Land Reform
The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-06845, in the name of Claire Baker, on land reform.
14:40
I am pleased to open this debate on land reform, which has been brought forward by Scottish Labour.
Under devolution, a Labour-led Executive introduced the first truly reforming land legislation in Scotland. Public access, national parks, farming tenancies, the crofting right to buy and the extension of rights to community ownership were covered. The aims behind the policies were to modernise land laws, encourage the diversification of ownership and create opportunities. The Scottish Parliament supported those aims, and I would like the Parliament to regain those ambitions.
Scottish Labour is prepared to listen to radical and innovative solutions and to progress policies that will make a difference and move forward the land reform agenda. We know that 432 individuals own half the land and that a mere 16 people own 10 per cent of Scotland. Some might argue, “What is wrong with that? Why should we be concerned about ownership, when what matters is what happens on the land?” However, the two aspects are inextricably linked. We cannot create a more socially just Scotland without tackling land ownership. In our aim to create a fairer use of land that provides more opportunities for more people and in which public subsidy is used for the greatest possible public benefit, we will support bold solutions with the aim of promoting greater equality and ownership, as we recognise the economic and social benefits that that can bring.
The Scottish Government launched the land reform review group with a wide remit, which was to
“Generate, support, promote, and deliver new relationships between land, people, economy and environment in Scotland”.
That suggested that the Scottish Government shared that ambition. When the First Minister announced the LRRG’s establishment in July last year, he said:
“I want this review to deliver radical change for both rural and urban areas, developing new ideas which will improve current legislation as well as generating even more innovative proposals.”
We support the establishment of an expert group. Delivering on land reform will never be easy. The experience with the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003, elements of which are still being challenged, shows that that is often not an easy path for politicians to tread. It generates strong emotions and challenges vested interests. An expert independent group can provide expertise and knowledge to make recommendations and push the agenda forward.
However, the interim report has been met largely with disappointment and criticism from land reformists because of the group’s lack of expertise in many key areas, the decision that it took to narrow the remit and the dearth of radical proposals or options for further development. Community Land Scotland welcomed aspects of the report, but it had significant concerns about the direction of travel. For example, it said:
“We have concerns that the interim report’s description of more people having a ‘stake’ in the land is limited almost exclusively to communities having a greater say in land use, not the economic ‘stake’ in the land we think is vital in developing more resilient and sustainable communities.”
Yesterday, there was a powerful statement from Professor Jim Hunter, who was an original member of the LRRG. He said:
“If the Scottish Government are serious about land reform, Ministers and the government machine more generally must be involved directly in the work of the group ... As it is, we’re now six years into an SNP Government which has so far done absolutely nothing legislatively about the fact that Scotland continues to be stuck with the most concentrated, most inequitable, most unreformed and most undemocratic land ownership system in the entire developed world.”
I hope that our respective parties can stay united on the need for further land reform, as we will otherwise play into the hands of those who resist change. Notwithstanding that, will the member remind us why her party could not build into the 2003 act the measures that she now calls on the Scottish National Party Government to enact?
To be honest, I am disappointed by that intervention, because I thought that we agreed on the need for radical land reform. The member will know how difficult it is to make progress on that. I am saying today that we will work with the Government on the issue. We are prepared to look at radical solutions, and there is time in this Parliament to deliver on them.
Perhaps the strongest criticism this week came from the Scottish Tenant Farmers Association, whose chairman, Christopher Nicholson, said:
“I fail to understand how this review of land reform can take place without considering land tenure ... An opportunity is being missed for the LRRG to highlight to the Government the need to address best land use and tenure in Scotland in the next decade and beyond ... There is now a strong and justifiable mood of cynicism amongst tenant farmers that they have been sidelined and an opportunity is being missed to provide vision and direction for this neglected rural community of Scotland.”
In response to the group’s report, the minister, Paul Wheelhouse, looked to be supporting the group’s decision, because he said:
“I now very much look forward to the next stage as the LRRG move into the second phase of its work looking at radical options for community land ownership before the final report in 2014.”
It is right that the minister recognises the group’s work, but does the Government share our disappointment at the narrowing of its remit? The group will no longer look at farming tenancies, the Crown Estate, common good land or land value taxation.
Does the member accept that considerable work is going on, particularly through the tenant farming forum, to look at land tenancy issues? Does she accept that progress is being made on this very sensitive area and that the deliberations of yet another outside group on the issues would not exactly be helpful, given the current stage of the talks that are taking place?
I do not accept that, and I will comment on the forum. Until the publication of the report last week, tenant farming was to be part of the review. However, the group announced that it was passing that buck to the tenant farming forum. Caught on the back foot, the cabinet secretary proposed another review, which raises the question why the group was pursuing the issue of farming tenancies if there were other plans for the debate.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry, but I am really pushed for time and I want to make a few further points.
The review that the Scottish Government proposes looks pretty narrow: it is about passing proposed legislation and scrutinising it, and not much else. Perhaps the Government wants to give more detail today about who will conduct the review, what it will look at, what the timescale is for action and whether it will deliver on the reform for which there is an appetite. There is clear recognition of the need for additional tenancies and for better, more secure and longer tenancy terms than at present.
The interim report recognises that that aspect of rural Scotland is clearly problematic and requires sensitive and expert attention, then passes the debate to the tenant farming forum. The forum has its uses, but it is a place where nothing is done without consensus. Given that the balance of power is so skewed, I would argue that compromise cannot deliver the change that is needed. When the Agricultural Holdings (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill went through Parliament, even though the committee involved recognised the merit in extending succession rights, the debate was shut down because of concerns about the need to maintain confidence and consensus in the rent review group. However, once that reported, tenant farmers were left again with significant concerns.
On the big questions, the forum is therefore going round in circles. Landowners hold most of the cards, but we know that the world can be changed, as it was at the beginning of the previous century, and that the tide is turning that way. Do the current arrangements, dominated by private owners of estates, serve the long-term interests of the country by enabling a vibrant agricultural sector? That is one of the big questions that need to be answered. The LRRG’s narrow remit and the restrictive debate of the tenant farming forum are not allowing the debate to happen. Tenant farming should be part of the wider land reform debate, and it would benefit from a more holistic approach.
Will the member take an intervention?
I apologise, but I am really pushed for time in this short debate.
The Government’s amendment highlights the group’s independence. However, although it is independent, the LRRG was established by the Scottish Government, which appointed its members. With only one original member left and the group now losing the confidence of stakeholders, the Government needs to be clear about how it plans to retrieve the project, how seriously it takes the group and what the expectations are.
