Official Report 703KB pdf
Agenda item 6 is consideration of the recommended candidates for appointment to the board of the Scottish Land Commission, including the tenant farming commissioner.
Last week, the committee agreed to hold a formal evidence session with the prospective candidates. Parliament has been given a role in approving Land Commission appointments, which in practice means that the committee will make a recommendation to Parliament. We have agreed to have this session to assist us in making an informed recommendation, taking into account the recommendations set out in the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2016.
I am pleased to welcome Dr Lucy Beattie and Dr Calum MacLeod, who have been nominated as land commissioners, and Robert Black, who has been nominated as tenant farming commissioner. I am grateful to you all for coming along today, and I commend you for putting yourselves forward for these important roles. We have before us information about you and your relevant skills and experience.
We will be going into questions, but first of all, as I will be asking about agriculture—which will not surprise you, Robert—I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests as a member of a family farming partnership in Moray. I have an old-style tenancy for a small bit of land as well as a non-agricultural tenancy for another bit of land, and I was also a surveyor for 12 years, doing agricultural land letting. I hope that that is a full enough declaration.
I also say at the outset that I was hugely impressed with the way in which Bob McIntosh took on the role of tenant farming commissioner and what he did in that role. I am glad to put that on the record, because I think that he made a huge step forward in a difficult area and his careful and considered judgment has made it easier for all sides to work together. That probably suggests the importance of the roles that we are addressing here.
My first question is for Robert Black. Can you explain what agricultural experience you would bring to the role of tenant farming commissioner?
I have worked in agriculture for the better part of 20 years, since leaving school. I started off as a farmhand, in various enterprises, building practical experience and understanding of the differences between such things as dairy, poultry, arable, livestock and mixed arable.
From there, I went on to progress academically with a bachelor of science degree in applied animal science. Following that, I spent some time abroad as an assistant farm manager in Australia, purely to gain experience in different facets of farming. The more academic I got, the closer to a desk I got, as it turned out. From there, I took on a role as an agricultural consultant, primarily in Stornoway. That was back in 2016, and I was there for a number of years before shifting to the Oban office.
Since then, I have progressed. I am now a development manager for the Isle of Luing Community Trust, but I still operate my own consultancy business, too, purely to keep the personal development plan going and the relevant skills and information in my head.
The consultancy element is where the bulk of my agricultural knowledge and experience comes from. It has given me a platform to interact with a number of different farmers and crofters in various capacities, so I have a holistic view of the bigger picture of farming in Scotland and the challenges that farmers face. That has been probably the most important facet of my agricultural experience.
I also hold a master’s degree in agricultural professional practice.
Thank you. I would say that the agricultural law in Scotland is quite cluttered with numerous acts that have been amended. Some of those acts still relate to old-style tenancies, for lack of a better description, while others relate to newer-style tenancies and reviewed tenancies—and some will relate to even newer newer-style tenancies, if the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill goes through.
Can you tell me a little bit about your experience in that regard? Do you feel comfortable working under the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1991 and the Agriculture (Scotland) Act 1948, and subsequent acts? It is quite a role, which involves not quite mediation, but working between landlords and tenants.
10:30
It is a lot to digest—all the acts encompass a comprehensive amount of information. I am familiar with them all, purely from a consultancy side, and I understand the implications and what the legislation means for farmers and crofters on the ground.
I have certainly had to be aware of what the laws require to be implemented. The tenants amnesty was a big part of my consultancy work some years ago, so I was aware of the legislation on agricultural holdings and how that applied to the schedules that we drafted. Up until now, however, I have never needed to have as in-depth a level of knowledge as is required for this role. It will be a big challenge, and it is a matter of priority to get us up to speed and up to date with that as much as possible.
I think that I have forgotten more than you probably know, in the sense that the legislation changes so quickly that it is hard to keep on top of it.
Monica Lennon has some questions.
Good morning, and thank you all for coming to the Parliament today.
Robert Black, my questions are still for you. You talked about mediation, so I want to hear a little more about that. What approach will you take to promote good relations between agricultural landlords and tenants? When it comes to new ideas and practices, what do you think that you will bring to the role? As you mentioned mediation, how would you approach the role of land agents?
Dr McIntosh has done a tremendous amount of work in that area, and it has been the foundation for my understanding of how to approach it. In fact, that is how I will approach it—his ethos is very much mine.
