Chamber and committees

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.

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

I am pleased to speak to amendment 43 and my other amendments in the group. I again thank Community Land Scotland and the Scottish Parliament legislation team for their support in drafting the amendments.

The bill makes it clear that provisions for land management plans, lotting limits and transfer tests will apply to single, composite or contiguous landholdings. As it stands, that means that non-contiguous landholdings that are over the threshold will not be subject to the effects of the bill and that a single owner of multiple holdings that amount to many times the size of the large landholding threshold will be unaffected by the bill. However, the stated purpose of the bill is to address the national concentration of land ownership across Scotland. The Scottish Land Commission found that aggregate holdings and complex ownership structures pose challenges for transparency and applying the bill’s provisions.

My amendments 43 and 47 therefore seek to remove the limitation that holdings must be contiguous, thus removing loopholes around non-contiguous landholdings and ensuring that aggregate landholdings that are over the threshold will be included in the scope of the bill. If the amendments are agreed to, they will ensure that aggregate landholdings are included in the land management plan requirements, prior notification requirements and public interest test requirements, while removing the loophole of landholdings being severed by infrastructure.

The amendments would remove the requirement for landholdings to border each other and ensure that large landowners of multiple holdings across the country are within the scope of the bill. Amendments 43 and 47, taken with amendments 122 and 125 in group 10 and amendments 140 and 145 in group 12, therefore seek to remove loopholes in relation to contiguous landholdings and include aggregate landholdings.

Bob Doris’s amendment 182, which is in group 16, would introduce a duty on Scottish ministers to regularly review the thresholds. It is vital that we future proof the legislation to sustain the direction of travel towards greater diversification of land ownership. My amendment 109 therefore seeks to amend proposed new section 44M of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2016 to specify that

“Regulations ... must not increase the number of hectares in area that land must exceed for obligations to be imposed on the land.”

Amendment 109, taken with amendment 133 in group 10 and amendment 171 in group 12, would ensure that thresholds may not be revised upwards.

Labour supports Ariane Burgess’s amendments 3 and 4, which seek to lower the threshold to 500 hectares. I have long campaigned for that and we welcome the Greens’ support for it.

Does Dr Tuckett want to contribute?

I have two questions. First, I will go back to target topics, which I know we discussed at the start of the session. The programme advisory group identified seven target topics. We have discussed the three that are being taken forward, but I want to hear your views on investment in biodiversity, which is not being taken forward. Does any of your organisations have a view on the extent to which a statutory target on investment in biodiversity would be useful and help to drive forward the changes that are required?

Thank you. My second question is about consultation on the targets. The Scottish Government, in evidence to the committee, said that it did not envisage doing any formal public consultation. Based on your organisations experiences of engaging with the public and people who are affected by and living in the environment, what are your views on the need to carry out public consultation on the targets, specifically?

That is helpful. Would anyone else like to come in?

They have been answered.