We can compare the LRRG with the Sewel group that was established in 1997, which had 10 members, a heavyweight group of experts, clear objectives and political direction. In contrast, the LRRG has lacked political direction and the group’s experience and knowledge have narrowed since it was established. There has also been a degree of naivety in the group’s approach: the number of visits to estates has not gone unnoticed. There has been an active campaign by landowners, who often see any discussion of land reform as a threat.
Of course, landowners are entitled to contribute to the debate, and I welcome their contribution, but it is not the group’s job to hear those who shout loudest or who are best resourced. A lot of consultations are going on at once, and the narrowing of the focus raises concerns about cohesion on the land reform agenda.
I acknowledge the group’s work. The decision to focus on community land issues is an opportunity, and Labour urges the group to be bold and to make proposals to expand community ownership options, including the right to buy in cases when there is not a willing seller but acquiring the land can be shown to be in the public interest. I know that the First Minister is to address Community Land Scotland’s annual general meeting soon. If the Parliament agrees to the motion, what better demonstration of radical and bold policy could there be than if the First Minister were to support the policy, so that progress can be made in Parliament?
We need to move the debate forward. We need a refocused LRRG and clear political direction. We have the powers to make the change. I hope that the Parliament will today affirm a commitment to radical and bold reform and that we will start to demonstrate that commitment.
I move,
That the Parliament notes the publication of the Land Reform Review Group’s interim report; recognises that the Land Reform Review Group was appointed by the Scottish Government to offer a “radical review of land reform”; believes that ownership of land is an economic and social issue; recognises that the Scottish Government has the power to deliver further land reform now; supports greater diversification of land ownership in Scotland, and calls on the Scottish Government to demonstrate a commitment to radical and bold land reform.
I inform members that we are tight for time and that the allocated speaking times must be adhered to.
14:51
I am delighted to lead in the debate for the Scottish Government and I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss such an important subject. As Claire Baker said, the motion offers an opportunity to affirm a consensus in the Parliament that supports the Scottish Government’s continuing commitment to a radical and innovative approach to land reform. As she said, people have strong feelings on the issue, and the subject has a strong emotional pull. If we look back over the long history of the struggle for land reform, from the 18th century clearances to the crofting acts of the 19th century and to the 21st century Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003, we can see the pain and heartache that that struggle has cost, and I am sure that those feelings will be reflected in the debate.
I hope that the debate will demonstrate that there is a settled will or consensus that land reform is needed, even if the detail still needs further discussion and scrutiny. Land reform is important to our future as a nation and to the future of our communities, and it has also, in many ways, defined the history of the Scottish Parliament.
Communities should be in charge of their own destiny—from established projects such as Assynt, Gigha and Eigg to the newest successful buyouts, such as the welcome purchase by the Mull of Galloway Trust just last month.
We must recognise that land reform is a process, not an event. The good work of the previous Administration brought us far, and my party lent its support to that good work, but there remains much more to do.
Does the minister agree that, although community ownership is important, a land reform agenda cannot be limited to community ownership?
I will be happy to address that point later in my speech, and I certainly agree with Patrick Harvie that the land reform agenda should not be constrained.
As I said, my party lent its support to the good work of the previous Administration, but there remains much more to do, and unintended consequences of existing laws inevitably emerge in the delivery. We need to consider how to move the agenda forward in the best possible way, and I would warmly welcome the opportunity to work in partnership—if we could—to harness the wisdom of all, inside and outside the chamber, to a noble purpose.
Our desire for a mature discussion with civic Scotland is a key reason why we set up an independent land reform review group and my amendment emphasises that simple fact. However, we intend to respect the broad thrust of Labour’s motion which, with our minor amendment, we intend to support. In that spirit of consensus, I trust that Labour can, in turn, support our amendment.
When the First Minister last year announced the formation of the group, chaired by Alison Elliot, he set out his desire for the review
“to deliver radical change for both rural and urban areas”
of Scotland. The group is independent and has a clear remit set by the Government. I know that all members here today will join me in thanking Alison Elliot for her work and that of her colleagues in reviewing a wealth of submissions and for their commitment to taking forward the next stage of the review. I also thank Sarah Skerratt and Jim Hunter for their much-valued contributions to the group’s work.
The group has travelled the country and met a wide variety of individuals and business representatives, who contributed their views. It has consulted on the key issues and collected 484 responses—I understand that that is the updated figure. That high response level from individuals and organisations shows the interest in land reform, and the responses will form a rich resource for all our work—including that on agricultural tenancies, to pick up on Patrick Harvie’s point.
As the motion acknowledges, the group published its interim report last month, and what stands out is that the issue is far from simple and that there is no one-size-fits-all panacea for all the challenges that we face. The group is planning the review’s next phase, with the final report due next April. It will look at the community right to buy in the Highlands and learn from the application of the absolute right to buy in the crofting areas in order to make recommendations for the whole country. I reiterate that we want community ownership to be expanded across the whole of Scotland, and the group will seek to set out what needs to happen to facilitate that.
A key theme will be land reform in urban Scotland. As that is closely associated with the developing community empowerment and renewal bill, we will ensure that that bill takes on the review group’s ideas in furthering the Scottish Government’s desire to empower urban and rural communities and in resolving problems identified with current legislation.
The proposed land agency is another key consideration and I am intrigued by the possibilities that it might deliver. The group will look at community engagement with landowners and community energy projects and at how we ensure that the right support and advice are in place for community landowners. It will recommend how the community right-to-buy legislation, which currently makes life unnecessarily difficult for communities in a number of respects, can be simplified and amended to be more accessible, and further work will be commissioned on common good land, taxation, public interest issues and issues with regard to the Crown Estate.
That vital work will require further resource, and I can announce today that I have agreed with the chair of the group that it can be expanded from its original three members to five. We have already appointed Ian Cooke, a director with Development Trusts Association Scotland, as vice-chair to ensure that there is expertise on the community sector, and I can also announce that we have appointed John Watt as the second vice-chair. As a recent director of Highlands and Islands Enterprise, Mr Watt has a wealth of experience on state aid and public sector support for communities, and he is already an adviser to the group.
Two additional appointments will be announced in due course to complete the expanded group, but I should inform the Parliament that Richard Heggie and Malcolm Combe have been appointed as additional group advisers and will provide invaluable advice in the next phase. Those moves will ensure that the group is fully resourced to carry out phase 2 of its review, and the additional expertise available will allow it to come up with clear, informed and workable proposals in its final report.
