Meeting of the Parliament 28 October 2025 [Draft]
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.