Land Reform
We now move on to the next item of business, which is motion S1M-313 on land reform, in the name of Mr Jim Wallace.
On a point of order. Today's business bulletin says that the debate on land reform will start no later than 3.45 pm. Will you take that into account in the timing of speeches?
I am coming to that, Mr Fergusson. We are starting the debate slightly later than was programmed because of the number of points of order that were made at the beginning of the previous debate.
You have 15 minutes, Mr Wallace.
I welcome the fact that the debate has been extended by half an hour and that decision time will be at 5.30 pm. This is an important debate and it gives me considerable pleasure to open it. This is the first substantial opportunity that the Parliament has had to discuss this important subject. Land reform is a subject that has consistently been on the agenda of the people of Scotland, but it has not been on the parliamentary agenda for about 75 years. It is on the agenda now and that is a practical example, to add to the many others that we have seen, of the benefits of devolution.
This partnership Administration has put land reform on the agenda. We are tackling land reform not through words only, but through action. Our land reform action plan made plain the wide range of our commitments. Some of those require legislation, some do not and some require further study. The report on that action plan that we published on 16 November shows that we are delivering.
We have achieved five of our targets already. Scottish Enterprise's community land unit is open for business. The Crofters Commission absentee programme is running sensitively and successfully. The woodland grant scheme rules have been amended to give tenant farmers more opportunity to diversify. Over the summer, we announced a series of new community commitments by Forest Enterprise, Scottish Natural Heritage, ministers' own crofting estates and the Crown estate. We showed that we were prepared to give a lead where ministers and the public sector had land ownership responsibilities. That has set the standard that we expect private landowners to follow. Lastly, we have issued letters to all bodies that have compulsory purchase powers in Scotland, reminding them that such powers are there to be used in suitable circumstances.
We have also made significant progress on a wide range of other items. Most important, we are on track to deliver the first three major bills related to land reform: on feudal reform; on national parks, which is the responsibility of my colleague Sarah Boyack; and on land reform itself.
I want to say a few words about how the land reform bill is developing. In July, we published our proposals in a white paper and said then that we would consult and listen to what people had to say. We meant that, and we have indeed listened. I am very grateful to the many people who have responded to that consultation.
Last weekend, the Scottish Land Reform Convention met in Stirling. Scottish Environment LINK and Scottish Churches still feel that there has not been as much consultation in this phase as there might have been. Can the minister reassure those organisations that there will still be time for consultation in the later stages?
The Deputy Minister for Justice, Angus MacKay, attended that convention. There will be further opportunity for consultation. It is important to put on the record that, under Lord Sewel in the previous Administration, there was extensive consultation on the land reform agenda. There has been specific consultation on the white paper and there will be further opportunity for comment when the draft bill is published. I have no doubt that the appropriate committees of the Parliament will also want to go into the draft bill.
The Parliament will see the full detail when we publish the draft bill. For now, I want to give members an indication of some of the bill's key points. The white paper reflects the Executive's commitment to a community right to buy and to a responsible right of access.
On the issue of the community right to buy, we have listened to both community and landowning interests. Interestingly, community interests thought that the time scale for that legislation was too short and landowning interests thought that it was too long, which persuaded us that we had got the balance right.
In the light of comments from community interests—the people who will benefit from the legislation—I accept that, in making the legislation as watertight as possible, we were in danger of excluding cases that the legislation should be there to help. As a result, the legislation will give ministers discretion to decide whether a community body is sufficiently representative of
and supported by the local community.
Another concern raised with me on visits and in consultation responses was the possibility for community bodies to register an interest in nearby land. Ministers will again have discretion to decide whether a community body has demonstrated a direct community interest in a piece of land, which will make it possible for community bodies to register interest in nearby land.
Our general approach is to encourage communities to take time to prepare before land comes on the market, as land ownership is an onerous responsibility. However, we recognise that there may well be circumstances when the idea of community purchase arises only when the opportunity unexpectedly presents itself. Therefore, we will add a procedure for community bodies to apply on an exceptional basis to register interest after land comes on the market.
Equally, we have listened to concerns raised by landowning interests.
How much will that extension lengthen the whole process and disrupt the market in land in Scotland?
I did not say that that measure will lead to an extension. As things stand in the proposals in the white paper, the community interest in land has to be registered prior to land going on the market. In exceptional circumstances, when an opportunity unexpectedly presents itself, it will be possible to register an interest after the land comes on the market. Otherwise, the time scales will remain as they are in the proposals.
I will say more in a moment on the issue of time, which, I hope, will give Mr McLetchie the reassurance that he seeks.
We have listened to the concerns of the landowning interest. The main concern of landowners was about cherry picking. I understand their concern that, in some cases, that could have an impact on the value of the remaining land. We would much prefer that the seller and community body reach a voluntary agreement on the area for community purchase, but if they cannot do that, the community will have to buy the land as lotted.
Landowning interests have also expressed concerns about the delays that could result from the exercise of community right to buy. Delays are in no one's interests and we wish to minimise them. Therefore, we have accepted the suggestion that the 30 days for community bodies to confirm their interest in buying should be prior to the property going on the market. Clearly, that implies an obligation on the landowner to give prior intimation to a registered community body.
A further change to speed up the process markedly will be that the period of six months for community bodies to come up with funding will run from the date on which the body notifies the landowner that it will exercise its right to buy. To make that possible, the various processes will go forward simultaneously rather than consecutively; and deadlines will be set for each stage in the process.
I will now address the prospects for including provisions to create a crofting community right to buy in the forthcoming bill, rather than waiting for the crofting bill that Ross Finnie will bring forward in about two years' time. When we launched the consultation paper at Abriachan in July, we said that we wanted to include a crofting community right to buy if we could.
We have consulted on that separately and listened to what crofting communities and other interests had to say. In the light of that consultation, I am pleased to announce today that the draft land reform bill will indeed include provisions on giving crofting communities a special right to buy. That will mean a short delay, possibly up to a couple of months, in introducing the draft land reform bill. That is a price well worth paying to give crofting communities the right to buy now. I am sure that all those in the crofting community and those members who have expressed an interest in this area will warmly welcome this announcement.
Finally, I turn to provisions relating to access. It was clear from the consultation that there are concerns about the implications of our proposals to create a responsible right of access. Perhaps I can take this opportunity to repeat that we are proposing a responsible right of access and not, as might more neatly fit a headline, a right to roam—it is intended that a right of access should be exercised responsibly.
Farmers and other landowners expressed concerns about their ability to continue to manage their land. I understand those concerns, although I think that, in many cases, they were overstated. It has to be understood that the new right of access will be conditional on its being exercised responsibly. Guidance to the public on responsible behaviour will be set out in the Scottish outdoor access code, which will be published for consultation alongside the draft bill. I endorse what a number of people, both those wishing to exercise the right and those with concerns about its exercise, have said to me about the importance of public education on the responsibilities that are attached to the right.
Some landowners have argued that even responsible exercise of the right could, at times,
impact adversely on their ability to manage their land. I recognise that there will be occasions when it will be necessary to limit the exercise of the right over some land. Therefore, the legislation will provide for land managers to manage the right of access on their land when the requirements of land management dictate. Those arrangements will inevitably be informal, but land managers will be expected to act responsibly in imposing any limitations on the right of access.
A particular concern was expressed about the access to farm steadings. Many respondents argued that farm steadings are just as much places of work as quarries or factories. Those arguments are persuasive. I have decided that the legislation will exclude farm steadings from the right of access, although there is an important qualification to that. Where a right of way already exists to a farm steading, that will continue.
The consultation also raised concerns about access by groups, particularly commercial groups. It is clear that a balance must be struck. The right of access will apply to individuals. In many cases, individuals will choose to exercise their right collectively; for example, as a family group. We want to encourage that, and it should not create difficulties. However, large organised groups present an altogether different proposition. The legislation will not extend the right to advertise sponsored or promotional events. That is not to say that such events cannot take place, as at present, with the expressed consent of the landowner.
