Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Thursday, March 21, 2019

Official Report 1100KB pdf

---

Land Reform

I ask members to shift their seats quickly. The next item is a debate on motion S5M-16445, in the name of Roseanna Cunningham, on land reform in Scotland.

15:09  

Land reform is a subject that has been relevant to Scotland for several hundred years, and I have to say that it sometimes seems as though I have been talking about it for several hundred years. However, the pace of change has been stepped up since the inception of the Parliament. We have legislated to enable communities to buy land, to establish the Scottish Land Commission and to require ministers to set out their vision for land reform through the Scottish land rights and responsibilities statement, which was published in September 2017. It is the first statement of its kind anywhere in the world, and it sets out a vision of a strong and dynamic relationship between Scotland’s land and its people whereby all land contributes to a modern and successful country and land rights and responsibilities are recognised and fulfilled.

In the foreword to the statement, I say that Scotland’s land is

“one of our most valuable assets.”

That remains true. Our land is at the heart of our environment, and it makes an important contribution to our economy in countless ways. It supports the lives that we lead, whether through housing, recreation, the production of food or any one of a myriad other ways. Land is vital to Scotland’s inclusive and sustainable economic growth and to social justice. Despite that, our relationship with land is unbalanced and has been for hundreds of years. Too much of our land is still owned by too few people; too much of our land—in both rural and urban areas—is unproductive; and too few of us are able to influence decisions about the use and management of land. Addressing those issues is at the core of the Scottish Government’s land reform agenda.

Some people think that the statement is not strong enough, while others think that it goes too far. I believe that the statement is an ambitious encapsulation of land reform. It is right that we challenge landowners to take their responsibilities seriously and that we expect good practice from everyone who makes decisions about land. I am determined that the land reform agenda will bring about real change that tackles deep-seated problems and finally allows everyone to benefit from Scotland’s land. The land rights and responsibilities statement will be at the core of our approach.

Community ownership has long been a prime focus for reformers, and the Scottish Government continues to support communities to take ownership of land and assets. Three forms of community right to buy are already in force and a fourth is being developed, and a healthy queue of communities are seeking to acquire land and assets for the long-term benefit of the community. The Scottish land fund provides £10 million per year to support communities and is an important part of the community ownership landscape. Communities do not need to use right-to-buy mechanisms to access the fund, and, this year, it will invest more than ever before, helping communities to take ownership of the land and buildings that matter to them.

To mark the 100th award made by the Scottish land fund, I recently visited the Pyramid in Anderston, Glasgow, which is an excellent example of a listed 20th-century church. The Pyramid has long served as a community hub, and it has now been bought by the community. It is significant that that award was made to a community in an urban area, as community right-to-buy legislation originally reflected the history of land reform and applied only to rural areas. However, as the value of community ownership became increasingly apparent, the Scottish Parliament legislated to extend the community right to buy to communities in urban areas. That the 100th award was made to a community in Glasgow for a mid-20th century church shows just how far community ownership has come.

Applications to the Scottish land fund are increasingly being made for smaller, more discrete projects that have specific purposes. Especially in urban areas, those projects might cover only small areas of land but the contribution that they make to the community can be huge. For that reason, as was recently recommended by the Scottish Land Commission, we will now seek to measure the growth of community ownership primarily by the number of communities who own land and assets rather than by the amount of land that is owned.

Land ownership is totally unbalanced in Scotland. If we move towards the purchase of smaller amounts of land, how will we change the fact that 50 per cent of land in Scotland is privately owned?

If Rhoda Grant listens to the rest of my speech, she will understand the direction of travel. We also want to reflect the importance of urban community ownership in the wider debate.

Historically, community ownership has been conflict driven. That is a fair estimate of how we saw community ownership beginning to develop, and conflict might continue to be a factor, particularly in the areas that Rhoda Grant is probably thinking about. However, I encourage communities to think about land ownership proactively, too. I want them to think about the kind of land and facilities that they need and to look for opportunities to acquire them. It should be the norm, not the exception, for communities to own land.

In November, the Scottish Land Commission published recommendations aimed at improving the processes for community ownership and enabling more communities to take advantage of its benefits. My officials are working with the Scottish Land Commission and other stakeholders to implement those recommendations, and I look forward to seeing the results of that.

Community ownership will always be a central goal of land reform, but we also have to tackle the deeply entrenched issues that affect the way in which Scotland’s land is owned, used and managed if we are to achieve our land reform ambitions. There are no easy solutions, but we are starting to address those issues.

The scope of the issues that the Scottish Land Commission is considering illustrates the complex and interconnected nature of land in Scotland. The commission has published discussion papers on land for housing, public interest-led development, human rights and the acquisition of land by public bodies. It has considered land value tax and land value capture as ways of changing Scotland’s long-term patterns of land ownership, and it is working to bring vacant and derelict land into productive use.

Just yesterday, the commission published perhaps its most challenging report so far, which looks at how we might tackle the scale and concentration of ownership of land in Scotland. The pattern of land ownership in Scotland is unlike the pattern anywhere else, for which there are complex historical reasons, and it is at the heart of the Scottish Government’s land reform agenda. If we do not fundamentally alter that pattern and change the framework that allowed it to develop and exist for so long, our land reform ambitions will ultimately be thwarted.

The debate was not initially intended to be about the Scottish Land Commission’s report—rather, the publication date was brought forward because of the debate. Nevertheless, the report informs the debate significantly.

The Land Commission has made a number of recommendations for tackling the scale and concentration of ownership and diversifying land ownership. They include the introduction of a public interest test that would apply to proposed land transactions over a certain size. The test would require the public interest to be considered before such transactions could take place, helping to ensure that the negative effects of the scale and, in particular, the concentration of ownership were kept in check.

The Land Commission has steered clear of recommending a blanket ban on people owning particular amounts of land or specific residency requirements; instead, it offers the public interest test as a way of providing important flexibility. That would certainly be a powerful tool to stop and reverse the ownership pattern that has hampered Scotland for so many years, but a great deal of work would be required to ensure that any such proposal was compliant with the European convention on human rights.

My officials will work with the Land Commission, stakeholders and other Scottish Government policy areas to consider how the report’s recommendations can be turned into workable policy.

In the past year or so, the commission has made recommendations that will allow us to drive forward change. Some, such as the public interest test or the proposed compulsory sale order, would need legislation. However, others are about culture change, and my officials and the Land Commission are working together with a wide variety of stakeholders to encourage new approaches to how we use and manage land.

Transparency in land ownership remains a key issue for debate. If a community does not know who owns land, it cannot influence how it is used or try to buy it, and landowners cannot be held to account if things go wrong. In 21st century Scotland, there can be no excuse for information about any type of land ownership being obscured. That is true whether the land is held by an individual who lives in Scotland or by a trust that is based in multiple countries. We are developing a new register that will make it clear who owns land and, ultimately, controls decisions about land. We have consulted on a first draft of regulations and we are considering the responses as we develop the regulations further.

I have outlined some of the key priorities for land reform, some of which we are already trying to address although it is likely to take a little longer before there is tangible change in respect of others. It is clear that, if we are to deliver meaningful change, we need to tackle a wide range of intertwined issues.

Considerations about land rarely exist in isolation; they are almost always connected to other issues, be they economic, cultural, environmental or social. That adds to the complexity of our challenge, but it also underlines the fundamental importance of land to Scotland’s future. Improving our relationship with Scotland’s land will have positive effects in many other arenas.

Some of the issues that I have mentioned require culture change to break long-established ways of thinking about land, whereas others will require us to re-engineer the relationship between land and other parts of public policy. Land reform will not be easy or quick to deliver, but it is important and it is absolutely necessary.

The Parliament has been supportive of land reform from the very beginning. The bill that became the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 was one of the first pieces of legislation that the Parliament considered, and it engendered a considerable degree of support across the chamber. However, the journey is emphatically not over. The support of the Parliament remains crucial if we are to achieve the transformative change that I have described, so I call on the Parliament to continue its long-standing support for land reform.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that land is one of Scotland’s most important assets; recognises the value of the Scottish Land Rights and Responsibilities Statement in providing a framework for land decisions and land management in Scotland; recognises the close relationship between land ownership and land use; agrees that community ownership of land should be the norm and not simply a response to market failure or disputes with landowners; recognises the importance of the Scottish Land Fund in supporting community land and asset buyouts; recognises that the work of the Scottish Land Commission is making a positive contribution to delivering the Scottish Government’s land reform agenda, and agrees the importance of ensuring that land reform continues to be a key policy priority to change the entrenched and inequitable pattern of land ownership in Scotland so that everyone can benefit from land.

15:20  

Before I start, I refer members to my entry in the register of interests, which says that I am a partner in a farming partnership. I also own land.

I hope that this will be an interesting debate. I believe that the Scottish Conservatives have played and always will play a constructive role in debates about land reform. In doing so, we have always been clear that we will support an individual’s property rights, whether they own a house, a croft, a farm or an estate—it will make no difference to us.

We have also been clear in saying that there are elements of land reform that we are happy to see progressed. Indeed, we support the moves towards transparency—as called for by the cabinet secretary—when it comes to who owns land and to ownership policy. It is sensible that the public should know who owns and manages the land.

We support community empowerment. Indeed, much of the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015 is based on United Kingdom Government legislation, which gave communities the right to bid, the right to build and the right to reclaim land. Finally, we support the growing diversity of land ownership, which includes private individuals, businesses, charities and communities. There is much that we have in common.

It is disappointing that we find ourselves unable to support the Government’s motion, which is because we do not believe that land reform is all about who owns what; what people do with the land that they own is more important. I recognise that land reform is a highly emotive subject. Having worked in the countryside for many years, I know that perhaps more than many others who express informed opinions on the subject from within a political bubble. I believe we can perhaps agree that if we are to address many of the issues, there is a need to be more dispassionate and to address the current issues, not the ones that existed before we started down the route of land reform in the Parliament many years ago.

