Edward Mountain
Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party · Scotland
“They should spare a thought for the 1,700 people who make this place work. Do not ignore them. It is they who make it possible for members to do what they do on a daily basis. Secondly, make friends across the chamber. I have tried to do that, and it has delivered for me. Thirdly, focus on one issue. My issue found me.”
“There will be £6.6 billion in co-benefits from the changes in the transport sector, relating to improved health outcomes, increased exercise and reduced pollution, which I mentioned in my statement. I mentioned the changes from the draft plan in my statement and in my response to Sarah Boyack.”
“The other thing that has frustrated me and, I think, many people across Scotland is the constant deflections that we hear. There are cries of, “If only we had the tools and the levers of power that we need.” I gently remind politicians in this Parliament that it is about what is possible, and much is possible in this Parliament.”
“Rhoda Grant has been an incredible champion for crofting—I have seen that come to the fore through the passage of this legislation—and a force for the Highlands and Islands. She has also called for the right to food.”
“Elements of the legislation will help crofters to begin the process of adaptation, but there was room in the bill to speed things up. At stage 2, we proposed giving crofters the benefits from environmental use of the land, an environmental use advice service and public financing.”
“As this will be my last speech in the Parliament, I hope that the minister will excuse me if I touch only briefly on the Crofting and Scottish Land Court Bill. It is nothing like what we were promised in 2016.”
The complete record
Every one of 490 lines we hold for Edward Mountain, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 8 of 10.
“I have attended many of the pro-assisted dying meetings and listened to why some people believe that they have the right to choose how and when they die. Let us be clear that, if one has a terminal illness, knowing that one will automatically have access to the best palliative care is fundamental to feeling in control of one’s illness. Indeed, it gives one options, which is why I support Miles Briggs’s proposed bill to ensure the provision of proper palliative care. Indeed, my opinion is that the issue of proper palliative care was one of the key reasons why previous bills on assisted dying fell. If one does not know that one has control, there is no doubt that one will look to get control, and that is, inevitably, what will drive some people to supporting the bill. To my mind, that is a form of coercion.”
“I stand to speak in this debate with sadness, because it is all about the ending of life. During life, there will never be a bigger decision than the decision either to take a life or to sanction the ending of life. As a young soldier, my view was that death happened to other people, but age and cancer made me realise that death was inevitably coming closer, and I was forced to contemplate carefully how my life might end. That was not a comfortable or easy experience, and the bill brings all of that into sharp focus. I speak not with any religious beliefs, but as a son, husband and father—and soon, I hope, a grandfather. Those are the things that drive me to ensure that what we do is right and they are the reason why I will always seek life.”
“That is important, because, let us be honest, we do not produce fertiliser anywhere else in the United Kingdom. Maurice Golden made the point that about a third of Germany’s demand could be met from what we have in Scotland. I could go on, because I agree with most of the speakers. There is only one section of the speakers with whom I do not agree: the Greens. I do not agree that they have got it right. I think that they are missing the point. If they were slightly more open minded, instead of looking just at preconceived ideas, they might well see that there is a role for hydrogen in domestic heating, provided that they do not take a position that puts industry off. The Presiding Officer: I call Alasdair Allan to wind up the debate. 16:50”
“I agree with Sarah Boyack that hydrogen should be used for transport. Is it not mad that we can transport hydrogen in a lorry but the same lorry cannot be fuelled by hydrogen? There is something wrong with the regulations, and I think they need to catch up. I have given enough air to Mr Harvie, so I will just say that I do not think that he is on the right track when it comes to domestic heating. [Interruption.] You can make lots of noises if you want to, Mr Harvie. I tend not to do that when you are speaking. The Presiding Officer: Through the chair, please, Mr Mountain. Edward Mountain: Sorry, Presiding Officer. I agree with Mr Rennie about the storage of energy and about hydrogen being a resource for that. I note that it is also a resource for the production of e-ammonia, which would be a useful fertiliser for farmers.”
