Chamber and committees

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.

I apologise—I am trying to remind myself whether I was going to press amendment 349. I will do so, and I have no further comments to make.

Moved.

Moved.

Compulsory purchase will always come with a price; it is a purchase. Money would be exchanged, and the rights of whoever held a standard security would be met—there would be money to repay a loan for a piece of land.

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.

This week, I attended a meeting with constituents from Barra, CalMac Ferries and Caledonian Maritime Assets Ltd. It became clear during the meeting that it has long been recognised that Barra’s ferry, the MV Isle of Lewis, will be retired next year. Despite that, however, a practical alternative ferry has not been planned for the route. CMAL suggested a ferry with a lot less capacity, citing the population size of the isle of Barra, apparently ignorant of the fact that the islanders cannot get bookings on their existing ferry due to lack of capacity. Barra is the southern gateway to the Western Isles.

The fact that decisions are made on assumptions held by distant bureaucrats rather than the available data indicates why our ferry provision is in such a mess. Will the First Minister intervene personally to ensure that, when the MV Isle of Lewis is retired, the people of Barra have a ferry that meets their needs?

But it will not come as a surprise.

Five days is not very long. If someone were away, would there be an opportunity to negotiate a change to that notice period?

On the issue of promotion and of getting local communities eating more venison, do you have any plans to look at infrastructure and at things such as deer larders, chillers or micro-processing units? There are some good examples going on, but what is the Government’s role and what is the Government doing to ensure that more of that happens to get venison into the food chain?