³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

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.

There are a number of factors. The matter was part of the consultation that was undertaken, and we have outlined some aspects in the policy memorandum.

In other countries, interventions or obligations after the point of sale, or obligations on potential buyers, tend to fall into a couple of areas. We think that there is an example of authorisation of buyers in Australia, but that is more about national security risks.

There are alternative purchase models. The Land Commission has done work on the SAFER model in France, for example, whereby a public body or an interim body would buy the land, and the owner of the land would be compelled to sell. The body would hold the land for an interim period before determining use of the land.

We have introduced the transfer test and the lotting procedures as we have because we could not identify an option that would allow lotting to be applied where the test was on the buyer. That is why lotting will apply before that point.

Andy, do you want to come in?

I come back to why we set out the provision in the way that we have, which is to ensure that bodies that report breaches have some experience in relation to land management and working with communities on the ground. We also wanted to guard against, and deal with, the potential for vexatious complaints. That is why we set out the bodies for reporting breaches in the way that we have. However, I have heard the evidence that the committee received, particularly from the Crofting Commission and other bodies, about what people feel should be on the list. Again, I am open to hearing the committee’s recommendations on that, although we have a power to add bodies to the list if it were felt that more should be added.

Again, I do not know whether you are talking about the valuation. Is that the specific point that you are getting at?

I do not think that it is a case of one can and one cannot. It is about how landowners deliver at scale. As I said, I have seen that when I visited projects, but small landholders can do exactly the same. It is about encouraging that co-operation. We see that with projects across Scotland—I think that there is a peatland restoration project with the crofting communities in the Outer Hebrides. There are also lots of international examples, some of which I know have already been mentioned to the committee in the evidence that it has heard.

The Land Commission did a study, too—I think that it was published around 2019—which looked at European comparisons and showed that work does not need to be done at scale for all the objectives to be met. It is about how we encourage that wider, landscape-scale co-operation. Again, that touches on other work that we are taking forward through regional land use partnerships. It is about how we can foster those relationships and encourage people to work together to help deliver the objectives that we want to see at scale.

First of all, I know, because I heard it quite strongly in the evidence that the committee took, that the view that was expressed pretty much universally to the committee was that the community right to buy should have been included in the bill. As I started to outline earlier, the review of community right to buy is significant, and there are a number of powers in that respect that we need time to review. That review started last year, and we will consult formally on the powers later this year.

However, what we are proposing in the bill will not change that. As I have outlined, it will provide another gateway to part 2 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 and to utilising the existing community right to buy, but it will not fundamentally change it. If, at the end of the review, it were to be recommended that there should be legislative change, that would serve only to improve the provisions that we have with regard to accessibility of the community right to buy. However, we have yet to see the outcome of that review and what the proposals will be. There will be full consultation on that, too.

We are considering the recommendations further. I have set out why we proposed the role in the way that we did, and there is scope for such wider collaboration. The Scottish Land Commission can deal with the governance of that—it has the powers to do so. We need to give the matter more consideration, but we are looking at those recommendations in the light of the evidence to the committee.

It is just a case of teasing that out. I come back to the point about balance. We set out a separate power to rest with a specific commissioner in the commission because the commission has had a largely advisory role. If we provide powers that create a regulatory function, it is important that those powers sit with an individual, notwithstanding the point that there can be further collaboration with other members of the commission, as needed. We have tried to achieve that balance, but we are open to considering the issue to ensure that we get that right.

You raise an important point because we will need to closely monitor some of the measures that we are introducing to see whether they are having the desired impact. We have not set out a specific timescale for what a review of that might look like. There is information in the financial memorandum and the documents that were published with the bill on that, but it mainly relates to when we would look to implement various provisions in the bill. Even that will take time, because we would have to appoint the land and communities commissioner if the bill is passed by the Parliament and then take further steps from there. So, there is an implementation period for various provisions in the bill, but monitoring will be absolutely key. We will be looking at this closely as the measures are implemented to ensure that they are having the desired effect.