“Choosing the hydrogen plant sites will be important, as we cannot denude our watercourses and lochs to produce the water they will require. We need to harvest the water used for hydrogen production when there is a surplus of it, and there will not be a surplus of water every summer if temperatures remain high. We also need to think carefully about the by-products that will come about. What will we do with the oxygen from a hydrogen plant? Will there be a role for it, and could there be a subsequent industry? I think so. I am pleased that we have heard from the Acting Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero and Energy during this afternoon’s debate. She is very open minded and wants to see a market being developed. I was pleased to hear from Graham Simpson that hydrogen fuel gives off only water and that it must be part of the mix.”
“Would it not be nice if we could develop hydrogen so that we did not have to pay people not to generate power and to have idle turbines? Would it not be nice if battery storage plants did not have to be dumped all over the Highlands in a way that has not been thought out? Would it not be nice if the Highlands did not have to have pylon lines everywhere and we could use underground pipelines? We heard this afternoon that the underground pipeline that is available will become redundant. Emma Harper and one or two other members spoke clearly about how the gas pipeline could be repurposed to transmit hydrogen. We have to be careful when we are thinking about hydrogen, and I offer a couple of words of warning.”
“I have tried to explain to you on numerous occasions why it is important to look at different fuels instead of focusing blandly on energy performance certificates when it comes to housing insulation. You did not listen to me then, so I hope that you will listen to me now. The Presiding Officer: Through the chair, please, Mr Mountain. Edward Mountain: I would like the UK Government to give a clear steer to the industry that hydrogen will be important. If we said to the industry that a percentage of the power that it uses has to come from hydrogen, that would encourage investment and reduce the cost of production. Benefits could then be derived from it, which would allow hydrogen to be produced at a level that could make it affordable for use in housing. Sarah Boyack said that we would not have to pay constraint payments.”
“The production of hydrogen has costs for the environment as well as for the industry. Therefore, we need to send the industry clear signals about the need for hydrogen, which requires us not to talk down all the things that it could be used for. Patrick Harvie: The member expressed some scepticism about the Green’s position on heating and, in the very next sentence, went on to explain how much energy loss is involved in the production of hydrogen. Can he not accept, as the UK Climate Change Committee has advised, that hydrogen is an extremely inefficient way of providing heat for people’s homes and buildings in comparison to the forms of electric heating that are already available? Edward Mountain: I always think that it is good to listen to an argument as it develops rather than jump in at the outset.”
“Frankly, I think that the Greens’ amendment is disappointing and shows a lack of vision. Let us be clear: I have had to brush up my knowledge of hydrogen, but I know from my experience on the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee that about 40 to 45 per cent of electricity is lost when producing hydrogen and that about another 10 per cent of power is lost when hydrogen is turned back into electricity. A huge amount of power is lost in the process, which means that it is quite an expensive way of producing electricity. I have also found out that 9 litres of water are required to produce 1 litre of hydrogen. The process uses quite a lot of that resource, which I will return to in a minute. Patrick Harvie: Will the member take an intervention? Edward Mountain: I will in a minute, Mr Harvie. I just want to make a point.”
“I am delighted to speak in this debate on a motion that I broadly agree with. That does not always happen in a Government debate. Before I talk about it in any great depth, I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests, in which I declare that I have a farming interest. I may talk about fertiliser, and I have an interest in a fishery on the River Spey that may be affected by a hydrogen plant. I have made that clear at the outset. I also agree with the Labour amendment. I have been enthralled in the debate by Daniel Johnson, Brian Whittle and one or two others quoting physics and chemistry. I now remember why I did not do those subjects at school and did others instead. I support most of the Green amendment, until it gets to the bit about heating, then I lose the thread, so I cannot support it.”
