���˿���

I have nothing to add, convener. I press amendment 14.

Amendment 418 seeks to define “community body”. Section 2 of the bill will add procedures for applications to register an interest in land. This amendment seeks to ensure that those who can make such an application are within the legally recognised definition of “community body”. That definition is found in section 34(4) of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003, which states:

“A body is not a community body unless Ministers have given it written confirmation that they are satisfied that the main purpose of the body is consistent with furthering the achievement of sustainable development.”

I turn to my amendment 113. As drafted, the bill will allow the prohibition of sale under proposed new section 46B of the 2003 act to be lifted after 30 days. That 30-day period will begin when ministers publicise

“that the owner ... intends to transfer the land”

and

“how a community body can register an interest in some or all of the land”.

Amendment 113 would still allow for the prohibition to be lifted following 30 days, but the 30-day period would begin when ministers receive a request for the prohibition to be lifted under proposed new section 46C of the 2003 act or the owner of the land proposes to transfer that land under section 48 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2016. I am concerned that there could be scope for delay if the lifting of the prohibition is based on ministers fulfilling duties under proposed new section 46D of the 2003 act, which would unfairly prevent the landowner from selling their land. My amendment seeks to prevent that.

Following on from that is my amendment 114. As the bill is drafted, ministers will be required to give notice to a person who has notified their intention to transfer land, under proposed new section 46C or section 48 of the 2003 act, that the prohibition on transferring the land is lifted after a period of 30 days after ministers fulfil their duty under proposed new section 46D. Amendment 114 proposes that ministers should be required to publish the notice to be given under this part of the legislation.

My amendment 116 regards the registering of community interest. Proposed new section 46F allows for ministers to prohibit an owner of land from transferring that land under a number of circumstances. In allowing that prohibition, ministers need to be satisfied of a number of conditions, including that

“there is a reasonable prospect of that application resulting in a community interest in the land being registered.”

Amendment 116 adds the condition that ministers are satisfied that the person noting an intention to register community interest

“would have sufficient resources to purchase the land.”

I believe that the amendment would add protection for the seller by ensuring that those who are lodging a community interest would be able to buy the land. That would avoid landowners being caught in a situation in which sales are delayed when those expressing the community interest would be unable to buy the land.

My amendment 419 would allow ministers to add by regulations to the short list of land that could be excluded from prohibitions as cases are thrown up after the implementation of the bill. I believe that that would add flexibility to the legislation.

My amendment 420 allows ministers to disapply the prohibitions if it is considered to

“be in the public interest to do so”.

I am in favour of a public interest test to some degree being included on the face of the bill. However, I believe that the other proposals that have been made for a public interest test are too wide ranging.

My amendments 421 and 423 would remove references to “composite holding” from the definition of land in section 2. That change follows on from my amendments to section 1. I believe that the definition of “composite” in the bill raises significant problems.

My amendment 422 seeks to increase the land size threshold, which is 1,000 hectares in the bill, under section 2, to 5,000 hectares. That follows on from my earlier amendments to section 1.

My amendment 129 seeks to delete the section in the bill that allows ministers to alter by regulations the period for which a prohibition lasts and the land size threshold.

My amendment 134 relates to amendment 129. Although my first choice would be to delete proposed new section 46L, amendment 134 would ensure that regulations that are made under section 46L do not lead to reduction of the land size threshold.

In a similar way, my amendment 131 seeks to avoid ministers being able to reduce the land size threshold in the future under their powers under proposed new section 46L of the 2003 act to modify section 2 of the bill by regulations.

My amendment 135 seeks to improve consultation. Currently, section 2, via proposed new section 46L, allows for ministers to make regulations to change the time period of prohibition and the land size threshold. Amendment 135 would require them to lay any such regulations before the Scottish Parliament and consult anyone who is considered appropriate when making such changes.

Amendment 24, which is my final amendment in the group, is a drafting amendment.

We were laughing. Sorry, convener.

Members will be pleased to know that I will not labour the point, because there has been a lot of discussion on part 1 and we have just agreed to an awful lot of stuff; however, I seek to remove the entirety of it. That is no great surprise—to be fair, I laid that out in my stage 1 argument. I do not agree with part 1 or with the premise of what the bill seeks to do with land management plans. My experiences have brought that about.

It is right to put on record that amazing work goes on in our estates in rural Scotland. We have estates that are actively participating in community societies. We have estates that are giving ground to communities. I know estate owners who are giving housing plots to local young people and key workers in their areas. We have estates that are doing everything possible for agri-environment schemes. We have farmers who are trying new methods such as mob grazing—exactly what we want to see. I am worried that land management plans will destroy some of that.

