MINISTERS CONFIRM SCOTTISH LAND COMMISSION MEMBER REDUCTION
This is the first blog published since I installed new software to handle email notifications to subscribers. I hope it all works properly. If not, please let me know.
I have also added a donate button for anyone who wishes to support my blog which is otherwise researched and written in a voluntary unpaid capacity.
MONDAY 24 AUGUST 2026 UPDATE
This blog provides an update to my previous one of 21 August 2026 in which I reported that Scottish Ministers were planning to reduce the number of Scottish Land Commissioners from five to four following the resignation of Calum MacLeod on 31 May 2026.
First of all, in my opinion, Scottish Ministers have been in breach of the law since Calum MacLeod resigned on 31 May 2026 because from that date there were no longer five Commissioners as required by Section 4 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2016.
I think it would have been a defence for Ministers to have stated publicly on or before 31 May that they planned to amend the number from five to four but that due to the recent election and the fact that Committees only started sitting in late June, a regulation under Section 4(5) of the 2016 Act would be introduced to Parliament after the summer recess.
However, this is all academic, since I received a letter today from the Scottish Government’s Land Reform team. The letter confirms that the Cabinet Secretary will be laying the relevant regulation to reduce the number of Board members from five to four.
As stated in the letter;
Isn reaching this decision, Scottish Ministers considered the Commission’s current and future functions, including those introduced through the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2025, alongside the Scottish Government’s wider programme of public service reform. This includes a continuing focus on ensuring that public services are delivered efficiently and effectively, while making the best use of public resources.
The regulation (in the form of a Scottish Statutory Instrument) will now be laid in the Scottish Parliament. By convention, the Instrument will come into force 28 days later unless any MSP lodges a motion to annul within 40 days. That motion is governed by Rule 10.4 of Standing Orders and will be debated by both the relevant Committee and by the Parliament as a whole.
It is vital that the relevant Parliamentary Committee scrutinises this proposal. From the letter I received today and the argument highlighted above I see no good reason for reducing an already small Board from five to four members.
Key skills have already been lost and by law Ministers must regard to the desirability of the Commission as a whole having the expertise and experience set out in Section 11 of the Act, namely;
11 Eligibility for appointment
(1) In appointing members to the Commission, the Scottish Ministers must—
(a) have regard among other things to the desirability of the Commission (taken as a whole) having expertise or experience in—
(i) land reform,
(ii) law,
(iii) finance,
(iv) economic issues,
(v) planning and development,
(vi) land management,
(vii) community empowerment,
(viii) environmental issues,
(ix) human rights,
(x) equal opportunities,
(xi) the reduction of inequalities of outcome which result from socio-economic disadvantage, and
(b) encourage equal opportunities and in particular the observance of the equal opportunity requirements.
(2) In appointing the Land Commissioners, the Scottish Ministers must take every reasonable step to ensure that at least one of the Commissioners is a speaker of the Gaelic language.
With just four Commissioners this is impossible. For example, there is no current Commissioner with expertise or experience in law or in planning and development. As far as I am aware no current Commissioner is a speaker of the Gaelic language (Calum Macleod was).
It is now up to Parliament to try and understand why this decision has been taken. In relation to the argument about efficiency and effectiveness, the Cairngorm National Park Authority has NINETEEN Board Members and the latest vacancy has been filled as highlighted in my previous blog.
Why reduce an important public body from five to four but retain a National Park Authority at NINETEEN?
I hope we get some answers soon.
This proposal should be rejected by Parliament.
NOTES
[1] Although I can read the pdf letter sent to me, it requires a password to open it when I upload it to my blog. I do not have the password and so the copy displayed is a screenshot.