���˿���

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.

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?

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.

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?

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?