Chamber and committees

I am simply reflecting what people have said to me, which is that the people who were looking to build a consensus on a national park were not necessarily people who had a community focus. There were groups that were keen on having a national park that had aims and objectives that the community was aware of but that the community felt did not reflect their views. I think that that did not help.

Will a look be taken at having a mechanism that allows communities to come together to discuss a national park proposal very openly without feeling that they are in a yes or no position, which immediately forces them to pick a side, depending on their level of trust or mistrust of the organisation that is promoting the proposal? It seemed to me that it was almost a no-go area for many people from the outset, because of the way in which the putting forward of proposals was being handled.

Do you think that our national parks have been delivering up till now?

The drivers for reviewing national park legislation were the strategic framework for biodiversity and recognition of the role of national parks in tackling the twin crises. However, many stakeholders have described the changes that are proposed in the bill as “modest”. What impact will part 3 of the bill have on national parks’ ability to contribute to addressing those big societal challenges?

Amendment 345 would expand the bodies that can report breaches to include community bodies, such as community controlled bodies as defined in the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015, and community councils. Amendment 346 includes the Crofting Commission and grazing committees as bodies that would be able to report breaches of land management obligations.

Amendment 347 pertains to breaches in land management plans. The bill allows for fines to be imposed for breaches of obligations. A large landowner could choose to pay the fines and continue to breach their obligations. The bill does not include further sanctions in that situation. Amendment 347 sets out the parameters for the process of compulsory purchase after five successive years of breaches.

I was finished, but I will.

I will also speak to Mercedes Villalba’s amendments. Do you want me to do that at the same time, or do you want me to leave it to the point at which she will have come in?

What does the member think is required in the bill to make people take their responsibilities seriously? We all know of landowners whom people are unable to contact, who do not deal with the community and who are a dead hand. Small fines will not bring them to the table. The bill really needs to have teeth. If the member is not happy with the larger fines or compulsory purchase powers, what would he suggest would bring those landowners to the table?

Amendment 321 would ensure that land management plans looked at increasing local food production and at the resilience of local food markets. That would cut down food miles, provide markets for local production and increase resilience in the local food system. Currently, the considerations that are deemed to be relevant in relation to the substantive content of land management plans cover outdoor access and deer management as well as climate mitigation and biodiversity. Amendment 321 would ensure that sustainable food production for local consumption was placed on an equal footing with the other aspects on which information will be required. That aligns with the high-level objectives of the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Act 2024.

Amendment 322 seeks to ensure that land management plans show how they will protect and enhance natural capital.

Amendment 325 seeks to ensure that the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights is considered. Examples could include the promotion of the Gaelic language, traditional land use and other issues that are important to the local culture of the community.

Amendment 326 seeks to ensure that land management plans have regard to place plans. Place plans highlight issues and solutions for the local area. The way in which land is managed and made available is crucial to the implementation of place plans, so those plans need to dovetail in order to meet the public interest.

Amendment 327 would require land management plans to include deer management plans, when applicable. Deer management plans might already be drawn up, but it seems reasonable, for transparency, that they should be included in land management plans.

Amendment 328 would ensure the right of tenant farmers and crofters to manage their land as they see fit, within the confines of their lease and the laws pertaining thereto, to ensure that they are not inadvertently impacted by land management plans. Land management plans should not include the activities of crofters and tenant farmers other than to acknowledge that the land is tenanted in that way. That said, the way in which land that is contiguous to a farm or croft is managed could have a negative or positive impact on that enterprise. That means that tenant farmers and crofters need to be consulted and engaged with to ensure that there are no negative impacts from land management plans.

Amendment 329 seeks to ensure that farmers and crofters who have already developed a whole-farm plan to access support could use that for their land management plans. Very few farms will fall under the bill’s scope, but it would make sense if those that do could use their whole-farm plan to fulfil their duties under land management plans. That would save them from having to prepare two plans that would hold largely the same information. I acknowledge that there is a drafting error in amendment 329, but I am keen to hear the cabinet secretary’s thoughts on that general approach and to lodge a similar amendment at stage 3.

Amendment 336 seeks to ensure that those who hold tenancies do not have their rights infringed by landlords’ land management plans. Those plans must indicate the part of land that is tenanted, but they cannot be used to influence or infringe on the tenant’s business practice. Amendment 336 seeks to make that clear.

It is widely believed that the time that is allowed in the bill does not allow communities any realistic chance of buying land or looking at how the sale is being lotted and the like. How does the minister intend to make it possible for communities to register their interest and become involved if the timeframe is not extended?

The purpose of amendments 122 and 125, as with amendments 43 and 47 previously, is to remove loopholes relating to contiguous landholdings and include aggregated landholdings. The issue that we face is land concentration at a national scale, so it is only right that aggregation nationwide is considered.

Taken with amendments 43, 47, 140 and 145, amendments 122 and 125 would ensure that aggregated non-contiguous landholdings across Scotland were affected by prohibitions. To ensure that future Governments continue the direction of travel in diversifying land ownership, it is right for thresholds to be revised only downwards, bringing more large landholdings under the scope of the bill. Amendment 133, in the same manner as amendment 109, which we have previously debated, specifies that regulations must not increase the number of hectares that the land must exceed in order for obligations and prohibitions to be imposed on the land. Therefore, amendment 133, taken together with amendments 109 and 171, would ensure that thresholds could not be revised upwards.

Together, amendments 5 and 120 would apply the improved aligned thresholds for public interest tests and include island landholdings. The purpose of amendment 120 is to insert an islands criterion for a lower threshold.

We support Ariane Burgess’s amendment 5, because, as we all know, Mercedes Villalba consulted on a proposed land ownership and public interest bill and on lowering the land threshold to 500 hectares, which we will continue to support.