All in all, this is a balanced package of adjustments to the policy proposals that are contained in the white paper. It demonstrates a responsiveness to issues that have been raised on all sides. We have listened and have acted where appropriate. Officials are now at work trying to prepare draft legislation, and I look forward to introducing the draft bill and having the opportunity for more detailed consideration and consultation.
The land reform bill is important. It will make a real difference to communities throughout Scotland that want to take up the right to buy, and to those who want to exercise the right of responsible access to see and experience the scenic heritage of the country in which we live. As I have explained today, the bill will also make a difference to those in the crofting communities who want to buy the land on which they live and work. However, the bill is only one element of our commitments on land reform. The action plan demonstrates the many other commitments that we are honouring. Overall, our land reform agenda is demanding, and one that we are in the process of delivering.
For many years, despite a keenly held desire to make progress in this area, the subject of land reform was lost from the parliamentary stage. The Executive has put it back firmly where it belongs— up front, centre stage. I commend the motion to the Parliament.
I move,
That the Parliament commends the openness of the Scottish Executive's approach to land reform, as demonstrated by the extensive consultations on the Land Reform White Paper published in July; recognises the scale of their overall commitments to legislation and other action on land reform as set out in the Land Reform Action Plan published in August, and welcomes the progress to date as shown in the first Progress Report published earlier this month.
There are several members who wanted to speak in the previous debate, whose names remain on my monitor screen. I ask that the screen be cleared now. I ask members who want to contribute to this debate to press their buttons again.
I call Roseanna Cunningham to speak to and to move amendment S1M-313.2.
I, too, welcome the opportunity to debate this matter in the Scottish Parliament. I recall debates at Westminster, after I was elected in 1995, which were almost always on an adjournment motion. Certainly, in my recollection, they were always at the instigation of the SNP. Over 25 years, the SNP has consistently campaigned on land reform. Its overriding principles have always been crystal clear: to maximise access for all the people of Scotland; to accept that the land of Scotland is a major resource; to commit ourselves to removing the medieval feudal tenure system; and to give communities throughout Scotland direct involvement in decisions that affect land.
It is clear that there is a broad area of consensus within which the debate has taken place, although I was somewhat dispirited when I read the Tory amendment, which is entirely negative and offers nothing at all constructive to the debate. I shall listen with interest—and, no doubt, incredulity—to what a Tory policy of land reform might include. I understand that Alex Johnstone has been on the airwaves this lunch time, announcing with due solemnity that there is no demand for land reform in Scotland. Frankly, that is an unbelievable statement for him to have made. It suggests that the Tories have lost touch not only with Scotland but with reality.
When the SNP set up its land commission, in 1995, it spent two years taking evidence from around Scotland, north and south, in city and in country. The commission had only to advertise a session for it to be inundated with people and
organisations who were clamouring to be heard on the subject, the vast majority of whom were perfectly sure that reform was necessary. There may be some differences between the approaches of the SNP, Labour and the Liberal Democrats, but at least on the issue of land reform we share an awareness of the demands of ordinary people throughout Scotland. That is more than can be said for the Conservative party.
Tories aside, there is a broad consensus on issues such as recreational access, even if the SNP's view is that it might have been preferable to have dealt with that in a separate piece of legislation. However, it is better that it is dealt with in the land reform bill than not at all. Similarly, the three parties—perhaps I should say the five parties—in this Parliament that are committed to reform have much in common on the future expansion and development of crofting, short-term farming tenancies, more readily accessible information and a nationwide land information system.
We share the desire to end the outdated controls inherent in the feudal system. The sweeping away of the nonsense of superiors and vassals is a fitting way in which to greet the 21st century.
If Roseanna Cunningham is so keen on sweeping away the nonsense in the feudal system, will she condemn the actions of the SNP-controlled council in Kinross, which is acting as a feudal superior and charging people £50 plus VAT to extend their porches or extend their windows?
If Mr McLetchie is talking about the current Perth and Kinross Council, he will know that it is the Tories who are involved in that coalition, with Labour, Liberal Democrat and independent members, not with the SNP. Perhaps he needs to speak to his own party.
The Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc (Scotland) Bill, at present before the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, will get a fair wind from the SNP, as will the other proposed law reform bills. Equally, the forthcoming land reform bill, when it finally appears, including its provisions for access, will be welcomed and supported, although perhaps not totally uncritically, by the SNP.
However, our amendment sums up our position on the central proposals in Mr Wallace's motion: we support them as far as they go, but think that they do not go far enough. The community right to buy, the tightening-up of compulsory purchases and voluntary codes of conduct do not a reform package make.
Despite the Conservative party's scaremongering, I think that the bill will fail to achieve real, deep change in the nature of land management, or land ownership. Short of community buy-outs, the only real nod in the direction of community involvement is in the voluntary codes of practice for rural land use and land ownership. In the land reform white paper, there was no mention of community involvement, except in the context of the purchase proposals.
Where I do find some scant, suggested reference to community involvement is in the progress reports. By the way, I find those reports very helpful. They are very welcome, and commend that approach to consultation prior to legislation, even if I am not entirely sure that a motion for debate is justified.
I notice from the most recent of those progress reports that the code of good practice for rural land ownership will not be published until September 2000, and a draft is currently with the land ownership consultative panel, while the separate—if I may be permitted to use that word— code of good practice on rural land use will eventually emerge at the end of 2000. Whatever appears, it is unlikely to deal with many of the problems facing communities in Scotland.
Voluntary codes can be ignored—and are very likely to be ignored—by corporate owners and landowners who are not signed up to organisations such as the Scottish Landowners Federation, of which, we should remember, there are more than a few. If voluntary codes are ignored, what then? The bill will offer community purchase but little else. I remind the Minister for Justice that even that ability to purchase will be triggered only when the estate comes on to the market; that does not deal with the existing abuses.
One prominent critic, Andy Wightman, has pointed out that most privately owned land in Scotland has never come up for sale in the past 100 years. Equally, the narrow definition of community that is contained in the proposals means that many deserving communities will not benefit. Despite the rhetoric, the truth is that many other communities will not wish to buy the local estate. In areas where there is no demand to purchase, what does the community do?
I can give a specific example. Some people will have heard me talking about this; the minister has heard me mention this before. I call it the Blackford test. In the past, I have been highly critical of the Blackford estate, which is in my constituency. It has not signed up to the SLF and, despite the concerns frequently expressed by the local community, there is no detectable desire on the part of that community to own the estate.
I would like to be able to say to those constituents that the promised bill will make some difference, and that, when they next come to me
with complaints, I will be able to point them in the direction of a potential solution. On the existing evidence, that will not be the case. It may be that the Executive has further, as yet unrevealed, plans to bring in more reform measures that will do the job. If that is the case, I would like to hear them.
In reality, a reliance on voluntary codes fails to bite the bullet and, to paraphrase, the spirit is willing but the will is weak. What we should be doing, at an absolute minimum, is making adherence to such codes the bottom line for the delivery of any public assistance. Preferably, the codes should be moved on to a firmer footing.
The SNP has already proposed community contracts in which landowners, the state and local residents co-operate to promote sustainable development in Scotland's rural communities. That way, the rights and responsibilities of all parties would be clear. Where an estate is in receipt of public money, a community contract could clearly set out the conditions linked to the receipt of those funds. Where an estate changes hands, new owners would be required, as a condition of purchase, to negotiate a clear contract that states, amongst other things, their short-term development plans, the rights of tenants and the involvement of the community in the development of the estate.
We all remember the wild promises made to the islanders of Eigg by Maruma. We should find a way to hold owners like Maruma to such promises. As I said, not all communities will want to purchase the estate.
