Douglas Ross
Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party · Scotland
“To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to comments by the Scottish Information Commissioner who stated, in relation to the Government’s handling of information concerning the Salmond files, “I can no longer trust the government to handle this information unsupervised and will explore more intrusive options to ensure complianc…”
“I literally follow sport from the sidelines in my role as a match official but, more than that, as a parent of two boys in Moray, I give credit to the sporting organisations in Moray and across the Highlands that provide so many opportunities for young people—boys and girls— throughout the country.”
“When we are thinking about the bill, which will undoubtedly pass at stage 3 today, I am sure unanimously, we might consider what she said in her email: “Calum can’t advocate for himself due to his complex disability, but he can express this truth: the children aren’t naughty, they are scared.” Children should not be scared in Scotland, an…”
“I rise to make my final speech in the chamber. I chose to speak in this debate, on this subject, for a number of reasons. First, the member in charge proved to be a very conscientious and determined member in getting the bill through.”
“The work that I have done as an individual member, as a party spokesperson, as a party leader and as a convener has been assisted by their tremendous efforts.”
“I am frustrated that we have politicians who cannot speak for four minutes without having the lectern up and reading from a script, daring not to deviate by taking an intervention.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,089 lines we hold for Douglas Ross, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 10 of 22.
“Some of my colleagues who voted against the bill at stage 1 might vote for the financial resolution tonight, and I will respect that view. I simply took exception to Rona Mackay saying that all of us who are going to oppose the financial resolution tonight are doing it to try to circumvent the bill process. I am not doing that. I have lodged an amendment to Liam McArthur’s bill, and I am engaged in that process, but I personally believe that it would not be right to vote against it at stage 1 and then vote for the financial resolution. Rona Mackay: I hear what the member is saying. However, he must also accept that those who are against the bill and have lodged amendments will not get their amendments through if the financial resolution is not agreed to.”
“As I hope that I explained in my preamble, this is a different situation because we are dealing with a member’s bill, the decision on which is down to the choices of individual members. This is not a vote on which we are being whipped by our parties, which is an almost unique circumstance. I cannot think of any other occasion during this session of Parliament when none of us has been whipped— my party allowed its members a free vote on the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill, but other parties did not. I think that it makes a difference when we are not instructed how to vote as groups of Scottish National Party, Green, Labour, Liberal Democrat or Conservative members, but each of us is making our own decision about how we vote.”
“I did not support it at stage 1, I do not believe that it is correct, and I therefore think that it would be hypocritical of me to vote to put money behind a bill that I do not support. I simply say to Rona Mackay—I will give way if she would like to come in—that I am not doing this to use politics to circumvent the will of Parliament. I am taking a consistent approach to my opposition to the bill, which I have had for a long time, although I have listened to both views. It would be inconsistent to vote one way at stage 1 and a different way today on the financial resolution. Rona Mackay: Can the member confirm whether he has ever before done what he is going to do? Douglas Ross: I have not done it before.”
“That is why we have a slight difference from when those of us who might oppose a Government bill would still support a financial resolution because we respect that the Government has a majority to take through its legislation. I believe that this situation is slightly different. There are impassioned views on both sides of the debate, and I remember the speech that Rona Mackay gave at stage 1 in support of the bill. However, I respectfully disagree with Ms Mackay, and I have to correct her: I will not support the financial resolution not because I want to circumvent the will of Parliament at stage 1, and not because I want to use parliamentary procedures to stop it; I just want to be consistent in the way that I vote on the bill.”
“Like Bob Doris, I was not going to speak in the debate. I assumed that it would go straight to a vote; I did not realise that there would be a discussion such as this. I was wondering why there was such a delay for the cabinet secretary to come, but it is clear that people want to put their views on record. I pressed my button only after Rona Mackay spoke, and I will come to her point in a minute. We have to accept that we are not dealing with a normal piece of legislation—it is a very emotive one. It has been expertly taken through Parliament to this stage by Liam McArthur, for whom I have a great deal of respect. I listened carefully to the stage 1 debate, and I took a different position from him. It is a member’s bill and has a Government financial resolution. It also, very rarely for us in the chamber, has a free vote.”
