Land Reform Bill – much more work needed to strengthen the Bill

The Scottish Parliament debate on Stage 1 of the Land Reform Bill concluded on Wednesday 26 March. SNP, Labour, Liberal Democrat and Green MSPs largely supported the general principles of the Bill. The Scottish Conservatives were the only party not to support the Bill at this stage, and they were clearly disappointed that the government had not provided a response to the Net Zero, Energy and Transport (NZET) Committee report until just before 6pm on the Tuesday evening.

For differing reasons, there was cross-party agreement on the Committee that the Bill will not deliver on its aims, and that the proposed changes will be burdensome and bureaucratic.

The NZET committee supports ministers having the ability to determine that large landholdings should be sold in lots, and a public interest test should be at the heart of lotting decisions. It concluded that the Bill needs significant changes for it to be fit for purpose and perhaps this needs to go further than just amendments.

SNP

Cabinet Secretary, Mairi Gougeon MSP, stated that:

“Scotland’s land must be an asset that benefits the many, not the few, and it must play a leading role in sustaining thriving rural communities, tackling the climate change and environmental crises and continuing sustainable food production”.

This Bill is seeking to ensure tenant farmers have a more secure future and communities have a better model to secure important community assets.

The Cabinet Secretary acknowledged that some people want to “go further and faster” with the Bill, saying she will be happy to engage further across the chamber to build and improve on it.

Scottish Conservatives

The Scottish Conservatives were the only party that did not support the Bill or the financial memorandum that accompanies it. They called it unworkable, burdensome and bureaucratic, arguing it will not deliver in its aims nor focus on the needs of rural communities.

Tim Eagle MSP went so far as to state it was the worst bill he had seen in his first year in office, saying:

“I do not agree with the principles of what the bill is trying to achieve, the bill is fundamentally unworkable in its current form, and the legal implications could be far reaching and lead to challenge”.

The Scottish Government currently owns 10% or 728,000 Ha of land in Scotland, suggesting a conflict of interest concerning the matter of self-regulation and lotting decisions. A viewpoint not shared by the Cabinet Secretary.

Mr Eagle raised the question as to why size should be the determining factor of whether a landholding falls within the scope of the Bill. 3,000 Ha of moorland, he argued, is very different to 3,000 Ha of agricultural land, so value and productivity might be more useful measures to use. The Conservatives also disagreed that the threshold set for community engagement obligations on the mainland should be reduced from 3,000 Ha to 1,000 Ha.

Owning a large estate should not be viewed as inherently wrong. Rural estates contribute positively to local communities, including providing 57% of renewable energy generation, 13,000 rural enterprises, 1 in 10 rural jobs, and 12,000 homes for workers and their families.

Land Management Plans (LMPs) need to be focussed, and local people must have priority. The Conservatives, like the other opposition parties, were disappointed that the community right to buy is still under review, so cannot be considered fully under this Bill.

Their opinion is that this Bill will take hundreds of amendments to make it workable, and even then, it may not deliver the underlying objectives of the Bill.

Scottish Labour

Labour voted in favour of the Bill but recognised that changes need to be made to strengthen it. MSPs discussed that in 17 years of SNP leadership, land ownership has consolidated with too much control in the hands of a few. Communities need to be empowered, built up and populations retained in rural areas. A lack of available land prevents some communities from flourishing.

Rhoda Grant MSP said:

“Stakeholders are very disappointed with and critical of the bill. They do not believe that it will make any change to communities owning land, nor will it change land ownership patterns”.

Her statement suggests that all stakeholders that were consulted on this Bill support the breaking up of land through lotting and land sales, but this is not the case. This principle was opposed by the SCA and other partner organisations, such as Scottish Land and Estates and NFU Scotland.

The party maintained that a 3,000 Ha threshold is too high and should be lowered to 500 Ha for the purposes of creating LMPs and triggering lotting decisions or a community right to buy. Labour raised concerns about communities being given only 30 days’ notice for the sale of land over 1,000 Ha, which the party believes is unworkable given it can take the Scottish Government two months to approve the constitution of community bodies able to apply.

Otherwise, they argued that the public interest test needs cross-party work on this for inclusion in the Bill, and that farmers will face a large administrative burden in producing a Land Management Plan (LMP) They also raised a risk of tighter restrictions in access to land.

Scottish Greens

The Greens did not see this as a radical Bill but agreed it may bring a degree of transparency to land-ownership. The intention of the Bill is broad, but they argued it needs to be strengthened. The Greens determine that the threshold of 3,000 Ha is far too high for the creation of LMPs, and further amendments are needed.

Its MSPs urged the Cabinet Secretary to consider reinstating the public interest test to replace the transfer test, as supported by 72% of respondents to the consultation. The party also expressed dismay that the review of the community right to buy has not been aligned with the Bill, a view shared across the chamber.

Ariane Burgess MSP supported the creation of a Land and Community Commissioner (LCC) but argued that penalties of £5,000 for not providing a LMP do not go far enough and landowners who fail to comply should be prevented from receiving other government funding, such as agricultural funds, until the breach is resolved.

The Greens also supported a new public body being set up to oversee Scotland’s carbon credit market, which they feel would help reduce barriers to community land ownership,

Scottish Liberal Democrats

Whist the Scottish Liberal Democrats agreed that amendments need to be made to the Bill, as under the current approach it is unlikely to deliver its objectives. MSPs said it must be made more straightforward to prevent administrative headaches.

In their opinion land ownership patterns are getting worse. Liam McArthur MSP spoke about the concentration of land ownership, quoting that currently 2,588 of landowners own 70% of privately-owned rural land, down from 3,161 in 2012.

The view from the party was that “big is not necessarily bad” when considering large estates and a balanced approach between rights and responsibilities must be sought. They supported the community right to buy, but said it was wrong to include this in the Bill before the review was concluded.

They supported LMPs but are sitting on the fence regarding the subject of thresholds, stating that 3,000 Ha is on the high side but they want to reflect further before making a final decision. The costs associated with reducing thresholds must be carefully considered and not create an administrative burden.

The proposal for lotting is a sensible approach, they said, to achieve greater diversification of ownership. The party supported the NZET Committee’s call for the transfer test to be revised to ensure it is driven by public interest.

It is important for Scottish Countryside Alliance members and supporters to have the full picture of where all parties stand on land reform. It has been suggested that larger estates need to be broken up for the good of the surrounding communities, but this ignores the many years of investment and community involvement these estates have provided to rural Scotland. We agree a very small minority of landowners do not engage proactively with local communities, but is that enough of an argument to justify the changes proposed under the current Bill?

With the Scottish elections in 2026, we advise our members to consider each party’s stance on topics such as land reform prior to putting an X in the box. Land reform has been contentious for many years, and we fear this Bill may not serve to improve our rural network as it stands. Community benefit must be at the heart of this legislation, but there is much work to do before a satisfactory resolution is reached.