The SNP has also proposed mechanisms to facilitate the setting up of locality land councils, where there is demand. That would allow communities that have a central role in the development of local land use strategies and that work in liaison with the department for rural affairs to draw up local land plans as the basis for sustainable development. The introduction of those bodies would be linked to an overhaul of the structure of agencies and grants in Scotland, so that the available money can be spent more effectively and targeted at community-supported, sustainable projects. At the heart of that is a desire to involve communities in the land and in the areas in which they live.
Before I move on to more specific issues relating to finance—
You have one minute.
With respect—
Ten minutes for a speech.
I wonder whether the minister would comment on a more general issue—which is nevertheless important: the need to review the current structure of quangos in Scotland. At present, farmers and landowners seeking financial assistance or wanting to develop their land can be forced to deal with more than 20 public bodies or agencies. We need some way of reducing that kind of inefficiency. That would allow resources to be redirected, which would assist the land purchase proposals that the Government wants to promote. It would also fulfil one of the Government's other promises: the widely heralded bonfire of the quangos.
The extra money would certainly be useful. I note with some amusement that the white paper glides over the issue of financing, as does the progress report. The Executive must not be allowed to avoid addressing the nonsense that the land fund from which the money will come will be held by the Minister for Culture, Media and Sport, not by the Executive in Scotland. The Scottish Government could issue guidelines, but the allocation of moneys to individual programmes would be decided by the operators of the new opportunities fund. Land reform should not be a lottery—that is not acceptable for Scotland.
The SNP has always supported community ownership as an option. However, it cannot be the only weapon in the armoury. The SNP's proposals would add to that lone weapon several others, which could only help to further community involvement. Communities would have a variety of options and be able to exercise the real choice that they have been so long denied, and which they would continue to be denied should the Tories ever return to power.
I move amendment S1M-313.2, to leave out from "commends" to end and insert:
"notes the progress of the Scottish Executive's consultation on the Land Reform White Paper; welcomes the commitment to a community right to purchase contained within the proposals; nevertheless is concerned that these proposals remain too narrowly focused and therefore agrees that they should be widened to include proposals which would increase community involvement in local land management throughout Scotland."
Presiding Officer, I begin by drawing your attention to my entry in the register of members' interests, particularly my membership of the Scottish Landowners Federation.
In his introduction to the white paper, the Deputy First Minister states that land reform and radical change are "crucial to rural Scotland". I suggest that there is an unprecedented crisis in rural Scotland. I suggest that the people of Scotland expect the Executive to take some action to relieve their increasing suffering. The practice of
some Executive back-bench members—of blaming the Tories for everything, hoping that no one will notice their own inadequacies—is wearing a bit thin. With our traditional rural industries in economic free fall, Jim Wallace must stand up and say, "Let them have land reform."
The idea of community right-to-buy is the product of several problems that have arisen in the Highlands and Islands—Assynt, Knoydart and Eigg are the grand examples. The Conservatives have no objection to attempts to find imaginative and radical solutions to such problems. Indeed, the actions taken by Lord Forsyth when he was Secretary of State for Scotland demonstrate that we are happy to take the lead where an obvious and proven demand for new forms of land ownership exist.
Will the member give way?
No, not at this point.
That poses the question: why is the proposed land reform legislation to be imposed not only on the Highlands and Islands, for which it might seem to have been designed, but on the whole of rural Scotland? I have found no evidence of any powerful consensus for change among those who live and work in the countryside. Where I come from, nothing could be further from people's minds. I believe that this is another shaming example of legislation being imposed on rural populations that have not asked for it by Scotland's urban-based political majority, for political rather than practical reasons.
Will the member give way?
No.
No one on this side of the chamber opposes the concept of community ownership of land. Indeed, we are greatly interested in the progress of the examples that I have mentioned. However, we are greatly concerned about the Executive's apparent view that community ownership is the ideal.
Will the member give way?
Not at this point.
He tried that last week. [Laughter.]
No, I apologise, but not at this point.
There is, I am assured, no shortage of areas in which it is clear that members of the community have absolutely no desire to take on ownership of their land. The proposals that would allow an as yet unidentified community to exercise—before anyone else—the right to purchase land in rural Scotland are, in my opinion, wholly unjustified.
There is a genuinely held fear that the process described in paragraph 1.7 of the Executive's land reform document will act as a disincentive to purchasers of land, who will be concerned about interference in any future sale because of that complex and potentially time-consuming process. The process will be a disincentive to outside investors, on whom many of our Scottish estates have become dependent in recent years.
The willingness of some people to pour money into Scottish estates, gaining no apparent benefit for themselves, is a source of amazement to many. Those benefactors ought to be encouraged, not discouraged.
Will the member give way?
Not at this point.
The opportunity to purchase land in other parts of the United Kingdom and Europe, unhampered by regulations, will, without a shadow of a doubt, lead to immediate erosion of land values in Scotland. The willingness of landowners to invest in their property will also be reduced if they believe that there is a limitation in the long-term value of their investment.
These proposals are, in the opinion of many, both cumbersome and unworkable. They are a clear example of taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut. They are a clear case of a solution that is grossly disproportionate to the problem. They are, quite simply, a massive over-reaction.
Will the member give way? Or is he afraid to?
Order.
We are very tight for time, but all right.
Thank you. I want to put a simple question to Alex Johnstone; I have asked him before, and I will ask him again. Despite all the negativity we are getting, I think that we would all like to hear what Tory land reform proposals sound like. Will the member tell us?
You still have three minutes, Mr Johnstone.
I am here today to put a point of view that has been correlated across a number of organisations. I have consulted widely and I am sure that the minister is prepared to admit that those organisations have been part of his consultation as well.
Mr Jim Wallace indicated agreement.
Will the member give way? I have a small question.
How small?
The member will be aware that 790 people in Scotland own 60 per cent of all private land. Does the member believe that that type of ownership should continue?
Some of the largest landowners in Scotland are also some of the best. A large proportion of landowners in Scotland are small landowners such as myself.
So that is a yes.
If we were to put across views in the way that Mr Sheridan would, we would be giving way to some of the prejudices that exist in this debate.
I have said at length that, in my experience, there is not a powerful consensus for change. The part of the land reform white paper that has caused the most debate is section 7, which relates to access. The importance of access cannot be overstated, but it concerns many people that it has appeared as an appendage to the paper on community ownership. Although the principle of the right of informal access to Scotland's hills and unenclosed land is widely accepted and already practised throughout much of the country, the suggestion that the right should be extended to enclosed land is unjustified and no good argument for it has been proposed.
You have just one minute left, Mr Johnstone.
Scotland is truly a beautiful place. I believe that our landscape is a natural treasure that should belong to all Scotland's people equally, but I am a farmer and I have grave concerns about how we progress on the issue of access to enclosed land.
Will Mr Johnstone give way?
I will not give way at this point.
It appears that the Executive intends to follow the recommendations of the access forum, believing that they represent a consensus among all interested parties. However, I have met people from organisations that were not involved in the access forum and their concerns have not been included in its considerations.
Although there are no doubt many people who will argue that the duty of responsible access mentioned in the white paper will solve many of the potential problems, there are no suggestions on how it might be policed. The expectations raised by the new legislation will not be balanced by efforts to control what many may see as an opportunity to run about all over the countryside. I feel that that imbalance must be addressed.
Wind up please, Mr Johnstone.
That is what he is doing; he is winding us up.
Ach, come on. There is one other issue that I would like to raise at this point.
Do so very briefly, please.
In winding up, I shall address one final point about the European convention on human rights. There are still people in the countryside who are concerned that the proposals in the white paper may fall foul of the convention. I would like to be reassured that that has been taken into consideration and that any problems that may arise as a result of it will be dealt with before a bill is published.
Will Mr Johnstone give way?
I must ask the member to wind up as he has already taken a minute longer than is allowed.
Finally, I want to ask the minister whether, given concern in rural Scotland about access, due consideration will be given to treating access as a separate and distinct bill to the one on community ownership.
I move amendment S1M-313.1, to leave out from "commends" to end and insert:
"recognises that the problems facing our rural communities and way of life will not be solved by land reform and calls upon the Scottish Executive to recognise the fact that many of the proposals contained in the Land Reform Action Plan will have a damaging effect on the rural economy."
