Meeting of the Parliament 05 November 2025
I thank the legislation team, which helped to draft amendments, and all the parliamentary staff who have assisted with the bill and those who have worked late to allow the late sessions to happen. I also thank those who gave evidence and helped with our deliberations. A special thanks must go to Dr Josh Doble and Community Land Scotland for their help.
That said, it is disappointing that the next Parliament will have to return to the issue of land reform. The review of the community right to buy took place at the same time as this bill was passing through the Parliament. That review should have been part of the bill.
We are also concerned that the bill is timid—it will not make a huge change to land ownership patterns in Scotland. We wanted a public interest test to underpin the bill. Land is an economic driver, and the wellbeing of a community that lives on the land depends on the actions of the landowner. The landowner can either develop a community or be a dead hand upon it.
We have seen that, where communities have bought their own land, economic development has increased and co-operative working, joint enterprise and private business have flourished. It is in the interests of a community landowner for that to happen; they are answerable to their community and honour bound to work in the public interest. That is not the case for private landowners, and nothing in the bill imposes duties on a landowner to work in the public interest. Scottish Labour proposed a public interest test for those who buy land, but, sadly, it was voted down.
The Scottish Government is selling Kinloch castle on Rùm. It is looking to sell to a person who will take seriously their duties to the community. The property details specify that bids should include a statement—which will be shared with the community—that sets out how they will use the castle and how they will support nature, and promote the sustainability, culture and economy of the Isle of Rùm. If that is required for Rùm, should it not be required for every community?
We were keen that smaller areas of land should have been included in the bill. We welcome the reduction of the minimum size of included areas of land to 1,000 hectares, but that brings only 754 holdings into the scope of the bill. We would have preferred to see land areas of 500 hectares included—that would have brought 2,641 landholdings within the scope of the provisions.