Official Report 1201KB pdf
The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-19421, in the name of Mairi Gougeon, on the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill at stage 3. I would be grateful if members who wish to speak in the debate were to press their request-to-speak buttons.
17:47
I am pleased to open the debate on our Land Reform (Scotland) Bill. In the broad sweep of land reform history, today marks a watershed moment. It is a moment to pause and reflect on the progress that the Parliament has made on that journey and to look forward to the substantive changes that the bill will deliver.
The Scotland that we seek is one that is rooted in the values of fairness, dignity and hope. Scotland’s land must be an asset that benefits the many not the few—those words reflect the Government’s desire to effect real change and to ensure that we deliver on the hopes and aspirations of our communities. At its heart, land reform is and has always been about the deeply rooted and complex relationship between Scotland’s land and her people. It goes to the heart of who we are and the values that we hold dear. In the words of Norman MacCaig:
“Who possesses this landscape?—
The man who bought it or
I who am possessed by it”?
Those are not new problems and this is not a new debate; stark inequalities and injustices have persisted in rural Scotland over centuries. The bill builds on the hopes, aspirations and achievements of generations of fearless campaigners and advocates of land reform, past and present, from the distant voices of the early campaigners and the hard-won land rights of our crofters and small landholders, to the pioneers of community ownership and the tenant farmers who dared to believe that a fairer future was possible.
The measures in the bill show that change is possible and that we can build a better future, allowing communities to breathe new life and new opportunity into rural Scotland. Across four days in the chamber, we have debated and considered more than 400 amendments. I want to reflect on the changes that the bill will bring.
For the first time, ministers will have unprecedented lotting powers for large estates over 1,000 hectares. That lotting can happen prior to sale or transfer, where it is in the public interest.
For the first time, communities will receive advance notification of impending sales or transfers of land by large landowners. That will increase transparency and will also allow them time to decide whether to submit a community right-to-buy application. Too often, people and communities feel powerless when the land that they live on is sold with no prior warning. The bill will ensure that that can no longer happen.
For the first time, large landowners will be required to engage meaningfully with communities, and to publish publicly available land management plans. Landowners will be legally required to set out how they use their land and how that contributes to key public policy priorities.
I know that there are concerns about the bill and how it will work in practice. I want to assure members that there will be guidance and support for landowners and communities. As I have said throughout the process, responsible landowners will have nothing to fear.
I also know that there are those here who do not think that the bill goes far enough. Throughout the parliamentary process we have worked on a cross-party basis to try to build consensus to make the bill as effective as possible, and it is right that we take a measured and proportionate approach, given that these are new policies. I have always said that we need to ensure that the bill does not have a disproportionate impact on smaller landholdings.
We as a Government, and as a Parliament, also have a responsibility to ensure that all of our legislation is compatible with our human rights obligations. The review provisions that are now in the bill will allow further evidence on the success of the provisions to be considered and changes justified.
Our land reform provisions will cover more than 50 per cent of Scotland’s land, and the powers that we have agreed in the bill will allow for future changes based on evidence.
I turn to part 2 of the bill. Tenant farmers and small landholders—like our crofters—are vital to the rich fabric of our rural communities, and this legislation builds on their hard-won rights, ensuring fairness and dignity. Our nation’s tenant farmers account for around one in five of our farmers and manage close to one quarter of our agricultural land. The reforms will enable them to deliver our vision for sustainable and regenerative agriculture.
Over the past six months, I have also been speaking to farmers and landowners, and one of the things that I have often heard is that landowners are now concerned about renting out land to tenant farmers because they fear that they might not get that land back. Has the cabinet secretary heard that?
That speaks to some of the claims that we have heard throughout the debate that the bill poses a threat to the letting of land in Scotland. However, the general trends that we see do not bear that out. Ultimately, the reforms that we are introducing are about fairness for our tenant farmers and about doing what is right. That is why I am proud of the measures that we are introducing.
We are modernising rights around farming practices, improvements and diversification. Our tenants must be able to effectively manage their land and businesses and make the changes that are right for them. All that we seek to do is to make getting to that outcome an easier process for all parties.
Previous reforms that have improved tenants’ rights, which were controversial at the time, have proved to be absolutely essential. The reforms that we are now making will ensure that tenants and small landholders can make a decent living and have the confidence to invest and improve their holdings, enabling them to access new support mechanisms and contribute to nature and climate outcomes.
The bill also respects the rights of landowners. Should they wish to exercise any right to resume land, they can do so. In turn, all that we seek to do through resumption reforms is ensure that tenants are compensated fairly.
However, there is a pattern to reforms in this area. Every Government since devolution that has sought to deliver improved rights and protections for our tenant farmers has come under blistering attack from powerful landed interests. In this case, that has included the false accusation that the bill introduces retrospective measures. It does not. The reforms will change the law, but they do not change the past. The changes affect the future exercise of existing rights, as many bills do.
