Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you.

If the member supports the principle of compulsory purchase and his only concern is the detail of the amendment, I would be happy to work with him between stage 2 and stage 3 in order to bring the amendment back.

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.

In relation to Douglas Lumsden’s legitimate concerns about the long-term viability of agriculture in Scotland, will Ariane Burgess join me in encouraging him to look at the research in the proposal for my land ownership and public interest (Scotland) bill, which found that just 3.6 per cent of agricultural landholdings are above the 500 hectare threshold?

As I said, the tax residence of a proposed buyer would be a consideration under the public interest test.

It is not enough to address the concentration of ownership. We must also address the scale, given that, today, the ownership of Scotland’s land is concentrated in the hands of the new nobility: asset managers, foreign billionaires and the inheritors of huge estates. Just 0.025 per cent of Scotland’s population owns 67 per cent of our countryside, and the bill presents an opportunity to change that.

That is why my amendment 174A would extend the public interest test to include a presumption against private land ownership of more than 500 hectares, unless that can be demonstrated as being in the public interest.

Large landholders that own land for the public benefit, such as environmental groups, community organisations and public bodies, should be confident that, by definition, their ownership would pass a public interest test. However, the extraordinarily high concentration of land in the hands of so few is severely limiting access to affordable homes, stifling job creation, increasing land prices and harming the environment, so it must be addressed. That is exactly what amendment 174A does.

The same proposal to cap ownership was included in the consultation for my proposed land ownership and public interest (Scotland) bill. That consultation garnered 568 responses, which is more than the Scottish Government’s consultation received for the bill that we are considering. The response was overwhelmingly positive, with majority support for a presumed limit on the amount of land that any person can own.

Amendment 174B seeks to place public interest considerations on the face of the bill in order to underpin a public interest test. That will ensure predictability, transparency and coherence for landowners who engage with the public interest test.

Amendment 459 introduces a provision for Scottish ministers to compulsorily acquire land after a transfer has failed the public interest test. Ministers would be granted the power to compulsorily acquire some or all of the land concerned if doing so would be in the public interest and more likely to secure true sustainable development of the area. That sustainable development must equally and fairly balance all interests, including worker, community, natural environment and biodiversity considerations.

Amendment 341 would add the consideration of a

“community request to constitute land as a croft”

for the purpose of croft creation under the proposed new section 44C of the 2016 act. Currently, section 44C allows for community bodies to request the lease of land. Adding the explicit option for communities to request croft creation can empower local communities to produce food for local consumption through sustainable and regenerative agricultural practices and provide croft housing for those who are growing that food.

For me, it is a point of democracy and accountability, and the extent to which, and how, the individuals you refer to can be held to account by people in Scotland if they do not manage the land appropriately. One would assume that, if someone is based here and has skin in the game—they contribute through taxation and so on—they will have a greater stake in what happens and the decisions that they make will have a greater impact on them, their family and their community.

Will the member give way?

I seek clarity on that position. On national concentration of land ownership—

My question is on that last point. Does the Scottish Government recognise national concentration of land ownership as a problem?

I will continue before I take the intervention.

In doing so, ministers would have to consider matters to do with the buyer, as set out in subsection (2) of the new section that amendment 174 would insert, namely where the landlord

“is resident for tax purposes ... the size and location of any other land”

that they control, their “plans or proposals” for land management and their future plans for the use or sale of the land.

By having a public interest test that assesses whether the landholding and the proposed purchaser are working in the public interest, that forward-facing burden, including in relation to lotting, is placed on the transfer. Because lotting is defined as being in the public interest, amendment 174 would not violate a property owner’s rights. Rather, it would create what has been described as a fit and proper person test to ensure that, in managing, buying and selling land, the owners of Scotland’s land do so in the public interest.

I will take Douglas Lumsden’s intervention.