Meeting of the Parliament 21 March 2019
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.”
15:30Motions, questions or amendments mentioned by their reference code.