“To ask the First Minister, in light of the reported high demand for neurodevelopmental assessment services, when the Scottish Government plans to publish the report on the work that it funded on the five “tests of change” across Scotland, which concluded in March 2024. (S6F-04036)”
“One in five households in Scotland does not have access to a car. Car use is lower among women, disabled people and older people, and those groups are likely to rely more on public transport. Simply pointing to a growing number of EV charging points really patronises the people who cannot drive. We can do better. The Government needs to empower the councils that are ready and willing to take action now to create vibrant and inclusive places where the car is the guest and communities can grow and thrive. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call on Alex Cole-Hamilton to open on behalf of the Scottish Liberal Democrats. 15:45”
“Will the member take an intervention? Mark Ruskell: No. I do not have any time— sorry. We need to deliver the right models for those local authorities to cut congestion and raise money. Encouraging people to choose to leave the car at home is not only good for the climate; it is about cleaner air and safer streets, a healthier society and a stronger economy. There is lots of evidence from around the world—including from Europe and other cities across the UK—on where reducing road congestion has been beneficial for the economy. However, we need champions to lead the debate with facts. We need a cross-party effort, not just here at Holyrood but at Westminster and in our town halls. The issue is also about fairness. Car-dependent transport systems drive economic and socioeconomic inequalities.”
“I remind everyone that, when it comes to cancer, if you find something at any stage that causes you concern, it will probably cause the doctor concern and it will get checked. If you get it checked, it might be nothing, but if it is something, you could save your life, and that is really important. 17:27”
“It might be just those symptoms alone, or there might be other symptoms, such as losing weight, having a cough, having difficulty breathing or a swollen chest, or having a history of testicular cancer in your family, that you are ignoring or do not recognise. However, if you recognise any of them, my strong advice is that you should go straight to the doctor early on and ask to be tested. My belief is that if we talk normally about testicular cancer—not necessarily by comparing it to a journey to the supermarket, but by talking about the symptoms and raising awareness—we could save lives. It does not matter if only one life is saved—that one life is absolutely vital. I pay tribute to Cahonas Scotland for its “Check yer bawballs” campaign and to Movember—both charities that are involved in men’s health.”
“If you go to the fruit aisle, specifically the section where you find pears, I ask you to pick up a pear and look at it. I have to say that, when I was researching this speech, I did not realise that there were quite so many varieties of pears available, from Conference and Concorde pears to Taylor’s Gold and Bartlett pears—in fact, there are some 300 varieties. When you go to select your pear, you get what you are given on the supermarket shelves. If you pick up a pear and it is misshapen or hard, or if you push it and it causes you pain, you would reject it and do something about it. That takes me back to the subject that we are talking about tonight, which is testicular cancer. If you find any of those symptoms, you must do something about it. To do nothing is to endanger your life.”
“I thank Marie McNair for bringing this important debate to the chamber. I have spoken about cancer awareness, specifically bowel cancer awareness, in April in previous years, and I have had to mention things that we perhaps do not look at until we see them face to face. I have talked about seeing blood in your poo and the other symptoms, and I think that it is important that we normalise those discussions. Testicular cancer, which we are talking about tonight, is dangerous. There are 2,500 new cases every year, leading to about 65 deaths each year. Catching it early is the way to deal with it. I am therefore going to try to follow the advice of Kenny Everett, and do this “in the best possible taste”. On that basis, Deputy Presiding Officer, I will take you on a journey to your local supermarket.”
“Can it be approved by the committee? There is no standard way of doing it, which makes it really difficult for committees to understand and to get those levels of super-affirmative scrutiny detailed out. My belief is simple. If we are going to have these skeletal, framework or jellyfish bills— whatever people want to call them—they should have a mandatory sunset clause, and they should allow a super-affirmative procedure that requires the legislation to go back out to consultation to all those who will be affected by it. We should make it as difficult as possible for the Government to introduce such bills, so that the detail is there in the first place. If we get that detail right, we will not face the problems that we had with the deposit return scheme. 16:07”
“I am grateful to Lorna Slater for highlighting the time and trouble that I took to go through the deer management consultation, but it should not have come to that. That should have been discussed long before the secondary legislation was introduced to the Parliament. When the issue was debated, I think that I was entitled to a three- minute slot. It was hardly enough time for something that I considered so important and in which I had invested so much time. Also, when we talk about the scrutiny of legislation after it has been introduced, we talk about the super-affirmative procedure. I think that we should say the super-affirmative procedures, because the procedure that is laid out in legislation can be considered for up to 60, 90 or 120 days. Does it require consultation? Does it require to come back to the Parliament to be approved?”
