Meeting of the Parliament 28 October 2025 [Draft]
Amendment 232 is the first of my two amendments to the bill that seek to enable a resolution to the issue of access to Burntisland harbour. The Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 includes, among other provision, a right of responsible access to land, which is commonly called the right to roam. The 2003 act breaks that right into constituent elements—the right to be on the land for a purpose set out in the act and the right to cross the land for a purpose set out in the act.
Amendment 232 provides confirmation that asserted rights of access—for example, rights of way that have been gained by prescription, which means established through use or in accordance with certain further conditions—are included in the right to cross land. It is relevant to recognise that most rights of way and related rights are established by prescription rather than through designation by a relevant authority.
Amendment 232 represents a helpful clarification, rather than an extension, of the law. It simply recognises the reality of rights of way by prescription and helps all to understand that the proper execution of such rights is covered by the act. That is important in its own right, but it is also directly relevant to my subsequent amendment 321, which refers specifically only to Burntisland harbour.
That harbour is the reason that Burntisland exists. It is the subject of the town’s coat of arms. Ships may no longer be built there, millions of tonnes of coal may no longer be exported from there and bauxite for Scotland’s aluminium industry may no longer be imported there, but the harbour remains—or it did until February 2023—a much-loved place of public resort. Dogs were walked there; bikes were ridden; children fed Sammy the harbour seal; whales and boats were watched; and fish were caught by locals and visitors alike, including myself as a boy.
However, in February 2023, for the first time in the town’s history, the community was completely fenced out from all waterfront areas. That historic grade B-listed harbour was out of bounds. Neither locals nor visitors could access the harbour in the way that generations of us had always done.
My constituents, who are represented by the Burntisland Harbour Access Trust, have campaigned relentlessly over the past two and a half years for their rights of access. Recently, for example, hundreds of people marched and rallied in support of harbour access. Thousands have signed a petition against the fence, hundreds have written to councillors and MSPs, expert legal opinion has been paid for by the community and numerous requests for compliance have been made, yet the fence remains.
Two years ago, the Burntisland Harbour Access Trust commissioned a legal opinion from BTO Solicitors, which confirmed that rights of access apply to the harbour. More recently, Professor Roderick Paisley, chair of Scots law at the University of Aberdeen and a prominent legal scholar in the relevant area of law, has taken an interest. His opinion robustly supports the views of my constituents and, following his direct advice, my constituents approached me specifically to lodge my amendments to the bill, which I was happy to do. Through my simple amendments 321 and 232, the Scottish ministers would be required to determine, in accordance with existing law, the areas of public resort and rights of way at Burntisland harbour.
That move is supported by all Mid Scotland and Fife MSPs of all parties. Indeed, all elected representatives of Burntisland, at all levels of government, have given their support for the resolution once and for all of what is a crucial and important issue for Burntislanders and for all the town’s many visitors.
I know that my amendments are imperfect, but I ask the cabinet secretary to consider whether there is a more suitable route forward in addressing the issue, which is crucial to my constituents of Burntisland, and if there is, to set it out.
I move amendment 232.