Chamber and committees

May I ask what the member’s position is on the principle of who owns Scotland? Does he think that it is right that anyone anywhere in the world with enough money can own Scotland, while many people here do not have access to the land?

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.

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?

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.

It is on your point about not having the evidence base to address aggregate landholdings. Will you say a little more about that? Is it not the case that the national concentration of land ownership was recognised as an issue by the Scottish Government, formed part of the consultation for the bill, but is now not being included? That seems to go against research and findings from the Scottish Land Commission. It caught my attention when you said that there is no evidence base—it is not clear to me what that statement is based on.

It sounds as though you are saying that you support the intention behind amendment 109. I gather that the bill sets a particular direction of travel towards diversifying ownership, so it would make sense to prevent any further increases so that we do not go back on ourselves. Could an amendment be lodged to secure that direction of travel, which I think we agreed on, ahead of stage 3?

Does that mean that you are not ruling out a future reduction in the threshold to 500 hectares?

Does that mean that the Government’s position has changed and that you no longer recognise national concentration of land ownership to be a problem for Scotland?

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 amendment 174 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.

I thank the minister for advance sight of his statement. We have heard from several members today about the new report by Robert Gordon University in Aberdeen, which warns that the energy workforce could shrink by 400 jobs every two weeks for the next five years. However, instead of using his statement to outline a much-needed industrial strategy for the north-east, the minister tries to blame job losses on the redistributive windfall tax on the obscene profits made by Shell and other oil and gas multinationals. In all the years of rampant profiteering, my constituents in the north-east were no safer from economic shock, energy poverty or job insecurity. It does not trickle down. Why does the minister want us to believe that it does?