I welcome the minister’s announcement of the group’s expanded membership. However, I note that it has agreed quite a narrow remit. Will there be a chance to have another look at that?
There is no change per se to the group’s remit, but the work that it carried out in phase 1 identified the areas that it feels it necessary to pursue in greater detail in phase 2.
The Scottish Government is committed to land reform. We set up the land reform review group; we committed £6 million to the Scottish land fund; and, as the cabinet secretary announced last week and as we made clear in the farming manifesto that we launched in 2011 for the Scottish Parliament elections, we will review agricultural tenancies. We have presided over nearly 70 per cent of the total of community right-to-buy approvals; we have helped places such as Machrihanish to deliver successful buyouts and we hope to support many more; and we have used our assets imaginatively by, for example, developing new types of tenancy on our forest estate.
The review group’s final report will help us to deliver the next stages of our commitment and I look forward to the next chapter of the land reform story.
I move amendment S4M-06845.2, to insert after first “Scottish Government”:
“as an advisory group independent of Scottish ministers.”
I call Alex Fergusson, who has five minutes.
14:58
As it is often insinuated that we Conservatives are simply against land reform, I take this opportunity to say that nothing could be further from the truth. By way of endorsement, I refer anyone interested to the blog of one Andy Wightman, who is well known in the field of land reform. On Mr Wightman’s site, Professor Jim Hunter, a former member of the land reform review group and not exactly a well-known supporter of the Conservative Party, said only yesterday:
“the first land reforming legislation in Scotland in modern times ... was the Transfer of Crofting Estates Act 1997—very much the personal work of then Tory Secretary of State, Michael Forsyth. So the land reforming credentials of the Conservative Party are way, way ahead of those of the SNP which has so far introduced no land reform legislation of any kind whatsoever.”
As in land reform, so in so many other areas.
Will the member give way?
I am afraid that I have only five minutes, so the minister will have to forgive me that cheap jibe.
On a slightly more important note, the same Professor Jim Hunter said in an article in yesterday’s Herald that was very critical of the LRRG’s interim report that the Government had been directly involved in the group’s work. I look forward to hearing how the minister defends his amendment in the wake of that statement.
That aside, I am more than happy to take part in the debate, although I am a little mystified about Labour’s intentions in bringing the motion to the chamber. I have to say that I do not really understand its logic. It asks us to recognise that the review group was set up by the Scottish Government to
“offer a ‘radical review of land reform’”
and then asks us to call on the Scottish Government to
“demonstrate a commitment to radical and bold land reform.”
Far be it from me to speak for the Government but, if I were to do so, I would argue—probably quite strongly—that setting up a review group to look at a radical review of land reform demonstrates a fair commitment to that cause.
Will the member take an intervention?
I just do not have time—I really am sorry. You chose to have a short debate, so I cannot help you.
Furthermore, we are asked to recognise that
“the Scottish Government has the power to deliver further land reform now”,
presumably with the expectation that it should do so. Given that the Scottish Government has a majority in the Parliament, it could deliver free Mars bars to everybody daily if it wanted to do so, but I am sure that Labour would—rightly—be the first to object if the Government suddenly introduced land reform legislation halfway through a widespread consultation on radical land reform. The position simply does not make sense.
I will concentrate on three aspects of the interim report that are not mentioned in the motion. When I met Alison Elliot and Sarah Skerrat in the early days of the work, I said that I had three main concerns. The first was that the community right to buy should be proactively promoted across the south of Scotland, because the perception was that it was really a Highlands and Islands initiative. I am delighted to have been proved wrong on that by the on-going success of the Mull of Galloway Trust in my constituency, which the minister mentioned. It has recently received a grant of more than £300,000 towards the purchase of the most southerly point of Scotland. That said, I still think that there is a misconception about the community right to buy and that there is scope for many more such purchases across the south of Scotland.
The second concern that I highlighted, which is of much more concern from our perspective, is about the apparent willingness—keenness, even—to consider community purchase even when the land or property owner is not a willing participant. Apparently that willingness is shared by the land reform review group, the Labour Party, the SNP and others, I expect, but to the Conservatives it is simply a step too far. We cannot and will not accept such compulsion. Any project that results in community ownership—be it of land or a building—must be undertaken with mutual consent, because we genuinely believe that only with mutual consent can the real benefits of community ownership be achieved for all.
The final item that I put to the LRRG was my strong view, which I still hold, that the group should not be tempted to get involved in the agricultural landlord and tenancy debate, because—as I said in my intervention on Claire Baker—it is already being looked at in considerable depth by the tenant farming forum, which was making and continues to make slow but steady progress. I am delighted that the LRRG has seen the sense in that position and I commend it for not getting involved in that highly sensitive policy area, despite the pressure on it. Progress is being made, and that progress would not be helped in any way by the involvement of yet another outside group, which could only further complicate the issue.
We will not be able to support the motion at decision time. It implies that the LRRG has not delivered, and I do not understand how it could have been expected to deliver in what is, after all, just an interim report. I do not support all its findings, but I am willing to give it the benefit of the doubt.
I move amendment S4M-06845.1, to leave out from second “Land Reform Review Group” to end and insert:
“independent group is looking at the future of land ownership and management in Scotland with a view to enabling communities to benefit from further land reform; understands that the report simply ends phase one of the process and that much work still remains to be done; agrees that, while community ownership is to be encouraged, a willing buyer and willing seller are paramount, and welcomes the group’s decision not to examine land tenancy issues, which are currently being scrutinised by the Tenant Farming Forum.”
I remind all members that they must speak through the chair, please.
15:03
In his chapter on the proper use of land in “Small Is Beautiful”, E F Schumacher says:
“Among material resources, the greatest, unquestionably, is that land. Study how a society uses its land, and you can come to pretty reliable conclusions as to what its future will be.”
That is at the heart of the debate and should be at the heart of the land reform review group’s progress on the issues.
As has been said, land reform is a process, like constitutional reform, and the background to the current inquiry must be understood so that other members can have the chance to comment.
Clarity on the issues was not helped by Johann Lamont telling the Scottish Labour spring conference in Inverness in April that a compulsory right to buy should become available to urban and rural communities if they so wished. Those were fiery words, but there was not one single detail to allow that to be taken seriously.
Will the member take an intervention?