“If policy development has not been carried out before legislation is introduced to the Parliament, that is a failure in the legislation. We ask too much of committees, which are heavily committed, especially in the final year of a parliamentary session, to get all the legislation through. As I have said, I believe that those bills need to be much more tightly drafted. It shows weakness on the part of Governments to argue that they need to co-design legislation as it is going through the Parliament. To me, that shows that there is a lack of detail in the information that they put forward. Frankly, it is bad for parliamentary scrutiny We have little time to carry out that scrutiny.”
“What we have not seen is a figure for the Scottish Parliament; that is one of the failures of the report, and I wish that we had seen that. Perhaps the committee has details on that which were not included in the report. I have to ask myself why we have these bills. The committee identified that they are used when there is a need for flexibility and the ability for co- design, and when there is a lack of policy development in the subject area when the bills are developed. It seems to have come on the back of a lot of the Covid legislation, which was fairly wide ranging. My response to that is the example of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill. There has been a lot of criticism that the lead committee is being asked to design the bill as it goes through the committee stage. We will have to see what happens at stage 2.”
“On Mr Mountain’s point about the proliferation of framework bills—or bills described by the range of pejorative terms that he has just used—he suggests that there has been a vast increase in the number of such bills. I wonder whether he can give me a number. Can he tell me the number of such bills in this parliamentary session, by comparison with the previous session, the session before that or even the session before that? Can anyone give an actual number to justify that claim? Edward Mountain: That, of course, Mr Hepburn, could be one of the failings of the report. If members read the report in detail, as I did, they will see that the number of shell bills or skeletal bills in the United Kingdom Parliament has gone up threefold in the past seven years, and that the number in the Welsh Parliament has gone up by 43 per cent.”
“I do not agree with the Minister for Parliamentary Business that there has not been a proliferation of bills with little detail in them; I believe that there has been. In the eight years in which I have been a committee convener, I have seen more bills come through with less detail in them. Jamie Hepburn: [Made a request to intervene.] Edward Mountain: In a minute, Mr Hepburn. I looked at the names that the committee identified as being given to such bills; they include headline bills, shell bills, enabling bills and framework bills. Those are all great names, and they are used by people to promote the bills for what they are: skeletal bills and jellyfish bills. Jamie Hepburn: I will not cite Mr Mountain as a role model any time soon—I hope that that reassures him.”
“I thank the committee, its clerks and all the people who gave evidence, because the report is excellent. Having been used as a role model by Lorna Slater, I am nervous now; if my parliamentary career was not coming to an end next year, it would have been ended by those remarks. Let us see whether I can build on some of the comments that have been made. Developing legislation is rather like a journey that someone goes on with their family: they work out why they are doing it, where they are going, how they will get there, what they will do when they get there and what the costs will be. It is exactly the same when setting out to do something in business: the person works out why they are doing it, what they are going to do, when they will do it and how they will deliver it. It is the same for legislation.”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am sorry, but I could not connect to the app. I would have voted yes. The Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Mountain. We will ensure that that is recorded.”
“We have heard a lot about such people in the debate, including groups relating to the development of pylon lines and groups in urban areas. I believe that the Government has a lot of work to do on the issue, and I urge it to take time to consider what has been heard in the debate. The Presiding Officer: I thank Mr Mountain for his contribution as convener of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport committee. That concludes the debate on the Aarhus convention and access to environmental justice. Decision Time 17:30”
“Indeed, that was not an oversight, because amendments were debated at stages 2 and 3 that would have given ESS those broader powers, but the Parliament did not agree to those amendments. The issues in this area go beyond what ESS has power to address; those are issues for the Scottish Government. It must be for the Scottish Government to reflect on our continued non- compliance with Aarhus. It is the Scottish Government that must act to ensure that environmental rights are meaningfully protected in a way that provides a clear and accessible route to justice. In closing, I urge ministers to reflect on the issues that have been raised in this important debate and to establish a route forward to ensure that everyone in this country with a legitimate case to raise has access to environmental justice.”
