���˿���

I fear that I will take longer than Bob Doris, but I will be quicker than the cabinet secretary. I will try my best.

I appreciate the cabinet secretary’s thoughts on my amendments 398 and 402. However, I see a significant difference between an estate with multiple portfolios and an agricultural holding, which might be just an upland sheep farm. I have a genuine concern about the potential consequences for those who are purely in the agricultural sector, for whom the burden of a land management plan would be too much.

My amendments 399 and 403 seek to address concerns relating to the thresholds of land. The thresholds seem a bit arbitrary as they are not based on evidence of particular outcomes or dependent on a particular scale. For community engagement, there should be additional criteria that are markers for what success looks like—in effect, there should be a threshold-plus test. Amendment 403 would add the additional criteria that

“there is not a disclosure statement or management plan in relation to the land”

and that

“the owner has not engaged with a community body in the vicinity of the land in relation to the management of the land within the last 5 years.”

Amendment 37 is consequential to amendment 41. On amendments 41 and 44, I note that the bill says that obligations may be imposed on land that is either a single holding or a composite holding. A composite holding is one that consists of any number of single holdings. I do not believe that it is rational to include composite holdings. We are concerned that they could include holdings that are located nowhere near each other and have widely different land management requirements. Amendment 41 therefore seeks to delete “composite holding”, and amendment 44 seeks to delete all references to composite holdings in the section.

NFUS gave the example that, if a landowner is selling or transferring an area of land in the Highlands, it has no relevance to another landholding in East Lothian. It will not impact the same community and it should therefore not be included.

In my speech in the stage 1 debate on the bill, I asked why size rather than value had been chosen as a key measure for who will be impacted by the bill. In my mind, there is a huge difference between 3,000 hectares of moorland and 3,000 hectares of prime agricultural land. Although I am not sure that I fully understand the rationale for using size as the measure, my amendment 39 seeks to remedy the issue by increasing the threshold from 3,000 hectares to 5,000 hectares.

Scottish Land & Estates has also disputed the idea of using the size of an estate as an indicator of adverse impacts on Scotland. It said:

“There appears to be no evidence that there is detrimental impact on Scotland due to the scale of land holdings. The Scottish Land Commission’s own evidence points to the issue being potentially one of concentrated land ownership in specific areas, rather than scale itself.”

In addition, NFU Scotland believes that the bill could have “significant implications” for Scottish agriculture. It expressed concern about the delivery of the bill, saying that the

“proposals around land market regulation have the potential to severely compromise farming. Economies of scale have meant that farms have to get bigger to survive.”

I am seriously alarmed by and absolutely opposed to the cabinet secretary’s and Ariane Burgess’s amendments that seek to reduce the threshold figure. This is the very heart of the bill, and to lower the threshold at stage 2 with, as far as I am aware, no prior consultation with stakeholders such as SLE and NFU Scotland is bad law making. Dropping the figure to below 1,000 hectares will catch too many farms and landholdings that, although large in acreage, are not large in income terms.

One farm that would be caught by the new threshold is Tardoes farm, which is a sheep farm in the Muirkirk uplands in east Ayrshire. Cora Cooper, who runs the farm, recently briefed us on the challenges that the farm faces. The farmers are first-generation farmers with 2,023 hectares, and they have a peatland restoration plan to restore 800 hectares of damaged peatland. Cora told me that they are already facing increased costs from Labour’s national insurance rise, that they have a business loan to pay off and that the SNP Government is now planning to impose on the farm a £15,000 administrative burden for a land management plan every five years. They feel that they are doing everything right. Why would we want to penalise them?

That is a good point. I do not know whether you have spoken to Cora—she is very keen to speak to people. My understanding is that she and the whole unit are already very actively involved in the local community. However, they asked us why they are being drawn into the bill’s provisions when they feel that they are already doing everything that the Government is asking them to do, and they made the point that feel that they do not yet have the detail of what the land management plan will include. If it will literally involve a process of bringing together the plans that they already have, you are right that that might not be overly burdensome, but they are not clear about that, which is what they expressed to us. I hope that, over the next few weeks, we will learn that and that we can move forward.

I was not going to make much of a closing statement, other than to thank the cabinet secretary for her responses and to say that I will take them on board. In light of what she has said about working with me as we move towards stage 3, I will not press amendment 10.

Amendment 10, by agreement, withdrawn.

I draw members’ attention to my entry in the register of members’ interests. I thank the committee for welcoming me this morning to speak to and move my amendments to the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill.

My amendment 427 seeks to add a proposed new section—section 67DA—to the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003. It seeks to stop land being subjected to a lotting decision if that would not be in the public interest. It would also allow the Scottish ministers to make further determinations under that provision.

My amendment 433 seeks to add a proposed new chapter—chapter 1A—to the 2003 act, which would add a further element to the lotting provisions. It would allow the Scottish ministers to buy land that is subject to a lotting decision if they are satisfied that it is in the public interest to do so. In addition, it sets out that that must be a market value offer.

My amendment 460 would require regulations that are made under those provisions to be subject to section 98(5) of the 2003 act. That means that any statutory instruments that are made under the provisions must be laid before Parliament and approved by it.

