Bunchrew Land Declaration

– in the Scottish Parliament at on 5 August 2014.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Elaine Smith Elaine Smith Labour

The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S4M-10591, in the name of Rhoda Grant, on the Bunchrew land declaration. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament congratulates Community Land Scotland on the publication of the Bunchrew Land Declaration; supports the renewed commitment that it makes to what it considers the just cause of further land reform in Scotland, including in the Highlands and Islands; notes its reference to Scotland having yet to take the decisive action of other European countries to bring about more equitable patterns of land ownership; further notes its call to established land ownership interests to recognise the manifest unfairness of current land ownership patterns in Scotland, and welcomes its reference to more people-centred land governance and the achievement of land justice in Scotland.

Photo of Rhoda Grant Rhoda Grant Labour

I am grateful for the opportunity to debate the motion. Land reform is an issue that has moved up the political agenda in Scotland over the past couple of years, following a lot of action on the issue just before and directly after the Scottish Parliament was formed.

There is a danger that tonight’s debate could become a debate about the outcomes of the work of the land reform review group or the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill. I hope that we will have a lot of time to debate those specific matters over the coming weeks and months, but that is not the purpose of tonight’s debate. Tonight’s debate is relevant to those issues, but it sets them in an international context, in which we should also have an interest.

People assume that land ownership in Scotland is the same as land ownership elsewhere, but it is not. That is news to many Scots. Our land ownership patterns are massively out of kilter with those in the rest of Europe and those in most of the rest of the world. Most European countries took radical action to reform land ownership centuries ago.

The Bunchrew land declaration emanates from the Bunchrew seminar, at which a number of local and international interested parties joined together to explore land ownership issues. They heard Professor Jim Hunter, the writer and emeritus professor of history at the University of the Highlands and Islands, who is known and respected by many of us in the Parliament and beyond, give a paper. What was striking about the paper was the close parallels that it drew between our land history and what is happening to land ownership internationally today. At one point in his paper, Jim Hunter recounted the story of villagers in the Gambela region of Ethiopia being dispossessed of their land. That event mirrors uncannily events in Sutherland in the early 1800s.

What is happening today to many peoples across the globe, as powerful interests force them from their lands and deprive them of their principal means of existence, often with the connivance of their Government, is strikingly similar to aspects of our own history. We see the influence of that today in Scotland in the concentration of ownership of land, the concentration of power and influence and the increasing concentration of wealth that can come from land ownership.

From our history, we know of the actions of successive Governments, back to the end of the 19th century, on land reform, and despite that we are still debating land reform and the need for change today. We have over 150 years of legislation that tries to bring about change to land ownership patterns, yet we are still debating and trying to make decisive change. From our own experience, it is all too easy to see what faces the peoples in other parts of the world who are now fighting the land grab that is going on in their communities. They, too, face a future where the few will dominate the many, where a stake in the precious resource of land is limited or denied, and where power and wealth concentrate as a consequence of land ownership patterns. It must be right that we in Scotland show some solidarity with those peoples and that we learn from them today what their land reform actions are about and what is working best. It is therefore right that we offer to share with them our experience and insights, our policy and legislative actions and our thinking on the subject.

As Community Land Scotland has been discovering, our land debate is highly relevant to others, and their experience is relevant in helping us to confirm that our thinking is legitimate in the international context. The Bunchrew land declaration highlights those points. I hope that in his reply the minister will recognise that we in Scotland have something to offer in all this and that he will work with Community Land Scotland and others to build the links and dialogue that can help us and others. We sit firmly within an international context in which land reform is a necessary, just and common cause.

In commenting on the Bunchrew land declaration, Michael Taylor of the International Land Coalition, based in Rome, said:

“Like any country facing high concentrations of land ownership, challenging this structure also means challenging concentrations of economic and political power with which land ownership is so intertwined.”

Wherever we go, land reform struggles are always motivated by issues of social justice, greater fairness and how better to empower people.

I have heard too often from vested interests that the way in which land is owned and managed in Scotland currently is the best way in which to do it and that we should be very grateful to those wealthy private landowners for subsidising us all. The truth is very different. We are now discovering just how much the public purse subsidises many wealthy landowners—through beneficial tax breaks and large public grants—while they watch their land values soar. Meanwhile, few others have a stake in the land. The Bunchrew land declaration reminds us that there are other ways forward, which empower people to have a stake in their own land.

