Meeting of the Parliament 28 October 2025 [Draft]
I will deal with amendments 232, 234 and 264 together, because they aim to achieve essentially the same thing, which is to place an obligation on landowners to identify rights of way and ensure that people can exercise their rights to use the identified routes.
Public rights of way are traditional routes that are established under common law, with no single statute governing them. To be a right of way, a route must meet a set of four conditions, which relate, in summary, to its long-term use between two defined points. However, Scots law does not require a right of way to be recorded. Any route that meets the conditions to be a right of way is a right of way. If it is not agreed that a disputed route meets the necessary conditions to be a right of way, it is up to the courts to decide whether the criteria are met.
The right of responsible non-motorised access to land, which was conveyed by part 1 of the 2003 act, is world leading in terms of its progressive nature, its extent, its scope and its clarity. The act’s statutory guidance, the Scottish outdoor access code, defines both how individuals should exercise their access rights responsibly and the responsibilities of landowners with respect to access rights.
There are already provisions in the 2003 act that empower local authorities to remove “Prohibition signs, obstructions” or “dangerous impediments” where landowners have failed to comply with written notices requiring remedial action and that give authorities the ability to take measures for safety and protection with respect to both access rights under the 2003 act and to public rights of way. The amendments are therefore not necessary, for two reasons. First, there is no requirement to record rights of way in Scotland. Secondly, the new requirements that it is proposed should be imposed on owners through the amendments would duplicate provisions in the 2003 act that already help to ensure the proper exercise of non-vehicular rights of way.
15:30Although the amendments are clearly intended to deal with specific cases in which individuals have identified issues with the way in which access is managed, they would, in practice, impose a significant new burden on a very wide range of people, which is not justified. The requirements for land management plans already require the owner to set out how they are complying or intend to comply with the Scottish outdoor access code, and the regulations can then set out further detail to require land management plans to set out information about access rights and rights of way and how those are being supported.
I turn to the substantive amendment that we are discussing, which is amendment 321. Mark Ruskell had invited representatives of the Burntisland Access Trust into Parliament today, and I really appreciated the opportunity to meet them and hear directly the strength of feeling that there is on the issue, which I am also picking up from MSPs across the chamber today. I completely understand that deep frustration, and in a moment I will turn to what I think needs to happen.
For now, however, I cannot, in good faith, support amendment 321 and promise that it will deliver a solution, because it would not deliver the intended outcome. It has a number of drafting issues. For example, the phrase “places of public resort” is not defined in legislation, which means that the amendment would not clearly give ministers or other authorities the ability to overrule decisions that are taken by the port authority, the council or any other body that has a role in the decisions to which the trust objects. That is, in large part, because the amendment would not change the roles and responsibilities of the local access authority—in the case that we are discussing, the local council.
There is also a high risk of unintended consequences. That is particularly true because some matters relating to port access are reserved to the United Kingdom Government under the Harbours Act 1964. Far from bringing a solution, therefore, the uncertainties in the amendments could cause such confusion and complication that a solution would be more difficult to achieve. I do not think that any member in the chamber would welcome that. We should all be wary of the potential for good intentions to lead to even more challenging outcomes.
That being said, I take these issues seriously, and, following the specific ask from David Torrance, I will set out what action I intend to take. First, I am deeply concerned by what I have heard, both directly from Burntisland Harbour Access Trust and from other MSPs. I am happy to make the commitment for which Mark Ruskell asked, and I will be seeking a meeting urgently with both Fife Council and the port authority to seek greater clarity on the issue. I want to ensure that that happens at pace.
Secondly, it is particularly worrying that there are concerns in the local community about how the council, as the local access authority, is fulfilling its duties. In my representations to the council, I will be seeking to understand how it has been carrying out its duties under the 2003 act.
Thirdly, I want to meet with the Burntisland Harbour Access Trust and with the local MSPs, to better understand the issues myself. I will discuss these matters with all relevant authorities in order to satisfy myself that everything possible is being done to ensure that our world-leading system of access rights is being respected and upheld and that we are, ultimately, looking for a solution.
Fourthly, I am aware that guidance for local authorities on these issues has not been updated in some time, and I am happy to meet with MSPs who are involved in the matter to discuss the process for updating that important guidance.
Although I am unable to support the amendments in this group, for the reasons that I have set out, I hope that the commitments that I have set out to members today will satisfy both David Torrance and Mark Ruskell, as well as other members across the chamber, that I take these matters seriously and that I want to find a way forward. With that, I ask them not to press or move their amendments.