufficient deterrent. I believe that my amendments, together with those that Bob Doris is proposing, as well as the amendments that Mark Russell has spoken to on behalf of Ariane Burgess, will all work together to achieve that.

Amendments 58, 60, 61, 67, 72 and 76 will enable the land and communities commissioner to investigate a possible breach without first receiving a report, if they consider it is appropriate to do so. That change will deliver the recommendation that both the committee and the Scottish Land Commissioner made at stage 1. The breach investigation process as set out in the bill is designed to support the collaborative and positive environment that has been created by the SLC’s long-standing work to support landowners to implement the land rights and responsibilities principles and deliver best practice. If a breach is found, the focus is on supporting the landowner to remedy the breach, with enforcement used only as a last resort.

Amendment 77 will allow the land and communities commissioner to redact personal information before sharing with the landowner information about a breach. I have listened to some of the concerns that have been expressed by stakeholders, including directly to the committee, and the committee’s recommendation on the issue, and I recognise that there might well be circumstances in which it would be appropriate to remove certain identifying details before reports are shared, in order to mitigate the risks to individuals. The approach that we have taken balances addressing those risks with the need to have a fair and transparent process. I ask the committee to support the amendments in my name in the group.

I welcome the intention of the amendments from Ariane Burgess, as well as some of the amendments from Rhoda Grant—in particular, amendments 345 and 346—as all of those aim to expand further the bodies that can report a breach. All the bodies in the list that would be added by Ariane Burgess’s amendments—community councils, national park authorities, the Crofting Commission and enterprise agencies—were recommended to be added by the SLC in its advice at stage 1. The bill as drafted includes the power to modify the list by regulations, to ensure that it remains fit for purpose, but widening the list at this point ensures that it will be fit for purpose from the point at which the bill is enacted. I therefore recommend that the committee support the amendments from Ariane Burgess.

Rhoda Grant’s amendments 345 and 346 overlap with Ariane Burgess’s amendments, particularly as they relate to community councils and the Crofting Commission. However, they also include grazing committees, community-controlled bodies and development trusts. I am open to the possibility of further bodies being able to report breaches. Bodies that have registered or are eligible to register an interest under part 2 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003, which deals with community right to buy, are already able to report a breach under the bill. In many cases, that will cover community-controlled bodies in the vicinity of the landholding. However, I offer to work with Rhoda Grant to better understand the reasons for including the bodies in her amendments and to develop an appropriate expansion of the list, potentially by way of an alternative amendment at stage 3. I therefore ask her not to press her amendments at this stage.

Amendment 89 from Bob Doris would raise the maximum fine for breaches of community engagement obligations to £40,000. The rest of Bob Doris’s amendments would introduce enforcement notices that would give the land and communities commissioner a tool to deal with cases of continued non-compliance. Together, those amendments would ensure that fines are a sufficient deterrent for non-compliance. I therefore recommend that all those amendments are supported.

Mark Ruskell’s amendment 97A would remove flexibility from the land and communities commissioner to work co-operatively with a landowner to resolve a breach without applying a fine. It is important to make sure that the enforcement tools that we have are robust, but it is also important to remember that the aim is not to apply fines but, ultimately, to encourage the landowner to resolve their breaches of their obligations. There could well be times at which it is not appropriate to impose a further fine. For example, there could be mitigating circumstances. The legislation needs to have the flexibility to enable the land and communities commissioner to consider such cases, so I ask the committee not to support amendment 97A.

Staying on that theme, I recommend that the committee support Tim Eagle’s amendments 408 to 410 and 414 to 416, because, although they do not change the effect of the bill, they emphasise that the land and communities commissioner will take a collaborative approach to their enforcement role.

However, I cannot recommend that the committee support Tim Eagle’s other proposed amendments. Amendments 82 and 90 would reduce fines to just £500. Those amendments are contrary to the recommendations in the committee’s report and to the evidence that was provided by a number of different stakeholders.

I believe that that would be the case. I cannot imagine that we would want to be in a position where we are publishing information that is commercially sensitive for a business. I would want to provide assurance on that front.

There is a lot to agree with in what we have been talking about round the table today. Mark Ruskell summarised where we are, and I wrote it down as, “Better community engagement,” because that is such a strong and positive thing that can come out of land management plans.

I completely recognise the points that Tim Eagle made, because the majority of us will have seen landowners doing that work in our constituencies, but we also know that there are landowners who are not doing good things and who do not undertake that engagement. We have to try to address that. The law does not allow us to distinguish between the good and the bad, or to get only to those who we feel are not doing the things that we want them to do. We have to apply the measures equally across the board.

The proposals that we have brought forward enable us to do that, and I am more than happy to have further engagement with you, convener.

We will obviously have to work closely with the Scottish Land Commission to make sure that it has the resources that it needs to undertake that work. I do not have particular concerns in that regard. What is more important to me is why we are doing this and the overall objectives that we are trying to achieve.

I do not intend to say much more, other than that I completely reject Tim Eagle’s amendments in this group, which would undermine what the majority of us are seeking to ensure—that the bill works and is effective. The discussions that we have had so far and the other amendments that we have considered represent a step forward in achieving that.

