Part One of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill – as amended at Stage 2.

Reading Time: 14 minutes

This extended blog summarises the passage of Part 1 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill to date. It sets out some of the key amendments to the Bill at Stage 2, and highlights areas that may come forward at Stage 3.

The SPICe Briefing on the Bill provides background information on land reform in Scotland, and further detail on the Bill.

The contents below are provided to ease navigation.

Summary

In short, some significant changes have been made to the Bill as introduced, including:

• Lowering the land area threshold to which Land Management Plan provisions apply from 3,000ha to 1,000ha.
• Increasing the maximum fine for non-compliance with Land Management Plan provisions from £5,000 to £40,000.
• Clarifying that land split by a road, railway or similar, should be treated as sharing a common border.
• Extending the number of bodies who can report an alleged breach of Land Management Plan obligations.
• Increasing timescales for communities to register an interest in relevant land.
• Requiring Ministers to publish a statement giving reasons why a decision to lot a large land holding would be in the public interest.

Some of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee’s recommendations have been addressed by amendment at Stage two. Those that haven’t include the introduction of regular monitoring and reporting; Ministers taking independent, professional advice before making a lotting decision; ensuring that subsequent sales cannot recombine lots; and not immediately disqualifying large landowners from becoming the Land and Communities Commissioner (recommendations 10, 11, 13 and 17 below). The Government’s position in relation to these is set out in their response to the Committee’s Stage 1 Report. 

What’s the Bill about, and what has happened so far?

Part 1 deals with large landholdings, and has six sections, four of which are substantial:

• Section 1 introduces new obligations on landowners to produce Land Management Plans (LMPs) and to engage with local communities, to support the principles of the Land Rights and Responsibilities Statement.
• Section 2 ensures that community bodies receive prior notification in certain cases that the owner intends to transfer a large land holding, or part of it, and provides an opportunity for them to purchase the land.

• Section 4 ensures that a large land holding (or more than 50ha of a large land holding) cannot be transferred without applying to Ministers for a decision on whether to sub-divide the land into “lots”.
• Section 6 establishes the office of a new land commissioner called the Land and Communities Commissioner (LCC) to oversee, investigate and report on some of the provisions in previous sections.

The Bill was introduced on 13 March 2024, and the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee (NZET) was designated as the lead committee. Stage 1 consideration of the general principles of the Bill took formal evidence from 13 panels of witnesses. Committee members also visited Highland Perthshire and the Langholm area to hear from local stakeholders and held an engagement event at the Royal Highland Show.

The Stage 1 report on the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill was published on 19 March 2025, with the Scottish Government responding on 25 March.

What did the NZET Committee recommend?

A series of Conclusions and Recommendations were made in connection with Part 1 of the Bill as introduced; this section summarises the key points, which are numbered to allow for cross-referencing with amendments.

Section 1 – Community Engagement Obligations

1. The Committee supported the general principle of section 1 and noted that some of what estates will be required to set out in the Land Management Plan may already be in the public domain, although it may not always be easy for most people to locate. LMPs may also add to the general understanding of what large estates do. Much of the detail relating to LMPs, and to any other community engagement obligation is to be left to secondary legislation, which the Committee accepted; however, it recommended that relevant regulations should be consulted on, and then subject to a pre-laying procedure that allows the Parliament to consider them in draft.
2. It was also recommended that landowners, when preparing an LMP, should consider the local place plan (LPP) for the area, if one exists, and that LMPs should be required to set out how the prior community engagement that was undertaken has impacted the LMP.
3. For community engagement and LMP requirements, large land holdings were defined as more than 3,000ha, or a land holding of at least 1,000ha that accounts for more than 25% of a permanently inhabited island. The Committee considered that there was some merit in aligning the land size thresholds operating across the Bill for reasons of policy cohesion and clarity for stakeholders. It recommended that the Scottish Government reflect on whether the threshold in section 1 of the Bill should be reduced (N.B. Douglas Lumsden MSP and Edward Mountain MSP dissented from the last sentence of this recommendation). Furthermore, whatever thresholds are set out should be subject to ongoing monitoring and review, and this should be reported on.
4. The Committee’s scrutiny highlighted a potential loophole created by the Bill’s application only to holdings sharing a common border (known as contiguous holdings) and recommended that it should be clarified in the Bill that land split by a road, railway or similar, should be treated as contiguous.
5. The Bill provides for a fixed list of those who can allege breaches of community engagement obligations (with the ability to update this list). However, the Committee considered this to be too narrow, and recommended that it be updated, suggesting the Scottish Land Commission’s suggestions as a starting point i.e. to add community councils, enterprise agencies and national park authorities, as well as considering whether the Land and Communities Commissioner should be able to initiate an investigation themselves.   
6. A recommendation was also made to allow removal of identifying details from reports of breaches of community engagement obligations before these are shared with the landowner when the Land and Communities Commissioner considers that there are good reasons to do so.
7. The Bill provided for a one-off fine of up to £5,000 for breach of community engagement obligations, however the Committee considered this to be insufficient, and asked for this to be amended, as well as there being implications for the landowner in terms of cross-compliance (e.g. future eligibility for agricultural support).