Before having to bring down the hammer of the law, I think that steps can certainly be taken. From a consultancy point of view, I have had to mediate in the past. My approach is to understand the human element—I come at it from an empathetic point of view. Not everybody who is in breach is so out of badness; there will be nuances and reasons for it. Bob McIntosh’s approach involves mediation, mitigation, arbitration or negotiation—whatever version applies. More often than not, having a conversation at the very beginning, understanding both individual points of view and then bringing them together to come to an understanding is enough to avoid or resolve a conflict. That will be my initial approach.
At present, I have no preconceived notions about how I am going to deploy or improve things; I will understand the role more as I take it on. I am very fortunate that Dr McIntosh is going to stick around to help with the transition, as that will help me better understand how I am going to approach the role.
It sounds like there will be a good handover, which is reassuring.
As far as your approach is concerned, I take it from what you have said that you are quite open-minded about what would work in practice.
Very.
I think that Bob Doris has the next question.
I do, convener.
Good morning, everyone. I promise that there are questions for the other witnesses, too, but I will stick with Robert Black for the moment. I should say that I am conscious that we are not running an interview process here, Mr Black. This is an opportunity for you to put some stuff on the public record in the Parliament, as part of our role in this area.
What do you consider to be the key objectives and priorities for the post that you are possibly about to take on, and what will the key challenges be? I know that that sounds very much like an interview question.
The big challenge just now is the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill as introduced, and relaying information to people who might have concerns. The new version of tenancy that the bill involves, and what format that takes, will be an interesting aspect. I think that there is potential there, although I am not entirely sure how that will be delivered or what the implications will be.
The challenge would be getting a perception of what farmers on the ground feel about that and understanding what the stakeholders think about what it means. Continuing the work on breaches and so on—the core work—will be a personal challenge and something that I will have to get to grips with quickly.
That is helpful.
Are there any particular complexities? You mentioned land reform and the potential for a new tenancy, but we are currently scrutinising the first part of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, which does not include that. We consider it to be a much more complex area that we will be coming on to soon. Do you want to say more about it at this stage?
There is nothing more to say at this stage. As the nominee tenant farming commissioner, that is the thing that I am focused on at the moment.
Thank you.
Thanks for coming along. How do you see the Scottish Land Commission developing? Do you have a collective view on that? I am interested in your working relationships. I do not know whether you have had working relationships in the past or whether you have thoughts collectively about how you will work together with the other commissioners, and I am interested in exploring that. It is not a trick question—it is just an open question about how you see yourselves working collectively and how you think that that will change.
I will give somebody else the chance to speak.
Usually, I say that if people do not look away fast enough, I will nominate them. Calum, you can start off, and I think that Lucy will get a chance after that.
I thank the committee for the welcome invitation to speak to you today.
I think that the Scottish Land Commission was one of the most important things to emerge from the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2016. It has been really important in keeping land reform on the public policy agenda, because, since devolution, the issue has occasionally slipped off, and having the commission in place has been significant in that regard. It has taken a proactive and progressive approach that looks to build consensus among the wide range of stakeholders that are involved and which have an interest in land reform—which is pretty much everybody. The commission is an important organisation and has an important role to play in that regard.
On where the commission will go next, clearly, we are nominees, and we are not in position at the moment—that is for some other decision making. There is a huge agenda in terms of the very large-scale, almost existential issues of the climate crisis and the biodiversity crisis. There are issues around the empowerment of communities and addressing inequalities, and land and land reform, as an area of public policy, have an important part to play in that regard. The commission has a significant agenda ahead of it in relation to working with other stakeholders and partners. From a personal perspective, that is one thing—probably the main thing, actually—that attracted me to go through the application process in the first place to become a commissioner. It is a really important agenda.
As for how we work together, speaking personally, I hope that we will take a consensus-based approach across the range of stakeholders who are involved in and have an interest in land reform, so that people’s voices are heard, whoever they are, wherever they come from geographically or whoever they represent. That is really important, too.
Broadly, that is how I see that agenda being taken forward and the commission’s role in that.
Thank you for having me here today. It is great to see Calum MacLeod and Rob Black here. The landscape of agriculture, land management and community development in Scotland is quite small, really, and I know both of them from previous work that I have done over the years. When I worked as a training and development manager with the Scottish Crofting Federation, Rob delivered fantastic training to new entrant crofters on the Isle of Lewis, and Calum has worked for the Lochbroom and Ullapool Community Trust, of which I was formerly a volunteer director. He did some great feasibility work and so on.
