Hansard

I am very happy to be involved in this debate, which is very dear to my heart. I would go so far as to say that, alongside seeing what poverty and disadvantage did to people in the city in which I was brought up, the question of the land and the way in which inequality in Scotland is expressed through a lack of control over it is something that very much shaped my own thinking as I grew up.

I commend Alex Fergusson for his speech, and I wish him all the best. I have always found him to be extremely valuing, thoughtful and kind, and committed to this place, being part of the group of 99. As Duncan McNeil referred to this morning, we felt as if we were under siege, and Alex Fergusson played a critical role in sustaining this institution in the early days. As we have seen in the debate, he has always been willing to say what he believes, even when sometimes it is not part of the consensus. Perhaps we ought to be a little more relaxed, in the chamber and elsewhere, in recognising that there is a diversity of views in Scotland about a whole range of issues. It is important that we hear those views in a valuing way. I wish him all the best for the future.

Rob Gibson and I could probably have any number of arguments, but no one can doubt his commitment to and passion for the whole question and importance of the land and liberating it in the interests of the people of Scotland. I wish him well, too.

I recognise that my role in the consideration of the bill has been far more limited than that of most of the other people who are in the chamber. I know that people engaged in a lot of detail at stage 1 and stage 2. I congratulate everyone on the position that we have now reached.

It is a matter of regret that the minister, Aileen McLeod, has not been able to be part of the debate right to its conclusion, and I wish her a speedy recovery. As a deputy minister myself—it seems like forever ago now—I know that taking a bill through as the minister in charge is, as Rob Gibson said, almost akin to having a baby, although there is not quite so much noise at the very end. I remember the joy of getting to the point when the bill is delivered, and it is a shame that she has not been here to get this bill to that point. Everyone recognises that she has been particularly willing to listen to people on all sides of the Parliament and to try and build consensus where she could.

On a day like today, we can get bogged down in the minutiae of the debate and somehow lose sight of the essence and the heart of what the debate is about. For me, the bill is a recognition of the importance of the land, its ownership and the ability of people in our communities to shape their future, in particular through community ownership. We can draw on evidence that community ownership has already been successful and has transformed many of our communities across Scotland. We want to build on that. Time will tell whether the bill is a further step along the road to realising the aspiration of many—in all parties and in none—that we have genuine land reform in Scotland.

I have reservations about the consequences of some of the decisions that have been made today. I am disappointed that my amendment was not supported. Community benefit societies and co-operatives can and should be significant in creating sustainable communities and diversifying land ownership. We should be clear that not all types of land ownership are the same. There is a particular issue around community ownership that allows communities to focus on what they can do and what they understand needs to be done to regenerate and sustain themselves.

We need to look at the role of the Scottish land commission and of Community Development Scotland in actively arguing in the mainstream for the co-operative model. I have asked the Scottish Government to ensure that it mainstreams thinking on co-operatives into its economic and social strategies.

I am disappointed that the Scottish Government voted down amendments that would have addressed the critical question of transparency in land ownership. The fundamental point is that we cannot manage, tackle or confront what we do not know.

There are lots of active landowners, but there are, sadly, all too many who are indifferent to the needs of communities. How can we engage with them if we are not able to identify them? That is a debate that the Parliament will need to return to.

Today’s debate has been rather understated and civilised. Alex Fergusson has opposed the bill in his usual civilised and mannerly way. There was an unfortunate start to the debate, in which particularly alarmist and provocative language around the right to buy—“land grab”, for example—was used. In my view, that is disrespectful to the reasonable expectations of communities that they should have the ability to shape their own future and tackle benign neglect or active indifference.

For me, this is a simple issue of justice and of tackling a historic injustice that saw people cleared off their land and denied any control. Critically, it is also about now and the future. It is about economic optimism as well as social justice. That is not sentimentality. Of course, it is an emotional debate, but it is also a hard-headed, critical assessment of how we sustain communities across Scotland.

The land question is central. It is an issue on which there is commitment across and beyond parties. I am proud of the role of my own party, but I do not pretend that we should have a party-political debate about who cares most.

This is an important day and another step. I have identified the challenges that remain for the Scottish Government over co-operation and transparency. Let us remember, too, that the bill is not just about the remote and rural parts of Scotland. The bill should unlock potential in urban areas, and I charge the Scottish Government to focus on making sure that people in urban communities realise that the bill is for them too.

The challenge now is to move beyond the parliamentary debate, the soundbites and the claims about party roles in the consideration of the bill to ensure that there is a real legacy from the debate, with settled, sustained communities that release, rather than resist, the potential of our people. I hope that the bill is that step that we all aspire to.

I recognise that the hard work in making a difference in our communities is for the next session of Parliament and whoever is part of that. The bill is a very important staging post and I thank everyone involved in getting us to that place.