Chamber and committees

You are absolutely right about that letter. The work on the amendments that we are intending to lodge is very much on-going. Ultimately, that is about further consolidation of small landholding legislation to try to make it more accessible, as well as aligning it with tenant farming legislation.

I am trying to understand what you mean about crofting. Most of the provisions that we have proposed have been on the back of consultation that we have undertaken directly with small landholders, so the provisions are based on where they would like to be and where they see themselves, as well as how they would like to be aligned with other legislation.

The pre-notification measures that we are introducing are really important. Ultimately, the reason for doing so is to ensure that we address some of the key barriers to community ownership that we know exist at the moment, and which relate to overall transparency. That relates to points that I made at the start of the meeting about off-market sales and transactions and transfers sometimes taking place that communities might not have been aware of and that they could have had an interest in. The pre-notification requirements are hugely important, because they are about ensuring that we enable communities to register interest and that there is transparency about land transactions.

We have tried to balance that in our proposals, because they really bring in all the issues that you have talked about.

What should the timescale be for a land management plan review and, as I outlined in my responses to earlier questions, how flexible should it be in trying to get a balance between the overarching objectives? What we have set out has tried to achieve that balance. Should the bill pass, further work will be done on the back of that in the wider consultation that we will undertake to look at the final details.

Of course, we want the exercise to be meaningful, as you have outlined, which is why the community engagement provisions are so important. We need communities to feel that they are involved and that they have a say about the land around them and how it impacts on their day-to-day lives. That is really important, and we hope that we are striking the right balance. Again, we are listening to all the evidence and the committee’s views about that.

It is helpful to have the work and the report of the Scottish Land Commission about further additions or changes that it thinks would strengthen the proposals that are in the bill. I welcome that.

The committee has undertaken a number of evidence sessions since the bill was published, and we have been listening to the various views that have been expressed throughout, as I have already stated this morning. We have listened, and we are actively considering the proposals that have been put forward by the Scottish Land Commission. We are looking forward to considering its recommendations alongside the recommendations that will come from the committee in its stage 1 report.

I do not want to get into too much of a battle about wording at this stage of the meeting, convener. Different questions were posed, some of which related to specific proposals, and some witnesses welcomed the proposals but felt that they could be made stronger in some areas. From reading through all that evidence, I think that the responses were more nuanced, but we want to listen to those opinions and see where we can strengthen the proposals in the bill.

Officials are working with the tenant farming commissioner and wider stakeholders—including NatureScot and organisations such as the British Association for Shooting and Conservation and the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust—to look at how we can support training and advice for tenants and landlords. NatureScot already assesses damage that has been done by geese, for example, so we have experience that we can use to address the issue, but that work is on-going.

A number of factors are already taken into consideration. Ultimately, we are trying to make the process fairer for tenants so that the value is recognised for them.

I will hand over to Fiona Leslie, as she will probably be able to add more information.

There is a distinction between what is set out in relation to improvements and what is set out in relation to diversification. At the moment, schedule 5 relates to activities that support agricultural use of the land—for example, in relation to trees for shelter belts—whereas diversification is about non-agricultural activity. I believe that the former tenant farming commissioner provided information to TFAF about the range of considerations that must be taken into account with regard to planting trees. The work that has already been done will inform any future codes or guidance in that area. I do not know whether that answers your question.

That is an important point. As you said, the committee heard evidence, which I have considered, that some landowners are already undertaking such work. There are costs associated with that, as we have set out clearly in the documents that are associated with the bill. The issue is how we balance the requirements, which comes back to why we have brought forward the proposals in the way that we have. As you said, a lot of people are engaging in that work anyway, so I would not expect the costs for them to be considerably higher than they already are. That is within the ranges that we have set out in the accompanying documents.

It might make sense for a land management plan to take into consideration work that is already being undertaken on an area’s overall priorities. That could be considered as part of the wider associated guidance.