Meeting of the Parliament 21 March 2019
Since the passing of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill in 2003, we have had a chance to reflect on whether Scotland’s communities are thriving as a result. In the short six months for which I have been convener of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee, I have been party to a number of key land reform developments—the scrutiny of the Scottish Crown Estate Bill, for one; and, for another, the development of a register of persons with a controlling interest in land as the mechanism for identifying who owns what in all areas of the country. The first should ensure that the Crown estate exists largely for public good and will boost local economic and social potential, while the second should go a long way towards solving one of the main historical problems associated with identifying landowners. Crucially, it puts in place obligations for landowners to engage with correspondents.
A third development, which happened yesterday and which members have already referred to, is the publication of the Scottish Land Commission’s report on large-scale and concentrated ownership in Scotland. In reviewing whether we still have work to do to ensure that the current pattern of ownership is benefiting us all, the report is significant and challenging. One sentence in it immediately drew my eye:
“There is an urgent need for formal mechanisms to be put in place that would enable harmful land monopolies to be identified and changes in either ownership and/or management practice to be implemented that would protect fragile rural communities from the irresponsible exercise of power.”
When asked yesterday about the Scottish Land Commission’s recommendation that the Government puts in place such mechanisms, a Conservative member in this place called such a move “stealing”. Such language is unhelpful and I was surprised to hear the rights of communities to fair treatment and social justice being dismissed so bluntly.
One thing that is very clear to me is that there is a huge difference between responsible and irresponsible land ownership. I am sure that, in this debate, many colleagues will point to examples of responsible ownership, with landowners working collaboratively with communities for their mutual benefit and successful transfers of land assets into the hands of communities. There are so many good news stories that show how the 2003 act has opened up opportunities, and there are cases of large landowners putting significant effort and investment into communities, which is to be applauded.
However, it is of great concern that many respondents to the Scottish Land Commission felt strongly that their communities were being stifled through their economic and social potential being diminished in myriad ways. They identified particular types of landowner who are still an issue. First, there are landlords who actively engage negatively with communities. One respondent highlighted a case of an excellent landlord who worked well with the community; however, he left his estate to his son, who was hostile to the community and actively undid his father’s good work. Others referenced a refusal to renew long-standing tenancy agreements, and in one example a landowner refused permission for a community-run wind turbine on aesthetic grounds, only to install his own turbine later that year. The report also references problems with absentee landlords who appear only occasionally to indulge in sporting activities and show no other interest in the estate or the community around it.
What I find particularly significant is the view that a dominant landowner’s ability to control the supply of housing is a key driver of depopulation and economic decline in rural areas. The Land Commission heard from communities that want to build affordable housing who, having secured capital from the Scottish land fund based on the market value of land after a landlord indicated that they would be willing to sell, were thwarted because he demanded much more than the market value. The report also mentions an unnamed charitable organisation refusing a crofter the right to upgrade their home to make it warm and bring it into the 21st century. The woman ended up living in a caravan.
Testimony about the tactics that some landlords have used to keep communities in line or to disempower them was quite distressing to read, from estate factors being sent to intimidate and identify those with tied housing who went to public meetings—