���˿���

I am pleased to speak to amendment 174 and my other amendments in the group. I thank Community Land Scotland and the Scottish Parliament legislation team for their support in drafting the amendments.

The bill as introduced includes a transfer test that does not make any assessment of the wider public interest in land ownership, nor does it assess whether the buyer or their plans for the land are in the public interest. Successive Scottish Governments have consistently made commitments to diversify land ownership patterns in Scotland but, as it stands, the transfer test in the bill is not an effective mechanism for achieving that.

In order for the test mechanism to be impactful, it must move beyond being a mere assessment of the landholding; it must instead make a forward-facing assessment of whether the landholding and the land management plan of the incoming landowners are in the public interest. That would also create coherence between the otherwise disconnected test and land management elements of the bill.

The committee heard evidence from numerous stakeholders, experts and land users that it is necessary to reframe the transfer test as a public interest test. The stage 1 report noted that the committee

“considers that the transfer test, as drafted, will not meet the aims of the Scottish Government as it does not sufficiently take account of the public interest”.

Unlike the term “community sustainability” in the bill, the term “public interest” is widely used in Scottish and UK legislation. It has more than 200 mentions in primary legislation, including in existing land reform legislation. That means that a public interest test is likely to establish a clearer precedent than a transfer test and would avoid future legal challenges. Research for the Scottish Government and the Scottish Land Commission has been clear on that.

My amendment 174 would therefore insert a forward-facing public interest test into the bill, with that test to be applied to a proposed new buyer in relation to transfers of large landholdings. Under the proposal, land being transferred would remain subject to public interest considerations and existing obligations, such as land management plans; at the same time, it would ensure that potential buyers would fulfil the land management plan obligations necessary for their ownership of the land.

The public interest test in amendment 174 and as amended by the presumed limit in amendment 174A would provide that a proposed transfer would have no effect in a situation where

“(a) section 67G ... or

(b) a lotting decision under section 67N applies to the land”,

if ministers considered that the transfer would not be in the public interest.

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?

I also heard you touch on investment, which relates to my second question, which is for the wider panel. When the Government was working on the bill, seven topics were identified by the programme advisory group, and only three of those topics are being taken forward in the bill. One of the topics that is not being taken forward is investment in biodiversity. I heard that mentioned by a few of our witnesses today.

Dr McParland said that CIEEM would like to see targets as a driver for investment in biodiversity and noted that 22 per cent of planning authorities do not have access to biodiversity expertise, and Jacqueline Cook, on behalf of the SPF, spoke about local authorities not having the resources. It seems that there is a funding gap.

My question, therefore, is whether you believe that the protection and restoration that we are discussing can happen without public investment. How likely is it that the outcomes can be delivered without a statutory target on public investment? What is your view on the lack of a target on public investment in the bill?

I also heard you touch on investment, which relates to my second question, which is for the wider panel. When the Government was working on the bill, seven topics were identified by the programme advisory group, and only three of those topics are being taken forward in the bill. One of the topics that is not being taken forward is investment in biodiversity. I heard that mentioned by a few of our witnesses today.

Dr McParland said that CIEEM would like to see targets as a driver for investment in biodiversity and noted that 22 per cent of planning authorities do not have access to biodiversity expertise, and Jacqueline Cook, on behalf of the SPF, spoke about local authorities not having the resources. It seems that there is a funding gap.

My question, therefore, is whether you believe that the protection and restoration that we are discussing can happen without public investment. How likely is it that the outcomes can be delivered without a statutory target on public investment? What is your view on the lack of a target on public investment in the bill?

Do we need a specific target for investment? The Scottish Government said that it believes that there is a risk of perverse outcomes, such as greenwashing. I would therefore be interested to hear your views on whether a target for investment would be helpful.