LAND REFORM RIGHTS TO BUY – WHERE TO FROM HERE?

CONFERENCE REPORT

TUESDAY, 23rd MARCH 2010 HIGHLAND COUNCIL CHAMBERS, INVERNESS

ii

CONTENTS Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

iii

1 BACKGROUND

1

2 PROGRAMME

2

3 WELCOME AND INTRODUCTION

3

4 KEY NOTE 1 ROSEANNA CUNNINGHAM MSP, MINISTER FOR ENVIRONMENT GOVERNMENT PERSPECTIVE ON RTB

3

5 KEY NOTE 2: PROFESSOR JIM HUNTER LAND FOR THE PEOPLE: WHY REFORM MATTERS AND WHY WE NEED MORE

10

6 ACHIEVEMENTS IN COMMUNITY LAND OWNERSHIP IN THE

HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS 16

7 BIG LOTTERY FUND – UPDATE 18 8 EXPERIENCE OF RTB – (COMMUNITY PERSPECTIVES AND

EXPERIENCE OF RTB, LEGISLATION AND PROCESS) - JOHN RANDALL – PAIRC TRUST - HUW FRANCIS – STORAS UIBHIST - JOHN HUTCHISON – ISLE OF EIGG TRUST - DAVID CAMERON – NORTH HARRIS TRUST

18

9 IMPROVING THE LEGISLATION? 22 10 REPORT ON WORKSHOP SESSIONS

24

11 PANEL DISCUSSION

26

12 SUMMARY JOINT ACTIONS POINTS

27

13 CONCLUSIONS

29

Appendix 1 Conference Delegates Listing 2 Speakers Biographies

iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The “Land Reform – Right to Buy, Where to From Here?” conference was held in the Highland Council Chambers, Inverness, from 9.00am – 4.30pm on Tuesday 23rd March 2010. The focus of the conference was the Community Rights to Buy (CRtB) legislation set out within the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003, particularly Parts 2 and 3 of the Act, community and crofting community rights to buy. Over 70 participants attended from a range of public agencies and communities, with key note presentations by Roseanna Cunningham MSP, Minister for Environment and Professor Jim Hunter. Additional presentations were given by a range of organisations with direct experience of the legislation. Workshop discussion sessions focused on raising awareness of RtB and helping communities achieve the goals, how to improve the legislation and the role of public land.

The conference presentations and discussions highlighted the need to amend the current over-complicated legislation to simplify the process of buying land. It was concluded that the process must be made more straight-forward and cheaper to encourage many more community and crofting groups to use the Community Right to Buy legislation. In addition to amending the existing legislation, the conference outcomes also noted the need to extend the Land Reform (Scotland) Act, suggesting more radical ways of enabling greater participation in the community’s right to buy. It was suggested that an independent umbrella organisation should be developed to represent communities, offering advice and support to those who have already used or who are interested in using the legislation. Funding was identified as a key issue for communities hoping to use the legislation and one significant proposal was the creation of a Community Land Bank for the Highlands and Islands, a revolving loan fund which would offer assistance to prospective purchasers. It could be funded by monies from renewable energy projects in the Highland and Islands and the Big Lottery. Finally, putting the Land Reform debate back on the political agenda was identified as a key outcome. The Highland Council agreed to take a lead on raising the issues with the Scottish Government, but everyone was encouraged to take action though the electoral process and feeding comments into the Rural Affairs Committee consultation. It was also recommended that an Action Group be set up with the aim of taking forward the actions from the conference, political lobbying and putting community land back on the agenda. There was widespread support from the conference attendees for the principal findings and proposed actions, giving the Action Group a clear mandate to pursue the matters agreed upon with urgency.

1

1.0 BACKGROUND

The “Land Reform – Right to Buy, Where to From Here?” conference was held in the Highland Council Chambers, Inverness on Tuesday 23rd March 2010. The focus of the conference was the Community Rights to Buy (CRtB) legislation set out within the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003, particularly Parts 2 and 3 of the Act, community and crofting community rights to buy. The purpose of the event was to positively consider the impact of the RtB legislation, the experience of its application and how the legislation could be improved in the light of that experience. The conference also considered the support mechanisms required by communities wishing to invoke their right to buy and the potential role of public land in promoting community ownership. Over 70 participants attended from a range of public agencies and communities (see Appendix One – Delegates Listing), discussing how the legislation could be improved and the support mechanism required by communities wishing to involve their right to buy. Key note presentations were given by Roseanna Cunningham MSP, Minister for Environment and Professor Jim Hunter, with additional presentations from a range of organisations with direct experience of the legislation (see Appendix Two – Speakers Biographies). Workshop discussion sessions focused on raising awareness of RtB and helping communities achieve the goals, improving the legislation (making it simpler and more relevant) and the role of public land.

Councillor Michael Foxley, Leader of The Highland Council’s Administration, who chaired the conference, said: “We had a number of excellent presentations and discussions and I am confident that the conference has reinvigorated the land reform debate.

“The clear belief is that we need to amend the current legislation to simplify the process of buying land. It needs to be more straight-forward and cheaper to encourage many more community and crofting groups to use the Community Right to Buy legislation. Over the next few months we will be considering proposals to simplify the existing legislation as well as an extension to the Land Reform (Scotland) Act, suggesting more radical ways of enabling greater participation in the community’s right to buy.

“My experience over many years is that if you give people the confidence of ownership of land then you get real benefits. You just have to look at Eigg and Gigha to see how community ownership works, with increased population – especially of young people, increased business opportunities and greater community confidence.”

One significant proposal was the creation of a Community Land Bank for the Highlands and Islands, a revolving loan fund which would offer assistance to prospective purchasers. It could be funded by monies from renewable energy projects in the Highland and Islands and the Big Lottery.

Community Right to Buy legislation has already had a positive impact for communities in the Highlands and Islands but it is time now to look at how its impact might be widened. This conference has brought together a range of organisations and individuals with directly-relevant experience – not to mention innovative ideas – and we hope it will be an important milestone on the road to seeing more community ownership in the Highlands, with all the benefits that can bring for local people.”

