Chamber and committees

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.

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.

Yes I have, convener.

I move amendment 488.

You will be pleased to know that you were not far off; we believe that there are about 51 to 59 small landholdings, so you were nearly there.

I appreciate the intent of what Rhoda Grant is trying to achieve through amendment 381, which Mercedes Villalba has spoken to, because crofts and small landholdings are key parts of the mix of tenures that we need in Scotland.

However, I cannot support the amendment as it is set out today, because there are a number of issues with it. The scope of the amendment is wide and it would apply to all land and all transfers. We also run into difficulty whenever we mandate that somebody must do something with their land or property. Instead, there should be a focus on the Crofting Commission prioritising bringing all current neglected crofts back into active use and for more active use of common grazings.

It is vital that croft land serves crofting communities well, because that is key to ensuring that we have a vibrant future for crofting. Provided that land is situated in the crofting counties, or in the designated areas, a landowner can apply to the Crofting Commission to have that land or part of it constituted as a croft. That is an existing and better solution to the same issue.

In the next group, we will consider amendments on the modernisation of the small landholdings legislation, which would include the creation of new small landholding tenancies. We should give those reforms time to have effect before adding new requirements, particularly such broad ones, because the reforms that we are introducing will help to address the issue with new entrants outwith the crofting areas and ensure that the legal framework that we have is more accessible and fit for the 21st century.

For those reasons, I ask members not to support the amendments.

Yes.

The key thing that we have been trying to do with the small landholding legislation is consolidate it, modernise it and repeal the redundant provisions rather than introduce anything particularly new. However, it is also important to set out that the amendments that we are introducing remove the need for the register of small landholdings, too.

I fully appreciate that, and I am happy to engage with Ariane Burgess on the matter as we move forward and look to work up the model lease, because that is where we could have those conversations.

When we consider the public estate, we should have a presumption of supporting those model leases as well as the creation of small landholdings. The provisions support generational renewal for rural communities; they also support new entrants, and they allow land to be more actively managed in order to meet some of the challenges that we currently face.

While I appreciate the issues that Ariane Burgess is trying to address with her amendment 380, I ask that, on the basis that I have outlined, she does not move it, so that we can take a longer look at some of the issues that she has raised.