I take on board Rhoda Grant’s point. As she mentioned, we all know of landlords who do not obey. I agree. As was brought up earlier, in some situations in Scotland—in particular, those that involve absentee landlords—there is no involvement or collaboration with the community. We could have addressed that in other ways; we do not need to impose land management plans on everybody when so much great work is already going on. We are already meeting obligations—I say “we”; I mean that, already, large estates of more than 1,000 hectares are out there meeting obligations on nature restoration, agriculture, outdoor access and so on.

We have figures from an answer to a parliamentary question that Ariane Burgess asked a couple of years ago. If the cost was £15,000 per land management plan—I realise that that is at the upper end—with a 500 hectare threshold, we would be looking at something like a £27 million cost to rural communities for putting the land management plans in place. At 1,000 hectares, we are still looking at a cost of £13.1 million. There is a significant cost to the introduction of land management plans, and I do not think that everyone—

Can I take a final intervention, convener? I promise I will stop after that.

I completely agree. That neatly ties into my last bullet point. The threshold has been reduced from 3,000 to 1,000 hectares and there was a proposal to bring it down to 500—I am glad that that has not gone forward. We are not just talking about massive multifaceted estates any more; potentially, we are talking about an upland sheep farm.

The discussion has been helpful. As I have said, I am not saying that I am perfect in this, but I feel that we need to support rural Scotland as much as we can and recognise the great work that is being done. Unfortunately, I am concerned by all of part 1.

I press amendment 111.

Will the member take a quick intervention?

Good morning, convener. I note my entry in the register of members’ interests as a small farmer in Buckie.

Amendment 14 and its consequential amendments seek to remove the land and communities commissioner from the bill; instead, any new duties and responsibilities are to be carried out by staff who are employed by the Scottish Land Commission.

I do not support the creation of a new commissioner, due to the associated costs. The financial memorandum sets out that, over six years, the commissioner alone is expected to cost more than £130,000, and staffing costs are expected to be £420,000 annually. I believe that the commissioner landscape in Scotland has become bloated over the past decade.

In its response to the financial memorandum, the Finance and Public Administration Committee warned:

“The Scottish Land Commission’s submission emphasises the statement, in the FM, that the Commission will require ongoing resource funding to cover the costs for the new Land and Communities Commissioner and additional staffing costs. The FM proposes that these costs would be partially met through existing funding to the Commission by reducing their current activities, such as their policy work, while it also acknowledges that additional funding will be required in order to fully fund these new functions. In their submission, the Commission explains that meeting part of the additional costs through their existing budget will mean cutting delivery of policy research and advice, with implications for existing functions. It further states that the staffing assumptions in the FM represent a minimum requirement and the Commission expects additional costs in relation to IT and professional advice”.

I therefore do not support the creation of a new commissioner. I believe that it would be more efficient for any new duties and responsibilities to be carried out by the staff who are employed by the commission.

My amendment 463 seeks to add “agriculture” and “traditional land management” to the required expertise that the person who is appointed as the new commissioner should have.

My amendment 177 relates to our package of amendments that seek to delete the role of a new commissioner.

My amendment 179 seeks to restrict the powers that are proposed in new section 38B of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2016. That section allows for the commissioner to authorise certain others, including a committee, an employee of the commission and any other person, to carry out the commissioner’s functions. Amendment 179 would delete “any other person” because I believe that provision to be too wide.

My amendment 180 seeks to delete the entirety of section 6. For reasons that I have already argued, I do not support the inclusion of a new commissioner.

I turn to other amendments in the group. I am interested in hearing the policy intent behind Ariane Burgess MSP’s amendment 464, which seeks to add reference to

“problems in the operation of natural capital markets”.

Also, I am content to support Michael Matheson’s amendment 178.

I move amendment 14.

That is what I have tried to lay out. A lot of great work already goes on in communities across Scotland. That does not necessarily mean that it is all written down in a plan. For example, deer management plans are present, and an application for a grant for outdoor access might be written down, so it might be possible to lay that out very easily. Agri-environment schemes would be the same. However, we are talking about an extra imposition that would involve writing everything into a further plan. I do not agree that everyone will be running to their local library to look at such a plan because, for much of Scotland, the work is already occurring on the ground and we would have been better focusing on where that work does not occur, as opposed to putting the obligation on everybody.

There are ways to do that. The changes to deer management that we are looking at under the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill do not impose obligations on everybody. They just say that, where things go wrong, we will look at what we can do, and NatureScot can come in. I am not sure that everyone will agree with me, but I think that such an approach might have been better under this bill. I reiterate the importance of the many good things that are going on out there in rural Scotland. I am worried that, ultimately, the requirement will be a burden, not a help.

I move amendment 111.

I do not have much to add, so I will reiterate the points that I have made. I do not support land management plans, as has become obvious. I am trying to ensure that they are as unprescriptive as possible and that we are careful that there is no chance that businesses will have to put commercially sensitive information in them.

I am happy to press amendment 24.