2

2.0 PROGRAMME The programme for the event is listed below.

09.00: Registration and coffee

09.30: Welcome and introduction Cllr Michael Foxley – chair of morning session

09.45: Key note address – Government perspective on RtB Roseanna Cunningham MSP, Minister for Environment

10.15: Land for the People: reform and why it matters Professor Jim Hunter

10.45: Achievements in community land ownership in the Highlands and Islands Neil Gerrard

11.10: Big Lottery Fund - update Eric Samuel

11.15: Break

11.30: Experience of RtB – (community perspectives and experience of RtB, legislation and process) • John Randall – Pairc Trust • Huw Francis – Storas Uibhist • John Hutchison – Isle of Eigg Trust • David Cameron – North Harris Trust

12.45: Improving the legislation? Simon Fraser

13.15: Lunch (to include poster displays and networking opportunity)

14.15: Tackling the issues - Introduction to workshop session Donald Macleod

• Workshop 1: “Raising awareness of RtB and helping communities achieve the goals” - to include discussion of funding and GCA

• Workshop 2: “Improving the legislation – simpler and more relevant” • Workshop 3: “Pump priming - the role of public land”

15.20: Break

15.30: Feedback session and panel discussion – each workshop to provide 4 or 5 important actions for moving forward Facilitator – Donald Macleod

16.15: Summary of recommendations and identifying joint actions points Facilitator – Donald Macleod

16.30: Thanks and close of conference Cllr Michael Foxley

3

3.0 WELCOME AND INTRODUCTION The event was introduced by Councillor Michael Foxley, Leader of The Highland Council’s Administration. He welcomed those present to an important gathering – a chance to take stock, look at what has been achieved and look to the future. Cllr. Foxley noted that, seven years on from the Land Reform (Scotland) Act, there is clear evidence of the positive benefits of community ownership - now is the time to grow the benefits for future generations. The conference would focus on what can be done to simplify the process, making it easier for communities to register interest and use the legislation to buy land; how to tackle funding and the issue of raising awareness. He welcomed Roseanna Cunningham MSP, Minister for Environment who would speak about the Government perspective on Rights to Buy (RtB).

4.0 KEY NOTE 1: Roseanna Cunningham MSP, Minister for Environment Government perspective on RtB Transcript Good Morning. As someone who argued long and hard for land reform both in the House of Commons and in the Scottish Parliament I would be the first to agree that community buyouts of land and other assets have played an important role in the empowerment and long-term sustainability of communities throughout Scotland. The many benefits include the promotion of community confidence; communities taking responsibility of their own futures; participation and cohesion of community members; the long-term sustainability of communities and community empowerment. The 1993 Assynt buyout was an epochal event. It altered forever the climate of opinion on community ownership in the Highlands and Islands and set an example for the future. A lot has taken place since then. Community buyouts of land have continued to take place. In the Highlands and Islands these include the Borve and Annishader townships, the Isle of Eigg, the Knoydart Estate, the Isle of Gigha, the North Harris Estate, the South Uist Estate, and the Galson Estate. Incidentally, Stòras Uibhist which has around 93,000 acres of land is the eleventh largest landowner in Scotland! A number of communities in the Highland Council area (as also in other areas of the country) have successfully used the community right to buy legislation since it came into force in 2004. 32 community companies have been formed in the area. Some 12 of these have submitted 18 applications to register community interests in land. Ministers have approved 14 of these applications; the remaining four were withdrawn by communities before Ministers could consider them. A number of communities have had the opportunity to buy the land and assets in which they registered an interest. Ministers have approved six of the seven applications to proceed with the right to buy. The Assynt Foundation went on to successfully purchase land in three registered interests in land and Camuscross & Duisdale Initaitiave on Skye is in the final steps of its right to buy a reservoir for its community. The role of the Scottish Government The Scottish Government plays an important role in empowering communities through the acquisition of land and other assets.

4

The Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 includes the community right to buy and the crofting community right to buy. I know that the community right to buy is envied in England and Wales but so far there’s no similar legislation to help them. The two sets of provisions of course are a little different. The community right to buy gives communities a pre-emptive right to buy land on which they have a registered interest. The crofting community right to buy gives crofting communities the opportunity to secure, through a forced sale, croft land and interposed leases over it. They are the most widely known tools that are available to communities to acquire land and other assets, but they are not the only ones. Recently, the West Harris Crofting Trust used the Transfer of Crofting Estates (Scotland) Act 1997 to acquire the Scottish Ministers’ crofting estates of Borve, Luskentyre and Scaristavore. This is the first transfer by Scottish Ministers of their crofting estates under the terms of that Act – a significant event for both the people of West Harris and for Ministers. I hope that the West Harris buyout will provide the stimulus for other crofting communities to come forward and to consider community ownership. Use of the Rights to Buy It is of course up to communities to decide which tool they want to use to acquire land and/or other assets. It is important that they should carefully consider their options. The community right to buy can provide a useful framework for land acquisition: it sets out milestones and timescales to complete them. Its use can let a landowner know that a community is serious in acquiring particular land or assets and thus act as a lever to secure that acquisition. The pre-emptive right means that the community right to buy is particularly valuable where a community knows that the land which it wants to acquire may come on the market. Crofting communities should consider carefully whether the crofting community right to buy is the most suitable tool for them. As it is a forced sale, it is inappropriate where the landowner is a willing seller. In such cases, its use may cause friction and even irreparable damage between a community and the landowner. In cases where the landowner is a willing seller, such communities may think about using the community right to buy or even negotiate by itself. Crofting communities can also consider starting their acquisition by using the crofting community right to buy and then negotiate outwith the legislation to secure an amicable estate transfer. The community of Galston on Lewis is one such example of that happening. Communities should also reflect on whether they actually need to buy the land or other asset. In some cases involvement short of outright ownership may be the best way forward. Practical issues There are a number of themes which run through successful buyouts: a genuine need to purchase land for community benefit; a cohesive community; realistic proposals; the sharing of tasks among community members; the listening to advice from supportive bodies (including the Scottish Government); and successful funding applications. Each of these is important. Working with the rights to buy What has the Scottish Government learned from working with the right to buy legislation?