I support my colleague Douglas Lumsden’s amendment 364. As a member for the Highlands and Islands, I know of the very deep concerns that many of my constituents have about the number of pylon applications across Scotland.

As the cabinet secretary said, many of my amendments in the group relate to parliamentary oversight. I appreciate her comments on amendments 217, 219 and 220.

My amendment 417 is about improving parliamentary oversight of regulations that will be triggered by this framework bill. It would require all draft regulations that are made under proposed new section 44M of the 2016 act to be laid before Parliament and the views of relevant committees sought on those matters.

My amendment 161 seeks to amend proposed new section 67S of the 2003 act, which states:

“Ministers may offer to buy land ... following a review of a lotting decision only if they are satisfied that it is likely that the fact that the land has not been transferred since the lotting decision was made is attributable to the land being less commercially attractive than it would have been had the lotting decision not prevented its being transferred along with other land.”

There are already a number of conditions in the bill relating to how that would proceed. Proposed new section 67S(6) will allow ministers by regulation to make further provision about buying land. My amendment 161 would require ministers, before they make regulations under that section, to consult relevant persons and prepare and publish a report on that consultation.

My amendment 165A seeks to amend the cabinet secretary’s amendment 165. It simply provides that, during the consultation, one of the consultees must be

“a person who is an accredited valuer of land”.

My amendment 458 also seeks to improve scrutiny of regulations that are made under this framework bill. It applies to proposed new section 67B of the 2003 act, which will allow ministers to make regulations relating to compensation. The amendment would require any draft regulations to be laid before Parliament and the relevant committees to be consulted.

My amendment 220 concerns when ministers may make regulations to modify the basis on which a valuer may assess the compensation that is payable and the consideration to be given to certain matters by the valuer in doing so under chapter 1 of part 4. The amendment would require ministers to consult people whom they considered appropriate before making such regulations.

Amendments 219 and 220 are similar, but they relate to different regulation-making powers. It is essential that ministers consult those who have knowledge and understanding before making changes. That will allow unintended consequences to be avoided and ensure that the views or interests of all those who are involved are taken into account.

Before I start, I want to touch base on something that Mark Ruskell said earlier. I completely respect that there is quite a wide range of views in the room. I think that it is fair to say, as I tried to lay out in my stage 1 speech, that I am not overly supportive of the direction of travel of the bill. I want to put what I will say in relation to a lot of my amendments into context. I agree with the point that the convener made: it is not so much the ownership of the land but its management that comes into this. My experiences in this field have led me to think so.

My amendment 10 seeks to require ministers to provide guidance on the meaning of “engagement with communities” and to define what constitutes communities in relation to section 1 of the bill. As currently drafted, the bill uses the words “engagement” and “communities”, which both have wide connotations. That leaves the meaning unclear. The wording that is used is rather generic and does not refer to a particular group or geographic proximity. If landowners are to be fined for their failure to consult, then they need to know exactly who they are supposed to consult with. Amendment 10 would require additional guidance to be provided to ensure that that remains clear.

My amendment 390 seeks to remove the requirement in the bill for land management plans to be made “publicly available”. There are three reasons why the amendment should be agreed to. First, it seems inappropriate for commercially sensitive information about individual businesses to be made public. Secondly, a vast amount of information is already publicly available, and the bill as drafted could lead to duplication of that information. Thirdly, landowners, particularly farmers, need assurances regarding commercially sensitive information.

My amendment 18 seeks to delete lines 9 and 10 from section 1, page 2, as they require the owner of land to engage

“with communities on the development of, and significant changes to,”

the land management plan. We do not believe that it is feasible for landowners to consult the community when developing or making significant changes to the plan. We therefore propose the removal of that provision.

As the bill would oblige landowners, through regulations, to engage with communities on the development of and significant changes to a plan, my amendment 391 and the consequential amendment 392 would change the reference to “communities” to

“a community body within the vicinity of the land.”

The current use of the word “communities” is generic. In contrast to other sections in part 1 of the bill, this section requires consultation with the generic term “communities” without reference to any particular group or geographic proximity to the land. That is potentially very wide and vague. Landowners can be penalised and fined significant sums for breaching the duty to consult, so the duty needs to be framed clearly in the bill. I believe that the issue would be resolved by agreeing to my amendment.

My amendment 19 seeks to remove the requirement for landowners to engage with communities when there will be significant changes to the plan. It would leave the requirement to engage with communities on the development of the plan. We are particularly concerned about the responsibility on the landowner to engage with communities on any “significant changes” to the land management plan. We do not believe that it is feasible for a landowner to do that. Although our first preference would be to remove the full requirement, this second option, amendment 19, would remove our biggest concern.

I turn to my amendment 21. The bill requires the land management plan to be reviewed and revised every five years. We believe that it is fair that the plans are reviewed and kept up to date but that there should be greater flexibility in the period for review, given the wide range of landholdings and land uses that will be affected.

It is not entirely clear from the bill what is meant by “review”, and whether that will be a full community consultation. Perhaps the cabinet secretary can set out what the intentions are. I would argue that that should be clarified in the bill.

