Meeting of the Parliament 21 March 2019
I am going to make a bit of time. I will perhaps let the member intervene if there is an opportunity later.
I want to look at some of the comments in the Scottish Land Commission’s report, because I suspect that many members who are speaking in the debate will rely on it. Let us look at some of the examples that it contains. The report suggests that all the problems in the countryside are due to the actions of landowners, by which it—conveniently—appears to mean large landowners. One example quotes restrictions on development because of high rents. As a surveyor, I know that rents in towns and in the countryside are set by the market. Is it right that landlords with land holdings should charge lower rents because they have more assets? I do not think that that argument is sustainable.
Another example is about the inability of a rural business to expand because it did not own enough land. It suggests that the neighbouring landowner was at fault because it would not sell the business the extra land. That is a problem that all businesses face when they want to expand. It does not matter to me one iota whether that is in the countryside or the town: if a business does not have the land to expand on to, it must look for new premises. As a businessman, I have faced exactly the same problem.
Another example relates to a landowner being criticised by a community for charging high fees for a transaction. The landowner had asked that the purchaser bear the professional costs of a voluntary sale. That is the way that things work. If one person approaches another to sell them land, the costs are passed on to the person who wants to buy it. Why should the position be different in a rural scenario?
Gillian Martin rose—
Now I will take an intervention.