Chamber and committees

The amendments would significantly interfere with property rights, and I do not believe that we have the evidence base to connect those aspects, which is my serious concern with the amendments.

I have other concerns about the amendments. For example, if they were to be agreed to, there would be significant resource and financial implications for the Scottish Government.

For those reasons, I ask members not to support amendment 174 and its related amendments. Amendment 459 is dependent on amendment 174, so I ask members not to support it, either.

Amendment 433 from Tim Eagle would allow ministers to offer to buy land before making a lotting decision. That would be a departure from the bill as it is drafted, because it is unclear how public purchase in that way would reduce concentration of land ownership. Ministers and public bodies already have powers to purchase land by voluntary agreement when that is justified. The bill also allows ministers to offer to purchase land in certain circumstances following a review of lotting decisions. I therefore ask members not to support amendment 433.

Before turning to amendment 364, which relates to transfers for electricity infrastructure, I want to make a few comments, because this is a matter of interest to my constituency. I want to make it clear that I am appearing before the committee in my capacity as a minister of the Scottish Government. The position that I am presenting reflects the collective view of the Scottish Government and concerns a matter of law and policy for which I have ministerial responsibility. Separately, and in line with the Scottish ministerial code, I have made my views and those of my constituents known to the responsible minister in the appropriate way. The issue under discussion today is distinct from that constituency interest, so my contributions should be understood as reflecting the Government’s position—I am not taking a personal or constituency-specific stance.

Amendment 364 from Douglas Lumsden is unrelated to the provisions of the bill as introduced. It would block voluntary transfers of any land—not just land that forms part of a large landholding—for the purposes of constructing electricity infrastructure. That would interfere with an owner’s property rights. The justification for the proposed provision is not obvious from the amendment, especially as the amendment does not appear to address the main legal mechanisms by which electricity infrastructure is delivered, such as under the Electricity Act 1989, which is UK Government legislation relating to a reserved matter. I therefore ask members not to support amendment 364.

The definitions for connected persons are already set out in the bill. I am more than happy to have a discussion with the member ahead of stage 3 if there are particular issues in relation to the amendments that I have brought forward that he feels are not being addressed. I am not sure whether we are talking at cross purposes in terms of what we are trying to set out, but my amendments do not cover aggregate holdings. I do not know whether that is the point that the member is trying to bring forward.

As Michael Matheson outlined, the purpose of amendments 11, 35, 42 and 106 is to extend the land to which community engagement obligations may be imposed to include sites of community significance.

I am keen to ensure that the bill is as simple and clear to understand as possible but, as I have set out today, the measures that we introduce need to be proportionate and justifiable. Following Scottish Land Commission recommendations, the bill focuses on addressing issues with the concentration of land ownership in rural areas. That is why the provisions apply to those larger landholdings. If we were to introduce sites of community significance, that would significantly complicate the provisions that we have set out in the bill. It would invent a whole new designation process that means that land anywhere in Scotland could be subject to provisions in the bill that were intended only for large landholdings.

I want to make it clear that that is why consultation and engagement on what the land management plan will include are hugely important. That will be a vital part of the process.

You also raised some examples of the costs that will be associated with the plan. Figures have been set out in the financial memorandum, and the £15,000 figure has been mentioned a couple of times today. However, that was an expected cost for a complex and quite extreme example. Also, it is not as though that would be a recurring cost every five years. Again, we need to consult people and ensure that we get the level of detail right, which is why we have set out the process. I hope that the member recognises that in relation to the amendments that we are considering and our discussions on the bill today.

Would you like me to come in at this point, convener?

I will just finish the point that I have started.

Mark Ruskell’s amendments 49A and 49B would include non-contiguous areas of land, provided that they are within 10 miles of each other. That figure is much larger than the 250m figure that I suggested, which was based on the recommendations of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee and the Scottish Land Commission. However, I am mindful that our evidence is focused on nearby landholdings. Broadly, the greater the distance that we use to allow non-contiguous landholdings to be treated as contiguous, the further the intervention moves away from the original evidence base, as I have outlined today.

I would like to think that there could be some middle ground in relation to that. Mark Ruskell might well touch on some examples of particular issues that he would like to address that he has referenced previously, so I would like to work with him on those amendments.

I will go back to Mercedes Villalba for her intervention.

It is based on the evidence that has been provided by the Scottish Land Commission. The issue that we are ultimately trying to tackle is the concentration of land ownership and the impacts that it can have on local communities—it means that there is a lack of diversity and of available land supply. Those are the issues that we are directly trying to address. That is not to say that I am not sympathetic to the issues that Mercedes Villalba is trying to address, but we do not have the evidence base to do that. If somebody owns land in other parts of Scotland that falls below the threshold, we do not have the evidence base to show the impact of that on the local community near that area of land, and if it falls below that threshold, it might not be relevant anyway.

I would be happy to share more information with Mark Ruskell and other committee members. As Mercedes Villalba referenced in her comments, we have referred widely to the public interest in legislation, so we cannot just set out what the public interest is in the bill that is in front of us. Amendment 310 is very descriptive—as I set out with reference to the case law, it is too descriptive. It would not be helpful to have a definition that would restrict how “public interest” was interpreted.

I am not concerned about that at the moment. The member will no doubt be aware of the Crofting and Scottish Land Court Bill, which was recently introduced.

Again, there is no obligation; it is about considering requests from crofting community bodies. Although the drafting is not quite right, I support what the amendment is trying to achieve.

In the policy memorandum, we set out why we have taken the approach that we have taken, and whether any alternatives were considered.

It comes back to striking the right balance—not being too prescriptive and allowing for some flexibility—because we recognise that land will be very different across Scotland. However, ultimately, we want to achieve a number of high-level outcomes, such as tackling the climate and nature crises, delivering our vision for agriculture in Scotland and being a global leader in sustainable and regenerative agriculture.

We have been listening to the evidence on that and we are keen to hear the committee’s views in its stage 1 report. As Andy Proudfoot touched on, more guidance will be issued and there will be further consultation on what will be included in the land management plans. However, we hope that the high-level overview of our ultimate ambitions strikes the right balance.

I recognise the concerns and the quite universal call for some sort of de minimis provision in the bill to exclude certain transactions that need not be controversial.

It might be helpful if I briefly explain why we have introduced the provision as we have, and the rationale behind that. With regard to pieces of land that communities might be interested in taking ownership of, the vast majority—I think that the figure is between 60 and 70 per cent—are areas of less than a hectare. They are quite small pieces of land, but they might still be very significant to a particular community. That is why we did not want to prevent from being part of those transactions areas of land that could be significant to or of interest to a community.

We have, however, listened to the evidence that the committee has heard and the subsequent recommendations that have come from the Land Commission on that issue, and we are happy to consider that further.