³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

I recognise the concerns and the quite universal call for some sort of de minimis provision in the bill to exclude certain transactions that need not be controversial.

It might be helpful if I briefly explain why we have introduced the provision as we have, and the rationale behind that. With regard to pieces of land that communities might be interested in taking ownership of, the vast majority—I think that the figure is between 60 and 70 per cent—are areas of less than a hectare. They are quite small pieces of land, but they might still be very significant to a particular community. That is why we did not want to prevent from being part of those transactions areas of land that could be significant to or of interest to a community.

We have, however, listened to the evidence that the committee has heard and the subsequent recommendations that have come from the Land Commission on that issue, and we are happy to consider that further.

We have tried to balance that in our proposals, because they really bring in all the issues that you have talked about.

What should the timescale be for a land management plan review and, as I outlined in my responses to earlier questions, how flexible should it be in trying to get a balance between the overarching objectives? What we have set out has tried to achieve that balance. Should the bill pass, further work will be done on the back of that in the wider consultation that we will undertake to look at the final details.

Of course, we want the exercise to be meaningful, as you have outlined, which is why the community engagement provisions are so important. We need communities to feel that they are involved and that they have a say about the land around them and how it impacts on their day-to-day lives. That is really important, and we hope that we are striking the right balance. Again, we are listening to all the evidence and the committee’s views about that.

I recognise the importance of what you have said. In my role, I have visited a number of projects that are looking to tackle such work not just in rural Scotland but in Edinburgh city centre and other such areas.

All of Scotland has a role to play when it comes to tackling the big challenges that we face with climate change and nature restoration. Incredible work is happening in those areas.

I hope that we have been able to set out why we have taken forward the proposals that we have. Again, that does not preclude further work being done. Depending on the outcome of the community right to buy review and any recommendations that come from it, there could be a positive impact on urban and rural Scotland and the rights of communities in that sense.

We want a thriving tenanted sector in Scotland. There is absolutely no question about that. That is why the provisions that we have included as part of the bill will modernise the legislation and bring it up to date. Ultimately, they seek to ensure that tenant farmers can play an equal role in delivering the outcomes that we all want, which we have outlined in our vision for agriculture, and that they can be as much a part of that process as anyone else. Ultimately, that is what this is about.

As you said, whenever land reform provisions come around, we hear a lot about what landlords might look to do in relation to tenancies, but I think that there are always going to be bigger factors at play in that respect. For example, what is coming down the line with regard to the United Kingdom Government’s announcements on its proposed changes to inheritance tax will do far more damage than any of the proposals that we are looking to introduce in the bill.

I have referred to the public interest test. The key question is about increasing diversity in land supply. Will the provisions be positive for the community, and will they improve community sustainability? We have had to frame our consideration in that way, because certain conditions must be met when a public interest test is introduced. It is important that considerations are about the evidence, the basis of what we are doing, the proportionality of what we are introducing and the aim of the measure. That is why the test will apply at that point, rather than conditions or obligations being put on a future buyer.

Ultimately, the bill is about increasing diversity in land ownership.

We are listening to concerns that have been expressed about the potential for that. The only provision that we have at the moment is that, if land were to be lotted, a person could not buy multiple lots. We must be alive to potential loopholes—we want to avoid them wherever possible. We might need to take other factors into consideration, because we want to ensure that the measures that we introduce have the intended effect.

We are considering that as well. I recognise that it came through quite strongly that going to the tenant farming commissioner to appoint a valuer should be the next option and not necessarily the place to start.

As I said, work has been done on that and it will inform future guidance, which is the place to deal with that.

That is one of the things that would depend on individual circumstances and whether a tenant has been given rights by the landowner to control the deer.