Chamber and committees

I have not even started but, yes, briefly.

I absolutely get that point, but we did not receive the Government’s response to our report until, I think, quarter to six last night—I think that it was even after a press release, with many mistakes in it, was sent out.

I extend my thanks, as others have, to the committee clerks and our convener for the excellent stage 1 report. I also thank everyone who gave evidence and everyone who provided briefings for today’s debate. I also congratulate the Scottish Government on uniting almost everyone who gave evidence—land reform campaigners, the Scottish Land Commission, surveyors and Scottish Land & Estates all agreed that the bill would not deliver on its aims.

I share the committee’s concerns about the bill. There is not enough detail, evidence or focus on the needs of our rural communities, landowners and those who live on and work the land. As a result, I must say, regrettably, that we are unable to support the bill at stage 1.

My colleagues made excellent points in the debate. I will focus my comments on part 1 of the bill, because that is where I feel that it is most deeply flawed. The contribution that our rural estates make to the economy and wellbeing of Scotland cannot be underestimated or overlooked. Our rural estates contribute 57 per cent of our renewable energy generation, more than half of all new woodland, 13,000 rural enterprises, one in 10 rural jobs and 12,000 homes for workers and their families. It is that contribution that the central belt-focused SNP Government overlooks in its efforts to impose regulation on a sector that needs our support, not our oversight.

I am particularly concerned by any suggestion to change the definition of a large holding from 3,000 hectares to 1,000 hectares. In my meeting with the cabinet secretary, which I welcomed, there was a suggestion that that could be phased. However, that would lead to additional uncertainty for landowners and to a confusing picture. Liam McArthur said that we ought to listen to the argument around the issue. I would say that we should start at 3,000 hectares and then reduce the figure by regulation.

There is a misconception in the Government that big is bad; we also heard that from Liam McArthur. I understand the way that rural estates work. Scale and productivity should be the key factors in determining when and how community engagement and management plans should come into effect, not an arbitrary size model.

I certainly agree that most landowners do very good work, and we have heard that during the debate. Where there are issues, I absolutely agree that we should do something to tackle those, but from what I have seen, the bill will not do that.

As I was saying, having a simple cut-off such as the 3,000 hectares demonstrates the simple thinking of this Government. It makes arbitrary decisions for our rural communities with little or no understanding of the realities on the ground. It imposes what it thinks is the right thing to do from its desks in Edinburgh without meeting community groups. We have seen that time and again, whether on wood-burning stoves or the building of pylons.

I will come back later if I have time, Mr Doris.

—and the rights of the tenant to ensure that the market is not damaged. The committee had concerns that that balance had not been struck.

It is for those reasons that I am unable to support the bill at stage 1.

I have a very brief question on costs. Does Bob Doris share my concern that it is not just costs on the landowner that would increase—he has addressed that—but costs on the Land Commission, which has already been told that it has to find the money from existing budgets?

Will the member take an intervention?

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

It might not be a no.

We broadly support the need for local management plans, but they have to be focused on who they impact and the communities with which they will interact. Well-funded special interest groups must be held in context when it comes to those consultations. Local people, businesses and voices must have priority.

Colleagues across the chamber have raised crucial points in the debate. I want to mention my colleague Tim Eagle’s comments. He was not long ago working in the area, so we should listen to him. He said that the community right to buy is under review and asked why we should make the changes at this time. That point was also made by Liam McArthur.

Tim Eagle also raised the issue of how the bill could affect small land sales. The Scottish Land Commission has raised the possibility of de minimis exemptions, which sounds sensible, but we need to look very carefully at the legislation that would be brought forward on that.

We also heard about huge legal risks. Tim Eagle mentioned compensation and criteria for lotting. Fergus Ewing intervened and brought up the issue of retrospective changes and possible ECHR implications. My biggest worry is that the lawyers may be the biggest winners from this bill.

Ariane Burgess mentioned lower thresholds, but showed no concern for the increased workload on the Scottish Land Commission. The financial memorandum says that the SLC has to do most of the work, using “existing budgets” and reducing its current activities, which would be a concern for many.

I agree with Michael Matheson that continued reform is needed. He said that repeated legislation has not worked; I am afraid to suggest that this piece of legislation will not work either.

Bob Doris mentioned the inspection of land management plans for compliance. I agree that that would be a good idea but, once again I worry—especially if the threshold is reduced to 1,000 hectares—about the impact on the Scottish Land Commission.

In conclusion, the Scottish Conservatives will be voting against the bill at stage 1. I know that many of my committee colleagues hope that the major flaws in the bill can be amended and addressed, but that will require hundreds of amendments, and the bill may look completely different by the time it becomes law.

The committee agreed that part 1 of the bill “risks not delivering” and that its approach is “potentially burdensome and bureaucratic.”

Part 2 of the bill requires major revisions to get it right. At present, from the conversations that I have had, I believe that there is a serious risk of unintended consequences and of less land being available to let. The Government needs to balance the rights of the landowner—

I totally welcome that flexibility, but this feels like retrospective regulation. I am concerned that businesses have made decisions on the basis of existing regulations and, as those change, they might have to retrofit and spend more.