That could well be. What is important is the consultation that we will undertake in relation to the land management plan, which I think would get into that in more detail. It is about having in the bill only higher-level statements about what we expect land management plans to contain.

I do not intend to respond individually to every amendment in the group. Ultimately, we are trying to strike a balance between the bill and the detail that we will bring forward in the regulations on a land management plan. What is in the bill is not, by any means, intended to be an exhaustive list. We include in the bill high-level statements, which, following consultation, will be developed into more detail in the subsequent regulations. I restate that land management plans are not a requirement for landowners to take specific measures, but are intended to encourage landowners to consider what steps they may be able to take, and to provide more transparency on those plans.

I will turn to the different groups of amendments that we have just discussed. Tim Eagle’s amendments would remove most of the high-level statements of content and leave everything to guidance. On the other hand, Douglas Lumsden is taking the opposite approach and is, instead, requiring more detail on land management plans to be included in the bill. Some of what Douglas Lumsden is proposing can form part of the consultation and development with stakeholders that I talked about, and consideration of the impact of requirements will be key to ensuring that. I therefore recommend that the amendments from Tim Eagle and Douglas Lumsden are not supported.

Ariane Burgess’s amendment 26 requires information that I think it is right to have in the bill.

Turning to Bob Doris’s amendments, I want to provide some reassurance in relation to amendment 30. We intend, of course, for there to be monitoring and reporting, but rather than that being required within individual land management plans, it will be set at a higher level by the Scottish Land Commission. For that reason, I ask Mr Doris not to move the amendment.

I support the intent behind amendment 31 of ensuring that the plans are published in a single and accessible location. However, I ask Bob Doris not to move the amendment, so that I can work with him ahead of stage 3 to ensure that the amendment is drafted in a way that will not pose any implementation issues further down the line.

I agree with your point. The plans need to be accessible and, ultimately, that is what we are trying to achieve. I would not expect those plans to include commercially sensitive information.

I will comment briefly on Bob Doris’s amendment 32, which we covered in some detail last week, in a debate on another grouping. I will just encourage members to support the amendment.

Finally, I turn to Rhoda Grant’s amendments. I fully recognise the aims that Rhoda Grant is trying to achieve. For example, amendment 326 would ensure that there is

“regard to ... any local place plan”.

I can only restate that local place plans will be fully considered in the regulations and in the consultation that we will undertake on them, to ensure that the content of the land management plans is fit for purpose, proportionate and deliverable.

With regard to amendment 328, however, I support Rhoda Grant’s intention and I support the amendment.

On her amendment 329, the regulations that it refers to ceased to have effect in March 1993, so I do not see value in collecting that information. It would also be a burden on island businesses. Therefore, I recommend that amendments 326 and 329 be opposed.

I do not think that it would be for me to set that out on the face of any legislation. I appreciate the example that the convener has highlighted, but we have also had examples at the opposite end of the scale, which is why we have decided to introduce the ability for fines of up to £40,000 to be imposed. Of course, I am happy to have further engagement ahead of stage 3 to see what more detail can be provided, but I am hesitant to commit to putting anything in the bill at this stage, especially when similar provisions exist in other pieces of legislation.

Amendment 407 does not set out how the proposed timescale would impact on an investigation by the land and communities commissioner, and I think that the current approach of allowing the LCC to set the period at the time when they require further information on a breach is proportionate. It allows the period to be set on the basis of the kind of information that is being requested and the time that one might expect it to take to prepare it.

Amendment 411 would delay the LCC’s ability to apply a fine in cases of continued non-compliance. Therefore, I recommend that the committee not support amendments 82, 90, 407 and 411.

Rhoda Grant’s amendment 347 seeks to introduce a significant new compulsory purchase power. This is, of course, not a matter on which we have consulted; in any case, I do not think that the bill is the right vehicle for new compulsory purchase powers, particularly when a substantial consultation on proposed reforms to Scotland’s compulsory purchase system is planned for the coming months. On that basis, I ask the committee not to support that amendment.

Lastly, I want to make it clear overall that I absolutely support the intent behind amendments 412 and 413, in the name of Mark Ruskell, which is that we should not be giving public money to those who are not living up to their obligations. However, I do not think that the amendments are the best way of achieving that aim.

With regard to agricultural support, we as a Government have made commitments to co-develop that funding with rural partners through the agricultural reform programme, and if we started to reduce requirements outside of the programme, without considering the totality—that is, the broader issue of refusal or recovery of support—it would cut across and ultimately undermine our approach in that respect. The issue raised in Mark Ruskell’s amendment will form part of future considerations and allow any requirements to be brought forward as a package at the right time and through the appropriate legislation—in other words, the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Act 2024.

Amendment 413 is incredibly broad and it would block, ultimately, any financial support. As a result, it could have quite extreme unintended consequences. For example—and I hope that this will not be the case—if a public body were in breach, the amendment would result in its being cut off from all the public sector funding that it might need to remain operational. The same would potentially be true of charities that own large areas of land.

We already have the ability to set conditions for funding and, indeed, do so in many cases. Given that, I ask Mark Ruskell not to move his amendment, because I do not believe that it is the right way to meet this aim.