���˿���

We want to highlight and give specific mention to some of the challenges that we are facing right now in relation to biodiversity and climate change, as well as to highlight the importance of recreation. It is to show that those specific actions will help to deliver the aims.

Absolutely. There have been a number of different arguments relating to land of community significance, and we covered a lot of them during the debates on the groups of amendments that we discussed last week. I outlined a variety of issues in that regard. I hope that the approach that I have proposed through the amendments that I have lodged will work better in ensuring that there will be wider engagement and consultation before regulations are made, so that we get the measures right when they are introduced.

I have talked about Tim Eagle’s amendments 422 and 423.

I note that Mercedes Villalba’s amendment 120 aims to bring within the scope of pre-notification any holding that forms part of an inhabited island and constitutes more than 25 per cent of land forming the island. As such a definition would have no minimum area of landholding, it could bring holdings on very small islands within the scope of pre-notification and have a disproportionate and adverse impact on island communities and landowners. That has not been accounted for through our islands impact assessment.

However, I note that some of the other amendments that have been lodged, not just in this group but in other parts of the bill, have considered a variety of different thresholds in relation to our islands. We had removed that condition first of all so as not to disadvantage island communities, but I appreciate that there is still a lot of interest in that area. There is still some work to be done in order for us all to get that right, so I encourage members who lodged relevant amendments in this and other groups—including Mark Ruskell, Ariane Burgess and Mercedes Villalba, although I acknowledge that Ms Villalba is not here today—to have discussions with me.

Amendments 122 and 125 would remove the requirement for single landholdings to be contiguous. We discussed that at the previous meeting and, as I stated last week, we are unable to support those amendments because of the lack of an evidence base to justify the proposal.

Ariane Burgess’s amendment 5 would lower the threshold from 1,000 hectares to 500 hectares. Again, we discussed that last week, so I am not going to rehearse the arguments against it that we made then, but I ask that that amendment not be supported.

My further amendments—amendments 123, 124 and 126—seek to strengthen the definition of “composite holding” that is set out in proposed new section 46K of the 2003 act in relation to land affected by the pre-notification prohibitions. Those are similar to amendments 41, 46 and 48, which we debated in group 3, and to my amendment 49, which relates to another part of the bill and has been previously debated. Amendment 127 allows for non-contiguous areas of land to form a holding, provided that they are within 250m of each other. I ask the committee to support my amendments. I understand that Mark Ruskell has amendments that are similar to amendment 127—amendments 127A and 127B—and, again, further to the discussion that we had last week in relation to previous groups, I ask him not to move those amendments.

Proposed new section 46L of the 2003 act provides a power that ministers can use to amend the length of the second prohibition period and the land to which pre-notification applies. That allows future adjustment of those parameters. The committee’s stage 1 report said that that was an important feature to enable there to be a response to monitoring review.

Tim Eagle’s amendments 131 and 134 would restrict the proper use of those powers by preventing ministers from making regulations, which would reduce the overall threshold for pre-notification. Mercedes Villalba’s amendment 133 also seeks to amend section 46L but, in contrast, specifies that ministers may not make regulations to increase the overall threshold for pre-notification. Tim Eagle’s amendment 129 looks to entirely remove section 46L and all the powers within it. Between them, those amendments unduly restrict the ability of future Governments to alter thresholds, even if the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that they should be altered, which is why I am not able to support them.

Amendment 135 requires ministers to consult before laying draft regulations under section 46L for approval by Parliament and to prepare and publish a report on the consultation. We have lodged a comprehensive Government amendment to require consultation with appropriate people before draft regulations through part 1 of the bill are laid. For those reasons, I do not think that amendment 135 is necessary, and I urge members to oppose it.

Turning to Bob Doris’s amendments, I want to provide some reassurance in relation to amendment 30. We intend, of course, for there to be monitoring and reporting, but rather than that being required within individual land management plans, it will be set at a higher level by the Scottish Land Commission. For that reason, I ask Mr Doris not to move the amendment.