Fifteen members have indicated a desire to speak. I will therefore strictly limit speeches to four minutes. I call Rhoda Grant.
I welcome the announcements that the minister has made today. They will go a long way to meet the needs of the community that I represent. The debate on land reform has gone on for many years and it is great to see that our new Scottish Parliament can deliver on those important priorities.
At the end of the process, there must be a workable solution that is designed to meet the needs and demands of future generations. I am therefore delighted that the minister has
addressed crofting. Under the present legislation, a crofter has the right to buy his or her croft and an apportionment of the common grazings. Working out that apportionment can be difficult and has discouraged crofters from taking up that option. The right to buy the whole township would offer a greater opportunity for diversification, enabling crofters to start wind farms, build larger community businesses and attract inward investment.
I have for some time been dealing with members of the crofting community at Laid on the north coast. Crofters there want the right to buy their crofting community jointly. Now they have that right. That will enable them to put their ideas for diversification into practice—ideas that they have been unable to develop in the past. Today's announcement will help to sustain the fragile community in that area and will allow the people who live there to expand and develop.
In my dealings with the people of Laid, it has become clear to me that the community is at a disadvantage because people do not know who owns their land. The estate owner is a company called Vibel SA, which is registered in Liechtenstein. Under Liechtenstein law, it is impossible to find out who the shareholders, and therefore the beneficial owners of the estate, are.
I recognise the difficulties that are involved in tracing the identity of beneficial owners who are involved in companies registered outside Scotland and the United Kingdom, but we must recognise that communities are at a great disadvantage if they lack such information. They are unable to make direct representations to their landlord and to discuss issues that affect the running of the estate.
To tackle the problem, we must set up a land register in Scotland that lists not only owners, but beneficial owners of land. That is a much bigger project, but we must start it now to ensure that future generations do not face the same problems as the crofters in Laid. I congratulate the minister on today's announcement, but I ask him to address the issues by considering the setting up of a land register.
The current system of land tenure and ownership is a barrier to housing people in affordable homes. Land reform is necessary to allow communities to survive and grow. Land reform is the single most important tool that we have to address the rural housing crisis. The population of Scotland as a whole may be falling, but Scotland's rural population is growing. Housing waiting lists have grown by 45 per cent in rural areas, compared with 35 per cent in urban areas. Rural homelessness has increased by something like 70 per cent. In some areas, almost a quarter of the housing stock is below tolerable standard.
There is a desperate shortage of affordable housing. That shortage can be traced back to bad management. Specifically, it can be traced back to a lack of available land for new housing, which is nonsense in one of the most sparsely populated areas of Europe.
Access to house building is restricted by whether a landowner will sell, the price at which he is willing to sell and the conditions attached to the sale. I agree with Rhoda Grant that we need to create a register of land interests. I am pleased that the Executive is watching the Scottish land information system pilot, but I am disappointed that the scheme will only ever be a non- authoritative database. I would like the Executive to go a step further and use legislation to make land traceable and owners identifiable.
In rural Scotland, land ownership is concentrated in the hands of a few. I am disappointed that Alex Johnstone is not here to hear that 80 per cent of private land is owned by
0.8 per cent of the population. Mr Brian Monteith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con):
How much of that land can be cultivated?
Much more than is cultivated at present.
Shelter Scotland has said that that concentration gives a small number of landowners a prominence that is unmatched in any other European country.
I am pleased that the Executive is considering legislation to give communities powers to purchase land when it comes up for sale. However, what about the communities that need only a handful of affordable new houses to prevent youngsters from having to sleep in caravans? I welcome the minister's commitment to examine whether community organisations will be able to register an interest, which is particularly important for housing associations, but I would like a more explicit guarantee that housing associations and those who seek to build houses in rural Scotland will be given registration.
I urge the minister to allow organisations that act on behalf of communities to be able to bid for parcels of land that can be made available to the community as housing needs arise. If we cannot use land reform legislation to secure access to housing; if we cannot resolve the situation in which 10,000 houses in the Highlands and Islands lie empty and 9,000 people are on lengthening housing lists; and if land reform cannot meet the most basic need of our fellow citizens—housing— this Parliament will have failed.
I welcome the opportunity to comment on the progress that has so far been made on land reform and the Executive's openness in lodging the motion for debate today.
Land reform is not an empty gesture to members of the old Highland Land League or the Crofter's party MPs of the past; it is the base on which we will build a modern economy in the Highlands, having got rid of the dead hand of landlordism.
When the proposals for legislation were published, many gave them a qualified welcome. There were significant steps forward. Community bodies were to be able to register their interest in the land on which they lived and worked and to have time to assess whether they wanted to buy the land. Many of my constituents in rural areas were concerned that the proposals did not do enough to empower their communities. I therefore welcome the Deputy First Minister's statement that shows that many of those concerns have been heard and will be acted on.
I welcome the wider definition of the community body. Members will understand that, under the original definition, some areas of land would not have been part of the community land initiative. Broadening the definition of community to include owner-occupiers who live on the estate would be useful, as would extending the definition to communities adjacent to land in which they have an interest. That would allow access to new land where houses could be built and businesses and crofts could be set up. We must think about how many businesses the land can support—not just how many crofts—if the Highland economy is to be taken into the 21st century.
I welcome the inclusion in the proposal of an emergency provision to allow late registration of interest. Large areas of land in the Highlands and Islands have not been on sale in living memory. Maintaining community interest could be difficult as there are changes in the nature of communities, land-use management and Government policy. If land comes on the market after a community has decided to deregister, or it has not registered because it never expected land to come up for sale, an emergency late registration process is essential.
I whole-heartedly support plans to increase responsible access. I can think of one set of gates in a Highland glen on which I will personally nail this legislation when it is passed.
The issue of access is important for the Highlands and Islands. Tourism is a major industry and increased access will help it by bringing a greater number of tourists into the area who will support many businesses. I welcome the plans to encourage responsible walkers. Hill walking already brings £3.5 million to Ross-shire every year. Walking in forests and straths will attract families and old people who prefer using easily accessed paths. This is a niche market with enormous potential for the Highlands.
The proposals for land reform offer the opportunity to bring forward a permanent and workable solution to the problems of the Highlands and Islands that successive Governments have sought to address. We must look at how we deal with ill-used land that never comes on the market. I hope that the Executive will continue to listen to the people of the Highlands and Islands as the bill progresses.
I welcome the progress that has been made and the Deputy First Minister's announcement, and I am happy to support the Executive's motion.
I am sympathetic to some aspects of community land ownership. I welcome the minister's comments on the crofting situation, which fall into line with the directions set by the former Secretary of State for Scotland, Michael Forsyth. On that basis, we could not do anything other than give support to the minister.
I have reservations about what has been said about access to land and I feel that the proposals are a little over the top. As someone who enjoys our countryside, I must say that I have never found any difficulty with landowners—I adopt a common-sense approach to access when I am in the countryside. Maureen Macmillan referred to the amount of cash that is brought into Ross-shire by tourists. That demonstrates that the problems are not as great as they might appear to be.
Shudders run down my spine when I consider the amount of legislation that is involved in the action plan. I forecast that there will be confusion and complication, when it should be simple for people to enjoy our countryside. All that is recognised in Alex Johnstone's amendment.
Is Phil Gallie saying that there is no problem with access and that legislation will not increase the amount of access? Is he objecting to the fact that legislation is being passed?
I am concerned about the amount of legislation that is envisaged in the land reform proposals. Consider the plight of the rural community now. I believe that many of the proposals will create problems for landowners and farmers, whether they be owners or tenant farmers, when the rural economy is in crisis.
If the minister is examining the rural economy, he should consider issues other than land reform. Consider the courts, for example. The Labour Government has hurtled us into a situation where European law rules in the justice system in Scotland. I have fears about the problems that will arise from the European Court of Human Rights. The problems that we have seen so far are the tip of an iceberg.
