Chamber and committees

I thank the cabinet secretary for her response, which Rhoda Grant will respond to. I am sure that she will be in touch to discuss the issue further, and she is aware that there are later amendments that seek to address some of the issues that she was looking at. On that basis, I withdraw amendment 381.

Amendment 381, by agreement, withdrawn.

Section 8 agreed to.

Schedule

Thank you very much, convener. Good evening to the committee and the cabinet secretary.

Amendment 381 would ensure that land transfers in key rural areas contribute to small-scale farming opportunities, which supports the bill’s overall objectives and rural sustainability goals. It would insert more equitable and productive land use in crofting and smallholding regions; introduce new obligations for landowners in certain areas of Scotland to create crofts or small landholdings when land is transferred to a new owner; and modify both the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993 and the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act 1911.

For crofts, when land in crofting areas such as the Highlands and Islands or other designated regions is sold or transferred, the new owner must apply to the Crofting Commission to convert part of the land into a new croft. That would ensure that land sales in crofting regions actively contribute to croft creation.

For smallholdings, the amendment would require the Scottish ministers to create regulations providing that, when new landowners acquire land, they must seek to constitute part of the land as small landholdings. The regulations would follow the affirmative procedure, which means that they would require parliamentary approval.

I move amendment 381.

I will start the sentence again.

By removing the requirement for landholdings to border each other, that would ensure that large landowners of multiple estates across the country would be in the scope of the bill. That would ensure that the bill fulfils its goal of disrupting concentrated, national-level patterns of land ownership by the few. Taken with amendments 43, 47, 122 and 125, amendments 140 and 145 would therefore remove loopholes on contiguous landholdings and would include aggregated landholdings.

The intention is for the thresholds to be adjusted only downwards. Therefore, my amendment 171, in the same manner as amendments 109 and 133, would amend the bill to specify that the regulations

“must not increase the number of hectares ... that land must exceed”

in order for the obligations or prohibitions to be imposed on the land. Therefore, amendment 171, taken together with amendments 109 and 133, would ensure that thresholds cannot be revised upwards.

I will speak to amendments 6 to 9 in the name of Ariane Burgess. I have long campaigned for more democratic land ownership and a practical 500-hectare threshold. That was central to the consultation on my proposed land ownership and public interest (Scotland) bill. Amendments 6 to 8 seek to reduce the threshold definition of large landholdings, and the purpose of amendment 9 is to insert an islands criterion. The amendments would reduce the lotting limits from 1,000 hectares to 500 hectares, which would make the powers apply to land that exceeds 500 hectares and land that exceeds 50 hectares as part of a large landholding exceeding 500 hectares. I am fully supportive of those amendments, as is my colleague Monica Lennon.

Yes, I will leave it there.

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.