Chamber and committees

If you are talking about aggregate holdings—holdings across Scotland that potentially fall under the thresholds—they would not be caught by the measures. Essentially, we need to make sure that we have the evidence base for that and that we address the impact of the concentration of land ownership. The amendments that I am bringing forward do not cover aggregate holdings, because those would be across Scotland.

As far as I am aware, there is no legal definition of what that would mean. We would be inserting a legal definition of something, which would have wide-reaching ramifications beyond what we have set out in the bill. I am about to come on to a few other points and issues in relation to that.

A wider point has been raised about measures that are being taken in the urban environment. It is important to remember that the bill was intended to deal with a specific problem that was identified by the Scottish Land Commission, which was about the issue of the concentration of land ownership, particularly in rural Scotland. However, that is not to say that no other work is going on to address some of those issues in the urban environment. Monica Lennon raised that matter with me during stage 1 consideration of the bill.

I am about to come on to the community right-to-buy powers and the on-going review of them. Significant work has also been taking place in relation to compulsory purchase orders and compulsory sales orders. All those different mechanisms will help to deal with some of the issues in the urban environment. I do not think that we can address those issues in the bill—in this legislative vehicle—alone.

Different stakeholders have voiced support for the concept of sites of community significance, but they have done so in different ways. Some have sought to expand the scope of the bill; others have sought to limit it and to require communities to undertake more work before the provisions in the bill could apply.

The process of assigning sites as being of community significance would be complex, and the enforcement and monitoring of any registration could have significant costs for the Scottish Government, which would have to establish a way to register the sites, and for local authorities, which might be required to be involved, too. There has not been any impact assessment to consider how many more sites could be brought into scope and what the costs of that could be for landowners and the public sector.

The benefits of including sites of community significance are unclear, and how the lotting provisions and transfer test would be applied to such sites is also unclear. There is an existing process through which urban and rural communities can register a community interest in land through the community right-to-buy processes in part 2 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003. An additional process could add significant cost and complexity for both the landholder and the public purse, with unclear and limited benefit.

In rural areas, there is a need to add an existing route to the community right-to-buy process, which is why we have introduced the notification measures in the bill, but we do not believe that that would be proportionate when there are no issues of concentrated ownership. In fact, if we were to expand the provisions of the bill to apply beyond the target area of large landholdings, that could risk taking the bill away from the evidence base on which we made the proposals.

There would also be issues with legislating in that space before we have been able to consider the findings of the community right-to-buy review, which is still under way and is due to report by the end of this year. I appreciate the concerns that were raised by the committee in relation to that review. If legislative changes are required as a result of that review, we would be happy to propose the right legislative vehicle to address those.

Although I appreciate the approach that Michael Matheson has taken, I believe that it would take the measures in the bill away from what they were intended to do and beyond the issues that they were designed to address. I ask him not to press amendment 11 or move amendments 35, 42 and 106.

Through amendment 22, Bob Doris proposes that the Scottish ministers publish a statement when they are exempting any land that would otherwise be subject to future regulations that require landowners to have a land management plan. As Bob Doris has outlined, and as I said in the conversations that we have had, I would expect the Government to do that as a matter of course. I am always nervous about adding requirements to a bill that I do not believe are necessary, but I am happy to support amendment 22, although I might revisit it at stage 3 if any unintended consequences are found or drafting issues are identified.

Tim Eagle’s linked amendments 398, 399, 402, 403 and 406 seek to disapply the community engagement obligations in certain circumstances, including when land is used mainly for agricultural purposes or the owner has not engaged with a community body in the past five years. Rachael Hamilton’s amendments 400 and 404 similarly seek to disapply the obligations when the land is transferred to a new entrant to farming or agriculture business.

I am mindful that the obligations and thresholds should be designed to avoid disproportionate duties on small-scale landholdings or smaller farms. That is why I do not propose to lower the threshold below 1,000 hectares, at which level only the largest of farms—1.4 per cent of Scotland’s farms—are expected to be in scope. We will make all efforts to ensure that the community engagement obligations are as straightforward as possible and that they align with other plans and requirements where possible, to minimise duplication. However, I do not believe that it is right to disapply those obligations to as broad a class of land types and landowners as the amendments suggest. That is why I recommend that the amendments should not be supported.

