���˿���

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.

I get that you think that the protections are robust, but all the evidence that we have heard suggests that many others do not think that they are. What are your thoughts on changing that?

To go back to the question that I inadvertently asked earlier, you consulted last year on adapting and improving the habitat regulations. That consultation had two elements: one was around creating more flexibility to designate a site based on an ecosystem or habitat approach, and the other was about encouraging more proactive management. What did you learn from the consultation? You have not brought anything into the bill from that consultation, so what came out of it that led you to instead move to take this broad power?

Okay.

I have a quick question about the business and regulatory impact assessment, which, as far as I am aware, has not yet been published. When will that be coming?

You could define regression within the bill.

This is an interesting conversation. I appreciate your putting on record that the aim is not to take away the protections that we have in place but to enable further movement on biodiversity or climate change. The convener made a point about the risk. You keep setting out the four areas in the bill, but if the bill had only one of those, such as net zero or climate, is there a risk that your Government or a future Government could say, “My aims for climate override my aims for that particular habitat”? Do you see that the approach could be quite broad if, for example, we were talking about onshore or offshore wind?