It simply cannot be right in a country that believes in greater fairness and social justice that just 432 people own half of Scotland’s private land. That reflects the concentration in very few hands of influence, power, and wealth. My motion congratulates Community Land Scotland on reinforcing for us, through its Bunchrew land declaration, the just cause of land reform in Scotland. I am encouraged by some of what has been emerging recently, but there is still a long way to go. I hope that in his reply the minister will build on the theme that he has been developing. I believe that we agree that there needs to be a fairer distribution of land ownership in Scotland today, and I hope that we can unite around that as an ambition.

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

Thank you very much. We now turn to the open debate. If we have speeches of four minutes, please, I should be able to call everyone.

Photo of Rob Gibson Rob Gibson Scottish National Party

Rhoda Grant is to be congratulated on obtaining this timely debate. Community Land Scotland’s vision of a fair and equitable distribution of Scottish land chimes well with the final report of the land reform review group—“The Land of Scotland and the Common Good”—which shows that land reform cannot be achieved with one simple formula but is incremental, as each tranche adds to the application of the public interest test to all the land issues that we face today.

In my large constituency, there are examples that show the need for flexibility of approach. For instance, at Leckmelm, a formerly larger family estate of about 6,000 acres that saw much of its hill ground sold off on the death of the father of the present owner, the current owner is now seeking to enlist the support of Ullapool Community Trust to see whether the community would be interested in purchasing hill ground of some 5,000 acres that is again on the market. The community trust put out a questionnaire in the Ullapool News a fortnight ago to see what local people think. The motives of the Beattie family at Leckmelm are understandable as they work on many community projects and have strong local support year in, year out.

Meanwhile, a Dutch company that bought the nearby Foich estate of some 23,000 acres in the 1970s added that at Inverlael, which is closer to Leckmelm, in 1994 and bought Tir Aluinn, the former hotel at Leckmelm, in 2002. It has the ability to buy land in such quantities in Scotland. The international lesson is: why here, but not in Holland? Now it wants to add the Leckmelm hill ground to its extensive estate, not for cattle and sheep or for community uses but merely for the occasional sporting slaughter of deer.

Scottish Land & Estates is always saying that it wants collaboration with local people, and Community Land Scotland has an excellent track record where communities have bought land outright. However, the Leckmelm example is one where the common good needs the land laws to be made more open to community participation. The situation is all the more significant as Leckmelm witnessed the forcible removal of the crofters on the estate by the then owner in 1880, which was one of the triggers for the creation of the Highland Land League and for the crofters war. We need better solutions today.

The Bunchrew declaration encourages us to see land reform questions as a normal part of a nation’s development. As Scotland debates its land reform issues, other countries around the world are facing up to challenging land questions, too, and they need to interact.

A parallel guide is the Scottish Government’s commitment to make Scotland a hydro nation. It states:

“Water is of fundamental importance for Scotland’s economy, health, social wellbeing and environment. All businesses rely on the water environment in some way or another and water plays a prominent role in the success of many sectors of the economy. Some are of strategic importance to Scotland’s economy, such as tourism, food and drinks manufacturing and renewable energy generation.”

It is absolutely the same with land, or even more so.

We can learn from many other countries about best practice on land reform. Just as Scotland, as a hydro nation, will gain direct economic benefit and enjoy an enhanced international profile, so community land reform in Scotland can gain direct economic benefits for our people.

We should be aware of the urgency of this reform. Farm land values have risen by 223 per cent in 10 years, according to Knight Frank, as reported in The Press and Journal on 30 June. Farm agent James Denne said:

“There has been a lot of talk about the ... referendum, CAP reform and land reform, but there is much more confidence in the market for agricultural land than you might imagine, particularly for good arable ground”.

In contrast, the Financial Times on Saturday 2 August, in an article headlined “The twilight of private ownership in Scotland?”, suggested that the referendum is making buyers back off. The author, Merryn Somerset Webb, concluded:

“Scottish landowners are used to the idea that what is theirs is not all theirs ... The direction of travel has long been clear—the new bills and reviews just mark a step up in the speed of the transfer of power from landowner to perceived public interest.”

