The next item of business is debate on motion 1.6.445 in the name of Rosanna Cunningham on land reform in Scotland, delivering for now and the future. May I ask those who wish to speak in the debate to press requests to speak buttons, and I call on Rosanna Cunningham to speak to and move the motion for up to 12 minutes, please, Cabinet Secretary. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Land reform is a subject that has been relevant to Scotland for several hundred years, and I have to say it sometimes seems that I have been talking about it for several hundred years. However, the pace of change has been stepped up since the inception of this Parliament. We have legislated to enable communities to buy land, to establish the Scottish Land Commission, to require ministers to set out their vision for land reform through the Scottish Land Rights and Responsibility statement, which was published in September 2017, the very first of its kind anywhere in the world. It sets out a vision of a strong and dynamic relationship between Scotland's land and its people, where all land contributes to a modern and successful country and where land rights and responsibilities are recognised and fulfilled. In the forward to the statement, I said that Scotland's land is one of our most valuable assets and that remains true. Our land is at the heart of our environment and it makes an important contribution to our economy in countless ways. It supports the lives that we lead, whether through housing, recreation, the production of food or any one of a myriad other ways. Land is vital to Scotland's inclusive and sustainable economic growth and to social justice. Despite that, our relationship with land is unbalanced and has been for hundreds of years. Too much of our land is still owned by too few people, too much of our land in both rural and urban areas is unproductive and too few of us are able to influence decisions about the use and management of land. Addressing those issues is at the core of the Scottish Government's land reform agenda. I know that some people think that the statement is not strong enough while others think that it goes too far. I believe that the statement is an ambitious encapsulation of land reform. It is right that we challenge land owners to take their responsibilities seriously and it is right that we expect good practice from everyone who makes decisions about land.  The land rights and responsibilities statement will be at the core of our approach. Community ownership has long been a prime focus for reformers and the Scottish Government continues to support communities to take ownership of land and assets. There are three forms of community right to buy already in force and a fourth is being developed. There is a healthy queue of communities who are seeking to acquire land and assets for the long-term benefit of the community. The Scottish land fund provides £10 million per year to support communities and is an important part of the community ownership landscape. Communities do not need to use right-to-buy mechanisms to access the fund and this year it will invest more than ever before helping communities to take ownership of the land and buildings that matter to them. I recently visited the pyramid in Anderson Glasgow, an excellent example of a listed 20th century church, to mark the 100th award made by the Scottish land fund. The pyramid has long served as a community hub and has now been bought by the community. It is significant that the award was made to a community in an urban area. Community right to buy legislation originally reflected the history of land reform and applied only to rural areas. As the value of community ownership became increasingly apparent, the Scottish Parliament legislated to extend the community right to buy to communities in urban areas. The 100th award was made to a community in Glasgow, a mid-20th century church. It shows just how far I think community ownership has come. Applications to the Scottish land fund are increasingly for smaller, more discrete projects for specific purposes. Those projects, especially in urban areas, may cover only small areas of land, but the contribution that they make to the community can be huge. For that reason, as was recently recommended by the Scottish Land Commission, we will now seek to measure the growth of community ownership, primarily by the number of communities who own land and assets, rather than the amount of land that is owned. Historically, the impetus for community ownership has been, yes, of course. Rhoda Grant. Land ownership is totally unbalanced in Scotland, and if we are moving towards the purchase of smaller amounts of land, how are we going to change that 50 per cent of private land ownership in Scotland? Roseanna Cunningham. I think that if the member listens to what I have to say in the rest of the speech, she will understand the direction of travel, but we want to be able to reflect the importance of urban community ownership in this wider debate as well. I talked about the impetus for community ownership historically being conflict-driven, and I think that that is a fair estimate of how we saw community ownership beginning to develop. That may continue to be a factor, particularly in some of the areas that Rhoda Grant is probably thinking about, but I also want to encourage communities to think about land ownership proactively. I want them to think about the kind of land and facilities they need and then look for opportunities to acquire them. It should be the norm for communities to own land, not the exception. In November, the Scottish Land Commission published recommendations to improve processes for community ownership and enable more communities to take advantage of the benefits of community ownership. My officials are working with the Land Commission and other stakeholders to implement those recommendations, and I look forward to seeing the results. Community ownership will always be a central goal of land reform, but we must also have to tackle the deeply entrenched issues that affect the way in which Scotland's land is owned, used and managed, if we are to achieve our land reform ambitions. There are no easy solutions, but we are starting to address those issues. The scope of issues that the Land Commission is considering illustrates the complex and interconnected nature of land in Scotland. For example, the commission has published discussion papers on land for housing, public interest-led development, human rights and the acquisition of land by public bodies. It has considered land value tax and land value capture, as well as ways of changing Scotland's long-term patterns of land ownership. It is working to bring vacant and derelict land into productive use. Just yesterday, the commission published perhaps its most challenging report so far, looking at how we might tackle the patterns of scale and concentration of ownership of land in Scotland. The pattern of land ownership in Scotland is unlike anywhere else. There are complex historical reasons for that, but it is at the very heart of the Scottish Government's land reform agenda. If we do not fundamentally alter those patterns and change the framework that allowed them to develop and exist for so long, our land reform ambitions will ultimately be thwarted. That debate was not initially intended as a discussion about the Land Commission report, the publication of which it brought forward because of that debate. It does, however, inform the debate significantly. The Land Commission has made a number of recommendations to tackle the scale and concentration of ownership and help us to diversify land ownership. Those include the introduction of a public interest test that would apply to proposed land transactions over a certain size. That would enable the public interest to be considered before such transactions can take place and would help to ensure that the negative effects of scale and particularly concentration of ownership were kept in check. The Land Commission has steered clear of recommending a blanket ban on people owning particular amounts of land or of specific residency requirements instead of offering the public interest test as a way to provide important flexibility. That would certainly be a powerful tool to help to stop and reverse the kind of ownership patterns that have hampered Scotland for so many years for sure. However, there would be a great deal of work required to ensure that any such proposal was ECHR compliant. My officials will work with the Land Commission, stakeholders and other Scottish Government policy areas to consider how the report's recommendations can be turned into workable policy. In the last year or so, the commission has made recommendations that will allow us to drive forward real change. Some, like the public interest test or the proposed compulsory sale order, would need legislation. Others, however, are about culture change. My officials and the Land Commission are working together with a wide variety of stakeholders to encourage new approaches to how we use and manage land. Transparency about land ownership remains a key debate. If a community does not know who owns land, it cannot influence how it is used or tried to buy it. Landowners cannot be held to account if things go wrong. There can be no excuse for information about any type of land ownership to be obscured in 21st century Scotland. That is true whether the land is held by an individual who lives in Scotland or by a trust that is based in multiple countries. We are developing a new register that will make it clear who owns land and ultimately controls decisions about land. We have consulted on a first draft of regulations and are considering the responses as we develop the regulations further. I have outlined some of the key priorities for land reform, including some that we are already trying to address, as well as others that are likely to take a little longer before we see tangible change. However, it is clear that if we are to deliver a real and meaningful change, we need to tackle a wide range of intertwined issues. Considerations about land rarely exist in isolation. They are almost always connected to other issues, be they economic, cultural, environmental or social. That adds to the complexity of our challenge, but it also underlines the fundamental importance of land to Scotland's future. Improving our relationship with Scotland's land will have positive effects in many other arenas. Some of the issues that I have mentioned require culture change to break long-established ways of thinking about land. Others will require us to re-engineer the relationship between land and other parts of public policy. Delivering land reform will not be easy and it will not be quick, but it is important and absolutely necessary. Land reform is something that this Parliament has been supportive of from the very beginning. The bill that became the Land Reform Scotland Act 2003 was one of the first pieces of legislation that the Parliament considered and engendered a considerable degree of support across the chamber. The journey is quite emphatically not over and the support of the Parliament remains crucial if we are to achieve the kind of transformative change that I have described. I call on the Parliament to continue its long-standing support for land reform and, Presiding Officer, I move the motion in my name. I call on Edward Mountain to speak through and move amendment 16445.1 for around eight minutes, please. Before I start, I would like to refer members to my register of interests in that I am a partner in a farming partnership and I also own land. I hope that this is going to be an interesting debate and I believe that the Scottish Conservatives have and always will play a part, a constructive part, in the role of debates about land reform. In doing so, we have always been clear that we will support an individual's property rights, whether they own a house, a croft, a farm or a state. It will make no difference to us. We have also been clear in saying that there are elements of land form that we are happy to see progress. Indeed, we support and, as called for by the Cabinet Secretary, the moves towards transparency when it comes to who owns lands and ownership policy. It is sensible to us that the public should know who owns the land and who manages that land. We support community empowerment. Indeed, much of the Community Empowerment Act 2015 is based on UK Government legislation, which gave the communities the right to bid, the right to build and the right to reclaim land. Finally, we support the growing diversity of land ownership, which includes private individuals, businesses, charities and communities. There is much that we share in common, but it is disappointing that we find ourselves unable to support the Government's motion because we do not believe that land reform is all about who owns what. It is more important with who, what people do with the land that they own. I recognise that land reform is a highly emotive subject. Having worked in the countryside for many years, I know that it is perhaps more than many others who express informed opinions on the subject from within a political bubble. However, I believe that, if we are to address many of the issues, we can agree that perhaps there is a need to be more