The reality is that the approach of the reforms’ critics has nothing to do with a desire to have a vibrant tenanted sector, and everything to do with a broader desire to roll back reforms and wind the clock back to a feudal past that has long been consigned to the dustbin of history. I will do what is right. The measures are designed to be balanced, proportionate and, ultimately, fair.
Finally, this is the only Government to bring forward significant modernisation for small landholders in nearly a century.
The amendments will ensure that small landholders will benefit from a modern legal framework that is fit for the 21st century. Our reforms will enable the creation of new small landholdings, delivering a new route into agriculture for the next generation.
At its heart, land reform is about giving voice to the voiceless and empowering communities and individuals, and it is that quest for dignity and fairness that is at the heart of our bill.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill be passed.
17:55
I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests.
I begin by recognising the work that has gone into the bill. I have appreciated the constructive engagement from the cabinet secretary and her officials throughout the process. We have worked together on a number of areas, and I acknowledge that good will. However, the fact remains that, on the central principles of the bill, we will never see eye to eye.
There seems to be a consensus across much of the chamber that community land ownership is inherently better than private ownership and that large landowners—or medium landowners, as the bill has been amended—are somehow bad. I simply do not share that view. That is not to say that I am blind to the benefits that community ownership can bring. Across Scotland, there are powerful examples of communities taking control of local assets—from the Galson estate on Lewis, to Knoydart and Eigg—and delivering real benefits in housing, tourism, renewable energy and social cohesion. Those successes deserve recognition; however, we must be careful not to turn a success story into an ideology.
Private ownership, too, brings enormous value to rural Scotland. It brings investment, jobs and local spending. It supports the people who work our land, manage our forests and power our economy. When there is a balance of fairness and trust, landowners and communities can and do work together to create opportunity. We have seen that across Scotland, with new affordable housing built in partnership with estates, local businesses supported through shared land use, and renewable energy projects developed jointly between communities and private owners. Those partnerships do not make headlines, but they are the quiet engine of rural Scotland, delivering economic growth, employment and environmental progress.
This bill and previous land reform bills have set out priorities around access to land, so I will talk about tenancies. I agree with the Scottish Government’s ambition, as laid out in its agricultural reform programme, to see
“a thriving rural economy with more land-based jobs, stronger communities, and greater diversity of ownership.”
I support that sentiment, but sentiment alone will not deliver it. The policies must support those outcomes in practice, and for many new entrants and young farmers, that means tenancies.
The stage 1 report raises concerns that deserve our attention. It says:
“Others thought the changes, overall, would make owners even more loath to offer tenancies because of an increased financial risk. The fact that the changes are not solely forward-looking but will affect aspects of existing contracts was seen as unfair.”
If we want to encourage more tenancies, more access to land and more opportunity for young farmers, we must build confidence and we must make landowners feel that it is fair and secure to let land, not riskier or more bureaucratic. I do not believe that the bill does that.
The truth is stark: the area of tenanted land in Scotland has fallen dramatically over the past two decades. Twenty years ago, around 30 per cent of agricultural land was tenanted; today, it is closer to 18 per cent, and the trend continues downward. That means fewer opportunities for new entrants, less flexibility for farming businesses and a less resilient rural economy.
The Scottish Government, as a major landowner, should lead by example in supporting new farmers. Although nine starter farms were created on public land between 2012 and 2015, progress has stalled since, with the 2023 review highlighting missed opportunities and unclear plans. For instance, the Glen Prosen estate, bought in 2022 for nearly £18 million—
Will the member take an intervention?
I am happy to.
Does the member not recognise that in the programme for government, it was set out that all public landholdings should look at what opportunities they can create for new entrants?
I do remember seeing that, but I do not think that it has progressed since. The minister can correct me if I am wrong, but the Scottish Government has created only nine starter farms, and there were comments about unclear plans in the 2023 review.
Glen Prosen still lacks a complete land management plan. If ministers are serious about supporting new entrants, they must demonstrate that commitment on the land that they control.
Another central issue in the bill is property rights—rights that have existed for generations and that are fundamental to how our economy functions. We have heard concerns, including from respected voices such as Don Macleod, about the potential impact of the bill’s pre-notification and lotting requirements. Those could create uncertainty in land sales, add cost and delay and deter legitimate investment. That is not reform; it is bureaucracy.
There is a danger that, however well intentioned, the bill begins to resemble the kind of state control that we have seen elsewhere in Europe. Some have suggested that it echoes the French reforms of the 1960s, which created the SAFER model—a system in which the state has extensive powers over land transactions. That suggestion is probably unsurprising, given the Scottish Land Commission review in 2023.
It is true that that model reshaped rural France, where feudalism was abolished centuries earlier than in Scotland. It achieved some success in supporting young farmers and reducing speculation, but that was a long time ago and things have moved on. It also brought layers of bureaucracy and market distortion and reduced transparency. We should be careful to not repeat those mistakes. Scotland’s strength lies in its diversity and its ability to combine private enterprise with public purpose.