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

Will you draw to a close, please?

Photo of Rob Gibson Rob Gibson Scottish National Party

Irrespective of the referendum result, property owners see that land reform is coming, but it would be so much easier with full tax powers over land being exercised by the Scottish Parliament. That is what I suggested in an amendment to the original version of the motion. There is wide MSP support and, all in all, the time for land reform for the common good is here and now.

Photo of Malcolm Chisholm Malcolm Chisholm Labour

I congratulate Rhoda Grant on securing the debate and on highlighting the Bunchrew land declaration.

The pattern of land ownership in Scotland is underpinned by generations of inequality and is shaped by many wealthy vested interests that in effect prevent an equitable system that truly benefits communities. The declaration points out the lack of fairness in land distribution and reaffirms Community Land Scotland’s commitment to a fair but radical alternative. At present, Community Land Scotland represents members who manage roughly 500,000 acres of land, which contains up to 25,000 residents. Those residents all stand to gain from the positive experience of engaging with and making the most of the land around them. As Andy Wightman points out in his publication “The Poor Had No Lawyers: Who Owns Scotland (And How They Got It)”, half of the country’s privately owned land is held by just 432 owners and as few as 16 owners hold 10 per cent of Scotland’s natural land resources. That is quite simply unacceptable.

Ownership empowers communities and gives a greater sense of participation and inclusion. We need only look abroad to see examples of that. The Bunchrew land declaration states that,

“having explored the parallels with land reform internationally”,

Community Land Scotland has found that

“Scotland lags behind land reform interventions which in Europe delivered greater land justice in past centuries”.

That is the case in France, for example, where patterns of ownership of national forests differ enormously from the current inequitable Scottish situation. As it stands, more than 44 per cent of private forests in Scotland are over 100 hectares in size and account for more than 94 per cent of the forest area. The conditions of tenure for workers and communities who live on that land are determined by a relatively small group of people. By comparison, French farmers, like farmers elsewhere in Europe, are also foresters, which means that there are no big estates with tenants relying on a landlord’s good will. At the same time, public forests are owned by local communities, which gives a far more equitable outcome for all stakeholders.

In Andy Wightman’s article “Scottish forestry still in hands of an elite”, he points out that the reasons why Scottish private forestry is dominated by large-scale absentee landowners is partly down to established ownership patterns in which a tiny elite possessed the land and all farmers were tenants. Until 2004, the law stated clearly that trees belonged to the landlord, so farmers have never been forest owners. As a result, huge swathes of prominent and valuable woodland are beyond the reach of community ownership, and that has remained largely unchallenged.

The declaration also touches on the human rights element of land reform, citing “Scotland’s National Action Plan for Human Rights 2013-2017”, which seeks to increase people’s understanding of human rights and their participation in decisions. The Bunchrew declaration is correct to identify that as one key area that has yet to be properly discussed. The use of land directly affects the wellbeing of citizens and therefore current legislation on community empowerment should reflect the human rights impacts.

That starts with information. Urban and rural communities have voiced a desire to know who owns the land around them, but as yet Scotland lags behind most comparable European countries in providing such data. Angus Robertson of Community Land Scotland, in evidence to the Scottish Affairs Committee consultation on land reform, highlighted that transparency and accountability in respect of land ownership are seriously damaged by the lack of a full register of rural ownership. He said that, even where the ownership is available, some “hide behind charitable status” and

“have a board of trustees which has no local representation on it at all.”

That situation cannot continue.

I welcome the reaffirmation of the values of Community Land Scotland in the Bunchrew declaration, which sets out a shared agenda that I hope all members will get behind, including with regard to the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill.

I welcome the motion and give it my support.

Photo of Alex Fergusson Alex Fergusson Conservative

As others have done, I congratulate Rhoda Grant on bringing the motion to the chamber. It is timely, because there is no doubt that land reform issues are very much in the air, largely as a result of the publication of the report of the land reform review group but also, I like to think, as a result of the Parliament’s positive history in supporting community buy-outs and ownership to the extent that, as Malcolm Chisholm said, some 500,000 acres are now community owned and run.

