Chamber and committees

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.

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?

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

They have been answered.

No—my questions have been answered.

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?

Does Dr Tuckett want to contribute?