Tim Eagle’s amendments 37, 41 and 44 would remove the bill’s definition of what constitutes a composite holding for the purposes of community engagement obligations and, instead, via amendment 405, leave those definitions to future guidance to be prepared and published by the Scottish Land Commission. I appreciate that there is often quite a lot of discussion in Parliament about what should be in a bill and what should be left to regulations and guidance. In this case, however, it is right that Parliament can consider what constitutes composite holdings in the bill. Those can, of course, be changed by any future regulations, so I ask members not to support the amendments.

Amendment 39 would raise the threshold for land on which community obligations may be imposed from 3,000 to 5,000 hectares. That would dramatically reduce the ambition of the bill, particularly when there has been such widespread support for land management plans and the community engagement obligations, as the committee will have seen when it took evidence on that.

Amendment 401 would increase the percentage of land that forms an island under the current islands criterion to 33 per cent from 25 per cent. As I have outlined, I propose lowering the threshold to 1,000 hectares, which would then remove the islands criterion. That is a sensible compromise and I therefore recommend that the amendments are opposed.

Tim Eagle’s remaining amendments in the group—104, 105 and 110—would remove ministerial powers to modify chapter 2 of the 2016 act by regulations and instead add more restricted powers to modify the chapter. Amendment 110 would stipulate that future regulations could not reduce the number of hectares in section 44D of the 2016 act in relation to the land on which obligations would be imposed.

Mercedes Villalba’s amendment 109 would do almost the complete opposite of what Tim Eagle is trying to do. It would restrict the power to modify chapter 2 of the 2016 act by stipulating that future regulations could not increase the thresholds for land management plans and community engagement obligations.

Both approaches would substantially restrict Parliament’s future flexibility. Although I probably lean more towards supporting the intent behind Mercedes Villalba’s amendment than Tim Eagle’s—I know that it was worth a try—as a parliamentarian, I am mindful of constraining the actions of future Parliaments, which is why I do not support the amendments.

As I have outlined, we are probably not too far apart in our thinking, but these are new measures that we are introducing so, being responsible in our role, it is only right that we monitor their effectiveness and look at any potential impacts. I do not want to tie the hands of any future Parliaments in relation to that, which is why I propose not to support the amendment. I am happy to have further conversations with Mercedes Villalba after stage 2 as we look towards stage 3, but I am not minded to support amendment 109 at this stage.

Ariane Burgess’s amendments 3 and 4 would lower the threshold for land on which community obligations might be imposed to 500 hectares. For the reasons that I outlined earlier, I believe that that is too low. I want to ensure that the proposals are justified in relation to the policy aim of not having a disproportionate impact on smaller landholdings. The amendments would impose costs on a much more significant set of landowners. As I outlined in my response to Mercedes Villalba, the provisions in the bill are new and it is important that the Government can review and monitor how they are being implemented. We would have the ability to seek to adjust the thresholds in future if that is required. That is why I oppose the amendments.

I thank colleagues around the table for their engagement on the bill more widely, but particularly on the matters that we are discussing in this group in relation to the process for and implementation of land management plans.

I welcome amendment 20, lodged by Bob Doris, which looks to require specifically that regulations ensure that landowners engage with

“tenants, crofters and small landholders with rights associated with the land on the development of, and significant changes to,”

land management plans. That was always going to be the intention of the regulations, so I am happy with that amendment, which makes things more explicit.

Amendment 33 from Bob Doris and amendment 10 from Tim Eagle seek additional guidance on how landowners will comply with their land management plan obligations under the regulations. As it was always the intention for there to be additional guidance, I am happy for that to be made explicit in the bill.