“If the member has specific examples of what he means by conflicts of interest, he is most welcome to write to me with them. We will, no doubt, get into the detail of the committee’s report and its recommendations as we debate the bill today, but there is one part in particular that I would like to address now. Although it is generally supportive of the approach in parts 1, 3 and 4 of the bill, I recognise that the committee raised issues about the extent of the delegated power taken in part 2 and the concerns that were raised by environmental non- governmental organisations that the power could be used to dilute environmental protection. Let me be absolutely clear that the Scottish Government is unequivocally committed to protecting our environment, and the bill has not been designed to dilute environmental protection.”
“The cabinet secretary will be aware that, during the committee’s scrutiny of the bill, stakeholders expressed concern about part 4, which provides more powers to NatureScot, given the potential conflict of interest that might arise in that regard. Does she understand that there is growing concern that NatureScot is often subject to conflicts of interest, given its role as an authority that looks after species numbers and its role as one that gives out licences to control species numbers? Can we consider that as the bill develops? Gillian Martin: The bill is not designed to define the role of NatureScot, but I am happy to take on any considerations or feedback from any member who has specific issues around conflicts of interest.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what consideration it will give to the significant public opposition to the proposed Moray Firth FLOW- Park. (S6O-05085)”
“We need answers from the very top, because what happened to Susan Smith did not get signed off by someone low down the chain in Police Scotland. It is clear that the decision went far higher than that. We need to know how what happened was allowed to happen, why it happened and what is going to be done to make sure that it never happens again. I remind members of what is stated in my entry in the register of members’ interests: my wife is a serving officer with Police Scotland. 14:03”
“I believe that SPCB question time will not take place until 27 November, which is a long time away, and there are serious questions to be asked about the policing of the event back in September, the issues that have arisen over the past few days in relation to the penalties that Susan Smith may be facing from Police Scotland and the very welcome backtracking that we have now seen from Police Scotland. If the SPCB can discuss those matters with the police in its role as the corporate body of the Parliament, it should be accountable to the Parliament. I hope that that will enable us to get answers on how the event was originally policed back in September, when one disruptive individual went above and beyond in seeking to destroy the efforts of two legitimate protests that were held that day, and subsequent police actions.”
“Perhaps it is just luck and good fortune on my part that I am putting that point to the convener of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee in his role as a member of the Parliamentary Bureau. I wonder, therefore, whether Mr Whitfield would consider asking the Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans to come to Parliament next week to suggest options whereby members of the corporate body would be able to provide a statement on the issue, which would allow us to question them.”
“Therefore, I thought that the best option was to seek a statement from the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body next week, to allow us, as MSPs, to question it about the discussions that it has had with Police Scotland about the protest back in September and about the fact that one of our constituents has now been taken through the criminal process by Police Scotland for, as I mentioned, touching someone’s umbrella. However, I believe—if I have read standing orders correctly—that there is no mechanism to seek a statement from the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, and I think that that is a state of affairs that should change.”
“Frankly, it is ridiculous that that has happened, and I think that we need to question the corporate body about the matter. Earlier today, Tess White put a question to the First Minister on the subject, but the response that she got was very disappointing. I tried to lodge an urgent question to the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body today, but that was rejected by the Presiding Officer. I cannot question why it was rejected, because the Presiding Officer does not give her reasons.”
“As members know, this item is an opportunity for MSPs to seek additions to the future business programme. In speaking to the business motion, I ask the Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans to make a statement to Parliament about how we, as MSPs, can get answers from the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. Once again, the SPCB is in the news, because of the shameful conduct that we have seen in relation to a protest that Police Scotland was looking after outside this Parliament, whereby Susan Smith of For Women Scotland has been called to a police station to consider accepting a penalty notice from the police for the apparently heinous crime of touching someone’s umbrella, which—from the footage that I have seen—looked as though it was already broken before she even touched it.”
