Chamber and committees

I imagine that, given the length of time that the national parks have had experience of producing their plans, that is not a particular concern; I have not been made aware of that causing issues. The park plans always start from the premise of collaboration and engagement with the relevant public bodies and other authorities. Because of the strong relationships and the collaboration that happens there, I do not see that being an issue. I do not know whether the committee has heard about that in evidence.

I think that some of the amendments that we covered yesterday were in relation to the local place plans and what could be set out in the land management plans. An amendment that was supported yesterday was around what consideration land management plans should give to local place plans. We could potentially consult on the matter in relation to national park plans as part of the overall regulations and guidance that we would be delivering for land management plans. The issue could be considered in that work; it is important that we have that consultation and engagement on it.

I am not aware of that proposal. I would have to look at it in detail and consider the implications. I am more than happy to follow up with you directly on that, or to provide that information to the committee, if that would be helpful.

We want to highlight and give specific mention to some of the challenges that we are facing right now in relation to biodiversity and climate change, as well as to highlight the importance of recreation. It is to show that those specific actions will help to deliver the aims.

You are absolutely right about the boundaries. NatureScot had said that, should ministers decide to designate, it would have recommended the smaller core area, as it outlined in its report.

The situation was difficult according to the different reports that came out. NatureScot also outlined in its report that, if somebody felt that they were against a national park, it was harder to engage with them about the different options of what boundaries could look like and what shape governance could take. The boundary choices were informed by engagement with local people and other stakeholders. There were always going to be difficulties with that.

Can you remind me of your second point?

Absolutely. There have been a number of different arguments relating to land of community significance, and we covered a lot of them during the debates on the groups of amendments that we discussed last week. I outlined a variety of issues in that regard. I hope that the approach that I have proposed through the amendments that I have lodged will work better in ensuring that there will be wider engagement and consultation before regulations are made, so that we get the measures right when they are introduced.

I have talked about Tim Eagle’s amendments 422 and 423.

I note that Mercedes Villalba’s amendment 120 aims to bring within the scope of pre-notification any holding that forms part of an inhabited island and constitutes more than 25 per cent of land forming the island. As such a definition would have no minimum area of landholding, it could bring holdings on very small islands within the scope of pre-notification and have a disproportionate and adverse impact on island communities and landowners. That has not been accounted for through our islands impact assessment.

However, I note that some of the other amendments that have been lodged, not just in this group but in other parts of the bill, have considered a variety of different thresholds in relation to our islands. We had removed that condition first of all so as not to disadvantage island communities, but I appreciate that there is still a lot of interest in that area. There is still some work to be done in order for us all to get that right, so I encourage members who lodged relevant amendments in this and other groups—including Mark Ruskell, Ariane Burgess and Mercedes Villalba, although I acknowledge that Ms Villalba is not here today—to have discussions with me.

Amendments 122 and 125 would remove the requirement for single landholdings to be contiguous. We discussed that at the previous meeting and, as I stated last week, we are unable to support those amendments because of the lack of an evidence base to justify the proposal.

Ariane Burgess’s amendment 5 would lower the threshold from 1,000 hectares to 500 hectares. Again, we discussed that last week, so I am not going to rehearse the arguments against it that we made then, but I ask that that amendment not be supported.

My further amendments—amendments 123, 124 and 126—seek to strengthen the definition of “composite holding” that is set out in proposed new section 46K of the 2003 act in relation to land affected by the pre-notification prohibitions. Those are similar to amendments 41, 46 and 48, which we debated in group 3, and to my amendment 49, which relates to another part of the bill and has been previously debated. Amendment 127 allows for non-contiguous areas of land to form a holding, provided that they are within 250m of each other. I ask the committee to support my amendments. I understand that Mark Ruskell has amendments that are similar to amendment 127—amendments 127A and 127B—and, again, further to the discussion that we had last week in relation to previous groups, I ask him not to move those amendments.

Proposed new section 46L of the 2003 act provides a power that ministers can use to amend the length of the second prohibition period and the land to which pre-notification applies. That allows future adjustment of those parameters. The committee’s stage 1 report said that that was an important feature to enable there to be a response to monitoring review.

Tim Eagle’s amendments 131 and 134 would restrict the proper use of those powers by preventing ministers from making regulations, which would reduce the overall threshold for pre-notification. Mercedes Villalba’s amendment 133 also seeks to amend section 46L but, in contrast, specifies that ministers may not make regulations to increase the overall threshold for pre-notification. Tim Eagle’s amendment 129 looks to entirely remove section 46L and all the powers within it. Between them, those amendments unduly restrict the ability of future Governments to alter thresholds, even if the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that they should be altered, which is why I am not able to support them.