5

Let’s remember that it is still relatively new having only come into force in 2004. We may have a great deal of experience of working with the legislation, especially the community right to buy, but we are still learning too. There are provisions which have still to be used. For example, there have not been any appeals made against valuations and Ministers have still to take a decision on an application by a crofting community to acquire land or an interposed lease under the crofting community right to buy provisions. Communities approach the Scottish Government for advice on the right to buy at various stages in their development. Some are taking the first tentative steps while others have a good idea of what land they want, what they want to do with it and the requirements of the legislation. Communities have found it advantageous if they involve us at an early stage so that they can be assisted through the process to register a community interest in land. Officials have worked closely with all parties in using the legislation. They have a good deal of practical expertise to guide parties through it. Use them; they are there to help! It is the communities themselves throughout Scotland that have been driving forward the legislation and shaping how it is being used. This is because it is for communities to decide what land or asset they wish to register an interest in: it is not for the Scottish Government to tell communities what they should be registering an interest in. Communities have explored and used the legislation in a variety of different ways. They have registered a community interest in a wide range of land and buildings: estates, fields, forests, woodlands and a reservoir, buildings such as churches, a school, a disused hospital, a disused airbase, and a community centre. Some communities have been creative in identifying land and assets that can make a real benefit to them: Comrie in Perthshire identified a disused PoW camp which so far it is using for business units, storage, playing fields, and allotments; Silverburn in Midlothian identified a disused water tank which it is using as a community centre; Neilson in Renfrewshire identified a former bank building which it is using as a community hub; Camuscross and Duisdale on the Isle of Skye identified a surplus reservoir which will be developed to provide hydro-electric power and knock-on benefits for the communities. These are only a few of the many examples I could give. The registration of particular types of land or buildings has inspired other communities to register an interest in the same type of asset: disused pubs are one such example. Communities are clearly influenced by what others are doing. I’d urge communities to look at the Register of Community Interests in Land to see just how creative you can be. In the last two or three years there has been a tendency for communities to register an interest in small areas of land or in single buildings to meet their needs. Communities should be realistic about the amount of land they actually need – do they need the whole of an area or could a smaller portion meet their needs? Communities should remember that they will need to be able to raise funds to purchase that land – the more land the more money they will need to raise! Communities have also identified a wide range of uses for land and assets. These include business, housing, leisure, amenity and tourism. Some 50 community interests in land include proposals for amenity use, 25 for business use, 23 for leisure and four for housing. Some registrations combine a number of these. The legislation is flexible enough to let communities develop their proposals in the way that they feel is best for

6

them. They will, however, need to be able to demonstrate that their proposals meet the sustainable development test after the right to buy is triggered. We also need to ensure compliance with the legislation. It is important that all the legislative requirements are met. Non-compliance can mean that an application to register a community interest in land could be challenged by a landowner in court as being incompetent and for a successful registration to be deleted. This has already happened and we do not want to see it happen again. Current issues for debate on the rights to buy There continues to be a lively debate around the rights to buy, especially the community right to buy – as is shown by the holding of today’s event. It is important that there is an ongoing dialogue. It can help us consider lessons learned and new approaches within the framework of the legislation. It helps us to think about the legislative provisions and to assess whether they are working as the Parliament intended. The success of the rights to buy There are people in this room who consider that the community right has not been “successful”. We could argue about what success means. At the time the legislation went through I was on the record as saying that it would only bring about a modest and relatively slow change. Even so, the community right to buy has brought opportunities for communities throughout rural Scotland. Success shouldn’t only be measured by the statistics relating to the number of registrations and buyouts. We should also consider the wider movement for securing community land which the legislation has brought about and the cultural change effected by this movement Statistics But even if we look at statistics alone there has been a great deal of activity. Since 2004 138 community bodies have been formed whose Memorandum & Articles of Association are compliant with the community right to buy legislation and which can then register a community interest in land. They are located throughout many areas of the country. Areas of particular activity are the West Highlands, Argyll and the Scottish Borders. Some 65 community bodies have submitted 113 applications to register a community interest in land. When the Land Reform Bill was making its journey through the Scottish Parliament it was estimated that there would be 25 applications to register an interest in the first year, then 5 a year thereafter. It is clear therefore that the use of the provisions has greatly exceeded expectations. Of the 113 applications, 79 have been approved by Ministers, giving a success rate of 69.9%. This is a figure which I am sure other Government schemes would wish to achieve! There are a number of reasons why some applications have been rejected: there may have been a legal agreement on the land between a landowner and a developer – an option – in which case Ministers have no option but to reject an application; the application may not be in the public interest. Some communities have also withdrawn their applications. The right to buy has been “triggered” in land relating to 27 registered interests. This gives a rate of 29% of all successful registrations proceeding with the right to buy, and communities being given the opportunity to proceed to it. This is a good figure.

7

Ministers have, so far, given 24 communities the opportunity to proceed with their right to buy. This figure will increase as Ministers approve applications by the five communities that are currently proceeding with their right to buy. To date, Ministers have rejected only two applications by community bodies. These figures show that communities have been able to demonstrate that they can produce strong plans for the land or other assets they are seeking to acquire. Communities have had mixed success in purchasing the land their registered. I know that some people have been critical of this. There have been seven purchases of land under the Act – and two further communities in Skye and Benbecula are concluding the purchase of their land in the very near future. A further two pieces of land have been successfully purchased through negotiation outwith the Act. It was anticipated that there would be 2 community purchases of land a year - and this expectation has also been met. Why have communities failed to purchase the land? In 4 cases the landowners withdrew from the sale of their land, and the community bodies lost their opportunity to proceed with their right to buy. In seven instances communities were unable to raise the money to buy the land. I will come back to this. The legislation is too complex and should be simplified Some people have argued and continue to argue that the community right to buy should be simplified. This is a topic for discussion during the course of today’s conference. There are complexities. It was essential that the legislation be transparent, legally sound and comply with the European Convention on Human Rights. From a practical viewpoint they also help provide communities with a number of key skills to proceed with a community buyout. These are skills which are vital, whether or not the community buyout proceeds. They include the experience of setting up and running a community body (a company limited by guarantee); experience of mustering community support; experience of focusing a community to think about what it really needs and what it wants to do with the land or asset; experience of developing realistic proposals and working up a feasibility study and business plan, and identifying and approaching funders. I believe that communities should not be put through unnecessary red tape and that any legislative requirements should be appropriate and measured. That is why last year I made a number of administrative arrangements to help all parties involved in the re-registration of a community interest in land and for community bodies to audit their accounts. There should also be appropriate tools in place that can assist all parties interested in the rights to buy. The “Rights to Buy” pages of the Scottish Government website includes guidance which takes into account the lessons learned when working with the legislation. It has a Rural Communities Mapping Tool to help with mapping requirements, a downloadable application form, a model Memorandum & Articles (developed in conjunction with HIE), together with links to further resources. Government officials can also provide practical assistance and support. The extension of the community right to buy to urban areas There have been a number of calls to extend the community right to buy to urban areas. The then Land Reform Bill was introduced to the Scottish Parliament in order to remove the land based barriers to the sustainable development of rural communities and rural land.