As an individual and as a Scottish Conservative, I very much welcome that fact. After all, it was a Conservative Government that initiated land reform in the United Kingdom. Indeed, we believe that true devolution does not and should not end with the transfer of powers to Edinburgh and that it must result in the genuine empowerment of communities or it is surely meaningless. It therefore follows that community ownership of land has to be integral to the beliefs of those of us who embrace devolution, and I certainly number myself among them.

However, I differ from some of the current thinking on how to promote increased community ownership as we take it forward. I believe strongly that successful community ownership results from local enthusiasm leading to local initiatives, local decision making and local processes.

I believe equally strongly that those processes should be based on entirely voluntary agreement. The idea that any community should have a right to buy land without the agreement of a willing seller is one that I cannot support, but that is the route that the land reform review group proposes, even if it is only as a last resort.

Even more concerning from my perspective is the proposed degree of centralisation of the process. Setting up three new Government agencies to oversee the policy is as fine an example of centralised overkill as I have ever seen and I cannot understand the logic of a centralised Government agency having the right, never mind the ability, to determine whether a proposed community buyout is able to deliver the degree of public benefit that will apparently be required if the large amounts of taxpayers’ money that will have to be provided to finance such ventures are to be sanctioned. There surely must be better ways of doing that than simply setting up three new quangos.

Community ownership is really positive, but let us keep it voluntary and local because that results in land reform with harmony rather than land reform with divisiveness. That, surely, must be the preferred outcome.

Photo of Alex Fergusson Alex Fergusson Conservative

I do not have time. I am sorry.

I will finish with a brief word on the amount of land that anyone can own. I question whether the amount of land is at the heart of people’s concerns. I could own 2 acres in the heart of my local village and have far more influence over that community than the owner of a 10,000 acre or 100,000 acre estate just up the road.

I would, and, as the debate goes forward, will argue that the real issue is not how much land people own but how that land is used. Simply putting a false cap on the amount will do nothing other than have lawyers rubbing their hands with glee as they devise schemes to drive a coach and horses through any legislation that seeks to do that.

Many of the land reform review group’s recommendations, which are largely endorsed by the Bunchrew declaration, are well intentioned but some of them are ill thought out. As I said earlier, land reform and community ownership can and should result in positive and progressive outcomes for not only the communities but the whole country. That will be achieved only if the elements of compulsion and state interference are removed from the proposed equation.

I expect no applause, Presiding Officer, but I thank members for their time.

Photo of Dave Thompson Dave Thompson Scottish National Party

I, too, thank Rhoda Grant for securing this important debate.

The publication of the Bunchrew land declaration is an important contribution towards establishing new land ownership patterns in Scotland for the common good and in the public interest. Community Land Scotland also deserves our thanks for the work that it is doing on that vital issue.

Fundamentally, land is a God-given, finite, gift that must be used for the benefit of all. I am confident that any moves towards more people-centred land governance will meet with majority support in the Parliament and I urge Labour in particular to put aside party politics and join with those of us who are in favour of land reform to promote meaningful change. I was encouraged by Rhoda Grant’s call for working together on that, but there is a challenge.

The Bunchrew declaration recognises that Scotland’s land reform journey is behind that of most of Europe, where more equitable patterns of land ownership have been delivered in recent centuries. As Rhoda Grant and Malcolm Chisholm said, more than half of Scotland’s private land is owned by just 432 people with 10 per cent owned by 16 individuals or groups, which means that Scotland has one of the most unequal patterns of land ownership in Europe. We cannot say that often enough.

We—Labour and the SNP—recognise that the declaration is a positive step and we are in agreement that such patterns of land ownership in Scotland are not fit for a modern nation. We have to build on that.

The declaration is positive and is an embodiment of intention that is notable and is a strong marker on the Scottish land reform road. That is why I am confident that we will unite with Community Land Scotland in the coming years to bring the ideas that are contained within the declaration to fruition.

However, as a Parliament, we also have to be honest about how we are going to do that, and it would be remiss of me not to mention that Westminster still makes many decisions for us, such as on postal privatisation and the renewal of Trident nuclear missiles—decisions that are not supported by this chamber.