I do not agree that the bill is transformative. People in rural Scotland want a balance: a system in which landowners can invest with confidence, tenants can build a future and communities can choose to own land, without private owners being treated with suspicion. We need a rural economy that thrives without being tangled in red tape.
Good land management is about partnership, not punishment. When farmers, estates, communities and Government work together, we can achieve remarkable things—from tree planting and peatland restoration to tourism, education and food production. That is the Scotland that I want: one where families can make a living from the land, food production is valued and the next generation has the opportunity to stay, work and thrive. Our shared purpose should be trust built on fairness, freedom and belief in the people who make rural Scotland what it is today.
18:01
I thank the legislation team, which helped to draft amendments, and all the parliamentary staff who have assisted with the bill and those who have worked late to allow the late sessions to happen. I also thank those who gave evidence and helped with our deliberations. A special thanks must go to Dr Josh Doble and Community Land Scotland for their help.
That said, it is disappointing that the next Parliament will have to return to the issue of land reform. The review of the community right to buy took place at the same time as this bill was passing through the Parliament. That review should have been part of the bill.
We are also concerned that the bill is timid—it will not make a huge change to land ownership patterns in Scotland. We wanted a public interest test to underpin the bill. Land is an economic driver, and the wellbeing of a community that lives on the land depends on the actions of the landowner. The landowner can either develop a community or be a dead hand upon it.
We have seen that, where communities have bought their own land, economic development has increased and co-operative working, joint enterprise and private business have flourished. It is in the interests of a community landowner for that to happen; they are answerable to their community and honour bound to work in the public interest. That is not the case for private landowners, and nothing in the bill imposes duties on a landowner to work in the public interest. Scottish Labour proposed a public interest test for those who buy land, but, sadly, it was voted down.
The Scottish Government is selling Kinloch castle on Rùm. It is looking to sell to a person who will take seriously their duties to the community. The property details specify that bids should include a statement—which will be shared with the community—that sets out how they will use the castle and how they will support nature, and promote the sustainability, culture and economy of the Isle of Rùm. If that is required for Rùm, should it not be required for every community?
We were keen that smaller areas of land should have been included in the bill. We welcome the reduction of the minimum size of included areas of land to 1,000 hectares, but that brings only 754 holdings into the scope of the bill. We would have preferred to see land areas of 500 hectares included—that would have brought 2,641 landholdings within the scope of the provisions.
Will the member take an intervention?
Very briefly.
If the threshold had been reduced, how many family farms would it have brought into the scope of the bill?
I will give you the time back, Ms Grant.
Thank you, Presiding Officer.
It would have been very few—more than 97 per cent of family farms are below that acreage.
Neither does the bill take into scope cumulative holdings, so the landlords of huge swathes of Scottish land will not be brought within the scope of the bill. That is increasingly a problem when organisations are buying up parcels of land to offset carbon. Those organisations seek to greenwash polluting activity elsewhere. Any landowner that does not have the wellbeing of the communities that live and work at the heart of what they do will cause damage to those communities by pursuing their own interests over those of the people who live and work on the land.
We are also disappointed that the bill does not extend the community right to buy to urban areas. Empowering communities in those areas would have been a game changer—it would have tackled poverty and ensured that developers could not hold those communities to ransom.
What the bill does do—and the reason that we will support it—is stop off-market sales. Currently, land is changing hands without the knowledge of the people who live and work on it. The bill will change that by informing communities of sales and allowing them to consider how they deal with them.
The bill also introduces lotting to Scotland. We have not had that before, so we will watch with interest how it might impact on land ownership patterns in Scotland.
Land management plans will give communities an insight into the plans of their landowner and an input to how those plans impact on them. Again, it will be interesting to see whether that gives communities a greater say in land use.
We will support the bill, but we know that it is unfinished business and that the next Parliament will have to pick things up again. However, one thing that the Government can do here and now to empower communities and encourage community ownership is to ensure the future of the Scottish land fund, which is an essential means of funding community ownership and land reform. The Scottish Government had previously committed to having a £20 million fund by the end of the parliamentary session. That commitment has not been met. As the Parliament goes into purdah, it is estimated that 150 projects, with an estimated value of £23 million, are waiting.
Ms Grant, will you please conclude?
I ask the cabinet secretary to expedite applications so that those projects can begin work for their communities before the end of the session.
18:07
Land is power, and those who have the land have the power. Nowhere is that more acutely felt than in the Highlands and Islands—the region that I represent—which has some of the most concentrated land ownership in Europe.
Scotland has a population of 5.5 million, yet half our country is owned by just over 400 people—a truly tiny minority. They are aristocrats, absentee billionaires, international corporations and minor royalty from around the world. Some are so secretive that their neighbours do not even know who they are. The question at the heart of the debate is whether the bill will meaningfully address that inequality in land ownership.