Frankly, I am saddened that the Scottish Government and its agencies seem to be obsessing over ownership above all other considerations. As I said, it is not about who owns what or how much they own; it is what they do with the land that matters most. I think that the Government and all the parties represented in the Parliament should remember that.

I am saddened that the Labour Party also seems to be fixated on who owns what. As for the solution that Labour has put forward in its amendment, it is the same one that it puts forward every time: uncosted market intervention.

Mr Mountain says that we should not obsess over who owns land, and that it is how it is used and managed that matters. Why, then, is the landed class and indeed the Conservative Party so resistant to any notion of land reform? If ownership does not matter, surely Mr Mountain, for example, would be happy to hand his land over to me.

I think that the people I employ are happy that I look after and manage my business in the way that I work it, as it gives them a job and creates prosperity and taxation benefits for the people of Scotland.

I am disappointed that Labour members have not read the Scottish Land Commission’s report from yesterday, to which the cabinet secretary referred. Otherwise, they would have understood that their amendment would not work, because the annual land market is very small, and thus would not achieve the redistribution that they propose.

We are not prepared to support the Greens’ amendment, as it is based on the Scottish Land Commission’s report into land ownership. The report was published only yesterday. Although we need time to review it, it is fair to say that, upon first reading, we have deep reservations about many of the recommendations, which appear to us to be based on unsubstantiated evidence and figures that cannot be checked without much more information being put forward.

Will the member take an intervention?

I am going to make a bit of time. I will perhaps let the member intervene if there is an opportunity later.

I want to look at some of the comments in the Scottish Land Commission’s report, because I suspect that many members who are speaking in the debate will rely on it. Let us look at some of the examples that it contains. The report suggests that all the problems in the countryside are due to the actions of landowners, by which it—conveniently—appears to mean large landowners. One example quotes restrictions on development because of high rents. As a surveyor, I know that rents in towns and in the countryside are set by the market. Is it right that landlords with land holdings should charge lower rents because they have more assets? I do not think that that argument is sustainable.

Another example is about the inability of a rural business to expand because it did not own enough land. It suggests that the neighbouring landowner was at fault because it would not sell the business the extra land. That is a problem that all businesses face when they want to expand. It does not matter to me one iota whether that is in the countryside or the town: if a business does not have the land to expand on to, it must look for new premises. As a businessman, I have faced exactly the same problem.

Another example relates to a landowner being criticised by a community for charging high fees for a transaction. The landowner had asked that the purchaser bear the professional costs of a voluntary sale. That is the way that things work. If one person approaches another to sell them land, the costs are passed on to the person who wants to buy it. Why should the position be different in a rural scenario?

Gillian Martin rose—

Now I will take an intervention.

My point is not the one that I was going to make when I tried to intervene earlier. How would Edward Mountain react to another case that was mentioned in the report, in which a community received Scottish land fund money that was based on the market price for the land, but the owner later refused to sell and changed their mind because they wanted more money?

I cannot look at an example without its being substantiated. That is the problem with the report. Ms Martin will be well aware that sometimes when people are trying to buy houses and put in offers that they think will work, it turns out that they do not. Such transactions happen in the countryside, in towns and in business everywhere. However, if she cares to give me an example, I will certainly look at it.

It seems to me that none of the reasons that we have been given in the examples that I have quoted supports the premise that landowners should always agree to demands to cover costs, and subsidise land sales and transfers on the basis that they must support everyone who lives on or near the land that they occupy.

Interestingly, it is not just private landowners who are blamed in the report. In several instances, charitable trusts are blamed, too. I wonder whether that argument is valid. How many landowners have been challenged for breaching their charitable objectives—which it is relatively easy to do, according to the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator? I have not yet seen any case in which that has happened.

The report goes on to blame landowners for the way in which they use their land. Examples of new forestry being detrimental are an interesting case in point. However, I seem to remember that it is the Government that wants to see more forestry in Scotland—indeed, it will be needed if it is to reach its planting targets. I do not see how landowners can be blamed for creating more forestry if it is the Government’s policy to encourage it.

I am not so naive as to think that everything in the countryside is perfect. There will always be tensions in rural communities, whether they are surrounded by big landowners or small ones. That is why Scottish Conservatives support better engagement, but we need to be careful. Most farmers whom I know are delighted to engage with their neighbours, but it is unrealistic to expect those neighbours to dictate how farmers farm their land and manage their businesses. After all, farmers’ hands are guided by planning law, Government policy and regulations, and fiscal good sense. That is exactly as it should be.

I look forward to meeting representatives of the Scottish Land Commission to discuss the report and to seek more information on its findings and comments. However, at the moment, the report seems to have been written to support predetermined conclusions that do not reflect anything more than the misconceptions of some members of the commission.

I look forward to hearing the remainder of the debate. I hope that it will be based on informed comment, that we will not hear the heated and divisive arguments of old and that we will focus on the good progress that has been made since land reform and land management were last discussed in the Parliament. We have all agreed that the culture around how land should be managed has improved.

In 20 years, the Scottish Parliament has passed 19 acts containing land reform measures, including two land reform acts. Many of the changes brought about by the huge sweep of legislation are still bedding in and being tested, but I believe that progress is being made. There is clear evidence of good practice, where landowners and communities are working together and making mutually beneficial decisions on how to manage land.

By returning to the issue of land reform, Parliament is starting to lose sight of the progress that has been made. I urge all parties to move the debate forward and focus on the more pressing issues affecting rural communities and businesses, which do not base themselves on who owns what.

I move amendment S5M-16445.1, to leave out from “the value” to end and insert:

“; and welcomes the increasing diversity of land ownership, which includes charities as well as communities; acknowledges the close relationship between land ownership and land use; recognises the importance of the Scottish Land Fund in supporting community ownership, and believes that both communities and landowners work better together where both sides respect the needs of each other.”

15:30  

It is timely that the Scottish Government has lodged the motion for debate today, because it gives us an opportunity to reflect on what has been achieved in land reform. It also allows us to set out just how much more remains to be done to bring about fundamental change to the inequitable and unjust land ownership patterns that still exist in Scotland.

I am proud that it was Scottish Labour that introduced bills, shortly after the creation of this Parliament, that opened the door to radical changes in how we consider land ownership. One bill brought changes to end the still-lingering feudal powers that were associated with land, and the other firmly established in law the community right to buy and the right to roam freely and responsibly.

I, too, welcome the growth in community ownership that found new momentum following the passing of Labour’s Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003, which was supported by the Scottish National Party and other parties in Parliament. As a result of the movement towards greater community land ownership, we have heard those communities speak more confidently to reflect their experience of the law and how it has needed to develop, and to argue for further change in our land laws.

The work of Community Land Scotland in arguing on behalf of communities should be recognised today. As the minister said, there is much to celebrate in what community ownership delivers. There are signs of optimism for a sustainable future in places where it has, at times, seemed that there was no future. The growth in interest in land and other asset ownership in rural and urban Scotland is moving rapidly.

Every acre of land that has come into community ownership is a welcome acre, but at the current rate of progress, in 100 years the vast majority of land in Scotland will still be in the same ownership patterns that have endured for centuries. If we believe in greater social justice and a fairer Scotland, which many Scots claim they do, we can succeed in achieving that aim only with significant land reform.

Is it socially just that so few own so much land, that so many young people cannot find land or afford housing in their own communities, or that the whims of a few landowners can limit economic opportunity for the many? Is it socially just that so many people in our urban realm are consigned to living their lives next to vacant or derelict land with no environmental quality, or that our land markets operate such that only the privileged few and the wealthy elite can participate? Is it socially just that the land uses and environment of vast areas are decided by only one or two people, or that communities are denied the right to a sustainable future by virtue of the control that others can exercise?

For Labour, land reform is about community and about communities being empowered to take more control over their economic, social and environmental destiny. It is about the public interest. It is also, for Labour, a fundamental matter of justice: it is about the balance of power shifting from the few to the many, and the opportunity and wealth that can flow from ownership of one of our most fundamental assets—our land—being shared more equally among our people.

Land reform is one of the means through which to realise Labour’s vision of wider and more radical redistribution of power and wealth. It is a sad truth that, as matters stand, neither the current nor any previous land reform minister has had the powers to ask formally whether our current land arrangements act in the public interest. Communities that want to own land have to show that their interest in the land will serve the public interest and they have to gain, by democratic means, the consent of the people in the community for the land to be owned by the community.

Given the way in which Scotland’s land markets work, private owners need simply have a big enough cheque book—one man is in the process of becoming Scotland’s largest land owner by buying up estate after estate in the Highlands. As the cabinet secretary highlighted, in this, as in so much else, Scotland’s land laws fall far short of what other nations can do through long-established intervention powers to look after the public interest in land matters.

Land justice is part of delivering social justice. There should be limits to how much land can be owned by one person—a difficult issue, but Scottish Labour supports such a limit—or other ownership arrangement, unless it can be shown to work in the public interest and for the common good. Many landholdings in Scotland are, in effect, local land monopolies, and in many aspects of our national life we regulate monopolies to ensure that they cannot exploit their power against the public interest.

Will the member take an intervention?

No—I am sorry. I have not got time. I have very few minutes.