I hope that there is already an understanding that we are here to achieve practical solutions to practical problems, with the legislation there in the background. It would be our duty to support the legislation so that the legislators can make appropriate decisions in the best interests of the public. Ultimately, the role of the Scottish Land Commission is to be the safety valve or stopgap between people and the legislation, and to make things move towards the outcomes that are best for Scotland.
It is clear that we face two crises—the climate crisis and the biodiversity crisis. When you have wicked problems, there are many solutions and many viewpoints. I hope that we can be there to give our opinion when it is needed or to seek expert guidance and work together on that basis.
Robert, the farming commissioner role is embedded in the Land Commission, but how do you interpret that role within the commission’s wider work? Will you be following Bob McIntosh’s example, or will there be changes?
There certainly will be changes, but I do not know what their format will be. Once I get into the role, I might find that things have been mooted but have not taken effect, because they might not be feasible. That is why it is very important that Dr McIntosh is sticking around to cover that.
As an entity, certainly from the tenant farming commissioner’s point of view, the Land Commission is a very valuable source of information. From a consultancy point of view, I have relied on the commission on many occasions for information, which was made available and was particularly concise and digestible. That is important for farmers and crofters—the people on the ground who need access to that sort of information—to give them peace of mind about what is happening.
Dr McIntosh has done a tremendous amount of work with the codes of practice, with various guides and that sort of thing. That is another point that needs to be built on. Data collection, the commissioning of reports and investigative work are massively important in making informed decisions as we move forward and in adding value to the Land Commission as a whole.
Hello, everyone. Do your existing roles represent any potential conflicts of interest, and if so, how might those be mitigated so that you can maintain an objective approach to your work and cross-sectoral support? Was that discussed at the interview panel?
First and foremost, like the convener, I am part of a family farming partnership. I took on a farm 26 years ago, when both my parents died. I have had a lifelong interest in working on and managing the land, and I have had various other roles. In my very recent past, I had a political role: I stood as a candidate in the Westminster elections, but when that was over and I decided to apply for this role, I stepped back from my political activity. I no longer have political party membership, which was discussed with the ethical standards representative at my interview.
First and foremost, what drives me is my passion, my deep relationship with land and farming and being part of a community in the north-west Highlands. I also work part time as a teaching fellow in science communication at the University of Edinburgh. I am certainly interested in how that shapes my perspectives, having had on-the-ground, hands-on experience as a livestock farmer for many years but moving into, as Rob said, a more desk-based life. As you become more academic, you become more tied to a desk than to a sheep fank. Those are my other conflicts.
I am also a trustee of the Clachan Lochbroom Heritage Trust, which is a former Church of Scotland premises at the head of Loch Broom. That is a very small role.
I am glad that Mr Lumsden asked that question, because it is fundamentally important. I raised during my interview where potential conflicts of interest might be, and I wanted to be clear about my position with regard to them. I will go through a couple. As some of you may be aware, I have advocated for land reform. I have commented on land reform policy and written about it extensively over a number of years. Clearly, I have had particular positions and expressed particular views in regard to land reform.
10:45I said this at the time of my interview, and it is in your notes, but I will say it again here. I do not think that it is compatible for me as a land commissioner, if nominated and approved, to advocate on policy issues outwith the commission. I will absolutely be plugged in to the commission’s positions and, I hope, will play a full part in the discussions that come through on whatever the issues are. I want to put that point absolutely fair and square on the record.
I am also a freelance sustainable development consultant. As Lucy Beattie alluded to in her previous answer, that work predominantly relates to doing feasibility studies for communities that are looking to buy land and/or built assets. I have done that for 10 or more years as part of larger teams.
I do not see that as a conflict of interest, because the work that I do in relation to that is not policy orientated. It is very much about the community consultation dimensions and about looking at the feasibility or otherwise of specific projects that communities wish to take forward. My view—it was also the interview panel’s view—is that that would not cause a conflict of interest.
The other thing that I will put on the record is that I have a land interest, in the sense that I am the registered tenant of a croft in Ardvey on the isle of Harris, where I am from originally. The croft is now being sublet to a local crofter there.
I do not own any land or tenant any land, so there is no conflict there. In my current role, I am a development manager for the Isle of Luing Community Trust. There would probably be some overlap there but, depending on the decision that is made here today, I would no longer hold that position.
As an independent consultant, running my own firm, I am conscious that there could be crossover there as well, but I would abstain from any of that type of work. It is rare that I ever get something through my door that relates to a tenancy. It tends to be more technical issues about soils, animal health and that sort of thing. However, I have colleagues that I can pass any tenancy work on to.