At minimum, any land reform legislation that is worthy of support needs to challenge the imbalance of power that comes from monopoly land ownership; provide transparency over who owns Scotland; and enable more communities to have a say—and a stake—in the activities that take place around them.
I thank stakeholders who have engaged with those questions over the past year of scrutiny of the bill. In particular, Community Land Scotland and Revive coalition members have been tireless advocates for ambitious legislation. My thanks go also to those stakeholders who, even though we fundamentally disagree on the issues at hand, took the time to meet me and my Scottish Green colleagues. I also thank the Parliament’s clerks and the bill team for their engagement on Green amendments.
After many hours of deliberation across the past two weeks, it is clear that the bill has not progressed meaningfully from where it started. My central disappointment lies with part 1. The measures simply do not go far enough in addressing the issue at the very heart of land reform, which is that the majority of Scotland's land is owned and controlled by a tiny minority. As stage 3 began, I made it clear to the Scottish Government that, in order to vote for the bill, I would need to be confident that I could look constituents in the eye and tell them that we had made significant progress and that the legislation had genuinely improved things. I regret that I am not in that position this evening.
First, the legislation does not do nearly enough to ensure that public interest considerations are at the heart of the new measures. If Green amendments had been accepted, there would be legislation that places a limit on how much land an individual could own and requires them to demonstrate how they will use it for the public benefit.
Secondly, there is nothing in the bill to require that land management plans be implemented by land managers. That is a crucial set of provisions that could become a box-ticking exercise.
Thirdly, the measures do not tackle the concentration of land ownership—an issue that was consulted on by the Government, but never taken forward.
I appreciate that some Scottish Green amendments were accepted by the Government at stage 3. In particular, there will be stronger requirements on large landowners to set out how they will manage their land for nature recovery. In an era of climate and nature emergency, everyone must play their part. I am also glad that ministers will make it easier for new hutting communities to be established on public land.
However, this is not a time to pat ourselves on the back for making small changes at the edges. This is a moment for everyone to assess whether the bill addresses the fundamental purpose of land reform legislation. Without robust measures to challenge concentrated ownership, we are managing the symptoms while leaving the disease untreated. We are asking communities to continue their struggles without giving them the tools that they truly need.
The Scottish Greens cannot vote for this bill with enthusiasm. This legislation falls far short of what Scotland needs. This Government has once again refused to stand up to the landed elites and vested interests, and communities are paying the price.
We accept that the bill—
Ms Burgess, you will need to bring your remarks to a close. You are over your time.
We accept that the bill moves things marginally in the right direction, but the pace of change is glacial. However, we will not dismiss the improvements that have been made.
Please conclude, Ms Burgess.
For those reasons, the Scottish Greens will abstain on the bill.
18:11
This has been a marathon process, which makes it all the more important that we acknowledge the work that has been put in by all those who have contributed. That includes parliamentary staff across the board; members of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee; the cabinet secretary and her officials, who have kept Opposition spokespeople updated, including with meetings at the margins of the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation dinner; and the stakeholders who have given evidence and provided briefings.
As a side note, it has been particularly gratifying to see Andy Wightman back in the Parliament—sadly, up in the public gallery rather than down here in the chamber. On occasions like this, his absence is keenly felt.
Whatever we might think about 400 amendments being lodged at stage 3 and the fact that so many were pressed to a vote, that has undoubtedly enabled debate to take place on a wide range of issues over the final four days of scrutiny.
The issue of land reform is one that successive Parliaments and Governments have wrestled with over the years. Despite previous reforms, the need for further action is indisputable. As others have observed, the concentration of land ownership in Scotland has continued to increase, resulting in a small number of individuals controlling an overwhelming proportion of privately owned land in this country, often shrouded in mystery.
There is also compelling evidence that the inequitable distribution of land ownership has resulted in fewer opportunities for rural communities to invest in affordable housing and economic development projects. When those communities cannot meaningfully participate in the land buying process, vital opportunities for community growth are lost. The Scottish Liberal Democrats therefore strongly support much greater transparency in land ownership, as well as steps to help to revitalise our rural and island communities.
How far to go with reform has always been contested, making agreement difficult and consensus probably impossible. For example, balancing the rights of tenants and landlords requires care if unintended consequences and perverse incentives are to be avoided. The requirement for land management plans is reasonable and the threshold that will be set will offer consistency and is broadly proportionate. At the same time, however, those plans must not create an unreasonable burden by being overly complex. I raised that point repeatedly with the cabinet secretary. The Scottish Liberal Democrats supported amendments in that area. Likewise, we supported amendments to make clear that the maximum fine for breaches of plans, which is set at £40,000, will apply only in cases of repeat offences. That was raised with me by constituents in Orkney, and it is something that I highlighted to the cabinet secretary on numerous occasions.
There were also concerns about the bill’s proposed changes to resumption, especially in relation to tenancies under the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 2003 and incontestable notice to quit in relation to tenancies under the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1991. I recognise that, in response, the cabinet secretary lodged amendments at stage 3 that aimed to address some of the issues that were raised by NFUS and others, particularly around changes to 2003 tenancies.