dispassionate and address the current issues, not the ones that existed before we started down the route of land reform many years ago in this Parliament. Frankly, I am saddened that the Scottish Government and its agencies seem to be obsessing on the issue of ownership above all the other considerations. As I have said before, it is not about who owns what or how much they own. It is about what they do with the land that matters most. I think that the Government and all other parties, including in this House, should remember that. I am saddened that the Labour Party seems to be fixated on who owns what. Its solution is put forward in its motion, while it is the same one that it puts forward every time—uncosted market intervention. Andy Wightman, I am happy to give way to Mr Wightman on that. Mr Mountain says that we should not obsess over who owns land and it is about how it is used and managed that matters. Why, then, is the land of class and the Conservative Party so resistant to any notion of land reform? If ownership does not matter, Mr Mountain would be happy to hand his land over to me. Edward Mountain. I think that the people that I employ are happy that I look after my business and manage my business in the way that I work it so that it gives them a job and creates prosperity and taxation benefits to the people of Scotland. If I can move on, what I am disappointed about with the Labour Party is that they have not read the Land Commission's report that the Cabinet Secretary referred to yesterday. Otherwise, they would have understood that their motion would not work because the annual land market is very small and thus will not receive and achieve the redistribution that they propose. We are not supposed to support the Greens amendment, either, because, again, it is based on the Scottish Lands Commission into land ownership. That was only published yesterday. While we need time to review it, upon first reading, it is fair to say that we have deep reservations about many of the recommendations, which appear to us to be based on unsubstantiated evidence and figures that cannot be checked without a lot more further information being put forward. I am going to make a bit of time and maybe if there is an opportunity later I will let you come back in. I would like to look at some of the comments, if I may, in that Land Commission's report, as I suspect that many of those speaking this debate today will be relying on. Let's look at some of the examples. As the report suggests that all the problems in the countryside are due to the actions of landowners, which conveniently appears to be large landowners. One example quotes restrictions on the development due to high rents. As a surveyor, I know that rents in town and the country are set by the market. Is it right that landlords with landholdings should charge a lesser rent because they have more assets? I don't think that's an argument that's sustainable. Another example given is the ability of rural business to expand as they didn't own enough land. It appears that the neighbouring landowner was at fault because he wouldn't sell them that extra land. This is a problem that all businesses face when they want to expand. It doesn't matter to me. One iota, if it's in the countryside or the town, if they don't have the land to expand on to, they have to look for new premises.  Another example is of high fees for a transaction. A landowner is criticised in the report by a community because he is asking for the purchaser to bear the professional costs of a voluntary sale. That's the way it works. If somebody approaches you to sell land, the costs are passed on to the person who wants to buy land. Why should it be different in a rural scenario? Gillian Martin is not the point that I was going to make. How would Mr Mountain react to the other case where a community got Scottish Land Fund money based on the market price and the landowner refused to sell, changed their mind because they wanted more? I can't quote and look at an example without it being substantiated. That's the problem with this report. My point to you is that transactions happen. I know that Mr Martin will be well aware that people try and buy houses and they put an offer in and they think the offer is going to work and then the offer doesn't work. That happens in the countryside, in the town, in business and everywhere. If you want to give me an example, I will certainly look at it and I will certainly take it up. It seems to me that none of the reasons that we have been given in the examples that I have quoted here support the premise that landowners should always agree to demands to cover costs, subsidise land sales and transfer on the basis that they must support everyone who lives on or near the land that they occupy. However, I think that what is interesting in the report is that it's not just private landowners who are blamed in the report. There are several instances where charitable trusts are blamed. I wonder if this is a valid argument. How many charitable landowners have been challenged for breaching their charitable objectives, something that is relatively easy to do to go to the charitable ombudsman? I have not seen no case of it yet. The report goes on to blame landowners also of the way they use their land. Examples of new forestry being detrimental is an interesting point. I seem to remember that it is this Government that wants more forestry and it is indeed needed if they are to reach their planting targets. I do not see how landowners can be blamed for creating more forestry if it is what the Government's policy it is. Am I naive enough to believe that everything is perfect in the countryside? No, I do not believe that it is perfect. I believe that there will always be tension in rural communities, whether they are surrounded by big landowners or small ones. That is why we support better engagement, but we need to be careful. Most farmers I know are delighted to engage with their neighbours. What is unrealistic for them to expect is for those neighbours to dictate how farmers farm their land and manage their businesses. Farmers hands, after all, are guided by planning law, Government policy, Government regulation and then fiscal good sense, exactly as it should be. I look forward to meeting the land commission to discuss the report and seek more information on their findings and comments. As it reads to me at the moment, the report has been written to support, in my opinion, predetermined conclusions that do not reflect anything more than the misconception of some of the members of the land commission. I look forward to hearing this debate today and I hope that it will be based on informed comment. What I hope we are not going to hear is heated and divisive arguments of old. We are going to focus on the good progress that has been made since land reform and land management has been discussed in this Parliament. We have all agreed that the culture of how land should be managed has improved. The Scottish Parliament over 20 years, there have been 19 acts containing land reform measures, including two land reform acts. Many of the changes brought about by the huge sweep of legislation are still being tested and are still bedding in, but I believe progress is being made. There is clear evidence of good practice where landowners and communities are working together and making mutual beneficial decisions on how to manage land. By returning to the issue of land reform again, I believe that this Parliament is starting to lose sight of the progress that we made. I urge all parties to move the debate forward and focus on the more pressing issues affecting rural communities and rural business that do not base themselves on who owns what. I therefore move the amendment in my name. Claudia Beamish will be followed by Andy Waven. It is timely that the Scottish Government has brought forward this motion for debate today, as it allows the opportunity to reflect on what has been achieved in land reform in Scotland. It also allows us to set out just how much more remains to be done to bring about fundamental change to the inequitable and unjust land ownership pattern that Scotland still has. I am proud that it was Scottish Labour that brought forward bills shortly after the creation of this Parliament to open the door to delivering radical changes in how we look at the question of land ownership. One dealt with changes to bring about an end to still lingering feudal powers associated with the land, the other firmly established a law of the right to roam freely and responsibly in Scotland and then of course also the right to buy. I too welcome the growth of community ownership that has found a new momentum following the passing of Labour's land reform act of 2003, supported by the Scottish Government and others in this chamber. Within the movement of greater ownership by communities, we have also seen that communities have started to speak more confidently, to reflect their experience of law and how it needed to develop and arguing for further change in our land laws. The work of the Scottish Land Commission in arguing on behalf of communities should be recognised today. As the minister has said, there is much to celebrate in what community ownership delivers. There are signs of optimism for a sustainable future in places where at times there seem to be no future. The growth and interest in land and other asset ownership across rural and urban Scotland is moving rapidly. Every acre of land that has come into community ownership is a welcome acre, but at the current rate of progress in 100 years time the vast majority of land in Scotland will still be in the same ownership patterns that have endured for centuries. If you believe in greater social justice in a fairer Scotland, which many many Scots would claim, then for Labour you can only succeed in that aim with sufficient land reform. Can it be socially just that so few own so much land that so many young people in their own place cannot find land or afford housing? That the whims of the few landowners can limit the economic opportunity for the many? That so many in our urban realm are consigned to live their lives next to vacant or derelict land with no environmental quality? And that our land markets operate in ways that only the privileged few and the wealthy elite can regularly participate in? Further, that the land uses and environment of vast areas is decided by one or two people and that community is denied the right to a sustainable future by virtue of the control that others can exercise. For Labour, land reform is about community. Community is being empowered to take more control over their economic, social and environmental destiny and it is about what is in the public interest. But for Labour, this is also a fundamental matter of justice, so the balance of power shifting from the few to the many and the opportunity and wealth that can flow from ownership is one of our most fundamental assets, our land, and this must be shared more equally by its people. Land reform is one of the means to the wider and radical redistribution of wealth and power that Labour wants to see. It is a sad truth that, as matters stand, this land reform minister or any land reform minister has no powers to formally ask the question of whether our current land arrangements act in the public interest. Communities who want to own land have to show that their interest in the land will serve the public interest and they have to gain the consent of the people in their community by democratic means that land should be owned by the community. In the way that Scotland's land markets work now, private owners simply have to have a big enough checkbook, frankly, and one man is in the process of becoming Scotland's largest land owner buying up his state after state in the highlands. In this, as in so much else, Scotland's landlords fall far short still of what other nations, as the cabinet secretary highlighted, can do through long-established intervention powers to look after the public interest in land questions. Land justice is part of delivering social justice. There should be limits to how much land can be owned by any one person, a difficult issue, but Scottish Labour supports that and other ownership arrangements unless it is shown to work in the public interest and for the common good. Many of the land holdings in Scotland are effective local land monopolies, so in many aspects of our national life we regulate monopolies to make sure that they cannot exploit their power against the public interest. It is time for a powerful land regulator to examine whether existing land ownerships help or hinder serving the public interest, fulfilling people's human rights and delivering greater social justice. Powers are needed so that if it cannot be shown that actions can be taken to impact the land ownership behaviours to deliver necessary change, that should include the potential break-up of land holdings exploiting their monopoly position. The minister referred in the motion to the good work of the Land Commission. It has indeed made a promising start, but as my amendment, Scottish Labour's amendment, which I now move, makes it clear that we need to deliver for the country the detailed thinking and proposals that will allow further progress towards ensuring the public interest in land ownership is met. In that context, we will also be supporting the Green Party amendment. How can we provide disincentives to large land owners being created in the future, possibly through a range of fiscal mechanisms? I welcome the Scottish Land Commission report of yesterday and its recommendations that would create radical change by means of statutory change but also by targeted policy work and voluntary collaboration. Those would have the effect—many of the recommendations—a huge impact on addressing land inequality here in Scotland. We will support the Scottish Government motion today, and if the Cabinet Secretary acts to secure further, really radical progress on these fronts, she will have the support of Scottish Labour and indeed Labour in doing so. Although I have faith in the collective experience of most of this chamber, if she does not, Scottish Labour in government here and at the UK level will instruct the Land Commission to provide Parliament with the options that it needs to act for greater change in our land ownership to deliver land justice for Scotland and to bring an end to the centuries of injustice inherent in how our land is owned. Andy Wightman, we follow by Lee McArthur. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I move the amendment in my name. I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for bringing this timely debate. As she notes, land reform is a difficult process where dealing as the government motion hints at with an entrenched set of circumstances brought about by a very long history. A very long history whereby men who owned land and property had the exclusive right to sit in Parliament, who made the laws governing the ownership of that land, men who ensured that primogeniture was only abolished in 1964, who ensured that even to this day children have no legal right to inherit land in Scotland, who have contrived to ensure that a wide range of exemptions from tax apply to landed estates that do not apply to other property owners. As other members have indicated, this Parliament has made important steps to reverse this entrenched system, but there remains a very, very long way to go. Presiding Officer, I want to begin by defining what I mean as land reform. I take the definition from the land reform review group that the Scottish Government set up and which reported in 2014, who define land reform as, I quote, 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, as well as 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 because fundamentally this is a debate specifically about how power is derived, defined, distributed and exercised. I welcome the focus in the Scottish Land Commission's report yesterday that talks about the concentration of power. I am reminded, in fact, of Tony Ben's famous five questions, which he would ask of those who purported to hold power. He asked, what power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interest do you use it? To whom are you accountable and how do we get rid of you? Anyone who cannot answer that last question he claimed does not live in a democratic system. That is a very, very 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 interests of the many and not the few. In short, it is about how to democratise land. The Scottish Land Commission report is refreshingly clear, analytical, nuanced and provides a frank assessment of the problem. For too long, much of this debate has been conducted by soundbite. I have indulged in a good deal of this myself. In an effort to be taken seriously and to attract attention, easy slogans and simplistic analysis has too often taken the place of patient diagnosis. I have long held the view that the ownership and occupation and use of land is a question of power. As the Land Commission notes, power can and is abused. It can also be exercised with great responsibility and diligence. The report talks about monopolies and market power of rent seeking as the hallmark of market power. Importantly, it distinguishes how power is exercised from how it is obtained. Recognising that, just because power can be exercised in damaging ways or responsible ways, it is actually the existence of that power that needs to change. However, the future of communities in Scotland should not rely on the arbitrary manner in which power is obtained through land markets, through inheritance or exercised by way of land use. My amendment does two things. First of all, it replaces the term community ownership with common ownership. Common ownership includes community ownership but recognises the other forms of common ownership such as common good land, parished commons, land held by local councils, common grazings should also be the norm. I hope that members can agree that this more inclusive term is helpful and has nothing to take away from the importance of community ownership. It then concludes by inviting Parliament not to agree the recommendations of the report but to endorse the findings. I hope that members can support that. The Parliament began life in acting a wide range of legislation, as Claudia Beamish noted, dealing with tenements, national parks, crofting, community right to buy, the right to roam, feudal abolition. By 2007, it had lost its way on the topic. Momentum declined and little further was done until the land reform review group was established. That followed the act of 2016, establishing the Scottish Land Commission. To some, the Scottish Land Commission was regarded as another tiresome quango. I was always very aware that land reform is difficult, it is deep-seated, it is entrenched and the presence of an agency committed to the study, analysis and advice on that topic would be critical. Opposition to change is vigorous and determined. The establishment of the Land Commission allows important elements of this debate not to be forgotten. It allows for detailed analysis to be conducted to inform public debate and the latest report is a good example of that. What we hear from the Conservative Party and indeed the landed class is a master class in distraction. The idea that the ownership and power over land does not matter, that in a great clamour of what aboutery we should look at how it is used, has been a common theme from politicians like Mr Mountain to whom I will readily give way. I hardly think that it is my common theme, Presiding Officer, but quoting from the Land Commission's report, the summary of macro themes identified for the call for evidence. There are five, three of them think that large land ownership actually brings advantage to local economics and to the natural environment. One of them is undecided on agriculture. There are five themes, three say that big land ownership is not a problem, two say it is. Do you accept that? Andy Wightman I confess that I have not read the report in such detail to be able to come to a conclusive view on that. I suspect that that may be a selective reading of what is written. The report is indeed a wake-up call. We need action. In closing, later this afternoon, I will highlight a couple of examples where flagrant abuse has arisen as a consequence of our collective failure to put in place democratic governance arrangements for land ownership. For the moment, I look forward to hearing other members what they have to say and encourage members to support my amendment. Liam McArthur I am grateful for the opportunity to speak briefly during this afternoon's debate on land reform. It is still a source of pride for me that Scottish Liberal Democrats put land reform right at the heart of the legislative programme in the early years of this Parliament. Promoting rights of access and delivering community right to buy and crofting community right to buy through the land reform act in 2003. It was always envisaged to be a first step, recognising that an incremental approach was going to be necessary in taking forward a genuinely ambitious land reform agenda. However, it began the process of addressing an area of policy that had for far too long been ignored, signalling very powerfully the positive difference that a devolved Parliament could and should be making. As a spice spotlight blog highlights, prior to devolution, Government policy on land reform was widely considered to be conspicuous by its absence. It goes on to conclude that the development of land reform as a distinctive policy area, centred on communities and sustainable development, is perhaps one of Parliament's most noteworthy actions. Of course, Conservative MSPs in successive parliaments have felt the need for whatever reason to oppose almost every phase of the land reform agenda. I even recall some members referring to Mugabe-style power grabs. While I agree that the case for an absolute right to buy has still not been made, I cannot accept that there is not more that we can and should be doing to reform the way that land is owned and managed, the way in which decisions about its use are taken and the way in which the benefits of one of Scotland's most important assets are felt. Sadly, while his comments earlier were characteristically considered, Edward Mountain's amendment gives the impression that there is no acceptance even now on the Tory benches of the need for further reform. Having been dragged, kicking and screaming to this point, it seems that the remainder of the journey is likely to follow a similar pattern. That is, I think, unfortunate, not least because of the fact that I believe Mr Mountain and a number of his colleagues have a great deal to contribute to this debate. Underlying the case for reform, of course, is the Scottish land rights and responsibility statement from 2017, which states that, quote, all land contributes to a modern and successful country where rights and responsibilities in relation to land are fully recognised and fulfilled. It would be difficult for anyone to disagree with that sentiment, albeit I recognise that people will come to different conclusions in response. However, I think that the Scottish Land Commission has done excellent work in trying to pull together some key themes as well as offering a number of recommendations for the way forward. I think that Edward Mountain is absolutely right to say that it will take a little time to digest this detail. Indeed, the commission itself accepts that it will need to consult extensively on its proposals before coming to a final view. Given their significance, it seems inevitable that there will be a lively bit debate about those proposals, and that is to be welcomed and indeed encouraged. However, I think that it is premature at this stage for Parliament to be calling on the Government to accept all of the recommendations, and on that basis I cannot support the amendment in Claudia Beamish's name. Andy Wightman, by contrast, calls on us to accept the findings of the Land Commission's report, and I have less difficulty with that. The evidence taken thus far by the commission has been extensive, and the analysis appears to me to be reasonably balanced, taking account of the wide range of arguments that are on this issue. What decisions the Government and the Parliament should take on the back of the commission's findings is for another day, but Scottish Liberal Democrats are certainly happy to support those findings. In particular, I recognise the pressing need to bring a greater degree of transparency to who owns land in Scotland. This, it seems to me, is absolutely critical. Whatever decisions or approach we take going forward, if nothing else, clarity over ownership is fundamental to accountability and, indeed, equity when it comes to paying taxes. It is clear, though, that such clarity and transparency is some way off. Andy Wightman, I think, recently described the Scottish land information system as next to useless, a view that Kate Forbes, to her great credit, did not appear to entirely dispute, although she did use rather more ministerial language in doing so. Presiding Officer, there are clearly many aspects to this issue that are worthy of debate, but I want to use the remainder of my time this afternoon to focus on the valuable contribution made by the Scottish Land Fund. This collaborative initiative between the Scottish Government, the Big Lottery, Hans and Anne's Enterprise has awarded more than £500 million in 2017-18, helping to make a significant contribution to communities across the country. In my own constituents of Orkney, last November saw sizable awards being made to three different development trusts. Over 147,000 were awarded to Western Development Trust for the purchase of the former Harbour Masters house in Pyrrwall, which we transformed into four apartments for affordable rent, helping to respond to the acute shortage of accommodation on the island. Rhausie Eaglesie and Wire Development Trust were granted £260,000 for the purchase of the Trumbland estate on Rhausie, taking 15 per cent of the island into community hands. Community ownership will create part-time employment opportunities for a project manager and arranger, as well as allowing the trust to explore improvements to broadband and mobile connectivity. Finally, PAPI Development Trust received 167,000 to purchase a four-bedroom detached house to help to meet the urgent need for long-stay affordable family homes for rent on that island. The Land Fund was set up to help to build