Section 2 – Community Right to Buy: Registration of Interest

8. As previously noted, the Bill extends existing Community Right to Buy provisions. However, the Committee considered that this would be unlikely to meet the Government’s aim of increasing community ownership, and that significant revision would be needed at Stage 2. It was recommended that timescales need to be adjusted to allow communities more time to note their interest and prepare an application, noting the Scottish Land Commission’s suggestion of a 90-day period.
9. In relation to land size thresholds for Section 2, varying evidence was heard. The Stage 1 Report stated:

There was some support for the existing 1,000 hectare threshold, for a lower threshold of 500 hectares, and for an approach based not entirely on scale that includes consideration of “sites of community significance”. The Committee has mixed views on the appropriate threshold but agrees that the Scottish Government should amend the Bill at Stage 2 to exempt small scale, uncontroversial land transfers.

10. As with the 3,000ha threshold set for community engagement and LMPs, the Committee recommended that whatever threshold is set in Section 2 should be subject to ongoing monitoring, review and reporting. The Committee also recommended that any regulations (under section 46L) which modify timescales or thresholds under this section should be consulted on, and then subject to a pre-laying procedure that allows the Parliament to consider them in draft.

Section 4 – Lotting of Large Landholdings

11. The Committee supported the principle of allowing the Scottish Ministers to make lotting decisions in respect of large landholdings, however noted that lotting is complex, requiring skills, knowledge and experience. It was therefore recommended that before Ministers take a relevant decision, independent, professional advice from suitably qualified people with experience of lotting should be taken.
12. Prior to Ministers deciding on whether to sub-divide the land into “lots”, a “transfer test” must be applied to determine if the land should be lotted into smaller parcels. This determination is dependent on a report by the Land and Communities Commissioner, and Ministers must be satisfied that lotting is “more likely to lead to [the land being transferred] being used (in whole or in part) in ways that might make a community more sustainable than would be the case if all of the land were transferred to the same person”. The Committee considered that the transfer test did not sufficiently take account of the public interest and did not scrutinise the buyer of lotted land. They recommended that:

these provisions are revised to provide a more robust test that might actually serve the purpose of diversifying land ownership in Scotland and ensuring that land is used in the public interest.

13. The Committee also recommended that the Scottish Government consider the issue of a potential loophole in the Bill to ensure that subsequent sales could not be used to recombine lots.
14. The Committee considered that the lack of a timeframe for the Scottish Government to make a lotting decision was hard to justify and asked for this to be amended at Stage 2.
15. Statutory requirements to consult were also recommended for regulation-making powers, and for powers to modify provisions relating to lotting decisions, including the land size thresholds, the Committee recommended adding a pre-laying procedure so that the Parliament can consider draft regulations.
16. One notable recommendation of the Committee was:

The Scottish Government says in its Policy Memorandum that the transfer test combined with the pre-notification requirements in section 2 amount in tandem to a public interest test. Many stakeholders doubted this and felt that, without a clear public interest test on the face of the Bill, lotting decisions would be more open to challenge in court. We recommend that the Scottish Government consider having a more express public interest test on the face of the Bill, including reference to proportionality and the need for a policy rationale. There should be guidance on the public interest test, providing more clarity about the circumstances in which Scottish Ministers would (or would not) expect to make a lotting decision.

