Chamber and committees

On the first point about dealing with anonymity, the relevant section of the bill sets out provisions to protect the confidentiality of information that has been obtained on behalf of the land and communities commissioner in the course of their investigations. However, I recognise some of the dynamics that are at play here and, from listening to the evidence that the committee received, why the ability to be anonymous is of concern. I am happy to consider any particular views that the committee has on that.

I am sorry—I missed the second part of your question.

I come back to the rationale for why the provisions have been proposed in the way that they have been in the bill. They are designed so that the land and communities commissioner can investigate a breach only if there is a report from one of the defined bodies in the bill. Ultimately, that is to try to balance the commissioner’s enforcing role with the Scottish Land Commission’s advisory role. However, from the evidence, I feel that people have generally felt—although some have disagreed—that the commissioner should have the power to have an investigatory role; I am sure that the convener will correct me if I am wrong. I am open to considering recommendations about that if there is a particularly strong view on that.

Overall monitoring of compliance will be critical. As we have discussed in relation to the other measures that the bill introduces, we need to ensure that what we are introducing is having the desired effect.

I am sorry—do you mean in relation to overall investment in the land or how to take those proposals forward?

Again, we have set the threshold at the level that we have in order to try to balance all those factors.

No, I do not see why it should do that.

I believe that we are taking important steps in that direction with the bill through a number of means. Looking back to the initial aims of the bill that the convener set out—what it proposes to do—one of the key issues, and the reason why we are introducing pre-notification, land management plans and provisions around those, is the need to increase transparency about land ownership and management and to enable communities to have more of a say in how the land on which they live and work is managed. The bill will enable that.

Because of the scale of some land transfers and the size of some landholdings, the land tends to be sold quite infrequently. We are also seeing an increase in private off-market sales. In previous years, about 60 per cent of estate sales were private and off-market. Sometimes the opportunity to utilise community right to buy mechanisms will have gone before communities realised that the land was becoming available for sale, because they had not anticipated that it would become available or because the land had already been sold, so they would not have had the opportunity to use their rights in legislation.

The steps that we have set out in relation to those measures will help with overall transparency and will enable communities to have another route into right to buy. There are also important provisions about the transfer test and the potential for the lotting of land where we think that it will have a positive impact on community sustainability. That has the potential to increase land supply and the diversity of land ownership in Scotland.

We would have to give greater thought to how that could be done and to the evidence base that we would use if that was to be the proposal.

A variety of views have been expressed on that issue. Probably quite a general view that those who have given evidence to the committee have expressed is that the penalties that the bill sets out are not proportionate and will not act as enough of a deterrent. To give a bit of background, the fines are set at a level that broadly mirrors the penalties in relation to the register of persons holding a controlling interest in land. That also involves a maximum penalty of £5,000, albeit that the penalty is criminal rather than civil. The question always comes back to the point about balance and ensuring that the fine will have the desired effect and act as a deterrent, so we want to consider the committee’s views and any recommendations that members might have.

I will bring in Andy Proudfoot.

Yes, we are. The consultation on the crofting legislation was, I believe, published at the start of this year or towards the end of last year, with the intention that the bill will be introduced in the coming year, although the timetable is to be finalised. I think that that will help to address some of the key issues that have been identified through this committee and through previous iterations of the rural committee. A number of proposals have been made over a number of years. It is important that we are able to address some of the issues with crofting through that legislation before considering steps beyond that.