For some, the changes will not go far enough, but I hope that the matter can be kept under review. For that to happen, we will need to understand how the legislation works after contact with reality. I am therefore pleased that Parliament agreed to changes that will require land commissioners and the Scottish ministers to undertake a thorough review of the “impact and effectiveness” of the bill after five years. I congratulate Martin Whitfield on securing that commitment and wiring in post-legislative scrutiny on an issue that I confidently predict, as others have done, will continue to occupy Parliaments and Governments for years to come.
At this point, however, although the bill is far from perfect, I believe that it represents a step in the right direction, which Scottish Liberal Democrats will support at decision time this evening.
We move to the open debate, with speeches of up to four minutes from back benchers.
18:15
Since it was reconvened, this Parliament has delivered radical and ambitious land reform, providing a challenge to the highly concentrated pattern of land ownership across huge areas of Scotland that a number of members have mentioned.
The final version of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill that we have in front of us this evening is the product of, among many other things, a parliamentary marathon of amendments over the past week or two. I know that there are people in the gallery—at least one of them is a constituent of mine—who have loyally followed the bill’s progress evening after evening and long into the night. That indicates the desire to see the bill passed. In fact, many people have been in touch with me urging the Parliament to pass the bill. That is because the bill represents a vital step forward in allowing communities across Scotland to have a greater say over what happens to the land on which they live.
The land is an important part of who we are, and I am proud of our long-standing commitment to delivering meaningful land reform and diversifying land ownership in the public interest. However, as others have rightly pointed out, the concentration of land ownership can be seen to have worsened in recent years, with 421 landowners owning 50 per cent of private rural land. That number is down from 440 in 2012. That is despite significant progress in the number of communities that have been supported through the Scottish land fund in achieving their buyouts, in both rural and urban areas, since then. We should be proud of that progress. That said, we must do more to achieve our land reform objectives. We must close loopholes and make it easier for communities to successfully acquire land for the common good.
During our deliberations in Parliament, some members have argued that the bill does not go far enough, while Mr Mountain has, with a very thorough efficiency, sought to oppose every part of the bill for going too far. I consider the bill to be a helpful and pragmatic measure, although I am sure that we will return to the topic in future.
Among many other measures, the bill will introduce lotting provisions, which will allow communities to buy smaller portions of land on an estate’s sale. Prior notifications of land sales for communities will also be implemented through the legislation. That is important because it will prevent situations in which communities have land sold from underneath them without even being told about it. The requirement for land management plans will require greater transparency and engagement and proactive use of land assets in line with national objectives.
As of 2023, 72 per cent of community-owned land in Scotland was located in the Western Isles. In my constituency, more than 75 per cent of people live on land that is community owned. That fact is not unconnected to the role that the islands have played in the long fight across Scotland for land rights. The crofters war of the late 19th century, in response to the Highland clearances, secured the Crofters Holdings (Scotland) Act 1886, while later land raids led to the Land Settlement (Scotland) Act 1919.
Looking forward, it is important to use the legislative levers that are available to us to deal with the problems of the future. I am thinking of the need to prevent asset management companies—the names Gresham House and Oxygen Conservation spring unbidden to mind—from any aggressive acquisition of huge swathes of our hillsides. The on-going challenge for us all will be to ensure that local communities remain able to make productive and positive use of the land around them for the benefit of everyone living in their area. The bill will enable exactly that.
The bill represents an important step forward in Scotland’s progress on land reform and will empower communities to give themselves a future. I urge members to vote to pass the bill at decision time this evening.
18:20
I remind members, as I constantly do, of my entry in the register of members’ interests. I am the owner of 202 hectares of land. I rent about 200 hectares of land under a non-agricultural tenancy. I also have about five hectares of land under an Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1991 tenancy. I have feet in many camps when it comes to land, and I have always supported land reform.
I echo the thanks that Mr McArthur put on the record to those people who have helped members to get amendments through. In particular, I thank the legislation team for being so amenable to the few amendments that I put forward.
I started off looking at the bill bearing in mind the information that had been given to me by a land reformer who said that it would not deliver what the cabinet secretary said that it would and by a legal adviser who said that it was “junk law”. This is the Scottish Parliament’s third attempt at land reform. None of it has really delivered what the Parliament wanted, and we predict that there will be a fourth attempt. What we know is that the first attempt at land reform resulted in Andrew Stoddart’s court case, and the second resulted in the Salvesen v Riddell case—and at what cost to the Scottish Government? We will find out, because I have put in some freedom of information requests that will, no doubt, prove that cost.
My amendments did not seek to do what Dr Allan suggested, which was to kibosh the bill; rather, they sought to prevent the cabinet secretary—or probably her successor—from facing the legal challenges that I believe that the bill will result in.
