Hansard

I will speak to a number of amendments about allotments on behalf of and with the support of the Scottish Allotments and Gardens Society, which is the key organisation representing plot holders and the allotment community. First, I thank the members of SAGS for taking the time and effort to brief MSPs, including ministers, on this important subject. I believe that the minister and I are among a number of members who enjoyed SAGS’s hospitality at its international conference centre—I should point out to those who have not been there that that is a portakabin with a solar-power-panelled roof in Inverleith in Edinburgh. It is fair to say that SAGS appreciates the Government’s commitment to allotments and ministerial efforts to offer some statutory protection to allotment sites in the bill. However, it is also fair to say that the allotment community is hugely anxious that, whatever their good intentions, ministers run the risk of getting things fundamentally wrong with some sections in the bill. I remind members that, at stage 1, SAGS felt that plot holders might be better off if part 7 were scrapped altogether. SAGS has moved on from that position, and it now believes that the bill will be a move in the right direction if the Parliament can address three outstanding issues: fair rent, waiting times and the size of a standard allotment plot, which is the first issue that we are dealing with this morning. Section 68(d) defines an allotment as being “of such size as may be prescribed.” However, the pressure on local authorities to meet the demand for allotments—I should add that that pressure will become a legal obligation for them under the bill—has resulted in many councils dividing and subdividing existing plots. The real fear that SAGS has expressed is that, unless the size of a plot is defined and protected in statute, local authorities will reduce plot sizes further in order to reduce their waiting lists. That is already happening in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Fife and elsewhere across Scotland. My amendment 1168 would require the land that is offered to a potential plot holder to be approximately 250m2, which is roughly half the size of this room or, for those of a sporting bent, roughly the size of a tennis court. SAGS argues that that amendment to define the size of a standard allotment plot is essential to protecting the unique identity and role of allotments, and it points out that it has been accepted for decades that the amount of land required to provide most of a family unit’s needs is in the region of 250m2. Such space can provide year-round activity for the retired and the unemployed and SAGS is worried that, unless the size of an allotment is so defined, plot holders might not have access to the area of land that is necessary for their needs. I highlight to the minister and committee members that allotments are a fundamental part of the Scottish Government’s food and drink policy to support and encourage people across Scotland to grow their own fruit and vegetables. A 250m2 allotment would enable a family unit to grow most of the fruit and vegetables that it consumes, and a definition of size is necessary in primary legislation to stop local authorities subdividing plots to reduce their waiting lists and forcing people to accept smaller plots than they require. The allotment community accepts that not everyone needs or wants 250m2, but amendment 1168 would also ensure that smaller plots could be made available for those who want them. In any case, the choice will be theirs, not imposed on them. The amendment also allows for existing allotments that might be over 250m2. 10:15 SAGS has indicated that, whatever her good intentions are, it does not support amendment 1229, in the name of Aileen McLeod, which contains the phrase “no more than 250 square metres in area.” SAGS firmly believes that that will allow local authorities to offer plot sizes that suit them, the providers, rather than the plot holders. Even with regulations, it will be up to ministers and local authorities to determine what is offered under that process, instead of allowing people and local associations to determine the area that they wish to cultivate. I remind fellow MSPs that the bill’s basic purpose is supposedly to empower communities and give people more control over their own lives and not have government at whatever level dictating what people want and need. The bill’s basic tenet is subsidiarity. I believe that the City of Edinburgh Council has a waiting list of seven to 10 years, but we also know that, once people are offered half a plot, that plot will be subdivided for ever. Accordingly, I urge members to support amendment 1168 in my name and the consequential amendments 1164 to 1167. I move amendment 1164.