It is time for a powerful land regulator to examine whether existing ownership helps or hinders in serving the public interest, in fulfilling people’s human rights and in delivering greater social justice. If it cannot be shown that actions can be taken to impact on land ownership behaviours to deliver necessary change, powers are needed that should include the potential break-up of landholdings that are exploiting their monopoly position. The minister refers in the motion to the good work of the Scottish Land Commission. It has made a promising start, but as Scottish Labour’s amendment makes clear, we need it to deliver for us the detailed thinking and proposals that will allow further progress towards ensuring that the public interest is met in land ownership. In that context, we will support the Green Party amendment.

How can we provide disincentives to the creation of large landholdings in the future, possibly through a range of fiscal mechanisms? I welcome the Scottish Land Commission’s report and its recommendations that would create radical change by means of statutory change, but also through targeted policy work and voluntary collaboration. Many of the recommendations would have a huge impact in addressing land inequity.

We will support the Scottish Government motion. If the cabinet secretary acts to secure further radical progress on those fronts, she will have the support of Scottish Labour and, indeed, Labour in doing that. If she does not—although I have faith in the collective experience of most members in the chamber—Labour in Government here, and in the UK, will instruct the SLC to provide Parliament with the options that it needs to act for greater change in land ownership, in order to deliver land justice for Scotland and to end centuries of the injustice that is inherent in how our land is owned.

I move amendment S5M-16445.3, to insert at end:

“; and assets, both rural and urban, across the country, and urges the Scottish Government to support the recommendations of the Scottish Land Commission on how to deliver interventions in the operation of Scotland’s land markets and ownerships that will provide disincentives to the future accrual of large privately owned land holdings and help deliver a more equitable distribution in the ownership of Scotland’s land assets in the public interest.”

15:37  

I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for this timely debate. As she noted, land reform is a difficult process to deal with. As the Government motion hints, an entrenched set of circumstances that have been brought about by a very long history. It is a history in which men who owned land and property had the exclusive right to sit in Parliament and make the laws that govern ownership of that land. They were men who ensured that primogeniture was abolished only in 1964; that, to this day, children have no legal right to inherit land in Scotland; and that a wide range of exemptions from tax apply to land and estates—exemptions that do not apply to other property owners. As other members have said, Parliament has taken important steps to reverse that entrenched system, but there remains a very long way to go.

I will define what I mean by land reform. I take the definition from the land reform review group that the Scottish Government set up, which reported in 2014. It defined land reform as

“measures that modify or change the arrangements governing the possession and use of land in Scotland in the public interest.”

That implies a wide range of measures dealing with all land—urban, rural, marine, public and private. It is about fiscal policy, succession law, planning, land tenure and many other areas of law and policy. It is not synonymous with community ownership.

Fundamentally, this is a debate about power—specifically, about how power is derived, defined, distributed and exercised. I therefore welcome the focus in yesterday’s Scottish Land Commission report, which talks about “the concentration of power”. I am reminded of Tony Benn’s famous five questions, which he would ask of people who purported to hold power. They are:

“what power do you have; where did you get it; in whose interests do you exercise it; to whom are you accountable; and, how can we get rid of you?”

and claimed that

“Anyone who cannot answer the last of those questions does not live in a democratic system.”—[Official Report, House of Commons, 16 Nov 1998; Vol 319, c 685.]

I think that that is a good test for Scotland’s system of land tenure.

The core challenge that Parliament faces is how to redistribute power over land in the public interest—in the interest of the many, not the few. In short, it is about how to democratise land. The Scottish Land Commission report is refreshingly clear, analytical and nuanced, and provides a frank assessment of the problem.

For too long, much of the land reform debate has been conducted in soundbites. I have indulged in a good deal of that myself, in an effort to be taken seriously and to attract attention. Easy slogans and simplistic analysis have too often taken the place of patient diagnosis.

I have long held the view that ownership, occupation and use of land are questions of power. As the Scottish Land Commission notes, power can be—and is—abused. It can, however, also be exercised with great responsibility and diligence. The report talks about monopolies and market power and of rent seeking as the “hallmark” of market power. It is important that it also distinguishes how power is exercised from how it is obtained, by recognising that although power can be exercised in damaging ways and in responsible ways, it is the very existence of that power that needs to change. The future of communities in Scotland should not rely on the arbitrary manner in which power is obtained through land markets or inheritance, or is exercised by way of land use.

My amendment would do two things. First, it would replace the term “community ownership” with “common ownership”. Common ownership includes community ownership but recognises that other forms of common ownership—including common good land, parish commons, land that is held by local councils and common grazings—“should be the norm”. I hope that members can agree that that more inclusive term is helpful and would do nothing to take away from the importance of community ownership. My amendment concludes by inviting Parliament not to agree the recommendations of the report but to endorse its findings. I hope that members can support that.

This Parliament began life by enacting a wide range of legislation—as Claudia Beamish noted—dealing with tenements, national parks, crofting community right to buy, the right to roam and feudal powers abolition. By 2007, it had lost its way on the topic. Momentum declined and little more was done until the land reform review group was established.

The Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2016 followed, which established the Scottish Land Commission. For some, the Scottish Land Commission was regarded as another tiresome quango. I was always very aware that land reform is difficult. The existing set-up is deep-seated and entrenched and the presence of an agency that is committed to study, analysis and advice on the topic is critical.

Opposition to change is vigorous and determined. The establishment of the Scottish Land Commission ensures that important elements of the debate are not forgotten, and it allows for detailed analysis to be conducted to inform public debate. Its latest report is a good example of that.

What we hear from the Conservative Party and the landed class is a master class in distraction. The idea that ownership of and power over land do not matter, and that, in a great clamour of whataboutery, we should look at how it is used, has been a common theme from politicians such as Mr Mountain, to whom I readily give way.

I hardly think that that is my “common theme”, Presiding Officer.

To quote the Land Commission’s report, it gives a “Summary of Macro Themes Identified in the Call for Evidence”. There are five themes. Respondents think that large landownership brings advantage under the themes of local economics and the natural environment and they are undecided on agriculture. Of the five themes, on three of them, respondents say that big landownership is not a problem, and on two, they say that it is. Does Andy Wightman accept that?

I confess that I have not read the report in enough detail to come to a conclusive view on that. I suspect that that might be a selective reading of what is written.

The report is a wake-up call. We need action, and in my closing speech later this afternoon, I will highlight a couple of examples in which flagrant abuse has arisen as a consequence of our collective failure to put in place democratic governance arrangements for land ownership.

For the moment, I look forward to hearing what other members have to say, and I encourage members to support my amendment.

I move amendment S5M-16445.2, to leave out from “community ownership” to end and insert:

“common ownership of land should be the norm and not simply a response to market failure or disputes with landowners; recognises the importance of the Scottish Land Fund in supporting community land and asset buyouts; recognises that the work of the Scottish Land Commission is making a positive contribution to delivering the Scottish Government’s land reform agenda; agrees the importance of ensuring that land reform continues to be a key policy priority to change the entrenched and inequitable pattern of land ownership in Scotland so that everyone can benefit from land, and endorses the findings of the Scottish Land Commission’s investigation into the issues associated with large-scale and concentrated ownership in Scotland.”

15:44  

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate on land reform. It is still a source of pride for me that the Scottish Liberal Democrats put land reform right at the heart of the legislative programme in the early years of the Parliament, promoting rights of access and delivering the community right to buy and the crofting community right to buy through the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003. That was always envisaged to be a first step, in the recognition that an incremental approach would be necessary in taking forward a genuinely ambitious land reform agenda. It began the process of addressing a policy area that had been ignored for far too long, and it signalled powerfully the positive difference that a devolved Parliament could and should make.

As the SPICe Spotlight blog highlights,

“Prior to devolution, Government policy on land reform was widely considered to be conspicuous by its absence.”

The blog concludes that

“the development of land reform as a distinctive policy area, centred on communities and sustainable development, is perhaps one of Parliament’s more noteworthy actions.”

Of course, Conservative MSPs in successive parliamentary sessions have for whatever reason felt the need to oppose almost every phase of the land reform agenda. I even recall some members referring to Mugabe-style power grabs. I agree that the case for an absolute right to buy has still not been made, but I do not accept that there is not more that we can and should do to reform how land is owned and managed, how decisions about its use are taken and how the benefits of one of Scotland’s most important assets are felt.

Edward Mountain’s earlier comments were characteristically considered but, sadly, his amendment gives the impression that, even now, Tory members do not accept the need for further reform. After they have been dragged kicking and screaming to this point, the remainder of the journey seems likely to follow a similar pattern. That is unfortunate, not least because Mr Mountain and a number of his colleagues have a great deal to contribute to the debate.

Underlying the case for reform is the Scottish land rights and responsibilities statement from 2017, which refers to a Scotland

“where all land contributes to a modern and successful country, and where rights and responsibilities in relation to land are fully recognised and fulfilled.”

It would be difficult for anyone to disagree with that sentiment, although I recognise that people will come to different conclusions in response.

The Scottish Land Commission has done excellent work in pulling together key themes as well as offering a number of recommendations for the way forward. Edward Mountain is right to say that it will take a little time to digest the detail—indeed, the commission accepts that it will need to consult extensively on its proposals before coming to a final view.

Given the proposals’ significance, it seems inevitable that there will be a lively debate about them, and that is to be welcomed and encouraged. However, it would be premature at this stage for the Parliament to call on the Government to accept all the recommendations, so I do not support the amendment in Claudia Beamish’s name. By contrast, Andy Wightman calls on us to accept the findings of the commission’s report, and I have less difficulty with that. The commission has taken extensive evidence so far, and the analysis appears to be reasonably balanced and to take account of the wide range of arguments on the issue.

The decisions that the Government and the Parliament should take on the back of the commission’s findings are for another day, but Scottish Liberal Democrats are certainly happy to support the findings. In particular, I recognise the pressing need to bring more transparency to who owns land. That is critical, whatever decisions or approach we take. If nothing else, clarity over ownership is fundamental to accountability and to equity when it comes to paying taxes.