Section 6 – Land and Communities Commissioner

17. The Committee supported the creation of a Land and Communities Commissioner, however did not consider that large landowners should be immediately disqualified from being appointed LCC.

What was agreed to at Stage 2?

Stage 2 consideration of Part 1 of the Bill took place on 3 June, 10 June, 17 June, and 18 June (Official Report hyperlinked), with the Committee considering over 500 amendments. This section summarises some of the key amendments and cross-references them with the Committee’s recommendations set out above.

Section 1 – Community Engagement Obligations

Bob Doris MSP’s amendment 20 amends s44B to make it explicit that, when developing or making significant changes to a LMP, “there is engagement with any tenants, crofters or small landholders” with rights associated to that land. This is in addition to the community consultation obligations set out in s44A.

Ariane Burgess MSP’s amendment 26 adds to the information that a LMP is to contain (under s44B), and now includes “the steps taken by the owner to engage with communities in relation to the development of the plan” and “how the owner’s engagement with communities influenced the development of the plan”. This addresses part of recommendation 2 above.

Rhoda Grant MSP’s amendment 328 also adds to the information that a LMP is to contain (under s44B) and now includes “how engagement with tenants and crofters with rights associated to the land has informed the development of, or significant changes to, the plan”.

Bob Doris MSP’s amendment 32 allows the Scottish Government to set out, in regulations (under s44A), the detailed requirements of how landowners must comply with their obligations in relation to LMPs, including in circumstances in which the ownership of that land is transferred. Bob Doris MSP stated:

[…] one of the matters that the committee discussed during its stage 1 scrutiny was what the status of any Land Management Plan should be if the land is subsequently sold. For instance, would the new owner simply inherit the obligations in the original plan? These regulations would set out the requirements for new owners and could cover other scenarios, such as when a landowner who owns an amount of land that is under the threshold purchases an adjacent holding, bringing them into the scope of the bill’s provisions.

Rhoda Grant MSP’s amendment 335 requires Scottish Ministers to appoint an independent person to complete the LMP (under s44A) for Scottish Government owned crofting estates to avoid a conflict. When debating this amendment, the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands stated that “we have heard no evidence to suggest that” there was a need for an independent person to fulfil this function, and that no “concerns [have] been raised directly by the Crofting Commission or the Scottish Crofting Federation”. Whilst this amendment was agreed to, further discussion in advance of Stage 3 to “find a way that gives people comfort” may also take place.

Rhoda Grant MSP’s amendment 340 allows the LCC to decide whether one Land Management Plan is required for multiple holdings or whether each holding should have an individual plan.

The Cabinet Secretary brought forward a series of amendments (34, 36, 38, 40, 45, 46, 48, 49, and 50) which she stated go “to the heart of what […] is a fundamental policy decision in the bill”, namely “Land in relation to which obligations may be imposed” as set out in s44D. In the bill as introduced, community engagement obligations were to apply to owners of large landholdings of more than 3,000ha. In its Stage 1 Report, the Committee recommended “that there was some merit in aligning the land size thresholds operating across the Bill for reasons of policy cohesion and clarity for stakeholders” (recommendation 3 above). Amendment 38 lowers the threshold which obliges landowners to engage with local communities and to produce LMPs to 1,000ha, and aligns all the thresholds in the bill. Amendment 49 addresses recommendation 4 above, clarifying that land split by a road, railway or similar, should be treated as sharing a common border (known as contiguous holdings) and allows for non-contiguous areas of land to form a holding, provided that they are within 250m of each other.

As introduced, the Bill allowed local authorities, Historic Environment Scotland, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, NatureScot and community bodies, as defined in the community right to buy legislation, to report alleged breach of community engagement obligations (under s44E). Ariane Burgess MSP’s amendments 53 – 56 extend this to community councils, the Crofting Commission, the enterprise agencies and national park authorities for relevant land. This partly addresses recommendation 5 above, with the remaining part (Land and Communities Commissioner investigation) covered in the amendments 58 etc below.

