Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

That is absolutely fine. What we are doing with the powers in the bill and with pre-notification is enabling another route to use of the community right to buy as it is at the moment. The review could propose changes that we would need to implement. That would have to be part of consideration once we have consulted, but if changes to the legislation were required to adjust the powers, they would be subject to future legislation.

I am sorry—I hope that I am explaining things and providing some clarity.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.