Okay.

There is an opportunity to make amendments to the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill. What lessons can be learned from the national park process that we might be able to reflect in the bill?

I was thinking more about lessons in relation to building local support. Obviously, there was not local support in Galloway, but, in the early stages of the process, I was aware that there were several areas of the Highlands and Islands where people tried to build support for a national park designation, and I was surprised at the pushback against that. When we were considering legislating and people were talking about future national parks, there seemed to be a head of steam in favour of national parks, but, suddenly, there was quite a big pushback whereby people in areas where I thought that national park status might have been wanted said that they did not want it.

How should we approach the issue of building local support? Maybe we should also think about how to deal with local concerns, because people have told me that the board would not listen to them. Is that a reflection of how the two boards that we have at the moment are working? How do we make the process more open, get people involved and make them feel that they have a voice on whether they want a national park?

I think that there was community engagement, but it was about who was carrying out that engagement. Where were the trusted voices? People felt that, the moment someone was consulting them, it was a done deal and that that was the aim of the exercise. Therefore, people either took fright and said no or they were very positive about it. Views became entrenched very early on, and it felt as though there was no open and honest conversation about what the proposal could be, how we could shape it and what input we would have if it went ahead. It almost felt as though we missed a stage at the very start, before having the wider consultation.

Yes. Other members will know more about the Galloway situation, but I was very aware of what was happening in relation to the areas in the Highlands and Islands that were putting forward nominations. I felt that people were becoming very entrenched in their views very quickly, rather than being given the opportunity to explore, without any pressure, the nomination and what it would mean for them. Having a stage earlier in the process would give people ownership of it rather than make them feel that they had to make a decision early on.

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.

That is fine.

Steps need to be taken to simplify and clarify the pre-notification of sale. My amendments in this group aim to achieve a longer timeframe for the prohibition of sale, the introduction of de minimis considerations and the setting in statute of a timeframe for section 34 letters, all of which would be crucial changes to the bill.

The prior notification mechanism is based on communities using the late application process in the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003. That process has not been successfully used since 2017 and the introduction of additional criteria in the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015. That has led to the Scottish Government interpreting late applications as being applicable only when a community body is already in possession of a section 34 letter and is actively working on a community right-to-buy application. That is simply unrealistic.

The proposed mechanism in the bill appears to circumvent those issues. However, it may be helpful for the Scottish Government to issue guidance that it will accept applications from community bodies that do not meet those unrealistically high criteria. If the prior notification mechanism is going to be agile and effective, the Government needs to accept that interested community groups are unlikely to be community right to buy compliant ahead of time and that they may or may not have a clear public record of interest in the land. It is especially problematic when there is a monopoly landowner who has held the land for many years and there had seemed to be little likelihood of the land coming on the market.

Amendments 350 and 352 to 354 would simply create a single universal 120-day prohibition on sale rather than a 70-day prohibition. Community right-to-buy processes currently take many months and communities need a reasonable period of time to progress their applications. Amendment 349 would insert a 28-day timeframe for the Scottish Government to issue section 34 letters. That will be of assistance, but communities need a longer prohibition of sale period to allow time for them to do the administrative and fundraising work that is necessary. Amendment 351 would expand the list of organisations that will be notified of a land transfer to include community councils, development trusts and other community-focused bodies that ministers are aware of.

I support Mercedes Villalba’s amendments 120, 122, 125 and 133. I also support the amendments that have been lodged by Michael Matheson and Mark Ruskell. I cannot, however, support Tim Eagle’s amendments in this group.

I move amendment 349.

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.