Chamber and committees

There will be a division. Those who are in favour of amendment 389, please raise your hand. Those who are against amendment 389, please raise your hand. Kevin Stewart has voted against the amendment. Those who wish to abstain, please raise your hand.

For

Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)

Against

Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)

The result of the division is: For 2, Against 5, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 389 disagreed to.

Thank you, cabinet secretary. I call Tim Eagle to speak to amendment 417 and other amendments in the group.

The evidence that the committee heard identified that there are quite a few landowners with holdings smaller than 1,000 hectares that are not contiguous, which is the point that you made. It is quite arbitrary to define “contiguous” as being “within 250 metres of”. Would the cabinet secretary consider amending that definition at stage 3 to include holdings that share the same machinery, management and labour? It is what the Scottish Government has done before in relation to agricultural subsidies, in order to identify whether there are two separate holdings rather than two holdings working together. Would you consider that?

I call Rhoda Grant to speak to amendment 339 and other amendments in the group.

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.

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?

I call Bob Doris to speak to amendment 16 and any other amendments in the group.