I support the intent behind amendment 31 of ensuring that the plans are published in a single and accessible location. However, I ask Bob Doris not to move the amendment, so that I can work with him ahead of stage 3 to ensure that the amendment is drafted in a way that will not pose any implementation issues further down the line.

I will, convener. There are quite a few amendments in this group, and I will try to work my way through them as best I can.

First, I turn to Rhoda Grant’s amendments, starting with amendment 349. Part of that amendment is not necessary. We already publish guidance on late community right-to-buy applications, and we are going to review that and issue further guidance as part of the review of community right to buy that we are undertaking at the moment. I do not think that the amendment’s requirement for more specific guidance at this point is required.

Amendment 349 also proposes changes to processes and timescales in the existing part 2, on community right to buy, of the 2003 act. I think that those changes would be better considered as part of the review that I just mentioned. Further, the amendment does not reflect or practically work with the steps that are involved in registering community interest in land under part 2 of the 2003 act. For those reasons, I would not be able to support amendment 349.

I agree with your point. The plans need to be accessible and, ultimately, that is what we are trying to achieve. I would not expect those plans to include commercially sensitive information.

I will comment briefly on Bob Doris’s amendment 32, which we covered in some detail last week, in a debate on another grouping. I will just encourage members to support the amendment.

Finally, I turn to Rhoda Grant’s amendments. I fully recognise the aims that Rhoda Grant is trying to achieve. For example, amendment 326 would ensure that there is

“regard to ... any local place plan”.

I can only restate that local place plans will be fully considered in the regulations and in the consultation that we will undertake on them, to ensure that the content of the land management plans is fit for purpose, proportionate and deliverable.

With regard to amendment 328, however, I support Rhoda Grant’s intention and I support the amendment.

On her amendment 329, the regulations that it refers to ceased to have effect in March 1993, so I do not see value in collecting that information. It would also be a burden on island businesses. Therefore, I recommend that amendments 326 and 329 be opposed.

I do not think that it would be for me to set that out on the face of any legislation. I appreciate the example that the convener has highlighted, but we have also had examples at the opposite end of the scale, which is why we have decided to introduce the ability for fines of up to £40,000 to be imposed. Of course, I am happy to have further engagement ahead of stage 3 to see what more detail can be provided, but I am hesitant to commit to putting anything in the bill at this stage, especially when similar provisions exist in other pieces of legislation.

Amendment 407 does not set out how the proposed timescale would impact on an investigation by the land and communities commissioner, and I think that the current approach of allowing the LCC to set the period at the time when they require further information on a breach is proportionate. It allows the period to be set on the basis of the kind of information that is being requested and the time that one might expect it to take to prepare it.

Amendment 411 would delay the LCC’s ability to apply a fine in cases of continued non-compliance. Therefore, I recommend that the committee not support amendments 82, 90, 407 and 411.

Rhoda Grant’s amendment 347 seeks to introduce a significant new compulsory purchase power. This is, of course, not a matter on which we have consulted; in any case, I do not think that the bill is the right vehicle for new compulsory purchase powers, particularly when a substantial consultation on proposed reforms to Scotland’s compulsory purchase system is planned for the coming months. On that basis, I ask the committee not to support that amendment.

Lastly, I want to make it clear overall that I absolutely support the intent behind amendments 412 and 413, in the name of Mark Ruskell, which is that we should not be giving public money to those who are not living up to their obligations. However, I do not think that the amendments are the best way of achieving that aim.

With regard to agricultural support, we as a Government have made commitments to co-develop that funding with rural partners through the agricultural reform programme, and if we started to reduce requirements outside of the programme, without considering the totality—that is, the broader issue of refusal or recovery of support—it would cut across and ultimately undermine our approach in that respect. The issue raised in Mark Ruskell’s amendment will form part of future considerations and allow any requirements to be brought forward as a package at the right time and through the appropriate legislation—in other words, the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Act 2024.

Amendment 413 is incredibly broad and it would block, ultimately, any financial support. As a result, it could have quite extreme unintended consequences. For example—and I hope that this will not be the case—if a public body were in breach, the amendment would result in their being cut off from all the public sector funding that it might need to remain operational. The same would potentially be true of charities that own large areas of land.

