Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am happy to.

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—

I do remember seeing that, but I do not think that it has progressed since. The minister can correct me if I am wrong, but the Scottish Government has created only nine starter farms, and there were comments about unclear plans in the 2023 review.

Glen Prosen still lacks a complete land management plan. If ministers are serious about supporting new entrants, they must demonstrate that commitment on the land that they control.

Another central issue in the bill is property rights—rights that have existed for generations and that are fundamental to how our economy functions. We have heard concerns, including from respected voices such as Don Macleod, about the potential impact of the bill’s pre-notification and lotting requirements. Those could create uncertainty in land sales, add cost and delay and deter legitimate investment. That is not reform; it is bureaucracy.

There is a danger that, however well intentioned, the bill begins to resemble the kind of state control that we have seen elsewhere in Europe. Some have suggested that it echoes the French reforms of the 1960s, which created the SAFER model—a system in which the state has extensive powers over land transactions. That suggestion is probably unsurprising, given the Scottish Land Commission review in 2023.

It is true that that model reshaped rural France, where feudalism was abolished centuries earlier than in Scotland. It achieved some success in supporting young farmers and reducing speculation, but that was a long time ago and things have moved on. It also brought layers of bureaucracy and market distortion and reduced transparency. We should be careful to not repeat those mistakes. Scotland’s strength lies in its diversity and its ability to combine private enterprise with public purpose.

I do not agree that the bill is transformative. People in rural Scotland want a balance: a system in which landowners can invest with confidence, tenants can build a future and communities can choose to own land, without private owners being treated with suspicion. We need a rural economy that thrives without being tangled in red tape.

Good land management is about partnership, not punishment. When farmers, estates, communities and Government work together, we can achieve remarkable things—from tree planting and peatland restoration to tourism, education and food production. That is the Scotland that I want: one where families can make a living from the land, food production is valued and the next generation has the opportunity to stay, work and thrive. Our shared purpose should be trust built on fairness, freedom and belief in the people who make rural Scotland what it is today.

I certainly do not agree that independence would help the Scottish fishing sector in the slightest, but I agree that the coastal grant fund simply was not enough. More importantly, there is far more to talk about in our wonderful Scottish fishing industry than I can ask about. Traditionally, every December, there has been a debate on fishing. I have been calling for that debate for a while. Will the cabinet secretary give me the assurance that, this December, we will finally have a big debate about the fishing industry on Government time?

The risk of wildfire in Scotland is rising. Over the past decade, at least 1,500 wildfires have been recorded. Last month, the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service issued an extreme risk of wildfire warning—the first alert of its kind since 2020—reflecting the exceptional conditions across Scotland this year.

Muirburn—the controlled burning of vegetation—is important in the process of limiting wildfire by removing combustible materials, primarily heather. It is carried out by people with significant experience—estates, gamekeepers and land managers. However, in 2024, the Scottish Parliament passed the Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Act 2024, which will prevent anyone from making muirburn on land without first obtaining a licence. After two delays due to stakeholder concern, the licensing scheme is due to come into force at some point next year. The effect might be that fewer people are able to make muirburn, or that people will stop making it altogether, curtailing the obviously necessary work to prevent the devastating events that took place at Carrbridge and Dava in the Cairngorms this year from taking place again.

In my opinion, licensing will only make it harder for skilled and deeply experienced land managers to carry out preventative muirburn. Combustible fuel loads will increase and we could lose people in the industry who played such a vital role in containing the recent fires. Please believe me when I say that we have decades, if not hundreds of years, of experience in the intricacies of moorlands in Scotland among the people living in our rural communities. We risk losing generations of knowledge that has been passed down.

For those reasons, my amendment 204 would repeal the muirburn licensing scheme, removing it from the 2024 act. That would ensure that effective wildfire prevention is not curtailed by overbearing licensing conditions.

Although it would be preferable for the scheme to be repealed in its entirety, my amendment 205 seeks to find common ground between those seeking to keep some sort of licence in place and those concerned that the licence could result in wildfires increasing. The amendment seeks to remove one of the conditions on muirburn licensing. Currently, the 2024 act sets out the specific conditions in which a muirburn licence may be granted. If the land to which the application relates is peatland, the act requires it to be proven that

“the making of muirburn is necessary for the specified purpose”

and that

“no other method of vegetation control is practicable.”

Amendment 205 deletes the specific requirements for peatland, as it has proved unworkable in practice.

I will briefly touch on Ariane Burgess’s amendment 206. I am concerned that it will alter the definition of peatland in the 2024 act to cover that which is 30cm thick and above. The current definition is 40cm thick and above. That would potentially bring more land under the specific scrutiny and restrictions on muirburn licensing relating to peatland. At this time, when Scotland faces such a risk from wildfire, I believe that it would be irresponsible to widen the definition and potentially restrict necessary preventative muirburn on a wider scale than is already envisioned, so I will not support that amendment.

I move amendment 204.

I have no more to add. I press the amendment.

Amendment 324 agreed to.

Amendments 325 to 327 moved—[Tim Eagle]—and agreed to.

Amendment 214 moved—[Mairi Gougeon].

I press amendment 204. I have nothing further to add.

I share some of the concerns that my colleague Edward Mountain set out. Amendment 4 in my name would delete references in the bill that prevent someone who has been a large landowner in the preceding year from becoming the land and communities commissioner. My amendment 5 is consequential to amendment 2, so I will not press that.

On my amendment 201, in June, extensive resources, manpower and expertise helped to tackle some of the largest ever fires near Carrbridge and Dava. At least 33 businesses, including 27 estates, helped to tackle the wildfires, and it is estimated that the collective value of the specialist firefighting equipment that was deployed by private landowners was around £3.1 million, with more than 100 employees helping in the efforts. The wildfires highlighted the enormous skills and expertise that are held by private landowners in Scotland and exposed gaps in the public response from the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. It was later determined that the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service could benefit from more specialist equipment, requires more wildfire training, and should implement a wildfire management strategy.

The rocketing number of wildfires in the past year alone is extremely illuminating. In just the first few months of 2025, the number of recorded wildfires in Scotland was triple the total number in the whole of 2024. Therefore, I propose in my amendment 201 to give the newly established land and communities commissioner functions to improve Scotland’s response. It would require the commissioner

“to work with the Scottish Ministers to ensure that landowners and communities are properly supported to manage wildfires”,

and it would also allow the new commissioner to make recommendations where he or she considers there to be gaps in support.

Although I have some concerns about the creation of the new land and communities commissioner role more generally, my amendment 202 would help to reduce some of those concerns. The Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2016 required the newly established tenant farming commissioner to exercise their

“functions with a view to encouraging good relations between landlords and tenants of agricultural holdings.”

My amendment 202 seeks to mirror that requirement in the functions of the land and communities commissioner, giving them the function of

“promoting engagement between landowners and communities.”

A theme that appears in part 1 of the bill is to require landowners to engage more with communities and vice versa. Therefore, it seems only sensible that the commissioner that this bill creates will have a similar function to the one that is already carried out by the tenant farming commissioner. That would put the role in the positive context of promoting engagement rather than focusing on investigation, enforcement and fines, which would reassure farmers and landowners that a priority of the commissioner will be to establish positive relationships.

I ask that the other parties in the chamber recognise that point, because it is already the case with the tenant farming commissioner, and that they back amendment 202.

We have been talking about hope value. As I understand it, some of the concern in TFAF was about the risk that anything that would allow hope value could stifle rural development. Does the cabinet secretary accept that point? I think that people are looking for comments today from the cabinet secretary to assure them that that will not go forward.

I will press amendment 328. I have nothing further to add.