“I have raised concerns about the issue because it is important that we recognise that there will be an anticipated high level of support for those who may arrive in Inverness in a reasonably short period of time. We—the Parliament, Highland Council and other local service providers—need to be able to reassure ourselves about what the Home Office is going to deliver on site, and we must ensure that that delivery is on site and is available for people. We also need to be able to reassure ourselves about what financial support will be made available to cover any increased costs that will fall on local public services as a result of any decision that services are not delivered on site. Until we get some more information from the Home Office on those two points, I will continue to raise those points with it.”
“What discussions has the Scottish Government been having since September about education, justice, local government and health, which would be impacted by 300 individuals coming up to Inverness? Does the cabinet secretary believe that any planning permissions are required at Cameron barracks to house those additional individuals? As Fergus Ewing said, that will not be sorted in a matter of weeks—it will take months. Shirley-Anne Somerville: The issue of planning is, of course, one for Highland Council to consider as the authority that makes planning decisions, so I will leave that to Highland Council to discuss. I am loth to get caught up in the semantics of this, but if sending a letter and not getting a reply is the member’s idea of a discussion, we will have to agree to disagree on these issues.”
“People in Inverness and the Highlands are concerned about this issue, and part of their concern is about the way that it was announced. However, a large part of it, as Fergus Ewing and Edward Mountain have discussed, is about the availability of services, which are already stretched and will be put under more pressure. If the cabinet secretary has accepted in Parliament today that she has been discussing the matter with the Home Office since September, can she outline what discussions the Scottish Government—[Interruption.] The Presiding Officer: Let us hear Mr Ross. Douglas Ross: The cabinet secretary wrote to the Home Office about the proposal in September, and she is going to publish that letter.”
“I know that, later, we will discuss an amendment concerning how the definition of “contiguous” could be reviewed in the future. However, right now, there is an opportunity with the bill to fix the situation. That is why I have lodged these amendments. There is an imbalance of power and we need to address that. We should take the opportunity tonight to do so.”
“Those landowners would have land management plans, prior notification and lotting provisions attached to their landholdings when those collectively reach 1,000 hectares. I recognise that the amendments that I am proposing will not address the issue of aggregated landholdings that are held by the same, often corporate, entity around the country on a national scale. Gresham House Ltd’s holdings are one example that was raised throughout the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee’s evidence. However, these amendments would be an important step in recognising and addressing the issue of localised land monopolies. This is what we see at Taymouth: a localised land monopoly and a lack of transparency. I agree with the cabinet secretary that the legislation could be amended.”
“I say to Edward Mountain that Perthshire is not alone; there are other examples around Scotland, including Anders Povlsen buying up assets around Tongue in Sutherland without transparency and, importantly, community engagement. The Scottish Government committed after stage 2 to work on a definition of “contiguous holding” that is stronger than 250m. However, no such amendment has been lodged by the Government at stage 3. That is disappointing. My amendments build upon an existing understanding of what constitutes “local” through the use of an existing statutory boundary: council wards. Using them would mean that landholdings that are held by the same landowner and that collectively exceed 1,000 hectares within the same council ward or a neighbouring council ward would fall under the provisions.”
“John Swinney will know the challenges that are involved in bringing remote and unaccountable landowners to the table to discuss their long-term plans. Discovery Land Company’s plan for Taymouth castle, Kenmore, Glen Lyon and Aberfeldy is a real-world case in which an aggressive developer has enormous power and is buying up the whole area—land, houses, hotels, caravan parks and shops—for a global business that serves an exclusive clientele. If ever there was a case where transparency through land management plans was needed, it is Taymouth. However, the provisions in the bill offer little to our communities. Most of the parcels of land and assets that are owned by DLC fall under the bill’s threshold for a plan. They are not treated as contiguous even though they are all part of the same business master plan.”
“My contributions should therefore be understood as reflecting the Government’s position and not a personal or constituency-specific stance. Having said all that, we must remember that the purpose of the bill’s provisions is to tackle the concentration of land ownership and its impact on local communities. Amendment 266 would not address that, which is why I ask members not to support it. Mark Ruskell: I apologise for missing the start of the debate on this grouping. I return to the point that I made during the debate on group 1: this legislation needs to challenge the imbalance of power that is in our communities, which comes from monopoly land ownership. At the very least, the bill must deliver an element of transparency. However, the experience on the ground is that communities are being shut out of decision making.”