As Rob Gibson said, Westminster also decides on most aspects of taxation and, because the tax system plays an integral role in perpetuating our unfair and concentrated pattern of large-scale private land ownership, it will need amending if we are to make a real difference. That is unlikely to happen, despite the sterling efforts of Westminster’s Scottish Affairs Committee. The problem is that the establishment in London, the millionaires in the Cabinet and the members of the House of Lords will make it impossible to enact the type of radical reform we seek. The members of the House of Lords, especially, will always vote in the interests of their own kind, who have a vested interest in vast swathes of Scotland’s land and in keeping things as they are.

Members know what the answer is. We can eradicate the House of Lords at the stroke of a pen and take our taxation system into our own hands on 18 September. That will set us upon a true path to realising the aims of the Bunchrew declaration, and I hope that, on some level, that notion chimes with members of the chamber who are ordinarily against independence. I am sure that a majority of members in this chamber believe that there should be a fair distribution of land so that communities are able to fulfil their aspirations. However, we must be honest about how we achieve that.

We owe it to the people of Scotland to make sure that we make progress by advancing the principles of fairer patterns of land ownership, as laid out in the Bunchrew declaration, and by removing any blockages, such as the House of Lords, that prevent us from doing that.

The answer is in Labour’s hands, but does it have the courage to grasp it?

Photo of Claudia Beamish Claudia Beamish Labour

I want to support all that Rhoda Grant has said in opening the debate. The land ownership question is fundamental to a fairer Scotland. It sometimes still feels as though the land debate is just a Highlands and Islands thing, but the question of land reform has relevance to South Scotland, the region that I and the minister represent.

We have much to learn from the Highlands and Islands and seek to involve more and more communities in the real future of their land. The fact that the Highlands and Islands has had Highlands and Islands Enterprise as an economic and social development agency for close to 50 years shows in the capacity of its communities, but also in the support systems that are in place. I hope that the minister will agree that, within Scotland, there is more that we can do to share best practice. I have to disagree with Alex Fergusson, and I ask the minister to agree that the new agencies that are proposed, or similar models, will offer local communities support and are not about centralisation.

However, tonight I want to focus principally on matters that originate beyond Scotland’s shores but which are relevant here and can give us strength and confidence in our policy actions. I am not referring to human rights considerations. I want to concentrate on one particular international agreement, which was signed up to by the current UK Government.

I confess that I did not know about the existence of a document called, “Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food Security” until attention was drawn to it by Community Land Scotland in the Bunchrew land declaration. It is a United Nations food and agriculture organisation policy document that was agreed by the UN’s committee on world food security and has since been endorsed by the G8. The guidelines have high-level international endorsement and they apply to all member states, not just developing countries. The guidance is designed to

“improve tenure governance by providing guidance and information on internationally accepted practices for systems that deal with the rights to use, manage and control land”.

They are about internationally accepted practices and are now recommended for consideration by nation states in the development of land policies.

The guidelines are voluntary but they carry the weight of official endorsement at the most senior international levels. They set out helpful policy principles and cover Government-owned land as well as other ownerships. Other members have highlighted that issue.

On Government land, it states:

“Where States own or control land, fisheries and forests, they should determine the use and control of these resources in light of broader social, economic and environmental objectives.”

That resonates with ideas about sustainable development in the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 and proposals to update the act in the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill. I feel passionate about sustainable development because it is defined in economic, social and environmental terms.

The guidance makes it clear that redistributive reforms

“can facilitate broad and equitable access to land and inclusive rural development” and that

“States may consider land ceilings as a policy option in the context of ... redistributive reforms.”

So, as the Bunchrew land declaration suggests, the apparently controversial policy idea of ceilings on land holdings is legitimised through these international guidelines, which are approved by the UK Government.

However, having a ceiling is only one potential redistributive mechanism; there are many others. The guidelines make it clear that

“redistributive reforms may be considered for social, economic and environmental reasons ... where a high degree of ownership concentration is combined with ... rural poverty attributable to lack of access to land, fisheries and forests”.

I have been able to describe only briefly the depth of the policy practices that are internationally endorsed in the document. The voluntary guidelines are worthy of more study. I hope that the minister will consider that in his closing remarks. We should feel strengthened by this as we move forward to take what some may regard as radical steps, but which I and many—if not most—in this chamber believe are important steps in land reform for the future communities of Scotland.