8

This was because the lives of people who live and work in the country are constrained by landowners in the way that those in towns and cities are not: urban dwellers can choose to move homes or jobs without changing their way of life. At present the Government has no proposals to extend community right to buy to urban areas. Review of the Land Reform Act I am often asked if I am going to review the right to buy legislation. Although at this stage the Government is not intending to carry out such a review, I do know that the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee announced in January that it intends to commission research into the effectiveness of the legislation. It is hoped that this will be completed by the summer. I will be reading the results of that with great interest and will respond appropriately. Funding of community buyouts The issue of funding of community buyouts of land has been a hot topic in recent months. I welcome the Big Lottery Fund’s announcement that it will launch its new five year Investing in Communities programme – which includes a new Growing Community Assets programme – at the end of June. I know that there are representatives from the Big Lottery Fund here today so this is your opportunity to find out more about the programme. Communities to keep a close eye on BIG’s website in the next few months to find out more about the new programmes. They should also start to think about what projects which they could apply for funding. I’d urge communities to be creative in their approach to funding. Big Lottery is the largest funder, but it is not the only one. I know of communities that have used a number of different funders to secure their land. A “cocktail” approach can be a successful one. Communities should also think about this approach. Commitment to Land Reform We are fully committed to land reform and particularly to the empowerment of rural communities. We would like to see communities recognising the opportunities and acting on them. There are a number of counties where there are no or few community bodies and registered interests in land. Communities in these areas should be encouraged to familiarise themselves with the legislation. One way in which the increased use of the rights to buy can be achieved is through the continuing awareness of them. Many people in this room will remember that the existing provisions resulted from an unprecedented level of consultation in the period from 1997 pre-devolution until after the legislation received Royal Assent. This was followed by publicity given to the first communities that were successful in purchasing land. While this has led to a general awareness of the legislation, new community groups continue to be formed, not all of which are aware of the potential of Right to Buy. It is important that there is a continued awareness of these Rights. I know that this is an issue that will be discussed during the course of the day. In the past year the Scottish Government has publicised the right to buy and developments that have been taking place through a number of websites such as the

9

Scottish National Rural Network (SNRN) and the Scottish Community Land Network (SCLN). We are currently extending this work. We are working with a number of third sector organisations to raise awareness through their websites. These include SNRN, SCLN, DTAS (one of the sponsors of today’s event), SCVO, and the Syke and Lochaber Council of Voluntary Organisations. I am sure that there will be others in due course. A number of people in this room may have seen officials at the Scottish National Rural Network events which are currently being held around the country. They will continue to have a presence at these events in the forthcoming months. This will give them the opportunity to contact community groups. While these avenues focus on communities, it is also important that landowners are aware of the community right to buy. Members of the SRPBA will be aware that there is an article “Community Right to Buy: The Role of the Landowner” in its LandBusiness magazine of February-March. Information leaflets (electronic and printed) are an important way to raise awareness. Watch out for some of these appearing in the next few months. These will be widely distributed among parties that have an interest in the rights to buy. Gaps in guidance available to communities The Scottish Government is keen to ensure that there is sufficient guidance available on the rights to buy. This is especially important for any provisions that have been or are continuing to pose difficulties for community bodies for example the mapping exercise for the crofting community right to buy. We intend to draw up guidance on the mapping exercise to assist crofting communities with this work. Monitoring the Rights to Buy The Scottish Government believes that it is important that the provisions in the Rights to Buy continue to be monitored. I would like to take this opportunity to assure you that we will continually monitor the provisions to ensure that they are fit for purpose. Conclusion The Scottish Government’s rights to buys in the Land Reform Act are tools available to communities to enable them to empower themselves, give them real rights and thus help create a more modern relationship between landowner and community. I urge communities to act early and to think about community ownership to ensure that they can benefit from it. It is important that communities are pro-active and think about purchasing land and other assets, even if it is to register an interest, and to take the first steps towards securing ownership. Such opportunities can be a once in a lifetime event. The Rights to buy have – and are – providing real opportunities for rural communities in Scotland. There has been a lot of work undertaken to make the rights more easily available and accessible to all parties involved with them. It is important that there is a continued debate on these rights so that they are fit for purpose and are relevant. I hope that today’s event will provide a forum for constructive debate on land reform and the rights to buys. I look forward to reading the summary of recommendations and the joint action points which arise from today’s conference.