We already have the ability to set conditions for funding and, indeed, do so in many cases. Given that, I ask Mark Ruskell not to move his amendment, because I do not believe that it is the right way to meet this aim.

The amendments that I have lodged will change some of those timescales. We also heard the advice that the committee heard, as well as the recommendations from the Scottish Land Commission. Ultimately, it is about balance. I appreciate that you are advocating for 120 days, but we will still have two periods of time. I will come on to talk to my amendments and, I hope, set that out a bit more clearly.

If communities have registered an interest, they will already be notified under existing arrangements, so amendment 351 is not necessary. It also seeks to provide that a wide range of groups should be notified of any sale, but it does not make any distinction in relation to whether a group is interested in acquiring the land, without it having signalled that it wishes to be notified. The bill already provides for notification to anyone, who need not be a community body, who has provided details and wants to be notified in the event of a landowner notifying ministers of an intention to transfer the land. That is the right target group. Expanding the requirement to anybody who has engaged with ministers under section 34 of the 2003 act would be a huge addition and would carry significant resource implications. There would not be a policy benefit in taking that approach, so I ask members not to support amendment 351.

I am not quite sure about the intent behind amendment 418, in the name of Tim Eagle, but it appears to seek to limit those who can submit a part 2 community right-to-buy application following pre-notification. However, that is already a feature of the bill. Community bodies that are not already in receipt of a section 34 letter must use the time that has been allowed by the prohibition on transfer to obtain that letter before they can submit a part 2 application. I ask the committee not to support amendment 418.

Michael Matheson’s amendments would introduce sites of community significance to the provision. We discussed that issue in detail in the previous session, so I hope that he will not move his amendments in that regard.

On my amendment 115. I say again clearly that we have listened to and considered the stakeholder feedback on the timescales for pre-notification. I know that, in its stage 1 report, the committee noted the recommendation of the Scottish Land Commission, which I have already referred to, for a single 90-day period, and it suggested that timescales should be

“adjusted to allow communities more time to note their interest and prepare an application.”

To that end, I have introduced amendment 115 to increase the second prohibition period from 40 to 70 days. Combined with the initial prohibition period of 30 days, that will give communities a total period of time of at least 100 days in which to note their initial interest and to prepare and submit an application to register a part 2 community interest in land.

Rhoda Grant’s amendments 352 to 354 on the pre-notification prohibition timescales would replace the two prohibition periods that can be imposed under pre-notification measures with two separate periods of 120 days each. I do not know whether that is the effect that was sought with the amendments, because the result would be that, even if there was no community body interested in the land in question, a prohibition of 120 days would still apply before the landowner could transfer the land. That is quite a long period of time to restrict a sale without due interest from a community body. For that reason, I ask members not to support those amendments.

On Tim Eagle’s amendment 113, I understand that he wants to encourage ministers to act quickly once they have received notification of a potential transfer and for the prohibition period to start running from that point. However, amendment 113 could have unintended consequences for communities. It also does not work with the separate provisions that calculate the period of time that communities have to engage with the process following that notification from ministers. I believe that it is appropriate for the prohibition to begin when the notification is made by ministers. However, I acknowledge the desire for greater clarity of timescales from a landowner’s perspective, and I want to assure Tim Eagle that those matters can be addressed through guidance.

Amendment 114 looks to place a duty on ministers to publish a notice that is provided to landowners to notify them that the prohibition on transfer has been lifted. It could have cost implications for the Scottish Government, but I would welcome further engagement with Tim Eagle to understand the reasoning behind the amendment a bit better.

Amendment 116 would place even more stringent conditions on communities than they would be subject to if they were submitting a regular right-to-buy application. That would turn pre-notification from a gateway into community ownership to something that would become a financial and bureaucratic hurdle. I oppose the amendment on that basis.

