Chamber and committees

I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for the comments that she made a few seconds ago. The purpose of amendment 432 is to remove the conflict of interest that appears evident when Scottish ministers exercise powers under section 4 of the bill in relation to large landholdings that they own and are proposing to sell, or large landholdings that they are seeking to acquire. The amendment achieves that by removing land that is owned by Scottish ministers from the scope of the bill’s powers in section 4. That might not be the only way to achieve that, but it appears to be the simplest.

I listened to an interaction between Rachael Hamilton and the cabinet secretary at stage 1, and I heard the minister explain that she does not agree that such a conflict of interest exists. I will make two observations in response to that. First, it appears self-evident that, if a person or organisation is simultaneously seeking to sell or acquire land and also has a statutory power to intervene in that process, it is a classic example of a conflict of interest.

Secondly, section 6 disqualifies from appointment to the role of land and communities commissioner any person who either owns a large landholding or has owned one within the year prior to appointment. The committee recommended in our stage 1 report that that disqualification be dropped, but the Government took a different view. If the very small risk of a conflict arising from the land and communities commissioner owning, or having owned in the previous year, a large landholding is considered sufficient to justify the disqualification, perhaps the cabinet secretary can explain why ministers can make decisions under sections 2 and 4 of the bill when they own the land or are seeking to acquire the land that is subject to those powers. We need to clear that up.

I emphasise that the benefits to communities that are provided by the bill can still be achieved in relation to land that is owned by Scottish ministers, even though they are excluded from its scope, since asset transfer provisions will still apply and Scottish ministers are free to make their own decisions about lotting, for example.

I am sorry for interrupting you, cabinet secretary. You have made some fair points in relation to amendment 473. However, I have just realised that I did not speak to amendment 474, perhaps in the interest of time.

The issue was raised at stage 2 of the previous Land Reform (Scotland) Bill and there was some back and forth at that time. There has been a question mark over what exactly was agreed and what the Scottish Law Commission would or would not do in that regard, and there is an appetite to tidy up what looks like quite archaic legislation. I appreciate that this may not be the right time to do that, but does the Government have a view on when might be the right time to give that issue some attention?

I will limit my remarks to amendment 503, but, like Mark Ruskell, I am interested to hear what the cabinet secretary has to say and to see whether we can work to get the best out of this group of amendments, perhaps for stage 3.

I will not read out all the things that are listed in the amendment, but it is quite clear that it is about better reporting on land management and ownership. It is about having a report that gives more detail about the extent of privately owned and publicly owned land, and about the concentration of privately owned land.

I will explain a little bit of the rationale behind my amendment. First, it is about providing better statistics on the use of the existing right to buy and the amended late application procedures in the bill. Secondly, it is about requiring the collation and publication of reliable statistics on the pattern of land ownership in Scotland.

I think that it is fair to say that a feeling has been expressed in the committee and by other members that we would have benefited from having better information on the effectiveness of the existing community right to buy, which would have helped with the scrutiny of the likely impacts of the measures in part 1 of the bill. We would also have benefited from a deeper analysis of the pattern of land ownership and how it is changing and has changed over the years in order to have a better assessment of the likely impact of measures in the bill.

Meaningful debate on and scrutiny of land ownership in Scotland will be constrained if we do not have robust official statistics. I have set out in amendment 503 how things could be improved in that regard, and I am open to hearing what the cabinet secretary has to say about that.

I welcome the opportunity for further engagement on my amendment 503 and other amendments in the group. I want to clarify, if it is helpful, that I have reflected on the wording of my amendment 503. It is not my intention to require reporting on all landholdings; the provision should apply proportionately to larger landholdings and rural land. I appreciate that that is perhaps not clear in my amendment, but I am happy to work with the Government on that.

To clarify, amendment 475 relates to the existing service. Does the cabinet secretary accept that, as Mark Ruskell outlined, there are shortcomings in the existing service when we compare it with what John Swinney committed to in 2015? That is what we are trying to address and improve.

I agree.

Yes. How would the Government know who had produced a plan and who had not?

No—sorry, I mean yes.

I will come in now, convener. I am not surprised that people want to contribute to this part of our scrutiny, because the land management plans are an important part of the bill and we took a lot of evidence on them at stage 1.

I take issue with the way in which Tim Eagle has framed the issue. On the one hand, we are hearing about the benefits of land management plans and the fact that many landowners, especially larger landowners, already make them, but we are also hearing that it is burdensome and could be very expensive. We did not really get evidence at stage 1 that backed up the suggested higher costs of £15,000. There is a contradiction in Tim Eagle’s arguments that, on the one hand, land management plans are good and lots of people do them but, on the other hand, we do not want them to be in the legislation.

I agree that we have to take care that land management plans do not become overly prescriptive. I do not think that that is the Scottish Government’s intention, but I will leave that to the cabinet secretary. However, does the convener agree that the benefits of land management plans have been well argued in our scrutiny? This is about improving accountability and transparency and, as Mark Ruskell says, engaging with communities, which can add value to the process for everyone.

I am really interested in the points that Tim Eagle is making. He said a moment ago that perhaps the Government should have targeted those who do not produce land management plans.