Chamber and committees

I think that I have the group all to myself. My amendments centre on the ability of ministers to offer to buy land and to make compensation.

My amendment 450 seeks to allow for compensation to be provided if a new lotting decision, under proposed new section 67R of the 2003 act, is substantially the same as the original lotting decision. I believe that if the new decision is substantially the same as the landowner’s original lotting plan, then some compensation should be provided for lost time and expense and the loss of interest on the sale price in the intervening period.

My amendments 451 and 452 seek to strengthen the language around the buying of land by ministers. In the bill as drafted,

“Ministers may offer to buy land”

following a review of a lotting decision if they are satisfied that the reason why the land has not been transferred is that it is likely that the land is “less commercially attractive” since the lotting decision. Amendment 451 would provide that ministers “must” rather than “may” offer to buy.

Taken together, my amendments 453 and 454 mean that the “appointed valuer” who, under proposed new section 67S of the 2003 act would determine the price of the land that ministers offer to buy following a review, must be jointly appointed by ministers and the owner of the land in question. I believe that that is required, as the purchaser would be the Scottish ministers and they would be setting their own price. It is therefore vital that there is some independent adjudication, rather than ministers being able to do everything.

My amendment 455 follows on from amendments 453 and 454. If ministers and the owner cannot agree on the appointment of a valuer, the valuer is to be appointed by the chair of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, which is an accredited organisation that deals with land for sale.

My amendment 456 relates to proposed new section 67T of the 2003 act, which allows an owner to request that ministers consider buying land to which the lotting decision relates. Ministers can make a decision on that, and an applicant can appeal to the tribunal if they are unhappy with the decision. If the tribunal is satisfied that the land has not been transferred because it is less commercially attractive following the lotting decision, the minister

“must consider making an offer to buy the land”.

My amendment strengthens the wording to change “consider making” to “make”. That seeks to help the landowner or creditors and so on, when the minister’s decision to sell in lots has made it difficult to sell.

My amendment 164 seeks to extend the time period for lodging an appeal from 21 days to 35 days. Proposed new section 67V of the 2003 act allows for the owner to receive compensation from ministers when a loss is incurred as part of the lotting process. Currently, the bill requires an appeal to be made within a period of 21 days and, as I said, amendment 164 proposes to increase that to 35 days. That would allow more time for those who are trying to sell land to appeal against the minister’s decision and give them more time to gather evidence, should they need to consult with other land managers, for example.

My amendment 460 seeks to increase parliamentary scrutiny of the bill’s provisions. It would require any regulations made under new section 67DA of the 2003 act, which would be introduced by my amendment 427, to be subject to section 98(5) of the 2003 act. That would mean that any statutory instruments made under the new section would have to be laid before and approved by the Scottish Parliament.

I move amendment 450.

Convener, you have just made an important point. I am a member of the RICS, which I should have declared, and I probably should have re-declared the fact that I am also a small farmer.

I do not have much to add. In reply to Bob Doris, it is no great surprise that I am trying to take as many people out of the lotting process as possible, as that is what I have argued for previously. We disagree fundamentally on the direction of travel, but that is fair enough, and I respect your views on that.

That is it, convener. I am happy to press amendment 426.

We have reached lotting, which has been discussed a lot in relation to other measures in the bill, and which I think is the provision that many owners of land are most concerned about.

My amendment 426 seeks to remove the measures in the bill that allow ministers to transfer part of a lot that is involved in a lotting decision. I am happy to listen to the cabinet secretary’s explanation, but I am not sure why ministerial approval is needed to approve the transfer of part of a lot, and I have concerns that it will put a brake on the system.

My amendment 428 seeks to increase the size threshold for land that will be subject to prohibitions from 1,000 to 2,500 hectares. That is in line with arguments that I have previously made.

My amendments 430 and 431 would delete the word “composite” from the bill. As such, I am not minded to support the cabinet secretary’s amendments on composite holdings, as I do not support that idea being included in the bill. I believe it to be unworkable, because two landholdings could be located in opposite areas of the country with very different requirements. However, I will be guided by her explanation.

I will oppose Mark Ruskell’s amendments in the group, which seek to increase the area threshold by defining what is meant by “contiguous”.

My amendments 166 and 172 would remove the ability for ministers, provided by proposed new section 67Y of the 2003 act, to modify parts of section 4 by regulations. That could include modifications to the size threshold for land that can be considered for lotting decisions. The thresholds should be set out in the bill. My amendment 167 seeks to prevent ministers from lowering the land size threshold in future.

I will briefly mention the remaining amendments in the group. I am happy to support my colleague Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 429, which is an important amendment to ensure that the land referred to in the bill is contiguous. As such, I will not support Mercedes Villalba’s amendment 140, which seeks to delete “contiguous” from the bill. I do not intend to support Michael Matheson’s amendments 138, 139 and 168 as I do not wish to see an extension of lotting. I am interesting to hear the policy intention behind Monica Lennon’s amendment 432. I will oppose Mercedes Villalba MSP’s amendments in the group, as I want to see the threshold increased and have lodged a number of amendments to that effect.

