Hansard

I will start my contribution in the same vein as Michael Matheson. I remember our late Presiding Officer, Sir Alex Ferguson, warning me when I first took up my post as an MSP to avoid land reform and deer management. Sadly, I am standing here talking about land reform, and in the coming weeks, I will be dealing with deer management in our discussions on the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill.

It has become evident that the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill poses a significant threat and will add to the damage that has already been inflicted on rural Scotland by the SNP Government. First, let us consider its economic implications. Scottish Land & Estates has voiced its apprehensions, highlighting that the bill would impose

“disproportionate and unfair legislative proposals”

on rural businesses. SLE’s chief executive, Sarah-Jane Laing, has warned of an era of “wanton damage” to our rural economy if the bill is passed without substantial amendments. We cannot afford to ignore those warnings.

NFU Scotland has raised concerns about the bill’s potential impact on Scottish agriculture. Although we understand the Government’s desire to share the benefits of land ownership, the proposals for land market regulation could severely compromise farming. Economies of scale have necessitated larger farms so that they can survive, and the bill threatens to undermine that foundation.

The bill’s focus on large-scale holdings, particularly the requirement for land management plans, is another area of contention. The Agricultural Law Association has pointed out the burdensome nature of those plans on large landowners. The cost and administrative burden of preparing and publishing those plans must be justified by clear benefits, but that justification is currently lacking.

Additionally, although SLE supports improving transparency of land ownership and use, it believes that changes must be made to reduce costs and increase the associated timescales. NFU Scotland also emphasises maintaining the 3,000 hectare threshold to avoid burdening smaller landholdings with unnecessary costs and bureaucracy.

Furthermore, the British Association for Shooting and Conservation has raised significant concerns about changes to agricultural holdings. The bill’s efforts to widen the scope of compensation and liabilities for landowners when game damage a tenant’s crops raise issues of fairness, legal complexity and practical enforcement. Such changes could have far-reaching consequences that we must carefully consider, and NFU Scotland supports ensuring that tenants are left no better and no worse off as well as the avoidance of retrospective changes to agricultural tenancies in order to maintain confidence in land letting.

The background to the bill stems from the Scottish Government’s definition of land reform as the on-going process of modifying, reforming and modernising land ownership and distribution. Although to some the intentions might be noble, the execution leaves much to be desired. The Scottish Land Commission’s investigation into large-scale and concentrated land ownership in Scotland concluded that concentrated land ownership is causing damage to communities. However, the commission’s own evidence suggested that the issue lies in concentrated ownership in specific areas rather than in the scale of ownership itself.

Tenant farming, which is a key component of Scottish agriculture, is also at risk. The bill introduces changes to the right-to-buy process for agricultural holdings and to the provisions on resumption and compensation for game damage. Although those changes are aimed at improving the system, they could lead to disputes and further complications in the Scottish Land Court.

SLE has highlighted that the bill would place an unwarranted bureaucratic burden on landowners, who are at the forefront of tackling climate change, restoring nature, producing food, providing jobs and growing the local economy. That burden would inhibit their ability to continue delivering those essential services. Research is clear that scale is a key enabling factor in the delivery of multiple benefits that are considered to be of national importance. The bill’s use of scale as the metric for fragmenting partnerships of land ownership is not the same as tackling concentration and risks making it harder to deliver those benefits.

It might well be possible to meet the Scottish Government’s original objectives of greater transparency and community engagement without inflicting the damage to rural businesses at taxpayers’ expense that the bill threatens. Extensive provision for community ownership already exists, and the need for prior notification of all sales over the threshold will lead only to further costs and delay, both for businesses and the public purse. As drafted, the bill would hold up sales to sitting tenants or local businesses.

The lotting provisions are both alarming and unworkable. They could lead to taxpayers being lumbered with substantial compensation payments and, at the same time, could wreak havoc in the land market and kill Scotland’s natural capital investment market. There is no demand for those provisions, and they must be scrapped.

There are serious concerns that part 2 of the bill risks discouraging landowners from letting land, which is contrary to its aims. Decades of excessive legislation have created that challenge, and adding to the imbalance in regulation will not solve it. Tenant farming policy must focus on encouraging landowners to make land available to new and existing tenants instead of deterring landowners from doing so, and legislating to retrospectively amend tenancy agreements to change resumption clauses will not move the sector in the right direction.

Although a majority of committee members supported the general principles of the bill, it is clear that part 1 risks not delivering its intended outcomes. The approach is seen as potentially burdensome and bureaucratic, and the land size threshold that operates across the bill should be reconsidered. The committee’s concerns about the lotting and resumption provisions highlight the need for a thorough review and significant amendments. We must strike the balance between reforming land management and supporting rural Scotland, and the bill in its current form fails to do so.

I urge members to oppose the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill at stage 1 and to work towards a more equitable and sustainable solution for our rural communities.