10

5.0 KEY NOTE 2: Professor Jim Hunter

Land for the People: Why reform matters and why we need more Transcript “Earlier this year, the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts announced the result of its Big Green Challenge, intended to recognise, and award, innovative approaches to carbon reduction, climate change mitigation, all of that. Sharing first prize, and picking up £300,000, were people on the Isle of Eigg where Eigg Electric, a community-owned company on a community-owned island, has created – for the first time anywhere – a community-controlled, community-operated electricity grid powered by a mix of three energy sources, wind, solar and hydro. Because I know Eigg’s people – among them Eigg Electric’s remarkable chairman, John Booth – I wasn’t surprised by the Big Green Challenge outcome. But reflecting on that outcome, it occurred to me to wonder how folk might have reacted if, in 1990 say, some twentieth-century equivalent of Coinneadh Odhar, the Brahan Seer, had then forecast what Eigg would have achieved, what Eigg would be achieving, by this year, by 2010. The Eigg of twenty years back was a run-down, deeply disadvantaged sort of place – its landlord anything but well-disposed to islanders. In 1990, then, there wouldn’t have been many takers for the notion that Eigg might one day be owned and managed by its residents. There would’ve been still fewer takers for the thought that those same residents – so disparaged by their landlord – might have provided themselves, by 2010, with a world first in renewables technology. Today’s event is about enabling others to do what’s been done on Eigg. Which means restoring impetus to land reform – impetus that has been lost. Last September, representatives of nineteen community groups, owning between them several hundred thousand acres, met in Harris and concluded that – if reform’s to regain momentum – the community ownership sector might require a lobbying, a campaigning, organisation. Some such organisation now seems likely to take shape. I hope today’s proceedings will help boost its prospects. And so I’d like to touch on four things needing doing if reform’s to go forward. One. And I’ll make this point with reference to Gigha, we must demonstrate the benefits that land reform can secure. Two. We need to persuade politicans to make it easier, and cheaper, for communities to take control of state-owned land. Three. We need to ensure that communities that take ownership responsibilities, and communities considering such a move, get help – post-purchase – with development. Four. We badly need another Scottish Land Fund – and I’ll float a thought as to where the cash might come from.

11

So to Gigha – which, for 150 years, was bought, sold, bought and sold again by monied men from far away. Of these, say Gigha people, the best was Sir James Horlick who bought in 1944. But though Horlick spent heavily on the place, ownership of this sort is inherently unstable – even the most generous landlords being seldom provided with equally generous heirs. So it was with James Horlick. On his death in 1972, Gigha was sold – the island changing hands three times in twenty years. One Gigha laird, Malcolm Potier, a property developer, lasted less than forty months before first going bankrupt and then being jailed in Australia – where he’s serving a 25-year sentence for twice attempting to hire a hitman to murder the boyfriend of his ex-lover whose daughter he’d abducted. Potier claimed to be in love with Gigha. ‘For years,’ he said, ‘I dreamed of owning the place much as a child yearns for a train set.’ Nothing is more illustrative of what’s wrong with this type of landlordism than the fact that whole localities can thus be regarded – literally – as playthings. Nor did Potier’s departure for the Australian prison system bring stability to Gigha. Purchased by another businessman, the island – inside nine years – was again put up for sale in the summer of 2001. The Gigha community, at this point, was headed for extinction. The island’s population, once above 400, had dipped below 100 – a trend linked to the island’s housing stock being mostly in the ownership of its absentee proprietors. There had been some investment in this stock during the Horlick era, but very little since. Housing conditions on Gigha, it followed, were among the worst in Scotland. Three-quarters of the island’s 42 estate-owned homes were below the officially tolerable standard. Of the rest, all – bar a single dwelling – were in ‘serious disrepair’. It’s understandable, then, that people were quitting an island where living standards were poor – and opportunity non-existent. It’s equally understandable that, on Gigha going on the market, the notion of its inhabitants bidding for the island failed initially to win support. In shrinking and demoralised communities, risk-taking is hard to contemplate. Always in such communities, pessimism is more prevalent than its opposite. Gigha’s asking price was just below £4 million. In August 2001, fourteen Gigha residents backed the proposition that islanders should make an offer for the island. Many more than fourteen opposed community ownership or thought it wouldn’t work. So what turned round opinion? Well, many things – but, most of all, a growing realisation that Gigha folk would not be on their own. The Scottish Land Fund offered a grant of £2.5 million – along with a £1 million loan. Highlands and Islands Enterprise, which I then chaired, offered a £500,000 grant – plus lots of on-the-ground advice, support and backing. Would a Gigha-type community get so much help today? I doubt it. After all, HIE’s budget has been cut – cut sharply – along with its staffing. And the Land Fund no longer exists.

12

Gigha’s people – for whom I have unstinting admiration – repaid their Land Fund loan inside two years. They’ve done lots more besides. About half of Gigha’s homes have been refurbished, 18 new homes have been built for rent and, in a place where lairds refused to sell house sites, five private homes have been constructed on land sold by the island’s community trust. Farmland has been reorganised. Something like a dozen private businesses are up and running – while the trust, at its own hand, operates Britain’s only community-owned hotel as well as the country’s first community-owned and grid-connected wind farm. This wind farm – just three small turbines – earns over £100,000 annually. The island’s population, 94 when the community took charge, today stands at 151 – an increase of 60 per cent. Gigha’s primary school roll, just six in 2002, is now above twenty. And on an island formerly bereft of anyone in their twenties or thirties, there are growing numbers in those important age groups. Land reform’s critics decry community ownership as Stalinist. This is odd. After all, nothing could be further removed from Soviet-style collectivisation than the drive to put local people – as opposed to absentee landlords or absentee state agencies – in charge of the land on which they live. Arguably, indeed, community ownership has less to do with socialism than with unleashing entrepreneurial effort of a sort that had no chance in pre-purchase Gigha – where assets as basic as land and buildings were unavailable to prospective businesses and where, if a wind farm had been erected, returns would have gone to someone living hundreds, even thousands, of miles distant. In 1996, the then Secretary of State for Scotland, Michael Forsyth, went to Assynt where the North Assynt Crofters Trust had become the first community group to bid successfully, in the open market, for a Highland estate. In Assynt, Michael Forsyth said: ‘We need more of this.’ Today our SNP government in Edinburgh has much to say about making our nation more self-confident, enterprising, self-reliant. Which makes it all the stranger that our government is doing so much less than it could to boost, promote and foster land reform. For what is Gigha but a more self-confident, more enterprising Scotland – even if in microcosm? Wouldn’t it be good, then, if the First Minister, Alex Salmond, were to go to Gigha, as Michael Forsyth went to Assynt, and to say there: ‘We need more of this.’ So to my second point, the urgent need to help communities take ownership of state-owned land. In 1996, new back from Assynt, and speaking in this chamber, Michael Forsyth unveiled the first land reform legislation of the modern era, the Transfer of Crofting Estates Act – which enabled residents of the government’s crofting estates to opt for community ownership. ‘Let me make on thing absolutely clear,’ Michael Forsyth said here of this Act. ‘We are not disposing of [our] estates ... to raise money for the Exchequer. We are opening this window of opportunity for crofting communities because it is the right thing to do. It is a matter of principle ... Such is our commitment to this cause that we are even prepared ... to transfer certain crofts free of charge.’

