Chamber and committees

Convener, this is quite a complex area, and you have some lived experience due to your professional background outwith the Parliament. You suggest that a multiplier of 15 should be used for compensation. What is the basis for that, other than your gut feeling and experience? Is it based on consultation with landlords or with tenants? What is the evidence base for that suggestion? The Government has done a lot of work on the issue so, as a committee member, I wonder why a multiplier of 15 would be better than looking at the increase in the capital value. How did you arrive at that multiplier? I am asking so that I can think about it ahead of stage 3.

Rachael Hamilton mentions that 12,000 people have expressed their views. A land management plan would put a statutory duty on the landowner—in this case, the business that she has mentioned—to actively consult with all those people while drawing up a new and fresh land management plan. In an earlier contribution, Ms Hamilton said that, although we have an ethical investment framework, it is clearly not working, so there should be some form of enforcement. At the committee’s previous meeting, we agreed to amendments that will increase to £50,000 the maximum fine for non-compliance with land management plans, but Conservative colleagues tried to reduce it to just £500. What is Rachael Hamilton’s position on that?

I am sorry, but I am not going to take another intervention from Ms Hamilton. We are talking about her amendment.

I might make this point again in summing up. The thread running through most of the amendments is a policy intent to nail down what post-legislative scrutiny should be undertaken and to get the balance correct on that. I am interested in hearing what the Scottish Government has to say on where it thinks that the balance should sit. I would be keen to collaborate with Mercedes Villalba to see whether we can work out where that balance should sit and to jointly lodge an amendment on that at stage 3. That would be welcome.

Convener, it was remiss of me not to mention that Mercedes Villalba’s support for my amendment 182 is noted on the marshalled list. I should have done that when I spoke to the amendment.

I am aware of the issue and I associate myself with some of the concerns that Mark Ruskell has raised. It was remiss of me not to speak to the cabinet secretary about the issue ahead of today.

I am not sure what the Scottish Government’s position will be on the issue, but I will listen carefully to what the cabinet secretary says and I might reach out ahead of stage 3. I thank Mark Ruskell for raising the matter.

I will, by and large, restrict myself to commenting on my amendment in the group.

There has been broad agreement on various new obligations that will be placed on landowners, but not always on the thresholds for when some of them should apply. The Scottish Land Commission—I think that this is useful in relation to amendment 182—described those obligations as

“new steps to increase transparency, widen ownership opportunities, and regulate large land holdings in the public interest”,

including

“Requiring greater transparency and community engagement through Land Management Plans”,

“Ending private off-market sales of large landholdings through prior notification”

and

“Introducing scrutiny of the sale of large landholdings with a power to require land to be sold in lots.”

The Scottish Land Commission followed closely the committee’s evidence-gathering process during our stage 1 scrutiny of the bill, and it reviewed and adapted its position based on the evidence that it heard during our deliberations. It shifted its position to the belief that there should be a unified threshold of 1,000 hectares for all proposed measures, rather than the varied thresholds in the bill as drafted.

If the Scottish Land Commission has shifted its position on such matters within the course of the passage of the bill—which I welcome—it would seem reasonable to assume that, within five years of the bill receiving royal assent, the time is likely to be right for a more substantial review to be undertaken of such thresholds, which would draw on the experience of the impacts of the act’s provisions. That is precisely what my amendment 182 would ensure.

The review would be conducted by the Scottish Land Commission. A subsequent report would be published and laid before Parliament by ministers. Ministers would then be required to provide a statement of the action, if any, that they intended to take as a result of the commission’s conclusions and recommendations. Ministers would also be required to lay regulations before Parliament to implement the recommendations of the Scottish Land Commission or different modifications. Either way, a statement explaining the rationale would have to be laid before the Scottish Parliament. If no such regulations were laid, ministers would have to publish and lay before Parliament a statement that set out why they considered that no modifications should be made.

