Chamber and committees

First and foremost, all the points that have been raised today are hugely important. As I hope that I was able to articulate quite clearly at stage 1, we recognise that we are introducing new measures and that there will need to be a review, because we will want to see how they are being implemented and whether they are having the desired effect.

The amendments that have been lodged by Bob Doris, Martin Whitfield, Monica Lennon and Ariane Burgess all propose to have a review in one form or another, although they propose different periods and different roles for ministers and the Scottish Land Commission. I ask Bob Doris not to press amendment 182 and other members not to move their amendments but to work with me so that we can find a way through that is coherent and makes sense. If members agree to that approach, we can bring forward a cohesive plan for stage 3.

The only other amendments that I will touch on in this group are Martin Whitfield’s. His proposed repeal and sunset clauses are extreme and could lead to provisions that have been passed by the Parliament being repealed or to ministers being required to repeal provisions by regulations in what are quite loosely defined circumstances.

The bill already provides for compensation when appropriate, and it is unclear how ministers would be expected to fulfil the requirements that are set out in amendment 385, which would appear to require compensation to be paid in relation to any negative impacts on owners and tenants, regardless of any other benefits that the bill might bring.

I appreciate that further explanation, but it speaks to a wider point in our discussions today, which is that I do not think that the bill is the appropriate vehicle for driving such issues forward.

With regard to the other amendments in this group, amendments 481 to 483 relate to the entry of land on the valuation roll. Ultimately, those amendments would place significant burdens on councils or property owners and, from what we can see, would have limited policy benefit, as it is unclear what problems they are seeking to address. Assessors are already required by statute to value all lands and heritages that are not exempt from rating. There would need to be greater consideration of the administrative impact of the changes and exemptions proposed in amendment 483 and of the potential subsidy control implications of any relief that might subsequently be offered. Ultimately, the amendments, as they stand, risk increasing the costs for agricultural businesses in Scotland, which would put them at a disadvantage compared with other parts of the United Kingdom.

Amendment 484 does not specify what proportion of a landholding would have to be vacant for the council to be able to levy the higher rate on it. Therefore, the amendment creates a risk of avoidance, as it incentivises the owners of a vacant or part-vacant property to artificially occupy the property or, potentially, to stretch their occupation of a part-occupied property—for example, by using it for storage—when they would not otherwise do so, in order to avoid paying higher rates.

I will address the amendments that have been lodged in relation to the register of controlled interests. The regulations are quite complex, so if we were to change them that would need to be thought through in detail. We would need to have a wider discussion with relevant stakeholders about any changes, otherwise we would risk there being unintended consequences.

It is also important to point out that most issues relating to RCI can be dealt with through the regulations as they stand, rather than there being a need to address them through primary legislation. For example, we can properly address issues relating to penalties through regulations that are subject to the affirmative procedure.

Mark Ruskell also seeks to remove the option of applying criminal penalties for breaches of the RCI requirements. I have some concern about that. I would like to think that the risk of getting a criminal record would be a significant deterrent for those with responsibilities under the register, particularly because having such a record would bar individuals from holding certain directorships and other roles that might be of interest to certain landowners. The police have a key role in that, because their powers allow them to obtain information that is important in determining whether the requirements on compliance have been breached.

Mercedes Villalba spoke to Rhoda Grant’s amendments on security declarations. I was interested to hear more about the rationale behind those. It is important to note that, so far, there is only one security declaration in place out of about 17,000 published entries on the register. I do not believe, therefore, that there is a particular problem with security declarations. If there is, I will be more than happy to have that conversation. However, until we are sure that there is a problem that should be addressed, I do not agree that it would be appropriate to give more duties to Registers of Scotland and Police Scotland in the way that the amendments suggest.

I am more than happy to have further discussions with Mark Ruskell and Rhoda Grant to understand more about the rationale behind their amendments, but in the meantime I encourage the committee not to support them.

On amendment 470, I support the overall outcome of what Ariane Burgess is aiming to achieve, which is the delivery of a comprehensive single source for a range of land and property data. However, I have real concerns about the amendment, first and foremost because it would have significant cost implications. It could cost many millions of pounds to develop and maintain a new register, as well as to gather nationwide data of the sort to which the amendment refers. In addition, ScotLIS, which we have discussed a lot today and which is maintained by Registers of Scotland, already hosts an extensive range of information in an accessible map-based format. Registers of Scotland aims to continue to improve that service.

I am not clear whether amendment 475, in the name of Monica Lennon, relates to ScotLIS. I presume that it does, but the way in which the amendment is drafted means that it could be read as though it proposes a new land information service. I do not think that that is necessarily the member’s intention.

That is my concern with it—the potential unintended consequences, as I have outlined. I would be happy to pick the issue up for discussion, whether with me or with one of my Cabinet colleagues, to find the best way of addressing the issues that have been highlighted, if committee members were agreeable to that and if they would be happy to have that conversation with me.

I am intervening with the aim of being helpful. I appreciate the concerns that have been illustrated today about the overall timescales. If it would be helpful, I can circulate to the committee how we have mapped them out and the different phases that could potentially form part of the process. That might help to illustrate how we have reached our conclusion on the overall timescales.

As Mark Ruskell has already said, the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 places a duty on public bodies and office-holders to further the conservation of biodiversity as far as it is consistent with the proper exercise of their functions. That duty is broad and it covers decisions about the management of a large holding of land that is owned by Scottish ministers made by any authority that is likely to be covered by the amendment. Amendment 366 would not strengthen or improve on the existing duty. I am not clear what it would add beyond what is already set out in that duty.