“Dr Richard Dixon, when he recently gave evidence to the committee, described the Government passing a “poisoned chalice” to ESS, as it gives the impression that ESS is going to fix the problem of the lack of access to justice. The Scottish Government is trying to pass to ESS the challenge, and therefore people’s expectations, which Dr Dixon said was unsatisfactory. Although ESS fills an important role in environmental governance in Scotland, its functions are limited to what this Parliament authorised when we passed the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Continuity) (Scotland) Act 2021. ESS cannot give itself powers that the Parliament did not grant. We did not give ESS the power to investigate individual cases.”
“We were told that it could strengthen routes to seek redress, and could potentially develop both judicial and non-judicial routes. Where is that bill? That commitment has, sadly, fallen by the wayside, leaving stakeholders frustrated at the continued lack of action to strengthen those rights. There is now continued non-compliance with the Aarhus convention, without any clear plan to correct that. The Scottish Government has suggested that Environmental Standards Scotland is the answer to those problems. In the Government’s statement following its review, it asked ESS to consider the role that it might play in investigating individual cases.”
“A separate briefing paper on the topic was later produced, but it did little, as far as I can see, to alleviate stakeholders’ concerns. Having been described by Dr Richard Dixon, the chair of Environmental Standards Scotland, as “shoddy”, stakeholders thought overall that the Government’s review was a missed opportunity to look at the new environmental governance arrangements in Scotland that had been established post-Brexit. The Scottish Government’s review highlighted its proposed human rights bill as a fix for the lack of access to justice. We were told that that would include recognition of a human right to a healthy environment. We were also told that that would be underpinned by international frameworks such as the Aarhus convention.”
“At the moment, the only route for an environmental case is a judicial review in the Court of Session. Let us be clear that that is complex and, indeed, very costly. We have heard concerns that a judicial review does not adequately allow the merits of an action to be assessed—only the process that was followed in reaching a decision. Thus, the creation of an environmental court was raised with the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee when we looked at the Scottish Government’s review of environmental governance arrangements. The Government’s review accepted that there was a need for improvement to access to justice, but stakeholders were highly critical that it did not sufficiently engage with the question of creating an environmental court.”
“The Scottish Government has committed to reviewing that, and the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee has been considering the matter. However, to address our non- compliance with the Aarhus convention, a more fundamental suggestion that has been raised with my committee is to create an environmental court. Many members have spoken about the potential benefits of such a court. Stakeholders have suggested that it could result in greater efficiency, quicker decision making and, ultimately, lower costs. It is considered that there is something of a gap in expertise in environmental cases, which can be very complex. A specialist court might reduce the time that is needed to establish and understand the facts in a case and thus, in turn, reduce the cost.”
“I may struggle, Presiding Officer, but I will do my best. I am pleased to close the debate on behalf of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee. I thank members of both committees and the other speakers for their contributions. As we have heard, the Aarhus convention is an important international agreement to protect environmental rights, and a key pillar of the convention is access to justice in environmental matters. Let us be honest that, as we have heard, Scotland has been found to be lacking in that respect. We are just not compliant with the convention, as access to environmental justice in Scotland is prohibitively expensive. I am aware of the availability of legal aid in the area.”
“I do not know whether that is right, but I am sure that the brigadier will correct me afterwards. He was a worthy winner. People like him typify the valiant soldiers who have served in the Black Watch. When I was a soldier in the British Army, which I was for 12 years, I would have liked to have had the Black Watch at my side, but not always to have had a brigade commander from the Black Watch in charge of me. 13:00”
“He then ran back to his lines, collected more grenades and some of his colleagues, and charged back to the Chinese lines, throwing more hand grenades to break up their charge. Sadly, that did not work, so they had to resort to throwing anything they had, which appeared to be mess tins, cans and a large amount of beer bottles. I am reliably informed by the record that those beer bottles came to be in the Black Watch lines purely to be filled with water so that they could cool the machine guns—how they were emptied was not actually clear in the dispatches. William was obviously a worthy VC winner. I have seen other acts of bravery in the Black Watch history, and that is one that I like. I have heard that William was represented as beer-bottle Bill, the VC winner.”