“Finally, I will comment briefly on Douglas Lumsden’s amendment 266, which relates to electricity infrastructure. First, that is a matter of interest in my constituency, so I should make it clear that, today, I appear before members in my capacity as a Scottish Government minister. The position that I present reflects the collective view of the Scottish Government and concerns matters of law and policy for which I have ministerial responsibility. Separately, and in line with the Scottish ministerial code, I have made my views, and those of my constituents, known to the responsible minister in the appropriate way. The issue that is under discussion today is distinct from the interests of my constituents.”
“A threshold of 500 hectares and 25 per cent of an inhabited island would bring in approximately 10 additional landholdings, half of which are on islands with fewer than 10 people, within the potential scope of the lotting provisions. The costs involved in that might be disproportionate. It would also not be right to impose the threshold without consulting with island communities and undertaking a robust island communities impact assessment. I note that Ariane Burgess has lodged an amendment to the proposed review provision that would ensure that the analysis evaluates the impact and effect of the measures on islands and island communities. I support that amendment, but we recommend that members do not support amendments 11 and 12.”
“That is why, at the bill’s introduction, when the threshold for community engagement obligations was otherwise 3,000 hectares, it included special provision for islands. However, when we lowered the threshold to 1,000 hectares, that special provision was no longer necessary. At stage 2, I committed to looking at the matter further. I have given further thought to whether special provision is needed for islands and whether I am able to support Mercedes Villalba’s amendments, which seek to impose a lower threshold for inhabited islands in relation to the lotting provision, in similar terms to those that were lodged by Ariane Burgess at stage 2. However, having reviewed the existing evidence on the concentration of landholdings on islands, I cannot support Ms Villalba’s amendments.”
“They would also result in areas of land that are located anywhere in Scotland being treated as a single holding if they are in the same ownership. For example, it could be that a farm in the Highlands and a farm in the Borders would count together towards the thresholds if it was considered that they were being run as a single business. That would represent a significant departure from the evidence base on the effects of concentration of ownership for communities, on which part 1 of the bill proceeds. Therefore, I cannot support those amendments. As with the amendments on non-contiguous land definitions, I have real sympathy for the motivations behind amendments 11 and 12 on islands, which have particular challenges in relation to concentrated landholdings.”
“Our approach at stage 3, to maximise the scope of the bill, has been focused on expanding the concept of a composite holding to capture as many scenarios of that controlling influence as possible. That is why I ask that members do not support Ms Villalba’s amendments. Edward Mountain’s amendments 136, 137, 180 and 181 take a different approach to those that I have just discussed. They are focused on the formation of single holdings under the same ownership rather than on composite holdings. That would require consideration of whether land is managed as a single business when identifying the land that is subject to the engagement obligations and the lotting provisions. However, I am concerned that the definitions that Edward Mountain has proposed are too vague and open to interpretation.”
“However, although I have sympathy for the intent behind that amendment, it could lead to landholdings that are a considerable distance apart being treated as the same. The experience of operation of the measures in the bill might well give further evidence that will allow the Government to take a different approach than is set out, but at the moment I am not able to support those amendments. Mercedes Villalba’s amendments would go further and allow any holdings in Scotland that are owned by connected persons to form a composite holding. Again, I have sympathy with that approach, particularly in relation to how some landowners operate across the country, but I need to ensure that the provisions can be justified. As I outlined just now, many landholdings at that scale are in complex ownership patterns.”
“I am also concerned that the further the distance between holdings, the more difficult it is to justify the provisions as a response to adverse effects of concentration of ownership on communities. Mark Ruskell has lodged an amendment to Martin Whitfield’s proposed review provision to ensure that that is considered in detail as part of a future review, and I support Mr Ruskell’s amendment 266. I know that his proposal to leave out the requirement that land be within 250m of land that is owned by the same person and instead refer to local authority wards is designed to bring holdings that are owned by or connected to the owner of other land in the local area within the effects of the provisions.”