resilience in communities across the country, and there is no question that these three projects will do exactly that. From my regular visits to the isles over the recent years and having been brought up in one of the north isles in Sandy, I know how much of a priority the availability of housing has been. Without suitable accommodation, creating and sustaining jobs in the isles becomes impossible. Ultimately, giving communities the tools that they need to address the specific challenges that they face and to take advantages of the opportunities that they have is absolutely the right approach. That, in a sense, encapsulates for me what land reform should be about. On that basis, Scottish Liberal Democrats are committed to playing our full part in taking forward the next phase of this important agenda. We move to the open part of the debate. I call Gillian Martin to be followed by Finlay Carson. Since the passing of the Land Reform Act, we have had a chance to reflect on whether Scotland's communities are thriving as a result of land reform. In the short six months that I have been convener of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee, I have imparted to some key developments relating to land reform. The first was the scrutiny of the Crown Estate Bill. The second, the current development of the legislative persons with a controlling interest in land, is the mechanism for identifying who owns what in all areas of the country. The first of those should ensure that Crown Estate exists largely for public good and should boost local economic and social potential. The second of those should go a long way to solving one of the main historical problems associated with identifying landowners. Crucially, it puts in place obligations for landowners to engage with correspondence. The third happened yesterday and was, as many people have already said, the report published by the Scottish Land Commission on large scale and concentrated ownership in Scotland. It is a significant and challenging report, reviewing whether we still have work to do in making sure that the current pattern of ownership is benefiting us all. One phrase from the report immediately drew my eye. There was an urgent need for formal mechanisms to be put in place that would enable harmful land monopolies to be identified and changes in their ownership or management practice to be implemented that would protect fragile, rural communities from the irresponsible exercise of power. Yesterday, when asked on television about the Scottish Land Commission's recommendation that the Government put those mechanisms in place, a Conservative member in this place called it stealing, I think that this language is unhelpful. I was surprised to hear the rights of communities to fair treatment and social justice being dismissed so bluntly. One thing is very clear to me. There is a huge difference between responsible and irresponsible land ownership. Today, I am sure that many of my colleagues will be pointing to examples of responsible ownership. Landowners working collaboratively with communities for their mutual benefit and successful transfer of land assets into the hands of communities. There are so many good news stories to tell that show that the Land Reform Act has opened up opportunities. There are also cases of where large landowners have put significant effort and investment into communities, and that is to be applauded. The fact that many correspondence to the Scottish Land Commission felt strongly that their community was stifled through having their economic and social potential diminished in myriad ways is of great concern. They identified particular landowner types who were still an issue. First, landlords who actively engaged negatively with communities. One case mentioned a case of an excellent landlord who worked well with the community but left his estate to his son who was hostile to the community and actively undid the good work of his father. Others referenced refusal to renew long-standing tenancy agreements. There is one example of a landowner refusing permission for a community-run wind turbine on aesthetic grounds only to install his own turbine later that year. The report also referenced problems with absentee landlords who only appeared occasionally to indulge in sporting activities and showed no other interest in the estate or the community around it. Particularly significant were the views that the ability of a dominant landowner to control the supply of housing was a key driver of depopulation and economic decline in rural areas. The Land Commission heard from communities wanting to build affordable housing, securing capital from the Scottish Land Fund based on market value of land after a landlord indicated that they would be willing to sell, only to be thwarted because he demanded much more than the market value. The report also mentioned an unnamed charitable organisation refusing a crofter the right to upgrade their home to make it warm and bring it into the 21st century and the women ended up living in a caravan. Testimony of some of the tactics that some landlords used to keep communities in line or disempower them were quite distressing to read from a state factor that has been sent to intimidate and identify those with tied housing who went to public meetings. I seem to remember that particular point and that related to a factor attending a meeting and sitting at the front and taking notes which one person found intimidating. I have read that, I have been a factor, I have attended meetings, I have taken notes and I have wanted to report back to all the people that I saw giving evidence on the comments that they have made. Will you accept that that might not be viewed as intimidation but it was in one case by one person viewed as intimidation? On intervention, unlike Edward Mountain, I seem to be dismissive of some of the testimony for people. I am reading the testimony in the whole, I have already mentioned it. When one person comes to my constituency's surgery and says that they have a problem with someone, I do not ask how many other people are affected, what proof of view that this is an issue for more people. I take that person at face value. I am running out of time so I am going to skip about my speech because I took that intervention. Maybe those negative experiences are few and far between but the question that we must ask is how can this irresponsible land ownership be dealt with and are land monopolies good for Scotland? I have to say that I also question whether large tracts of Scotland's land planted solely with conifers as an investment opportunity and to attract Government grants is in the public interest. There seems to be a lot of that kind of thing going on. Is this land that could be used more productively to give livelihoods to new-entrant farmers or provide much-needed rural housing or be planted with a range of indigenous trees that would nurture much-needed biodiversity? We have seen how land reform has been beneficial to communities in Scotland, but the report shows that there is a need to do more. Of particular interest is the idea of having public interest tests and tackling the powerful monopolies that exist in certain geographical areas. The report makes some interesting recommendations on which I hope to be able to question the Scottish Land Commission, stakeholders and the Government in the near future. I am pleased to be speaking in the debate today, a week after I spoke in Andy Wightman's debate discussing who owns Scotland. The subject of land reform in Scotland has long been debated in this chamber. Indeed, we have had 19 acts in this very Parliament since 1999, which have contained some form of land reform measures. As Edward Mountain said, I also welcome moves towards transparency when it comes to land ownership, as the cabinet secretary mentioned. However, we must be very mindful of the rights of individual owners, especially in light of events south of the border, when vegan protesters obtain the names and addresses online and use the information to target farms and farmers, causing damage and severe distress to those involved. I hope that the Scottish Government can commit to introducing protective measures as part of a wider land reform to ensure that farmers and other landowners are not open to intimidation in relation to the land that they own or the legal use of that land. As a constituency MSP for Galloway in Western Fries, I have always highlighted the damaging centralisation from the Scottish Government on a number of issues. It is only right that I welcome steps taken to empower local communities, but we should ensure that the focus is on good land management and use, not necessarily who owns it. Yesterday's report from the Scottish Land Commission will no doubt play a significant part in this afternoon's debate. I wish to put on record my concerns about the failure of the report to recognise the huge contribution made by many rural land-owning businesses that help support the local economy in a substantial way. I was disappointed that even the report title set an unfortunate tone, and I quote an investigation into the issues associated with large-scale and concentrated land ownership in Scotland. The report apparently shows how the concentration of social, economic and decision-making powers significantly impacts communities across rural Scotland, but where is the information about how positively significant the impact to some communities who benefit from large-scale and concentrated land ownership? Andy Weyman I thank the member for taking intervention. He expresses concern at the title. Does he accept that there are any issues associated with large-scale and concentrated land ownership in Scotland, or is he arguing that this is all just make-believe? Finlay Carson Of course, there are some issues, but I think that she should have been balanced, and she would recognise that there are some benefits to being gained by large-scale ownership. The report apparently shows—beg a pattern, I'm moving on. When looking at the big picture, are the impacts significant? Are they significant when compared to the impact of local planning policy, or more importantly, Government policy in relation to forestry targets, or peat restoration targets, or renewable energy targets, or anything like that? Indeed, agricultural production targets. We have not heard a public outcry for further land reform, and I think that the whole agenda has been driven by this Government. There is a risk that this could herald a one-sided debate when it comes to future land reform and land ownership, planting the idea quite wrongly that concentrated land ownership puts fragile communities at risk. We have seen some fantastic examples of landowners in communities working closely together. In my constituency, we have the Mull of Galloway Trust, the Cacubary Community Trust with its bar, hill, woods takeover. When I was councillor in Dumfries and Galloway Council, I was delighted to see the benefits of concentrated land ownership in the village of Dalton. The dormant estate saw the creation of eight new homes that met a standard in relation to low-energy standards that were well above UK standards, and much credit should be given to Jamie Carruthers for the two three-bedroom houses that he built in response to his concerns about the lack of rural housing. Jamie is not a large landowner, but he was determined to fix a problem when it came to housing in rural Dumfries and Galloway. After carrying out surveys and fighting a long battle with local planners, local road authorities, the houses were eventually built with the support of a Scottish Government grant. The award-winning houses benefited the community, including keeping local children in the school. The question is, would Jamie have passed the fairness test supported by the Scottish Land Commission and by this Government? Would he say as wrong that this estate owner owns all the land and all the houses? Jamie may well fail that test. Even House Minister Kevin Stewart, when visiting the estate in 2017, welcomed the passive house approach to helping to remove the threat of fuel poverty and bringing more rural housing. When it comes to this sort of concentrated ownership, can we not celebrate that it actually works and not try to move the goalpost at every opportunity when it comes to land reform? Another issue that I would like to mention that I have in terms of Dumfries and Galloway and it is to do with land reform as well is people's rights and responsibilities when it comes to accessing parts of the land and freedom to roam or whatever is part of land reform. I have been dealing with a constituent in the village of Ringford, where there has been a co-path installed at his address, which he believes directly contravenes the Land Reform Act of 2003, as well as the 2005 Scottish Outdoor Access Code. He has raised the number of concerns around privacy with the co-path giving clear view into his home, linking that with security and the inability to have his pets roam. Furthermore, there are issues over horses using the path, causing damage to the driveway that he owns. If the co-path was to be established now, it would be considered as unlawful. I would like to ask the cabinet secretary to commit to ensuring that local authorities are following the right guidelines