The Scottish Government's Land Reform Bill was introduced on 13th March and is currently at Stage 1 of the parliamentary process. A vote on whether the Bill should move to Stage 2 is expected no later than 28th March 2025.
Stage 1 of the process involves the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee (the "Committee") hearing evidence from various stakeholders and experts on the provisions of the Bill and so far the Committee has heard evidence from a wide spectrum of parties including NFU Scotland, Scottish Land Commission, RSPB, landowner representative groups and various academics and professionals with expertise in land reform and rural Scotland.
From the publicly available evidence heard by the Committee, there are a few broad themes that have been coming through which might give an insight into the future of the Bill.
This article is not intended to be a detailed study of the Bill (for more detailed analysis of the provisions of the bill see here) and nor is it intended to be an accurate account of all evidence given so far at Stage 1. A huge amount of evidence has been given at several Committee hearings and some of that evidence is very granular and specific. It is all worth looking at in full but too much for the purposes of this article. Instead, this is an attempt to bring out very broad themes based on issues that were raised by multiple parties giving evidence from various parts of the spectrum of land reform debate.
Firstly, there has been broad support for ongoing land reform from the parties giving evidence. Even parties representing landowners, who are often the fiercest critics of some of the provisions of the Bill, are largely in favour of land reform as a concept. Where opinions start to diverge is on whether the Bill is the right way to go about things.
Indeed, another theme that can be drawn out of the evidence sessions is that there does not appear to be any party who has given evidence who believes that the Bill as introduced should proceed unchanged. Whether broadly in support of the aims of the Bill or against them but broadly in favour of land reform, everyone seems to agree that a lot of work is needed to the Bill in one way or another if it is to make it into legislation.
The first party that the Committee heard from was the Scottish Land Commission who have also subsequently published their proposed changes to the Bill. In both there is overall support for the Bill and its aims but suggestions for where more work is required.
On the other side of the coin, organisations representing landowners, who have frequently been critical of the concepts contained in the Bill, are not arguing that there is nothing of merit in the ongoing land reform discussion or indeed that there is nothing within the Bill that should not make it through to legislation.
Beyond that broad support for land reform, and almost universal agreement that the Bill needs work, the other main themes that seem to be emerging are:-
The Bill needs to go further or focuses on the wrong areas
There has been evidence given by several parties who argue that the Bill does not go far enough or focuses on the wrong areas and should be amended accordingly. The main principle under scrutiny here has been the threshold at which the various provisions kick-in, which in the Bill's current form is either 1000 hectares or 3000 hectares, depending on the provision. There is support across various stakeholders for reducing this quite considerably. That is by no means something that has support from everyone giving evidence. There has also been some evidence given that the Bill could perhaps be extended to apply to more urban areas of Scotland.
Something which came up regularly and which parties from all sides of the debate often referred to was whether the Bill needs to focus more on concentration or impact of land ownership than on scale of land ownership. Whether the impact that a particular pattern of land ownership has on a particular community should be a more important consideration than just how much land is owned. This is something that landowner representative groups highlighted as often if not more often that community land groups. They also often argued that both concentrated and large-scale landownership are not necessarily bad in their own right but could exacerbate other problems.
The Bill goes too far or is unworkable in some areas
There are those who fell the Bill goes too far, and some of its provisions should be diluted. , or that some provisions are simply not workable in their current form. Much of this centred on provisions such as prior notification of an intention to sell land, lotting, and the proposed amendments to landlords being able to resume land from agricultural tenancies.
The provisions of the Bill on prior notification of sales would, if unchanged, require a sale of any size from a large landholding to be notified so that community bodies could be notified. That would include sales of small areas of garden ground to rectify title anomalies or to allow for a house extension. Many giving evidence felt the Bill went too far in this regard and the issue should be looked at.
On lotting, there were several who questioned whether it would achieve wider community ownership and those who felt it was perhaps not needed, and the aims could be better achieved by improving current community right to buy powers.
On resumptions from agricultural leases, many agreed that strengthening compensation due to tenants on resumption would actively discourage landowners from letting agricultural land would have a detrimental impact on the availability of land.
Some elements are not needed
There are elements of the Bill where consistently parties have argued that further reform is either not needed or not heading in the right direction.
Many giving evidence felt that there was a limited market for the proposed Model Tenancy for letting land for environmental purposes and instead focus would be better given to widening the permitted uses of land under existing agricultural tenancies. There was some support for a lease that sat outside agricultural holdings legislation but even then, most agreed it would not be widely used.
Another example is in relation to smallholdings reform. Most consulted on this had never encountered or had very limited encounters with tenanted smallholdings. As such there was a general consensus that incorporating such holdings into agricultural holdings legislation (rather than crofting legislation) would be the best and most efficient solution.
Summary
Unsurprisingly, there has been a wide range of opinions delivered to the Committee during Stage 1 and there are few areas where all parties agree. Perhaps the only ones being that all agree further changes to the Bill are needed and that land reform should continue in Scotland. Most, if not all, of those who have given evidence so far think the Bill should proceed to Stage 2, with amendment. It will be interesting to see how many of the views gathered at Stage 1 are taken into account when it comes to considering amendments to the Bill going forward, if it does proceed to Stage 2.
Contributor
Partner
