Scotland's community buyouts are strongly backing controversial proposals to give ministers new powers over large private landowners who obstruct sustainable development on or near their land.

They also say that if there are no relevant powers in Scotland, ministers should be able to refer large estates to the commercial sector watchdog the Competition and Markets Authority, if their property effectively constitutes a local monopoly.

New powers are proposed for Scottish Ministers or another public body "to direct private landowners to take action" if they are preventing local sustainable development if necessary by forcing them to lease or sell their land. It is one of the measures in the Scottish Government 's document on the future of land reform which has been out to a public consultation which has just ended.

The landowners organisation Scottish Land and Estate warned it its submission it has "extreme concerns" about this proposal and and fear it could undermine their human rights.

But Community Land Scotland (CLS) the umbrella organisation for community buyouts such as Assynt, Eigg and Gigha, has a very different perspective. Its submission says "We very strongly support this proposal."

It argues that except when land is compulsorily purchased to build the likes of a school or a road, it is not generally possible to formally ask, within the terms of the law, whether the ownership of land by particular individuals or some body, serves the public interest.

It continues: " The proposal, for the first time in Scotland, would allow this question to be asked within the context of what best serves sustainable development of land and the public interest. "

It paraphrases the Chair of the Land Reform Review Group, former Church of Scotland moderator Dr Alison Elliot, that the larger the land holding in any one individual's hands, the greater the moral hazard., and continues:

"It can only be right that Ministers, accountable to Parliament, are given powers of intervention to be able to ask what serves the public interest in ownership of specific land, and to be able to take actions to require change in that owner's actions or in that ownership itself. "

CLS says whether a monopoly of ownership is detrimental to a particular local area, ought to be capable of examination.

"At very least, Scottish Ministers ought to have referral powers to the Competition and Markets Authority over questions of monopolistic land ownership. "

However CLS says another course would be preferable : "Powers to examination detrimental effects from monopoly land ownership ought to exist within the arrangements surrounding the proposed Land Reform Commission and powers to Scottish Ministers."

Meanwhile the Scottish Human Rights Commission's submission highlights the importance of land as an asset that can help secure better social, environmental and economic outcomes for everyone.

Professor Alan Miller, Chair of the Commission said,

"Human rights have sometimes been painted as something of a 'red card' to stop discussion of land reform in its tracks. But human rights are neither a veto for landowners to stop land reform, nor a trump card for land reformers to buy land. Rather than polarising the debate, human rights should be seen as an impetus for, rather than an inhibition to, constructive dialogue.

He said land reform could play an important role in realising the right to an adequate standard of living contained in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

"Viewed through this broader international human rights lens, land is seen as an asset that can contribute to environmental objectives, meet the needs of people in existing and future communities, and build a strong and sustainable economy to provide prosperity for all, " he said