Chamber and committees

I am afraid to say that I remember the process of the original legislation, and I guess that the four aims were hard fought for in trying to get the balance right. There is an additional focus on different areas through the priorities that are set out in paragraphs (a) to (f) of the proposed new section 1(2) of the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000, but paragraph (f) is the only one that really looks at people’s wellbeing. All the others look at the area, tourism or climate change—nothing really to do with the wellbeing of people. Could that skew the balance of those aims? Previously, we had four equally balanced aims in which, obviously, the natural environment was a priority. I am wondering whether the new sub-aims could skew the balance.

Given that both national parks raised the issue of housing, do you not think that we should be looking specifically at housing for the local community?

To slightly turn this on its head, what are you hoping to gain with the new sub-aims?

I congratulate Stuart McMillan on securing the debate and congratulate the Scottish Law Commission, its staff and its commissioners on its 60th anniversary. I, too, welcome Michael Clancy to the gallery—he has provided a lot of really good advice to members of this Parliament for many years.

The Scottish Law Commission’s work is valuable, taking ancient legislation and updating it so that it is fit for modern circumstances. The commission builds trust not only across the Parliament but across society, because it does not have a political axe to grind; it is independent of Government. Its sole purpose is to have good law. The law is there to serve the people, but it needs to make sense in the modern age, and it needs to be transparent and understandable for people.

The motion highlights some of the Scottish Law Commission’s work, but there is much more that it has done. Many of its interventions relate to property and contract law that was drawn up many decades ago and needed to be modernised to reflect current practices. For example, the Succession (Scotland) Act 2016, which was based on a proposal from the commission, simplified inheritance rules.

The Scottish Law Commission works to ensure that the law keeps pace with modern innovations. Case law can interpret to an extent, but we should have law that is clear and fit for purpose. There are aspects of law that are so old that they have fallen out of use but are still on the statute book, and laws that have been adapted through case-law interpretation of modern circumstances. All those things need to be dealt with, and the law amended. The commission’s work deals with those aspects, making the law clear and accessible to everybody.

A large number of commission reports have not yet been actioned. That has been an issue for many years, and we need to find a way of tackling all those reports, because they have a purpose. They might not have political impetus, but they will provide a valuable service to the Scottish people. Sometimes, those niggly issues make life hard for people and use up their resources and energy, but they are not headline grabbing, because they might not have an impact on many people. For example, the Succession (Scotland) Act 2016 simplified inheritance rules, which was very important to people.

Those issues are, as I said, never headline grabbing, and they do not find their way into manifestos, but they are essential to good governance. I wonder how we might bring forward those issues. In the Scottish Parliament, committees can introduce legislation, but that process has been used on only a small number of occasions. Perhaps the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee could have a role in introducing some of the Scottish Law Commission reports as legislation in the future—that might be an issue for the next session of Parliament.

The debate not only gives us an opportunity to pay tribute to the Scottish Law Commission’s work; it provides us with an opportunity to explore solutions to ensure that its work reaches fruition, thereby allowing the Scottish people to see, and experience in practice, the benefit of its work.

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?