when it comes to the siting of co-paths and ensuring that when it comes to issues of land use that the rights and responsibilities of the owners are also correctly followed. Today's debate comes at a hugely important juncture when it comes to land reform measures across Scotland. I believe that the approach from the Scottish Government does not recognise the good work that has been done across our rural communities when it comes to working together on good land management practice from land owners and communities. We must ensure that any reforms truly benefit our rural communities, where land owners are working with communities and making a substantial difference on a daily basis. I call Alex Rowley to be followed by Kenneth Gibson. I welcome the debate today on land reform in Scotland and agree with the cabinet secretary that land is one of Scotland's most important assets. It is because land is one of our most important assets that any consideration of land reform should be scrutinised in depth and we should ensure that reforms create a more equal society when it comes to land ownership, land purchasing and land use. It will take many years to fully rectify the impact of the feudal system that was abolished by Labour in the early life of this Parliament, but progress is being made. I do think, however, that we can be more bold around ownership with new policy like that set out this week by the Scottish Land Commission and indeed we should also be much more open when it comes to the potential role of land value tax, wider taxation and fiscal policy around land. Redistribution of wealth has always been key to the Labour political agenda as a method for reducing inequality, tackling poverty and addressing the inherent failures within our society that allows a mass accumulation of money for a select few while others strive on a daily basis just to get by. Land wealth is as much of an issue as monetary wealth. Indeed, with an estimated total value of around £5 trillion, land is the most valuable asset in the UK. When 432 people own 50 per cent of Scotland's private rural land, it is obvious that there is an inbuilt inequality in our modern land system. The question of land reform is incredibly important. If reformed in the right way has the potential to radically transform our society for the better by creating a more equal fairer and even more productive country. It is also important to raise the issue of land management as outlined by the Scottish Tenant Farmers Association when they say that two large land agency firms are factoring a significant proportion of the tenanted sector resulting in tenants being subjected to further inequalities. The association says, and I quote, that the experience of farm tenants in areas of concentrated land ownership within the tenanted sector demonstrates the ability for large landowners to exercise disproportionate influence and power. In contrast, they say, in areas where the largest states have been sold and have more fragmented ownership structures, a new tenanted sector has developed where there is a better balance of power between land owner and tenant. Those areas benefit from improved fairness and equality, have more confident and resilient communities and demonstrate increased investment and entrepreneurialism. The question remains, how do we best reform our land system for the benefit of the country as a whole and not simply a select few who make the vast sums of money from the land that belongs to us all? As I said, I welcome the report from the Scottish Land Commission and congratulate their work on investigating the issues of large-scale ownership and concentrated land ownership in Scotland. The findings and recommendations from this report are an excellent starting point for looking at ways to address the inadequacies of current land ownership and indeed land management. It seems strange to me that we have a system whereby there is no obligation to use land in the public interest. I agree with the recommendations from the Land Commission that this needs to be addressed and a public interest test for significant land transfers or acquisitions is a step in the right direction. That ties in with further recommendations for land holdings to engage on and publish management plans for a new review process where there is evidence of adverse impact and creating the more robust mechanisms to ensure local democratic influence on and benefiting from land use change. While I welcome strengthening community right to buy and the recommendation to investigate policy options to encourage a more diverse patterns of private ownership and investment, those changes will take a considerable period of time to come through. I spoke at the beginning about land value tax, general taxation. I take the view that there is something that we can do now, a short-term action for the long-term to address some of the issues of inequality through a model of land valuation tax. If we want Scotland's land to work for the many, then we should not be timid and approach, nor should we be put off by those who act in the interest of the few. I do hope that the report from the Scottish Land Commission on this debate today will generate some cross-party co-operation to bring about the change that is needed in land ownership and tax on land in Scotland. The land ownership has been contentious for centuries. However, Scottish policy towards land is now increasingly rooted in the questions of fairness, equality and human rights. I am proud of the actions that this Government has taken to remedy some inequalities relating to land ownership, building on the work of previous administrations. From the Land Reform Scotland Act 2016, which empowered more communities to own and have a say about land to the Scottish land rights and responsibility statement, the first of its kind in the world, to the Scottish land fund, important steps have been taken towards ending the hegemony of the landed gentry in Scotland. Nevertheless, Scotland still has the most concentrated pattern of private land ownership in Europe. It is estimated that half of Scotland's private land ownership is in the ownership of just 400 individuals. Indeed, just as the Isle of Arran, in my constituency, is often described as Scotland and miniature for its landscapes, the island's land ownership pattern is also illustrative of a wider issue. In 2015, Brodych Beach had all but disappeared as a consequence of rapid erosion precipitated by the practice of extracting sand for export years earlier. Erosion also threatens the village of Greenhill and Llasch. Both areas are important not only for the thousands who visit Arran each year but for local residents who rely on these outdoor spaces for a variety of community events and activities. The future of such spaces is late at the mercy of Arran estates, the land management company controlled by the Ford family, who have owned large swathes of the island for more than six centuries following a fruitful marriage in the 15th century. At the time, North Ayrshire Council received criticism for supposedly permitting erosion of those areas. However, it is reluctance to spend six-figure sums of public money on land under the Ford's private ownership was understandable. The family then gifted some of the most eroded areas to North Ayrshire Council, wiping out their liability to deal with erosion, which is now the responsibility of the taxpayer. North Ayrshire Council has to lease more than 50,000 square metres of land from Arran estates at a cost of tens of thousands of pounds each year to access the semi-industrial area to the south of Brodych and areas in Brodych, Llam Lash and the 4th Shore in Whiting Bay. The situation encapsulates the environmental, economic and social detriment that concentrated land ownership can have on some of our communities. Yesterday saw a publication of the most substantial piece of research into the impact that large-scaling concentrated land ownership has on Scotland. That threw up many issues for this Parliament and Scottish ministers to examine, discuss and hopefully remedy. While previous reports focused on relatively small and depth case studies, the Scottish Land Commission, set out by this Government in 2016, heard from 407 stakeholders ranging from land owners and managers to tenants and community representatives. The evidence gallery showed that most of the disadvantages associated with Scotland's current pattern of land ownership relate to the concentration of social, economic and decision making power, not simply the size or scale of land holdings. The concentrated land ownership that we have can impede economic development and the Land Commission's report found that that is causing significant and long-term harm to impacted communities. For example, rural economic development relies on the ability of businesses or housing providers to access land for expansion and confidence to invest. If ownership is too concentrated, a few land owners can control us and the economic health of that area can lie in their hands. As described in the report, the anti-development stance of some land owners could be motivated by desire to preserve land as, and I quote, a playground for very wealthy people. Sadly, one respondent even felt that, and I quote again, the people who live here play second fiddle to whatever is best for the pheasant. Eileen communities are particularly vulnerable. The book Dr Green of Sussex and the Island of Rassay tells a story of how that absentee landowner in the 70s refused to allow construction of a pier causing huge damage to that fragile community, a £12 million pier eventually being built by this Government. A number of submissions stated that, unfortunately, there is little or no address for communities or individuals who suffer adverse economic or social impacts arising from land owned by a single individual or organisation. While the opportunity for communities to participate in decisions relating to the use of land is severely limited. In light of the negative effects of concentrated land ownership, the commission made recommendations directly informed by the evidence to help to address adverse impacts and stimulate a more diverse pattern of land ownership. For example, the Scottish Government introduces a public interest test for significant land transfers and acquisitions, as is already used in some other countries such as South Africa. That would protect the public interest and limit the negative impact on local economies and communities. Of course, the criteria for triggering a public interest test would need careful consideration, but that recommendation should certainly be considered. The commission also advocates a requirement that all land holdings of a substantial nature should publish a management plan. I believe that that would be realistic and reasonable, meaning that land owners must demonstrate how their management delivers against a land rights and responsibilities statement and connects with local priorities, opportunities and public policy. That would improve transparency and encourage greater community collaboration, mitigating risks associated with concentration of ownership. It is imperative that this Parliament considers how to foster a more diverse and dynamic pattern of private and community ownership. The report puts to bed the question of whether ownership is an issue and provides us with the evidence-based to understand the issues that concentrated land ownership creates and how it can be addressed. The monopoly of land ownership in Scotland intersects a variety of legislative and policy areas. However, I am pleased that the Scottish Government will work closely with the Scottish Land Commission to consider its recommendations. Such reforms will doubtlessly be to the benefit of local communities increasing transparency and repairing harm inflicted over many generations to many people and many communities. I call John Scott to be followed by Angus MacDonald. Angus MacDonald will be the last speaker in the open debate. I begin by declaring an interest as a farmer and food producer, as well as declaring a member of NFUS. I also welcome the debate today in the publishing of the Scottish Land Commission report yesterday. Let me say at the outset how disappointed I am at the report. At the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee last week, Andrew Thin and Hamish Trench went to great lengths to say that the report would be evidence-based. I am afraid that I do not believe that the assertion stands up to any reasonable analysis. On the contrary, the report appears to make significant recommendations based on subjective evidence from a small group of people who, in my view, are not representatives. The majority of people of rural Scotland are recommendations that are at odds with the Scottish Government's own research that was carried out in 2016. As someone who has spent a lifetime among the people of rural Scotland and in some of the poorest communities, I simply do not recognise nor have I come across the views that are being called evidence, for example, that concentration of land ownership is a problem for the people of rural Scotland. On the contrary, I have found land and the state owners who take what they see as their duties to help and support local communities seriously and often at considerable