“If evidence points towards altering the thresholds in the future, that will be great. As for now, I am excited by the change that the bill’s proposals will make across the country. 19:00 I turn to non-contiguous holdings. At stage 2, I proposed a change that reflected advice from the Scottish Land Commission and the committee’s recommendation that public infrastructure such as roads or railways should be disregarded as a split in a landholding for the purposes of the threshold and that the distance should be set at 250m. I had hoped that that might be widened at stage 3. I sought additional evidence, but have not been able to assess fully the impact of increasing the distance.”
“I believe that the aligned thresholds create significant benefits arising from their simplicity and from how the measures can operate together. I emphasise that these are brand-new measures that will apply to more than 55 per cent of Scotland’s land. The bill will give the Government the flexibility, via regulations, to seek to alter the thresholds based on experience and any new evidence that might become available. We will come to the review of the provisions when we reach group 12, but I say now that it is right that the Government should evaluate their operation to ensure that they are having the right effect. That is why I ask members not to support Tim Eagle’s amendment 1, Edward Mountain’s amendments 23, 46 and 177, and Mercedes Villalba’s amendments 6 to 10 and 52 to 54.”
“The amendments from Mercedes Villalba, Edward Mountain and Tim Eagle on the overall thresholds encapsulate the wide range of views on setting thresholds in the bill. I gave a great deal of consideration to the thresholds prior to introducing the proposals, because I wanted them to be applied as widely as possible. However, I do not want the provisions to have a disproportionate impact on small businesses. At stage 1, the NZET Committee said that it saw merit in aligning the land-size thresholds across the bill, for reasons of policy cohesion as well as for clarity for stakeholders. A 1,000-hectare threshold across the board was also supported by the Scottish Land Commission. Therefore, at stage 2 I lodged amendments to make that change.”
“The amendments also add to the types of connection between owners that give rise to composite holdings, so that those will include relationships that require registration under existing regimes on people with significant control. Some stakeholders have raised concerns that the definitions are too complex. Unfortunately, they need to be so, because much of Scotland’s land is held in ways that make understanding who owns or controls land—and how much land they own or control—far harder than it should be. That means that we must ensure that we consider who has controlling influence over land, and not just the name on the land register. That is why I ask members to support my amendments in the group.”
“My other amendments in this group address that issue by improving definitions that the bill contained at its introduction, which considered only relationships between companies in the same group and those defined in legislation that established the register of persons holding a controlled interest in land. The amendments are technical, but they are critical to ensuring that the measures in the bill cannot be easily avoided. They do so by making changes to the definition of “composite holding”, which is the term used to refer to holdings comprising land not all of which is owned by the same person but which is nonetheless subject to part 1 of the bill. Holdings can form a composite holding on the basis of co- ownership or connections between co-owners.”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call the cabinet secretary to speak to amendment 134 and other amendments in the group. Mairi Gougeon: Amendments 141, 164 and 176 clarify that the substantive provisions of part 1 of the bill apply to the foreshore and other land that is covered by water, but specifically not the seabed. There has never been a policy intention for the community engagement, pre-notification or lotting provisions to apply to the seabed. To avoid unintended consequences, I am proposing provisions that expressly prevent application of those elements of the bill to the seabed. In its stage 1 report on the bill, the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee highlighted the risks that individuals or businesses would split ownership of their land between different entities to avoid being caught by the bill’s provisions.”
“My amendment 265 would cover smaller areas of land used for electricity infrastructure that, when added together, form a large holding. If an electricity transmission company owns a large number of sites with pylons, communities should have a say on how that land is used. Amendment 265 would mean that, in such cases, a land management plan would be needed and must be consulted on. I will make one other point about landholding size. I fully support Tim Eagle’s amendment 1, which seeks to bring the threshold back to 3,000 hectares, which is what was consulted on and what was intended when the bill was introduced. Going down to 500 hectares would be completely wrong—it would bring family farms into scope. I am quite confused by the war on farmers that Labour seems to be having just now.”