In addition, the reference to the restoration of natural processes is not defined and it is unclear what that is intended to cover. If the amendment is passed, it could lead to confusion and some difficulty for public bodies in having two separate but parallel duties that aim to achieve similar outcomes. We have already committed within the biodiversity delivery plan to reviewing how that duty operates and making improvements to it to ensure that it is as effective as possible. On that basis, I ask the committee not to support amendment 366.

It is always helpful to get the background to and rationale for amendments that have been lodged.

On Michael Matheson’s amendment 181, although I support linking the Land Commission’s work to the role of land and working towards some of the wider objectives that he outlined, I note that the commissioners already do that through their existing remit, which is defined broadly as including

“any matter relating to land”.

Over the past year alone, they have undertaken a number of significant pieces of work that are linked to the areas that are specified in the amendment. I am therefore not sure that the amendment is necessary, but I am more than happy to discuss the matter further with Michael Matheson to see what his particular concerns might be and whether we can work together to address them ahead of stage 3.

On Ariane Burgess’s amendment 468, there is no evidence that the current three-year period has caused any issues. For reasons of accountability and oversight, I think that it is important and appropriate that the Land Commission is required as a minimum to present a new report to ministers for approval every three years. For that reason, I ask members not to support amendment 468.

I will come to that, convener, but given the nature of Douglas Lumsden’s amendments, I should first of all say, as I have said with regard to amendments in previous groups, that this is a matter of interest in my own constituency. I therefore want to make it clear that I am appearing before the committee today in my capacity as a minister of the Scottish Government, and 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. However, the issue under discussion is distinct from that constituency interest, and my contributions today should therefore be understood as reflecting the Government’s position, not a personal or constituency-specific stance.

Convener, I think that you have summed up the issues with amendment 371. Although I completely appreciate what Douglas Lumsden is trying to achieve, the fact is that electricity licence holders can compulsorily acquire land through powers under schedule 3 to the Electricity Act 1989, Therefore, the amendment would have no effect on compulsory purchase orders made under those powers.

I understand the concerns that have been set out by Mark Ruskell about the area that is licensed under the grouse licensing scheme. However, I do not think that the way in which the amendment is drafted will have the effect that is intended.

NatureScot has implemented an additional condition on all grouse licences to resolve the concerns that the amendment seeks to address. Given the subject of the amendment, it would be more appropriate for it to be considered for the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill, and for the scrutiny and debate to happen alongside other wildlife management legislation. Whether that lies with me or another of my colleagues who is leading on elements of the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill, we would be happy to discuss that with Mark Ruskell separately, but, on that basis, I ask the committee not to support the amendment.

I will speak to my amendments before turning to others in the group.

My amendments 155, 160 and 169 propose to introduce six-month timescales for both initial and replacement lotting decisions. Ultimately, the timescales have been based on consideration of what would be appropriate for a lotting decision, where engagement with the landowner and local communities and provision of expert advice from a land agent would be required.

It is important to set out that, in many cases, a decision could be made well within the timescales that have been set out. For example, if initial scoping by the land and communities commissioner indicates that lotting would not be appropriate, it would not take that full period. That is why I recommend that the committee supports those amendments.

Tim Eagle touched on the 60-day timescales that he is looking to introduce with his amendments. However, applying the 60-day timescales for decisions would include lifting prohibitions if the timescales were not met. I cannot agree with the amendment on the initial lotting decision, but there could be scope to consider the timescales on review of that. If Tim Eagle is happy not to press that amendment, I would be happy to have that discussion with him ahead of stage 3.

Ultimately, the timescales could be impractical in cases where land agent advice or further consultation with a landowner or the local community is needed. Lifting the prohibitions would penalise a local community that may have benefited from a lotting decision.

Briefly, my amendment 154 removes the requirement for ministers to have regard to the frequency with which land in the community’s vicinity becomes available for purchase on the open market. That is on the back of advice from the Scottish Land Commission.

I do not have much to add on Michael Matheson’s amendments, but I recommend that the committee support them, because, as he set out, they will provide additional clarity on lotting decisions, including a duty on ministers to set out guidance.

Returning to the rest of Tim Eagle’s amendments, I am happy to support amendments 441 and 445, because they clarify that, when ministers are considering impacts on a community as part of a lotting decision, it should be a community in the vicinity of the landholding. That is consistent with the overall intention of the bill.

However, I recommend rejecting Tim Eagle’s other amendments in the group, mainly because they seek to undercut the overall policy aims of what we are trying to achieve. Forcing decisions not to lot or narrowing the circumstances in which ministers could require lotting is not an option.

However, I am happy to engage and have further discussion with Tim Eagle ahead of stage 3 on amendments 448 and 449. I appreciate the rationale for allowing people to request a review earlier than the bill provides for, but the amendments would go too far. They would allow successive review requests one after another, and there would be resulting implications for overall Government resource. I hope that Tim Eagle will be happy to engage in that conversation with me.

I turn to Tim Eagle’s amendments that seek further detail in relation to expedited decisions. That will be covered as part of the guidance that will be required as a result of Michael Matheson’s amendments in the group. Similarly, regulations on applications are the right place for information about when it will be appropriate for landowners to submit lotting proposals. That approach has the added benefit of allowing further consultation on both matters with all the relevant stakeholders, which is really important.

I think that Douglas Lumsden’s amendments misunderstand the lotting provisions in the bill. A lotting decision will be made only in a situation in which a landowner is voluntarily selling their land. It is, of course, always possible that a sale will impact on employment. That could be positive or negative, but we will all be aware of examples where access to small amounts of land for expansion—whether that involves local businesses providing additional housing or other facilities—has been the springboard to growing employment in rural communities.

Sorry, convener, were you angling to intervene?