���˿���

Are you saying that the bill will not bring something new to the table but will pull together various other bits of legislation in order to set targets?

Okay. We have had evidence that we already have that flexibility in the existing regulations. Are you saying that there was that flexibility in the regulations but it is no longer available because of EU exit, or are we getting contradictory evidence on that point?

You mentioned that things can change very quickly and that there is a need for flexibility to act to deal with that. Would it be better to have something in the bill about, say, species control areas, whereby, for a limited time, if you saw a non-native species arriving and causing an issue, you could designate an area to deal with it? Such powers could be in the bill but used in a more open and transparent way.

We heard mixed views on whether NatureScot should have a formal role on advisory panels, given that it is also the regulator. What are your reasons for proposing that change, and what safeguards will be in place to prevent any potential conflicts of interest?

On the issue of promotion and of getting local communities eating more venison, do you have any plans to look at infrastructure and at things such as deer larders, chillers or micro-processing units? There are some good examples going on, but what is the Government’s role and what is the Government doing to ensure that more of that happens to get venison into the food chain?

Amendment 339 would make land management plans subject to a public interest test, requiring landowners to consider the public interest when pursuing such plans. Owning large areas of land is a privilege and therefore large landowners need to consider the impact of their activities on the wider public when drawing up their land management plans.

Amendment 342 seeks to expand the definition of land that is subject to obligations under proposed new section 44A of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2016 to include public interest determinations. It would also add public interest criteria for applying land management obligations and would allow the Government to impose public goods obligations on large landowners. Too often, we hear of communities that cannot access land for vital community interests such as housing and food production. The amendment would empower the Government to step in where community efforts have failed.

Amendment 348 is a technical amendment that is consequential to amendment 342 and would include proposed new section 44D to the 2016 act in the list of relevant sections.

I support other amendments in the group from Mercedes Villalba, Michael Matheson and Ariane Burgess. It is clear that we need a public interest test for many aspects of the bill for the reasons that Mark Ruskell has laid out, which I will not repeat. I look forward to hearing the cabinet secretary’s thoughts on which amendments would best do that.

Amendment 312 would ensure that land management plans complied

“with the format to be prescribed by the Scottish Ministers”

which would ensure that the plans would meet the terms of the legislation while being simple to produce in a given format. The evidence about the cost of producing land management plans varied widely, so having a pro forma to hand would make those plans simple to pull together. That said, large landholdings will already have plans to manage their land, unless it is derelict, and should be able to quite simply bring those plans together into a given format.

Amendment 315 would extend the review period from five to 10 years, taking into account the fact that land use patterns are slow to change and that tree planting, peatland restoration and the like can all take decades. The amendment would allow additional time before a review must be carried out. Where there is significant change during that period, the bill already allows a framework for changes to be made to land management plans. I think that 10 years strikes a reasonable balance and believe that the 20-year period that would be created by Tim Eagle’s amendment would be far too long.

I believe that land managers would do that—for instance, if you are planting trees, you need to know how many you have planted and you need to manage them to make sure that they are growing properly and that the conditions are right for them. If something goes wrong, you have to take stock and go back. It is the same for peatland restoration, and it is the same for growing food—you need to plan ahead to make sure that the soil is in the right state to grow the crops that you are looking for. Land management is not something that you do and then walk away from; you have to continually monitor what you are doing.

My amendment 335 is reasonably self-explanatory. There is a conflict because the Scottish ministers would be very unlikely to impose obligations on themselves, so the amendment would strengthen land management plans for Scottish Government-owned crofting estates. The Scottish ministers would be able to appoint someone in their stead to fulfil their obligations, especially where there is a conflict.

My amendment 340 would allow the commissioner to decide whether one land management plan is required for multiple holdings or whether each holding should have an individual plan. Although it is likely that an owner would have one plan, there are maybe situations in which the landholdings are very different, and different plans are in place. Amendment 340 works with Mercedes Villalba’s amendments where non-contiguous holdings have a cumulative effect.

I have heard some concerns in that regard. Is the cabinet secretary willing to look at them and discuss the issue ahead of stage 3, to see whether we can find a way that gives people comfort?

The definition of land that is of community significance is widely recognised. One thing that is missing from the bill is urban land reform. Michael Matheson’s amendments are proportionate and would give people in urban and, indeed, rural areas an opportunity to do something about bad management of land that is of significance to them.