I am also on the board of directors for the Scottish Crofting Federation. There is nothing there that really crosses over. The tenant farming element is very different from crofting. The Crofting Commission handles the crofting element. We do not foresee anything that would create a conflict but, if there is a conflict, the board is aware that I am here and that I am up for this role, and we would manage such a conflict in whatever capacity. It would all be transparent and clear. If anything did cross over, it would be on the table and we would manage it accordingly.
Thank you.
Monica Lennon is next.
I have almost forgotten what I was going to ask, as I was very interested to hear about all your experience and knowledge, including your experience of working together.
What do you consider to be the key objectives and priorities for the commission and what do you think the key challenges are? Dr Lucy Beattie talked about “wicked problems”. I would be interested to hear what problems you were thinking of when you said that, Lucy, but I will put the same question to everyone. What are the key objectives and priorities and what are the key challenges?
I do not know who wants to go first, but Robert, you are still maintaining eye contact.
That was my first mistake.
You will learn.
Strictly from the tenant farming point of view, maintaining relationships is the key important priority. From that point of view, it is about making sure that people are aware of me and that I am aware of them. For the tenant farming element, it is about continuing the work that has been done so far.
I touched on this in my response earlier, as did Lucy Beattie. I think that the key objectives are broadly the same ones that reflect the functions of the commission as set out in the 2016 act. There are various ones, but essentially they are to provide informed policy advice in relation to particular issues, conduct research and bring people together.
In that sense, I do not think that the commission has changed and I do not think that it will change. In some respects, the issues have been exacerbated over time and addressing them has become more pressing. It is about how we use all of Scotland’s land in ways that will deliver contributions and solutions to the climate and biodiversity crises and more locally. We are talking about macro issues but there are more specific practical local issues, such as the role of land in housing, rural repopulation and sustainability. How do we connect the issues of land, which is as important in the urban context as it is in the rural context? It is as important in Aberdeen as it is in Ardvey, frankly. It is important to make sure that those connections are made.
The committee is considering the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, which is of course important. It is one piece of legislation and lots of other elements connect to it, some of which are legislative and some of which are non-legislative, but they all matter and they all connect. It is about how we make those connections in ways that make land, as a resource, an asset and something that is of value to all the people of Scotland, resonate with them and something that all the people of Scotland can benefit from. That is complicated.
I have a PhD in public policy implementation, and I took 80,000 words to basically say, “It depends on the factors that make policies work or not.” It is a real challenge to bring different people and stakeholders together, but I look forward to contributing to that.
Lucy Beattie, it is not complicated, is it? You are going to give your answer now.
I suppose that the essential elements—land, labour and capital, which are the basis of economics—need to be considered. Land is a finite resource and it should be managed effectively to achieve outcomes. In relation to wicked problems, we have global problems, but in Scotland we also have problems such as the housing crisis and persistent poverty in our urban areas. It is not just about rural areas. Certainly, in the rural area where I come from, there is depopulation, an ageing population, lack of labour and so on. It is about looking at all those issues to see how they interlink and how they can work with other parts of the Government’s work and remit, and hopefully create the best outcomes so that people have a right to a good, healthy, happy life with clean air, clean water and good soil. That is the way that I would come at it.
Thank you.
Kevin Stewart, this is your chance.
Thank you, convener. One of the priority criteria for the role is stakeholder engagement and community empowerment. Dr MacLeod has given some commentary about stakeholder engagement, so I would like to hear from Dr Beattie and Mr Black on how they see community empowerment as part of the role.
As we have been sitting here this morning, there has been some commentary that shows that, first of all, some people are not listening and some do not want to empower people. John McTernan, a former Labour political adviser, said this morning:
“we don’t need the small farmers”,
which shows me that he has not been listening at all. It would therefore be useful to hear about the community empowerment aspect with commentary about stakeholder engagement from Dr Beattie and Mr Black. Mr Black could go first.
Again, I fall back on work that Dr McIntosh has done in the creation of the tenant farming forum, which brings in all the key stakeholders such as NFU Scotland, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and various individuals. That is a fantastic bit of work that keeps the conversation co-ordinated and people engaged.
Given my experience, I would like to apply an approach involving engagement with individuals and perhaps tenant farmer groups on the ground, rather than just the big agencies and entities. I would like to bring in more on-the-ground commentary, too. I think that the tenant farming forum is the benchmark that we can take forward.