“Although I do not agree with land management plans, I think that, if they are to go ahead, it is vital that the holdings in scope are proportionate to ensure that the burden falls on those with the capacity—and, arguably, the responsibility—to handle them. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Douglas Lumsden to speak to amendment 265 and other amendments in the group. Douglas Lumsden: I will be brief. First, I want to clarify something. Earlier, Jackie Dunbar asked me about the size of the proposed pylons, so during the break in business I did a bit of homework on that. The new pylons that it is proposed should go down the east coast would be between 57m and 75m tall. For comparison, the existing ones are up to 45m tall.”
“Equally, restoring the threshold to 3,000 hectares would mean that there would be less risk of capturing what might be considered normal family farms. Such holdings are the ones that are still reeling from the family farm tax or are moderately large ones caught by regulations that seemed originally intended for truly large estates. As I have already argued, this legislation introduces obligations that add regulatory burden, and I see a genuine risk that a lower threshold will reduce investment in land use, with a potential knock-on impact on jobs, environmental activity and, most important, food production.”
“Larger landholdings often rely on scale for activity such as forestry, farming, conservation, peatland restoration, land management—and more—that smaller holdings might struggle to sustain. There is a place in modern agriculture and land management for larger farms, or what might be considered small estates, and there is a strong argument that setting the threshold too low risks destabilising holdings that are economically viable only because they have reached a certain size and for which further administrative burden might actually cause a barrier. Landholdings of between 1,000 and 3,000 hectares might require that block size to access capital for infrastructure and continuity of operations, which can have a wider positive impact on rural communities and, in many cases, can help to support other smaller units in the area.”
“The fact that that is being done at stage 3 shows that the cabinet secretary has only just realised that there is a problem with this legislation, and I am not convinced that the amendments actually help to clarify the matter. I believe that my amendments in this group do much more than the cabinet secretary’s, and I therefore ask members to vote for them. Tim Eagle: On amendment 1, in my name, the bill, as originally drafted, proposed that the land size threshold for land management plans be 3,000 hectares. However, that was reduced to just 1,000 hectares at stage 2. Setting the level at 3,000 hectares ensured that the obligations fell on the biggest holdings where scale issues such as ownership, control and transparency, for example, are seen as most acute.”
“Some of the cabinet secretary’s amendments in this group are aimed at rectifying junk legislation that was produced at stage 1 and, as they add clarity, it is difficult not to vote for some of them. However, I am against amendments 141, 164 and 176, which relate to tidal ground and obviously present a completely different interpretation of land when it comes to single farm payments. How Governments can make such a proposal is beyond me. I am also against amendment 178. On the cabinet secretary’s amendments 184, 194, 198 and 231, I think that it is far too late in the passage of this legislation for the Government to define what a “connected person” is.”
“Amendments 6, 8 to 10 and 53 to 56, in the name of Mercedes Villalba, seek to increase the legal challenges that the Government would face by bringing more land into scope. That approach was indeed rejected at stage 2, and should therefore be rejected now, too. Mercedes Villalba also wishes to remove the word “contiguous”. That has its own problems and, in fact, negates the point of having a management plan in the case of land that is separated, say, by sea and is therefore not linked as far as management is concerned. Ms Villalba’s other amendments 26, 27, 47 and 48 are, in my mind, disproportionate, unworkable and burdensome and should be rejected, too.”
“In other words, a model already exists; it is in use and familiar to officials. As for the other amendments in the group, amendment 1, in the name of Mr Eagle, which seeks to raise the threshold from 1,000 to 3,000 hectares, would simply take the threshold back to where it was at stage 1 before it was amended. As that might be too much for some members, my amendments 23, 46 and 177 put forward a perhaps more reasonable halfway house if they seek to reject Mr Eagle’s amendment. Amendment 266, in the name of Mark Ruskell, obviously seeks to deal with a specific problem within Mr Ruskell’s constituency regarding a property adjacent to the Tay and is not relevant to the whole of Scotland. Therefore, it should not be in this legislation. I make the same comment with regard to his amendments 267, 268, 282, 283 and 287 to 289.”