Amendment 135 requires ministers to consult before laying draft regulations under section 46L for approval by Parliament and to prepare and publish a report on the consultation. We have lodged a comprehensive Government amendment to require consultation with appropriate people before draft regulations through part 1 of the bill are laid. For those reasons, I do not think that amendment 135 is necessary, and I urge members to oppose it.

Turning to Bob Doris’s amendments, I want to provide some reassurance in relation to amendment 30. We intend, of course, for there to be monitoring and reporting, but rather than that being required within individual land management plans, it will be set at a higher level by the Scottish Land Commission. For that reason, I ask Mr Doris not to move the amendment.

I support the intent behind amendment 31 of ensuring that the plans are published in a single and accessible location. However, I ask Bob Doris not to move the amendment, so that I can work with him ahead of stage 3 to ensure that the amendment is drafted in a way that will not pose any implementation issues further down the line.

I will, convener. There are quite a few amendments in this group, and I will try to work my way through them as best I can.

First, I turn to Rhoda Grant’s amendments, starting with amendment 349. Part of that amendment is not necessary. We already publish guidance on late community right-to-buy applications, and we are going to review that and issue further guidance as part of the review of community right to buy that we are undertaking at the moment. I do not think that the amendment’s requirement for more specific guidance at this point is required.

Amendment 349 also proposes changes to processes and timescales in the existing part 2, on community right to buy, of the 2003 act. I think that those changes would be better considered as part of the review that I just mentioned. Further, the amendment does not reflect or practically work with the steps that are involved in registering community interest in land under part 2 of the 2003 act. For those reasons, I would not be able to support amendment 349.

I agree with your point. The plans need to be accessible and, ultimately, that is what we are trying to achieve. I would not expect those plans to include commercially sensitive information.

I will comment briefly on Bob Doris’s amendment 32, which we covered in some detail last week, in a debate on another grouping. I will just encourage members to support the amendment.

Finally, I turn to Rhoda Grant’s amendments. I fully recognise the aims that Rhoda Grant is trying to achieve. For example, amendment 326 would ensure that there is

“regard to ... any local place plan”.

I can only restate that local place plans will be fully considered in the regulations and in the consultation that we will undertake on them, to ensure that the content of the land management plans is fit for purpose, proportionate and deliverable.

With regard to amendment 328, however, I support Rhoda Grant’s intention and I support the amendment.

On her amendment 329, the regulations that it refers to ceased to have effect in March 1993, so I do not see value in collecting that information. It would also be a burden on island businesses. Therefore, I recommend that amendments 326 and 329 be opposed.

I do not think that it would be for me to set that out on the face of any legislation. I appreciate the example that the convener has highlighted, but we have also had examples at the opposite end of the scale, which is why we have decided to introduce the ability for fines of up to £40,000 to be imposed. Of course, I am happy to have further engagement ahead of stage 3 to see what more detail can be provided, but I am hesitant to commit to putting anything in the bill at this stage, especially when similar provisions exist in other pieces of legislation.

Amendment 407 does not set out how the proposed timescale would impact on an investigation by the land and communities commissioner, and I think that the current approach of allowing the LCC to set the period at the time when they require further information on a breach is proportionate. It allows the period to be set on the basis of the kind of information that is being requested and the time that one might expect it to take to prepare it.

Amendment 411 would delay the LCC’s ability to apply a fine in cases of continued non-compliance. Therefore, I recommend that the committee not support amendments 82, 90, 407 and 411.

Rhoda Grant’s amendment 347 seeks to introduce a significant new compulsory purchase power. This is, of course, not a matter on which we have consulted; in any case, I do not think that the bill is the right vehicle for new compulsory purchase powers, particularly when a substantial consultation on proposed reforms to Scotland’s compulsory purchase system is planned for the coming months. On that basis, I ask the committee not to support that amendment.

Lastly, I want to make it clear overall that I absolutely support the intent behind amendments 412 and 413, in the name of Mark Ruskell, which is that we should not be giving public money to those who are not living up to their obligations. However, I do not think that the amendments are the best way of achieving that aim.

With regard to agricultural support, we as a Government have made commitments to co-develop that funding with rural partners through the agricultural reform programme, and if we started to reduce requirements outside of the programme, without considering the totality—that is, the broader issue of refusal or recovery of support—it would cut across and ultimately undermine our approach in that respect. The issue raised in Mark Ruskell’s amendment will form part of future considerations and allow any requirements to be brought forward as a package at the right time and through the appropriate legislation—in other words, the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Act 2024.

Amendment 413 is incredibly broad and it would block, ultimately, any financial support. As a result, it could have quite extreme unintended consequences. For example—and I hope that this will not be the case—if a public body were in breach, the amendment would result in their being cut off from all the public sector funding that it might need to remain operational. The same would potentially be true of charities that own large areas of land.

We already have the ability to set conditions for funding and, indeed, do so in many cases. Given that, I ask Mark Ruskell not to move his amendment, because I do not believe that it is the right way to meet this aim.