I believe that five years is a reasonable review period, but that is just one possible period. It could be four years or six years, but five years seems to me to be reasonable and to strike the right balance. I am open to discussing with the Scottish Government what a reasonable period would be, what subsequent reviews might look like, and what nuts and bolts are needed to hold the amendment together to ensure that Parliament’s scrutiny of the policy intent is right and balanced.

I look forward to hearing the views of other committee members and of the Scottish Government on my amendment, but I hope that all will agree with its policy intent.

I move amendment 182.

I should clarify that I am not calling for more MSPs, in case someone thinks that that is the point that I am making. My point is more about the challenges relating to colleagues’ time more generally.

It is difficult to get the balance right on post-legislative scrutiny. Amendment 383 talks about reviewing the entire act after four years, and amendment 384 says that the Scottish Government should repeal, by regulations, any provisions that have a detrimental impact. The Government would be compelled and duty bound to do that, if we could define what a detrimental impact would look like, but members would be free to vote against repeal. In that sense, the amendment would tie the hands of the Government but would not tie the hands of the Parliament. It is a bit betwixt and between in relation to the policy intent, but I get the point that Mr Whitfield is trying to make.

Amendment 503, in the name of Monica Lennon, talks about reporting every two years. She clarified the scope of the reporting requirements—I think that there would be a delay of two years after the bill gained royal assent.

There have been lots of different recommendations about what post-legislative scrutiny should look like. We need to take a balanced and strategic approach to post-legislative scrutiny, so Monica Lennon, Mercedes Villalba, Martin Whitfield and I should sit down with the cabinet secretary to consider what such an approach should look like.

On that basis, I seek permission to withdraw amendment 182.

Amendment 182, by agreement, withdrawn.

I will be seeking permission to withdraw amendment 182, on the basis of the cabinet secretary’s offer to work with me and colleagues who have similar policy intentions ahead of stage 3.

I know that this is a very long meeting, but I will make a brief point about post-legislative scrutiny more generally. Members of the public should perhaps watch these committee meetings if they have insomnia, but they should also watch them for another purpose, because they show that going through legislation line by line before it is passed is a very intensive process, as is post-legislative scrutiny. There are pressures on committees in the Parliament to scrutinise legislation, look at the affairs of the day and carry out robust, detailed and transparent post-legislative scrutiny, but our capacity to do that is very much limited by the number of committees that we sit on and the demands on MSPs’ time.

When people go to the ballot box, no MSPs say, “Give us more MSPs,” but there is a general understanding across all parties in the Parliament that there needs to be a greater focus on post-legislative scrutiny and that time needs to be made available for it. I am sure that Mr Whitfield agrees with that general point.

I have some brief comments on some of Tim Eagle’s amendments. If I have got it right, amendments 4 to 8 would increase the threshold for the transfer test, which I would not support. We have got the balance right in relation to that.

Amendment 166 indicates that Mr Eagle believes that any future changes to the thresholds should be conducted by primary legislation and not regulations, which is mainly unheard of in this type of legislation. I would not be supportive of that whatsoever.

Mr Eagle has a further amendment, which I understand means that we can use secondary legislation to increase but not decrease thresholds. I would not be supportive of the policy intent in Mr Eagle’s amendments, because it is quite counterproductive.

I was sympathetic to Mercedes Villalba’s comments about thresholds not going up the way, but in a later grouping I will be proposing reviews, perhaps every five years, by the Scottish Land Commission to make sure that the thresholds across the board are at the right level. We cannot have an independent, fair, robust and transparent review when we have legislation that means that thresholds can go in only one direction. We must be led by the evidence and the lived experience of how the bill works in practice after it becomes an act. For that reason, I cannot support the policy intent of Mercedes Villalba’s amendment, although I am sympathetic to what she is trying to achieve.

That sounds a little bit like more money is needed. Would the quantum be the same? If there was a three-year budget with indicative figures for each year, would that mean that you could overspend in year 1 and then there would be clawback in year 2 or year 3 so that projects would still land financially?