Hansard

I thank Rob Gibson for bringing the debate to the chamber, and for his powerful, personal and moving remarks. Fittingly and historically, he has secured the last members’ business debate of the session on what many of us might regard as some of the defining ideals around which this Parliament was established: promoting local control, land reform and community empowerment. In fact, I note that Mr Gibson concludes his motion by calling on us to apply the principles of

“subsidiarity, sustainability and social justice”.

I could not agree more.

Another term that neatly encapsulates that same approach is the word “devolution”. In many ways, that sums up why I stood for Parliament in the first place. Whether that approach is applied to the land or to community rights, it encourages each of us to take more control over our own lives, to have the self-confidence to speak up and to see government and decision making as participatory rather than something that is done to us.

I am tempted to digress somewhat and have a more philosophical discussion on the limits of localism—for example, where do we apply national standards? Given our proximity to the election, I am sure that Mr Gibson would understand the temptation for me to tease him slightly about the centralising tendencies of his own Government. However, he and other members will be relieved to hear that I will do neither. Instead, I want to use my short contribution to join forces with him and with members across the chamber to talk about how we can now use the powers at our disposal to empower people throughout Scotland.

My interest in the land reform agenda comes at least partially from my Highlands and Islands roots. However, I have long believed—it is a view shared by most of my Labour colleagues—that urban communities have as much to gain from land ownership and community empowerment as rural and isolated communities.

My example—the Neilston Development Trust—is much closer to home. Neilston is now in my colleague Hugh Henry’s constituency but originally it was part of Eastwood. The trust’s origins are in the Clydesdale Bank’s decision to close the last bank in the village, which, as members might imagine, caused considerable alarm. In response, a group of residents came together and drew on the powers in the Scottish Parliament’s land reform legislation to take over the premises and turn it into a community facility.

I cannot do justice to the amount of work that local residents put in. There were crucial moments, such as when they secured funding from the Co-operative Bank. To be fair, Clydesdale Bank itself was very sympathetic. In the end, local residents were successful and the bank was up and running as a community hub. It is no exaggeration to say that the trust has gone from strength to strength. It has come up with plans to regenerate the whole village, it has promoted cultural activities and—in what I regard as the most significant development—it jointly developed and owns a small wind farm. The wind farm has the potential to generate hundreds of thousands of pounds in income for the local community and is a fantastic example of how we should, co-operatively, be making the most of our renewable energy resources.

I am not saying that the trust is perfect. Its members are more aware than anyone of how they could do things differently if they had a chance. For example, despite my unreserved support and admiration for the trust, I am conscious that it has tended to be dominated and driven by the more middle-class members of the local community and, initially at least, there were tensions with the more traditional community council. I mention that simply because although we pass the legislation here at the Parliament, it is sometimes every bit as important to build the capacity in local communities to access and use new powers.

Although the Neilston Development Trust used the initial land reform legislation, as a small village at the edge of the vast conurbation that is Glasgow, it only just qualified. I hope not only that the new land reform legislation makes things easier for communities but that the community asset transfer powers open up a whole new avenue for local residents to assert themselves.

Also in East Renfrewshire, the local Muslim community has already taken over a run-down pavilion and turned it into the Woodfarm Educational Trust. Members would struggle to find a better example of a local community taking a liability and turning it into a hugely valuable and well-used asset. It will be an interesting test of the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015 to see whether it allows the Woodfarm Educational Trust to move to the next phase of its development.

I conclude by paying tribute, albeit briefly, to Mr Gibson’s contribution to Parliament. His passion for Scotland and for the issue of land reform in particular has always been evident. He has never been more animated or more persuasive than when arguing about a cause that is so clearly close to his own heart. It is fitting indeed for him to end his parliamentary career with the positive, consensual but still radical motion that is before us today. I am proud to extend my thanks and those of my party to Rob Gibson for all the work that he has done for his community, for the Scottish Parliament and for Scotland.