Meeting of the Parliament 05 November 2025 [Draft]
As we come to the end of the bill process, I can only reflect on the many substantive contributions from colleagues. As an Opposition, we have tried to amend this flawed bill, bringing forward the concerns of industry groups, rural bodies and our own constituents in order to make the bill workable, but, to be honest, it has been like putting a sticking plaster on a broken leg.
I have to congratulate the Scottish National Party Government on one thing: uniting so many people in their view that the bill will not bring about the change that they desire. We heard time and again at committee from witnesses, including estate managers and land reform campaigners, that the bill would not meet the aims that had been set out. Many witnesses expressed concerns to us about the impact that the bill would have on their livelihoods and communities. We heard about the risks to financing that are being brought about by the uncertainty caused by the bill—a point that was raised by Edward Mountain, who said that the bill will not boost investors’ confidence as we need it to.
We heard from farmers who fear that large family farms will now be brought into the scope of the bill, with the threshold for land management plans being reduced at a time when Labour’s cruel family farm tax is just filtering through. I have also heard from farmers who want to retire and rent out parts of their land to the next generation but who feel that it is too risky. Their concern is that they would never get the land back, because of what the bill is doing. That is an unintended consequence of the bill that will make it harder for new farmers to rent land and get into running their own farms. It is, as Tim Eagle said, the opposite of what we should be doing.
There is also uncertainty around lotting and what happens with staff. Let us remember that estates are businesses that pay their taxes, employ people in rural areas and contribute to their local communities. If an estate is sold, the Government can decide that the business needs to be split up, in effect. In instances where that happens, the bill is silent about what happens to the employees. The bill is bad news for estate workers.
We have heard from groups such as Scottish Land & Estates, which said that the proposals were worrying, and NFUS, which told us that the bill “could damage rural businesses”. The head of land and property at Turcan Connell described the bill as “junk law”. Yet, in the light of such widespread discontent among those who know what they are talking about, we have found ourselves at this point. The cabinet secretary said that “change is possible”, but I do not feel that the bill will bring the change that is required, and most of the witnesses at committee said the same.
Tim Eagle was right to recognise the amount of work that has been done, especially by Parliament staff—I agree with that completely. I also commend the way in which the cabinet secretary has approached the bill and reached out to other groups. Tim Eagle said that some of the large estates are
“the quiet engine of rural Scotland.”
He also pointed out that the area of tenanted land in Scotland has reduced dramatically—unfortunately, however, the bill will not reverse that trend.
Rhoda Grant made a good point about the community right to buy, which is still under review. We also heard at committee that it should have been part of the bill, and I think that that has been a missed opportunity.
Liam McArthur said that land management plans should not be overburdensome and complicated. I agree, and we need to keep a close eye on that when the regulations come forward.
I agreed with something that Mercedes Villalba said about the concerns around Oxygen Conservation and Gresham House. We have to remember that Gresham House was backed by the Scottish National Investment Bank.
The Scottish Conservative group remains opposed to this flawed bill, and we agree with the many voices outside the Parliament that have raised significant concerns. We will vote against the bill this evening, and we call on other colleagues to listen to their rural communities and constituents and to join us in voting no.
18:41