Community empowerment is absolutely fundamental to the land reform agenda. I have been involved in that, working with communities and doing feasibility work with colleagues, and I have seen what a difference it has made to communities when they can gain ownership, in some instances, and when they use assets in ways that actually fit what they need for their places, directly and clearly. Having that responsiveness is fundamental. The legislation and other policy tools have an important role in facilitating that as much as possible.
I want to follow up on something else that you said, Dr MacLeod, before we come to Dr Beattie. You mentioned Aberdeen, which is always guaranteed to get you in my good books. However, my constituency, Aberdeen Central, is the only constituency in the north-east of Scotland that does not have a farm in it. You expressed the importance of views about land from an urban perspective as well as a rural one. How do we help folk from urban areas to understand the rural aspects? How do we get folk in rural areas to understand the urban aspects of land? How do you see your role there?
I mentioned Aberdeen partly because I spent many happy years in Aberdeen as a student and beyond, so I am familiar with it.
On the significance of the issues from an urban context and a rural context, although there are some things that divide, there is a lot that unites. This is obviously a personal view, but I think that it would be a mistake to delineate excessively between urban and rural contexts when we are thinking about land reform and the role that land has. As Lucy Beattie said, a lot of this is about how we address the fundamental issues and problems that affect people’s everyday lives. There can be macro problems and wicked problems such as poverty, and we can try to alleviate those. There may be opportunities to use land in ways that will provide more green space and help people’s quality of life.
My first point is that there is more that unites than divides. Raising people’s awareness of the possibilities and opportunities is very important. I therefore suggest that the Scottish Land Commission continues to do what it has been doing since it was established: holding events that bring people together, encouraging debate, enabling a recognition and inspiring confidence that people’s voices will actually be listened to, so that they have agency and opportunity to engage in land-use decision making, whether that is with regard to the planning system or other areas.
That is fundamentally important when it comes to connecting up urban and rural and illustrating to people, wherever they are geographically, that the issues transcend geography while also being specifically located in a given geography. It is about giving people the means, the voice and the opportunity to express their views with the confidence that things will actually change, and with the mechanisms in place to enable them to do that.
They can express their views and empower themselves, maybe.
That is what I was saying—where they have that opportunity. They also need to have the means to empower themselves, if that is not a paradox.
I have worked with a community as a community development officer. I have also been a volunteer director of a community trust. I have been involved in community initiatives, from running a Gaelic toddler group to running a consultation about cycle paths—all sorts of things. I have also been a member of a community.
It is important to ground your inquiries in the experience of the community. The Napier commission, for example, set out to uncover the experiences of people. It went out and about and sought the opinions of people and observed things. That is very important. If you do not ground yourself in the lived experience of the people who you are trying to deliver for, then you have forgotten the whole layer that is driving that legislation.
Land reform has always interested me. When I was writing my dissertation as an undergraduate doing a bachelor of science in rural land management at Harper Adams University in 2000, Scotland had the concordat on access, which inspired me. Because I came from Scotland, when I was told not to walk—very responsibly, down a track—on farmland in England, I almost could not understand it. Scotland had the right to access enshrined in our ethos and our very way of being. Then, we moved towards the Scottish Parliament, where the right would be enshrined in law.
That is very important to remember. We are sitting in the Scottish Parliament building today, and one of the primary features of the Parliament was the collaborative cross-party efforts to deliver that for the people of Scotland. I hope that, as a progressive nation, we can continue to do so.
11:00
You talked about listening and lived experience. How do we move forward from not only listening to people and taking their views to also empowering them to do more to help shape their future?
Empowerment is knowledge of potential and possibility. It is about knowing that something is there and is yours to take if you want it, and knowing that you do not have to ask permission because some kind of framework is in place that supports you in that way. In science communication, people talk about knowing your audience. It is the same when you are working with any community group, be it urban, rural or peri-urban—somewhere in between. You need to understand who you are working with and the approach that will empower them, which might be digital, face to face discussion or action—that is, doing something. Then, it is about building on that through a pilot programme or something like that.
In Mr Stewart’s first question, he referred to a comment about family farms. I thought, Lucy, that you might have taken the opportunity to say that you disagree with John McTernan, but I will not put words into your mouth.
Where will he be eating tonight, I wonder? Will it involve farm produce?
Well, that is a good question—it will not be at my table. Anyway, we will leave it there.
Thank you very much for coming down to Edinburgh and giving your time to the committee.
We now move into private session.
11:03 Meeting continued in private until 13:05.Previous
Subordinate Legislation