Chamber and committees

I start by thanking Community Land Scotland and the Scottish Parliament legislation team for their support in drafting my amendments in this group. I have four areas for amendment in the group, beginning with the 500-hectare threshold for large landholdings. Amendment 6 would revise the threshold in section 1 down from 1,000 hectares to 500 hectares for community engagement obligations for owners of large landholdings. Amendment 7 would revise the threshold down in section 2, and amendments 8 to 10 would revise it down in section 4.

I consulted on a 500-hectare definition for large landholdings for my proposed land ownership and public interest bill earlier in this parliamentary session. If I recall, a greater number of participants engaged with the consultation on my proposed bill than with the Scottish Government’s consultation on the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill. The proposals that I consulted on found widespread support from participants. A 500-hectare threshold is high enough to exclude 96 per cent of agricultural landholdings, yet low enough to be impactful. It is important to note that many of the landholdings that would be caught by the lower threshold will already be producing land management plans, as is good practice among responsible landowners, so my amendments would simply codify that. The amendments are supported by Community Land Scotland, Ramblers Scotland and others.

Moving to the second area, that of contiguous holdings, amendments 55 to 58 would remove the requirement that holdings be contiguous in order to be caught by the threshold in section 4 in relation to the lotting of large landholdings. Amendments 24 to 27 would do the same in section 1, and amendments 47 to 50 would do that in section 2. Those changes would mean that a single holding is defined as the whole of the

“land in the ownership of one person or set of persons”.

Thus, where the totality of land owned is over the threshold, the measures in the bill would apply.

The Scottish Government had committed to work, after stage 2, on a stronger definition of contiguous landholdings than using 250m. However, the Government has not lodged any such amendments, and I have therefore lodged my amendments in this group, which would increase the simplicity and impact of the bill while addressing the considerable negative impacts of monopoly ownership on a national scale.

On the provision of lotting more than 500 hectares, amendment 53 would amend the bill so that a land transfer would still be caught by the lotting provisions if the land that was being sold was larger than 500 hectares and was part of a parcel of landholdings that was larger than the final threshold in the bill. If my other amendments to lower the threshold throughout the bill fall, amendment 53, along with its consequential amendments 52 and 54, would allow that the lotting provisions would still be triggered for a transfer of 500 hectares if that formed part of a landholding that was larger than the 100,000-hectare threshold.

I turn to the island threshold. Monopoly ownership is especially pronounced in an island setting, which is why I consulted on introducing special provisions to protect islands’ interests in my proposed bill. Many Scottish islands below the 1,000-hectare threshold have only one owner. When it comes to the provisions in part 1 of the bill, amendment 11 and its consequential amendment 12 seek to introduce a separate island threshold at 500 hectares and at least 25 per cent of an island. We understand that that is likely to bring within the scope of the bill an additional 11 islands, many of which are owned by one entity and have small but notable populations.

In many island contexts, there is a small and diminishing population, so not to include islands in the bill works against the Scottish Government’s stated intention to prevent island depopulation and encourage repopulation, whereas, if my amendments were agreed to, cases of poor land ownership in islands could be addressed and there could be public oversight of making island communities as sustainable as possible.

I move amendment 6.

I will, of course, continue to engage, as I have already done, but I would like to hear the cabinet secretary explain what work she is committing the Scottish Government to and when that work will start.

No.

We have heard that the Government will not support the islands threshold, but we have not heard how it plans to address concentrated island ownership or how inhabited islands can be brought into the scope of pre-notification, so I will move amendment 11.

We have also heard that the Government will not support the removal of the requirement for holdings to be contiguous, but we have not heard what action the Government will take to prevent asset managers such as Gresham House from buying up all of Scotland, so I will also move amendments in relation to that.

We have heard that the Scottish Government will not support lowering the threshold to 500 hectares. The cabinet secretary has indicated a need for evidence, but she has not outlined what the threshold for that evidence would be in order for the Government to legislate. It must be remembered that I consulted more widely on that issue than the Scottish Government did for this bill.

Therefore, I press amendment 6.

Will the cabinet secretary expand a little further on the threshold or bar for that evidence? I am hearing that, once the bill becomes an act, further evidence will be gathered to see whether something like my proposals can come forward, but the cabinet secretary has not outlined what evidence she needs to gather to meet the threshold to introduce such proposals. I hear from her an acknowledgement that there is a problem with the concentration of land ownership but no tangible commitment to work beyond the bill.

I thank Community Land Scotland, which is here today, and the Scottish Parliament legislation team for their support in drafting my amendments in this group. I also thank everyone out there who is engaged with the land reform process.

Amendment 76 seeks to insert proposed new part 2B to the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill 2003, which would apply a public interest test to a proposed new buyer in relation to transfers of large landholdings. It would work by requiring the Scottish ministers to have regard to the identity and management proposals of the buyer, including how much land they already control and any plans they have for the land.

Amendment 76A seeks to amend that new part by inserting a presumed limit on ownership, the presumption being that a transfer to a buyer who already controls more than 500 hectares would not be in the public interest unless otherwise demonstrated through environmental benefits, community sustainability or other means.

Members might remember that I consulted on those issues in my proposed land ownership and public interest (Scotland) bill earlier in this parliamentary session. That followed an investigation into issues that are associated with large-scale and concentrated land ownership in Scotland by the Scottish Land Commission, which found that

“harmful concentrations of power in relation to land do exist and appear to be causing significant and long-term damage to the communities affected.”