However, it is clear that such clarity and transparency are some way off. Andy Wightman recently described the Scottish land information system as “next to useless” and, to her great credit, Kate Forbes did not entirely dispute that view, although she used rather more ministerial language.

It is clear that there are many aspects to the issue that are worthy of debate, but I will use the remainder of my time to focus on the valuable contribution that the Scottish land fund makes. That collaborative initiative between the Scottish Government, the Big Lottery Fund and Highlands and Islands Enterprise awarded more than £500 million in 2017-18, which made a significant contribution to communities across the country.

In my Orkney constituency, sizeable awards were made last November to three development trusts. More than £147,000 was awarded to Westray Development Trust for the purchase of the former harbour master’s house in Pierowall, which will be transformed into four apartments for affordable rent that will help to respond to the acute shortage of accommodation on the island.

Rousay, Egilsay and Wyre Development Trust was granted £260,000 for the purchase of the Trumland estate on Rousay, which took 15 per cent of the island into community hands. Community ownership will create part-time employment opportunities for a project manager and a ranger, as well as allowing the trust to explore improvements to broadband and mobile connectivity. Finally, Papay Development Trust received £187,000 to purchase a four-bedroom detached house that will help to meet the urgent need for long-stay affordable family homes for rent on the island.

The land fund was set up to help to build resilience in communities across the country, and there is no question but that those three projects will do exactly that.

From my regular visits to the isles in recent years—and having been brought up on Sanday, one of the north isles—I know how much of a priority the availability of housing has been. Without suitable accommodation, it becomes impossible to create and sustain jobs in the isles. Ultimately, giving communities the tools that they need to address the specific challenges that they face and take advantage of the opportunities that they have is absolutely the right approach.

That, in a sense, encapsulates for me what land reform should be about. On that basis, we in the Scottish Liberal Democrats are committed to playing our full part in taking forward the next phase of this important agenda.

We move on to the open debate.

15:50  

Since the passing of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill in 2003, we have had a chance to reflect on whether Scotland’s communities are thriving as a result. In the short six months for which I have been convener of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee, I have been party to a number of key land reform developments—the scrutiny of the Scottish Crown Estate Bill, for one; and, for another, the development of a register of persons with a controlling interest in land as the mechanism for identifying who owns what in all areas of the country. The first should ensure that the Crown estate exists largely for public good and will boost local economic and social potential, while the second should go a long way towards solving one of the main historical problems associated with identifying landowners. Crucially, it puts in place obligations for landowners to engage with correspondents.

A third development, which happened yesterday and which members have already referred to, is the publication of the Scottish Land Commission’s report on large-scale and concentrated ownership in Scotland. In reviewing whether we still have work to do to ensure that the current pattern of ownership is benefiting us all, the report is significant and challenging. One sentence in it immediately drew my eye:

“There is an urgent need for formal mechanisms to be put in place that would enable harmful land monopolies to be identified and changes in either ownership and/or management practice to be implemented that would protect fragile rural communities from the irresponsible exercise of power.”

When asked yesterday about the Scottish Land Commission’s recommendation that the Government puts in place such mechanisms, a Conservative member in this place called such a move “stealing”. Such language is unhelpful and I was surprised to hear the rights of communities to fair treatment and social justice being dismissed so bluntly.

One thing that is very clear to me is that there is a huge difference between responsible and irresponsible land ownership. I am sure that, in this debate, many colleagues will point to examples of responsible ownership, with landowners working collaboratively with communities for their mutual benefit and successful transfers of land assets into the hands of communities. There are so many good news stories that show how the 2003 act has opened up opportunities, and there are cases of large landowners putting significant effort and investment into communities, which is to be applauded.

However, it is of great concern that many respondents to the Scottish Land Commission felt strongly that their communities were being stifled through their economic and social potential being diminished in myriad ways. They identified particular types of landowner who are still an issue. First, there are landlords who actively engage negatively with communities. One respondent highlighted a case of an excellent landlord who worked well with the community; however, he left his estate to his son, who was hostile to the community and actively undid his father’s good work. Others referenced a refusal to renew long-standing tenancy agreements, and in one example a landowner refused permission for a community-run wind turbine on aesthetic grounds, only to install his own turbine later that year. The report also references problems with absentee landlords who appear only occasionally to indulge in sporting activities and show no other interest in the estate or the community around it.

What I find particularly significant is the view that a dominant landowner’s ability to control the supply of housing is a key driver of depopulation and economic decline in rural areas. The Land Commission heard from communities that want to build affordable housing who, having secured capital from the Scottish land fund based on the market value of land after a landlord indicated that they would be willing to sell, were thwarted because he demanded much more than the market value. The report also mentions an unnamed charitable organisation refusing a crofter the right to upgrade their home to make it warm and bring it into the 21st century. The woman ended up living in a caravan.

Testimony about the tactics that some landlords have used to keep communities in line or to disempower them was quite distressing to read, from estate factors being sent to intimidate and identify those with tied housing who went to public meetings—

I remember reading that part of the report, which relates to a factor sitting at the front of a meeting and taking notes. One person found that intimidating. I have been a factor and I have taken notes at meetings before reporting back on the comments that those who were giving evidence made. Does the member accept that that might not always be viewed as intimidation? Such behaviour was viewed in one case, by one person, as intimidation.

Unlike Edward Mountain, who seems to be dismissive of some people’s testimony, I have read the whole testimony—

It was one person.

When one person comes to my constituency surgery and says that they have a problem with someone, I do not ask how many other people are affected or for proof that the issue affects more people. I take the person at face value.

I am running out of time because I took that intervention, so I will skip a part of my speech.

Negative experiences might be few and far between, but we must ask how irresponsible land ownership can be dealt with and whether land monopolies are good for Scotland.

I question whether it is in the public interest for solely conifers to be planted on large tracts of Scotland’s land as an investment opportunity and to attract Government grants. There seems to be a lot of that kind of thing going on. Could such land be used more productively to give livelihoods to new entrant farmers? Could it be used to provide much-needed rural housing? Could it be used to plant a range of indigenous trees that would nurture much-needed biodiversity?

We have seen how land reforms by this Government and previous Governments have benefited communities in Scotland, but the report shows that there is a need to do more. Of particular interest is the idea of having public-interest tests in order to tackle the powerful monopolies that exist in certain geographical areas. The report makes some interesting recommendations, on which I hope to be able to question the Scottish Land Commission, stakeholders and the Government in the near future.

15:56  

I am pleased to speak in this debate a week after I spoke in Andy Wightman’s members’ business debate on who owns Scotland. The subject of land reform in Scotland has long been debated in the chamber. Indeed, since 1999, 19 acts of the Parliament have contained some form of land reform measures. Like Edward Mountain, I welcome moves towards transparency in land ownership, which was mentioned by the cabinet secretary.

However, we must be mindful of the rights of individual owners, particularly in light of the events south of the border that involved vegan protesters obtaining names and addresses online and using that information to target farms and farmers, causing damage and severe distress to those involved. I hope that the Scottish Government will commit to introducing protective measures as part of wider land reform to ensure that farmers and other landowners are not open to intimidation in relation to the land that they own or the legal use of that land.

As the MSP for the Galloway and West Dumfries constituency, I have always highlighted the damaging centralisation from the Scottish Government on a number of issues, so it is only right that I welcome steps that are taken to empower local communities. However, we should ensure that the focus is on good land management and use, and not necessarily on who owns the land.

Yesterday’s report from the Scottish Land Commission will no doubt play a significant part in this afternoon’s debate. I wish to put on record my concerns about the failure of the report to recognise the huge contribution that is made by many rural landowning businesses, which provides substantial support to local economies.

I was disappointed that even the report’s title—“Investigation into the Issues Associated with Large Scale and Concentrated Land Ownership in Scotland”—set an unfortunate tone. The report apparently shows how the concentration of social, economic and decision-making powers significantly impacts on communities across rural Scotland. Where is the information about the significant positive impacts on the communities that benefit from large-scale and concentrated land ownership?

The member expresses concern about the report’s title. Does he accept that there are issues associated with large-scale and concentrated land ownership in Scotland, or is he saying that those arguments are make-believe?

Not at all. There are some issues, but the report should have been balanced and should have recognised that there are some benefits to be gained from large-scale ownership.

We should look at the big picture and consider whether the impacts of large-scale and concentrated land ownership are significant compared with the impacts of local planning policy or, more important, Government policy in relation to forestry targets, peat restoration targets, renewable energy targets or, indeed, agricultural production targets.

There has not been a cry from the public for further land reform. Because the agenda has been driven by the Scottish Government, there is a risk that that could herald a one-sided debate when it comes to future land reform and land ownership. Quite wrongly, the idea has been planted that concentrated land ownership puts fragile communities at risk. There have been some fantastic examples of landowners and communities working closely together in my constituency. As well as the work of the Mull of Galloway Trust, there is the example of Kirkcudbright Community Trust’s takeover of Barrhill woods

When I was a councillor on Dumfries and Galloway Council, I was delighted to see the benefits of concentrated land ownership in the village of Dalton. On the Dormont estate, eight new homes were created that met low-energy standards that were well above the UK standards. Much credit should be given to Jamie Carruthers for the two and three-bedroomed houses that he built in response to his concerns about the lack of rural housing. He is not a large landowner, but he was determined to fix a problem with housing in rural Dumfries and Galloway. After carrying out surveys and fighting a long battle with local planners and road authorities, he eventually managed to get the houses built with the support of a Scottish Government grant.