personal expense to themselves. I am afraid that I do not have time, Andy, but thank you for the offer. I have heard of and the evidence in this report confirms that there are real problems with NGOs who do not see it as their role to consider the needs of their local communities given the narrow focus of their remit. I know that the Scottish Government is already among the largest landowners in Scotland and I am particularly interested to hear how the Scottish Government intends to respond to this report suggesting that large partials of land owned by individuals in rural Scotland or institutions should be split up to avoid concentrations of power. I am aware of land and the state owners doing all they can to support government policy by planting trees and taking welcome government grants to do so, one of the concerns raised by those giving evidence to this report. I am aware of land and the state owners supporting government policy by welcoming wind farms and small-scale hydroelectric developers on to their land to help decarbonise our energy supply and to help in the fight against climate change. I am sure that that will be looked forward to being discussed next week in the green business. I am aware of landowners and managers constant battles with local authorities to get planning permission to build housing in rural Scotland and that is all sorts of housing with planning policy again directed by government policy and legislation. I am aware of the lack of available tenancies as raised by the Scottish Tenant Farmers Association but even they recognise that this is entirely the product of Scottish Government legislation. I am aware of the growing isolation in rural Scotland, particularly among the elderly, exacerbated by reducing bus services, again driven by Scottish Government policy. I am also aware of mental health issues and growing drug abuse, as well as suicides in rural Scotland and again little being done to address that. Those are some of the real problems that the people of rural Scotland are facing. Usually I hear blame for those real problems being laid at the feet of the Scottish Government but very rarely at the feet of the local landowner. They are different completely from the perceived problems of this report, which appears to have started with the conclusion and then scratched about to find the weakest of evidence, mostly anecdotal, to support politically driven conclusions. In conclusion, I would have expected more from the Scottish Land Commission report, which appears at its most fundamental, to have taken a small number of long held local grievances and used this as evidence to support the politically driven agenda of those standing behind it. I would expect more from the Scottish Government, which should set about and address the very real problems of rural Scotland rather than the ones that are being debated today. This report is not reflective of the reality that is rural Scotland and should be dismissed as it does not take a balanced view of the realities in rural Scotland or even more alarmingly endeavour to do so. Angus MacDonald moved to closing speeches. First, I am obliged to refer the chamber to my register of interests with regard to a non-domestic property that I own in the Western Isles, which is situated within any state that is subject to a live community buyout attempt. Negotiations are at a sensitive and challenging stage, so I will not be making any further mention of it in this speech. I am proud to have been involved in the former Iraqi committee's work on the 2016 land reform bill, and I have to say that it has been the bill that I have most enjoyed working on since coming into this place in 2011. Before I go any further into my speech, it is worth noting and recalling that, among the 60 recommendations of the independent land reform review group that was reported back in 2014 in advance of the land reform bill, it stated that there was no single measure or silver bullet that would modernise land ownership patterns in Scotland and deliver land reform measures that would better serve the public interest. However, our committee and subsequently the act took account of some of the review group's recommendations, and I am delighted to say that we saw a significant piece of legislation created for land reform, land management and communities across Scotland. That was coupled with the community empowerment act of 2014. Another bill that I was pleased to work on has helped to move land reform forward significantly from the early days in this Parliament with the groundbreaking acts of 2003 and 2004. Our Iraqi committee paid specific attention at the time to human rights and its compatibility with ECHR and other international agreements. We understood that taking a human rights-centred approach offered a new way in which to consider land reform. However, it has to be said that ECHR provides challenges too. In my personal view, it prevented us from being as radical as I and no doubt others would have wished. It always struck me as ironic that ECHR was holding us back from righting the wrongs of the past that cleared vast swathes of the highlands and islands during the clearances. I make no apology for reminding the chamber of that dreadful period in our country's history. As a Highlander and an Islander, it is something that I, where we can never forget. The motion that we are debating today looks at the here and now and to the future. We were pleased this week to have the opportunity at our ECHR committee to take evidence from the Scottish Land Commission's chair Andrew Thin and the chief executive Hamish Trench. It was heartening to see the SLC doing exactly as we had intended for it to do when the bill was being developed and scrutinised in Parliament three years ago. Its purpose is to provide direction, leadership and strategic thought to land reform in Scotland in effect, picking up where Parliament left off. The SLC's overriding vision, which contributes to six key national outcomes and guides its objectives of productivity, diversity and accountability, is a fair, inclusive and productive system of ownership, management and use of land that delivers greater benefit for all the people of Scotland. I was pleased to hear both the chair and chief executive confirm that the commissioners are making good progress in implementing their strategic priorities for the period 2018-21, concentrating on land for housing and development, land ownership, land use, decision making and agricultural holdings. We have heard the SLC published yesterday's investigation into the issues associated with large-scale and concentrated land ownership in Scotland. It is a welcome report, but due to timing, which clearly cannot be helped, it would have been beneficial if the report had been issued before we took evidence from the commission on Tuesday. However, that is not a criticism of anyone, it is just bad timing. I note the cabinet secretary's comment that the report was brought forward, so it could be discussed at this debate. As we have heard, the SLC concluded that much of Scotland is owned by a handful of landowners who have an, I quote, irresponsible exercise of power. It also concluded that many parts of Scotland are controlled by a land monopoly with very little in the way of legal protection and is recommended that to help introduce a systematic change to stimulate a more diverse and dynamic pattern of land ownership, there should be a public interest test in any future significant land transfers or acquisitions. It also calls for a statutory framework to strengthen local democratic accountability of land ownership and use. I think that, Presiding Officer, I can perhaps feel another land reform bill coming on in the next session of Parliament. Clearly we will have to wait and see, but all those welcome proposals contained in the report seek to address the risks of concentrated land ownership in ways that are considered normal in other developed countries, particularly in northern Europe. Today's motion refers to the land rights and responsibilities statement, which adopts a human rights approach to land rights and responsibilities, and it signals a determination to continue leading the way in ensuring that Scotland's urban and rural land contributes to inclusive and sustainable economic growth and to social justice. It is noticeable that the Tory amendment removes mention of the land rights and responsibilities statement and a disappointing, to say the least. Much of the progress that we have seen in recent years simply would not have happened without the Scottish Land Fund, with just over 560,000 acres of land now in community ownership. The Scottish Land Fund continues to play its part in helping to get as close to the £1 million target as possible. There are some fantastic good news stories, not least of the community buyout of Alva, which has been one of the most heartening in recent years. I have mull connections gone back a couple of hundred years, so when I saw the success of the north-west mull community woodland trust and its purchase of Alva with the very generous assistance of the Scottish Land Fund, the Macquarie Group and hundreds of amazing donations through crowdfunding, it was icing on the cake for me. Of course, there is always more room for icing on the cake. Before we move to winding up, there are two members who took part in the debate, Gillian Martin and Claudia Beamish, who are not in the chamber. I thought that we would get over all of that nonsense. I am expecting notes from them. I hope that they are sitting on a cup of tea in a cake and thinking that they can swar in when they like. The debate must be open for Labour Party in particular. Andy Wightman, please. I have a little time in hand, Mr Wightman, so I will give you up to seven minutes. Andy Wightman Thank you very much indeed, Presiding Officer. I am most grateful. It has been a useful debate to be informed, as members have noted by a very helpful report from the Scottish Land Commission, which, if members have not read it, I urge them to do so, including the research review, which I will come to a little bit later. Members may know that it was at Aberdeen University that I became engaged with the land question.  Members may recall people like Terry Wogan and Shirley Porter getting vast tax breaks from the Government at the time to plant trees in the far north of Scotland in Gail Ross's constituency. I remember a visiting lecturer who came from the forestry industry to talk with glowing praise about this endeavour. I asked why it felt to be appropriate that rich people living in London should get tax breaks to plant trees in the north of Scotland. I asked them why it would not be better to spend the tax revenues being foregone to support the farmers and the landowners in the communities in Caithness in Sutherland to plant the trees that seem to be more evident. I am sure that Mr Scott and the Conservatives will agree with that. It seems to be a more sensible approach. I do not really remember the answer, but I do remember my Professor coming to me afterwards and saying that I should not ask such political questions. I have been asking them ever since. I am not going to stop asking questions about this topic until Landed Higemony is eliminated and the people of Scotland own the land of Scotland. I met the cabinet secretary in the 1990s when she was a member of Parliament. We were part of a group campaigning against the abandonment of tenant farms by the owner of Blackford estate. As now, indeed, by a company registered in the secrecy jurisdiction of Lichtenstein, I know that the cabinet secretary is committed to doing all in her power to advance the cause of land reform. I know also that, within government, this is not always an easy task. I would guarantee that we Greens will do all in our power to assist her in that endeavour. Given that there remains so much more to do, I would hope that the cabinet secretary might be in a position to at least have a conversation with her colleagues to use the legislative opportunity that I understand is planned to reform compulsory purchase powers and introduce compulsory sale orders to instead include such measures as parts 1 and 2, perhaps, of a land reform bill, therefore at least allowing this session of Parliament to deliver some further land reform measures. I mentioned in my opening remarks what the Scottish Law Commission is pointing to. I want to highlight a couple of examples. Apple Cross estate in Wester Ross is a 61,000-acre estate. It was owned by the Wills Tobacco family, but in the 1970s they transferred ownership to a company with charitable status in order to avoid tax. Since then, the Apple Cross Trust has operated as a closed shop with directors who live in the south of England and a fragile community that has struggled to secure land to meet basic needs for housing and other essential services. In September 2012, 100 of us, including the then local MP, Charles Kennedy, wrote formal letters to the registered office of this charity in Edinburgh, applying to become members, as under the terms of the charity's constitution was our right. All applications were refused point blank. Here is a landowner operating as a Scottish charity, exercising monopoly control over vast ways of land and denying everyone else, including the local MP, from