Chamber and committees

As no other member wishes to speak, I will say a few words and maybe ask a few questions.

Amendment 23, in the name of Tim Eagle, states that new management plans do not have to be produced until a year after purchase. I wonder whether the cabinet secretary will support that, given that Glen Prosen was purchased in 2022, and there is still no management plan for it. I understand the need for that requirement, but I am not sure the Government has a great record in that regard.

On the duration of management plans, I agree with Tim Eagle that 20 years is probably more reasonable, because land management, especially basic land management, takes a long time. I think that the timescales for forest management plans are even longer than that, so 20 years seems entirely reasonable.

We heard about the cost of production in our evidence sessions; estimates varied, but I think that we settled on a figure in the region of £15,000 to £20,000 for small land management plans. If you have to redo the plan every 10 years, that is a huge burden on relatively small holdings of land, and I have concerns about that.

I listened to Bob Doris talk about plans being accessible, and I have some sympathy with having accessible plans and there being a single place to find them. However, I can see that growing arms and legs. One has only to look at “Who Owns Scotland” to see that the best way of defining land is through a map-based system, but the costs would be huge if there were maps for every area.

I will give way in a minute—I will just finish my train of thought.

The cabinet secretary’s view is that she does not want land management plans to become formulaic, and nor does anyone on the committee. However, I am very concerned that, if an online format is used, the plans will become formulaic in order to fit the website that they go on.

Mr Doris, did you want to come in?

I call Mercedes Villalba to speak to Rhoda Grant’s amendment 341 and any other amendments in the group.

It is just a brief question. If you were considering granting further land into crofting, which of the three bits of crofting legislation would you bring it under? One thing that needs to be done to make crofting work is a reform of crofting legislation. Are you not in danger, by increasing crofting per se, of further muddying the water as far as the legislation is concerned?

I do not think that people who are receiving payments under the farm payments schemes are necessarily receiving them for delivering community good. They are receiving them to cover requirements of regulations, such as those that relate to passports for animals, livestock density, the stocking rate and the use of fertiliser and when it can be used on land. Those are the sorts of things that people receive payments for. However, the suggestion in the amendments is that we go way beyond that with the public interest. It gives me some concern that we would put burdens on people who would not be rewarded.

I listened carefully to what was said on the amendment in the name of Mercedes Villalba on tax residency. I am not sure that I understand where someone would have to reside for tax purposes in order to own more than a certain amount of land—would it be Scotland or the United Kingdom? There are two different tax rates and, indeed, different tax codes to show whether someone is resident in Scotland or the United Kingdom. I am not sure that the amendment is competent because I do not understand that point.

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.

I thank the member for that. Just for clarity, I should say that, in relation to the accessibility of land management plans, Forestry and Land Scotland probably provides a perfect example when we talk about having a website where you can go straight to a map and find out what is happening in a particular area and when all the felling is going to happen. If you can find that, please tell me where it is, because I cannot. I just think that this could grow arms and legs and become incredibly expensive, and I would like to know more about those issues before I can support the amendment.

My other slight amusement relates to the amendments lodged by Ariane Burgess. The member can correct me if I am wrong, but I think that one of those amendments provides that the purchaser of an estate will have to adopt the plan of the previous owner. That made me smile, because if that were the case, it would mean that the Scottish Government would be letting grouse shooting happen at Glen Prosen.

Is that what you intend, Ariane? It might well be that a purchaser adopting the plan of the previous owner is not what you intended. Do you want to intervene?

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 other amendments in the group.

Amendment 310, in the name of Ariane Burgess, is grouped with amendments 339, 342, 348, 427, 433, 150, 151, 158, 174 to 174B, 364, 459 and 460. Ariane Burgess is at another committee meeting, so Mark Ruskell is going to speak to and move amendment 310, and speak to the other amendments, on her behalf.