It is not feasible to review a land management plan every five years. The review process is costly—I believe that the committee was told that the estimated cost of that was £15,000. In addition, the plans are supposed to project the long-term future. It might also be disproportionate if there has not been any significant change in circumstances. We believe that the period should be extended to 20 years.

I note that Rhoda Grant’s amendment 315 seeks to amend the review period of the land management plan from five to 10 years. Although I would prefer the period to be 20 years, we will support her amendment as 10 years is an improvement on five years.

I turn to my amendment 23. The bill allows for regulations that impose obligations on the owners of land, including requiring them to produce a land management plan for that land. The amendment seeks to ensure that a new owner is not required to produce a plan immediately on acquiring the land and that they need not make a plan publicly available until one year after they have taken up ownership of the land. That would ensure that the requirement to produce a plan is not a deterrent to new entrants or a financial burden on new owners. It would also allow the new owner time to get to know the land before being bounced into producing a plan.

My amendment 396 seeks to add to the list of what regulations under proposed new section 44A of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2016 impose. It seeks to deal with a situation in which a community body or individual member is acting unreasonably when the landowner is attempting to engage with a community for the purposes of proposed new section 44B(1)(b). It allows for that to be reported to the Scottish Land Commission and for the commission to discharge the obligation to consult with the community under section 44B(1)(b). The amendment seeks to ensure that where the landowner is attempting to follow their obligations and a community, community body or individual is making that challenging, the landowner is not considered to have breached their obligations and is not required to continue to attempt engagement. That would protect the landowner where they have tried to follow through with their obligations.

I turn to the other amendments in the group. Although we support the aim of Bob Doris’s amendment 16 to increase accessibility, we have concerns about cost. I would like to know more, such as how much that would cost and who would pay for the land management plans to be accessible.

We will not support Ariane Burgess’s amendment 311 as it is counter to my amendment 390. We seek to restrict the amount of information that is available to the public as a vast amount of information is already publicly available.

We will not support Rhoda Grant’s amendment 312, which seeks to prescribe the format of the land management plan, as that would add unnecessary extra costs on to landowners and prevent them from saving money by using plans that they might have drawn up for other reasons.

We disagree with Bob Doris’s amendments 17 and 31, which would require that land management plans be published online by a public body. A vast amount of information is already publicly available, and we do not want there to be duplication of that information. NFU Scotland has raised significant concern about making public commercially sensitive information about an individual business. Farmers and landowners need assurances regarding commercially sensitive information and that duplication will not be required.

My concern is about making sure that businesses are allowed to operate in a commercially sensitive environment rather than anything else. I am just picking up on the concerns that the NFUS has already raised on the issue.

We do not support Ariane Burgess’s amendments 313, 314 and 316 as those will make land management plans more onerous. I have lodged an amendment to lessen the burden of their introduction, but those amendments would increase the burden and would act as a disincentive to innovation for farmers and landowners.

We will not support the extension of engagement in Bob Doris’s amendment 20, as that would take us well away from the aims of the bill, which are about community right to buy, and it would make the consultee process too wide and onerous.

I would be interested to hear the cabinet secretary’s response to Rhoda Grant’s amendment 335, on ministers appointing “an independent person” to create a land management plan for crofters.

We will not support Bob Doris’s amendment 33, which allows the commissioner to publish guidance on how owners should comply with requirements that are set out in regulations, as we believe that that provision would cause confusion and overcomplication.

We do not feel able to support Ariane Burgess’s amendment 338, as we believe that it increases the burden associated with the land management plan.

Finally, I am interested in Rhoda Grant’s amendment 340, as there might be instances where a landowner wants to have a single land management plan. I am minded to support that amendment.

I move amendment 10.

I have nothing to add, convener, but I press amendment 389.

I take that point on board. I used the £15,000 figure because I understand that it was brought out during the stage 1 evidence. I am also trying to get across the point that some people, particularly upland farmers, are concerned about the bill’s implications for their agricultural units. However, I appreciate the points that the cabinet secretary has made.

On my amendment 401, the proposed threshold for land forming part of an inhabited island is a single or composite holding that “exceeds 1,000 hectares” and

“constitutes more than 25% of the land forming the island.”

We believe that that land size threshold is too small and that it should be increased to 33 per cent.

My amendment 405 addresses our concerns over the use of the term “composite”. The amendment seeks to require the commission to prepare and publish guidance for the purposes of creating clarity on what constitutes a composite holding. In doing so, the commission would be required to consult appropriate persons.

The bill allows ministers to modify section 1 by regulation, and their powers would allow them to change the land that the ability to impose regulation relates to, and also the persons who may report a breach of obligations. We believe that that power is too wide ranging, and amendment 104 proposes to remove those provisions.

My amendment 105 seeks to prevent ministers from being able to lower the land size threshold in future.

My final amendment in the group is amendment 110. The bill allows ministers by regulation to change the land that obligations are imposed on under section 1. Although our first choice is to remove that power, as set out in our amendment 104, we will look to amendment 110 if amendment 104 is unsuccessful, in order to ensure that the land size threshold that is set out in parts of section 1 may not be reduced in future.

Sorry. I am just enthusiastic, convener.