Photo of Jean Urquhart Jean Urquhart Independent

As I am the last back-bench member to speak, a number of the issues that I wanted to raise have already been covered.

To pick up on one of Rob Gibson’s points, I note that there are still difficulties for local groups. In the sale of land by the Forestry Commission, land is often offered in small pieces to the local community. If the local community decides not to declare an interest in the land, buy it or attempt to buy it, it tends to be put together in one very large piece. A local trust, which could not contemplate buying the land as a whole but, together with local businesses, could buy smaller pieces and make something of the land, is thereby denied the chance to do so. That is worth looking at.

I agree with Claudia Beamish when she says that the issue does not apply only to the Highlands and Islands. We now see in urban areas the interest and energy that is released in a community when it has ownership. The land fund is perhaps inadequate at the moment, but I hope that it will grow to allow people to take ownership of land in urban areas.

There is often frustration. There are examples of tenant farmers who are desperate to buy the land they farm but who know that the absentee landowner wants to deny the sale and, in the long term, wants to close the farm. There are small businesses that are tenants of large estates and who work on a month-to-month lease. That is an unacceptable practice if we are to grow sustainable communities.

I want to cite some examples. In Mull, the forest crofts are proving to be a success. Liberating people to do the best they can with a piece of land has to be the first consideration. That clearly is the case in the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill, in terms of the public interest. That says everything about what we would like to see in land reform.

I congratulate David Cameron—not that David Cameron, but David Cameron the chair of Community Land Scotland; he is from Harris, not London—and Peter Peacock, lately of this Parliament, on the work that they have done in bringing about the Bunchrew land declaration. I agree with just about everything that is in it. It is the way forward. There is an enormous future if we can only see the potential of urban and rural land, given the opportunities that have been lost over generations—and now hundreds of years—as Scotland continued to have a feudal land system into the 20th century, which is really shocking.

Let us acknowledge the Bunchrew land declaration and its worth. I thank Rhoda Grant for bringing this debate to the Parliament. It is timely, it is right and I think that we can start to become very excited about the potential of land ownership in Scotland.

Photo of Paul Wheelhouse Paul Wheelhouse Scottish National Party

I am pleased to be here to discuss the Bunchrew land declaration, and I congratulate Rhoda Grant on bringing the debate to the chamber. I will say more about why I think it is the right time for this debate.

The Bunchrew land declaration by Community Land Scotland in March this year tells an interesting story, as we have heard. It also tells a story that brings us almost full circle.

The international human rights community has been debating community land rights for some time now. That debate, to date at least, has been driven by a recognition in many developing countries, where communities have already exercised collective ownership of land and have managed the land sustainably in the interests of the whole community, that those collective rights have had to give way to modern individual property rights.

In those countries, property rights have often been taken up by large interests wanting to own and extract mineral wealth. In the process they have displaced local communities, dispossessing them of both their land and, importantly, their futures. In an endeavour to start to protect community land rights, the international community has been drawing up guidelines to help encourage countries to take action where communities are losing those collective rights.

This international story has resonance here in Scotland, and I believe that Scotland has a lot to offer to the debate—a point that Rhoda Grant made earlier. Many of Scotland’s crofting communities will relate to the current stories unfolding in the developing world. They have a long history of struggle, and legislative changes from the late 19th century through to the present day have resulted in a succession of legislative reforms and in security of tenure. That serves to protect the interests of their inhabitants and, more widely, their communities. I hope that colleagues across the chamber will agree with me that that reform has made a real difference.

There have also been rights established for other rural communities throughout Scotland. Some of them—such as the community right to buy, to which a number of members have referred—are innovative and can make a real difference to the futures of communities that use them.

The determination of communities in Scotland to own and manage the land on which they live and work has led to roughly half a million acres of land in community ownership today. In the past year alone, more than 38,000 acres have come under community ownership. There are another 100,000 acres in the pipeline at the moment, which is very encouraging.

Scotland is not the only country that is working to restore community land rights. Where examples exist, there is growing evidence that community landowners place a far greater emphasis on sustainability and the environment. These really are key drivers to community, as well as national, success and prosperity. New Zealand is another prime example of where that happens.

