|
Back to Land Reform Homepage
11 March 2003
My thoughts following the passing of the
Land Reform (Scotland) Bill
Jamie McGrigor MSP
Scottish Conservative & Unionist MSP for Highlands
& Islands
Member of Scottish Parliament Cross Party Groups on
Agriculture and Horticulture, and Animal Welfare
Member of Rural Development Committee
Hill Farmer at Ardchonnel Farm, Argyl
© www.land-care.org.uk
(Filed 10 March 2003)
On 23 January 2003 the Scottish Parliament passed
the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill by 101 votes (from Labour, the Liberal
Democrats and the SNP) to 19 (from the Scottish Conservatives).
Scottish Conservatives had vigorously opposed
the Bill from its first inception. We recognised that it was unnecessary
and unwarranted and would ultimately only harm the economies of
vulnerable rural areas by deterring much needed investment. Our
protests, just as those of many organisations such as the Crofting
County Fishing Rights Group, were ignored.
During the legislative process Scottish Conservative
MSPs lodged 163 amendments to try and improve the legislation, however
we were defeated at virtually every corner.
Among those amendments was a move to scrap part
three of the Bill altogether. The crofting community right to buy
makes it possible to expropriate land and salmon fishings, removing
one of the foundations of an open society, namely the right to own
and hold property. This is a huge disincentive to investment and
will only harm rural areas. Already the Highlands and Islands Rivers
Association pointed out that £2.5 million of investment had
been cancelled because of the Bill (1). However,
despite this damning evidence, Conservative MSPs were the only ones
to vote for this amendment, which was, defeated 16 votes to 94.
Another important amendment we pushed was for
landowners to be given the right to temporally suspend access rights.
This was a common-sense amendment with many different motives. For
instance dangerous activities are carried out on land and it is
clearly unwise to have people walking on the land during such operations
and, as such, farmers should have the right to exclude access to
land for the period during which such activities are undertaken.
Our other argument relates to the fact that businesses can be prejudiced
by unrestricted access. The most typical example is perhaps Skibo
Castle, which attracts celebrities to visit because of the privacy
that it is able to afford. If that privacy is lost, celebrities
such as Madonna will simply not go to Skibo Castle and income will
be lost to a fairly fragile rural economy (2).
The Bill was also very clear about setting out
the new rights for walkers, however it had virtually passed over
any safeguards to landowners as a consequence of the new rights.
This amendment was also an attempt to restore the balance between
landowner and access taker. However once again the amendment was
defeated 16 votes to 93.
We also endeavoured to have enclosed farmland
classed as area that access could not be taken over. The enclosure
of such land would have had a dual purpose: it would protect the
business of the individual farmer, and it would protect the health
and safety of those seeking access. The countryside can be a lovely
place but, equally, it can be a dangerous place. Sometimes it is
ill advised to go onto enclosed farmland on which there are farm
animals. Unfortunately, there have been many instances in which
serious injury and death have resulted from members of the public
mixing with farm animals. The amendment would not have impinged
on the rights of those who seek sensible access to farmland, as
it was dealing only with enclosed farmland. Like our other amendments
this too was voted down by Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the
SNP 105 votes to our 17.
All our amendments were voted down, and the Bill
Scotland was left with was one full of ambiguities. The Scottish
Outdoor Access Code is to set out responsible conduct on the part
of both those exercising access rights and the owners of land subject
to such rights and is supposed to iron out such vague areas.
It is therefore my hope that a number of the concerns
that were raised by myself and my colleagues during the passing
of the Bill, will be taken on board and included within the Code.
I would especially hope that efforts will be made to try and re-establish
a balance between access takers and landowners given the final Bill
was very much skewed toward the access taker.
However given the history of this Bill I am not
too optimistic. No matter who has raised concerns about the Bill,
no-one except the Conservatives has listened and the overly political
agenda has been adhered to regardless.
I feel it is worth noting that on 20 February
the New York Times ran a story about the Land Reform Bill (3),
stating its potential damage to privacy, tourism and local economies.
However while other countries may be able to watch on and comment
as our vulnerable rural areas begin to suffer, thanks to Labour,
the Lib Dems and the SNP, this is the stark reality that faces Scotland
today.
