Chamber and committees

The review has been under way for the past year, and we are looking to consult on the measures within that shortly. We will come to further discussion on the review in future groups of amendments.

I have some sympathy with amendment 350, because ultimately it would give more time to communities. However, we cannot ignore the impact that it would have on the landowner, given that it would substantially extend the prohibition on sale. Our measures have to be proportionate and fair to all sides. I believe that the significant additional prohibition that is proposed in the amendment would not quite get that balance right, so I ask the committee not to support the amendment.

If I have understood you correctly, that brings us back to the discussion about recognising land of community significance.

With the lowering and aligning of the thresholds at 1,000 hectares, only the largest agricultural businesses—1.4 per cent—will now be caught by those measures. I do not think that that is too unreasonable.

We come back to the issue of the level of detail that we expect to be provided in land management plans, which there has been a lot of discussion about today. As I have said, today and previously, there are the overarching objectives of what we want to achieve, but the detail of what is contained in the plans will be subject to wider consultation, because we need to make sure that we get the balance right. It is broadly the case—certainly among members round the table—that people do not want the process to be too prescriptive or too onerous, and, as Bob Doris and Mark Ruskell have said, many people are already doing that work. We simply want to ensure that everyone adheres to the requirements, because owning land comes with obligations.

I am sorry, what do you mean?

I covered that in my comments on amendment 177. As I outlined, it is because of the nature of the conflict. I know that stakeholders expressed concern about that, which is why we have that disqualification in the bill. It mirrors what we have in place in relation to the tenant farming commissioner, which is why I think that it is appropriate to have that provision in the bill.

I believe that that would be the case. I cannot imagine that we would want to be in a position where we are publishing information that is commercially sensitive for a business. I would want to provide assurance on that front.

We will obviously have to work closely with the Scottish Land Commission to make sure that it has the resources that it needs to undertake that work. I do not have particular concerns in that regard. What is more important to me is why we are doing this and the overall objectives that we are trying to achieve.

I do not intend to say much more, other than that I completely reject Tim Eagle’s amendments in this group, which would undermine what the majority of us are seeking to ensure—that the bill works and is effective. The discussions that we have had so far and the other amendments that we have considered represent a step forward in achieving that.

There is a lot to agree with in what we have been talking about round the table today. Mark Ruskell summarised where we are, and I wrote it down as, “Better community engagement,” because that is such a strong and positive thing that can come out of land management plans.

I completely recognise the points that Tim Eagle made, because the majority of us will have seen landowners doing that work in our constituencies, but we also know that there are landowners who are not doing good things and who do not undertake that engagement. We have to try to address that. The law does not allow us to distinguish between the good and the bad, or to get only to those who we feel are not doing the things that we want them to do. We have to apply the measures equally across the board.

The proposals that we have brought forward enable us to do that, and I am more than happy to have further engagement with you, convener.

Our position has not changed throughout the discussions that we have had on the bill. The key point that we are trying to address, and all the measures that have been introduced, are based on the Scottish Land Commission’s recommendations on addressing the issues that are associated with the concentration of land ownership in Scotland and the impact that it has on local communities. It is with large landholdings in a specific area that we see some of the issues arise, and that is the point that we are trying to address with the measures in the bill. Our position has not changed.

I would be happy to have that further discussion with the member. As I have said, no concern has been raised with me directly, which is why I was wondering why the amendment had been lodged.

It would be important for somebody acting on behalf of Scottish ministers to engage in the same way that we would expect of any other large landowner, instead of our expecting a separate person to take on that responsibility. We engage with our tenants and local communities when we develop long-term proposals on crofting estates and gather information on that, and putting that duty on to an independent person or an external party instead of the Scottish Government would amount to an information transfer process, from the Scottish Government to someone else, for the purposes of writing a plan. Such a move would have resource implications, too. It is also important that we undertake our own engagement with tenants and crofting communities on the crofting estates.

For those reasons, I ask members not to support amendment 335. Regardless of that, though, I want to pick up that conversation with Rhoda Grant and get more of an understanding about some of the concerns that she has heard.

Lastly, I urge members not to support Ariane Burgess’s amendment 338, which seeks to place an obligation on the owner of land to implement the land management plan. I have concerns about that, as land management plans are not necessarily intended to control how land is used or managed but to provide greater transparency and engagement on that. I offer to work with Ariane Burgess ahead of stage 3 to see whether we can bring forward an alternative amendment that, ultimately, has the same aim. For example, it could require a landowner to set out in the review of a plan any progress that has been made on the implementation of the actions set out in that or previous plans.