Seòmar agus comataidhean

On the basis of the cabinet secretary’s commitment to discuss the issue with Rhoda Grant, I will not move the amendment.

Rhoda Grant’s amendments address a loophole in the requirement for beneficial ownership of land to be registered. Currently, if a person has a security declaration in place, their details can remain hidden, which can be used to evade transparency and leave tenants with no way of contacting the landlord who has controlling interest in the land. If a tenant needs to discuss land management, repairs or other issues but cannot reach the decision maker, that causes significant problems.

Amendment 377 introduces a new right for tenants to request contact with “an associate”—that is, the person with controlling interest—even if a security declaration is in place. It provides that the keeper of the registers of Scotland, who is responsible for maintaining the register of persons holding a controlled interest in land,

“must facilitate communication between the tenant and the associate”,

while still protecting the associate’s personal details.

As mentioned previously, the register of persons holding a controlled interest in land requires certain entities, such as trusts and offshore companies, to disclose individuals with controlling interests in land, even if they are not the legal owners. However, individuals can apply for a security declaration under regulation 16 if public disclosure would risk their safety. Currently, when someone applies for a security declaration, the keeper of the registers of Scotland must notify the recorded person—that is, the legal owner or entity—and the associate, who is the person with the controlling interest.

Amendment 378 would add

“the chief constable of the Police Service of Scotland”

to the list of parties who must be notified when a security declaration is applied for and when a security declaration is revoked or expires. That ensures that law enforcement is aware of situations in which someone’s safety might be at risk due to land ownership disputes as well as transparency requirements.

The two amendments seek to close the current loophole that stops tenants from contacting their landlord, while protecting any owners of land who might be at risk if their details are published.

These are probing amendments from Rhoda Grant on the basis that there is a clear and legitimate precedent for Governments to use taxation to seek to alter behaviours, such as in relation to smoking, alcohol, car fuel and other areas. In relation to land, it is important to note that the Scottish Government has already introduced a premium on second-home purchases to create a disincentive to such transactions.

The amendments in the group seek to explore whether a review of land and building transaction tax and a sliding scale of LBTT supplement for increasing scale of land ownership could be used to discourage the ownership of large tracts of land.

The purpose of land reform is, of course, to change land ownership patterns. At the same time, taxation and agricultural funding provide greater rewards for larger landholdings, so those policies are at odds. Scottish Labour recognises that the bill is not where we make taxation decisions, but we believe that it is the place to have the debate on whether we are using all the levers at our disposal to change the land ownership patterns in Scotland and whether those policies are currently at odds.

Amendment 368 seeks to introduce a new section into the Land and Buildings Transaction Tax (Scotland) Act 2013, section 26B, which would allow Scottish ministers to impose an additional tax on purchases of large landholdings—those exceeding 500 hectares. The amendment also seeks to ensure that regulations under this new power follow the affirmative procedure, which would require the Scottish Parliament’s approval.

Amendment 369 would introduce a new tax relief under the Land and Buildings Transaction Tax (Scotland) Act 2013, specifically for transactions that are carried out under the community right-to-buy provisions of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003. LBTT can be a significant cost for community groups, particularly when purchasing large or high-value land parcels, so removing that cost would make community ownership more feasible and align with the Government’s land reform objectives.

Amendment 370 seeks to introduce a mandatory review of LBTT as it applies to non-residential properties, with a focus on how the tax influences land ownership patterns, community wealth and rural sustainability. It requires Scottish ministers to review the impact of LBTT on non-residential land transactions within one year. The review must assess diversifying land ownership, how landholding size affects community wealth and measures to support repopulation and sustainable communities. Ministers must publish a report outlining any proposed policy changes within two years.

As I have said, these are probing amendments. We are keen to have discussions with the cabinet secretary in advance of stage 3 and potential future legislation in this area. With regard to the amendments in the name of Ross Greer, we welcome debate on this topic.

I move amendment 368.

I have nothing further to add, convener, and I would like to withdraw amendment 368.

Amendment 368, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 369 and 370 not moved.

Amendment 466 moved—[Ross Greer].

