Meeting of the Parliament 16 March 2016
Liberal Democrats have long been advocates of land reform in Scotland, so it may be fitting to recognise the work of Ross Finnie, the Lib Dem minister who led on land reform and who, 13 years ago, before my involvement in the Parliament, introduced the first piece of land reform legislation, the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003, which was supported by all the Parliament. Of course, we could go further back many moons ago to the great land reform advocate Lloyd George in Wales. The 2003 act strengthened the right of responsible access to land, introduced a right for community bodies to register an interest in land and a first refusal to acquire it if and when it is sold, and introduced a right for crofting communities to acquire land under crofting tenure at any time. It was leading legislation at the time and a ground-breaking move in land reform.
Nine months ago, I landed for the first time on the shores of Orkney, for the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee’s first evidence-taking session on land reform. We ended up visiting Fife, Dumfries and the bonnie Borders, to name but a few, and took evidence from land users, landowners, communities and legal experts the length and breadth of the country. I found the visit to the Scottish Land Court in Edinburgh of advantage. I appreciate the big piece of work that is done by the small team there.
From that process came plenty of evidence to highlight that—surprise, surprise—land reform is a complex matter. Today has highlighted that again. Perhaps the bill should not have been just one bill. Because it encompasses so much, perhaps it should have been broken into two elements or more. A feeling that the bill was rushed was highlighted throughout the process. The committee began by consulting broadly in June and, just nine months on, we have the finished article. Evidence of that is clear. There were 88 amendments today from members of the governing party of which 76—I think; I may have miscounted—were from the two ministers. Whole sections were removed and replaced with different text. Obviously, there is a concern that unintended consequences might arise because of what we have missed and what we could have amended for the better.