Hansard

I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for this timely debate. As she noted, land reform is a difficult process to deal with. As the Government motion hints, an entrenched set of circumstances that have been brought about by a very long history. It is a history in which men who owned land and property had the exclusive right to sit in Parliament and make the laws that govern ownership of that land. They were men who ensured that primogeniture was abolished only in 1964; that, to this day, children have no legal right to inherit land in Scotland; and that a wide range of exemptions from tax apply to land and estates—exemptions that do not apply to other property owners. As other members have said, Parliament has taken important steps to reverse that entrenched system, but there remains a very long way to go.

I will define what I mean by land reform. I take the definition from the land reform review group that the Scottish Government set up, which reported in 2014. It defined land reform as

“measures that modify or change the arrangements governing the possession and use of land in Scotland in the public interest.”

That implies a wide range of measures dealing with all land—urban, rural, marine, public and private. It is about fiscal policy, succession law, planning, land tenure and many other areas of law and policy. It is not synonymous with community ownership.

Fundamentally, this is a debate about power—specifically, about how power is derived, defined, distributed and exercised. I therefore welcome the focus in yesterday’s Scottish Land Commission report, which talks about “the concentration of power”. I am reminded of Tony Benn’s famous five questions, which he would ask of people who purported to hold power. They are:

“what power do you have; where did you get it; in whose interests do you exercise it; to whom are you accountable; and, how can we get rid of you?”

and claimed that

“Anyone who cannot answer the last of those questions does not live in a democratic system.”—[Official Report, House of Commons, 16 Nov 1998; Vol 319, c 685.]

I think that that is a good test for Scotland’s system of land tenure.

The core challenge that Parliament faces is how to redistribute power over land in the public interest—in the interest of the many, not the few. In short, it is about how to democratise land. The Scottish Land Commission report is refreshingly clear, analytical and nuanced, and provides a frank assessment of the problem.

For too long, much of the land reform debate has been conducted in soundbites. I have indulged in a good deal of that myself, in an effort to be taken seriously and to attract attention. Easy slogans and simplistic analysis have too often taken the place of patient diagnosis.

I have long held the view that ownership, occupation and use of land are questions of power. As the Scottish Land Commission notes, power can be—and is—abused. It can, however, also be exercised with great responsibility and diligence. The report talks about monopolies and market power and of rent seeking as the “hallmark” of market power. It is important that it also distinguishes how power is exercised from how it is obtained, by recognising that although power can be exercised in damaging ways and in responsible ways, it is the very existence of that power that needs to change. The future of communities in Scotland should not rely on the arbitrary manner in which power is obtained through land markets or inheritance, or is exercised by way of land use.

My amendment would do two things. First, it would replace the term “community ownership” with “common ownership”. Common ownership includes community ownership but recognises that other forms of common ownership—including common good land, parish commons, land that is held by local councils and common grazings—“should be the norm”. I hope that members can agree that that more inclusive term is helpful and would do nothing to take away from the importance of community ownership. My amendment concludes by inviting Parliament not to agree the recommendations of the report but to endorse its findings. I hope that members can support that.

This Parliament began life by enacting a wide range of legislation—as Claudia Beamish noted—dealing with tenements, national parks, crofting community right to buy, the right to roam and feudal powers abolition. By 2007, it had lost its way on the topic. Momentum declined and little more was done until the land reform review group was established.

The Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2016 followed, which established the Scottish Land Commission. For some, the Scottish Land Commission was regarded as another tiresome quango. I was always very aware that land reform is difficult. The existing set-up is deep-seated and entrenched and the presence of an agency that is committed to study, analysis and advice on the topic is critical.

Opposition to change is vigorous and determined. The establishment of the Scottish Land Commission ensures that important elements of the debate are not forgotten, and it allows for detailed analysis to be conducted to inform public debate. Its latest report is a good example of that.

What we hear from the Conservative Party and the landed class is a master class in distraction. The idea that ownership of and power over land do not matter, and that, in a great clamour of whataboutery, we should look at how it is used, has been a common theme from politicians such as Mr Mountain, to whom I readily give way.