13

In 2007 crofters in Borve, Luskentyre and Scarista Mhòr, three government-owned properties in South Harris, voted heavily in favour of community ownership – in order, they said, to enable them to create six new crofts, build ten affordable homes, establish a community-owned café, develop a small hydro scheme. It was to encourage this sort of initative that Michael Forsyth put in place the Crofting Estates Transfer Act and guaranteed that government-owned land would be made over to its occupants free of charge. So what were Scarista Mhòr, Luskentyre and Borve crofters told when they attempted to make good this promise? They were told that what a Conservative Secretary of State was prepared to give them for nothing, Scotland’s SNP government would insist on selling at full market value. Well, in January the Borve, Luskentyre and Scarista Mhòr transfer eventually took place. That’s welcome. What isn’t welcome is that government held out for its pound of flesh – with the farcical result that scarce HIE resources, and even scarcer Comhairle nan Eilean Siar resources, were swallowed up so government could demonstrate that this land transfer in Harris had produced a market value cash receipt. This meant that taxpayers’ money went round and round in circles – from government to council or to HIE, from HIE or council back to government. Crazy is hardly the word. Because the market value of the land in question was under £60,000 – a smaller sum, I suspect, than the cost of the civil service time that went into engineering this absurdity – the South Harris crofters have, in the end, got what they wanted. But where does this approach leave people – in Embo, for example – who want control of Forestry Commission land worth several hundred thousand pounds? It leaves them struggling with phased purchase – and other energy-sapping expedients of that kind. Local authorities like Highland Council can’t find the sort of cash that government insists on. Neither, more and more, can HIE. And the national lottery authorities are – rightly – reluctant to give ‘good causes’ cash to government. Which is why the Forest Crofts initiative launched four years ago by the last Scottish government has got precisely nowhere. What’s needed is for Scotland’s government to get serious about land reform and make it possible for communities to take over publicly-owned land at a lower-than-market-price cost. Ask ministers why they don’t do this, and they cite all sorts of Treasury rules and tell you, as their civil servants have told them, that it’s all terribly, terribly difficult. Well, of course, it’s difficult. Anything worth doing politically is difficult. Creating the National Health Service was difficult. Restoring the Scottish parliament was difficult. But difficult isn’t the same as impossible. What’s needed when a political objective is difficult to attain is the political will to make what’s wanted happen. But political will is lacking. Which is why, to repeat, it would be good if Mr Salmond were to go to Gigha and say there, We need more of this. So to my third point, the requirement to ensure that communities opting for ownership get the back-up that they need to make a go of it.

14

For if such back-up is lacking, two things happen. First, existing community ownership groups find they can’t progress development. Second, communities that might have moved in that direction conclude there’s no point in so doing. So reform grinds completely to a halt. While Gigha’s success is down to Gigha’s people, they’ve had a lot of help from agencies like HIE. This sort of help is getting harder to obtain. At last September’s conference in Harris, community groups who have recently gone into ownership – Storras Uibhist, for instance, or their counterparts in Galson – told of how tough it is to get assistance for development. Assistance of a sort that was more readily to hand in Gigha. That’s partly due to cuts in the HIE budget. But it also reflects the present Scottish government’s depressingly limited notion of what constitutes development – the developmental priority, judging by ministerial pronouncements, now consisting mostly of assisting companies with serious growth potential. Helping good companies, where they exist, is fine and dandy. But anyone can hand such companies a cheque. And nobody should get away with claiming that’s development. Development is nurturing, creating, the conditions that enable enterprise to flourish in the first place. Development means doing what made possible the minor miracle that is Gigha. And why the Scottish government is so set on making it so difficult for the Gigha story to be replicated, I simply cannot fathom.

Just as I cannot fathom, to come to my fourth and last point, why the government refuses to reconstitute the Scottish Land Fund. Again the reason given is scarcity of cash. But in relation to overall public expenditure, land reform costs very little. Nailing down the total cost so far of land reform is difficult – because much more’s involved than simple purchase price. But it’s probably in the order of £100 million – over the better part of twenty years. To put that £100 million into context, it’s equivalent to what the Scottish government spends on agricultural support, or subsidy, every eight-and-a-half weeks. I mention agricultural support because its beneficiaries include our wealthiest landlords – people often critical of spending on community ownership – people who, in many instances, have had more money from the taxpayer than any community group is likely ever to receive. Spending on agricultural support in Scotland is about £600 million a year. Less than half of one per cent of that would finance a Scottish Land Fund at the former Land Fund’s rate of spend. I simply don’t accept that sums as small as this cannot be found by government. But judging by what’s happened up to now, I don’t think that they will be. If we’re to replace the Scottish Land Fund, if we’re to find alternatives to a cash-strapped HIE, we’re going to have to devise new sources of finance – to help not just with land reform but with Highlands and Islands development more generally. Our model, I reckon, should be the Shetland Oil Fund. Because Shetlanders succeeded in imposing a small levy on every barrel of oil that goes through Sullom Voe, they were able to cash in on offshore oil in ways that greatly boosted Shetland’s prospects. Across the Highlands and Islands – an area with a high

15

proportion of Europe’s wind, wave and tidal power potential – we need to capitalise on renewable energy in the way that Shetland capitalised on oil. Community-owned wind farms on the Gigha pattern are one way of doing this. So is the Shetland Islands Council approach of taking heavyweight equity in much larger-scale developments of the Viking Energy variety. But we ought also to explore how local authorities might, for example, place a Sullom-Voe-type levy on everything piped down the Beauly-Denny powerline. I’m not envisaging here, I emphasise, more so-called community benefits of the sort already available from some commercial energy developers. They’re beads-for-the-natives sort of stuff. For far too long in the Highlands and Islands our natural resources have been developed – ripped off might be a better phrase – for the benefit of external interests. So it was with kelp in the nineteenth century. And so it was more recently with fisheries. What I’d like is for Highland Council to take a lead in insisting that renewable energy will be different, that we’re intent on capturing a reasonable proportion of the revenues it will generate – and that we’ll use the cash so captured for productive Highland purposes – among them land reform.

