Chamber and committees

On amendments 450 and 462, the bill already allows for compensation to be provided for loss or expense that is attributable to a decision that land may only be transferred in lots, so I do not think that those two amendments are required.

As Tim Eagle has outlined, his amendments 451, 452 and 456 seek to place obligations on ministers to buy land during and after a review. I agree that measures in the bill must be fair to landowners, but the amendments would leave landowners and ministers in a worse position. Under the bill as drafted, there can be three possible outcomes of a review. We can either keep the original lotting decision; replace it with a new decision, which might change the lots or mean that lotting is no longer required; or ministers could offer to buy the land. Tim Eagle’s amendments would force ministers to buy the land even when removing or amending the lotting decision would allow the land in question to be sold. Even if the landowner or creditor would prefer a new lotting decision—for example, when they had a buyer of another lot with an interest in the unsold lot—the amendments would prevent ministers from taking those landowners’ views into account. Given that, I ask the member not to move his amendments.

I also have some concerns about the changes that are being proposed through amendments 453, 454 and 455, because of the administrative complexity and delay that they would add. The bill’s approach to the appointment of a valuer is based on current practice that we have set out for the community right to buy and it provides a right of appeal against a valuation.

Finally, on amendment 164, 21 days is the standard period for compensation appeals across a range of legislation. However, I hear Tim Eagle’s concerns and I am more than happy to have a conversation with him to discuss the potential for an alternative amendment to look at a suitable timeframe.

I appreciate the points that have been made. However, the keeper and the accountable officer have to provide the Economy and Fair Work Committee with regular updates on and accounts of the work of Registers of Scotland, including on ScotLIS, which might be a more appropriate route through which progress could be reported. I am therefore unable to support amendment 475.

What amendment 477 is trying to achieve is unclear. My understanding is that the keeper is already obliged to reflect the consideration on the face of the title sheet, whether it is monetary or not. If it was considered necessary to make changes to the Land Register Rules etc (Scotland) Regulations 2014, that could be done through the usual mechanism for amending regulations; we would not necessarily need primary legislation to do so. There has not been wider discussion or consultation with relevant stakeholders on any of the proposed changes. For those reasons I cannot support amendment 477.

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?

I appreciate Martin Whitfield’s point. I ask him not to move his amendments, but I hope to work constructively with members ahead of stage 3.

Okay. Thank you.

I will come to that amendment shortly. Obviously, these are areas of policy that I do not lead on in Government. Some of the work on priority intervention that I have just touched on is still in the early stages, and substantial work is already happening on LBTT. I would be happy to get colleagues to set all that out in a letter that specifically establishes the timelines for that work and where things currently sit, if that would be helpful.

As for amendment 479, I am not clear how it interacts with the agricultural exemption from the rating. The way in which it has been put forward risks requiring that crofts be treated differently from the rest of agricultural properties in Scotland, but perhaps Ross Greer can add something to help clarify the point.

I am not able to commit to that at this stage, without having had those further conversations. As has been highlighted in our discussions today, there could be wide-ranging implications. Moreover, I do not lead on this policy area, so I would need to discuss it with my other colleagues, too. I will understand it if you still want to move the amendment, Mr Greer, but I must ask the committee not to support it, as a whole host of other work would need to happen in the background for the issues to be resolved. I do not believe that the bill is the right vehicle for that to happen.

With regard to Ross Greer’s amendment 485, on a carbon emission land tax, we have, as Ross Greer has outlined, committed in our Scottish budget to working with the Scottish Land Commission to consider options for a land tax. In the letter and the update that I have committed to providing to Ross Greer, I am more than happy to provide an update on the work that is already under way specifically in relation to that tax.

Engagement with stakeholders has also been taking place to ensure that we develop the necessary evidence base for understanding any potential impacts. I am concerned that the way in which amendment 485 is set out and what it requires would mean that the Government would have to set out a plan to implement a carbon land tax, regardless of the evidence that we received during our consultation, which would, in turn, undermine its purpose. For that reason, I ask the committee not to support the amendment.