I have no time for interventions—I am sorry.
The pace of land reform is quickening, not slackening, under the SNP Government. The tenant farming forum is under notice to get tenancies let or, next year, sterner measures will follow. The land reform review group has been given a wide remit and has been beset by large numbers of vested interests. Its first priority concerns land laws that were passed in 2003, which needed some years to bed in. Ten years on, that post-legislative scrutiny is under way under the Scottish Government’s plans.
As the convener of the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee, I am leading the parliamentary scrutiny of that progress and the content of the land reform review group’s work. The evidence is clear that the land reform measures that were passed under the Labour-Liberal Democrat Executive need to be simplified and amended, as has been said, to make them fit for purpose. The group points to that in its interim report.
The 2003 community right to buy has performed less than perfectly. The rules defy some applicants. The Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 2003 has, in part, required the Lord Advocate to appeal to the United Kingdom Supreme Court on the Salvesen v Riddell case. The judgment found in favour of the landlord, following a vain attempt in 2003 by the then minister, Ross Finnie, to stop notices to quit in the case of limited partnership tenancies issued during the passage of the bill that became the 2003 act. Such matters will have to be addressed within the next year, because of that judgment. Land reform must therefore be taken forward.
I wonder whether Labour is interested in addressing a subject that it has not yet discussed: the way in which the Crown Estate operates. Will we look at that? We have heard nothing from Labour about taking control of the Crown Estate.
The Labour-Liberal Democrat Executive introduced the Cairngorms National Park Boundary Bill, which excluded north Perthshire. Could it not stomach having an SNP-led Perth and Kinross Council in the set-up? It took the minority SNP Government in 2007 to put that right, without opposition. I am sure that Labour could work with the SNP and other parties to address the core issues if it wished to do so.
To further that work, the European convention on human rights is key. It must be used to challenge on the basis of the public interest—a challenge that can be made only if we speak together with a united voice. That could help Scots to gain ownership of, access to and use of our land resources. Meanwhile, arbitrary bouts of platform rhetoric must be tempered by reasoned policy development, which must be the central Government approach. I ask others to engage to make that united voice heard.
15:07
Four hundred and thirty-two people own half of Scotland. Nowhere else in the European Union or, indeed, the rest of the world is land ownership so skewed to benefit so few.
Land ownership is an economic lever that can make a huge difference in the hands of the community. We have seen buyouts that have transformed communities such as those of Gigha, Uist, Harris and many more. They are not without their problems and squabbles, but they promote economic and social development.
Distant landowners can be a dead hand over communities. Many tenants and crofters do not know who their landlord is—it is just some faceless company. The Land Registration etc (Scotland) Bill provided an opportunity to register beneficial ownership but the Scottish Government squandered it. The UK Parliament’s Scottish Affairs Committee is taking up the challenge with the support of the UK Government, which was given in an answer to Ian Davidson MP recently. The Scottish Affairs Committee also led the charge on the ownership of lands by the Crown Estate—a fact that Rob Gibson did not acknowledge. We must ensure that landlords are accountable and work with communities. Where they do not, the community must be able to buy.
Alex Fergusson asked about our motion. The Scottish Government’s rhetoric suggests that it believes in land reform, but its actions say something entirely different. It set up a land reform review group, but I understand that that has now become the community ownership review group. It says that it is no longer looking at the issues of tenant farmers, the Crown Estate, inheritance and a load of other issues that impact on our communities. That appears to be at odds with what the minister said earlier.
What is the direction of travel? We have had an interim report that lacks detail and direction. If the Scottish Government is committed to the issue, it must take responsibility. Jim Hunter, who was previously a member of the group, said this week that the cabinet secretary should be leading on that work.
I had hoped that the interim report would produce proposals and a clear and radical agenda. Let us take, for example, community buyouts. Everyone knows that legislative changes are needed to make hostile buyouts possible. Pairc estate in Lewis has shown that the legislation does not work. A solution to that could have been in the interim report. That would have been a great start, but nothing was forthcoming. The minister says that the issue will be looked at in phase 2, but surely it should have been in the first report.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am short of time and I want to make another couple of points.
The commitment to extend community right to buy in urban areas should have been in the report, too, because ownership of economic drivers would have a similar impact on those communities as it has had on rural areas. Empowering marginalised communities could lead to their sustainable growth.
Extending the right to buy to tenant farmers and giving them the same security of tenure as crofters would also have been a very welcome step. That group in particular is so oppressed that tenant farmers dare not even speak out. Farms that have been in families for more than 100 years are being repossessed and the evictions smack of the Highland clearances, and yet the review group has washed its hands of them. What will the minister do?
Following the interim report of the land reform review group, a number of people are asking just how serious the Scottish Government is about land reform and how radical it is prepared to be—hence our motion. Jim Hunter’s stinging rebuke this week shows how much the Government has neglected land reform when it could have been powering ahead on the matter. Is that another example of Scotland on pause and a Government afraid to annoy the vested interests ahead of the referendum? If that is the case, the Government is mistaken; the Scottish people will not stand for that.
15:11
I welcome the debate secured by Claire Baker. Like others before me, I wish that Mrs Baker had waited for the independent group looking at the future of land ownership and management in Scotland to publish its final report before calling on the Scottish Government to interfere with the process. That would also have given me more time to prepare for the debate. The final report of the land reform review group will come at the end of phase 2. As has been said, the report published last month is only an interim report.
There is consensus in the chamber because we all agree to build on the achievements of the Scottish Parliament on land reform. I noticed with interest that last year three significant land reform acts were passed: the Agricultural Holdings (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 2012, the Long Leases (Scotland) Act 2012 and the Land Registration etc (Scotland) Act 2012. As the minister said, the commitment to land reform is a process, not an event. The Parliament and the Scottish Government have clearly demonstrated their will to build on the community right to buy landmark achievement.
What has impressed me most in the debate is how the land reform review group was established independent from Government and how it has engaged with many stakeholders. I remember last year participating in the Scottish Government community empowerment and renewal bill consultation as a community councillor of my wee town of Westhill in Aberdeenshire.
I will illustrate how radical and bold we already are when it comes to land reform. When our small group of community councillors was asked whether we would support a community right to buy for urban communities, not everyone around the table understood why urban communities would want to engage with the idea, and most agreed that that proposition was not for them. When we were prompted to consider whether it would be appropriate to transfer unused or underused public sector assets to individual communities, the same answers came that that was not for our community.
