Hansard

I am not sure about the analogies to giving birth, but today feels a little like waving a child off into the big bad world. You have invested considerable time and effort to make sure that they are as prepared as they can be for what lies ahead, and their departure will leave a little gap in your life, although a part of you is looking forward to the peace and quiet that is coming.

At the risk of overdramatising things, after nearly nine months of living and breathing land reform, that is a wee bit how today feels, although as with that offspring flying the nest, those of us who hope to return here post the election know that it is only a temporary parting. The next session of Parliament will bring with it scrutiny of the related secondary legislation and, almost certainly, further exploration of land reform.

During stage 2, I articulated my concern about how secondary legislation would be scrutinised effectively. I highlighted the fact that a number of RACCE Committee members who would have taken the bill through from the first evidence-gathering trip to Orkney to today and would have listened to the arguments for and against provisions and amendments would not be around to oversee consideration of the secondary legislation. Some of us might want to be around but, by virtue of the electoral process, will not get the chance to be.

It is certain, as we have heard, that the vast experience of three MSPs will not be at the disposal of the successor committee, as a week from now they will be stepping down as parliamentarians. I want to take a moment to pay tribute to those committee colleagues: Dave Thompson, Rob Gibson and Alex Fergusson. It has been a privilege to serve on the committee. We—the wider committee—have not always agreed on everything, but committee business has always been conducted in a respectful and dignified manner and more often than not we have come to an accord on the subjects before us. That has been down to a genuine commitment on the part of members of all parties to do the very best job possible.

No one has exemplified that approach more than Alex Fergusson. As a former Presiding Officer and a farmer, not to mention a long-serving MSP, Alex brought a wide range of experience to the committee. More than that, he has always sought to engage constructively. He and I disagree on a number of points regarding the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, but I respect entirely his view and wish him well in his life beyond this place—likewise my SNP colleagues Dave Thompson and Rob Gibson. Rob, Jim Hume, Alex Fergusson and I are the only survivors of the original RACCE Committee line-up from 2011, and for the past two and a bit years I have served under Rob as deputy convener. On a personal level I have found his vast experience and generosity to be enormously helpful as I have developed my knowledge and understanding of rural affairs, climate change and the environment. His inclusive convening style has unquestionably been at the heart of the ethos of the committee. Although Dave Thompson was a more recent arrival on the committee, he too has contributed considerably to its work, particularly in the areas of crofting, aquaculture and fishing.

At the risk of sounding like a participant on one of those dreadful TV talent shows, I say that these past nine months really have been a journey: a journey for the bill and for those of us charged with leading its scrutiny. We travelled the length and breadth of Scotland, from Orkney to Dumfries and from Fife to Skye, seeking views. I am in no doubt that the bill on which we will vote tonight is much the better for those endeavours.

I have some abiding memories, one of which is of an evidence session on human rights. We had gone through a period when all that we were hearing was what should or could not be done with the bill. Then we heard from Eleanor Deeming, Kirsteen Shields and Megan MacInnes, who combined to tell the committee what could be delivered. It was a pivotal moment in the progress of the bill and one of the most positive contributions that the committee heard in the past five years.

My most abiding memory is of meeting a group of tenant farmers in the Borders: a group who would not be photographed with the committee for fear of possible consequences. For the same reason we even had to find a non-identifiable part of the farm where we met to get a picture of members for the committee website. We were told a story that day that highlighted the lengths that some landlords or their factors will go to in order to reclaim secure tenancies. It was the story of a dying farmer who wanted to see his son sign for the tenancy before he passed away. The estate agreed, the factor duly turned up at his bedside and the son was about to sign on the dotted line when the farmer’s wife intervened and insisted that the family solicitor check over the paperwork first. It was a good job that she did, as the documentation presented to the son would in effect have seen him signing away that 1991 tenancy. It may well be the case that the overwhelming majority of landlords would never dream of behaving in such a way, but as long as that sort of conduct exists we know that we have some way to go in affording tenants appropriate protections.

The bill as amended has made progress in that direction, but I cannot help but take the view, which I know that colleagues share, that until the right-to-buy issue is addressed—albeit in a way that is restricted, perhaps, as Mike Russell has suggested, to secure tenancies of 50 years or two generations’ standing—the agricultural sector will never truly be at peace.

Today is just one step—albeit a significant one—on the land reform journey. I am certain that we will return to the issue in the next parliamentary session, and I hope to be back here to play a part in that and in ensuring that the secondary legislation around the act is all that it requires to be, particularly in the area of transparency of land ownership.

I thank the Scottish Parliament information centre and, in particular, the RACCE Committee clerks for their enormous contribution to not just the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill but the wider work of the committee over the past five years. This institution is fortunate to be able to call upon the talents and dedication of such individuals.

I also want to pay tribute to the stakeholders who engaged so positively in making the bill all that it could be. The amendments that I lodged were collaborative efforts with Community Land Scotland, Global Witness and Scottish Environment LINK—I am happy to acknowledge that. This is not the Scottish Government’s bill or indeed this Parliament’s bill. It has been made what it is by the contribution of wider Scotland.