Amendment 339 would make land management plans subject to a public interest test, requiring landowners to consider the public interest when pursuing such plans. Owning large areas of land is a privilege and therefore large landowners need to consider the impact of their activities on the wider public when drawing up their land management plans.

Amendment 342 seeks to expand the definition of land that is subject to obligations under proposed new section 44A of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2016 to include public interest determinations. It would also add public interest criteria for applying land management obligations and would allow the Government to impose public goods obligations on large landowners. Too often, we hear of communities that cannot access land for vital community interests such as housing and food production. The amendment would empower the Government to step in where community efforts have failed.

Amendment 348 is a technical amendment that is consequential to amendment 342 and would include proposed new section 44D to the 2016 act in the list of relevant sections.

I support other amendments in the group from Mercedes Villalba, Michael Matheson and Ariane Burgess. It is clear that we need a public interest test for many aspects of the bill for the reasons that Mark Ruskell has laid out, which I will not repeat. I look forward to hearing the cabinet secretary’s thoughts on which amendments would best do that.

I have heard some concerns in that regard. Is the cabinet secretary willing to look at them and discuss the issue ahead of stage 3, to see whether we can find a way that gives people comfort?

The definition of land that is of community significance is widely recognised. One thing that is missing from the bill is urban land reform. Michael Matheson’s amendments are proportionate and would give people in urban and, indeed, rural areas an opportunity to do something about bad management of land that is of significance to them.

I can understand to an extent why the cabinet secretary does not want a description of “public interest” to be in the bill. However, there should surely be a reference to it in the bill so that the whole bill uses that framework, which is legally understood. Would she consider lodging an amendment, in discussion with other members who have lodged amendments, that would cover the whole bill, so that all the actions under the bill would be taken in the public interest?

Amendment 312 would ensure that land management plans complied

“with the format to be prescribed by the Scottish Ministers”,

which would ensure that the plans would meet the terms of the legislation while being simple to produce in a given format. The evidence about the cost of producing land management plans varied widely, so having a pro forma to hand would make those plans simple to pull together. That said, large landholdings will already have plans to manage their land, unless it is derelict, and should be able to quite simply bring those plans together into a given format.

Amendment 315 would extend the review period from five to 10 years, taking into account the fact that land use patterns are slow to change and that tree planting, peatland restoration and the like can all take decades. The amendment would allow additional time before a review must be carried out. Where there is significant change during that period, the bill already allows a framework for changes to be made to land management plans. I think that 10 years strikes a reasonable balance and believe that the 20-year period that would be created by Tim Eagle’s amendment would be far too long.

I believe that land managers would do that—for instance, if you are planting trees, you need to know how many you have planted and you need to manage them to make sure that they are growing properly and that the conditions are right for them. If something goes wrong, you have to take stock and go back. It is the same for peatland restoration, and it is the same for growing food—you need to plan ahead to make sure that the soil is in the right state to grow the crops that you are looking for. Land management is not something that you do and then walk away from; you have to continually monitor what you are doing.

My amendment 335 is reasonably self-explanatory. There is a conflict because the Scottish ministers would be very unlikely to impose obligations on themselves, so the amendment would strengthen land management plans for Scottish Government-owned crofting estates. The Scottish ministers would be able to appoint someone in their stead to fulfil their obligations, especially where there is a conflict.

My amendment 340 would allow the commissioner to decide whether one land management plan is required for multiple holdings or whether each holding should have an individual plan. Although it is likely that an owner would have one plan, there are maybe situations in which the landholdings are very different, and different plans are in place. Amendment 340 works with Mercedes Villalba’s amendments where non-contiguous holdings have a cumulative effect.

The evidence that we had prior to this is that there is flexibility within the regulations as they stand.

I have a quick supplementary, to give an example of the breadth of what is allowed. Under section 3, regulations can be made

“to ensure consistency or compatibility with other legal regimes (either domestic or international)”.

That is vast. Section 3(a) has some of the standards that should be followed, such as

“restoring, enhancing or managing the natural environment ... preserving, protecting or restoring biodiversity”

and

“environmental assessments”.

Is it possible to amend the bill to say that the powers in it can be used only in pursuit of section 3(a)? That would mean that they could not be as wide as to take in anything—they would have to be within the spirit of the bill and what we are trying to achieve here.

What are your views on the changes to the statutory purposes for national parks? What will be the practical impact of those changes? What is wrong with the powers as they stand? Is there any likelihood that the changes could lead to a hierarchy of powers and aims?

Does anyone else have any comments?