By then, I found it difficult to contain my frustration and, when the same answers came in response to the question, “Would it help your community if it owned land or buildings?” I felt an urge to speak. I pointed out to everyone that we were looking for a piece of land to create a space for allotments to benefit many in our community. The answer that I received showed me how different the attitude to land ownership in Scotland is from the attitude in the country that I came from many years ago. I was asked, “Why own a piece of land and be responsible for it when we could ask the local estate to help with this community local project?”
There is a danger that the top-down legislation that Claire Baker seems to ask for is not what is required, as we want land reform legislation to reflect the aspirations of our communities, both urban and rural.
Let me be clear: we have seen great progress, not only in the west of Scotland but in the region that I have the privilege to represent—North East Scotland. Attitudes in my wee town of Westhill have moved on. We celebrated the opening of the first men’s shed in Scotland—the Westhill Men’s Shed—a community project that I had the pleasure of visiting with the local constituency MSP, Dennis Robertson.
I am proud that the Westhill Men’s Shed has been nominated as a contender for the people’s choice award by the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations. More to the point, the Westhill Men’s Shed was one of the first community groups in the north-east to apply for community asset transfer. It was successful, the legislation works and the attitudes are changing. However, I wonder whether Marty Kehoe, who is the chairman of the Westhill Men’s Shed, had an influence on the group’s change of attitude.
You must close now, please.
As a New Yorker, Marty would have a more radical and bold attitude to communities owning and managing land and properties than most people who were born in Scotland.
15:16
I am very pleased to speak in the first land reform debate in the Parliament for 10 years.
As Christian Allard said, land reform is a process, not an event. He was, of course, quoting my former ministerial colleague John Sewel, who in 1997 threw himself into leading the process of developing radical proposals on land reform. It was those proposals that we enacted in the exciting first four years of the Scottish Parliament in what was some of the most exciting legislation that we had at the time.
I think that the process stalled in 2007, and it has really only started up again with the land reform review group’s report, which is the occasion for the debate. I note the Government amendment, which says that it is an independent report, but when he winds up the debate the minister must answer the point that Alex Fergusson made. He was quoting Jim Hunter, who said that the Scottish Government was involved in the work. We need some explanation of that.
The central problem with the report is that it is focused—and, in my opinion, too narrowly focused—on
“communities rather than relationships between individuals.”
Of course communities are important—although, too often, it is just the influence of communities that is referred to in the report—but relationships are absolutely crucial. I am talking about relationships between individuals and the land in general and among individuals on the land in particular. Dealing with those relationships must mean addressing tenure and other related issues.
The problems are well known and have been cited by more than one speaker: 10 per cent of the land is owned by 16 individuals and 432 individuals own half of Scotland. I repeat the much-quoted words of Jim Hunter, who described Scotland as having the
“most concentrated, most inequitable ... and most undemocratic land ownership system in the entire developed world.”
That completely contradicts the idea that we like to have of Scotland being a more egalitarian country. Despite that, the report backs off important measures such as tenant farmers having the right to buy their own land. That is why “diversification” is the most important word in the Labour motion.
There are many other issues that I do not have time to deal with, but I briefly mention that the Scottish Affairs Committee at Westminster is looking into the issue of who owns the land in Scotland, because we do not seem to have very full knowledge of that. I noted that the Prime Minister said that he was going to help in that process, which led to another Twitter headline about the Tories doing more for land reform than the SNP, but I will not comment on that.
It is clear that community ownership is a very important part of the agenda, notwithstanding what I have said. I welcome the comments that my leader, Johann Lamont, made about that at the Labour conference. Under part 3 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003, an extension is allowed when the landowner is not a willing buyer. All that she was saying was that we should use that legislation to the full, if it is in the public interest.
Part of the issue is about extending the provisions to urban areas, which is a particular interest of mine. I have come across a few issues to do with public land in urban areas and the difficulties of acquiring it. I think that the report is absolutely right to say that the state aid rules must be addressed. My understanding is that they apply only when there is a commercial competitor and that there are also general block exemption regulations in Europe. All that needs to be clarified so that it is much easier to access the large areas of public land that could be put to community use in urban areas.
I have half a minute left. If I can be indulged, I will say something that nobody else will say in this debate. The City of Edinburgh Council quotes the 2003 act in order to prevent signs in parks from saying “No dogs allowed”. I have looked into the issue and there is no express right of access for dogs under that act. I hope that the Government can somehow clarify the situation so that we can have some parks in Edinburgh and indeed in Leith where dogs are not allowed without the City of Edinburgh Council quoting land reform legislation.
15:20
I am delighted that we are debating land reform, and I am delighted that the Labour Party has moved on from many of the positions that it adopted 10 years ago. For example, during consideration of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Bill, the SNP brought forward the idea that a compulsory right to buy might be a good idea, and one of those who voted against it was, strangely enough, Rhoda Grant. That was at stage 2 in committee. John Farquhar Munro joined the SNP members and Mike Rumbles voted against.
Will the member take an intervention?
There is no time. Sorry.
I do not mind the Labour Party changing its mind. On the contrary, I welcome the fact that some of the things that I said during the passage of previous legislation have now become even more timely. For example, on 23 January 2003, I said that the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill was timid because it left
“much of Scotland’s land—that held by companies, trusts and enduring partnerships—beyond the reach of the right to buy that is provided under the bill.”—[Official Report, 23 January 2003; c 14465.]
In reality, it is only the relatively small minority of land that is in private ownership that is available to be bought.
I hope that we can explore, through the reform group, what kind of constraints are created by that fact. We do not necessarily have the legislative power here to deal with it but, either through voting yes in 2014 or with the enthusiastic support of a Tory Prime Minister who says that he is willing to help, we might see a way of unpicking the trust law that is far too often—in the whole of the UK, but particularly in Scotland—used to conceal beneficial ownership and prevent legal transfers of land because it is the interest in the trust and not the interest in the land that transfers.
I hope that we will see that there is a coalition of interest—a coalition of the willing—that might pick up the significant challenge that exists with the structure of land ownership. In this place, we have limited powers in the area. We certainly have no powers over company law and we have little power over the way in which trusts operate.
I have previous on this. I moved amendment 207 at stage 3 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill on 23 January 2003, which sought to make some provisions to tackle avoidance. In particular, I drew attention to the fact that landlords were scuttling all round the place, taking cover and hiding things so that it would be difficult for us to know what was actually happening. I am afraid that, on that occasion, I was unable to persuade the then Government to support my amendment. Apparently, some of the Tories said in a sedentary intervention that trusts are very good indeed.