Those award-winning houses benefit the community by, for example, keeping children in the village school. The question is whether Jamie Carruthers would have passed the fairness test that is supported by the Scottish Land Commission and the Scottish Government. Would they have seen it as wrong that the estate owner owned all the land and all the houses? I fear that Jamie Carruthers might well have failed that test. When, as housing minister, Kevin Stewart visited the Dormont estate in 2017, he welcomed the creation of more rural housing and recognised the role of the Passivhaus approach in helping to remove the threat of fuel poverty. Can we not celebrate the fact that such concentrated ownership works, instead of moving the goalposts at every opportunity when it comes to land reform?

Another issue to do with land reform that I would like to mention is people’s rights and responsibilities with regard to accessing land and the freedom to roam. I have been dealing with a constituent who lives in the village of Ringford, where a core path has been installed at his address. He believes that that is in direct contravention of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003, as well as the 2005 Scottish outdoor access code. He has raised a number of concerns to do with privacy, as the core path gives a clear view into his home, which presents a security risk. He is also unable to allow his pets to roam. Furthermore, there are issues with horses using the path and causing damage to the driveway that he owns. If the core path were to be established now, it would be considered to be unlawfully sited. Will the cabinet secretary commit to ensuring that local authorities follow the right guidelines on the siting of core paths and that, when it comes to land use, owners’ rights and responsibilities are correctly respected?

Today’s debate comes at a hugely important juncture in the process of land reform across Scotland. I believe that, in its approach, the Scottish Government does not recognise the good work that is being done in our rural communities by landowners and communities working together and following good land management practice. Where landowners are working with communities and making a substantial difference on a daily basis, we must ensure that any reforms truly benefit our rural communities.

16:03  

I welcome today’s debate on land reform in Scotland and agree with the cabinet secretary that land is one of Scotland’s most important assets. It is because of that that any consideration of land reform should be scrutinised in depth. We must ensure that any reforms create a more equal society when it comes to land ownership, land purchasing and land use. It will take many years to fully rectify the impact of the feudal system that was abolished by Labour in the early life of the Parliament, but progress is being made.

However, I think that we can be bolder on ownership through new policy such as what was set out this week by the Scottish Land Commission. We should also be much more open to the potential role of land value tax, wider taxation and fiscal policy on land. The redistribution of wealth has always been key to Labour’s political agenda as a method for reducing inequality, tackling poverty and addressing the inherent failures in our society that allow a mass accumulation of money for a select few while others strive daily just to get by.

Land wealth is as much of an issue as monetary wealth. Indeed, with an estimated total value of about £5 trillion, land is the most valuable asset in the UK. When 432 people own 50 per cent of Scotland’s private rural land, it is obvious that our modern land system has an in-built inequality. Therefore, the question of land reform is incredibly important and, if it is done in the right way, it has the potential to radically transform our society for the better by creating a more equal, fairer and even more productive country.

It is also important to raise the issue of land management as outlined by the Scottish Tenant Farmers Association. It has highlighted that two large land agency firms are factoring a significant proportion of the tenanted sector, resulting in tenants being subjected to further inequalities. The association said:

“The experiences of farm tenants in areas of concentrated land ownership within the tenanted sector demonstrate the ability for large landowners to exercise disproportionate influence and power. In contrast, in areas where the large estates have been sold and have a more fragmented ownership structure, a new tenanted sector has developed where there is a better balance of power between landowner and tenant. These areas benefit from improved fairness and equality, have more confident and resilient communities, and demonstrate increased investment and entrepreneurialism.”

Therefore, the question remains: how do we best reform our land system for the benefit of the country as a whole and not simply a select few who make vast sums of money from the land that belongs to us all?

As I said, I welcome the Scottish Land Commission’s report and commend it for its work investigating the issues associated with large-scale ownership and concentrated land ownership. The report’s findings and recommendations are an excellent starting point for looking at ways to address the inadequacies of current land ownership and land management.

It seems strange to me that we have a system whereby there is no obligation to use land in the public interest. I agree with the Scottish Land Commission’s recommendation that that needs to be addressed, and having a public interest test for significant land transfers or acquisitions is a step in the right direction. That ties in with further recommendations for landholdings to engage on and publish management plans, for a new review process where there is evidence of adverse impact and for more robust mechanisms to ensure local democratic influence on and benefit from land use change.

Although I welcome strengthening community right to buy and the recommendation to investigate policy options to encourage a more diverse pattern of private ownership and investment, those changes will take considerable time to come through.

I have spoken about land value tax and general taxation. My view is that we can do something now. We can take a short-term action for the long term to address some of the issues of inequality through a model of land value taxation.

If we want Scotland’s land to work for the many, we should not be timid in our approach, nor should we be put off by those who act in the interest of the few. I hope that the Scottish Land Commission’s report and today’s debate will generate cross-party co-operation to bring about the needed change in land ownership and how land is taxed.

16:09  

Land ownership has been contentious for centuries, but Scottish policy on land is now increasingly rooted in questions of fairness, equality and human rights.

I am proud of the actions that this Government has taken to remedy some inequities relating to land ownership, building on the work of previous Administrations. From the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2016, which empowered more communities to own and have a say about land, to the Scottish land rights and responsibilities statement—the first of its kind in the world—and the Scottish land fund, important steps have been taken towards ending the hegemony of the landed gentry in Scotland.

Nevertheless, Scotland still has the most concentrated pattern of private land ownership in Europe. It is estimated that half of Scotland’s privately owned land is in the ownership of just 400 individuals.

Just as the isle of Arran, in my constituency, is often described as “Scotland in miniature” because of its landscapes, the island’s land ownership pattern is illustrative of a wider issue. By 2015, Brodick beach had all but disappeared, as a consequence of the rapid erosion precipitated by the practice of extracting sand for export, years earlier. Erosion also threatens the village green in Lamlash.

Both areas are important, not only for the thousands of people who visit Arran each year but for local residents, who rely on those outdoor spaces for a variety of community events and activities. However, the future of such spaces lay at the mercy of Arran Estates, the land management company that is controlled by the Fforde family, which has owned large swathes of the island for more than six centuries, since a fruitful marriage in the 15th century.

North Ayrshire Council received criticism for—supposedly—permitting the erosion of Brodick beach and the village green in Lamlash, but the council’s reluctance to spend six-figure sums of public money on land that was in the Ffordes’s private ownership was understandable. The family then gifted some of the most eroded areas to North Ayrshire Council, thereby wiping out its liability to deal with the erosion, which is now the taxpayer’s responsibility.

North Ayrshire Council has to lease more than 50,000 square metres of land from Arran Estates, at a cost of tens of thousands of pounds each year, to access the semi-industrial area to the south of Brodick and areas of Brodick, Lamlash and the foreshore in Whiting Bay.

The situation encapsulates the environmental, economic and social detriment that concentrated land ownership can have on our communities.

Yesterday saw publication of the most substantial piece of research into the impact of large-scale and concentrated land ownership in Scotland. “Investigation into the Issues Associated with Large scale and Concentrated Landownership in Scotland” throws up many issues for this Parliament and the Scottish ministers to examine, discuss and, I hope, remedy. Previous reports focused on relatively small, in-depth case studies, but for this report the Scottish Land Commission, which this Government set up in 2016, heard from 407 stakeholders, who ranged from landowners and managers to tenants and community representatives.

The evidence that the commission gathered showed that most of the disadvantages associated with Scotland’s current pattern of land ownership relate to the concentration of social, economic and decision-making power, and not simply to the size or scale of landholdings.

The concentrated land ownership that we have can impede economic development. The Land Commission found that that is causing significant and long-term harm to impacted communities. For example, rural economic development relies on businesses’ and housing providers’ ability to access land for expansion and their confidence to invest. If ownership is too concentrated, a few landowners can control the position and the economic health of the area lies in their hands.

As the commission described in its report,

“the anti-development stance of some landowners”

might be

“motivated by a desire to preserve land as a ‘playground for very wealthy people’, with one respondent claiming that ‘the people who live here play second fiddle to whatever is best for the pheasant.’”

Island communities are particularly vulnerable in that regard. The book “Dr Green of Sussex and the Island of Raasay” tells the story of how an absentee landowner in the 1970s refused to allow construction of a pier. That caused huge damage to the island’s fragile community. A £12 million pier was eventually built by this Government.

It is unfortunate that, as a number of submissions to the commission stated, there is little or no redress for communities or individuals who suffer adverse economic or social impacts arising from land being owned by a single individual or organisation, and the opportunity for communities to participate in decisions relating to the use of land is severely limited.

In the light of the negative effects of concentrated land ownership, the commission made recommendations, which were directly informed by the evidence that it had heard, to redress adverse impacts and stimulate a more diverse pattern of land ownership.

For example, the commission recommended that the Scottish Government introduce a public interest test for significant land transfers and acquisitions. Such an approach is used in other countries, including South Africa, and would protect the public interest and limit the negative impact on local economies and communities. Of course, the criteria for triggering a public interest test would need careful consideration, but the recommendation should certainly be considered.

The commission also recommended that all substantial landholdings publish a management plan. That is a realistic and reasonable suggestion, which would require landowners to demonstrate how their management delivers on the land rights and responsibilities statement and connects with local priorities, opportunities and public policy. The approach would improve transparency and encourage greater community collaboration, mitigating risks that are associated with concentration of ownership.

It is imperative that this Parliament considers how we foster a more diverse and dynamic pattern of private and community ownership. The report puts to bed the question whether ownership is an issue and provides us with the evidence base to enable us to understand the issues that concentrated land ownership creates, and how they can be addressed.

The monopoly of land ownership in Scotland intersects a variety of legislative and policy areas, and I am pleased that the Scottish Government will work closely with the Scottish Land Commission to consider its recommendations. I do not doubt that the recommended reforms would benefit local communities, by increasing transparency and repairing harm that has been inflicted over many generations, to many people and many communities.