The Cabinet Secretary’s amendments 58, 60, 61, 67, 72 and 76 enable the LCC to investigate a possible breach without first receiving a report, if they consider it is appropriate to do so. The Cabinet Secretary stated:

The breach investigation process as set out in the bill is designed to support the collaborative and positive environment that has been created by the SLC’s long-standing work to support landowners to implement the land rights and responsibilities principles and deliver best practice. If a breach is found, the focus is on supporting the landowner to remedy the breach, with enforcement used only as a last resort.

The Cabinet Secretary’s amendment 77 allows the LCC to redact personal information, before sharing information about a breach with the landowner, to mitigate potential risks to individuals. This addresses recommendation 6 above.  

Bon Doris MSP’s amendments 70, 83, 89, 91, 97 – 100, and 107 raise the maximum fine for breaches of community engagement obligations from £5,000 to £40,000 and introduce enforcement notices that would give the LCC a tool to deal with cases of continued non-compliance. The level of these fines can be amended via affirmative instrument to keep pace with inflation. Bob Doris MSP stated:

During our stage 1 scrutiny, several committee members felt that the maximum penalty of £5,000 for non-compliance in relation to Land Management Plans was woefully insufficient, and my purpose in lodging these amendments is, therefore, to strengthen the provisions. It is important that fines that are imposed for breaches are meaningful and that the cost of a fine is not a cheaper alternative to fulfilling the obligations under the bill.

Furthermore, in relation to the level of fine, Bob Doris MSP stressed:

That that will be the maximum element of any fine. Indeed, the land and communities commissioner can enter into discussions with or issue compliance notices to landowners where appropriate, instead of rushing to fine them for non-compliance.

These amendments partly dispense with Recommendation 7 above; however, Mark Ruskell MSP did not move his amendments to bring elements of agricultural subsidy cross-compliance into the enforcement regime. The Cabinet Secretary made it clear that she absolutely supported the intent behind the amendments, and that “we should not be giving public money to those who are not living up to their obligations”. However, she reasoned that the right mechanism for doing this was “to co-develop that funding with rural partners through the agricultural reform programme”, rather than starting to “reduce requirements outside of the programme, without considering the totality”. Mark Ruskell MSP agreed with this approach.

Section 2 – Community Right to Buy: Registration of Interest

The Cabinet Secretary’s amendment 115 increases the period available for communities to register an interest in relevant land from 40 to 70 days. Combined with the initial prohibition period of 30 days, this gives a total of at least 100 days in which communities can note their initial interest (under s46B) and to prepare and apply. This addresses recommendation 8 above.

The Cabinet Secretary’s amendments 123, 124, 126 and 127 tie in with amendment 49 above and ensure that, in relation to registering an interest in large land holdings, those that are split by a road, railway or similar (and are within 250m of each other) will come into scope.

The Committee’s Stage 1 Report noted concerns about small uncontroversial land transfers (recommendation 9). The Cabinet Secretary’s amendments 119, 128 and 137 set out that there will be a de-minimis exemption and related rules, below which pre-notification provisions will not apply. This regime will be developed, consulted on and set out in regulations at a later date.

Section 4 – Lotting of Large Landholdings

A suite of Michael Matheson MSP’s amendments (150 – 153, 156, 158 and 159) partly address recommendations 12 and 16 above. They require Ministers to provide a statement of reasons as to why they consider a lotting decision to be in the public interest, and to produce guidance on how these decisions are to be made. Amendment 150 requires that a decision to require land to be sold in lots can only be made if Ministers consider this to be in the public interest. Amendment 151 defines one critical factor of this public interest consideration as being the sustainability of the local community. Michael Matheson MSP stated:

During the committee’s evidence sessions, it was clear that there was a strong desire to see the term “public interest” in the bill, given precedent elsewhere in Scottish legislation. The main purpose of [these] amendments [is] to make public interest considerations clear and up front. The amendments also make it clear that the Scottish ministers would be able to consider other elements of the public interest when thinking about whether to require lotting to be undertaken.

