Seòmar agus comataidhean

I appreciate that point. It has come through quite strongly in the evidence that people feel that the time allowed is generally not enough. We have been trying to strike a balance, because you do not want to withhold a sale for longer than is necessary. However, I appreciate that people feel that the period is not an adequate amount of time. Again, we are considering the evidence on that and any potential recommendations that the committee might make.

You are absolutely right about that letter. The work on the amendments that we are intending to lodge is very much on-going. Ultimately, that is about further consolidation of small landholding legislation to try to make it more accessible, as well as aligning it with tenant farming legislation.

I am trying to understand what you mean about crofting. Most of the provisions that we have proposed have been on the back of consultation that we have undertaken directly with small landholders, so the provisions are based on where they would like to be and where they see themselves, as well as how they would like to be aligned with other legislation.

No, that is not what I am saying. If you had listened to the comments that I just made—

I said that the proposals were based on recommendations suggesting that the most pressing issues and areas of concern were in rural Scotland and that more work needed to be done on the urban environment. I have heard the evidence that the committee has taken in relation to the issues that exist in urban environments, and I am not saying that there are no problems there. We have taken this focus because of the work that was done and the recommendations that were made at that point.

Absolutely. We have looked at the evidence that the committee has heard on that. You are absolutely right that forestry and others are saying that they are already working to plans that cover longer periods. That is where we tried to strike that balance. Ultimately, if it becomes a yearly exercise, the costs associated with that would be overly burdensome, not to mention the administration costs of that on the other side. For plans of 10 years and beyond, we would have to make sure that they do not become outdated, just as you said.

Five years was the timeline that was selected because the majority of respondents to the consultation agreed with that level and felt that it was an appropriate period. As with most of the matters that we are discussing this morning, we are keen to hear whether the committee has any particular recommendations, but we feel that, with the proposal as it is, we have struck that balance in responding to and accepting the views of the respondents to the consultation and what they felt was an appropriate timeline with the need for review and other considerations.

I appreciate that point, which I have also picked up through evidence.

What is key for us is that our proposals have an evidence base, which is why they are framed in the way that they are. I also completely appreciate the point that you make about aggregate holdings. However, the bill focuses on how communities are impacted by a high concentration of land ownership in an area, which would be harder to evidence if we were looking at overall ownership, which could be in other parts of the country, too. Bringing aggregate land holdings into the bill might not be appropriate to meet that aim and we would have to give that greater consideration.

I hope that that helps to explain the approach that we have taken. The focus is on the concentration of land ownership in an area, which becomes more difficult to evidence when looking at aggregate holdings.

I do not think that any of those issues are particularly easy to work through. Some of them have been on-going, and we have tried to tackle issues in previous legislation. We want to ensure that we get the right balance and address any issues where they exist. The pre-emptive right-to-buy measures that we have brought forward have been discussed largely with the tenant farming advisory forum. Ultimately, it is about trying to make that process clearer, and I want to be clear with the committee that we will discuss any regulations and will develop them very much with the industry.

As part of those measures, we would seek to repeal section 99 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2016. It was felt that, if that section was commenced, there would be a lack of clarity on how the process would operate. There was a general consensus that there should be registration but that the process could be improved.

I hand over to Fiona Leslie, who has been dealing with the issue and will be able to provide the committee with more information.

Officials are working with the tenant farming commissioner and wider stakeholders—including NatureScot and organisations such as the British Association for Shooting and Conservation and the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust—to look at how we can support training and advice for tenants and landlords. NatureScot already assesses damage that has been done by geese, for example, so we have experience that we can use to address the issue, but that work is on-going.

A number of factors are already taken into consideration. Ultimately, we are trying to make the process fairer for tenants so that the value is recognised for them.

I will hand over to Fiona Leslie, as she will probably be able to add more information.

There is a distinction between what is set out in relation to improvements and what is set out in relation to diversification. At the moment, schedule 5 relates to activities that support agricultural use of the land—for example, in relation to trees for shelter belts—whereas diversification is about non-agricultural activity. I believe that the former tenant farming commissioner provided information to TFAF about the range of considerations that must be taken into account with regard to planting trees. The work that has already been done will inform any future codes or guidance in that area. I do not know whether that answers your question.