³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

I listened really carefully to the evidence that the committee heard from the Scottish Crofting Federation and the Crofting Commission in relation to that. Undoubtedly, crofting has had and continues to have a positive impact in Scotland. I mentioned the other pieces of legislation that are coming through Parliament and other measures that we are introducing. I am keen to ensure that we have consulted on proposals to reform crofting legislation, and there are issues that we would need to tackle first before we consider that suggestion.

You raise important points. The statistics and information that Kevin Stewart outlined paint a stark picture of land ownership in Scotland. Scotland is really an outlier. The ownership situation that we have is not normal when compared with other European countries and other nations. That is why it is important that we take the steps that we have proposed in the bill. Key to that are the community right to buy, which we have already talked about and is already in existence, and the pre-notification proposals, which would enable another route into using those powers. The proposals that we are looking to introduce through the transfer test and the provisions around lotting are also important in trying to increase land supply in Scotland and, therefore, hopefully the diversity of ownership.

As I said in my response to Kevin Stewart, the monitoring of that will be critical, because we have to make sure that the proposals that we introduce have the intended effect. It is important to highlight that our proposals around lotting are a significant step forward in relation to regulation of the land market in Scotland. It is important not to forget the significance of some of those proposals.

We have listened carefully to all the evidence. It might be helpful for me to set out a rationale for why we approached the threshold in the way that we did. In the consultation that we undertook for the bill, we consulted on having a 3,000 hectares threshold, largely because if the provisions applied to estates larger than around 3,000 hectares the bill would take in about 40 per cent of the land area in Scotland.

We are trying to get the balance right when considering the burden that we are putting on landholdings in relation to the land management plan, obligations for community engagement and associated costs. We are considering all the evidence that the committee has taken and we are looking at the recommendations made by the Land Commission. However, ultimately, we are trying to get the balance right so that we do not put a disproportionate burden on smaller landholdings.

I hope that that explanation of our approach is helpful. We are considering the evidence.

I have set out the initial rationale for the threshold, but we are keen to take on board the evidence that the committee has heard, to think about whether the current level is suitable, and to hear whether the committee has any suggestions for alternatives. We want to balance all those considerations, including the impact on smaller landholders of some of the community engagement obligations. We are listening to the evidence that the committee has heard, because we want to ensure that there is transparency.

We have the land rights and responsibilities statement. Some landowners are doing very good things and are looking to engage and involve communities in the decisions that they take. However, that approach is not universal or widespread, which is why we want to introduce the land management plan obligations and community engagement provisions. I am open to views on what the thresholds for those might look like.

Yes.

There will be consultation on exactly what could be included. If the committee is of the view that amendments are needed to clarify that, we will consider that view. However, I come back to the point that we have tried to strike the right balance by ensuring that there is flexibility for different landholdings while setting out our overarching objectives in the primary legislation.

Absolutely. I hope that the process of the land management plans encourages that greater dialogue to take place, so that those discussions are not happening in separate places, if that makes sense.

The guidance that accompanies the bill will be important in setting that out. The process could be quite a daunting prospect for some, but some will already be doing such work. We want to make sure that people are engaging in best practice when they undertake consultation.

Yes. Again, we are considering all that, at the moment. There is no set way forward, so we are working through the matter. We have heard the evidence and, of course, we want to address it, if possible.

Again, the alternatives that were considered are set out in the policy memorandum to the bill. There were a number of considerations that we consulted on, but we feel that our proposals on pre-notification, increasing transparency and allowing further opportunities for communities to take ownership of land are key.