Skip to main content
Loading…

Seòmar agus comataidhean

Official Report: search what was said in Parliament

The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.  

Criathragan Hide all filters

Dates of parliamentary sessions
  1. Session 1: 12 May 1999 to 31 March 2003
  2. Session 2: 7 May 2003 to 2 April 2007
  3. Session 3: 9 May 2007 to 22 March 2011
  4. Session 4: 11 May 2011 to 23 March 2016
  5. Session 5: 12 May 2016 to 5 May 2021
  6. Current session: 12 May 2021 to 15 June 2025
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 405 contributions

|

Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]

Land Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 3 June 2025

Mercedes Villalba

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]

Land Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 3 June 2025

Mercedes Villalba

I am pleased to speak to amendment 43 and my other amendments in the group. I again thank Community Land Scotland and the Scottish Parliament legislation team for their support in drafting the amendments.

The bill makes it clear that provisions for land management plans, lotting limits and transfer tests will apply to single, composite or contiguous landholdings. As it stands, that means that non-contiguous landholdings that are over the threshold will not be subject to the effects of the bill and that a single owner of multiple holdings that amount to many times the size of the large landholding threshold will be unaffected by the bill. However, the stated purpose of the bill is to address the national concentration of land ownership across Scotland. The Scottish Land Commission found that aggregate holdings and complex ownership structures pose challenges for transparency and applying the bill’s provisions.

11:45  

My amendments 43 and 47 therefore seek to remove the limitation that holdings must be contiguous, thus removing loopholes around non-contiguous landholdings and ensuring that aggregate landholdings that are over the threshold will be included in the scope of the bill. If the amendments are agreed to, they will ensure that aggregate landholdings are included in the land management plan requirements, prior notification requirements and public interest test requirements, while removing the loophole of landholdings being severed by infrastructure.

The amendments would remove the requirement for landholdings to border each other and ensure that large landowners of multiple holdings across the country are within the scope of the bill. Amendments 43 and 47, taken with amendments 122 and 125 in group 10 and amendments 140 and 145 in group 12, therefore seek to remove loopholes in relation to contiguous landholdings and include aggregate landholdings.

Bob Doris’s amendment 182, which is in group 16, would introduce a duty on Scottish ministers to regularly review the thresholds. It is vital that we future proof the legislation to sustain the direction of travel towards greater diversification of land ownership. My amendment 109 therefore seeks to amend proposed new section 44M of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2016 to specify that

“Regulations ... must not increase the number of hectares in area that land must exceed for obligations to be imposed on the land.”

Amendment 109, taken with amendment 133 in group 10 and amendment 171 in group 12, would ensure that thresholds may not be revised upwards.

Labour supports Ariane Burgess’s amendments 3 and 4, which seek to lower the threshold to 500 hectares. I have long campaigned for that and we welcome the Greens’ support for it.

Rural Affairs and Islands Committee [Draft]

Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 28 May 2025

Mercedes Villalba

Does Dr Tuckett want to contribute?

Rural Affairs and Islands Committee [Draft]

Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 28 May 2025

Mercedes Villalba

I have two questions. First, I will go back to target topics, which I know we discussed at the start of the session. The programme advisory group identified seven target topics. We have discussed the three that are being taken forward, but I want to hear your views on investment in biodiversity, which is not being taken forward. Does any of your organisations have a view on the extent to which a statutory target on investment in biodiversity would be useful and help to drive forward the changes that are required?

Rural Affairs and Islands Committee [Draft]

Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 28 May 2025

Mercedes Villalba

Thank you. My second question is about consultation on the targets. The Scottish Government, in evidence to the committee, said that it did not envisage doing any formal public consultation. Based on your organisations experiences of engaging with the public and people who are affected by and living in the environment, what are your views on the need to carry out public consultation on the targets, specifically?

Rural Affairs and Islands Committee [Draft]

Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 28 May 2025

Mercedes Villalba

That is helpful. Would anyone else like to come in?

Rural Affairs and Islands Committee [Draft]

Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 28 May 2025

Mercedes Villalba

They have been answered.

Rural Affairs and Islands Committee [Draft]

Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 28 May 2025

Mercedes Villalba

No—my questions have been answered.

Rural Affairs and Islands Committee [Draft]

Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 21 May 2025

Mercedes Villalba

All my questions have been answered. Thank you, convener.

Rural Affairs and Islands Committee [Draft]

Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 21 May 2025

Mercedes Villalba

I also heard you touch on investment, which relates to my second question, which is for the wider panel. When the Government was working on the bill, seven topics were identified by the programme advisory group, and only three of those topics are being taken forward in the bill. One of the topics that is not being taken forward is investment in biodiversity. I heard that mentioned by a few of our witnesses today.

Dr McParland said that CIEEM would like to see targets as a driver for investment in biodiversity and noted that 22 per cent of planning authorities do not have access to biodiversity expertise, and Jacqueline Cook, on behalf of the SPF, spoke about local authorities not having the resources. It seems that there is a funding gap.

My question, therefore, is whether you believe that the protection and restoration that we are discussing can happen without public investment. How likely is it that the outcomes can be delivered without a statutory target on public investment? What is your view on the lack of a target on public investment in the bill?