Proposals on the inclusion of a de minimis threshold were discussed extensively during stage 1. It is clear that stakeholders on all sides agree that non-controversial small sales should not be included in the pre-notification provisions. We have considered all the evidence that has been provided in that regard, and we have engaged extensively with stakeholders on the introduction of a de minimis threshold below which pre-notification provisions will not apply. I have lodged amendments 119, 128 and 137 to set out in the bill a de minimis exemption, which will depend on ministers making regulations at a future date to specify the area of land that will be exempted. That will enable the exempted area and related rules to be identified and agreed on following appropriate engagement and consultation. I hope that members will support the approach that I have set out.

There is a difficulty with amendment 419 in that it partially overlaps with the power in proposed new section 46L of the 2003 act to modify land that is subject to pre-notification provisions. If the intention behind the amendment is to allow for the introduction of something like a de minimis exemption, I think that that outcome will be better served by the amendments that I have lodged in that regard. Amendment 424 is related, because it would make those regulations subject to the affirmative procedure. Therefore, I do not support those amendments.

Amendment 420 would widen the circumstances in which ministers could lift pre-notification requirements on request from the owner. The bill allows for that to happen only in exceptional cases that are based on financial hardship. However, amendment 420 would give ministers quite wide discretion to decide that land was not subject to pre-notification requirements if they considered that that would be in the public interest. I disagree with the premise of the amendment, because I think that it is fair for pre-notification requirements to apply generally to all transfers of land within the bill’s scope, except in cases in which financial hardship is in play. The amendment would also risk creating administrative burdens and costs for the Government in relation to processing requests to lift the pre-notification rules on grounds other than financial hardship.

I also cannot support amendment 421, which seeks to remove composite holdings from land that will be affected by pre-notification provisions, because that would reduce the scope of the measures. I ask members not to support those amendments.

In a similar vein, Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 128A—I know that she is still to speak to it—seeks to amend my amendment 128, which would introduce the de minimis exemption. The purpose of amendment 128A appears to be to narrow the scope of the measures that ministers could take in future regulations to avoid misuse of the de minimis rule as a means of avoiding pre-notification requirements. I want to avoid transfers being artificially designed to avoid the need to pre-notify. It is therefore right that ministers have appropriate powers under proposed new section 46K of the 2003 act to provide for scenarios that will not benefit from the de minimis exemption. Amendment 128A would make it difficult to close any potential loopholes that could be used by those who had the time and resources to design schemes to avoid pre-notification measures in order to fly under the radar, so I cannot support the amendment.

As Tim Eagle has outlined, amendment 422 would raise the threshold from 1,000 hectares to 5,000 hectares, and amendment 423 would remove the definition of a connected person. Both amendments would reduce the number of landholdings that would be caught by pre-notification measures, which is why I do not support them.

That could well be. What is important is the consultation that we will undertake in relation to the land management plan, which I think would get into that in more detail. It is about having in the bill only higher-level statements about what we expect land management plans to contain.

That is why the first prohibition period—the initial 30 days—is so important. If there is no community interest, the prohibition is lifted at that point and the sale will have been delayed for only 30 days.

I will follow up in more detail with the convener on the point about the 70-day period, because I need to double check some things.

I do not intend to respond individually to every amendment in the group. Ultimately, we are trying to strike a balance between the bill and the detail that we will bring forward in the regulations on a land management plan. What is in the bill is not, by any means, intended to be an exhaustive list. We include in the bill high-level statements, which, following consultation, will be developed into more detail in the subsequent regulations. I restate that land management plans are not a requirement for landowners to take specific measures, but are intended to encourage landowners to consider what steps they may be able to take, and to provide more transparency on those plans.

I will turn to the different groups of amendments that we have just discussed. Tim Eagle’s amendments would remove most of the high-level statements of content and leave everything to guidance. On the other hand, Douglas Lumsden is taking the opposite approach and is, instead, requiring more detail on land management plans to be included in the bill. Some of what Douglas Lumsden is proposing can form part of the consultation and development with stakeholders that I talked about, and consideration of the impact of requirements will be key to ensuring that. I therefore recommend that the amendments from Tim Eagle and Douglas Lumsden are not supported.

Ariane Burgess’s amendment 26 requires information that I think it is right to have in the bill.