I move amendment 426.

I have nothing further to add, convener. I press amendment 450.

I will not press amendment 434, but there are others in the group that I want to move.

Thank you and good morning, convener. My amendment 486 would introduce a new section on a review of the community right to buy. As Mark Ruskell has pointed out, the Scottish Government announced a review of the community right to buy last year, and I have heard from stakeholders that they are disappointed that the bill is proceeding before the conclusion of the review. Amendment 486 seeks to insert such a review in the bill and to include in it consideration of a less onerous pre-registration of interest stage, which would be brought forward if appropriate.

Yes, I was about to say that.

Amendment 24 is concerned with the publication of data in the land management plans. As it is drafted, the bill provides that a land management plan should contain details of the land to which the plan relates and how the ownership is structured. Details of the structure of land ownership are already publicly available and therefore do not need to be included in a land management plan. There are concerns about the publication of commercially sensitive information, so amendment 24 would delete that requirement from the bill.

Amendment 25 is about information on the potential sale of land. As it is drafted, the bill provides that a land management plan should contain the owner’s long-term vision and objectives for managing the land, including its potential sale. Amendment 25 would delete the requirement for information on the land’s potential sale to be included in the plan. I do not believe that it is possible or fair that plans for the sale of land should be in the land management plan in advance.

Amendment 27 seeks to delete reference to the Scottish outdoor access code and the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996. As it is drafted, the bill requires the owner to include in the land management plan details about how the owner of the land intends to comply with a selection of requirements, including the outdoor access code and the 1996 act. It also requires them to detail how they are following the requirements that are set out in regulation. The choice of those two pieces of legislation—the outdoor access code and the 1996 act—appears to be very selective, and the policy intent is unclear. It also seems contrary to the purpose of the bill, which is about community.

Scottish Land & Estates has said that the references to the code and the 1996 act need to be omitted because they muddy the extent of a private individual’s legal duties and that, although landowners can be encouraged to maintain deer responsibly, they are not legally obliged to do so. In addition, of course, deer are not owned by the landowner.

The need to outline in the land management plan how the owner is complying with the obligations set out in the regulations, which include the creation of a plan, adds an unnecessary administrative burden. Therefore, amendment 27 would delete subsection (3)(c) of new section 44B of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2016, on how the owner is complying with the Scottish outdoor access code and the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996.

Amendment 28 takes a similar approach to that of amendment 27. The bill, as drafted, requires the owner of the land to set out in the land management plan how they are contributing or will contribute to various climate requirements. However, I do not understand the selection of legal requirements and consider the non-exhaustive list to be very restrictive, so the intention is much like that of amendment 27. I am also particularly concerned by the reference to

“achieving the net-zero emissions target set by section A1 of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009”.

As I understand it, that obligation is imposed on ministers, not private individuals, and is therefore not really within the control of landowners.

Continuing the theme, amendment 393 would move the priorities for the land management plan into guidance. As it is drafted, the bill will require the owner to include in their land management plan information about how they are managing or intend to manage their land in a way that contributes to a selection of legislative requirements. Rather than list only some of those priorities in the bill, it would be better to move them into guidance. That would allow more flexibility to take into consideration new and emerging national and local priorities, such as the housing emergency.

I am happy to support my colleague Douglas Lumsden’s amendments in this group, but I am unable to support Ariane Burgess’s amendment 26, which would add further requirements on what a land management plan should contain. My amendments aim to simplify the burden that the bill would place on landowners, not increase it, which I believe amendment 26 would do. I also cannot support Ariane Burgess’s amendment 29, which would delete the words “or sustaining” biodiversity, as I prefer the bill as it is originally drafted.

I oppose Ariane Burgess’s amendment 2, which seeks to add another undefined environmental requirement, “restoring natural processes”, which landowners would need to prove that they were contributing towards. The amendment cuts across our amendments, which seek to reduce and simplify the land management plan process. Similarly, I cannot support Ariane Burgess’s amendments 320 and 395, which seek to add a further environmental requirement of “nature recovery” to public bodies, as it is undefined.

I cannot support Rhoda Grant’s amendments 321, 322 and 325 to 329, which seek to add new requirements to land management plans, as they are undefined. As I have already argued, I do not believe that such a list should be included in the bill.

I cannot support Bob Doris’s amendment 30, which seeks to add new requirements that a land management plan should contain, or his amendment 31, which proposes the publication of the plan and the sharing of commercial details in public.

I will not support Ariane Burgess’s amendment 334, as I feel that it would make land management plans more onerous.

Finally, I prefer my amendment 24 to Rhoda Grant’s amendment 336, as it sets out that no operational business information should be included in land management plans.

I move amendment 24.

If it is easier, convener, I will just say that I will not move amendment 62.