Seòmar agus comataidhean

If they are a large landowner, that brings them into conflict with the measures that we are introducing through the bill, which is why we have that provision in place.

Returning to amendment 179, as Tim Eagle outlined, it would remove the ability of the land and communities commissioner to delegate to “any other person”. However, preventing the land and communities commissioner from delegating work would restrict their ability to carry out their functions. For example, the amendment could prevent the commissioner from commissioning a land agent or third party to provide technical expertise when they are preparing a report to support an investigation in relation to a transfer test. For those reasons, I encourage the committee to reject amendment 179.

I will try to address some of the points that have been raised so far in the discussion. On the whole, we have listened to the views of stakeholders on the creation of a land and communities commissioner. I also note the committee’s overall support for the creation of an LCC in its stage 1 report.

Putting the functions that relate to community engagement obligations and the transfer test with the LCC will allow the expertise of the Scottish Land Commission to be drawn on while ensuring that the LCC’s functions do not impact the advisory role of the land commissioners.

It would not be right to impose new obligations on the existing commissioners, who were recruited for different roles and to do different things from what will be required of the land and communities commissioner. However, I emphasise that the LCC will not be a stand-alone commissioner; they will be a member of the Scottish Land Commission and its board of commissioners. Collectively, the board is responsible for ensuring that appropriate governance procedures and oversight are in place and that the commissioners are fulfilling their responsibilities and duties appropriately.

For those reasons, I ask the committee not to support Tim Eagle’s amendments that would remove the position of a land and communities commissioner.

On amendment 463, the bill already requires the land and communities commissioner to have experience of land management and community empowerment, which reflect the role’s functions, so I do not think that what is proposed in the amendment is necessary, given the role’s functions. The amendment would restrict eligibility without any clear justification. Again, I ask the committee not to support it.

On amendment 177, although conflicts of interest would always be addressed through the appointments process, there is precedent for addressing specific conflicts in primary legislation. An example of that is in the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2016, which sets out that a person may not be appointed as the tenant farming commissioner if they also own or tenant land that is subject to a relevant tenancy. On the LCC, because the conflict relates to ownership of or financial interest in an asset, it is appropriate to address that in the bill, as was done for the TFC role. I consider it appropriate to include the disqualification, given the nature of the conflict and the existing precedent. That is why I ask the committee not to support amendment 177.

Amendment 464 would be a departure from the proposed role of the land and communities commissioner, which is to support compliance with obligations and to support the transfer test process. As Mark Ruskell outlined, it is important to monitor the impact on communities of the developing natural capital markets, but the LCC would not necessarily be best placed to undertake that function. I therefore ask Mark Ruskell, on behalf of Ariane Burgess, not to move amendment 464, although I am open to further discussions to see how we can best monitor that issue. I hope that we can have those discussions ahead of stage 3.

On Michael Matheson’s amendment 178, I hope that I will be able to clarify the issues that he raised now. Ultimately, the amendment would put requirements on the LCC in relation to other commissioners at the Scottish Land Commission and functions around creating guidance on the community engagement obligations. I absolutely support the overall intent behind the amendment. However, the requirements in relation to other commissioners do not consider the existing governance processes that mean that further legislation is not necessarily required. The existing processes require the LCC to collaborate with the land commissioners where the LCC’s functions relate to the functions of the land commissioners, and for the land commissioners to collaborate with the LCC and to have regard to their functions, too.

Ultimately, I ask Michael Matheson not to move amendment 178 so that I can work with him on the requirements for the development of guidance on the community engagement obligations. Again, I want us to have those conversations in advance of stage 3.

On amendment 179, the bill allows the LCC to delegate its powers to any committee, any employee of the commission or any other person. That is ultimately the same as other members of the Scottish Land Commission. [Interruption.]

Sorry, convener—would you like to come in?

Again, if that is something that the landowner is considering, it is all very well to be open and transparent about it. Ultimately, through land management plans and the community engagement process, we hope that there will be discussion with communities and transparency and engagement throughout the process, so that we improve relationships. That can facilitate some of the other measures that the bill is introducing.

I return to amendment 26. Including that information in the plan will support meaningful engagement between communities and the landowner and improve transparency over how engagement has impacted the plan. The amendment addresses the recommendation that the committee made in its stage 1 report, so I support amendment 26.

I am not sure how Ariane Burgess’s amendment 2 would add to what we have already set out in relation to that matter. I am happy to have a further conversation with either Mark Ruskell or Ariane Burgess in relation to amendment 2. The remainder of Ariane Burgess’s amendments would add more detail to the bill. Although I acknowledge the approach that is being taken, it is important that certain requirements can be updated in future regulations to ensure that they remain relevant, so they are better placed in secondary legislation.

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 imagine that, as you have just outlined, a scale would be implemented. We have that in other pieces of legislation. Flexibility exists. That would all be covered. There will be engagement with the land and communities commissioner when they take up their role, to ensure that they are adequately equipped to implement that enforcement regime.

The review has been under way for the past year, and we are looking to consult on the measures within that shortly. We will come to further discussion on the review in future groups of amendments.

I have some sympathy with amendment 350, because ultimately it would give more time to communities. However, we cannot ignore the impact that it would have on the landowner, given that it would substantially extend the prohibition on sale. Our measures have to be proportionate and fair to all sides. I believe that the significant additional prohibition that is proposed in the amendment would not quite get that balance right, so I ask the committee not to support the amendment.

If I have understood you correctly, that brings us back to the discussion about recognising land of community significance.

With the lowering and aligning of the thresholds at 1,000 hectares, only the largest agricultural businesses—1.4 per cent—will now be caught by those measures. I do not think that that is too unreasonable.

We come back to the issue of the level of detail that we expect to be provided in land management plans, which there has been a lot of discussion about today. As I have said, today and previously, there are the overarching objectives of what we want to achieve, but the detail of what is contained in the plans will be subject to wider consultation, because we need to make sure that we get the balance right. It is broadly the case—certainly among members round the table—that people do not want the process to be too prescriptive or too onerous, and, as Bob Doris and Mark Ruskell have said, many people are already doing that work. We simply want to ensure that everyone adheres to the requirements, because owning land comes with obligations.

I am sorry, what do you mean?