Chamber and committees

My questions will go back over some issues and address one other thing that is more substantive.

You all talked about urban land reform and the way that that could be incorporated in the bill by categorising land as being of community significance. Does that need to go in the bill separately, or could the categorisation be used for rural land as well?

I have a very brief question—and it will probably get brief answers. We talked about land management plans and how communities engage with them. How do we empower communities to engage? We have heard about the costs for landowners but how can the many individuals who live in communities on that land engage properly, given that they will be beholden to the landowner at some point?

My other question is around natural capital, which we have not really tackled. We know that people invest in planting trees and so on, and they use that to offset bad behaviour elsewhere. Those people can buy leases or control of the land for quite a long period of time—they might not own the land, but they control it. Therefore, should the bill cover how the land is controlled? It is certainly not in the public interest for people to control land to offset polluting behaviour elsewhere. Is the bill an opportunity to tackle that and, if so, how should it do so?

Thank you—I appreciate that. Would anything else make late registrations easier? I appreciate that some communities do not want to register until they see land changing hands. Could something be done that would simplify that process and make it easier?

Could I ask one final question, convener?

You both spoke about whether buyers would take on land management plans. We also talked about community purchases, which must have sustainable development at their core. Do you believe that private buyers are being held to different rules and regulations? Would their having to sign up to sustainable development and a land management plan before they purchased land make things more equal, or would that be too unwieldy?

Well, they are being held to a certain standard, in that they have to show that their development is sustainable and in the public interest. Should private landowners be held to such standards to the same degree, and would doing so level the playing field between community and private buyers?

Thank you.

That evidence was really interesting. Both of you spoke about a compulsory sale or compulsory purchase test. Would that help to deal with some of your concerns about late registration and the community right to buy?

Have you spoken to the Scottish Crofting Federation about that, as well? It will impact more of its members than NFUS members.