“There is no doubt that, as an ex- soldier, I have a huge amount of respect for all the work that the Black Watch has done during our long history, including our recent history, especially in Korea, Kenya, Northern Ireland, Afghanistan and Iraq. Huge areas of our history have relied on the Black Watch. I would like to talk about one particular member of the Black Watch who I find quite interesting. I am sure that I am going to get this story wrong, but I did as much research as I could on William Speakman-Pitt, who served in Korea in 1951. He was a Victoria cross winner and, I think, a worthy one. Let us look at his history. On 4 November 1951, when things were particularly difficult, he filled his pockets with grenades and charged the Chinese, hurling his grenades until they ran out.”
“I thank Liz Smith for bringing this members’ business debate to the chamber today. I am slightly nervous standing here, because my ex-brigade commander, Brigadier Garry Barnett, is sitting up in the public gallery. I would just like to say to him that I have spent time in the Parliament trying to convince everyone that I was a good soldier. Brigadier, your memories of all the good things that happened in your brigade were, of course, down to me—I do not know who was responsible for the bad things. It is delightful to see you all here today and to look back on the Black Watch. It is probably quite odd for a Household Cavalry man and for somebody who represents the Highlands to be standing here paying tribute to the Black Watch. We are now joined as one, but maybe there is a certain amount of rivalry, as there was before.”
“A majority of the committee supports the general principles of the bill. However, we want the Scottish Government to engage constructively with our recommendations to ensure that the bill can be improved. 15:40”
“Edward Mountain: I think that the committee was more concerned that constantly changing agricultural tenancies retrospectively could cause problems for the letting of land in future, because it would give landlords no surety that what they agreed with a tenant would be carried forward. We also talked about the need for sustainable regenerative agriculture to be included. We think that that should be in the bill. Overall, the bill needs significant changes to make it fit for purpose. Although it is normal for a bill to undergo some adjustments at stages 2 and 3, the changes that are needed in this case appear to be more fundamental. That puts pressure on us, as a committee and as a Parliament, to make sure that we get things right at the amending stages, and that we take the views of experts and stakeholders as we do so.”
“That is a central feature of many of the changes in part 2, but it is as yet undefined. This is a familiar discussion for those who have been involved with the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Act 2024. That act requires a code of practice to be created, which would provide meaning to the term. Fergus Ewing: Will Edward Mountain give way briefly? Edward Mountain: I think that I am short of time, but I would like to give way. The Deputy Presiding Officer: There is a limited bit of time in hand. Fergus Ewing: The bill proposes legal measures that would, I gather, be applied retrospectively. Is the committee at all concerned that that might contravene the European convention on human rights, as was indeed the case with the agricultural holdings legislation two decades ago—the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 2003?”
“However, some stakeholders thought that those changes would make owners even more loth to offer tenancies in the first place. We are deeply concerned about the risk of a further decrease in agricultural tenancies, so we have recommended broader consideration of how to actively encourage the leasing of land for agriculture. Although we support most of the individual provisions in part 2, we recommend that the Scottish Government considers how best to proceed with the provisions on resumption. Resumption is when the landlord takes back part of the tenancy. The methodology for compensating that, as proposed in the bill, has faced significant criticism. The view is that it perhaps rebalances compensation too far in favour of the tenant. We need to clarify the meaning of “sustainable and regenerative agriculture”.”
“We recommend that the transfer test in the bill be reconsidered to make it clear that the public interest will at least be at the heart of lotting decisions. We also recommend that guidance be produced to provide more clarity about the circumstances in which Scottish ministers would or would not expect to make lotting decisions. We are broadly supportive of the new role of land and communities commissioner. Turning to part 2 of the bill, I note that the most significant changes in that part relate to agricultural tenancies. The starting point for those changes is a consensus that the tenanted sector is in long-term decline and that things need to change. Taken together, the changes in the bill could be said to rebalance the landlord and tenant relationship by giving more rights to tenant farmers.”
“That is why our report recommends that there should be additional parliamentary scrutiny of regulations that set out community obligations. The committee supports the principle of extending communities’ right to buy land. However, the changes in section 2 are unlikely to accomplish much on their own. A wider review of the community right to buy is under way, and we are disappointed that it was not completed before the bill was introduced. It would have been much more useful to consider the matter in the round. We support giving Scottish ministers the ability to determine that large landholdings should be sold in lots. However, the basis on which such decisions would be made is unclear.”