For drafting reasons, however, I ask Bob Doris and Tim Eagle not to move their amendments, and I am happy to work with them ahead of stage 3 to produce amendments that meet the stated aims in both. Each takes a different view on how guidance must be produced, what it should cover and who should produce it; one suggests Scottish ministers, while the other suggests the new commissioner. I agree that the content of both the amendments should be covered in further regulations or in guidance, and I will consider how best that can be reflected in the bill and whether that responsibility should indeed lie with ministers or with the commissioner.

Amendments 21 and 315, on the proposed timescales for the review of land management plans, seek to increase the intervals of reporting. Ariane Burgess’s amendments in this group seek to introduce a new plan period of 20 years, with a review and a report every five years. I do, of course, understand the rationale for that, which is to encourage plans to set out activity for the next 20 years. However, the bill already requires plans to set out a long-term vision, and it is appropriate for guidance and regulations to set out more detail of what that means, including the timespan that the plan should cover.

In its stage 1 report, the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee noted that the five-year reporting cycle that we have set out seeks

“to strike a balance between ensuring plans remain current and not imposing unrealistic or unhelpful obligations on landowners.”

To me, that indicates that what we have set out does strike the right balance, and to that end, I ask members not to support amendment 21 from Tim Eagle, amendment 315 from Rhoda Grant or amendments 311, 313, 314, 316 and 337 from Ariane Burgess.

That would be for review of the plan, not its duration. As I have set out in my comments, we would look to regulations and further guidance to set out what the overall duration of the plan would look like. Hence, I feel that we have struck the right balance in having the review every five years.

It is not for me to set that out right now, because we would need to do more work on the matter and have more engagement across the piece. In relation to what Rhoda Grant and Ariane Burgess have proposed, I feel that there is an agreement to be reached between us, but I do not think that fixing this in primary legislation is the way to do it.

Amendments 390, 18, 391, 19, 392 and 396 from Tim Eagle look to do away altogether with the requirement for regulations to provide for obligations to ensure that there are land management plans and engagement with communities on them. They seek to require regulations only to provide that landowners ensure that they engage with a restricted category of persons—and only on the development of plans, not on significant changes to them—and they also seek to introduce in regulations an ability for landowners to report members of the community. I feel that those amendments are against the spirit of what the bill is looking to achieve, and I ask members not to support them.

I also recommend opposing amendment 340 from Rhoda Grant.

I am more than happy to come in on that, convener. We did not come up against those issues with amendment 341, because it specifies that it relates to crofting counties. Therefore, the issue that you raise would not be a concern in relation to that amendment.

I want to quickly touch on the amendments from Tim Eagle. Ultimately, we included in the bill the proposed new section 44C of the 2016 act as part of the overall aim to strengthen and improve transparency and engagement between landowners and local communities. Of course, tenants and crofters should already be engaging with landowners through the land management plan and the community engagement process, but we specifically included section 44C so that regulations would have to be laid to specifically require consideration by landowners of community requests to lease land. That is in recognition of the fact that access to assets, whether land or buildings, can be vital for community development and sustainability. The option to lease might be just as valuable as the rights that are set out under the right-to-buy legislation. That is why I am content that it is appropriate for future regulations to set out the detail of how landowners should give reasonable consideration to requests and how community bodies should make those requests. It is important that we develop those requirements with the benefit of consultation.

On Rhoda Grant’s amendment 341, we did not encounter the issues that you found, convener. Overall, we welcome the intention of the amendment, which seeks to do something similar to what we are already trying to do through new section 44C of the 2016 act—to bring forward the requirement for regulations to oblige landowners to consider reasonable requests from communities to constitute land as crofting land. There is merit in considering the amendment further, in particular to ensure that reasonable requests by crofting community bodies are considered by landowners. However, we have some issues with the drafting of the amendment, because I do not think that it achieves its purpose in the way that the member would—

I thank members for all their contributions to the debate on this group of amendments. We are talking about really important matters. It is clear that, across the committee, there is broadly a strong desire for the public interest to be at the heart of the decisions that we take, but there are a wide range of views as to what that might mean and what that could look like.

