Meeting of the Parliament 26 March 2025
I am pleased to speak in this debate on behalf of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee.
In accordance with parliamentary rules, I will make a full declaration of my interests so that there is no dubiety. I declare that I have an interest in a family farming partnership in Moray, as set out in my register of interests. Specifically, I declare an interest in approximately 200 hectares of farmland, of which 20 hectares is woodland. I am a tenant of approximately 200 hectares in Moray on a non-agricultural tenancy, and I have a farming tenancy of approximately 5 hectares under the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1991. I also declare that I sometimes take grass lets on an annual basis.
I thank my committee colleagues for their diligent work in considering the bill. I acknowledge the useful input from the Finance and Public Administration Committee and the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee. I also thank our clerking team for its support, especially in getting our report out so promptly after it had been agreed.
The committee began its work on the bill in April last year, when we issued a call for views. We started taking oral evidence in June, and we heard from 13 different panels of witnesses. We also got out and about in rural areas to meet people on the ground. We held a successful panel event at the Royal Highland Show and an online engagement event with tenant farmers. I thank all the people who contributed to our work.
The bill is split into two distinct parts. Part 1 sets out new methods of land reform and part 2 relates to the leasing of land. Each part has raised separate issues, and I will take them in turn.
On part 1, stakeholders were fundamentally split on a central intention of the bill, which is to diversify land ownership. Those who were supportive of that highlighted that Scotland has a more concentrated pattern of ownership than most international comparators. They said that that creates an imbalance of power and can prevent rural communities from feeling in charge of their own destinies. Their view was that reform has lost momentum and that further change is needed to address that imbalance.
Those who were opposed to part 1 often considered it hard to justify the interference with property rights, and they were also concerned that the bill would scare off investment. They considered large estates to be better able to deliver change at scale, making them assets in tackling the twin climate emergency and biodiversity crises.