Chamber and committees

I will speak to my amendments first, before covering other amendments in the group. During the stage 1 debate, I committed to strengthening the bill, including by ensuring that the enforcement options that are available to the land and communities commissioner would act as a sufficient deterrent. I believe that my amendments, together with those that Bob Doris is proposing, as well as the amendments that Mark Russell has spoken to on behalf of Ariane Burgess, will all work together to achieve that.

Amendments 58, 60, 61, 67, 72 and 76 will enable the land and communities commissioner to investigate a possible breach without first receiving a report, if they consider it is appropriate to do so. That change will deliver the recommendation that both the committee and the Scottish Land Commissioner made at stage 1. The breach investigation process as set out in the bill is designed to support the collaborative and positive environment that has been created by the SLC’s long-standing work to support landowners to implement the land rights and responsibilities principles and deliver best practice. If a breach is found, the focus is on supporting the landowner to remedy the breach, with enforcement used only as a last resort.

Amendment 77 will allow the land and communities commissioner to redact personal information before sharing with the landowner information about a breach. I have listened to some of the concerns that have been expressed by stakeholders, including directly to the committee, and the committee’s recommendation on the issue, and I recognise that there might well be circumstances in which it would be appropriate to remove certain identifying details before reports are shared, in order to mitigate the risks to individuals. The approach that we have taken balances addressing those risks with the need to have a fair and transparent process. I ask the committee to support the amendments in my name in the group.

I welcome the intention of the amendments from Ariane Burgess, as well as some of the amendments from Rhoda Grant—in particular, amendments 345 and 346—as all of those aim to expand further the bodies that can report a breach. All the bodies in the list that would be added by Ariane Burgess’s amendments—community councils, national park authorities, the Crofting Commission and enterprise agencies—were recommended to be added by the SLC in its advice at stage 1. The bill as drafted includes the power to modify the list by regulations, to ensure that it remains fit for purpose, but widening the list at this point ensures that it will be fit for purpose from the point at which the bill is enacted. I therefore recommend that the committee support the amendments from Ariane Burgess.

Rhoda Grant’s amendments 345 and 346 overlap with Ariane Burgess’s amendments, particularly as they relate to community councils and the Crofting Commission. However, they also include grazing committees, community-controlled bodies and development trusts. I am open to the possibility of further bodies being able to report breaches. Bodies that have registered or are eligible to register an interest under part 2 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003, which deals with community right to buy, are already able to report a breach under the bill. In many cases, that will cover community-controlled bodies in the vicinity of the landholding. However, I offer to work with Rhoda Grant to better understand the reasons for including the bodies in her amendments and to develop an appropriate expansion of the list, potentially by way of an alternative amendment at stage 3. I therefore ask her not to press her amendments at this stage.

Amendment 89 from Bob Doris would raise the maximum fine for breaches of community engagement obligations to £40,000. The rest of Bob Doris’s amendments would introduce enforcement notices that would give the land and communities commissioner a tool to deal with cases of continued non-compliance. Together, those amendments would ensure that fines are a sufficient deterrent for non-compliance. I therefore recommend that all those amendments are supported.

Mark Ruskell’s amendment 97A would remove flexibility from the land and communities commissioner to work co-operatively with a landowner to resolve a breach without applying a fine. It is important to make sure that the enforcement tools that we have are robust, but it is also important to remember that the aim is not to apply fines but, ultimately, to encourage the landowner to resolve their breaches of their obligations. There could well be times at which it is not appropriate to impose a further fine. For example, there could be mitigating circumstances. The legislation needs to have the flexibility to enable the land and communities commissioner to consider such cases, so I ask the committee not to support amendment 97A.

Staying on that theme, I recommend that the committee support Tim Eagle’s amendments 408 to 410 and 414 to 416, because, although they do not change the effect of the bill, they emphasise that the land and communities commissioner will take a collaborative approach to their enforcement role.

However, I cannot recommend that the committee support Tim Eagle’s other proposed amendments. Amendments 82 and 90 would reduce fines to just £500. Those amendments are contrary to the recommendations in the committee’s report and to the evidence that was provided by a number of different stakeholders.

I believe that that would be the case. I cannot imagine that we would want to be in a position where we are publishing information that is commercially sensitive for a business. I would want to provide assurance on that front.

There is a lot to agree with in what we have been talking about round the table today. Mark Ruskell summarised where we are, and I wrote it down as, “Better community engagement,” because that is such a strong and positive thing that can come out of land management plans.

I completely recognise the points that Tim Eagle made, because the majority of us will have seen landowners doing that work in our constituencies, but we also know that there are landowners who are not doing good things and who do not undertake that engagement. We have to try to address that. The law does not allow us to distinguish between the good and the bad, or to get only to those who we feel are not doing the things that we want them to do. We have to apply the measures equally across the board.

The proposals that we have brought forward enable us to do that, and I am more than happy to have further engagement with you, convener.

We will obviously have to work closely with the Scottish Land Commission to make sure that it has the resources that it needs to undertake that work. I do not have particular concerns in that regard. What is more important to me is why we are doing this and the overall objectives that we are trying to achieve.

I do not intend to say much more, other than that I completely reject Tim Eagle’s amendments in this group, which would undermine what the majority of us are seeking to ensure—that the bill works and is effective. The discussions that we have had so far and the other amendments that we have considered represent a step forward in achieving that.

That could well be. What is important is the consultation that we will undertake in relation to the land management plan, which I think would get into that in more detail. It is about having in the bill only higher-level statements about what we expect land management plans to contain.