There are some clear casualties of the bill, investor confidence being one and tenancies being another. Why are those important? We need investor confidence if we are going to address our net zero targets, including on planting and looking after the remote areas of Scotland. I have looked back at the details, which show that, in March 2023, Lorna Slater—sadly, she is not here—signed a groundbreaking £2 billion investment deal with private investors and the bank Hampden & Co. The aim was to get them to invest in some of the targets that we sought to achieve. This land reform bill will not help to promote that investment. We can argue about whether that is right or wrong, but the Government does not have the money available to invest in some of the targets that we need to achieve. If members do not believe that, I point to the outstanding letters from Scottish Financial Enterprise and from renewables and forestry companies on their fears about the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill. The bill will make real problems for us.
As far as tenancies are concerned, let me be clear that changing the law retrospectively comes with huge problems. We know that there has been a decrease in tenancies—I have raised that for long enough.
Part of the bill that I found particularly difficult is the exclusion of large landowners from being the land and community commissioner. It seems to be fine for ex-ministers and ex-special advisers to take that role, but not large landowners. I think that that is wrong. Fundamentally, it goes against the grain of everything that I believe about the Scottish Parliament in relation to equality.
We have debated amendments, including a lot of my amendments. I am very glad that, in most cases, they were debated in the spirit in which they were lodged. However, at one stage, one of them was not, and that was sad. My mother, who is long since deceased, would have said that that was probably because the person was overtired and that they should not have done it in that way. My mother often had wise things to say. I will leave it at that, but I am afraid that I cannot support the bill in the way in which it is drafted.
18:24
Presiding Officer, 2025 is a year of anniversaries. It is a quarter of a century since the death of Donald Dewar, who warned that Scotland’s land had
“too much control in too few hands”—
that radical action was needed.
It is 60 years this year since the death of Tom Johnston, who began his great work on land ownership with a general indictment of the
“various divinities, dignities and privileges”
of Scots landlords as a class. Our
“Old Nobility is not noble”,
he famously concluded.
It is exactly half a century since the publication of the first “Red Paper on Scotland”, in which John McEwen boldly set his objective to see
“the stranglehold of our mainly absentee landlordism destroyed”,
and in which Jim Sillars argued that, for democratic socialist land policies to be applied, it required the
“devolvement of legislative power from Westminster to a Scottish Parliament.”
But, oh, how we have let them down. How we have let the people down with the timidity of our action, including the rejection of radical amendments to this bill.
This may be my last chance to speak on land reform in this Parliament. My faithfulness to this cause stretches back almost four decades, when, under the tutelage of Alex Falconer, I wrote a short pamphlet entitled “Who Owns Mid-Scotland and Fife?” In it, we exposed that, in the old Central region, including part of the area that I am now privileged to represent in this Parliament, fewer than 100 landowners—92, in fact—owned 50 per cent of all the land. It became yet another compelling reason for me to join the campaign for a Scottish Parliament and why I stood for election to be a member of the Scottish Parliament.
It has been a privilege to be here. I have loved almost every minute of it, but I will leave it, as I entered it, with half of Scotland still owned by fewer than 500 people. I will leave it as campaigners like Andy Wightman have shown: over the last decade, land ownership in Scotland has not got more diverse, it has got narrower; the estates have grown larger and the owners fewer; and there is more capital accumulation, more land monopoly and more ownership concentration, not less.
I will leave it, as well, to the echo of speeches in this debate by Edward Mountain, to whom I bear no personal animus, but they are speeches that could have been delivered by any member of the official roll of the baronetage at any time over the last four centuries.
Although the cabinet secretary told us that this bill is a
“significant step on our land reform journey”
and that the Government was
“committed to delivering ambitious proposals”,—[Official Report, 26 March 2025; c 83, 80.]
I will leave Parliament knowing, as this Government must know, that this bill is neither ambitious nor significant, that it will not fundamentally tackle the power imbalance that exists, that this bill will make no structural difference to the distribution of land ownership and that class inequality will remain Scotland’s hereditary curse.
The final words of that pamphlet written all those years ago, when I was in my 20s, I still stand by. So let them be my final words today:
“Inevitably there should be a move toward the common ownership of land in order that the benefits of what is after all a natural gift can be once again shared by the whole community.”
It will be for those elected to the next Parliament to rekindle the vitality of those ideas, to think big and act radical; to take on those vested interests. Although, by then, I will be gone, I will be outside Parliament—this cause of land justice, this demand for equality and this claim of right for our democracy will forever, forever, have my undying support.
18:28
The contributions that we have heard today reflect the depth of feeling about land reform across the chamber. I share the disappointment expressed by Rhoda Grant that smaller areas of land were not brought into the bill’s scope. Liam McArthur reminded us that inequality in land ownership creates fewer opportunities for rural communities to evolve. Alasdair Allan talked about the history of the struggle for land reform, going back as far as 1886.
