Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

We want a thriving tenanted sector in Scotland. There is absolutely no question about that. That is why the provisions that we have included as part of the bill will modernise the legislation and bring it up to date. Ultimately, they seek to ensure that tenant farmers can play an equal role in delivering the outcomes that we all want, which we have outlined in our vision for agriculture, and that they can be as much a part of that process as anyone else. Ultimately, that is what this is about.

As you said, whenever land reform provisions come around, we hear a lot about what landlords might look to do in relation to tenancies, but I think that there are always going to be bigger factors at play in that respect. For example, what is coming down the line with regard to the United Kingdom Government’s announcements on its proposed changes to inheritance tax will do far more damage than any of the proposals that we are looking to introduce in the bill.

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.

First, I want to clearly set out that the transfer test is a public interest test. It does not use those exact two words, but that is what the transfer test is: it will ensure that we take the public interest into consideration when a land transfer involves more than 1,000 hectares. Various proposals emerged about where the test should fall, whether it could fall on the buyer and the different ways in which it could work. However, the transfer test has been introduced on the basis of the evidence that we have and our ability to implement it, because the only way that we can implement a public interest test is by doing a test at the point of transfer of land.