Meeting of the Parliament 28 October 2025 [Draft]
I must disagree with the case made by Fergus Ewing. He is absolutely right that some landowners do fantastic work. I know of some close to me who involve their communities and invite people into their land and who are, ultimately, doing what the measures to be introduced by the bill are intended to achieve. We want to spread more of that good practice and to see all landowners doing that, but whether those activities take place should not be dependent on the good will of the landowner. We have seen for years that, without those interventions, the concentration of land ownership is getting worse. That is why the interventions are so important and why I hope that members will support the bill.
Although I understand the intention behind the amendments in this group from Mercedes Villalba and Ariane Burgess, I regret to say that they do not meet the tests that I have set out. The amendments would result in property transactions automatically being rendered of no effect at any time before or after a transaction takes place if ministers decide that the transfer is not or was not in the public interest. Despite the significance of that, the amendments make no provision for compensation and there is no indication of how the new requirements would operate alongside the lotting provisions already in the bill.
Amendments 15 and 76A attempt to introduce a presumed limit on landownership of 500 hectares. Introducing that at stage 3 without consultation, evidence or any assessment of the impact on forestry, farming or other key sectors would be reckless and risks creating legislation that does not work. For example, the amendments do not consider the other land owned by a buyer and consider only the land in which the buyer has a controlling interest. According to those amendments, if a seller had a controlling interest in more than 500 hectares of land in Scotland, Scottish ministers should allow the transfer only if it meets the requirement set out. However, if that same seller directly owned all the land in the area, or if they owned 10,000 hectares across Scotland, that would not be relevant. That would create a gaping loophole in the provisions, which would not deliver the policy intent set out by Mercedes Villalba or Ariane Burgess.
Agreeing to any of those amendments would not strengthen the bill but would wholly undermine it, jeopardising its other policies. Supporting the amendments would be a gift to those who want to maintain the status quo and want the bill to fail, which is why I encourage Mercedes Villalba and Ariane Burgess not to press the amendments but instead to engage with me on how we can build on the foundations laid by the bill.