Chamber and committees

Amendments 140 and 145 seek to ensure that aggregated, non-contiguous landholdings across Scotland fall under the definition of a “large holding of land” when applying the prohibitions. As with amendments 43 and 47 and amendments 122 and 125, which were debated in previous groupings, non-contiguous landholdings that are over the threshold limit will not be affected by the bill. By removing the requirement for landholdings to border each other, that would ensure that large landowners—[Interruption.]

Amendment 359 allows ministers to make a lotting decision on the basis that the lotted land will be put into crofting tenure. That provides the ability to increase the number of crofts available. We know that there is a waiting list for crofts, and we know that crofts provide the opportunity to grow food and provide a house site for the crofter to build a house to live in.

Rhoda Grant’s amendment 360 is consequential to amendment 359. It extends the provision for ministers to explain their decision with regard to lotting to similarly explain their decision with regard to lotting for crofts.

Rhoda Grant’s amendment 361 allows ministers to have regard to local food production when making decisions about lotting and creating new crofts. We need to encourage local food production, and the amendment would help to encourage that within communities. Amendment 362 is consequential to amendment 361 in that it includes a definition of “crofting counties”.

Rhoda Grant’s amendment 363 ensures that lots or new crofts do not impinge on current crofts and common grazings.

On Bob Doris’s amendment 182, I support the introduction of a duty to review thresholds. I previously lodged amendments to amend the duty so that thresholds could only be revised downwards. Those amendments were not agreed to, but it is important that we secure a move in that direction of travel. Is the member open to working on further amendments ahead of stage 3? I put that to the cabinet secretary as well.

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].

In Shuhada Street, in al-Khalil, the occupation has segregated Palestinians from illegal settlements for two decades. What was once a central thoroughfare, a hive of commercial activity and the Barras of the city is now described as a ghost town. Military checkpoints deny Palestinian residents free movement in their home city. Children queue in metal cages to reach their destinations—school, the grocery store or simply home. Those are ordinary, peaceful activities. That is why, every year since 2010, youth against settlements has campaigned to open Shuhada Street, end the closures in the city and end the military occupation of Palestine.

Shuhada Street is but one example of the indignity that Palestinians face every day. For more than 100 years, a war has been waged on the Palestinian people not because of religion, politics or self-defence, but because of land. In the pursuit of a land without a people for a people without a land, there was just one problem: the land had and has a people—the Palestinians. What we are witnessing in Gaza—the catastrophic humanitarian situation, the deliberate withholding of food by Israel, the half a million people in acute malnutrition, and one of the world’s worst hunger crises unfolding in real time—is, in short, genocide against Palestinians. It is not accidental. It is not “collateral damage”. It is by design.

We know that because that is what the Israeli Government told us. Yoav Gallant, then Minister of Defence, said on 9 October 2023:

“I have ordered a complete siege on the Gaza Strip. There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel, everything is closed. We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly.”

The International Criminal Court has issued a warrant for his arrest. Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister, said on 17 November 2023:

“It is necessary to make cultural changes in Gaza, such as in Japan and Germany following World War 2.”

The International Criminal Court has issued a warrant for his arrest. Their words are incitement to genocide. Their actions are ethnic cleansing. Let us be clear: Gallant and Netanyahu are not lone operators. The Likud party, which they represent, is a right-wing nationalist party founded by members of terrorist organisations that expressly opposes the establishment of a Palestinian state. And the actions of those men and of the Israeli Government, as grave as they are, are not at all surprising. What is surprising is the blind eye that has been turned by so much of the international community. That must not be allowed to continue.

The UK Government must immediately suspend all UK arms exports to Israel, and the Scottish Government must ensure that no public money is awarded to companies that are manufacturing and supplying arms or their components to Israel. Whether our Governments act will come down to the people, as it always does. Through the votes that we cast, through the voices that we raise and through the choices that we make, together we can turn the tide.

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.

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?