Rhoda Grant rightly talked about the Pairc estate. I absolutely share her discontent that part 3 of the 2003 act has, as yet, not delivered a single purchase. I know that the minister will not be able to respond to what is a legal issue that is still in play, but I regret that we have had years and years of legal process that has been deliberately used to thwart community interests. I hope that we will have opportunities to fix that at some time in the future.
15:24
Both Labour and SNP speakers in this debate have used the word “consensus” and talked about a consensus on land reform. I have to say that I have heard calmer consensus in the past. I have some empathy with Stewart Stevenson, who clearly tried valiantly to persuade the previous Government to do something that I also failed to persuade Fergus Ewing to do not so long ago. Perhaps we are on the same page on that one.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am afraid that I do not have time, any more than Mr Stevenson did earlier.
In reality, there are serious differences on some of the questions, but there are people on the Labour and SNP sides who can be part of a consensus. Where the consensus breaks down is elsewhere. In a letter that was published in The Herald today, Mr Douglas McAdam from Scottish Land & Estates argues:
“The reality is that Scotland does have a varied pattern of land ownership”.
There are people who will deny point-blank the statistics that we have heard about a few hundred people owning half of the country. There are people who will deny that such a situation is inherently inequitable. There are those who will wish merely to make the current maldistribution of land in this country less problematic.
Those of us who want to be part of a consensus should be clear that the current maldistribution is unacceptable and that we are seeking to change it rather than merely ameliorate it. The decision of the land reform review group to focus on such a narrow interpretation of its remit is therefore very disappointing. It now places emphasis on
“communities rather than relationships between individuals”—
which Malcolm Chisholm referred to in his speech—and on focusing on
“considering how the benefits of community ownership could be extended to more communities”.
Andy Wightman has rightly suggested that the LRRG started out as a land reform review group and became a community ownership review group. It seems that other issues such as the position of the Crown Estate, common good land, taxation and succession will be considered only if and when it is thought that those issues will contribute to the community ownership objectives. That is very disappointing.
Alex Fergusson told us towards the beginning of the debate that the Government’s decision to commission a review group demonstrates a commitment to radical action; I suspect that Alex Fergusson is a little less naive than that. I think that he knows that sometimes Governments commission reports into things without having a commitment to act. We need to remember that there are people on both sides of the agenda who want to see radical action. However, there are people on both sides of the divide who, when they find themselves in government, find that it is easier to get cold feet.
On land value taxation, the minister seemed to imply that taxation measures might remain on the agenda to some extent, although I did not hear any specific proposals or commitments to action. I hope that Labour, in closing, can indicate whether it remains open to land value taxation. Both the larger parties, over the years, have shown some limited interest in the issue. They have never quite ruled it out, but they have never quite committed to it.
If we look at the consultation responses, some 82 per cent of the opposition to land value taxation came from estates, farm owners, landowners and their representatives. We should not be in the least bit surprised by that. There is an opportunity to take action on the issue in the context of local government finance reform and land reform and the overlap between the two.
15:28
One message that has come out of the wider debate is that, if we are to create a socially just Scotland, land reform must play its part. There also appears to be an acceptance that, although the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 was an important step forward, it is quite complex in parts—a point that Malcolm Chisholm might have been implying earlier.
The LRRG has made a start, and its remit to enable more people in Scotland to have an opportunity of land ownership and to look at governance, management and use has to be right. However, it must be right to look not only at procedures but at approaches that will work in increasing the diversity of land ownership in Scotland and better land use.
We should be proud of the community right-to-buy legislation in 2005. A community in Fife was the first community in Scotland to purchase land under that legislation. I also recognise the value of having a Scottish land fund to support more rural communities to buy land. I recognise, however, that in an ideal world we would want to spend a great deal more than £6 million on that.
It would be complacent for us to rest on our laurels as a Parliament. Land policy needs to be reviewed and I am pleased that the Scottish Government will also hold a review of agricultural tenancies. I await with great interest the details of how the farm tenancies review will be carried out.
The LRRG has an important job to do, and it has so far travelled widely in engaging with stakeholders. In March, Dr Alison Elliot and others paid a visit to my part of the world, which was warmly welcomed by the east neuk community.
I am pleased to say that we have in the east neuk estates a group of landowners who recognise their wider responsibilities to the local community. They were delighted to welcome the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment, Richard Lochhead, to the east neuk last month.
The east neuk estates group was established in 2008, when six adjoining estates in Fife got together to work strategically to ensure the long-term health of the estates and the local community. They have pooled resources to help the local school, and they contribute to affordable housing and provide employment space in converted steadings. Along with the cabinet secretary, we visited a guitar maker in one such steading.
The estate owners also buy from local producers and so increase their combined economic impact. They have been working with Fife Council, and a joint community action plan is being developed under a steering group, which views that model as an exemplar for a new relationship between land, people, economy and the environment.
I would not for one minute suggest that those initiatives detract from community right-to-buy proposals or from issues of land ownership, but they should be viewed as part of a progressive land-use mix in modern Scotland.
It is essential that people—and especially children—believe that they have more of a stake in our land. For example, understanding food production is a key part of developing a healthy relationship with food. Scotland’s first community-owned farm—Whitmuir, in Christine Grahame’s constituency—aims to get more stakeholders than the small number of landowners who own half of Scotland. The project is truly inspiring, and I hope it will be replicated in other parts of the country, including in my constituency of North East Fife.
Until we have the LRRG’s final report, we will not be able to judge matters fully. However, it is clear—judging from the responses that have been received so far—that land reform is an issue that engages Scotland and which deserves to be taken seriously by the Parliament and the Government.
15:32
I refer to my agricultural interests as noted in the register of members’ interests.
I am pleased to close today’s debate for the Scottish Conservatives, and I thank those organisations that have provided briefings, including Community Land Scotland, NFU Scotland and Scottish Land & Estates.
As Alex Fergusson said, the Scottish Conservatives were pleased that the LRRG decided not to examine land tenancy issues. It is appropriate that those issues are being considered by the tenant farming forum, as other members have said, and we look forward to the outcome of the forum’s deliberations being made available in the near future.
As Alex Fergusson’s amendment makes clear, we are positive about the benefits that can arise from community ownership, and we can be proud of our record on the matter in government, not least the passage of the Transfer of Crofting Estates (Scotland) Act 1997.