The SLC went on to recommend that a public interest test at the point of transfer of significant landholdings be introduced, but the Scottish Government’s bill included no such test. At stage 2, I lodged amendment 174 to insert a forward-facing public interest test into the bill and amendment 174A to insert a presumed limit on ownership. Unfortunately, at that time, the Scottish Government was not able to support my amendments. The cabinet secretary said:

“The amendments are ... not supported by the evidence base ... The interference in property rights that would result from those proposals would require a rational and coherent justification based on evidence. The evidence on which I have proceeded is concerned with the effects of concentration of ownership on communities. There is no rational link between that evidence”—[Official Report, Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, 3 June 2025; c 20.]

and a public interest test on a buyer. Having worked with Community Land Scotland on the evidence base on the issue, using research from the Scottish Land Commission, and having made revisions to focus on the public interest connected to community sustainability, I have brought back the amendments today.

I recognise that the bill now contains reference to the public interest test, but that is a test on the landholding itself rather than a test on landowners. It is the buyer that matters, because of their plans, interests and priorities. Public bodies such as NatureScot have shown that it is possible to sell using a test on the buyer, so we know that it can be done.

Scotland’s land is becoming concentrated into ever-fewer hands, so we know that we need to act. What I am proposing today is the most basic of considerations on buyers of large landholdings, because a double standard exists between wealthy landowners and the rest of us. If my constituents want to rent a room or buy a house, there seems to be no end of checks that they must pass to demonstrate that they are suitable tenants or prospective owners. Can they afford it? Are they in debt? What is their credit score? Where did they live before? Who else will be living with them?

The list goes on and on, yet anyone, anywhere in the world, can buy up as much of Scotland as they like, no questions asked. It does not matter what they will do with it or how their plans would affect their neighbours. It is absurdly unjust. The Scottish Government cannot expect my constituents to believe that rules that apply to them are vitally necessary due diligence, yet no checks can be applied to prospective buyers of land because of property rights.

I am calling on the cabinet secretary to do the right thing, to be bold, to take the first step in righting this wrong and to support amendments 74 and 74A today.

Labour wants a clean, green electrified rail network that drives down emissions and gets people out of traffic and pollution and into work. The Scottish Government can and must do more to encourage a society-wide modal shift from road to rail for passengers and freight, to keep pace with the ambitious carbon budgets and emissions reduction targets. We must accelerate the electrification and decarbonisation of Scotland’s railways.

Home heating, agriculture and transport are devolved areas, so we have the power here, in Scotland, to make a change for the better. What we need, whether through climate targets or carbon budgets, is action. My constituents need a Government that will tackle the issue head on—not after the election, not in five years’ time, but right here, right now, before it is too late.

Labour wants a clean, green electrified rail network that drives down emissions and gets people out of traffic and pollution and into work. The Scottish Government can and must do more to encourage a society-wide modal shift from road to rail for passengers and freight, to keep pace with the ambitious carbon budgets and emissions reduction targets. We must accelerate the electrification and decarbonisation of Scotland’s railways.

Home heating, agriculture and transport are devolved areas, so we have the power here, in Scotland, to make a change for the better. What we need, whether through climate targets or carbon budgets, is action. My constituents need a Government that will tackle the issue head on—not after the election, not in five years’ time, but right here, right now, before it is too late.

On our current trajectory, the planet is heading for life-threatening temperature increases of 2.6°C to 3.1°C by the end of this century. Climate breakdown is already upon us, and my constituents in the north-east are experiencing it in real time—we have prolonged drought, record wildfires and violent storms. The damage and destruction seem only to increase year on year.

Yet, it is in this context that the Scottish Government chose to pull its heat in buildings bill, scrap its car-kilometre reduction target and ditch its legally binding target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. Why on earth has it done that, and why at a time like this? It was not because the Government had to, and it was not because the reduction could not be done; it was because of the Government’s own inaction, year after year, for 18 long years. That is why we are debating the setting of carbon budgets today. However, with scant detail and without much of a plan from the SNP, the carbon budgets will be cold comfort to those in my region who are at the sharp end of climate change.

Domestic and commercial energy use, including heating, accounts for 20 per cent of Scotland’s emissions. Indeed, the UK spends more money on wasted domestic heating than any other country in western Europe. Inefficient boilers combined with poorly insulated walls and roofs cost us a fortune in energy bills. Meanwhile, some rogue operators are going around cashing in by flogging inappropriate so-called insulating solutions that cause havoc in old buildings and lead to damp, mould and costly repairs. However, there is another way: a national retrofit plan to reduce our reliance on imported gas and create thousands of well-paid, unionised jobs in construction, manufacturing and fitting. Those builders, plumbers and joiners would all be trained and deployed here, in Scotland.

That is not all. The second-largest emitting sector, with almost 20 per cent of Scotland’s emissions, is agriculture. Food production is absolutely essential to our nation and to my region, but it does not have to cost the earth. It is possible to balance the land needs of crops, livestock and wildlife and reap the benefits of all of those by promoting climate and nature-friendly farming, by breaking up land monopolies and by supporting smallholdings, tenant farms and crofts. There can be a farming revolution in which farming enhances nature and we are all better off for it.

There is still more that we can do. The nationalisation of ScotRail in 2022 was our chance to make a real difference for Scotland’s energy transition. However, the SNP Government is missing this opportunity and throwing away a chance to decarbonise transport while creating a reliable, affordable public service.

Is it the Government’s position that work should always be left until the final deadline? It is possible to bring things forward ahead of time.

I am afraid that I do not have time.