Land reform isn’t easy. It means challenging powerful interests. It involves radical changes in what, back in the 1960s, we would have called the power structure. Which is maybe why so many politicians shy away from it. But because the SNP has been at the forefront of pressing for reform since the 1970s, I had high hopes that the present Scottish government would further add to the land reform momentum that was building prior to this government taking power. This hasn’t happened. In the run-up to the 1979 devolution referendum, an old man in Sutherland, a man who couldn’t have been more pro-Highland, told me he’d be voting to keep the status quo. ‘Why?’ I asked. ‘Well,’ he said, ‘in London they don’t give a damn about Highlanders, but in Edinburgh they hate us.’ Although there’s much in that historically, I don’t yet – quite – believe it. But I do believe that, here in the Highlands and Islands, if we’re to make real progress, on land reform and on much else, we ourselves will have to take the lead”.

16

6.0 ACHIEVEMENTS IN COMMUNITY LAND OWNERSHIP IN THE HIGHLANDS AND

ISLANDS Neil Gerrard Neil Gerrard of HIE’s Community Land Unit focused on the inputs, outputs and outcomes (achievements) of the community land sector using the Scottish Land Fund and Growing Community Assets schemes to illustrate changes in the market. Inputs Overall funding from HIE has been around £15m (from 1997-2010) and this has brought in an additional £125m from other sources both public and private. This is a relatively small programme compared to other Scottish initiatives, e.g. agricultural subsidy in Scotland is £600m per annum or HC revenue expenditure for 2010-11 is £554m To date, the main contributor in community land purchase has been the Big Lottery Fund. It has been suggested that there has been a slowing down of activity but the figures suggest otherwise. There has however been a considerable change in where the money has been spent, reflected a widened scope for applications into community assets rather than just community land and the move to development projects. Comparing the earlier Scottish Land Fund and the more recent Growing Community Assets: The Scottish Land Fund (2001-2005) 320 Applications received 47 unsuccessful 273 grants awarded (although 21 did not complete) 202 in HIE area / 71 in SE area Total Project Cost £22m SLF grants awarded £13.9m HIE funding £3.8m Growing Community Assets (2006-2010) 349 Outline Applications 181 projects in HIE area / 120 in SE area plus 45 renewables projects 207 projects withdrawn or rejected 36 projects still being assessed (decision 21 April) 106 projects approved 50 in HIE area / 60 in SE area Total project cost £108m GCA funding £40m HIE funding £6m The figures show a much higher attrition rate in GCA compared to SLF. The reasons are that GCA had much more complex projects, a more bureaucratic application process and less clarity on eligibility at the outset. Applications for GCA were generally for more complex projects and higher average project costs and included a wider range of assets rather than the SLF emphasis on land acquisition. Consequently and proportionately there was more competition for the funds available even though GCA had considerably more funding to offer. Outputs

17

(From the completed SLF evaluation (the GCA figures are not yet complete) ie up to 2005)

• CLU awarded 258 grants to 141 community groups and helped create over 100 new community enterprises

• This involved around 4500 people directly and includes around 96,000 people in the communities involved.

• Employment increased by around 160 FTE’s (preliminary results from GCA suggest another 190 jobs created and a further 250 safeguarded)

• Increased the skills of more than 1300 people • Extended the social networks of 1500 people • Helped 30 communities to generate new income streams

Outcomes In additional to economic benefits, evaluation has shown that community ownership brings about a range of wider social benefits to the communities.

Quotes from the evaluations of projects “Increased confidence – a new ‘we can do’ attitude” “Real democratic control over our futures, increased self confidence as a community” “A medium through which the feelings of the community can be expressed” “Enthusiasm within the community about the potential of the project”

Community Land Unit (CLU) – current position

• Scottish Governments commitment to strengthening communities • HIE commitment • The market - 10 projects, 2674 acres, 5 in HC area, 2 IG and 3 Argyll.

Value in excess of £3.5m • internal spreadsheet of enquiries likely to be progressed - lists 69 projects • forward commitment of £1.9m • CLU staff engaged with 62 clients

What CLU does next:

• Funding • Advice and support • Skills development • Networking • Project planning and start up • Land and asset acquisition • Post acquisition support • Aftercare

Lesson learned:

• Clarity in what CLU does • Ownership in itself is not a benefit • Responsibility and liability • Time commitment and fatigue over time • This is just the start of a long process • Challenge of getting more people involved • Encourage people to ask for help and partnerships • Look creatively at finances • Consider different ownership models

18

7.0 BIG LOTTERY FUND - UPDATE

Eric Samuel

Eric Samuel, Senior Policy Officer at the Big Lottery Fund, gave a brief update on what BIG was working on. In launching its Investing in Communities (IiC) portfolio in 2006, BIG had moved to funding improved outcomes which would deliver results. There was a single entry point for applicants and funding could be given for up to 5 years. To date, IiC had spent £237m (of the £247m available) on 434 projects. Most of IiC had closed in August 2009, but decision-making on the Growing Community Assets (GCA) area of investment had been extended to April 2010. Eric stated that he did not recognise or accept that BIG had withdrawn from community land buyouts. On the contrary, through GCA, BIG had continued to make considerable investment in community land projects. The budget for GCA, at £50 million, was £36 million more than the budget available to the former Scottish Land Fund of £14 million. To date, GCA had awarded 110 grants to a value of £42.5m. 45% of these grants and 48% of the £42.5 million (i.e. £20 million) had been awarded to projects in the HIE area. £20 million worth of projects were still in assessment, but only £7.5 million of GCA budget remained. Looking to the future, BIG was working intensively on its strategic framework to 2015 and on what to do with its next tranche of funding. Internally, BIG was looking at lessons learned from IiC and had received new policy directions from the Scottish Government. A new investment portfolio would be launched in June 2010 with £400m of funding available to 2015. Within the Growing Community Assets investment area, which would be part of the new portfolio, there will be greater focus on the need for, and financial viability of, projects. The details of the new portfolio and GCA investment area will be available from the end of June at www.biglotteryfund.org.uk

