In Parliament

Bob Doris (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)

As a member of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, I thank all our witnesses who, for a prolonged period, gave their time to provide valuable evidence on the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill. That evidence has supported the committee in completing our stage 1 report on the bill, the principles of which were agreed by the majority of MSPs on the committee, myself included.

Before I go into detail on some of the bill’s provisions, I wish to make a general point. It is clear from our report that there is a desire for Parliament to shape the legislation and take it further than where it currently stands, and it is likely that there will be a considerable number of amendments. That shows that our committee system in this place is working well. The Scottish Government’s response to our report shows that the Government has found that scrutiny to be beneficial, and it is up for many of those amendments. I look forward to working in partnership on such matters.

I want to look at the threshold for the duty on large landowners to produce a land management plan, which I think is important. Our committee asked the Scottish Government to reflect on the threshold of 3,000 hectares, given that there have been many calls for it to be lowered. I will simply reiterate what I said at committee: Glasgow’s botanic gardens and grounds, which sit in my constituency—in part, anyway—would fit 150 times into 3,000 hectares. It would seem remarkable that, if the gardens fitted only 149 times into an area of land, that land would not be required to have a land management plan. The gardens would fit 50 times into a threshold of 1,000 hectares, and I think that most fair-minded people would say that an area of land that is 50 times the scale of Glasgow’s botanic gardens should have a plan. It seems like a no-brainer to me. For me, that part of the bill certainly needs to be looked at again.

The Scottish Government has said that such a reduction would double the number of large holdings required to develop such a plan to 700, which, to me, is not burdensome but positive. The Scottish Government noted that lowering the threshold could add cost, as it would increase the number of landowners who had community engagement responsibilities. I say this to the Government: the committee heard on several occasions that good landlords will already have most of the elements of a land management plan in place, because that is what good landowners do.

We were told a similar thing with regard to community consultations. Good landowners, as a matter of course, consult with communities living on or beside their land on an on-going basis. We were told that time and again. If they are good landowners, as most will be, I cannot for the life of me see why large landowners would be concerned.

Landowners already consult with communities and have land management strategies, so I hope that large landowners will embrace the changes rather than resist them. Our committee was clear that community engagement has to be meaningful and landowners should be able to demonstrate how they have taken community views and considerations into account when drafting their land management plans. We were clear that that must not be a tick-box exercise, and I am pleased that the Scottish Government has agreed to consider the issue further.

Briefly, on the cost of pulling land management plans together, some witnesses’ estimates varied greatly. I was left unconvinced by many of their arguments, because I find it contradictory on the one hand to say that much of this work is taking place anyway and, on the other, to raise cost concerns. However, many excellent landowners out there are already regularly consulting communities in a meaningful way, and when we bring regulations forward, we must do so in a way that recognises that good practice.

I repeat the committee’s view that a one-off fine for landowners of up to £5,000 for non-compliance is insufficient, so I am pleased that the Government will look at that again. That said, I should note the difference between the sort of wilful non-compliance that should be subject to fines, and landowners requiring support to meet their duties in this area, with good practice and advice being shared among them. I want more substantial fines in some cases of non-compliance, but I do not want a rush to apply fines or sanctions. Our landowners remain key partners in all of this.

That brings me to the role of the proposed land and communities commissioner. I want the commissioner to develop a positive, supportive and constructive relationship with all stakeholders, and large landowners will be at the heart of that process. Hence, I have distinguished between dealing with wilful non-compliance and supporting large landowners to be compliant, as well as acknowledging the good practice that already exists out there.

My important point, however, is that I am keen for the land and communities commissioner to be able to undertake proactive investigations in the absence of a report from a designated body. I am pleased that the Scottish Government will consider that, but I want to go further. Each year, a small number of land management plans should be proactively investigated for compliance in the absence of a reported breach. Land management plans must not just exist on paper; they must be implemented in practice—and not just the community consultation element, either. Depending on the nature of any non-compliance that is identified, support rather than sanction might be the most appropriate outcome.

In my final moments, I want to make a connection that I do not think has been clearly made with regard to good-quality land management plans, exercising the right to buy and lotting arrangements. A land management plan worth its salt will make reference to areas of land that will be of benefit to the community in the next five, 10 or 15 years, and lotting arrangements could feed into that process, if a sale were ever to take place.

I support the bill’s general principles.