“Amendment 137 would refine the contiguity of the land management plan so that the holdings would be considered contiguous if the land areas were managed by a single business when it comes to legal status, economic organisation, commercial management and operation. Amendment 136 is a technical amendment that is consequential to amendment 137. Amendment 181 would refine the term “contiguous” in the same way as in amendment 137, but for the purposes of lotting, and amendment 180 is a technical amendment related to amendment 181. Those amendments seek to define the contiguity of holdings and connected persons—I cannot seem to get that word “contiguity” out; I will get it right at the end, I am sure—in the same way that the Scottish Government ascertains whether business should be treated as a single entity for public funding.”
“I have no doubt that that change would reduce the threat that the Government faces when it comes to legal challenge, and I believe that it should accept it. Amendments 23, 46 and 177 would increase the definition of large landholdings—as I have said, from 1,000 to 2,000 hectares—for land management plans, the prohibition of transfers and lotting respectively. Much of the complexity regarding large landholdings is due to the way in which “connected” persons are defined. Amendments 137 and 181 would provide a simpler and more practical way of ascertaining whether a holding involves such a connection.”
“It might be a family holding that is held by either partner or held jointly in proportion. It could be made up of trusts with different management structures and different end goals. The bill is so incredibly complex that it will be a nightmare for legal professionals to act for a buyer or seller of landholdings of any size. What is clear, though, is that it will result in legal challenges. Good luck to the Government on that. It seems to like employing solicitors to defend its legislation and mistakes; however, I do not think that the Parliament should be passing such things. Knowing that the Government will inevitably use its majority to get the bill through, and to prevent a plethora of legal challenges, I suggest amending the bill to increase the definition of large landholdings from 1,000 to 2,000 hectares.”
“As I have mentioned, I have noticed a strange alliance between Turcan Connell solicitors and Andy Wightman when it comes to this section, as well as on other points. Don Macleod of Turcan Connell says that the bill is “junk law”, especially when it comes to the definition of large landholdings. If that is not clear, I do not know what is. Perhaps saying that it is ill conceived, badly drafted and impossible to explain is more parliamentary than using the word “mince”, which is what I have heard in other forums. What constitutes a large landholding? No one really knows; I am not sure that the cabinet secretary knows. She has reduced large landholdings to a series of sizes. It is impossible, sometimes, to define what makes up a large landholding. It might involve one holder.”
“We understand that that is likely to bring within the scope of the bill an additional 11 islands, many of which are owned by one entity and have small but notable populations. In many island contexts, there is a small and diminishing population, so not to include islands in the bill works against the Scottish Government’s stated intention to prevent island depopulation and encourage repopulation, whereas, if my amendments were agreed to, cases of poor land ownership in islands could be addressed and there could be public oversight of making island communities as sustainable as possible. I move amendment 6. Edward Mountain: This is probably one of the most controversial sections of the bill.”
“If my other amendments to lower the threshold throughout the bill fall, amendment 53, along with its consequential amendments 52 and 54, would allow that the lotting provisions would still be triggered for a transfer of 500 hectares if that formed part of a landholding that was larger than the 1,000-hectare threshold. I turn to the island threshold. Monopoly ownership is especially pronounced in an island setting, which is why I consulted on introducing special provisions to protect islands’ interests in my proposed bill. Many Scottish islands below the 1,000-hectare threshold have only one owner. When it comes to the provisions in part 1 of the bill, amendment 11 and its consequential amendment 12 seek to introduce a separate island threshold at 500 hectares and at least 25 per cent of an island.”
“However, the Government has not lodged any such amendments, and I have therefore lodged my amendments in this group, which would increase the simplicity and impact of the bill while addressing the considerable negative impacts of monopoly ownership on a national scale. 18:45 On the provision of lotting more than 500 hectares, amendment 53 would amend the bill so that a land transfer would still be caught by the lotting provisions if the land that was being sold was larger than 500 hectares and was part of a parcel of landholdings that was larger than the final threshold in the bill.”