By Steve Bargeton, political editor

MINISTERS LAST night ruled out any “knee jerk” reaction to the controversial court decision which upheld Stagecoach millionaire Anne Gloag’s right to keep people off four acres of land surrounding her Kinfauns Castle home.

The ruling in June has left local ramblers facing a legal bill of almost £150,000 and politicians claiming it ignored the will of Parliament over the “right to roam”.

Former independent MSP Dennis Canavan, president of the Ramblers’ Association of Scotland, said the Gloag case showed the need for action.

“The Kinfauns judgment suggests we risk our land reform legislation becoming one law for the rich and another for the rest of us,” he said.

“The Scottish Government must take action to protect local authorities and other bodies who are acting in the public interest from such enormous legal costs.

“The Kinfauns judgment has demonstrated that, if you are a landowner with enough cash, you can go to court and secure your own privacy zone without fear of any council or other body being able to challenge you.”

Last night in a debate at Holyrood former environment minister Sarah Boyack called on MSPs to defend the principles of the flagship Land Reform Act.

“It was a symbolic act,” she said.

“It reflected the importance of access to our land in our cultural life and identity.

“It delivered the public access to the countryside and the right to roam.”

Ms Boyack voiced concerns over the £144,000 costs now facing the Ramblers’ Association for bringing the case against Ms Gloag and asked whether this would put other public bodies off bringing similar cases.

She called for public costs orders to be considered, which would require an amendment to the act and protect those “acting in the public interest” to challenge access laws from being subject to excessive costs.

Perth MSP Roseanna Cunningham, convener of the Holyrood rural affairs committee, told MSPs that in her view the judgment gave “cause for concern”.

She called on ministers to give clearer guidance to planners and to consider “protective cost orders” to enable groups to challenge landowners in court.

However, Tory MSP Bill Aitken described the aims of the debate as “misguided” and pointed out that in bringing their case the ramblers faced the same costs that any individual or group would face bringing a similar action.

Liberal Democrat MSP Mike Rumbles, too, took exception to the tone of the debate, describing it as an “over-reaction” to the court ruling.

“We don’t have a right to roam— we do have a right to responsible access,” he said.

“Parliament should not be too concerned by the Gloag ruling.”

Green MSP Robin Harper said there was a danger of “one law for the rich and another for the poor” if groups could not challenge landowners in court without the fear of incurring huge costs.

Mid Scotland and Fife Tory MSP Murdo Fraser described the motion as “defective”.

“There is no such thing as a statutory right to roam,” he said.

“Certainly I don’t conclude that he (the sheriff) undermined the clear will of parliament.”

Summing up for the Scottish Government, Mike Russell said that the Land Reform Act was working well, but if there were any loopholes they must be addressed.

He said it was not the Government’s view that the Gloag case set a precedent.

“It is not a case of David versus Goliath,” he said.

The issue of planning raised by Ms Cunningham was being addressed and MSPs would get details of changes shortly.

Mr Russell said there was a need for post-legislative scrutiny by MSPs.

“The legislation is working well. Knee jerk reaction is always wrong and it is wrong in these circumstances,” he said.