All kinds of problems will build up if land reforms are implemented.
One of the considerations of the European convention on human rights, in relation to the community's right to buy, will be compensation for landowners. Is that a right that Phil Gallie would rather landowners did not have?
I would certainly expect compensation, but whose level of compensation? Will it be a market value level or a level of compensation set by civil servants in Edinburgh? That is an important question, which I am sure the European Court of Human Rights will consider and determine.
Wind up please, Mr Gallie.
On community purchase, I welcome the fact that the people of Millport have been able to take the Island of Cumbrae into ownership. That shows that such purchase can already happen.
I would like to say much more, but I see that I am getting the nod from the Presiding Officer. I look forward to the bill being introduced so that it can be analysed in the Justice and Home Affairs Committee and the Rural Affairs Committee. There are many bugs in it, but there are one or two good points.
As somebody who was brought up on a Highland estate and spent many years of my young life there, I welcome the opportunity to debate land reform.
I am well acquainted with many of the issues that concern the community in which I grew up. Many of those issues have been addressed in "Land Reform: Proposals for Legislation". I support much of what is incorporated in the document, and I hope that as the bill passes through the various stages of the parliamentary process, the proposals will be further honed and strengthened and will gain the support of the vast majority in this Parliament.
Much of the document is acceptable and many of the proposals are innovative and new. However, some sections of our community have been overlooked, or have not been given sufficiently serious consideration. I refer in particular to the tenant farmers. Under the legislation at present, tenant farmers do not enjoy the security of tenure enjoyed by crofters. They do not have an assured tenancy over a period of years. That issue merits serious consideration.
Tenant farmers do not have the right to buy; the legislation should include measures to give them the same privileges as those currently enjoyed by crofters, who have the option of buying their croft at something like 15 times their annual rent. The legislation should afford that possibility to our tenant farmers.
The proposals on crofting lack the commitment that I would like. I am happy to accept that the crofter has the right to buy his land within the township, but he will not be allowed to acquire the sporting rights or the mineral rights. We should incorporate it in the legislation that, when a crofter buys a piece of territory, they have absolute ownership of that territory's sporting and mineral rights.
Over many years, much has been said about the feudal system, and I am glad that legislation will address that anomaly. It is an antiquated system that should have been flung out years ago. However, other aspects of the feudal system should be considered. The rights of pre-emption, for instance, are anathema to many people. Written into some of the title documents that are currently being exchanged between parties are archaic conditions and burdens that do not bear scrutiny as we approach the new millennium.
With any compulsory purchase initiative, there is no absolute guarantee of success—you win some, you lose some. For that reason, we should be careful about how we proceed with such schemes. However, where a community has shown interest in a piece of land—and I do not mean a community that lives and works on the land, as the document suggests—and it can be demonstrated that a compulsory purchase initiative would benefit the wider community, it should be supported. In such cases, the identity of the community must be clearly stated.
I know of many excellent landlords who, in co-operation with the local community, have generated a quite remarkable vibrancy and viability in rural Scotland. We should continue to support their efforts. However, there are also many landlords who are not so co-operative or constructive. That is the situation with which the land reform document seeks to deal.
Many estates and pieces of land have already been bought for the resident community with the support of public agencies and public money, and that is to be welcomed. However, we must ensure
that we continue to support communities' efforts to demonstrate that their units are and will continue to be viable in the long term. If that does not happen and the units fall apart, the concept of community land ownership will become an embarrassment and disappear into the Highland mist, in the words of our bard, Robbie Burns,
"like the snow falls in a river, A moment white—then melts for ever."
I am pleased to inform my colleagues in the parliamentary party that today I will vote in support of the motion in the name of Jim Wallace.
I welcome the minister's statement and the priority that the Government has given to the issue of land reform. The issues of land ownership, access and the use and misuse of the power that lies with those who own our land are a touchstone of the politics of many us in the chamber. It is ironic that those who, in the case of field and blood sports, would like us to celebrate the countryside, should make it quite clear, when it comes to access, that they want us to celebrate it from afar. For that reason, I welcome the document's proposals on access. It is also important to address the Tories' attempts to collapse together the interests of landowners and the interests of rural communities, which are not necessarily the same thing.
I trust that members will allow me to relate a bit of personal history. Jim Wallace made the point that Parliament had not seriously addressed the question of land reform for almost 75 years. In 1918, my great-uncle, William McPhail—a bard with, I believe, a particularly satirical turn of phrase and a crofter on the island of Tiree—went to jail, along with seven others, for the crime of planting the land for which they were negotiating the right to rent. The negotiation was being delayed by the farmer involved and by the proprietor, the Duke of Argyll. The dispute ended in court—on the one hand, because of the courage of those impoverished men in asserting their rights to feed themselves and their families and their determination to fight for the rights of their local community to sustain itself, and on the other, because of the obduracy of those who felt that they had the power to control that community because they owned the land.
The only thing that those impoverished but courageous people had in common with those who sought to exploit them was their Scottishness. Opposite us is the Scottish National party, which believes that we should construct our entire constitutional existence on the basis of that Scottishness. The treatment of my great-uncle— and, over the years, many others like him— clarified for me as much as anything else why I am a socialist and not a nationalist.
It is crucial that we identify the real targets in tackling inequality and injustice. The experience of the clearance and exploitation of rural communities is not specific to Scotland, but it is particular to communities where ownership is concentrated in a few hands. Equally, the ability to ride roughshod over local community interests is not particular to foreign landowners. We must recognise the consequence of the concentration of power in the pattern of ownership in Scotland. I welcome the fact that the Government is seeking to shift the balance in favour of local communities that are committed to sustaining their own areas and determining their own priorities.
Land reform is an on-going process. I wish to identify two areas to which the Executive might wish to turn its attention in the near future. One is Deaconsbank, which is in my constituency of Glasgow Pollok. Barratt built 639 houses in Deaconsbank between 1977 and 1982. After development, 27 acres of land were left undeveloped, the title to which, I understand, remains with Barratt. However, the maintenance of the land is both legally and literally a burden on the local residents. They must maintain the land, although the ownership and hence the right to develop or dispose of it remains with Barratt.
There has been much talk in recent years of rights being matched with responsibilities. Unfortunately, because of Barratt's shabby behaviour and the archaic nature of land tenure in Scotland, Deaconsbank residents have responsibilities, but no rights. I hope that at some stage the minister will consider acting against unjust burdens such as those imposed in Deaconsbank and, doubtless, in many other communities in Scotland.
I wish to mention another area, which was highlighted by Age Concern—retirement housing. It is important in terms of rights; the contractual terms in many deeds of conditions are unsatisfactory. I hope that the Executive can consider that area.
I declare an interest as a member of the co-operative party, because I wish to highlight an area of particular significance to the debate on land reform—the power of co-operation in communities. Rather than communities being handed a programme that is good for them, co-operation gives communities the means by which they can be empowered to take control over their own lives.
We must recognise and seek to build into all areas of our social and economic lives an opportunity to co-operate, to develop community business and to celebrate the social forms of ownership.
Current land reform proposals encompass a wide range of issues, from national parks to landlord- tenant relationships and from feudal reform to access rights. I wish to concentrate on access rights.
Few people will aspire to own or to manage land, but the majority will seek access for recreational purposes. Each week, Scottish residents take over 2 million walks in the countryside and 65,000 people in Scotland go horse riding. Over 45 per cent of Scottish households own at least one bicycle. That is good for the nation's health and for our tourist industry, but it is fraught with access problems.
More than 60 per cent of people are unsure about where they can walk in the countryside and there are few routes for off-road riding, as only 4 per cent of recorded rights of way carry a right to ride a horse. That controversial area would benefit from further and much more detailed consideration.