joining and participating in the affairs of that charity. A similar situation exists on the island of Bute, again owned by a charity, the Mount Stewart Trust, established to avoid tax liabilities for the Marquess of Bute and operating a closed shop. Not only did they refuse applications from among others and the local MSP, Mike Russell, they then passed a special resolution at a special general meeting to limit membership and give the Marquess of Bute exclusive rights to appoint up to four directors on terms and conditions dictated by the person holding the title and dignity of the Marquess of Bute. We, I thought, abolished feudal tenure in 2000, but it lives on in the arcane, anti-democratic manner described in just these two examples. Claudia Beamish ac Liam McArthur said that we had much more to do, and I agree, and I have suggested perhaps one route in which we might do this. I would gently remind the cabinet secretary that opportunities have already been missed. Long-standing proposals to give children legal rights to inherit land were rejected by Scottish ministers a couple of months ago. Rejected 2 was a recommendation of the Barclay review into non-domestic rates to ensure that all non-domestic property and land was on the valuation rule, a recommendation that was rejected. That's a necessary precondition if we're going to have any fiscal reform. John Scott asked about Scottish ministers land, and it's a notable feature of this report, which I'm sure he'll welcome, that it made no distinction between private and public land. Indeed, I agree with John Scott. Years ago, the historian Jim Hunter argued that the Forestry Commission is to Scottish forestry what collectivisation was to Soviet agriculture. We support the decentralised management and control of the national forest estate to communities, to local government and to NGOs, and I hope he agrees and might be about to do so. John Scott. To historians, I wondered if you'd also reflect on the historian Mr Tom Devine, who has changed his view, one clearly expressed by Angus Macleod as to the cause of the highland clearances and how his view has changed the whole perception of the land reform agenda, or it certainly should have. Andy Wightman, would you please begin to wind up? I'm not quite sure what I'm not familiar with Tom Devine's comments in this regard. To close, I encourage John Scott and his colleagues to read the research review. It was done by Scotland's rural college. It contains five pages of references. This is a very well-referenced report. I'm reminded of the Napier commission that he talked about the highland clearances, but for decades later, the Napier commission people criticised it and dismissed the eloquent testimony as mere anecdote, and I think that's very unfortunate should anyone do so today. There is so much more to be done. The land commission's work of the last year has been extremely useful, and I look forward to working with others to bring to an end the hegemony associated with Scotland's pattern of land ownership, and we'll be supporting the Government and Labour amendments. Thank you very much, and I call Rudy Grant to cross the labour up to seven minutes, please, Ms Grant. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Land reform has been a focus of this Parliament, and indeed, from the very beginning of the Parliament, land reform was high on the agenda, as my colleagues Claudia Beamish and Alec Rowley pointed out. I'm proud of those achievements, but I think that we can go so much further. The Scottish Tenant Farmers Association wrote to us in their briefing to tell us that land reform had improved the lot of tenant farmers, but we need to protect them further, and some land owners have responded to land reform in a despicable way in their treatment of tenant farmers. Why do we need land reform? 150 people own 50 per cent of Scotland's privately-owned rural land. As Claudia Beamish said, land ownership is power, it provides opportunity and it provides wealth, and the disparity of ownership empowers and it disempowers. Ryan Martin talked about someone feeling very intimidated at a meeting, and whether that was meant or not, it was the balance of power that led to that intimidation and fear. If somebody is there taking notes that you know has power over you, of course you're going to be afraid, and unless you've been in that position maybe you don't understand the way that that power can disempower somebody else. We need to build thriving communities, and we need to make sure that the power is shared. That can lead to doing very simple things, such as building homes, as Liam McArthur pointed out. Alex Rowley talked about land wealth, and it's worth just as much as monetary wealth. That, again, is in the hands of the few rather than the many. We need to look at better redistribution both of land wealth and monetary wealth. Ryan Martin talked about land value taxation, which is something that we could look at now to make sure that land was not being used, as land often is, as a way to avoid tax. We see some of the large estate agents selling estates around Scotland and encouraging people to buy them, not because they would work with a community and build a local economy, but that they could use this land to avoid their own taxation. Monopolys have always been seen and understood as bad things, because it puts power into the hands of the monopoly and that disenfranchises everybody else. Land ownership in Scotland is largely a monopoly and that needs to change. Land is an asset that we all need to benefit from. When your livelihood depends on it, you need a voice in the decisions that are taken about land. The very way of making sure that that voice is heard is making sure that you also have a stake in it. I welcome the publication of the Land Commission report. As Angus MacDonald pointed out, the Land Commission was set up to provide leadership and direction on land reform. I have not read it word for word, but I have certainly had a good look over it. I like what I see and the fact that Edward Mountain was very critical of it to me as a good sign. I think that I like it even more as I delve into it. I am also grateful to the commission for rushing the publication of the report to help to inform the debate, because I think that it was an important part of the debate. Just picking some of their findings, they say that in some parts of Scotland concentrated land ownership is an impediment to economic development and is causing significant and long-term harm to the communities affected. They also say that there is little or no method of redress for communities or individuals where there is an adverse economic or social impact arising from concentrated land ownership. There are a number of recommendations, and I hope that the Scottish Government will consider those seriously. Things such as introducing a public interest test for significant land transfers and acquisitions. That was talked about by a number of people, creating more robust mechanisms to ensure that local democratic influence on and benefit from land use changes and a programme of land rights and responsibilities for good practice. John Scott pointed out that some landowners take their responsibility seriously, and that is true. Nobody is saying that all large landowners are bad. Some do work with their communities. However, as we have heard in the debate, that can change on a whim or inheritance alone, and the balance of power changes. If we do not have the right balance of power, that can mean that a community is very quickly devastated by that change of ownership. We also talked about community ownership, and there are only 500,000 acres of community ownership in Scotland, and the land fund that many speakers talked about has been responsible for some of those community buy-outs. However, as the speaker said, they have to jump through hoops and prove that they are going to act in the public interest. They have to have a ballot of the people within the community to make sure that they are happy. None of that happens when a private land exchange happens and a private buyer takes over. They do not have to fulfil any public interest criteria whatsoever. Andy Wightman talked about their amendment, which we will be supporting, widening the definition from community ownership to other kinds of common ownership, such as common good and common land. However, there is also public ownership. We must remember that land is owned by the Scottish Government as the public collectively. I need to pay tribute to McNeill of Barra, who gifted Barra to the Scottish Government to make sure that it was in public ownership. That is something that we need to remember that not all private landowners are acting in their own interests. Some people talked about transparency, and I look forward to the Government bringing forward the subordinate legislation that is required to look at transparency. I very much hope that they will look at ownership from abroad as well as at home to make sure that that is transparent. We need to know who owns the land that we are living on. There was not much mention of crofting in the debate, but I will use some of my time to quickly mention that. Crofters have a right to buy, and it goes a long way to fulfilling the balance of power between them and the landowner. However, it is not easy to use, and I would ask the Government to look at simplifying that as part of the new crofting legislation that is coming forward. Maurice Golden will now close with the Conservatives. There is much in the land reform programme that the Scottish Conservatives can agree with, especially given that some of the Scottish Government's current position is drawn from the UK Government's 2011 Localism Act. Finlay Carson and Edward Mountain have already affirmed broad support for issues such as community empowerment and greater transparency, but they have also identified concerns and risks by the current approach from the Scottish Land Commission. John Scott also flagged that the Scottish Government is one of the biggest landowners in Scotland, accounting for almost 1 million hectares. Indeed, the Forestry Commission has 638,600 hectares under its control. Others such as the National Trust for Scotland have 76,000 hectares that they are responsible for. The cabinet secretary recognised the importance of land to the people of Scotland. That is something that I can very much agree with, whether it be for housing, for food production, for protecting and enhancing our natural environment or indeed to tackle climate change. The use of land is very important. I can also agree that we should expect good practice no matter who owns the land. Claudia Beamish's speech was a rather concerning contribution in that she really isolated landowners and appeared to treat them with disregard. She also went on to advocate that the state was able to redistribute property from legal owners to communities. I think that that is a concern if that is indeed the Labour position. Andy Wightman articulated a well-thought-out and considered argument for common ownership. One point that I could agree with him on is that land reform is difficult. Liam McArthur advocated for pressing ahead, the need for increased transparency and, indeed, more clarity. That is something that I can agree with Mr McArthur on as well. I wanted to highlight a particular concern that people raise with me whenever land reform comes up. That is that there is too much focus on ownership of land rather than on how it is being managed and used. For example, I noted in yesterday's report from the Scottish Land Commission that they acknowledged the positive impact that many landowners have on their communities. Welcome recognition, but at the same time the report talked of a monopoly on land ownership that could harm communities. Of course, we must address cases where outcomes are poor, but I can understand how the majority of landowners following good practice might be worried that a stereotype is being perpetuated, that simply owning a sizeable amount of land is inherently wrong and harmful. One of the benefits of the report is that it explicitly points out that it is power and not scale matters, so it has moved the debate on and therefore addresses the point and your concern. Maurice Golden is up to me to call the member, but thank you for your intervention. The issue that we have with the report appears as if the Scottish Land Commission has started with the end point and looked to provide anecdotal evidence in which to get there. I think that that is a problem. On those benches, we always support an evidence-based approach. In that report, we clearly have not seen that. I also do not believe that talk of compulsory purchase orders is particularly helpful. Instead, we should look to promote better community engagement. I believe that there is a huge opportunity for communities, both rural and urban, to develop and sustain productive use of land around them. We should be careful that we do not operate under the assumption that community buyouts should be the default option. That misses the fact that there are other models that can be a better fit in some circumstances, for example leasing. We have seen 88,000 hectares lost in the tenanted sector in just five years, almost 30,000 in 2016 alone. The Central Association of