This Bill will stifle wealth creation. It will
also decrease the likelihood that new investors including expatriate
Scots will be attracted to setting up homes and businesses in Scotland.
At the end of the day this Bill is not one which
will be held up around the world as a piece of noteworthy legislation,
rather it will be a warning to others of the dangers of political
correctness and social engineering gone mad.
Jamie McGrigor MSP
References
1. Justice 2 Committee Agenda.
6th Meeting, 2002 (Session 1). Wednesday 13 February 2002. (Download
PDF).
2. BBC News Online (2001). 'Madonna
castle' bill threat. 15 July 2001.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/1439785.stm
3. Alvarez, Lizette (2003). Land
Reforms in Scotland Give Big Estates the Jitters. New York Times,
23 February 2003.
Further Reading Recommended by Land-Care
Supplementary Information from K Shade. Justice 2 Committee Agenda.
6th Meeting, 2002 (Session 1). Wednesday 13 February 2002. (Download
PDF).
Results of Oban Times Poll on Land Reform
(Filed 24 February 2003, www.land-care.org.uk,
click
here to view).
Editorial Comment. Land Reform (Scotland) Bill - SNH Recreation
and Access Update: Access Legislation Bulletin: News Letter No.19.
(Filed 21 February 2003, www.land-care.org.uk,
click
here to view).
Responses to Land Reform (Scotland) Bill: NFUS, SLF and Charles
Connell.
(Filed 6 February 2003, www.land-care.org.uk,
click
here to view).
Linklater, Magnus (2003). Land law with head in the clouds. Scotland
on Sunday, 26 January 2003.
(Filed 28 January 2003, www.land-care.org.uk,
click
here to view).
Irvine, James (2003). Update 2003 on SNH Conference September 2000:
Enjoyment and Understanding of the Natural Heritage: Finding the
New Balance between Rights and Responsibilities. A Review of the
Proceedings.
(Filed 22 January 2003, www.land-care.org.uk,
click
here to view).
Linklater, Magnus (2003). Fair play on land reform swept away in
a torrent of prejudice. Scotland on Sunday, 19 January 2003.
(Filed 20 January 2003, www.land-care.org.uk,
click
here to view).
Smith, Michael (2003). Uncalled for unwarranted ideological legislation.
Dundee Courier, Letters, 7 January 2003.
(Filed 9 January 2003, www.land-care.org.uk,
click
here to view).
Douglas Miller, Robbie (2002). Justice 2's legal expertise in doubt.
Scotland on Sunday, Letters, 22 December 2002. Note: Robbie Douglas
Miller is Vice-chairman, Highlands and Islands Rivers Association.
(Filed 9 January 2003, www.land-care.org.uk,
click here
to view).
Irvine, James (2003). Scottish Natural Heritage’s Policy on
Access: Is it being mis-sold in relation to enclosed Farmland next
to Urban Communities? LandCare Scotland, 1: 19-23.
(Filed 7 January 2003, www.land-care.org.uk,
click
here to view).
McNeill, Pauline (2002). No Corners Cut on Land Reform Bill. Scotland
on Sunday, Letters, 15 December 2002. Note: Pauline McNeill is an
MSP and Convenor of the Justice 2 Committee.
(Filed 23 December 2002, www.land-care.org.uk,
click here to view).
Watson, Jeremy (2002). Scotland's first 'land grab' victim. Scotland
on Sunday, 8th December 2002.
(Filed 23 December 2002, www.land-care.org.uk,
Click here
to view).
Linklater, Magnus. Land Reform Falls Foul of Scotland’s own
Kangaroo Committee. Scotland on Sunday, 1 December 2002. (Includes
editorial comment from Land-Care).
(Filed 2 December 2002, www.land-care.org.uk,
Click
here to view).
Mylius, A. (2001). Access: the Reality for Farmers, Landowners,
Foresters and all Rural Residents. LandCare Scotland, 1: 3-18.
(Filed 15 November 2002, www.land-care.org.uk,
click
here to view).
Raeside, T. (2001). Veterinary Hazards to Open Access to Enclosed
Agrciultural Land. LandCare Scotland, 1: 33-34.
(Filed 15 November 2002, www.land-care.org.uk,
click
here to view).
|