I would like Scotland’s community landowners, with their rich and long experience of rural and community development, to be willing to share their experience internationally, and to help communities in other countries at the start of their struggle.

I am already aware that the 1 million acre target set by the First Minister in June 2012, which would see us move from around 2 per cent to around 5 per cent of Scotland’s land coming into community ownership, is being held up as an example in the international debate on community land rights. Therefore, I again thank Rhoda Grant for lodging her motion, record my agreement with the motion and congratulate Community Land Scotland on the publication of the Bunchrew land declaration.

I made it clear that this Government is committed to progressing land reform in Scotland when I spoke at the Community Land Scotland conference in June and also when I appeared before the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee. I take this opportunity to reiterate that commitment. My vision is for a fairer, wider and more equitable distribution of land in Scotland that provides communities and individuals with the access to land they need to fulfil their aspirations and needs and, in turn, contributes to the sustainable economic development of Scotland and to its social and environmental gains.

We have a target of 1 million acres, or 5 per cent, of land in community ownership by 2020. It is certainly an ambitious target but it is also a really inspiring one. All Scotland should be engaged in achieving that target. We need communities to think about whether community ownership of land or an asset would make a real difference to their community and its success. We need the public, private, third and community sectors to work together to make sure we get the best from our land.

The target of 1 million acres in community ownership is sometimes portrayed as pro community and anti private ownership, but that is not the case. As the concentration of ownership decreases there will be room for more community owners and more private owners.

I agree with Claudia Beamish that it is also clear that land reform in Scotland is not something solely for the Highlands and Islands or for rural Scotland; it is for the whole of Scotland. We need to take land reform into urban areas. There are already numerous examples where community ownership of land has made a real difference in such areas. We want to encourage urban communities and those in our larger rural settlements to become involved and fulfil their potential.

We also want urban and rural communities to be able to tackle abandoned and neglected land, which is a real hindrance to the sustainable development of land to which communities have a connection. The Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill will propose some key steps that can make a real difference, but further action is needed, which is why I have announced that I will seek to introduce a land reform bill during the current parliamentary session.

I have said it before—and other members have referred to this—that we might not design a system in which 432 landowners, or 0.008 per cent of the population, owns half of the privately owned land in Scotland. That is not to denigrate the individuals who own that land; this is not about the politics of envy. However, we are not aware of any other modern democracy in which such a pattern of land ownership pertains.

In the time I have left, I will refer to some of the points that have been raised by members. In response to Rhoda Grant, I say that we look to work with Community Land Scotland and others to implement the agenda. Rob Gibson referred to Scotland being a hydro nation. That is an important principle and, to an extent, we all depend on land for our wellbeing, as does the environment.

Malcolm Chisholm talked about the concentration of ownership of forestry. It is true that we have a highly concentrated pattern of forestry ownership, but we are implementing initiatives such as wood lots to explore how communities and individuals can lease forests to manage. Indeed, the Forestry Commission Scotland national forest land scheme is a means by which we can transfer ownership of forests to communities.

Jean Urquhart made a fair point about the pattern of how the land has been disposed of. We are exploring means by which we can have smaller packets of land for sale. That happened most recently in the sale of Rannoch barracks, which gave opportunities for smaller plots to be bought.

Alex Fergusson raised a point about community empowerment and I welcome his support for that. I hope that there are aspects of the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill that the Conservatives can support, and we look to work with Alex Fergusson and his colleagues on finding common ground where we can.

Dave Thompson called for unity with the Opposition parties. I genuinely believe that we can achieve that unity on land reform, and I certainly look forward to working with the Labour Party and others in due course. I agree with Claudia Beamish’s point about the support systems that HIE produces. They have been very influential in promoting community land projects in the Highlands and Islands.

My aim is for land reform to address the situation that we face in Scotland by ensuring that patterns of ownership and use of land in this country deliver the maximum benefit to the people of Scotland. I hope—and I have expressed as much to our stakeholders—that the land reform review group’s report has given us the opportunity to take land reform away from the old, polarised arguments and into the 21st century.

Rhoda Grant is correct to say that we will have many opportunities to debate the issues in due course. The Scottish Government looks forward to working with Parliament and having the support of parliamentary colleagues for the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill and a future land reform bill.

Meeting closed at 17:45.