Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

I want to make it clear that that is why consultation and engagement on what the land management plan will include are hugely important. That will be a vital part of the process.

You also raised some examples of the costs that will be associated with the plan. Figures have been set out in the financial memorandum, and the £15,000 figure has been mentioned a couple of times today. However, that was an expected cost for a complex and quite extreme example. Also, it is not as though that would be a recurring cost every five years. Again, we need to consult people and ensure that we get the level of detail right, which is why we have set out the process. I hope that the member recognises that in relation to the amendments that we are considering and our discussions on the bill today.

I would be happy to share more information with Mark Ruskell and other committee members. As Mercedes Villalba referenced in her comments, we have referred widely to the public interest in legislation, so we cannot just set out what the public interest is in the bill that is in front of us. Amendment 310 is very descriptive—as I set out with reference to the case law, it is too descriptive. It would not be helpful to have a definition that would restrict how “public interest” was interpreted.

I thank members for all their contributions to the debate on this group of amendments. We are talking about really important matters. It is clear that, across the committee, there is broadly a strong desire for the public interest to be at the heart of the decisions that we take, but there are a wide range of views as to what that might mean and what that could look like.

I have listened carefully to the clear view that has been expressed by stakeholders and the committee that the transfer test that is set out in the bill should take greater account of the public interest. In my response to the committee’s stage 1 report, I was clear that any reframing of the test would have to be consistent with the evidence base for it, which highlights the damaging impact that concentrated land ownership can have on the sustainability of local communities. I welcome the amendments that Michael Matheson has lodged—amendments 150, 151 and 158—because they will make it clear that ministers will require land to be lotted only when they consider that that is in the public interest, so the amendments remain consistent with the evidence base.

We recognise concentration of land ownership as a problem. The policy aim and ultimate objective here is to address the effect of the concentration of land ownership and its impact on local communities and on the supply of land to local communities. That is why we have set out the measures in the bill and why we are directly trying to address those problems.

I am not concerned about that at the moment. The member will no doubt be aware of the Crofting and Scottish Land Court Bill, which was recently introduced.

Again, there is no obligation; it is about considering requests from crofting community bodies. Although the drafting is not quite right, I support what the amendment is trying to achieve.

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.

If you are talking about aggregate holdings—holdings across Scotland that potentially fall under the thresholds—they would not be caught by the measures. Essentially, we need to make sure that we have the evidence base for that and that we address the impact of the concentration of land ownership. The amendments that I am bringing forward do not cover aggregate holdings, because those would be across Scotland.