I do not intend to respond individually to every amendment in the group. Ultimately, we are trying to strike a balance between the bill and the detail that we will bring forward in the regulations on a land management plan. What is in the bill is not, by any means, intended to be an exhaustive list. We include in the bill high-level statements, which, following consultation, will be developed into more detail in the subsequent regulations. I restate that land management plans are not a requirement for landowners to take specific measures, but are intended to encourage landowners to consider what steps they may be able to take, and to provide more transparency on those plans.

I will turn to the different groups of amendments that we have just discussed. Tim Eagle’s amendments would remove most of the high-level statements of content and leave everything to guidance. On the other hand, Douglas Lumsden is taking the opposite approach and is, instead, requiring more detail on land management plans to be included in the bill. Some of what Douglas Lumsden is proposing can form part of the consultation and development with stakeholders that I talked about, and consideration of the impact of requirements will be key to ensuring that. I therefore recommend that the amendments from Tim Eagle and Douglas Lumsden are not supported.

Ariane Burgess’s amendment 26 requires information that I think it is right to have in the bill.

Turning to Bob Doris’s amendments, I want to provide some reassurance in relation to amendment 30. We intend, of course, for there to be monitoring and reporting, but rather than that being required within individual land management plans, it will be set at a higher level by the Scottish Land Commission. For that reason, I ask Mr Doris not to move the amendment.

I support the intent behind amendment 31 of ensuring that the plans are published in a single and accessible location. However, I ask Bob Doris not to move the amendment, so that I can work with him ahead of stage 3 to ensure that the amendment is drafted in a way that will not pose any implementation issues further down the line.

I agree with your point. The plans need to be accessible and, ultimately, that is what we are trying to achieve. I would not expect those plans to include commercially sensitive information.

I will comment briefly on Bob Doris’s amendment 32, which we covered in some detail last week, in a debate on another grouping. I will just encourage members to support the amendment.

Finally, I turn to Rhoda Grant’s amendments. I fully recognise the aims that Rhoda Grant is trying to achieve. For example, amendment 326 would ensure that there is

“regard to ... any local place plan”.

I can only restate that local place plans will be fully considered in the regulations and in the consultation that we will undertake on them, to ensure that the content of the land management plans is fit for purpose, proportionate and deliverable.

With regard to amendment 328, however, I support Rhoda Grant’s intention and I support the amendment.

On her amendment 329, the regulations that it refers to ceased to have effect in March 1993, so I do not see value in collecting that information. It would also be a burden on island businesses. Therefore, I recommend that amendments 326 and 329 be opposed.

I do not think that it would be for me to set that out on the face of any legislation. I appreciate the example that the convener has highlighted, but we have also had examples at the opposite end of the scale, which is why we have decided to introduce the ability for fines of up to £40,000 to be imposed. Of course, I am happy to have further engagement ahead of stage 3 to see what more detail can be provided, but I am hesitant to commit to putting anything in the bill at this stage, especially when similar provisions exist in other pieces of legislation.

Amendment 407 does not set out how the proposed timescale would impact on an investigation by the land and communities commissioner, and I think that the current approach of allowing the LCC to set the period at the time when they require further information on a breach is proportionate. It allows the period to be set on the basis of the kind of information that is being requested and the time that one might expect it to take to prepare it.

Amendment 411 would delay the LCC’s ability to apply a fine in cases of continued non-compliance. Therefore, I recommend that the committee not support amendments 82, 90, 407 and 411.

Rhoda Grant’s amendment 347 seeks to introduce a significant new compulsory purchase power. This is, of course, not a matter on which we have consulted; in any case, I do not think that the bill is the right vehicle for new compulsory purchase powers, particularly when a substantial consultation on proposed reforms to Scotland’s compulsory purchase system is planned for the coming months. On that basis, I ask the committee not to support that amendment.

Lastly, I want to make it clear overall that I absolutely support the intent behind amendments 412 and 413, in the name of Mark Ruskell, which is that we should not be giving public money to those who are not living up to their obligations. However, I do not think that the amendments are the best way of achieving that aim.

With regard to agricultural support, we as a Government have made commitments to co-develop that funding with rural partners through the agricultural reform programme, and if we started to reduce requirements outside of the programme, without considering the totality—that is, the broader issue of refusal or recovery of support—it would cut across and ultimately undermine our approach in that respect. The issue raised in Mark Ruskell’s amendment will form part of future considerations and allow any requirements to be brought forward as a package at the right time and through the appropriate legislation—in other words, the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Act 2024.

Amendment 413 is incredibly broad and it would block, ultimately, any financial support. As a result, it could have quite extreme unintended consequences. For example—and I hope that this will not be the case—if a public body were in breach, the amendment would result in its being cut off from all the public sector funding that it might need to remain operational. The same would potentially be true of charities that own large areas of land.

We already have the ability to set conditions for funding and, indeed, do so in many cases. Given that, I ask Mark Ruskell not to move his amendment, because I do not believe that it is the right way to meet this aim.

I will, convener. There are quite a few amendments in this group, and I will try to work my way through them as best I can.

First, I turn to Rhoda Grant’s amendments, starting with amendment 349. Part of that amendment is not necessary. We already publish guidance on late community right-to-buy applications, and we are going to review that and issue further guidance as part of the review of community right to buy that we are undertaking at the moment. I do not think that the amendment’s requirement for more specific guidance at this point is required.

Amendment 349 also proposes changes to processes and timescales in the existing part 2, on community right to buy, of the 2003 act. I think that those changes would be better considered as part of the review that I just mentioned. Further, the amendment does not reflect or practically work with the steps that are involved in registering community interest in land under part 2 of the 2003 act. For those reasons, I would not be able to support amendment 349.