16:15  

I declare an interest as a farmer and food producer, and as a member of NFU Scotland.

I welcome the debate and the publication of the Scottish Land Commission report yesterday. At the outset, let me say how disappointed I am with the report. At the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee this week, Andrew Thin and Hamish Trench went to great lengths to say that the report would be evidence based. I am afraid that I do not believe that their assertion stands up to any reasonable analysis. On the contrary, the report appears to make significant recommendations that are based on subjective evidence from a small group of people who, in my view, are not representative of the majority of people in rural Scotland, and the recommendations are at odds with the Scottish Government’s own research that was carried out in 2016.

As someone who has spent a lifetime among the people of rural Scotland, in some of the poorest communities, I simply do not recognise, nor have I come across, the views that are being called evidence, such as that concentration of land ownership is a problem for the people of rural Scotland. On the contrary, I have found land and estate owners who take what they see as their duties to help and support local communities seriously, and often at considerable personal expense.

Will the member take an intervention?

I am afraid that I do not have time, but I thank Mr Wightman for the offer.

I have heard—and the evidence in the report confirms—that there are real problems with non-governmental organisations, which do not see it as their role to consider the needs of local communities, given the narrow focus of their remits.

I know that the Scottish Government is among the largest landowners in Scotland, so I am particularly interested to hear how the Scottish Government intends to respond to the report’s suggestion that large parcels of land that are owned by individuals or institutions should be split up to avoid “concentrations of power”.

I am aware of land and estate owners doing all that they can to support Government policy by planting trees and taking welcome Government grants to do so, which was one of the concerns that was raised by those who give evidence for the report. I am aware of land and estate owners supporting Government policy by welcoming wind farms and small-scale hydroelectric developers on to their land, to help decarbonise our energy supply, and to help in the fight against climate change. I am sure that we look forward to discussing that at next week’s Scottish Green Party debate.

I am aware of landowners’ and managers’ constant battles with local authorities to get planning permission to build all sorts of housing in rural Scotland, with planning policy being directed by Government policy and legislation. I am aware of the lack of available tenancies, which was raised by the Scottish Tenant Farmers Association, but even it recognises that that issue is entirely the product of Scottish Government legislation.

I am aware of growing levels of isolation in rural Scotland, particularly among the elderly, which is exacerbated by the reduction of bus services, which has also been driven by Scottish Government policy. I am aware of the increases in mental health issues, drug abuse and suicide in rural Scotland; again, little is being done to address those things.

Those are some of the real problems that the people of rural Scotland are facing. Usually, I see the blame for such problems being laid at the feet of the Scottish Government, and very rarely at the feet of the local landowner. The problems are different completely from the perceived problems that are set out in the report, which appears to have started with a conclusion and then scratched about to find the weakest of evidence—mostly anecdotal—to support its politically driven conclusions.

I would have expected more from the Scottish Land Commission report, which appears, at its most fundamental level, to have taken a small number of long-held local grievances and used them as evidence to support the politically driven agenda of those who stand behind it. I would have expected more from the Scottish Government, which should set about addressing the very real problems of rural Scotland, rather than those that are being debated today. The report is not reflective of the reality of rural Scotland. It should be dismissed, because it does not take a balanced view of the realities in rural Scotland. Perhaps even more alarmingly, it does not endeavour to do so.

16:20  

I refer members to my entry in the register of member’s interests: I own a non-domestic property in the Western Isles, which is situated in an estate that is subject to a live community buyout attempt. Negotiations are at a sensitive and challenging stage so I will not be making any further mention of it in this speech.

I am proud to have been involved in the former Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee’s work on the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2016. The passage of that bill is the legislation that I have most enjoyed working on since entering Parliament in 2011.

Before I go any further in my speech, I note that the independent land reform review group, which reported back in 2014, in advance of the land reform bill, made 60 recommendations, but stated that there was

“no single measure, or ‘silver bullet’, which would modernise land ownership patterns in Scotland and deliver land reform measures which would better serve the public interest.”

However, our committee, and subsequently the 2016 act, took account of some of the review group’s recommendations, and I am delighted to say that we saw a significant piece of legislation created for land reform, land management and communities across Scotland. That act, coupled with the Community Empowerment Act (Scotland) 2015—another bill that I was pleased to work on—has helped to move land reform forward significantly from the early days of the Scottish Parliament and the ground-breaking land reform acts of 2003 and 2004.

At that time, the RACCE Committee paid specific attention to human rights and the bill’s compatibility with the European convention on human rights and other international agreements. We understood that taking a human rights approach offered a new way in which to consider land reform—although it has to be said that the ECHR provides challenges, too; in my view, it prevented us from being as radical as I, and no doubt others, would have wished.

It always struck me as ironic that the ECHR was holding us back from righting the wrongs of the past, such as the clearing of vast swathes of the Highlands and Islands during the clearances. I make no apology for reminding the Parliament of that dreadful period in our country’s history. As a Highlander and an Islander it is something that I—and we—can never forget.

That said, the motion that we are debating today looks at the here and now and to the future. This week, we were pleased to have the opportunity at the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee to take evidence from the Scottish Land Commission’s chair, Andrew Thin, and chief executive, Hamish Trench. It was heartening to see the SLC doing exactly what we had intended it to do when the bill was being developed and scrutinised in Parliament three years ago.

The SLC’s purpose is to provide direction, leadership and strategic thought for land reform in Scotland—in effect, it picks up where Parliament left off. The SLC’s overriding vision, which contributes to six key national outcomes and guides its objectives of productivity, diversity and accountability, is of a fair, inclusive and productive system of ownership, management and use of land that delivers greater benefit for all the people of Scotland.

I was pleased to hear both the chair and the chief executive confirm that the commissioners are making good progress on implementing their strategic priorities for the period 2018 to 2021, concentrating on land for housing and development, land ownership, land use decision making and agricultural holdings—they have certainly got their work cut out for them.

As we have heard, yesterday, the SLC published its investigation into the issues associated with large-scale and concentrated land ownership in Scotland; its report is welcome. It is clear that the timing could not be helped, but it would have been beneficial if the report had been issued before we took evidence from the commission on Tuesday—that is not a criticism of anyone; it was just bad timing—and I note the cabinet secretary’s comment that the report was brought forward so that we could discuss it in today’s debate.

As we have heard, the SLC concluded that much of Scotland is owned by a handful of landowners who practise an “irresponsible exercise of power”. The study also concluded that many parts of Scotland are controlled by a “land monopoly”, with very little in the way of legal protection. It has recommended that to help to introduce systematic change and to stimulate a more diverse and dynamic pattern of land ownership, there should be a public interest test in any future significant land transfers or acquisitions. It also calls for a statutory framework to

“strengthen local democratic accountability of land ownership and use”,

so I think that I can perhaps feel another land reform bill coming on in the next session of Parliament. We will have to wait and see.

All the welcome proposals that are contained in the report seek to address the risks of concentrated land ownership in ways that are considered normal in other developed countries, particularly in northern Europe.

Today’s motion for debate also refers to the land rights and responsibilities statement, which adopts a human rights approach to land rights and responsibilities and signals a determination to continue leading the way in ensuring that Scotland’s urban and rural land contributes to inclusive and sustainable economic growth and social justice. It is noticeable and disappointing—to say the least—that the Tory amendment seeks to remove mention of the land rights and responsibilities statement.

Of course, much of the progress that we have seen in recent years simply would not have happened without the Scottish land fund. With just over 560,000 acres of land now in community ownership, the Scottish land fund continues to play its part in helping to get us as close to the 1 million target as possible. There are some fantastic good news stories, not least the community buyout of Ulva, which has been one of the most heartening in recent years. I have Mull connections going back a couple of hundred years, so the success of the North West Mull Community Woodland Company and its purchase of Ulva—with the generous assistance of the Scottish land fund, the Macquarie Group and hundreds of amazing donations through crowdfunding—was the icing on the cake for me. However, there is, of course, always room for more icing on the cake.

Before we move to the winding-up speeches, I note that two members who took part in the debate—Gillian Martin and Claudia Beamish—are not in the chamber. I thought that we had got over all this nonsense. I expect notes from them and I hope that they are not sitting having a cup of tea and a cake, thinking that they can swan in when they like—especially Ms Beamish, who opened the debate for the Labour Party.

I call Andy Wightman. We have a little time in hand, Mr Wightman, so I can give you up to seven minutes.

16:27  

Thank you very much, indeed. I am most grateful.

This has been a useful debate, which has been informed—as members have noted—by a helpful report from the Scottish Land Commission. If members have not yet read it, I urge them to do so—including the research review, which I will come to later.

Members might know that it was at university in Aberdeen that I became engaged with the land question. While I was there, the flow country debacle was kicking off. Members might recall that people such as Terry Wogan and Shirley Porter were getting vast tax breaks from the Government at the time to plant trees in the far north of Scotland, in Gail Ross’s constituency. I remember a visiting lecturer from the forestry industry, who came to talk about the endeavour with glowing praise. I asked them why it was felt to be appropriate that rich people living in London should get tax breaks to plant trees in the north of Scotland and whether it would not be better to spend the tax revenues that were being forgone to support the farmers, landowners and communities in Caithness and Sutherland to plant the trees—that seemed to me to be self-evidently sensible; I am sure that Mr Scott and the Conservatives would agree that it would seem to be a more sensible approach. Although I do not remember the answer, I remember my professor coming to me afterwards and saying that I should not ask such political questions. Well, I have been asking them ever since and I will not stop asking questions about the topic until landed hegemony is eliminated and the people of Scotland own the land of Scotland.

