Seòmar agus comataidhean

I covered that in my comments on amendment 177. As I outlined, it is because of the nature of the conflict. I know that stakeholders expressed concern about that, which is why we have that disqualification in the bill. It mirrors what we have in place in relation to the tenant farming commissioner, which is why I think that it is appropriate to have that provision in the bill.

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.

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.

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.

Our position has not changed throughout the discussions that we have had on the bill. The key point that we are trying to address, and all the measures that have been introduced, are based on the Scottish Land Commission’s recommendations on addressing the issues that are associated with the concentration of land ownership in Scotland and the impact that it has on local communities. It is with large landholdings in a specific area that we see some of the issues arise, and that is the point that we are trying to address with the measures in the bill. Our position has not changed.

I would be happy to have that further discussion with the member. As I have said, no concern has been raised with me directly, which is why I was wondering why the amendment had been lodged.

It would be important for somebody acting on behalf of Scottish ministers to engage in the same way that we would expect of any other large landowner, instead of our expecting a separate person to take on that responsibility. We engage with our tenants and local communities when we develop long-term proposals on crofting estates and gather information on that, and putting that duty on to an independent person or an external party instead of the Scottish Government would amount to an information transfer process, from the Scottish Government to someone else, for the purposes of writing a plan. Such a move would have resource implications, too. It is also important that we undertake our own engagement with tenants and crofting communities on the crofting estates.

For those reasons, I ask members not to support amendment 335. Regardless of that, though, I want to pick up that conversation with Rhoda Grant and get more of an understanding about some of the concerns that she has heard.

Lastly, I urge members not to support Ariane Burgess’s amendment 338, which seeks to place an obligation on the owner of land to implement the land management plan. I have concerns about that, as land management plans are not necessarily intended to control how land is used or managed but to provide greater transparency and engagement on that. I offer to work with Ariane Burgess ahead of stage 3 to see whether we can bring forward an alternative amendment that, ultimately, has the same aim. For example, it could require a landowner to set out in the review of a plan any progress that has been made on the implementation of the actions set out in that or previous plans.

When we introduced the bill, the transfer test that we set out, which did not explicitly use the term “public interest”, was framed very much in that way. That is because, as Mark Ruskell spoke about, when we are justifying interference with property rights or any interference with article 1 of protocol 1 of the ECHR, we need to ensure that that is proportionate, that it has a legitimate aim and that we have the evidence base for that intervention. We framed that as a transfer test. In essence, that is a public interest test, which is why I am agreeing to the amendments that explicitly state that, because we have to qualify that and set out why it works in the way that it does.

I cannot support amendment 310, given how descriptive it is. I would have to take advice on the implications of Rhoda Grant’s suggestion, but I feel that we might not be able to support that. I am happy to support Michael Matheson’s amendments because of how they are framed.

Amendment 310 would place duties on the Scottish ministers and on other public bodies for purposes that are completely outside the scope of the bill. Such substantial alterations to public decision making should not be made without more detailed consideration and consultation.

There are also serious issues with amendment 339, which would result in a departure from the policy aim of land management plans improving transparency and engagement between landholders and communities. The amendment would create a complex and potentially quite confusing landscape for the landowner when preparing a plan, and it would risk those plans becoming a box-ticking exercise.

Amendment 342 attempts to provide ministers with powers to amend definitions of land to which community engagement obligations would apply. That can already be delivered through existing powers in the bill to update definitions of land through regulations.

That is why I ask members not to support amendments 310, 339 and 342. I also ask members not to support amendment 348, because it is consequential to amendment 342.

Amendment 427 from Tim Eagle would allow the Scottish ministers to determine that a lotting decision was not required if that was in the public interest. For ministers to be able to make that assessment, they would need to consider information about the landholding and determine whether lotting would be beneficial. That is the same information that they would need to consider to make a lotting decision. It is already the intention that transfers are able to be screened out more quickly when that is appropriate. I know that Michael Matheson’s amendment 156 will allow for further guidance to be set on how that screening will take place.

I ask members not to support amendment 427 or amendment 460, which is reliant on amendment 427.

Amendments 174, 174A and 174B from Mercedes Villalba would introduce a test on buyers of land as well as a presumed limit on land ownership of 500 hectares. The amendments are a significant departure from the bill and are not supported by the evidence base. They would give the Scottish ministers a mechanism to entirely block proposed transfers in a wide range of circumstances, based on their assessment of the public interest or on the evaluation of the buyer.

The interference in property rights that would result from those proposals would require a rational and coherent justification based on evidence. The evidence on which I have proceeded is concerned with the effects of concentration of ownership on communities. There is no rational link between that evidence and the proposals that are set out in the amendments.

I have nothing to add, convener.

Amendment 12 agreed to.

Amendment 13 moved—[Mairi Gougeon]—and agreed to.

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.

I am not ruling anything in or out at this stage, because we have not yet introduced a threshold of 1,000 hectares. It is important that we review and monitor how that is implemented and see how it is operating once it has been introduced.

Mercedes Villalba’s amendments 43 and 47 would remove the requirements for single landholdings to be a contiguous area of land and for composite holdings to be contiguous with each other. That would mean that, if a landowner owns more than 1,000 hectares in total across all their Scottish landholdings, the provisions in the bill would apply.

I appreciate that some members and stakeholders more broadly want landholdings where there is a larger distance between holdings to be brought into scope. I have sympathy with that, but the evidence base that underpins the bill as introduced focuses on the concentration of ownership and its impact on local communities. We do not have the evidence base to justify measures that tackle aggregate holdings across Scotland, as I outlined in my response to Douglas Lumsden.