Meeting of the Parliament 05 November 2025
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—