I first met the cabinet secretary in the 1990s, when she was a member of the UK Parliament. [Interruption.] Do not worry. [Laughter.] We were part of a group that was campaigning against the abandonment of tenant farms by the owner of Blackford estate, which was owned then—as now—by a company that is registered in the secrecy jurisdiction of Liechtenstein. I know that the cabinet secretary is committed to doing all in her power to advance the cause of land reform. However, I also know that it is not always an easy task within Government, and I guarantee that we Greens will do all in our power to assist her in that endeavour.

Given that there remains so much more to do, I hope that the cabinet secretary will have a conversation with her colleagues about using the legislative opportunity that I understand is planned to reform compulsory purchase powers and introduce compulsory sale orders instead to include such measures as parts 1 and 2 of a possible land reform bill, which would allow us to deliver at least some further land reform measures in this parliamentary session.

In my opening speech, I mentioned examples of what the Scottish Land Commission is pointing to, and I will highlight a couple of examples.

The Applecross estate in Wester Ross is a 61,000-acre estate. It was owned by the Wills tobacco family, but they transferred ownership in the 1970s to a company with charitable status in order to avoid tax. Since then, the Applecross Trust has operated as a closed shop, with directors who live in the south of England and a fragile community that has struggled to secure land to meet basic needs for housing and other essential services.

In September 2012, 100 of us, including the then local MP, the late Charles Kennedy, wrote formal letters to the registered office of the charity in Edinburgh applying to become members, as was our right under the terms of the charity’s constitution. All applications were refused point blank. Here was a landowner operating as a Scottish charity, exercising monopoly control over vast swathes of land and denying everyone else—even the local MP—the chance to join and participate in the affairs of the charity.

A similar situation exists on the Isle of Bute. It is owned by a charity, the Mount Stuart Trust, which was established to avoid tax liabilities for the Marquess of Bute and operates a closed shop. It not only refused applications from, among others, me and the local MSP, Mike Russell, but passed a resolution at a special general meeting to limit membership and to give the Marquess of Bute exclusive rights to appoint up to four directors. The resolution says that terms and conditions are to be dictated

“by the person holding the Title and Dignity of the Marquess of Bute”.

I thought that we abolished feudal tenure in 2000, but it lives on in the arcane, anti-democratic manner that is described in those two examples. Claudia Beamish and Liam McArthur said that we have much more to do. I agree and I have suggested one route by which we might do that.

I gently remind the cabinet secretary that opportunities have already been missed. Long-standing proposals to give children legal rights to inherit land were rejected by Scottish ministers a couple of months ago. They also rejected the recommendation of the Barclay review into non-domestic rates that all non-domestic property and land should be on the valuation roll, which would be a necessary precondition for any fiscal reform.

John Scott asked about the Scottish ministers’ land, and it is a notable feature of the Land Commission’s report, which I am sure that he welcomes, that it made no distinction between private and public land. I agree with John Scott. Years ago, the historian Jim Hunter argued that

“the Forestry Commission is to Scottish forestry what collectivisation was to Soviet agriculture.”

We support decentralising management and control of the national forest estate to communities, local government and NGOs, and I hope that the member agrees with us.

No. Since Andy Wightman is referring to historians, I wonder whether he will reflect on the fact that the historian Tom Devine has changed his view on the cause of the Highland clearances from the one clearly expressed by Angus MacDonald. That change of view has changed the perception of the land reform agenda, or it certainly should have.

I am not familiar with Tom Devine’s comments in that regard.

I encourage John Scott and his colleagues to read the research review, which was done by Scotland’s Rural College. It contains five pages of references, so it is a well-referenced report.

John Scott talked about the Highland clearances and I am reminded of the Napier commission. For decades after, people criticised it and dismissed the eloquent testimony that it took as being mere anecdote. It would be unfortunate if anyone were to do so today.

There is much more to be done. The Land Commission’s work over the past year has been extremely useful and I look forward to working with others to bring to an end the hegemony that is associated with Scotland’s pattern of land ownership.

We will support the Government motion and the Labour amendment.

16:34  

Land reform has been a focus of the Parliament from the very beginning. It has always been high on the agenda, as my colleagues Claudia Beamish and Alex Rowley have pointed out. I am proud of the achievements that have been made, but I think that we can go much further.

The Scottish Tenant Farmers Association wrote in its briefing to us that land reform had improved the lot of tenant farmers, but we need to protect them further. Some landowners have responded to land reform in a despicable way in their treatment of tenant farmers.

Why do we need land reform? One hundred and fifty people own 50 per cent of Scotland’s privately owned rural land. As Claudia Beamish said, land ownership is power. It provides opportunity and wealth. The disparity of ownership empowers and disempowers. Gillian Martin talked about someone feeling very intimidated at a meeting. Whether or not that was meant, it was the balance of power that led to that intimidation and fear. If somebody is there, taking notes, and the person knows that they have power over them, they will of course be afraid. Those who have not been in that position might not understand the way in which that power can disempower somebody else.

We need to build thriving communities, and we need to ensure that the power is shared. That can lead to very simple things getting done, such as building homes, as Liam McArthur pointed out. Alex Rowley spoke about land wealth, and its worth, being as much an issue as monetary wealth. Again, that is in the hands of the few rather than the many, and we need to consider better redistribution of both land wealth and monetary wealth. Alex Rowley spoke about land value taxation, which we could consider now to ensure that land has not been used—as land often is—as a way in which to avoid tax. We see some of the large estate agents selling estates around Scotland and encouraging people to buy them, not because they would work with the community and build the local economy but so that they could use the land to avoid their own taxation.

Monopolies have always been seen and understood to be bad things. Power is put into the hands of the monopoly, which disenfranchises everybody else. Land ownership in Scotland is largely a monopoly, and that needs to change. Land is an asset from which we all need to benefit. When someone’s livelihood depends on the land, they need a voice in the decisions that are taken about it. The way to ensure that their voice is heard is to ensure that they, too, have a stake in it.

I welcome the publication of the Land Commission’s report. As Angus MacDonald pointed out, the Land Commission was set up to provide leadership and direction on land reform. I have not read the report word for word, although I have had a good look over it, and I like what I see. To me, the fact that Edward Mountain was critical of it is a good sign, and I think that I will like it even more as I delve into it.

I am grateful to the commission for rushing the report’s publication to help inform today’s debate. The report has been an important part of the debate. To pick up on some of the commission’s findings, the report says that, in some parts of Scotland, concentrated land ownership is an impediment to economic development and is causing significant and long-term harm to the communities affected. It also says that there is little or no method of redress for communities or individuals when adverse economic or social impacts arise from concentrated land ownership.

The commission makes a number of recommendations, which I hope that the Scottish Government will consider seriously. They include the introduction of a public interest test for significant land transfers and acquisitions, which has been spoken about by a number of people; the creation of more robust mechanisms to ensure local democratic influence on and benefit from land use changes; and a programme of land rights and responsibilities good practice.

John Scott pointed out that some landowners take their responsibilities seriously, which is true—nobody is saying that all large landowners are bad. Some of them work with their communities. As we have heard in the debate, however, that can change on a whim or because of inheritance alone, and the balance of power then changes. If we do not have the right balance of power, the community can quickly be devastated by the change of ownership.

We have talked about community ownership. Only 500,000 acres of land in Scotland are in such ownership. The Scottish land fund, which many members mentioned, has been involved in some community buyouts. However, as those members noted, such communities have to jump through hoops and prove that they are acting in the public interest; they have to ballot people in their communities to ensure that they are happy to proceed. None of that happens in a private land exchange in which a private buyer takes over—they do not have to fulfil any public interest criteria.

Andy Wightman spoke to his amendment, which Labour members will support, which widens the definition of community ownership to include other kinds of common ownership such as common good and common land. We must also remember the concept of public ownership: for example, land is owned by the Scottish Government on behalf of the public collectively. In that context, I pay tribute to MacNeil of Barra, who gifted the island to the Scottish Government to ensure that it would be in public ownership. We need to remember that not all private landowners act solely in their own interests.

Some members talked about transparency. I look forward to the Government introducing the subordinate legislation that will be required to enable us to look at that. I hope very much that it will look at ownership from abroad as well as at home, because we need to know who owns the land that we live on.

There was not much mention of crofting in the debate, but I will use some of my remaining time to mention—

You have 10 seconds.

I have only 10 seconds left, so I will just say that crofters have a right to buy, which goes a long way towards fulfilling the balance of power between them and their landowners. However, that right is not easy to use, so I ask the Government to look at simplifying it in the context of the new crofting legislation that is being considered.

16:41  

There is much in the Scottish Government’s land reform programme that Scottish Conservatives can agree with, especially as some of its current position is drawn from that of the UK Government, which is laid out in the Localism Act 2011.

Finlay Carson and Edward Mountain affirmed that broad support exists for issues such as community empowerment and greater transparency, but they also identified concerns and risks in the Scottish Land Commission’s current position.

John Scott flagged that the Scottish Government is one of the biggest landowners in Scotland, accounting for almost a million hectares. Indeed, Forestry Commission Scotland has 638,600 hectares under its control, and the National Trust for Scotland is responsible for 76,000 hectares.

The Cabinet Secretary for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform recognised the importance of land to the people of Scotland. I can agree with that very much. Whether it be for housing, food production or protecting and enhancing our natural environment, or to tackle climate change, the use of land is very important. I also agree that we should expect good practice no matter who owns the land in question.

Claudia Beamish appeared to isolate landowners and to treat them with disregard. She went on to advocate that the state should be able to redistribute property from legal owners to communities. If that is Labour’s position, it is concerning.

Andy Wightman articulated a well-thought-out and considered argument for common ownership. The one point on which I could agree with him was that land reform is difficult—indeed it is.