The Cabinet Secretary responded:

We are talking about really important matters. It is clear that, across the committee, there is broadly a strong desire for the public interest to be at the heart of the decisions that we take, but there are a wide range of views as to what that might mean and what that could look like. I have listened carefully to the clear view that has been expressed by stakeholders and the committee that the transfer test that is set out in the bill should take greater account of the public interest. In my response to the committee’s stage 1 report, I was clear that any reframing of the test would have to be consistent with the evidence base for it, which highlights the damaging impact that concentrated land ownership can have on the sustainability of local communities. I welcome the amendments that Michael Matheson has lodged […] because they will make it clear that ministers will require land to be lotted only when they consider that that is in the public interest, so the amendments remain consistent with the evidence base.

Tim Eagle MSP’s amendments 441 and 445 clarify that, when ministers are considering impacts on a community as part of a lotting decision, it should be a community in the vicinity of the landholding.

Following advice from the Land Commission, the Cabinet Secretary’s amendment 154 removes the requirement for Ministers to have regard to the frequency with which land in the community’s vicinity becomes available for purchase on the open market. Further amendments 155, 160 and 169 introduce a six-month timescale within which Ministers must make a lotting decision. This addresses recommendation 14 above.

Section 6 – Land and Communities Commissioner

Ariane Burgess MSP’s amendment 464 provides for a new function for the Land and Communities Commissioner, “to keep under review emerging problems in the operation of natural capital markets”.

What amendments were withdrawn or not moved at Stage 2, pending further discussion in advance of Stage 3?

Agreement was also reached to work with some Members to change the drafting of certain amendments in advance of them being lodged again at Stage 3. These included:

Tim Eagle MSP’s amendment 10 and Bob Doris MSP’s amendment 33 sought to require Ministers to provide guidance on how the requirements for Land Management Plans are to be met, the meaning of “engagement with communities”, and to define what constitutes communities in relation to Section 1 of the Bill.

Bob Doris MSP’s amendments 16 and 17 sought to ensure that all Land Management Plans are publicly available in a single portal.

Ariane Burgess MSP’s amendment 338 sought to place an obligation on the owner of land to implement the Land Management Plan.

Mark Ruskell MSP’s amendment 49A sought to replace the 250m figure used to define “contiguous” in amendment 49 with 10 miles.

Michael Matheson MSP’s amendment 181 sought to require the Land Commission to have regard to additional matters i.e. a just transition to net zero, scale of land holdings and community wealth building, diversity of land ownership and repopulation and sustainability of communities.

Various amendments were brought forward in relation to post-legislative scrutiny, and regular reporting on the outcomes of the Bill’s provisions. The Cabinet Secretary stated:

The amendments that have been lodged by Bob Doris, Martin Whitfield, Monica Lennon and Ariane Burgess all propose to have a review in one form or another, although they propose different periods and different roles for ministers and the Scottish Land Commission. I ask […] members not to move their amendments but to work with me so that we can find a way through that is coherent and makes sense. If members agree to that approach, we can bring forward a cohesive plan for stage 3.

What wasn’t agreed to?

As previously noted, over 500 amendments were considered by the NZET Committee at Stage 2. Some key areas that weren’t agreed to, and may return at Stage 3 include:

• Setting out and defining key elements of the public interest in land reform.
• Reducing / increasing the 1,000ha thresholds.
• Changing the definition of land in relation to which provisions apply to include urban areas, possibly through the introduction of a provision for “sites of community significance”.
• Amending the period within which Land Management Plans are to be reviewed and revised.
• Adding obligations to include certain information in Land Management Plans.
• Changing what is covered by the Bill so that the total (aggregate) holdings of landowners with multiple estates fall within the provisions.
• Further changes to the framework for the proposed transfer test and pre-notification requirements to expressly focus on the public interest.
• Adding requirements that reduce the possibility of lotted land being merged back into a large landholding in the future.

Alasdair Reid, Senior Researcher; Climate Change, Energy and Land Reform