A transfer of ownership of the Keoldale estate in my region—next door to Cape Wrath—from the Scottish ministers to the local sheep club is going ahead as we speak. The estate, which covers an area of 30,000 acres, is being transferred for approximately £250,000. At less than £10 an acre, the transfer is probably a good deal for the sheep club, and it is down to Conservative legislation.
We strongly believe—and we will always uphold the belief—that community ownership must be achieved through the willingness of both the buyer and the seller. That is fundamental. The idea of forcing people against their wish is not acceptable, and we are concerned that the necessity of having a willing seller landowner as part of any community involvement—
Will the member take an intervention?
I do not have time.
That necessity is not addressed in the interim report, and we wonder why that is the case. We urge the LRRG to consider that key issue as it continues its work.
Some parts of the interim report can be commended. For example, the need to continue to develop effective community engagement is correct, as is the need to define the outcomes that a community wants to achieve and the need for effective community planning. There is some recognition in the report that there are numerous ways in which the community can have a greater say in the use of land without necessarily owning it. There are many existing examples of good practice, and I trust that the LRRG will identify them as part of its phase 2 work.
More generally, all of us should recognise that, in the vast majority of cases, owners of private land and property already deliver tangible economic, social and environmental benefits to local people, including communities in our remote rural and island areas. As the Scottish Land & Estates briefing validly points out, it is not correct to view private land ownership as an inhibitor of rural development. A recent survey revealed that just over a quarter of Scottish Land & Estates members will together invest £250 million over the next two years, which will sustain and create thousands of jobs across rural Scotland.
In conclusion, we await with interest the results of phase 2 of the LRRG, including its recommendations on how community ownership might be expanded in urban areas. We are happy to support practical moves that will encourage greater community ownership, management and use of the land, but the basic principle about the willingness of both seller and buyer must be respected.
I support the amendment in the name of Alex Fergusson.
I call Paul Wheelhouse. Minister, you have six minutes.
15:35
I thank all members for what has been a short but fascinating debate that has reflected the cultural impact of land ownership and the passion that it inspires. Members across the chamber have made some very good points in this useful debate, although it would be nice to have a longer debate in future. As I said in my opening speech, land reform is an emotive and complex subject, and the quality of the speeches has reflected both the depth of members’ knowledge and the high quality of the briefings and submissions to the land reform review group that stakeholders have provided.
Members have raised so many points that it will be impossible for me to respond to them all in the limited time available, but I will pick up on several.
First, on Patrick Harvie’s point about taxation, we expect that the land reform review group will look at taxation and land value tax during phase 2. I confirm that one of the research papers that the review group will commission will be on taxation. As part of its phase 2 work, the group will consider the evidence contained in the research paper and may make recommendations to Government on that as part of its final report. Obviously, we will look at any recommendations that the group makes.
On the point that Malcolm Chisholm and Alex Fergusson made about the Government’s involvement in the group, we are of course involved in any review in a number of ways. Richard Lochhead and I met the review group and were consulted for our views on land reform issues. We have provided the secretariat, we have paid for the independent communications support, which was provided by an agency, and we have been involved in consultation on the group’s membership. We have supported the review group with the necessary resources as requested, so we have had some involvement. However, I make it clear that we have always seen the group as being independent of Government. We wanted to see what the group came forward with; we did not want to interfere in the process.
If I have time, I will come on to the points that were made by others, but I had better plough on.
The Scottish Government’s commitment to radical land reform is clear, as I set out in my opening speech. I reiterate that we value the work of the independent land reform review group, which is chaired by Dr Elliot. As I said, the review group will help us to move forward the process of land reform in what will be a radical and thoughtful way. The group will tell us where we need to amend the previous Administration’s land reform legislation—which I acknowledge was well intentioned but which, I think we all agree, has some flaws—to make it easier for communities to buy land. Indeed, I assure members that I share the frustrations that many people have about the process of community land registration, to give just one example.
We expect that the review group will make radical recommendations for change in a wide variety of areas in both rural and—to pick up Malcolm Chisholm’s point—urban Scotland. I said that we intend to explore how to take forward any early recommendations through the community empowerment and renewal bill. The group will also look at whether a land agency could unlock community ownership for a wider range of communities and potentially provide brokerage where there is a problem with conflict between different uses. We welcome that as an area for further exploration.
Of course, the land reform review group is only one part of our commitment to land reform. We have already committed to a review of agricultural tenancies, which will be informed by the work of the tenant farming forum and the land reform review consultation. The separate agricultural holdings review will deliver a pledge that was made in our free-standing 2011 manifesto for the farming sector.
We will continue to work directly with communities that are thinking about buying their land. We will encourage them to consider community ownership, support them in the application process and approve community buyouts of land. We have already supported many communities with funds for acquisitions.
We think creatively about the assets that we hold on the public’s behalf. As an illustration, the first example of a community-led woodland croft project is on Mull—in Mr Russell’s constituency—where nine woodland crofts have been established. Through the national forest land scheme, Forestry Commission Scotland can already make land available to local communities to establish woodland crofts to help to support local development. We are supporting new entrants to farming on the national forest estate.
I mentioned the land fund earlier, but it is worth noting that we resurrected that fund, which was closed under the Labour Administration.
I hope that the debate has provided members with the opportunity to appreciate the work of the independent land reform review group. We want all our people to appreciate the land that is their heritage. We want all our communities—if they want the opportunity—to have more control of their destiny, and land reform is one of the key ways in which to enable that.
I think that I have taken all my time, Presiding Officer, so I will stop there.
You had six minutes, minister.
Excellent.
Land reform has a long history in Scotland. In a few short years, it has come a long way but, as I said, we acknowledge that there remains a great deal to do. I hope that the debate marks the point at which we take the opportunity to provide radical solutions. I hope that members will support the work of the land reform review group and, in due course, an agricultural holdings review, to help us to make a real difference across Scotland. I hope that we can look back on this day as the day when a consensus formed and Parliament set out on a constructive path with, I hope, unity of purpose to deliver on land reform.
As I have a bit more time than I thought, I will refer to a couple of points that colleagues made. Christian Allard and Roderick Campbell gave good examples of where community land ownership affects areas that are outside the Highlands and Islands heartlands: in Westhill in Aberdeenshire, and in the east neuk in Fife. We have tried to stress that the agenda goes beyond the heartlands in the Highlands and Islands. One important aspect of the review group’s work, as Alex Fergusson acknowledged, is to consider how we extend community ownership to areas outside those heartlands and what the barriers are that have reduced the number of projects.
