Chamber and committees

Does any other member want to say anything? If not, I will say a few things, because I started a trend. I will try to keep my remarks as short as possible.

I am mindful of the fact that land reform in Scotland was looked at in 2003 and 2016. The deputy convener brought up the fact that urban areas have avoided land reform. I have some sympathy with his desire to include sites of community interest in the bill, and I would like his proposal to be developed more. I am sad to say that, as amendment 11 stands, I am unable to support it. However, I hope that the cabinet secretary and perhaps a wider group can discuss how the idea can be progressed, because the bill represents a missed opportunity to take account of sites of community interest. That is an issue that more people in urban areas are affected by than is the case in rural areas, so the proposal is worthy of further consideration.

As far as ownership is concerned, I am not sure that the cabinet secretary satisfied me that the ownership issues would be resolved in a situation in which we were talking about a marginally different group of owners rather than the same owner. I am not sure what the solution is, but maybe the cabinet secretary could look at that a bit more.

The other issue is to do with the contiguousness of holdings. A distance of 250m is wildly different from a distance of 10 miles in the areas that we are talking about, whether in a remote area in the Highlands, a rural area or a semi-rural area. My concern is that we have not got the provision right, but it cannot be so broad that it applies anywhere in Scotland. For example, there are many people in the Highlands who have upland farming interests, where they keep their sheep during the summer, and they might have winter grazing elsewhere, such as in the south of Scotland, where the weather is more hospitable in the winter.

I am not sure what the solution is. I would be grateful for the opportunity to work with the cabinet secretary, if an offer was made, to look at how we could provide for that through an arrangement along the lines that I suggested—dare I repeat myself—so that, in a situation in which there was shared ownership, shared labour, shared machinery and shared livestock, two holdings could be drawn together in a management plan, rather than being treated as different holdings. I will leave my comments there.

The cabinet secretary did not jump in to say that she would be happy to discuss that suggestion with me.

Thank you very much, Mercedes. I call Douglas Lumsden to speak to amendment 364 and other amendments in the group.

Thank you. I am afraid that I disagree with you. Let me give you an example, if I may. A fairly large brewing company that owns land just south of Aviemore took millions of pounds from this Government to plant trees, which then all failed. There is no accountability, locally, in relation to those people, who made five people redundant when they took over the estate and created a bit of a desert in the process of managing the land. There was no process to feed in to that management plan.

I do not believe that it is where you live that matters; what matters is what you do with the land, which I think can be controlled by regulation rather than on the basis of ownership.

I am going to move on, but this is a great conversation that I would love to continue elsewhere.

I have huge concerns about environmental groups that own more than 500 hectares of land, because I do not think that such groups are paragons of good land management across Scotland. I can think of some groups that have taken millions of pounds to increase certain species, such as the capercaillie, and have overseen the decline of that species on the land. Just owning more than 500 acres does not make an environmental group a good land manager—it does not work that way.

With regard to the proposed provision on compulsory purchase, there was no definition of how a compulsory purchase would be done and whether it would be done under the compulsory purchase legislation. Further, how would the value of the land be assessed? Would that be based on the value of the public interest or would it be the open market value of the land? I think that there are various problems in relation to that.

Mercedes, I will always give way to you on subjects to do with land reform.

The question is, that amendment 310 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

Amendment 10, in the name of Tim Eagle, is grouped with amendments 390, 16, 311, 312, 17, 18, 391, 19, 313, 20, 21, 315, 314, 316, 392, 23, 317, 335, 337, 396, 33, 338 and 340. I remind members of the pre-emption and direct alternatives in this group, as set out on the groupings paper. I call Tim Eagle to move amendment 10 and speak to all the amendments in the group.

I will consider that amendment when we get to it, Mr Doris. I am speaking to Ariane Burgess’s amendments in this group, about which I have concerns.

Finally, on a point of clarification, I believe that 20 years is a reasonable figure when it comes to land management plans, because it is a long-term figure. However, if the committee is not minded to support that proposal, I would find it easier to support Rhoda Grant’s amendment on 10-year plans, instead of supporting plans of five years, which, in the scheme of land management, is virtually the blink of an eye.

On that note, I will end what I am saying. As no other committee member wants to say anything, I hand over to the cabinet secretary.

Just so that I understand, you are proposing that we stick with a five-year management plan cycle.

I will be very careful not to make this into a conversation, as I am sure that I will disallow conversations later in my role as convener, but can you clarify your thought process and what you think the duration of a plan should be? It is fine to say that you will come to it later, but do you think that it should be 10 or 20 years?

Welcome back.

Amendment 11, in the name of Michael Matheson, is grouped with amendments 11, 22, 34, 398 to 400, 35 to 38, 3, 39 to 41, 4, 401, 42, 402 to 404, 43 to 45, 343, 46 to 49, 49A, 49B, 405, 50, 406, 344, 104 to 106, 109 and 110. I remind members of the pre-emptions and direct alternatives in the group, as set out in the groupings. I call Michael Matheson to speak to and move amendment 11 and speak to other amendments in the group.