Jim Wallace advised us that the access proposals will apply to individuals who may choose to exercise the right collectively, and that they will not extend to commercial organisations and activities. However, there are many grey areas. For example, what about non-profit-making groups that organise walking or riding holidays? Do they fall into the commercial category? How will the landowner know if people are part of an organised group and not just friends or a family out together for a walk or a ride? What are the implications for outward bound courses?
Since early 1998, the access forum has been developing proposals for new access arrangements in Scotland, which are based on a wide consensus among landowners, farmers, users and public agencies that are represented by the forum. Yet the white paper's proposals fail to take account of a great many of the forum's proposals and recommendations. Most groups with an interest in access issues are concerned that some of the recommendations that do not require primary legislation will not be taken on board, which could severely limit the effectiveness of the Executive's proposals in overcoming current difficulties.
The forum strongly advises that the right of access without better management and greater investment will not work effectively. Additional resources must be made available to central and local government for paths; routes for walkers, cyclists and those with disabilities; the repair and maintenance of stiles and other infrastructure; and additional local authority staff and rangers. Grey areas such as those must be addressed.
A Scottish countryside access code is to be devised. With regard to the status of that code, the white paper says that the proposed legislation will not introduce any new criminal offence, so if landowners or the public break the code, it is not clear what the outcome will be. That is a crucial area which requires resolution. With no legal status, the code could be in danger of being viewed as a paper exercise. Indeed, the content of the code will be one of the defining features in assessing the impact of the proposed legislation.
The important issue of access is given little attention in the Executive's proposals. As has been highlighted by Roseanna Cunningham, such a complex issue, which affects everyone in Scotland, should be worthy of a separate, thoroughly researched piece of legislation on which there has been full consultation.
I support the motion and welcome the minister's statement. I shall refer to two issues: the community right to buy and the right of responsible access.
To take the latter issue first, I look forward— unashamedly, from a constituency viewpoint—to the legislation restoring the right of popular access to land at Portencross Castle, near Hunterston in north Ayrshire. The right of way for ramblers—Phil Gallie and others—from far afield has been barred to them for the past few years by the irresponsible and injudicious use of barbed razor wire. Without the legislation, there is no legal authority to have the wire removed and responsible access restored. For that reason, I welcome the legislation.
I also welcome the steps that have been taken to lower the registration threshold which, quite unexpectedly, the white paper—as opposed to the green paper—created for the community right to buy. At least we now have the caveat that, in exceptional circumstances, the registration requirement can be sidelined. That seems to meet the valid objection that even in cases such as Assynt and Eigg, there would have been no right of community buyout under the proposed legislation, because no prior interest in buying the land had been registered. It might not meet the Blackford test referred to by Roseanna Cunningham, but I think that it meets the Eigg test.
However, I still question the need for a registration requirement at all. The reality in relation to land purchase or any other kind of buyout is that people are most unlikely to act on a hypothetical basis. The feature of Scottish land ownership is not how quickly it changes, but how slowly. If we were to look at the land register
drawn up in 1875, under the Administration of the Earl of Derby, we would be astonished to find out how few—rather than how many—have been the changes in title to the great estates. It is absurd to insist that people living in those areas should register their interest in advance of the acquisition of land, decades or even centuries before there is even the remotest prospect of it coming on to the market.
The absurdity of that requirement is reflected in my constituency. On the island of Arran, land ownership and the abuses that flow from it are a perpetual nuisance and a concern of the highest priority. A large part of the island is still under the ownership of Arran Estates, which is directly descended from the dukes of Hamilton. If the legislation that is now proposed had been in existence in the 1880s, when, sadly, the dukes of Hamilton used their parliamentary influence to have Arran excluded from the crofting acts, people might have registered interest in the acquisition of land, but 120 years later, they would still be waiting for something to happen.
That is an argument against the whole concept of registration, but it is also a sobering reminder of the limitations of the legislation that we are now proposing.
Will Mr Wilson give way?
In some circumstances the legislation will do good, but unless the heirs of the Duke of Hamilton fall on hard times and put Arran Estates on the market, the communities that register their interest in 2000 may well be waiting for the opportunity to purchase when we enter the 22nd century.
I have just a short time left—I will debate this subject with Phil another time. I whole-heartedly welcome the announcement on the crofting community right to buy. Sadly, Arran is not included, but I know from colleagues and others who have campaigned for it tirelessly that it will be a source of rejoicing in the Highlands and Islands.
I should like to make two short points to the Deputy First Minister. I have for some time pursued the issue of smallholdings and getting people back on to the land. I hope that there will be future moves on that. In Ross and Cromarty, there is a big farm near where I live that is owned by people from abroad, which is run in prairie style. I know that many local people would love to have a bit of that land, for a few sheep. An interesting example is that many people who work in the BMW factory in Stuttgart have smallholdings within commuting distance. In terms of land management, a better life and good agriculture, that makes sense.
In the previous debate, Keith Raffan rightly raised the problem of old-age poverty. He quoted the figure that, with the increase in water charges and council tax, old people in Highland are £42.63 worse off. In the Western Isles, the figure is £38.97. As a Parliament, we should take on board his point about making representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
I have gone on and on about the agricultural business improvement scheme—if we do not get such things right and do not give old people a decent standard of living, all these good proposals will founder, because people will continue to leave the glens. If Holyrood is to pull its weight, we must talk seriously and on an all-party basis to the chancellor and say that the legislation is in danger of not working. Amid the grandeur and the splendour of my constituency, old-age poverty is a serpent that is still with us—we must make the strongest representations on it.
I refer to the "Register of Members' Interests"—I am a Tweed commissioner.
The Deputy First Minister said that land reform had not been on the agenda for about 75 years. I think that it was Lloyd George who last introduced it. Today, nobody should be in any doubt that the process of reform is under way. Jim Wallace referred to the Executive's actions over the summer, such as the opening of the Scottish Enterprise community land unit, and community commitments by Forest Enterprise, Scottish Natural Heritage and the Crown Estate. I welcome the early introduction of the Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc (Scotland) Bill. Its explanatory notes say that it will abolish 46 entire acts, 246 sections and 57 schedules to other acts. Alone, that is a major updating of Scots law.
I am not persuaded by an argument that is being canvassed that the bill should retain the feudal superiority of the Crown. The feudal system cannot be abolished just by taking out strata below the Crown. It is unclear what powers or rights the Crown might exercise, especially as its prerogative rights are untouched by the bill. Why is the Crown more appropriate in this context than this Parliament or local authorities, through the planning process?
In section 65 of the bill there is a proposal to prohibit commercial leases of more than 125 years. Although a balance has to be struck, I am persuaded that leases should be allowed to run for up to 200 years, otherwise there is a risk that the Scottish commercial property sector could be disadvantaged compared with that in England.
Perhaps the minister will comment on that in his summing up.
Liberal Democrats will, of course, support the leasehold casualties bill. We are also in favour of creating national parks, but only after detailed local consultation in the areas to be designated and with the assurance that community and economic interests—in particular those of farmers—will continue to be involved. I recognise that the bill will be of an enabling nature, but I look for the inclusion of such appropriate safeguards.
On community right to buy and access, I believe that there is a need for legislation to establish the right to buy. That legislation will stimulate change and—as Tricia Marwick mentioned—housing development, which is important in many rural areas. It will also stimulate economic development, especially in the Highlands and the north of Scotland.
Today's announcement on crofting is welcome; my colleague John Farquhar Munro also mentioned that. As the Deputy First Minister knows—I never tire of telling him—we must not fix a problem in the north and create another in the south. The safeguards on community purchase that the minister announced today should go a long way to frustrate cherry-picking on estates. I welcome those proposals.
Does the member agree that under the proposed legislation, the registration of community interests and the community right to buy apply only to landowners? Would it be appropriate for consideration to be given to Scotland's 10,000 tenant farmers, so that they—as well as farm owners—are entitled to take part in the consultation process?
I regret that I cannot answer that, as I do not entirely understand its context. I will consider it and reply privately to the member.