However, I must return to my central concern, which is that part 1 does not go far enough. Without putting in place robust measures to address concentrated ownership, we are treating the symptoms while leaving the disease untouched. Let me be specific about what is missing. The legislation does not do nearly enough to ensure that public interest outweighs private interest when it comes to how the land around us is used. Had our proposal for a public interest test been accepted, we could have had legislation that placed a limit on how much land an individual can own and required them to demonstrate how they would use it for the public benefit. That would have been meaningful land reform.
Instead, the bill asks communities to continue their struggles without giving them the tools that they truly need. The concentration of ownership persists. The imbalance of power remains. Communities across the Highlands and Islands and rural Scotland will still find themselves fighting uphill battles against landowners who control vast estates but face little accountability and limited transparency about their intentions.
As I said earlier, the Scottish Greens cannot vote whole-heartedly for this legislation given that part 1 of the bill falls so far short of what Scotland needs and what our communities deserve. However, I acknowledge the achievement for Scotland’s tenant farmers in part 2 of the bill.
Recently, I was contacted by a tenant farmer in my region who wants to do more nature-friendly farming but has found themselves stymied by a lease that,
“Although written in 1982, reads like something from the 1800s.”
They added:
“It doesn’t reflect the progressive and modern lens we approach farming with … All we want here is to be able to farm in a way that allows us to earn a living, contribute to our communities, produce high quality food and look after our environment.”
I am glad to have been able to make some small changes at stage 2 that will allow tenants to take up regenerative agricultural practices and convert to organics without needing permission from their landlord. Such measures are a start as we shift our agricultural policy towards supporting those farmers who are looking to innovate because of the environmental changes that we expect to see in the coming decades.
This is not the end of the journey. I say to those in Community Land Scotland, to Revive coalition members and to communities across Scotland who are fighting for land justice: we, the Scottish Greens, remain absolutely committed to the transformative land reform that Scotland requires. The Government’s bill might not deliver that, but the movement for change continues to grow stronger. Today is not the end of the road, and we will not give up the fight for proper land reform.
It is my sincere hope that the next Scottish Parliament will finally deliver bold legislation to address the concentration of land ownership, to tackle the neglected issues of urban land reform and to improve the community right to buy process so that more communities can participate. The concentration of land ownership in Scotland is not inevitable; it is a political choice, and political choices can be changed. The Scottish Greens will continue the fight.
18:32
It is a great privilege to close this debate for Scottish Labour and to speak alongside my comrades Rhoda Grant and Richard Leonard. I start by paying tribute to everyone who has engaged in the land reform process. Any success in the bill that will diversify land ownership in Scotland is the collective effort of everyone who responded to the consultations, everyone who provided expert advice evidence and everyone who challenged the Scottish Government to make the bill count. That work will continue, because it must.
Scotland is now prey to mega lairds, private corporations that buy up land for the benefit of portfolio shareholders and investors. Their accumulation of land, wealth and power is often dressed up as climate friendly or environmentally responsible. Let us be clear: it is not.
Take Oxygen Conservation, whose stated business is supposedly to help fight the climate and biodiversity crises. It has quickly taken ownership of numerous Scottish landholdings and estates. Most recently, it bought up BrewDog’s failed Lost Forest estate, which has taken its total holdings to nearly 20,000 hectares. However, its extractive business model and inadequate community engagement have raised alarm bells among land reform experts. A revenue model that is based on polluting carbon credit sales will not deliver what our land, climate and natural environment so desperately need. Aggressive acquisitions and the quick flipping of land as a portfolio treats one of our most priceless common goods as a cheap commodity to be traded by the wealthiest.
That is why it is right that, under the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, some large landholdings will be required to produce land management plans to show how they intend to manage and develop the land. I truly hope that those modest changes make a difference. However, because of the Government’s refusal to accept my amendments to lower the threshold and introduce a presumed limit on ownership of 500 hectares, more large landholdings will be left out of the scope of the bill than will be included in it. Instead, the Scottish Government has taken a blinkered approach to ownership and aggregation of landholdings. Concentrated land ownership is a nationwide issue, yet the Scottish Government has refused to take a nationwide approach to aggregate land holdings.
Gresham House is now the second-largest private landowner in Scotland, thanks to 244 separate landholdings across roughly 74,000 hectares. That kind of superscale land ownership will barely be impacted by the bill, however, as only a handful of those 244 fragments are over the 1,000-hectare threshold. That is why I am proud that my amendment to review whether the size of the areas of land included in the bill needs to be reduced was passed yesterday. I look forward to seeing that review take place.
The examples of Oxygen Conservation and Gresham House demonstrate the inadequacy of Scotland’s current system and how the Scottish Government’s bill—while welcome—will not go far enough. Both examples show how private corporations will always seek private profit before public good, even while claiming that they are acting in the public interest. That is why it was so important to have a forward-facing public-interest assessment of buyers of land in the bill. It is deeply disappointing that, even after months and years of scrutiny, evidence and amendment, the Scottish Government did not accept that.
