Chamber and committees

I do not have anything further to add at this point, convener.

I turn to amendment 380, which was lodged by Ariane Burgess. I share the aspirations for the type of land use that she is trying to achieve with the amendment. We might consider, for example, that the but-and-bens hutting movement is ultimately about getting people closer to nature, with all the social and health benefits that come from that. However, there are some issues with the amendment—for example, the application of the provision would be limited to public land, when most huts are on private land. A final point is that the model lease for environmental purposes is intended to facilitate a wide range of environmental land uses, and that could well include hutting, where the parties are in agreement with it.

The Government’s amendments in this group will take a major step towards consolidating and modernising our current small landholdings legislation, which dates from 1886 to 1931, ensuring that the legislation is fit for purpose and, ultimately, enabling it to meet the needs of Scotland’s existing small landholders, the next generation of small landholders and new entrants. It will also give greater clarity to landlords.

The amendments build on the changes that are already in the bill and modernise other important areas in the existing small landholdings legislation. Amendment 488 makes a number of changes to modernise the process of creating new small landholding tenancies and brings new and existing small landholdings within the scope of the schedule. The provisions set out important aspects of what a small landholding is, including who can be a small landholder and the types of land that are able to form part of a small landholding.

The changes make it easier to create a small landholding tenancy, remove references to redundant legislation and reform aspects of the existing process, including in relation to registration. Creating more small landholdings is a positive step for the next generation of farmers and small producers. The amendment also sets at 20 hectares the upper size limit for new small landholding tenancies entered into under the schedule, and it includes a power enabling the Scottish ministers to amend that in the future.

Repealing the provisions on the register of smallholdings that was created prior to world war one is really poignant. In St Andrew’s house, there is a marble memorial to staff of the Board of Agriculture who lost their lives in the great war. It was those people who held the register, and then, following their deaths, the main paper register was lost. It has never been recovered or kept up to date.

Amendment 508 further consolidates and modernises areas of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act 1911. It sets out important provisions on the terms of the landholder’s tenancy, including how they must use the landholding and the landlord’s rights of access on to the holding. It entitles the landholder to compensation for damage from game or game management, which broadly mirrors what is in section 20 of the bill in relation to agricultural holdings.

In relation to the crofting element, I am sure that the convener will be aware that we have introduced crofting legislation, which covers some of the most pertinent issues.

I thank Rachael Hamilton for her points and I fully appreciate what she is trying to do. The reason why we do not support amendment 478 is that, through the “Natural Capital Market Framework” that we published last year, we are already providing what it specifically asks for. One of those principles is about ethical investment, and another is about the community benefit that should be expected. There are other measures in the bill, such as land management plans—which we have already discussed at length in the committee’s sessions so far—that I hope could address some of those issues in the future, because those measures are about wider community engagement.

I had already finished my comments. I was just responding to Ms Hamilton.

Yes.

That could well be right, but I would want to double check and clarify that before I came back to you, convener. In any case, I ask members not to support Mr Lumsden’s amendments for the reasons that I have set out.

Turning to Ben Macpherson’s comments on compulsory sale orders, I absolutely appreciate the points that he and you, convener, have made in relation to urban land reform more generally. However, the measures in the bill are based largely on the Scottish Land Commission’s recommendations and work, which identified that the most pressing issues at the time were in relation to rural areas. That is why we have introduced those measures. However, as Ben Macpherson has suggested, a range of other work is on-going that I feel could help to address some of those issues, and the bill would not necessarily be the mechanism to do that.

With regard to Mr Macpherson’s amendment 471, he outlined the progress of a similar amendment that was lodged to the Housing (Scotland) Bill, in respect of which the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice announced that the Government would consult on compulsory sale and lease powers before the end of this parliamentary session. I realise that that might now fall within the remit of the new Cabinet Secretary for Housing, but I will be sure to follow up with her on that and ensure that we see progress in that respect.

The amendments that I have lodged in the group mirror those in other sections that we have already largely debated, but I will speak about a few amendments in the group. Amendments 141, 143 and 146 seek to strengthen the definition of a composite holding. Amendments 142, 144 and 148 would resolve cross-referencing errors that were identified in the provisions following their introduction. Amendment 147 is similar to amendments 49 and 127, as debated in groups 3 and 10, and would allow for non-contiguous areas of land to form a holding, provided that they are within 250 metres of each other. I ask the committee to support those amendments.

I hope that we can have further conversations about the amendments that Mark Ruskell has lodged. We have already debated the substance of his amendments in previous groups. The same applies to Tim Eagle’s amendments. Tim Eagle asked for clarification on the issues raised by amendment 426. I appreciate his intentions, but I think that the amendment as drafted would have the opposite effect and would mean that we would never be able to transfer part of a lot. It is important to highlight that element. Tim Eagle suggested that “composite” would apply to other parcels of land across Scotland, which is not the case, because of the measures that we have introduced and how we have defined that in the bill.

We have debated the substance of Ariane Burgess’s and Mercedes Villalba’s amendments, so I do not intend to rehearse those discussions, but I oppose the amendments.

I also ask Michael Matheson not to move his amendments in the group.

Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 429 would run counter to my amendment 147, so I again recommend that it is opposed.

Monica Lennon’s amendment 432 would exempt land that is owned by Scottish ministers from the transfer test provisions. I am interested to hear more about the rationale behind that amendment but, as the largest landholder in Scotland, the public sector has a duty to lead by example. That is why I recommend that the amendment is opposed.

Thank you very much, convener. I will try my best to work through the many issues that we have to cover.

Ultimately—and as you have outlined, convener—all the amendments that have been discussed propose many complex changes that need to be properly considered as well as consulted on. Normally, any changes to devolved taxes that we make are taken forward in tax-specific legislation; a consultation with taxpayers and stakeholders will then take place, in line with the framework that we have established for tax principles and our tax strategy; and, ultimately, the matter would be considered by the Finance and Public Administration Committee in the same way that tax-related measures are usually considered.

Inserting amendments in this way into the bill and potentially agreeing them could lead to unintended consequences if that work has not been undertaken. It is for that reason that, broadly speaking, I do not support these amendments.

I will now touch on some of my key concerns with this particular group. Accepting Rhoda Grant’s amendments, which Mercedes Villalba has spoken to, and which Ross Greer has talked about in relation to land and buildings transaction tax, would not allow for a full assessment of the policy impacts, the external consultation that we would need to undertake or the kind of partnership working with Revenue Scotland that would be essential to ensure effective administration and compliance.

Ross Greer made a general point about lodging the amendments, saying that, sometimes, there can be a frustration that many commitments are made and the work behind the scenes is either not necessarily seen or not seen to be progressing in a way that people would like. However, I would point out that, in respect of some of today’s amendments, a wide-ranging review of LBTT is already under way. The proposals that have been made in relation to that are best considered through that review and in the context of wider changes that might be made to community right to buy as a result of the review that is on-going on that matter. For those reasons, I ask Mercedes Villalba and Ross Greer not to press or move those particular amendments.

As for Ross Greer’s other amendments in the group—amendments 479 and 480—we are, as the member will no doubt be aware, and as I think he has already set out, already committed to exploring whether any shooting estates are in receipt of the small business bonus scheme, as requested, and whether that could be removed without risking a negative impact on small businesses. His amendments would prejudge any of the work happening in that space.

Again, I hark back to my earlier point about unintended consequences, particularly with regard to properties where no shooting takes place and which might therefore be eligible for local empty property relief.