As the minister said, it is important that the community body has to demonstrate a direct community interest in a piece of land. Other important changes are that the community—in the absence of agreement—will have to buy the land as lotted and that time scales will be tightened.
Significant changes have been announced on access. I welcome, in particular, the exclusion of farm steadings, which is an important and necessary change. I also believe that where there is an established network of footpaths, in particular over enclosed land, we might have to presume that those should be used for access.
We can consider those points when the bill is published. I also have some reservations about access to inland waterways.
Without doubt, the Executive will take comfort from the fact that its motion sits between what might be described as the two extremes of the amendments. I must say that if Alex Johnstone is interested in progress, what he has told us about his policy today makes the snail look fleet of foot.
I begin by declaring four interests: I am a landowner, a landlord, a farmer and a member of the Scottish Landowners Federation. I hope that that does not preclude me from speaking today.
The ubiquitous Andy Wightman, a gentleman with whom I rarely find myself in agreement, asks what is to be made of the agenda for land reform—is it well informed, well targeted and radical? He says that one would like to think so but that, on closer examination, much of it turns out to be shallow and superficial; it presents a range of palliative measures that address symptoms rather than the underlying problems.
I agree with Andy Wightman on this occasion, because he is saying that the Scottish Executive's proposals are an ill thought out, knee-jerk reaction to a perceived need for land reform. I question whether that need exists. Most important, as our amendment suggests, the proposals will do nothing whatever to alleviate the desperate economic situation in which rural Scotland finds itself.
As Alex Johnstone pointed out, the Deputy First Minister, in his introduction to "Land Reform: Proposals for Legislation", which was published in July, stated that land reform was "crucial for rural Scotland". I contend that it is nothing of the sort. One can argue about whether it is desirable, but it is certainly not crucial.
Jim Wallace also said that the advent of the Scottish Parliament finally gave us an opportunity to debate the policies that were right for Scotland—the debate on land reform is a good example of that.
I am sorry, but I do not have time to give way. Mike Rumbles should blame the Executive for not allowing long enough for debates such as this. [MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] The right to debate should allow us more than the one and a quarter hours that were originally scheduled.
Any assertion by the Executive that it has rural issues at the top of its agenda was negated by the Opposition debate on rural affairs two weeks ago. The Labour party's commitment to rural affairs was measurable by the attendance—throughout most of that debate—of five of its members. That is the true measure of Labour's interest in rural affairs and that will not be forgiven quickly by the
rural electorate.
Let us examine the proposals for what they really are—an attempt to show that this Parliament can, as we keep hearing, make a difference so that the Executive can pat itself on its collective back and wallow in the self-congratulatory mire that today's motion exemplifies.
Members may ask what puts the Conservatives in the same critical boat as Andy Wightman. I am happy to tell them the answer. Let us take the proposals on access, which will create a "right of responsible access". The word "responsible" throws up two problems. The first is the definition of what is and what is not responsible. The second is the ownership of responsibility in cases relating to accidents or damage.
A dispute might be referred to a local arbitration forum. Will not it be too late, even if that forum finds in favour of the landowner? The damage will have been done. I suggest that freedom of access is a subject worthy of its own programme in the Parliament. It is vital to get it right, but that will be difficult when access is dealt with merely as a subsection of other legislation.
The proposals for feudal tenure—which were skipped over—are equally flawed. Although we are perfectly happy for abuses within the system to be rectified, the proposed legislation will do nothing to recognise the many positive protective features that the feudal system offers. Would the new town of Edinburgh be so architecturally magnificent without the feudal system? Members who are lucky enough to be acquainted with the village of Gatehouse of Fleet in Galloway will appreciate the conservationist capabilities of that same system.
Time does not permit me to highlight the vast number of flaws in the proposals on the community right to buy. The Conservatives have no objection to community ownership where there is local demand for it, where it is economically viable and where purchases are made on the open market. The Executive's proposals seek simply to transfer the financial burden of running some estates from the private owner to the taxpayer or the lottery player—whoever has the most money to spare at the time.
By giving such lengthy consultation time to communities, and by giving a role to the district valuer, the proposals can have only an adverse effect on the overall value of land. That will, in turn, significantly reduce the willingness of landowners to maintain investments in their properties. That is not the best way forward for rural Scotland.
The SNP amendment suggests that that party, too, agrees with Andy Wightman, although not for the same reasons as the Conservatives do. Its long-term land reform policies were summed up by Roseanna Cunningham, who said in the House of Commons that the SNP sought people's land reform in Scotland. She continued:
"That means ultimate ownership of the land by and for the people of Scotland."—[Official Report, House of Commons, 29 April 1998; Vol 311, c 247.]
That system was tried by the communists—look what happened to them.
Mr Wallace's motion and the SNP amendment will do nothing to address the real problems in rural Scotland. That would be done better by tackling the planning regulations and the planning authorities, which embody the real bars to rural innovation and prosperity. We require practical solutions, not ideological theorising. I am pleased to support the amendment in the name of my colleague Alex Johnstone.
The SNP welcomes the fact that land reform is one of the first areas on which the Parliament is legislating, although a cynic might say that it is happening partly because the legislation has no immediate financial implications.
I start by addressing some earlier comments, particularly from the Conservatives. Alex Johnstone raised an old chestnut. He said that, because of the crisis in agriculture and in some areas of the rural economy, we should not be legislating on land reform—as if not doing so would somehow help the rural economy and agriculture. The Conservatives used the same argument when devolution was proposed— because of various crises, we should not waste time talking about devolution. That argument was as wrong then as it is now. We also heard that land reform will stop investors pouring money into Scotland. We should wonder why, if so much money is pouring in, the rural economy is still in crisis.
The Conservatives gave us two messages on access. Alex Johnstone told us that we could all enjoy Scotland's beauty on The Scotsman colour calendar, but that we should not walk in it. However, Phil Gallie told us that there was no problem with access and that we could go wherever we wanted. Those conflicting messages do not stand up to much examination.
Alex Johnstone also prayed in aid the European convention on human rights, saying that some of his supporters or correspondents were going to bring cases under it. I was somewhat surprised by that, as I thought that the Tories did not want the European convention on human rights to overrule the judgments of our courts. I was reassured when, later, Phil Gallie stuck the boot into Europe
in his usual fashion.
It was disappointing that there was no mention of the Conservatives' policy. I think that we know what their policy is—
Will the member give way?
No, I am sorry. Phil's speech contained so much good material to cover that I do not have time to give way.
The Conservatives are saying that everything was fine up to 1 May 1997 and that we would not need to legislate on this issue if we could go back to those halcyon days. Phil Gallie also complained about the burden of legislation—a familiar story from Conservatives here and at Westminster. Rules might not be perfect the first time round and might have to be honed after experience. The Conservatives used the same argument against the introduction of the minimum wage; indeed, I suspect that their forebears in the 19th century used the same argument against the Factory Acts.
We introduced the Factory Acts.
I am glad that Mr McLetchie can remember that far back.
Roseanna Cunningham mentioned the need for wider community involvement and was rightly sceptical about voluntary codes. Problems exist because voluntary codes have simply not worked. What happens when a community does not wish to or cannot form the kind of trust envisaged in the legislation? That does not mean that that community does not have problems or genuine concerns. I was glad when Allan Wilson referred to the unlikelihood of communities acting hypothetically.
One or two aspects of the proposals need some attention. There is not a big turnover of land in many land holdings and there can be a substantial length of time between sales. Roseanna Cunningham alluded to the fact that 25 per cent of holdings of more than 1,000 acres have been in the same family for more than 400 years. In the Highlands, 50 per cent of private land has not been exposed for sale since the war and 25 per cent has not been exposed this century. The legislation would not bite in such circumstances. How can one keep a community trust—this hypothetical interest—going when it might be another 400 years before it has a chance to exercise its rights?
We need to address the difficulties that may arise with cherry picking. The minister said that, where agreement could not be reached, purchase would have to be made on the basis of the land as lotted. Not being a lawyer, I was not clear about what that meant—perhaps Angus MacKay will address that point in his summing-up.
