Chamber and committees

Community views are hugely important, and I will turn to that issue later. The mechanisms to deal with those processes—ultimately, through planning—are important in ensuring that those views come through.

Amendment 310 from Ariane Burgess and amendments 339 and 342 from Rhoda Grant seek to introduce a definition of the “public interest” in the bill for various purposes. Although I support the aims that have been referred to in relation to a definition, I do not think that it is necessary or helpful to attempt to define the public interest in the bill in that specific way. That is consistent with the opinion of the Court of Session. In the case of Pairc Crofters Ltd v the Scottish ministers, Lord President Gill noted:

“The public interest is a concept that is to be found throughout the statute book. There is no need for a general definition of it. It is for the Land Court and the Ministers to assess the public interest on the facts and circumstances of the case. A general statutory definition of the public interest, if one could be devised, would be unhelpful”.

It is unclear how ministers or landowners would be expected to fulfil the duty that is set out in amendment 310, which would require ministers and other public bodies to

“have regard to the public interest in land reform.”

That would include many objectives that are listed in the amendment and guidance that is produced by ministers in relation to functions in a wide range of legislation, much of which is not even related to land reform.

Yes.

Our position has not changed throughout the discussions that we have had on the bill. The key point that we are trying to address, and all the measures that have been introduced, are based on the Scottish Land Commission’s recommendations on addressing the issues that are associated with the concentration of land ownership in Scotland and the impact that it has on local communities. It is with large landholdings in a specific area that we see some of the issues arise, and that is the point that we are trying to address with the measures in the bill. Our position has not changed.

I said earlier that I would be more than happy to have a conversation about that, but I repeat that, because of some of the issues that have been raised, I would need to seek advice to gauge whether that would be possible.

I have nothing to add, convener.

Amendment 12 agreed to.

Amendment 13 moved—[Mairi Gougeon]—and agreed to.

I am more than happy to come in on that, convener. We did not come up against those issues with amendment 341, because it specifies that it relates to crofting counties. Therefore, the issue that you raise would not be a concern in relation to that amendment.

I want to quickly touch on the amendments from Tim Eagle. Ultimately, we included in the bill the proposed new section 44C of the 2016 act as part of the overall aim to strengthen and improve transparency and engagement between landowners and local communities. Of course, tenants and crofters should already be engaging with landowners through the land management plan and the community engagement process, but we specifically included section 44C so that regulations would have to be laid to specifically require consideration by landowners of community requests to lease land. That is in recognition of the fact that access to assets, whether land or buildings, can be vital for community development and sustainability. The option to lease might be just as valuable as the rights that are set out under the right-to-buy legislation. That is why I am content that it is appropriate for future regulations to set out the detail of how landowners should give reasonable consideration to requests and how community bodies should make those requests. It is important that we develop those requirements with the benefit of consultation.

On Rhoda Grant’s amendment 341, we did not encounter the issues that you found, convener. Overall, we welcome the intention of the amendment, which seeks to do something similar to what we are already trying to do through new section 44C of the 2016 act—to bring forward the requirement for regulations to oblige landowners to consider reasonable requests from communities to constitute land as crofting land. There is merit in considering the amendment further, in particular to ensure that reasonable requests by crofting community bodies are considered by landowners. However, we have some issues with the drafting of the amendment, because I do not think that it achieves its purpose in the way that the member would—

In the policy memorandum, we set out why we have taken the approach that we have taken, and whether any alternatives were considered.

It comes back to striking the right balance—not being too prescriptive and allowing for some flexibility—because we recognise that land will be very different across Scotland. However, ultimately, we want to achieve a number of high-level outcomes, such as tackling the climate and nature crises, delivering our vision for agriculture in Scotland and being a global leader in sustainable and regenerative agriculture.

We have been listening to the evidence on that and we are keen to hear the committee’s views in its stage 1 report. As Andy Proudfoot touched on, more guidance will be issued and there will be further consultation on what will be included in the land management plans. However, we hope that the high-level overview of our ultimate ambitions strikes the right balance.

I recognise the concerns and the quite universal call for some sort of de minimis provision in the bill to exclude certain transactions that need not be controversial.

It might be helpful if I briefly explain why we have introduced the provision as we have, and the rationale behind that. With regard to pieces of land that communities might be interested in taking ownership of, the vast majority—I think that the figure is between 60 and 70 per cent—are areas of less than a hectare. They are quite small pieces of land, but they might still be very significant to a particular community. That is why we did not want to prevent from being part of those transactions areas of land that could be significant to or of interest to a community.

We have, however, listened to the evidence that the committee has heard and the subsequent recommendations that have come from the Land Commission on that issue, and we are happy to consider that further.

We have tried to balance that in our proposals, because they really bring in all the issues that you have talked about.

What should the timescale be for a land management plan review and, as I outlined in my responses to earlier questions, how flexible should it be in trying to get a balance between the overarching objectives? What we have set out has tried to achieve that balance. Should the bill pass, further work will be done on the back of that in the wider consultation that we will undertake to look at the final details.

Of course, we want the exercise to be meaningful, as you have outlined, which is why the community engagement provisions are so important. We need communities to feel that they are involved and that they have a say about the land around them and how it impacts on their day-to-day lives. That is really important, and we hope that we are striking the right balance. Again, we are listening to all the evidence and the committee’s views about that.

I recognise the importance of what you have said. In my role, I have visited a number of projects that are looking to tackle such work not just in rural Scotland but in Edinburgh city centre and other such areas.

All of Scotland has a role to play when it comes to tackling the big challenges that we face with climate change and nature restoration. Incredible work is happening in those areas.

I hope that we have been able to set out why we have taken forward the proposals that we have. Again, that does not preclude further work being done. Depending on the outcome of the community right to buy review and any recommendations that come from it, there could be a positive impact on urban and rural Scotland and the rights of communities in that sense.