Chamber and committees

Good morning and welcome to the 29th meeting of the Social Justice and Social Security Committee in 2024. We have apologies from our convener, Collette Stevenson, and from Jeremy Balfour. I welcome Roz McCall, who is attending as a substitute for Jeremy Balfour. It is good to have her back.

Our first two agenda items were taken in private, so we move to item 3, which is to agree also to take agenda item 7 in private. Do members agree to do so?

Members indicated agreement.

If no member wishes to make a contribution, I want to put one thing on the record in relation to a constituency interest of mine.

A lady called Julie Love started the Death Abroad—You’re Not Alone charity, which deals with the real financial strains and emotional turmoil faced by those who lose loved ones overseas. I am aware of individuals who have wished to repatriate bodies but have had to have the funerals overseas, because they could not afford the repatriation costs, and I would just like to highlight the general swirl that happens, not just in a financial sense but with regard to the need for a pathway to steer around.

Given that funeral expense assistance is starting to look at supporting those who have lost loved ones overseas, it would be helpful—not as part of this statutory instrument, of course—if some cross-cutting work on the issue could be carried out between Social Security Scotland and perhaps the Scottish Government justice directorate, which I know has looked at the matter previously, based on points raised not just by me, but by Hannah Bardell, when she was an MP, and by Angela Constance before she returned to the post of Cabinet Secretary for Justice.

I wanted to put that on the record, because there seems to be a connection between providing funeral assistance to those who lose loved ones overseas and how we support them more widely. I will say no more than that, but given this opportunity for a brief debate, I wanted to put some of that on the record.

As no other members wish to contribute, I ask the cabinet secretary to sum up and to respond to the debate, if she so wishes.

I think that my colleagues will return to that imminently.

The bill is apparently silent on whether those who report breaches will be granted anonymity within the process. Is there a risk that groups or organisations that have to work daily or routinely with large landowners might be deterred from reporting breaches or raising concerns if anonymity is not secured? Do you have any thoughts on that?

You were nodding your head, Dr Doble, but the Official Report will not capture a nodding of the head—sorry.

Is the £5,000 figure about right, or is it too limited?

My understanding is that if the proposed land and communities commissioner became aware of or suspected potential breaches—however they became aware of them—they would not under the bill have the power to kick-start their own investigation. Is that a weakness in relation to the system?

Of course, convener. I have a line of questioning that I would like to explore. I am sure that you will let me do so, following that session of supplementary questions.

Okay. We are talking about a threshold of 3,000 hectares, but I am conscious that we are limiting the proposals to a single composite and contiguous holding. We are not looking at aggregated corporate holdings. Linda Gillespie, I give you an opportunity to comment on the idea of ensuring that we incorporate aggregated holdings as well as single holdings. Do you have any views on that?

That was very helpful, and what you have said will please the convener, as it links with my next question. That is good for keeping us timeous.

I want to return to the scale of land management plans and the threshold that is involved. Mr Ruskell’s exchange on that was helpful in pointing out that it is not always a matter of scale but about public interest and other overlapping policy considerations.

The threshold is currently set at 3,000 hectares, but, for many people, that will be just a number. For example, Glasgow’s botanic gardens and their lands are in my constituency, and those would fit 150 times into 3,000 hectares, which perhaps brings home the fact that the threshold is way too high and should be reconsidered. Evidence to the committee has suggested that the threshold could be set at 500 or 1,000 hectares. However, we must also consider whether additional burdens might be placed on what could be small businesses if we were to place such obligations on them. I get the fact that responsibilities come with owning significant holdings such as 500 or 1,000 hectares. How do we get the balance right between potentially imposing such burdens on small businesses and their taking on the responsibilities that we would like to see happen? Perhaps Jon Hollingdale would come in first on that.