We have some worries about the definition of community. Jim Wallace went some way towards allaying those worries when he said that a community could also indicate an interest in adjacent land. I take that to mean land on which people in the community do not live or work. That would be a helpful extension as, clearly, communities may have significant interests in land on which only a few people in those communities work or live.
Tricia Marwick spoke about second homes and the housing shortage. There is a need for some action on that issue. Whether housing associations could indicate an interest in land was a good point to raise, as the housing shortage is of great concern to rural communities and needs to be addressed.
The land database has not been covered in this debate. Neither the white paper nor the progress report are particularly helpful on it. We need to know in much more detail, and within a reasonable time scale, what will happen about a land database that can tell us who owns what in Scotland.
We have a once-in-a-lifetime chance—it is certainly a once-in-a-decade chance. Although we have a new Parliament, the opportunities to legislate on this issue will be limited. We will not be able to come back in a year and legislate again, so we have to make an impact this time. Although we must allow sensible amendments to the legislation, we must not throw the baby out with the bath water. I urge members to support our amendment, which, I believe, merits their support.
The debate has given us all the opportunity to discuss the range of legislative and non-legislative measures that the Executive is bringing forward and the action that is covered by the land reform action plan. There are clearly many aspects to our policy—its cumulative impact will be significant.
This debate has been an excellent chance for the Executive to bring MSPs up to date with our wide-ranging proposals, but it has also been a valuable and informative opportunity to listen to the concerns and suggestions of MSPs from all parties.
It is worth stressing that there is no imposition in the legislation, which concerns a community's right to buy land where it becomes available. The decision to purchase the land will be subject to ballot. It is wholly wrong to suggest that the legislation will impose anything on any rural community. That lie has to be nailed here and now.
I was highly amused by the Conservative member—it may have been Phil Gallie; it often is—who left us with the image of central belt tykes with their Rottweilers and bad habits straining at the starter's pistol to disappear into the country and pollute the Highlands and Islands under this new, responsible right of access. The notion that this legislation will force people out of cities in the central belt to cause all sorts of mischief in the rural, remote parts of Scotland is a fallacy. The legislation is about a responsible right of access. It is about codifying what happens currently. It makes it clear to landowners and those who want to walk and have sensible recreation in the countryside what they are fairly allowed to do and what is expected of them.
Will the minister give way?
Not at the moment.
The legislation is also about creating local forums to ensure that all the interests that make up the countryside—landowners, farmers, local authorities and people using the countryside— have the opportunity to co-operate to deliver policies that protect the countryside as well as make it available for the use of all the people of Scotland.
The Executive's plans for legislation include three bills, covering feudal reform, community ownership and access, and national parks. We are delivering what we promised and we are doing so—I think that all members will agree—in a genuine spirit of openness. Regardless of whether members agree with the legislation, in whole or in part, we have conducted the process with openness. The consultation on the land reform white paper has thrown up many good ideas and has considerably helped the development of the legislation. That demonstrates the value of consultation. The Deputy First Minister has announced the way in which we intend to make improvements to the land reform bill as a consequence of that consultation.
I am particularly pleased that it will now be possible to include in the first bill provisions to create the crofting community right to buy. That is a critical measure for some of the most marginalised communities in the Highlands and Islands. The right to buy will create a genuine opportunity for those communities to take into their own hands their future well-being, in terms of housing, economic development and the ability to maintain vitality and population in the long term. I cannot stress too strongly how pleased I am that that is being included in this legislation.
Will that right to buy be extended to many of the absentee crofters whom I know, who live and work in Edinburgh?
I am not familiar with all the absentee crofters who are known to Mr Monteith. Perhaps we can continue that discussion later, when I know their circumstances.
Our plans for legislation, in the remainder of this session, focus on the reform of real burdens, sites of special scientific interest, agricultural holdings and crofting. Taken together, those issues will form a major part of the legislative programme for the lifetime of this Parliament.
Many of our plans do not require new legislation. For example, we are pressing ahead with the establishment of the Scottish land fund and we are putting in place codes of good practice for land ownership and land use. All that work is now well under way. We also have in hand plans for research and further study of a range of other issues. For example, we are considering making adherence to the codes a condition for the receipt of public assistance. That is an important point; it is relevant to several of the issues that have been raised today. A review of compulsory purchase and compensation legislation is well under way, and the Scottish Law Commission has been asked to recommend changes to the law of the foreshore and the sea bed. All those measures will lay the foundation for further action in due course. They are just a start, and certainly not the last word, on land reform.
I want to deal with some of the points that were made in the debate. I cannot hope to answer them all, as there were so many, but I will be more than happy to deal in writing with any that I miss out. Mr McLetchie raised the point that exceptional late registration lengthens the process and adds to landowners' costs. Clearly, that ministerial power is an exceptional one, which should be used only in exceptional circumstances. However, when a landowner is faced with extra costs as a direct result of those circumstances, compensation will be payable. That should address Mr McLetchie's concern.
Roseanna Cunningham raised several points, three of which I propose to deal with now. The first concerned whether voluntary codes would make a material difference. Our approach is to try voluntary persuasion first. A number of measures can be put in place alongside voluntary persuasion; they can take us a long way down that path. I have mentioned the most important of those—the establishment of codes for public sector assistance to public and private landlords, and the attachment of conditions that would help to enforce those codes. Those could make a substantive difference.
Will the minister give us an assurance that he will reject the old Labour socialist nationalisation ethic that the SNP amendment represents?
I do not think that I can give that assurance, as I do not fully understand the question.
Roseanna Cunningham expressed the concern that the codes of practice were to be introduced only by the end of 2000. That is the correct time scale. A clear message that emerged from the land reform policy group's consultation was that the land use codes should be subject to full consultation. We are trying to stand by our commitment to that and it is that timetable that dictates how early we will be able to introduce the codes. It is important that local consultation influences the land use code of practice. That will take time, but I am happy to give an assurance that there will be no unnecessary delays.
Roseanna Cunningham also asked where the money to support the legislation would come from. I think that she was saying that lottery money was not acceptable, but I was not entirely clear on that point and I do not want to misrepresent her views.
We were asked whether it was appropriate for money from tax payers or—more appropriate in this case—from lottery players to be used on the community right to buy. I believe that if British lottery players' money can be properly used to purchase the Churchill papers, it can certainly be properly used to facilitate communities' right to buy in Scotland.
The source of the money is not the issue; the control of the money is the problem.
I am happy to deal with that point and I will make two further ones.
The Executive will pay for administration costs and compensation in relation to this legislation. I am happy that the land fund will be able to help communities with the purchase price of the land as it becomes available. Scottish ministers will be closely involved with the development of the land fund; we are working on its composition at the moment. I expect there to be a very strong Scottish influence, if not a predominantly Scottish one, over the fund's management. That is something for further discussion and I am happy to return to it at a later date.
I think that it was Alex Johnstone who asked why the bill applied across all rural and remote Scotland. The land reform policy group proposed that the right to buy should be limited to fragile areas. The white paper, however, as Alex rightly suggests, extends the right across rural Scotland. The Executive wants the opportunities that the legislation will provide to be available to all rural communities, not to a restricted few. The extended consultation that has taken place has made it clear that an overwhelming majority is in favour of extending the legislation to cover all rural and remote Scotland. I hope that that answers the point about the structuring of the proposals.
Will you wind up now please, Mr MacKay?
I have not been able to deal with a number of points, as this has been a wide- ranging debate.
I finish by stressing the fact that the Executive has gone out of its way to make the process of consultation—which began before its existence— on land reform as thorough, open and lengthy as necessary, but within a time frame that allows it to deliver the legislation early in the new Parliament's programme. We are happy to take a consultative approach all the way through to the legislation's enactment. We will listen to all viewpoints as they continue to be aired—those that have been mentioned today and those that have not.
I commend the motion.