Thank you. I would like to take you up on the offer to meet to discuss the matter ahead of stage 2.

My final question also relates to invasive non-native species. They are a principal driver of biodiversity loss globally, they are an intensifying issue in Scotland and they are having particularly serious impacts on islands. I am thinking specifically of projects involving highly mobile species, such as the Orkney Native Wildlife Project that the Scottish Government funds.

Does the cabinet secretary believe that the current legal arrangements for tackling invasive non-native species are adequate? In particular, can operational staff access land with sufficient speed to eradicate highly mobile species? My point relates to Rhoda Grant’s earlier question about designating particular zones so that, where there are highly mobile species, operational staff can get access to land in order to carry out eradication.

I do not have any further questions.

Good morning, cabinet secretary. I have three question areas, if that is okay. I will see how we do for time.

The first is about the purpose of the bill. The explanatory notes say:

“The primary duty is to set targets in connection with nature restoration for the purpose of supporting and measuring implementation of the biodiversity strategy”.

A concern has been raised with me that, by linking the purpose to the biodiversity strategy, we potentially create a loophole whereby a future Government could water down the biodiversity strategy. The purpose of the targets would then be to support something that has been watered down, instead of whatever the overall aim or goal is—restoring the natural environment or whatever form of words the Government chooses to use.

Is the cabinet secretary open to looking at that potential loophole and at a way of tightening up the language to make sure that the purpose of the targets is to support the goal, as you have referenced already, and not an external strategy that is not legally binding and which could be watered down by a future Government?

Thank you. My next question relates to invasive non-native species, which Rhoda Grant and Mark Ruskell have already picked up on. As Mark Ruskell said, we have relatively strong legislation on invasive non-native species—it is illegal to release any species outside its natural range—but there are two key areas in which blanket exemptions to that legislation risk undermining progress and damaging the natural environment. They are the lack of regulation on non-native game bird releases, which Mark Ruskell mentioned, and the exemption of non-native commercial conifers. Both of those are exempt from the polluter-pays principle.

Is the cabinet secretary open to revisiting those exemptions through the bill, so that we can help to drive effective action on invasive species in order to prevent further biodiversity loss?

I am pleased to speak to amendment 174 and my other amendments in the group. I thank Community Land Scotland and the Scottish Parliament legislation team for their support in drafting the amendments.

The bill as introduced includes a transfer test that does not make any assessment of the wider public interest in land ownership, nor does it assess whether the buyer or their plans for the land are in the public interest. Successive Scottish Governments have consistently made commitments to diversify land ownership patterns in Scotland but, as it stands, the transfer test in the bill is not an effective mechanism for achieving that.

In order for the test mechanism to be impactful, it must move beyond being a mere assessment of the landholding; it must instead make a forward-facing assessment of whether the landholding and the land management plan of the incoming landowners are in the public interest. That would also create coherence between the otherwise disconnected test and land management elements of the bill.

The committee heard evidence from numerous stakeholders, experts and land users that it is necessary to reframe the transfer test as a public interest test. The stage 1 report noted that the committee

“considers that the transfer test, as drafted, will not meet the aims of the Scottish Government as it does not sufficiently take account of the public interest”.

Unlike the term “community sustainability” in the bill, the term “public interest” is widely used in Scottish and UK legislation. It has more than 200 mentions in primary legislation, including in existing land reform legislation. That means that a public interest test is likely to establish a clearer precedent than a transfer test and would avoid future legal challenges. Research for the Scottish Government and the Scottish Land Commission has been clear on that.

My 174 amendment would therefore insert a forward-facing public interest test into the bill, with that test to be applied to a proposed new buyer in relation to transfers of large landholdings. Under the proposal, land being transferred would remain subject to public interest considerations and existing obligations, such as land management plans; at the same time, it would ensure that potential buyers would fulfil the land management plan obligations necessary for their ownership of the land.

The public interest test in amendment 174 and as amended by the presumed limit in amendment 174A would provide that a proposed transfer would have no effect in a situation where

“(a) section 67G ... or

(b) a lotting decision under section 67N applies to the land”,

if ministers considered that the transfer would not be in the public interest.