I have listened carefully to the clear view that has been expressed by stakeholders and the committee that the transfer test that is set out in the bill should take greater account of the public interest. In my response to the committee’s stage 1 report, I was clear that any reframing of the test would have to be consistent with the evidence base for it, which highlights the damaging impact that concentrated land ownership can have on the sustainability of local communities. I welcome the amendments that Michael Matheson has lodged—amendments 150, 151 and 158—because they will make it clear that ministers will require land to be lotted only when they consider that that is in the public interest, so the amendments remain consistent with the evidence base.

We recognise concentration of land ownership as a problem. The policy aim and ultimate objective here is to address the effect of the concentration of land ownership and its impact on local communities and on the supply of land to local communities. That is why we have set out the measures in the bill and why we are directly trying to address those problems.

But how would you go on to define that? It becomes trickier when you try to do the opposite and impose too much of a definition. That is why I am asking for amendment 391 not to be supported.

Having set out why I do not believe some of the previous amendments should be supported, I turn to amendment 340, in the name of Rhoda Grant, which is supported by Mercedes Villalba. It would allow the land and communities commissioner to advise a landowner with multiple landholdings in scope on whether a combined plan was appropriate for those holdings or whether they should have separate plans. I understand that, ultimately, the amendment supports amendments that would bring in aggregate landholdings across Scotland, but I do not see a requirement for amendment 340. Regulations will make provision for owners of single and composite holdings to ensure that there is a land management plan and that there is engagement with communities.

Amendment 23 from Tim Eagle and amendment 317 from Ariane Burgess deal in different ways with the issue of a new owner of an in-scope landholding. I appreciate the need for clarity that has been suggested on this issue; however, as Bob Doris has already highlighted in the debate, amendment 32 in group 7 is a more suitable way of dealing with that. That amendment would allow the Scottish Government to set out, in regulations, the detailed requirements of how landowners must comply with their obligations in relation to land management plans, including in circumstances in which the ownership of that land is transferred. In relation to that, future regulations could provide the owner with a grace period of a year, in which they would have the option either to keep most of the existing plan or to consult on a new one.

I agree with Bob Doris that much of that detail is best placed in future regulations and developed with the benefit of consultation. It is appropriate that the bill does not prescribe the detail of the manner in which the obligation in proposed new section 44B(1) to the 2016 act, on land management plans, must be complied with. That is why I ask members not to support amendments 23 and 317, and to support amendment 32 in group 7, when it arrives.

Amendment 17 seeks to ensure that all land management plans are publicly available in a single portal. Although I appreciate and agree with the intent behind the amendment, I cannot support it as drafted, as it would put a requirement on a landowner to ensure that a public body took action. Instead, the landowner should be required only to share the land management plan or to make it available, and the requirement for publication on the portal should sit with the public body. I am happy to work with Bob Doris ahead of stage 3 to ensure that we get that amendment right.

Amendment 16, which has also been lodged by Bob Doris, would insert the word “accessible” into the proposed new section 44B to the 2016 act, requiring landowners to ensure that there is a publicly available land management plan in relation to the land. I am concerned that the amendment does not provide sufficient detail or clarity on what exactly is to be “accessible”. Does the word relate to the language used in the plan or is it a requirement to ensure that the plan can be easily obtained? I appreciate the reasoning behind amendment 16, but I ask Bob Doris not to move it, and I will be happy to work with him ahead of stage 3 to ensure that we get the drafting right.

Rhoda Grant’s amendment 312 overcomplicates the process by seeking to introduce a requirement that land management plans be made in a format specified by Scottish ministers. We will already have powers, through proposed new section 44A of the 2016 act, to set out further detail relating to land management plans, including the information that they have to contain. Amendment 312 is therefore unnecessary, and I ask members not to support it.

Amendment 335 seeks to require that Scottish ministers appoint an independent person to complete the land management plan for crofting estates that ministers own. So far, we have heard no evidence to suggest that that view is shared by crofters on Scottish Government-owned estates, nor have concerns been raised directly by the Crofting Commission or the Scottish Crofting Federation. We already exercise our land management functions in a transparent, accountable and inclusive way, which brings significant social, economic and environmental benefit for rural communities.