Agriculture Values is clear that this SNP Government has provided, and I quote, nothing in the land reform package that encourages anybody to let land. The Scottish Conservatives believe that the Scottish land film should be open to accommodate long leases as well. Underpinning all of this is a need for a transparent system fit for the 21st century, which does not compromise people's right to privacy or indeed their safety. On the latter point, I am mindful of concerns raised by the likes of NFUS that providing the personal details of landowners can leave them vulnerable to protests or indeed to direct action. A case in point would be the recent vegan protests directed to English farmers using details of the farms made available through the Food Standards Agency. Those protests have seen disruption, damage and distress to animals, and none of us want to see any of that brought to Scotland. It does not need to be because a transparent system does not necessarily require the publication of physical addresses. Would it not be more useful to provide contact details for relevant land managers to ensure a more practical and speedy engagement process? I take the point that is made by Scottish Government officials to the Eclair Committee that a physical address can provide greater assurance for those looking to engage with a landowner. However, a register based on such an idea falls short. It misses the point that a publicly available address is not necessary for the fundamental purpose of identifying and engaging with a landowner. It limits accessibility by disregarding digital communications. There is support across this chamber for land reform, but our support is conditional on an evidence-based approach being taken, something that the Scottish Land Commission, in my view, has failed to do. Good practice should be rewarded and support for landowners must be considered, not the perpetuation of stereotypes. Communities should be empowered with new options, not locked into a one-size-fits-all approach. Landownership should be more transparent, but farmers and other landowners should be able to expect their privacy and safety to be protected. I urge this chamber to support the amendment in the name of Edward Mountain. Thank you very much, Mr Golden. I call Roseanna Cunningham to close with the Government, Cabinet Secretary, till decision time please. Today's debate has demonstrated the importance of land. Much has been said about how we might change deeply ingrained patterns of ownership and the benefits that that will bring about how we enable more people to own land and influence its use and management, about the value of transparency about who owns land and makes decisions about it. Everyone who has spoken in today's debate has at least recognised the role that land has in supporting and promoting Scotland's ambitions. It seems to me that the chamber is united in its desire to see changes, although clearly we are not necessarily agreeing on the degree of the change or indeed how we should effect that change. Inevitably, much of the debate has circled round or been informed by the Scottish Land Commission's report, which was not the intention of the debate in the first place. I should say to those who are criticised what the Scottish Land Commission has done. The Scottish Land Commission has undertaken quite an extensive range of consultations around the country. It discusses and goes to communities right across Scotland, urban and rural. In respect of that particular report, the conclusions and the recommendations drew on an evidence base that is published by the commission. If members wish to see that, they only need to go and look for it. I do not think that saying that there is not proper evidence is a fair criticism. I think that Andy Wightman and his intervention to Edward Mountain's contribution neatly dealt with the paradox of opposition to further community ownership. Edward Mountain started by saying that the Tories supported land reform, but I confess that I would struggle to find anything in his opening speech that would convince me that that was actually true. I note that some of the other Conservative interventions were a little more generous, perhaps reflecting a little closer connection with different views on the part of the electorate. Claudia Beamish, I should say, made what I have come to expect as her usual generous and courteous intervention. The Government intends to accept the Labour amendment, although some of the proposals that she discussed specifically would have significant complex legal and ECHR issues, and that was a matter also referred to by Angus MacDonald. We cannot simply wish those away, so while we support the principles of the recommendations, we will have a very great deal more to do to turn them into practical policies. If I return to Andy Wightman's contribution, I was entertained by his admission that from time to time he indulges in soundbites, heaven for fenn, that a politician would be so self-indulgent. Regarding the other Government legislation that he referred to, as he will be aware, none of it emanates from my own portfolio. I will, however, undertake to discuss with other ministers, whether or not the pieces of legislation that he was talking about do afford opportunities at this stage to be expanded into areas that might be encompassed by land reform. With regard to the Green amendment, common ownership is not our policy, and I am unclear what he is trying to achieve by changing the terminology. Had he not replaced the term community ownership with that, I may have viewed his amendment differently, but I am not minded to support it because of that lack of clarity, and that may just be me exercising a typical lawyer's caution. I did attempt to explain that common ownership is not the Government's policy. I have used the term common ownership because it encapsulates existing common good land, common tays and common grazings. I am sure that the cabinet secretary is not suggesting that we should eliminate them, so the point of replacing that language today was to have something a bit more inclusive. I hope that the Government might reconsider. I refer to the comment that I made about this perhaps being about my lawyer's caution. I am happy to have the separate discussion with Andy Wightman about that, but at the moment I am resisting the Green amendment. Liam McArthur and Claudia Beamish reminded us of the 2003 act, which I had done in my opening remarks. Indeed, I was the SNP sportsperson at the time, and I recall the SNP arguing then that it did not go far enough, which goes some way towards explaining why we have and will continue to pursue this agenda. Liam McArthur also touched on the feeling at the time that this was a reform well overdue. Having spent six years in the House of Commons, I can confirm in my view that if we had to rely on them making any change, we would still likely be waiting. Gillian Martin rehearsed some of the specific injustices that are still being experienced, described in the land commission's report, and with respect to everybody, those bits of evidence cannot simply be swept away as if they were not relevant to this debate. Finlay Carson, I wanted to respond to him briefly on the core path issue that he raised, which is a very specific issue. The local access forum is the best route to resolving that issue if he has not made contact with them, although ultimately it is Dumfries and Galloway Council that has discretion and powers to amend the core paths plan. However, I will write to the member with a more expanded response than that. Alec Rowley was highlighting that there was no obligation to use land in the public interest. That is a fair point that he made. He also raised the issue of land value tax. In fact, the Government has asked the commission to explore options for a land value tax, as well as land value capture. Kenny Gibson reminds us that we do not have to travel to the northern highlands to find examples of problems connected to— Just a moment, cabinet secretary. Please sit down. The usual members are coming in. Please let the minister and cabinet secretary be heard. There are members in the debate who are not here. I do not think that it is a good idea to stand with your back to the chair for too long. As I was indicating, we do not have to travel to the northern highlands to find examples of problems connected to land ownership. John Scott talked about the failure of NGOs as land owners, but I have always been very clear that with ownership comes not just rights but also responsibilities, regardless of who is a land owner. I have not been afraid to say it directly to NGOs and to community land owners as well. Once you move into the capacity of owning land, you inherit those responsibilities as rights. The subject of land is complex. It is central to the kind of country we want to be, our economy and environment. We must remember that it is more than that—more than just a resource to which we attach a particular financial value. Land is often spoken about in terms of its cost or its value when it is bought or sold or the return that it provides each year. As important as all of this is, perhaps the true value of land is much more fundamental than that. I have often said in the context of land reform that it is a resource for everyone. We should recognise that land is more than simply a resource, however. It is the ground on which we stand, on which we work and on which we live. From when we are born until the end of our days, it is our world. It has historical, romantic and symbolic meanings that we should bear in mind even as we talk about the undoubted economic importance of land. When we talk about our aspirations for land, we also talk about our aspirations for ourselves. This mixture of the tangible and the intangible is one reason why issues about land are so emotive and often very complex. Land is not just a commodity, but a human right, essential to a meaningful existence, just as true home is more than only a place to eat, sleep and take shelter. In my efforts in my time in the House of Commons, which is some considerable number of years ago now, I recall the bemusement with which expressions such as that were received by those who simply did not get it, could not understand why land reform was such an emotive and important issue for Scotland. I shared the feelings about that with Scottish Labour members in the House of Commons, as well as Liberal Democrat members and SNP members. We understood that at a very visceral level in a way in which our colleagues south of the border simply did not and I believe to this day do not get. I think that that is important for us to remember that this Parliament has to be the expression of that very singular and particular understanding of the idea of land that is so Scottish. It does make us different, it makes us stand apart and for those in the developing world it is an interesting conundrum when they come across the fact that land reform is such a fundamentally important issue for what they see as a country in the developed world. It opens up a door for us to have a conversation in a way that I believe is unlike any other in any other part of the developed world. I think that it is important that we in this Parliament continue to express the strength of that. Land reform begins with this ethical consideration. All of us have this right and we must use land wisely and fairly. That concludes this afternoon's debate and we are going to move straight on to decision time. I remind members that, if the amendment in the name of Edward Mountain is agreed, then the amendment in the name of Claudia Beamish and Andy Wightman will fall. The first question is that amendment 16145.1 in the name of Edward Mountain, which seeks to amend the motion 16145 in the name of Roseanna Cunningham on land reform in Scotland delivering for now and the future be agreed. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. We'll move to division. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 16145.1 in the name of Edward Mountain is yes, 27, no, 87. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. The next question is that amendment 16145.3 in the name of Claudia Beamish, which seeks to amend the motion in the name of the minister, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. We'll move to division again. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 16145.3 in the name of Claudia Beamish is yes, 83, no, 32. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. The next question is that amendment 16145.2 in the name of Andy Wightman, which seeks to amend the motion in the name of the cabinet secretary, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. We'll move to division. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 16145.2 in the name of Andy Wightman is yes, 32, no, 83. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. The final question is that motion 16145 in the name of Roseanna Cunningham, as amended, on land reform in Scotland, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. We'll move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion 16145 in the name of Roseanna Cunningham, as amended, is yes, 83, no, 32. There were no abstentions. The motion, as amended, is therefore agreed. That concludes decision time. I close this meeting.