Rhoda Grant seemed to call into question the need for an independent review. I remind her that, for her party’s manifesto for the 2011 elections, the Labour Party committed to a land reform review. We have delivered a review, and it is incumbent on us to see what it produces. We will treat it as an independent group and, where we can, we will take on board the points that it raises. As I said to Mr Fergusson, we will ensure that the group is resourced. We have an opportunity to support the work of the land reform review group and to move forward with a consensus.
15:41
The Scottish Labour Party motion highlights Scottish Labour’s belief that
“ownership of land is an economic and social issue”.
There are a number of recommendations in the land reform review group’s phase 1 report that, if carried forward, will help to shape a fairer future for land settlement in Scotland. Those include recommendations on a possible land agency, the development of community energy and the exploration of minimum engagement standards between landowners and communities, and possible sanctions. However, as the debate and some of the initial comment on the report have shown, there has also been disappointment and some marginalisation.
I acknowledge the widening of the membership of the group, which the minister highlighted. Scottish Labour believes that it is right that communities should have more of a stake in the land on which they live and work. The status quo in land ownership is not necessarily the situation that suits communities best in rural and urban Scotland in the 21st century. Colleagues have highlighted the statistics on land ownership. Does the Scottish Government agree that the pattern of land ownership is inequitable? The issue is in part about business, as some have said to me, but it is also a matter of ethics and fairness and it is about empowerment in a democratic Scotland. Some say that community buyout is the way forward only in the Highlands and Islands, so I was pleased to hear the remarks of the minister and Alex Fergusson in relation to other regions such as the south of Scotland.
Let us take a little time to analyse the issue further. Frankly, from what we heard on the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee, Gigha residents initially were not confident about community ownership. In fact, some residents shied away from the prospect of such responsibility. However, those who visited Eigg returned inspired with confidence and full of ideas for what the future could hold. They and others who have developed land buyouts had support with their bids from Highlands and Islands Enterprise. I was pleased to hear about the membership increase in that regard.
As a member of the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee, I have seen for myself that the island is now a resilient community with young families, increased numbers in the primary school, a rolling programme to make tenant houses sustainable, and new employment coming to the island. That is not to say that there are not management challenges, but they are the community’s challenges and the future is theirs.
In Scottish Labour’s view, communities elsewhere need the same support and contact if they are to move forward towards ownership of their assets. Scottish Labour hopes that the LRRG will consider the options Scotland-wide; indeed, it has been confirmed that it will do so.
Although actual ownership is not the only answer, it should not be said that that is not a possibility in parts of Scotland where communities lack knowledge—that is an issue that has been raised with me. We should at least be daring to ask whether there are indeed outmoded patterns of land ownership in Scotland, as Rhoda Grant and others have today suggested there are. In asking that question, I am not implying that there are not many good large landowners—I have visited some in the south of Scotland in the company of Scottish Land & Estates. Leasing land is a way forward, as shown by the Forestry Commission’s action on the Innerleithen mechanical uplift—AIMUp—project. However, I believe that it is right to ask whether the minister sees a connection between land ownership patterns and the promotion of a more socially just Scotland.
Scottish Labour is of the view, as stated by our leader Johann Lamont, that
“Community ownership of assets is a powerful vehicle to tackle not just social injustice and inequality but it also delivers economic growth. It gives power to the people and allows them to transform their communities.”
At our recent conference, Johann Lamont said:
“If it is in the public interest, communities will have the right to purchase land, even when the land owner is not a willing seller.”
From what Rob Gibson says, I am not sure whether he agrees with that or not. Scottish Labour believes that there should be a strong right to buy, which will come only with legislation.
We are debating reconnecting people with the land, not simply a romantic notion. Interestingly, Nourish Scotland, a non-profit organisation that was set up to develop and promote a fairer and more sustainable food system in Scotland, submitted a briefing to the review group that said that land ownership patterns in Scotland contrasted with the fact that
“an increasing number of our citizens are coming to depend on food banks to feed their families.”
Nourish Scotland argues for
“redefining the rights and responsibilities of public benefit from all land”.
The point is that, if there has to be a social and economic part to the issue, there has to be an environmental part as well. I am surprised that Labour has missed that out, because that is the way in which people will be able to till the land, make their own food and so on. That is what the member is talking about as being an alternative to food banks.
I assure the member that Labour is committed to environmental ownership for a sustainable future. I think that my line of questioning in the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee, even this morning, stands as a testament to that.
There is certainly a strong, renewed interest in urban and rural Scotland in growing our own food, and in community spaces. In order to encourage such use of the land, our view is that land ownership must change.
It is somewhat disappointing that, in today’s debate, there has not been a great deal of focus on urban perspectives. All of us in the chamber should think about that. Although the community empowerment and renewal bill has been mentioned, and we have been assured that the views of consultees will be taken on board by the review group, ownership as an economic driver for marginalised communities, which Malcolm Chisholm talked about, is important and should be a strong part of the review.
Another issue of concern, as highlighted by Claire Baker and others, is the marginalisation of the tenanted sector in phase 2 of the group’s work. Although I understand what the minister said, if phase 2 is to better encourage communities in both rural and urban Scotland to take more of a stake in land management and land use, why was such a significant sector hived off in the review? I stress that tenant farmers have taken time to attend meetings, such as the one that I attended in Dumfries, and to make submissions in the middle of a challenging winter, only to discover that their perspective and needs are excluded from the main debate. That is surely not right.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry; I am almost in my last minute.
An East Lothian tenant farmer constituent of mine recently sent me “The Destruction of Scottish Agriculture”, which was written by the Rev George Brooks in 1885. The first chapter, entitled “To the Tenant Farmers of Scotland”, tells of inequality in the relationship between tenants and landowners. Some would say that, although the situation has changed in many ways, there is still a need to consider it carefully. I acknowledge that the Scottish Government is doing that, but I believe that it should be done also by the land reform review group, and that tenant farmers should not be marginalised.
That leads me to a definition of “consensus”. I understand that its origins are in the Latin word “consentio”, which means “feeling together”. Perhaps because of the skewed power relationship between landlords and tenants, the tenant farmers forum does not have that feeling of working together. However, I hope that, in the interests of land reform in Scotland, everyone in this chamber and beyond will share a consensus on working together for our future.