���˿���

Amendment 24 is concerned with the publication of data in the land management plans. As it is drafted, the bill provides that a land management plan should contain details of the land to which the plan relates and how the ownership is structured. Details of the structure of land ownership are already publicly available and therefore do not need to be included in a land management plan. There are concerns about the publication of commercially sensitive information, so amendment 24 would delete that requirement from the bill.

Amendment 25 is about information on the potential sale of land. As it is drafted, the bill provides that a land management plan should contain the owner’s long-term vision and objectives for managing the land, including its potential sale. Amendment 25 would delete the requirement for information on the land’s potential sale to be included in the plan. I do not believe that it is possible or fair that plans for the sale of land should be in the land management plan in advance.

Amendment 27 seeks to delete reference to the Scottish outdoor access code and the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996. As it is drafted, the bill requires the owner to include in the land management plan details about how the owner of the land intends to comply with a selection of requirements, including the outdoor access code and the 1996 act. It also requires them to detail how they are following the requirements that are set out in regulation. The choice of those two pieces of legislation—the outdoor access code and the 1996 act—appears to be very selective, and the policy intent is unclear. It also seems contrary to the purpose of the bill, which is about community.

Scottish Land & Estates has said that the references to the code and the 1996 act need to be omitted because they muddy the extent of a private individual’s legal duties and that, although landowners can be encouraged to maintain deer responsibly, they are not legally obliged to do so. In addition, of course, deer are not owned by the landowner.

The need to outline in the land management plan how the owner is complying with the obligations set out in the regulations, which include the creation of a plan, adds an unnecessary administrative burden. Therefore, amendment 27 would delete subsection (3)(c) of new section 44B of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2016, on how the owner is complying with the Scottish outdoor access code and the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996.

Amendment 28 takes a similar approach to that of amendment 27. The bill, as drafted, requires the owner of the land to set out in the land management plan how they are contributing or will contribute to various climate requirements. However, I do not understand the selection of legal requirements and consider the non-exhaustive list to be very restrictive, so the intention is much like that of amendment 27. I am also particularly concerned by the reference to

“achieving the net-zero emissions target set by section A1 of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009”.

As I understand it, that obligation is imposed on ministers, not private individuals, and is therefore not really within the control of landowners.

Continuing the theme, amendment 393 would move the priorities for the land management plan into guidance. As it is drafted, the bill will require the owner to include in their land management plan information about how they are managing or intend to manage their land in a way that contributes to a selection of legislative requirements. Rather than list only some of those priorities in the bill, it would be better to move them into guidance. That would allow more flexibility to take into consideration new and emerging national and local priorities, such as the housing emergency.

I am happy to support my colleague Douglas Lumsden’s amendments in this group, but I am unable to support Ariane Burgess’s amendment 26, which would add further requirements on what a land management plan should contain. My amendments aim to simplify the burden that the bill would place on landowners, not increase it, which I believe amendment 26 would do. I also cannot support Ariane Burgess’s amendment 29, which would delete the words “or sustaining” biodiversity, as I prefer the bill as it is originally drafted.

I oppose Ariane Burgess’s amendment 2, which seeks to add another undefined environmental requirement, “restoring natural processes”, which landowners would need to prove that they were contributing towards. The amendment cuts across our amendments, which seek to reduce and simplify the land management plan process. Similarly, I cannot support Ariane Burgess’s amendments 320 and 395, which seek to add a further environmental requirement of “nature recovery” to public bodies, as it is undefined.

I cannot support Rhoda Grant’s amendments 321, 322 and 325 to 329, which seek to add new requirements to land management plans, as they are undefined. As I have already argued, I do not believe that such a list should be included in the bill.

I cannot support Bob Doris’s amendment 30, which seeks to add new requirements that a land management plan should contain, or his amendment 31, which proposes the publication of the plan and the sharing of commercial details in public.

I will not support Ariane Burgess’s amendment 334, as I feel that it would make land management plans more onerous.

Finally, I prefer my amendment 24 to Rhoda Grant’s amendment 336, as it sets out that no operational business information should be included in land management plans.

I move amendment 24.

If it is easier, convener, I will just say that I will not move amendment 62.

I apologise—my enthusiasm is getting the better of me. I will retract what I said about land management plans. What I am talking about is targeting the landowners who do not engage with communities. I am referring to people who are absentee landlords, in the sense that we probably all understand. Because they are not present, there might be issues with tenants on their estate, they might not be working with any of the communities or there might be other problems. I do not know of many examples, but there will be such cases across Scotland.

However, there are many other estates where people can do a variety of activities. I have written down a few examples. There are estates in the Deeside area where you can do sauna and swims, fishing tours and picnics on the hills. That is all happening without those estates having a land management plan in place. Community individuals are coming forward and asking the estate owner, “Can I set up this business?” and they are being allowed to do it.

Did I say that?

That is an interesting question. I want to be slightly careful with how I answer it, because I am not suggesting for one moment that I have all the answers; I do not and would never profess to. My small farm is surrounded by two very large estates, the Crown estate, which is to the west, and the Seafield estate, which is to the east. There has never been a moment when I have not been in contact with those two estates. I have never felt that I could not pick up the phone to the farm manager or the estate manager to have a conversation with them or ask them questions about whether there might be opportunities for renting land, or whatever it might be. I would hope that it is already possible for the vast majority of areas to have those kinds of conversations, so I do not know whether land management plans are really necessary.

I accept the point made by Mark Ruskell and the cabinet secretary in that I suspect that there are examples across Scotland of where what I have described does not happen. I am not saying that I have the answer written down in front of me, for the reasons that I have set out, but I think that there could have been another way that we could have worked to improve the relationship. For example, we could work with the likes of Scottish Land & Estates, who work with those sorts of estates and large farmers all the time, to achieve that. In my mind, the constant need to have large plans is not the way forward.

The simple answer is no, because I do not think that the burden of land management plans on all rural landholdings in Scotland above 1,000 hectares, which is 2,000 hectares less than the original proposals in the bill, is helpful.

I must pick up on a second point. I cannot believe that we do not all dream about being cabinet secretary for rural affairs—that is an important thing to do.

On what my earlier amendments were trying to do, it is all about how we take them here, is it not? I am still learning the process. I was trying to make a bad thing better, but ultimately I just do not support the bill. In fairness, I laid that out very clearly in the stage 1 debate. I do not think that this is the right way to go.

Do you agree with the principle that we probably need some—

Yes.

In the light of the discussion, I will not move amendment 21.

Amendment 21 not moved.

Amendment 315 moved—[Rhoda Grant].

Will you take an intervention briefly?

I agree with Bob Doris that it is all about collaboration. My problem with the £40,000 figure is that it is disproportionate, and I worry that it might be against article 6 of the European convention on human rights. In addition, issuing fines of that amount is quite a big power to give to one commissioner. Do you agree that that may be pushing it? I get your point about collaboration and the fact that we should not have to use that power, but do you agree that that £40,000 figure is a little bit too high?