Skip to main content
Loading…

Chamber and committees

Official Report: search what was said in Parliament

The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.  

Filter your results Hide all filters

Dates of parliamentary sessions
  1. Session 1: 12 May 1999 to 31 March 2003
  2. Session 2: 7 May 2003 to 2 April 2007
  3. Session 3: 9 May 2007 to 22 March 2011
  4. Session 4: 11 May 2011 to 23 March 2016
  5. Session 5: 12 May 2016 to 4 May 2021
  6. Current session: 13 May 2021 to 11 September 2025
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 2698 contributions

|

Meeting of the Parliament

Land Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 26 March 2025

Douglas Lumsden

I will come back later if I have time, Mr Doris.

Meeting of the Parliament

Land Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 26 March 2025

Douglas Lumsden

—and the rights of the tenant to ensure that the market is not damaged. The committee had concerns that that balance had not been struck.

It is for those reasons that I am unable to support the bill at stage 1.

Meeting of the Parliament

Land Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 26 March 2025

Douglas Lumsden

I have a very brief question on costs. Does Bob Doris share my concern that it is not just costs on the landowner that would increase—he has addressed that—but costs on the Land Commission, which has already been told that it has to find the money from existing budgets?

Meeting of the Parliament

Land Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 26 March 2025

Douglas Lumsden

Will the member take an intervention?

Meeting of the Parliament

Land Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 26 March 2025

Douglas Lumsden

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

Meeting of the Parliament

Land Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 26 March 2025

Douglas Lumsden

It might not be a no.

We broadly support the need for local management plans, but they have to be focused on who they impact and the communities with which they will interact. Well-funded special interest groups must be held in context when it comes to those consultations. Local people, businesses and voices must have priority.

Colleagues across the chamber have raised crucial points in the debate. I want to mention my colleague Tim Eagle’s comments. He was not long ago working in the area, so we should listen to him. He said that the community right to buy is under review and asked why we should make the changes at this time. That point was also made by Liam McArthur.

Tim Eagle also raised the issue of how the bill could affect small land sales. The Scottish Land Commission has raised the possibility of de minimis exemptions, which sounds sensible, but we need to look very carefully at the legislation that would be brought forward on that.

We also heard about huge legal risks. Tim Eagle mentioned compensation and criteria for lotting. Fergus Ewing intervened and brought up the issue of retrospective changes and possible ECHR implications. My biggest worry is that the lawyers may be the biggest winners from this bill.

Ariane Burgess mentioned lower thresholds, but showed no concern for the increased workload on the Scottish Land Commission. The financial memorandum says that the SLC has to do most of the work, using “existing budgets” and reducing its current activities, which would be a concern for many.

I agree with Michael Matheson that continued reform is needed. He said that repeated legislation has not worked; I am afraid to suggest that this piece of legislation will not work either.

Bob Doris mentioned the inspection of land management plans for compliance. I agree that that would be a good idea but, once again I worry—especially if the threshold is reduced to 1,000 hectares—about the impact on the Scottish Land Commission.

In conclusion, the Scottish Conservatives will be voting against the bill at stage 1. I know that many of my committee colleagues hope that the major flaws in the bill can be amended and addressed, but that will require hundreds of amendments, and the bill may look completely different by the time it becomes law.

The committee agreed that part 1 of the bill “risks not delivering” and that its approach is “potentially burdensome and bureaucratic.”

Part 2 of the bill requires major revisions to get it right. At present, from the conversations that I have had, I believe that there is a serious risk of unintended consequences and of less land being available to let. The Government needs to balance the rights of the landowner—

Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]

Subordinate Legislation

Meeting date: 25 March 2025

Douglas Lumsden

I totally welcome that flexibility, but this feels like retrospective regulation. I am concerned that businesses have made decisions on the basis of existing regulations and, as those change, they might have to retrofit and spend more.

Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]

Subordinate Legislation

Meeting date: 25 March 2025

Douglas Lumsden

Thank you.

Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]

Environmental Standards Scotland (Annual Report and Accounts 2023-24 and Future Priorities)

Meeting date: 25 March 2025

Douglas Lumsden

ESS received some criticisms last year in the “Report on ERCS’s first 11 representations to Environmental Standards Scotland” by the Environmental Rights Centre for Scotland. They include criticisms that you are taking too long following representations to decide whether to investigate and that you are relying exclusively on using informal resolution rather than exercising enforcement powers such as issuing compliance notices. What is your reaction to that criticism?

Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]

Environmental Standards Scotland (Annual Report and Accounts 2023-24 and Future Priorities)

Meeting date: 25 March 2025

Douglas Lumsden

Would you like that work to go faster? Are you taking into consideration what SEPA went through and the resources that it has?