“The committee is supportive of such plans, as they could create an accessible one-stop shop for information about large parcels of land, which would improve transparency about estate ownership and use. That provision in part 1 gained clear support, but we heard pleas not to allow it to become a box- ticking exercise with a long list of things to say in those plans, which could remove the local and distinct tailored elements that are required to make the plans truly useful documents. We also heard concerns about the potential cost to estates of producing plans. However, it is difficult to assess those concerns fully when the details of the obligations for what will be set out in the plans will not be set out until later, in regulations. The committee was not in a position to assess the unknown.”
“There was a clear fear that the proposed changes would be burdensome and bureaucratic without delivering any real benefit. On the detail of the bill, the committee is supportive of the provision to allow Scottish ministers to create community engagement obligations. However, only a majority of the committee think that the land size threshold for community engagement obligations—which is 3,000 hectares for mainland estates—is too high. The committee is not agreed on the appropriate thresholds for landholdings to allow the bill’s obligations to kick in. However, we agree that, when they are adopted, those thresholds must be kept under review by the Government. One community engagement obligation that is set out in the bill is for large estates to produce land management plans.”
“They considered large estates to be better able to deliver change at scale, making them assets in tackling the twin climate emergency and biodiversity crises. Mercedes Villalba: Will the member take an intervention? Edward Mountain: I will if I have time, Presiding Officer. The Deputy Presiding Officer: There is time, but it is very limited. Mercedes Villalba: Is it fair to say that those who opposed part 1 tended to be representatives of those who own large amounts of land in Scotland? Edward Mountain: That is not entirely true. Some of the people who opposed part 1 were people who manage land holdings across Scotland, whether in the private or public sector. Whether stakeholders were supportive of further land reform or not, there was consensus that the bill as drafted risks not delivering on its aims.”
“Each part has raised separate issues, and I will take them in turn. On part 1, stakeholders were fundamentally split on a central intention of the bill, which is to diversify land ownership. Those who were supportive of that highlighted that Scotland has a more concentrated pattern of ownership than most international comparators. They said that that creates an imbalance of power and can prevent rural communities from feeling in charge of their own destinies. Their view was that reform has lost momentum and that further change is needed to address that imbalance. Those who were opposed to part 1 often considered it hard to justify the interference with property rights, and they were also concerned that the bill would scare off investment.”
“I acknowledge the useful input from the Finance and Public Administration Committee and the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee. I also thank our clerking team for its support, especially in getting our report out so promptly after it had been agreed. The committee began its work on the bill in April last year, when we issued a call for views. We started taking oral evidence in June, and we heard from 13 different panels of witnesses. We also got out and about in rural areas to meet people on the ground. We held a successful panel event at the Royal Highland Show and an online engagement event with tenant farmers. I thank all the people who contributed to our work. The bill is split into two distinct parts. Part 1 sets out new methods of land reform and part 2 relates to the leasing of land.”
“I am pleased to speak in this debate on behalf of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee. In accordance with parliamentary rules, I will make a full declaration of my interests so that there is no dubiety. I declare that I have an interest in a family farming partnership in Moray, as set out in my register of interests. Specifically, I declare an interest in approximately 200 hectares of farmland, of which 20 hectares is woodland. I am a tenant of approximately 200 hectares in Moray on a non-agricultural tenancy, and I have a farming tenancy of approximately 5 hectares under the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1991. I also declare that I sometimes take grass lets on an annual basis. I thank my committee colleagues for their diligent work in considering the bill.”
“I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests in that I am part of a family farm in Moray. Does the minister regret that, when Fergus Ewing was the cabinet secretary, he did not scrap the £178 million failed system and implement a new system that was estimated to cost £34 million? Would that not have saved the minister the extraordinary amount of money that he has had to pay in the past 10 years? Jim Fairlie: I am not quite sure what Edward Mountain is asking when he asks whether I regret what Fergus Ewing’s decisions were a number of years ago. I know that, when he was in office, Fergus Ewing made an exceptional effort to make sure that the system worked. He got the payments out and into the bank accounts of farmers on time, which is exactly what farmers require. What they do not need is this.”