Liam McArthur advocated pressing ahead with increased transparency and clarity. I certainly agree with him on that point.

I want to highlight a concern that people raise with me whenever the topic of land reform comes up, which is that there is too much focus on ownership of land and not enough on how it is managed and used. For example, I note that the Scottish Land Commission’s report that was published yesterday acknowledged the positive impact that many landowners have on their communities. That is welcome recognition, but at the same time the report talked of a monopoly on land ownership that could harm communities.

Of course, we must address cases in which outcomes are poor, but I can understand why the majority of landowners, following good practice, might be worried that a stereotype is being perpetuated that simply owning a sizeable amount of land is inherently wrong and harmful.

Andy Wightman rose—

Andy Wightman.

Andy Wightman.

One of the benefits of the report is that it explicitly points out that it is power and not scale that matters. It has moved the debate on, which therefore addresses the point and Maurice Golden’s concern.

It is up to me to call members, but thank you.

Thank you for that clarification, Presiding Officer.

Our issue with the report is that it appears as though the Scottish Land Commission has started with the end point then looked for anecdotal evidence to get there. That is a problem. Conservative members always support an evidence-based approach, and we have clearly not seen that in the report.

Talk of compulsory purchase orders is not particularly helpful. Instead, we should look to promote better community engagement. There is a huge opportunity for communities, both rural and urban, to develop and sustain productive use of the land around them.

We should be careful that we do not operate under the assumption that community buyouts should be the default option. That misses the fact that other models, for example leasing, can be a better fit in some circumstances.

We have seen 88,000 hectares lost in the tenanted sector in just five years, and almost 30,000 hectares in 2016 alone. The Central Association of Agricultural Valuers is clear that the Scottish National Party Government has provided

“nothing in the land reform package that encourages anybody to let land”.

The Scottish Conservatives believe that the Scottish land fund should be opened to accommodate long leases, too.

Underpinning all this is the need for a transparent system that is fit for the 21st century but which does not compromise people’s right to privacy, or indeed their safety. On the latter point, I am mindful of the concerns that have been raised by the likes of NFU Scotland that providing the personal details of landowners can leave them vulnerable to protests or direct action. A case in point would be the recent vegan protests directed at English farmers, using farm details that were made available through the Food Standards Agency. Those protests have resulted in disruption, damage and distress to animals. None of us wants that to be brought to Scotland. That does not need to happen, because a transparent system does not necessarily require the publication of physical addresses. Would it not be more useful to provide contact details for relevant land managers to ensure a more practical and speedy engagement process?

I take the point, which was made by Scottish Government officials to the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee, that a physical address can provide greater assurance for those who are looking to engage with a landowner. However, a register that is based on such an idea falls short. It misses the point that a publicly available address is not necessary for the fundamental purpose of identifying and engaging with a landowner, and limits accessibility by disregarding digital communications.

There is support across the chamber for land reform, but the support of the Conservatives is conditional on an evidence-based approach being taken—in my view, the Scottish Land Commission has clearly failed to do that. Good practice should be rewarded with support for landowners, not the perpetuation of stereotypes. Communities should be empowered with new options and not locked into a one-size-fits-all approach. Land ownership should be more transparent, but farmers and other landowners should be able to expect their privacy and safety to be protected.

I urge members to support the amendment in the name of Edward Mountain.

16:49  

Today’s debate has demonstrated the importance of land. Much has been said about how we might change deeply ingrained patterns of ownership and about the benefits that that will bring; about how we can enable more people to own land and influence its use and management; and about the value of transparency over who owns land and makes decisions about it. Everyone who has spoken in the debate has at least recognised the role that land has in supporting and promoting Scotland’s ambitions. It seems that members are united in the desire to see change, although we do not necessarily agree on the degree of that change or how we should effect it.

Inevitably, much of the debate has circled around or been informed by the Scottish Land Commission’s report, which was not the intention. I say to those who have criticised what the Scottish Land Commission has done that it has undertaken an extensive range of consultations around the country and that it has gone to communities throughout Scotland, both urban and rural. The conclusions and recommendations in the report drew on an evidence base that is published by the commission. If members wish to see that, they only need to look for it, so saying that there is no proper evidence is not a fair criticism.

Andy Wightman neatly dealt with the paradox of opposition to further community ownership in his intervention on Edward Mountain’s speech. Mr Mountain started by saying that the Tories support land reform, but I confess that I struggled to find anything in his opening speech to convince me that that was true. I note that some of the other Conservative contributions were a little more generous, perhaps reflecting a closer connection with different views among the electorate.

Claudia Beamish made, as I have come to expect, her usual generous and courteous contribution. The Government intends to accept the Labour amendment, although some of the specific proposals that Claudia Beamish discussed would create significant and complex legal and European convention on human rights issues—a matter that was also referred to by Angus MacDonald. We cannot simply wish those away, so, although we support the principles of the recommendations, we will have to do a great deal more to turn them into practical policies.

In Andy Wightman’s contribution, I was entertained by his admission that from time to time he indulges in soundbites. Heaven forfend that a politician should be so self-indulgent! He will be aware that none of the Government legislation that he referred to emanates from my portfolio, but I undertake to discuss with other ministers whether those pieces of legislation afford opportunities at this stage to be expanded into areas that might be encompassed by land reform.

With regard to the Green amendment, I say that common ownership is not our policy and I am unclear what Andy Wightman is trying to achieve by changing the terminology. Had he not replaced the term “community ownership” with the term “common ownership”, I might have viewed his amendment differently, but I am not minded to support it because of that lack of clarity. That may just be me exercising a typical lawyer’s caution.

I attempted to explain that. Common ownership is not the Government’s policy, but I have used that term because it encapsulates existing common good land, commonties and common grazings. I am sure that the cabinet secretary is not suggesting that we should eliminate those, so the point of replacing that language was to provide something that was a bit more inclusive. I hope that the Government might reconsider.

I refer to my comment about my lawyer’s caution. I am happy to have a separate discussion with Andy Wightman about that, but at the moment I am resisting the Green amendment. Liam McArthur and Claudia Beamish reminded us of the 2003 act, as I did in my opening remarks. I was the Scottish National Party spokesperson at the time and I recall that the SNP argued that it did not go far enough. That goes some way towards explaining why we have pursued, and will continue to pursue, the land reform agenda. Liam McArthur also touched on the feeling at the time that the act was a long-overdue reform. Having spent six years in the House of Commons, I can confirm my view that, if we had had to rely on the House of Commons to make any change, it is likely that we would still be waiting.

Gillian Martin rehearsed some of the specific injustices that are still being experienced, which were described in the Land Commission’s report. With respect to everybody, those bits of evidence cannot simply be swept away as though they are not relevant to the debate.

I want to briefly respond to Finlay Carson on the specific core path issue that he raised. The local access forum is the best route to resolve that issue if he has not made contact with it yet, although it is Dumfries and Galloway Council that has discretionary powers to amend the core paths plan. I will write to the member with a more detailed response on that point.

Alex Rowley highlighted that there is no obligation to use land in the public interest; that is a fair point. He also raised the issue of land value tax. In fact, the Government has asked the Land Commission to explore options for a land value tax as well as land value capture.

Kenny Gibson reminded us that we do not have to travel to the northern Highlands to find examples of problems connected to—

Just a moment, cabinet secretary. It is the usual issue—will members who are coming in for decision time please let the cabinet secretary be heard? Members who took part in the debate want to hear the speech. Also, I do not think that it is a good idea for members to stand with their backs to the chair for too long.

As I was indicating, we do not have to travel to the northern Highlands to find examples of problems connected to land ownership.

John Scott spoke about the failures of NGOs as landowners. I have always been clear that with ownership comes not just rights but responsibilities, regardless of who the landowner is, and I have not been afraid to say that directly to NGOs and indeed to community landowners. Once they move into the capacity of owning land, they inherit those responsibilities as well as rights.

The subject of land is complex. It is central to the kind of country that we want to be, our economy and environment. We must remember that it is more than just a resource to which we attach a particular financial value. Land is often spoken about in terms of its cost, its value when it is bought or sold or the return that it provides each year, but, as important as all that is, perhaps the true value of land is much more fundamental. I have often said in the context of land reform that land is a resource for everyone, but we should recognise that land is more than simply a resource; it is the ground on which we stand, on which we work and on which we live. From when we are born until the end of our days, it is our world. It has historical, romantic and symbolic meanings that we should bear in mind even as we talk about the undoubted economic importance of land.

When we talk about our aspirations for land, we also talk about our aspirations for ourselves. This mixture of the tangible and the intangible is one reason why issues to do with land are so emotive and often very complex. Land is not just a commodity but a human right; it is essential to a meaningful existence, just as a true home is more than a place to eat, sleep and take shelter.

In my efforts during my time in the House of Commons, which is a considerable number of years ago now, I recall the bemusement with which expressions such as that were received by those who simply did not get it; they could not understand why land reform was such an emotive and important issue for Scotland. I shared my feelings about that with Scottish Labour and Scottish Liberal Democrat members in the House of Commons as well as with SNP members. We all understood that at a visceral level, in a way that our colleagues south of the border simply did not—and, I believe, to this day do not—get.

It is important for us to remember that this Parliament has to be the expression of that very singular and particular understanding of the idea of land that is so Scottish. It marks us; it makes us different; and it makes us stand apart. For those in the developing world, it is an interesting conundrum that land reform is such a fundamentally important issue for us, in what they see as a country in the developed world. It opens up a door for us to have a conversation in a way that I believe is unlike any other in any other part of the developed world.

It is important that we in this Parliament continue to express the strength of that feeling. Land reform begins with the ethical consideration that all of us have this right and we must use land wisely and fairly.