Chamber and committees

Okay. Thank you. Mr Macleod?

I presume that that also goes towards the completion of the land register, which is helpful.

Just on that, you will be aware that Parliament will, in all likelihood, be passing another bill in that space today. Obviously we are at stage 1 of this land reform bill at the moment, but are you arguing that the process of this bill presents an opportunity for consolidation, or are you, perhaps in a more practical way, proposing that a consolidation act might be a good option for consideration in the next parliamentary session?

I draw attention to my entry in the register of members’ interests, which shows that I am a trained lawyer. Although I am no longer a member of the Law Society of Scotland, I am on the roll of Scottish solicitors. For transparency, I state that Dr Jill Robbie and I used to work together in private practice.

Thank you all for your time and for your submissions in advance of the meeting. Giving you the opportunity to build on those written submissions, we would be interested in hearing your views on the need for further land reform and on whether the bill, as drafted, will improve transparency, strengthen the rights and sustainable development of communities, and ensure sufficient and adequate supply of land. Perhaps Dr Robbie would like to begin.

In your written submission, you say:

“a legal obligation of community engagement will allow those impacted by the decisions of the owner to have a say in the management of the land.”

Could you elaborate on that?

I have one more question for you before we hear from the other panellists. In your written submission, you talked about

“the marketability of land in Scotland”.

I read that with interest. For full clarity, will you say a bit more about why you think that is important and why you would want Scotland’s land to be marketable? I am not sure that everyone would agree with that point.

That does not necessarily directly relate to inward investment. Many people argue that land in Scotland is not well used enough as things stand. The line of argument that I read from the submission is that you think that we should be able to trade land and incentivise inward investment, and you are concerned that the bill might have an impact on that. I am trying to get a sense of what your line of argument is, because I am not clear about that.

Is there any evidence base for that?

I have a subjective question for Dr Robbie and Mr Macleod. Earlier, we talked about the transfer test. The Scottish Government previously consulted on a public interest test. Do you have any views on the public interest test and whether there would be merit in amending the bill to include one?