Large-scale and corporate land ownership cannot contribute to action on inequality while its decisions on land ownership and land management remain focused on extracting wealth. Instead, we need land ownership that works for people, not profit. The Land Reform (Scotland) Bill was an opportunity to challenge the current pattern of land ownership and to create a fairer, more accountable and more democratic system of diversified land ownership. It remains to be seen how much of an impact its provisions will have but, given what was left out of the bill, it seems like yet another missed opportunity from the Scottish Government.
18:37
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
I am grateful to members across the chamber not only for their contributions today, but for their significant contributions during the bill’s passage through Parliament. It is clear from the contributions today what passion there is around the subject and what land reform means to people. Land reform is an emotive issue, and rightly so. It affects us all, whether we live in rural or urban Scotland. How the land beneath or around us is owned, used or managed matters, as does access to land, which is why the bill matters.
No single piece of legislation could possibly tackle all the issues that we face, which have been centuries in the making. I recognise the points that Rhoda Grant raised during the debate, and I know that we have more work to do. A lot of that work is already under way, whether it is the community right to buy review or the work on compulsory purchase orders and compulsory sales orders. We also have the review provisions that were passed in Martin Whitfield’s amendments, which means that there will be more to learn and more to do in the future.
Tim Eagle made some important points about recognising the importance of opportunities for the next generation and new entrants to farming. He made the point that the Scottish Government should lead by example, and I absolutely agree with that. I fully expect our public landholdings to lead the way in the creation of new small landholdings. That would be the perfect example, now that we will be able to create new small landholdings for the first time in a century.
In closing, I want to reflect on this historic moment in our land reform journey and look forward to what can be better days ahead. In James Robertson’s literary masterpiece “And the Land Lay Still”, he makes it clear that the land and the people do not lie still. His novel sweeps across people and places, and across the latter half of the 20th century, documenting the huge changes and the upheaval that took place in Scotland at that time, in no small part contributing to the very Parliament in which we now sit.
That, in essence, is the point of land reform: to ensure that how we use and steward our land—one of Scotland’s most precious resources—does not lie still. We must embrace change and look forward to a fairer future and one of opportunity for all our people, not just those who, either through birth, wealth or inheritance, have had the privilege of ownership and control of this land—our land.
We must use the Parliament’s legislative powers to benefit the many and not the few. They must benefit our tenant farmers, building on their hard-won rights to ensure that they thrive in the decades ahead; our communities, which have the right to feel that they belong and that the land on which they live and work belongs to them, should they so wish it; and people who have always wanted to live on the land. The new powers will help to turn those dreams into reality for many.
I want to take a moment to thank everyone who has helped to make the bill possible. They include the Scottish Land Commission, which undertook initial research and then advised on the bill’s provisions over a number of years, and the more than 500 individuals and groups who contributed their expertise, knowledge and views to the consultation. I thank the bill team for their tremendous efforts and work on the bill, and all the stakeholders who have engaged with me as well as the bill team throughout the bill’s passage. The bill is stronger for that engagement.
I thank the committees that scrutinised the bill for their work. I also give a general thank you to MSPs across the chamber. I genuinely want to thank you all, as I know that you have all taken a keen interest in the bill. I really appreciate MSPs taking time to engage with me. Even when we have not always agreed, those discussions have been valuable.
There are also the MSPs and ministers who came before and who, over the quarter century of devolution, began Scotland’s land reform journey. Their tireless efforts have led us to this moment. They include the late Donald Dewar, the late Winnie Ewing, George Lyon, the late John Farquhar Munro, Rob Gibson, Peter Peacock, Aileen McLeod and, of course, Roseanna Cunningham.
Land reform reminds us that lasting change is never owned by one party or generation; it has always been a joint endeavour, forged by those who seek a fairer Scotland. The bill represents an ambitious step forward on our land reform journey. I am proud of what we have achieved together and honoured to have led the bill through Parliament on behalf of the Scottish ministers.
Today also marks a poignant moment for me, as this is the last major piece of legislation that I will take through the Parliament as a cabinet secretary. I grew up in and represent the communities across Angus and the Mearns, among landscapes that mean so much to me, so this bill is special.
Throughout the bill’s passage, I have been inspired by another of Scotland’s great classic novels and one of my personal favourites, which is set in the Mearns: “Sunset Song”. No one describes the beauty of that landscape, the ties and struggles of community and the pull and the draw of the land better than Lewis Grassic Gibbon. In the words of Chris Guthrie:
“I longed to hear the Scots words of my parents from my far off young life, through all of their days and fight with the land—nothing endured but the land.
People who had lived here were but a breath—but the land endured.
At that moment in the gloaming, I felt I was the land”.
I hope that all of us who share the belief that change can and must happen will support the bill and will together ensure a brighter and fairer future for the people of Scotland. I commend the bill to Parliament.
That concludes the debate on the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill at stage 3.
Previous
Land Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3Next
Business Motion