8.0 EXPERIENCE OF RTB – (COMMUNITY PERSPECTIVES AND EXPERIENCE OF RTB, LEGISLATION AND PROCESS)

John Randall – Pairc Trust The Pairc Trust has two linked applications (to acquire the land and an associated interposed lease) under Part 3 of the Land Reform Act currently out for consultation by the Scottish Government. If Ministers approve these applications, this would be the first time an estate has been purchased under the Part 3 provisions. These procedures have been necessary because of the landlord’s decision in 2004 to set up a 75-year interposed lease under which the main rights of a crofting landlord are leased to a subsidiary company – which in turn has drawn up a lease with Scottish and Southern Energy for a commercial wind-farm.

19

The community voted in favour of a community buyout in November 2004 and – following long delays due to the interposed lease being referred to the Land Court and fruitless discussions with the landlord about a voluntary transfer – again in December 2009. The community has not ruled out further discussions about a voluntary transfer but these must include meaningful powers to enable the community to carry out its plans for economic and social development. Experience with using the Part 3 powers has led to the following conclusions: • It is accepted that the onus should be on the community to show that transferring

ownership of the estate against the wishes of the landlord is in the overall public interest.

• But many of the provisions in Part 3, for example the detailed mapping requirements and the need to describe features like dykes, ditches and watercourses, have no apparent purpose and certainly go well beyond what is normally required for a private sale. Major simplification is required in this area.

Despite the onerous conditions of the Part 3 application process, Pairc Trust has now produced applications which it believes are robust and clearly demonstrate the case for community ownership. It has not been possible to include the in-bye land in these applications because of the mapping requirements. But the Trust now believes the political will is there to approve their Part 3 applications. Funding is inevitably more difficult in the current financial climate but the Trust is actively exploring several options. It is gratified by the support received from HIE and CnES. The prospect of commercial and community wind-farms in the area opens up other opportunities for funding. In conclusion, the Pairc Trust has had to face many frustrations not of its own making, but the community has shown great resilience and is determined to achieve its objective whether under Part 3 or a voluntary transfer. Reforms of the Part 3 process as outlined above would help future applications.

Huw Francis – Storas Uibhist The South Uist Estate has been the largest community buy-out so far. Pre-buyout, the estate was owned by a syndicate of owners and used primarily as a Sporting/Holiday Estate with a break-even target (ie. no cost to the owners). Post-buyout it is a community owned crofting estate, operated as a commercial business with reinvestment of profits.

The key milestones of the buy-out to date have been: • £4.5m purchase of South Uist Estate in 2006 • Largest community buyout • 2008 HSBC Start-up Star Finalist • HIE top 14 priority company • Loss-making to profitable • Turbine planning consent gained • Askernish Golf Course restored • £2.6m ERDF funding secured

The long-term vision is to stimulate local GDP growth; revenue generation for re-investment; to retain/grow the population; invest in land improvement, manage assets for community benefit and increase local control over development

20

Post buy-out, the main constraints are lack of investment equity; landlord status – Storas Uibhist are now seen as the “landlord” rather than the community; competing social vs economic benefit; land speculation and absenteeism. There are also issues of reporting to a range of different funders.

Future possibilities include making community aspirations a priority; greater access to grant funding; direct community benefit; local profit retention; taking a long-term view and “Them” (the Estate), becoming “Us”. Future RtB Possibilities? 1. Local economic development remit

• Deliver Local Authority/HIE outcomes • Direct grant funding from Holyrood • Prime agent for EU funded projects

2. Local crofting administration remit

Localisation of Crofters Commission functions Local crofting development (as per HIE)

In conclusion, the South Uist Estate buy-out has delivered (to date): • 849 Members of the company • 7 locally elected Directors • 22 employees • A profitable Estate contributing locally • One of the worlds’ great golf courses • Windfarm planning consent – no objections • £2.6m ERDF funding • A new port of entry (Lochboisdale)? • A South Uist voice in Inverness/Edinburgh

John Hutchison – Isle of Eigg Heritage Trust The Community buy-out of Eigg took place in 1997. The Isle of Eigg Heritage Trust is a charitable company limited by guarantee, which wholly owns the trading companies Eigg Trading, Eigg Construction and Eigg Electric. Since the buy-out there has been a significant increase (and retention of) population 50%; renovation of seven Trust houses for rent; new build shop, tearoom, craft shop, toilet and shower facilities; 20 housing plots created, to be released 2 / year on shared equity and other terms favourable to young and low income people; renovated and extended community hall; conversion of old shop into museum and Swap Shop, new pier storage, forestry shed, forestry machinery and woodland management scheme; creation of four new crofts and installation of office and satellite broadband. There has also been renovation of school with nursery, teacher’s accommodation and community learning centre; Lochaber Housing Association 5 new houses; a new Pier and new restaurant, guest house, five new private houses built, five older houses renovated The Island generates it own electricity with 100% community participation – this is potentially a model for other communities. The Island also undertook the “Big Green Challenge” with a number of initiatives:

21

• Convert chip oil from the Cal Mac ferry into bio-diesel for community vehicles, tractor and telehandler

• Every house has a compost bin • Solar water panels have been installed on private homes and the tearoom and

shop complex – Eigg person was trained • Retro renovated two large Trust properties – external envelope, double glazing,

loft and floor insulation producing 50% CO2 savings and £1200 • Developed our own SAP calculation program which is able to make direct

comparisons of building performance both before and after refurbishment, showing the net energy saving, net CO2 reduction and net cost saving. It uses the actual costs of electricity and fuel on Eigg, and so indicates true cost saving.

• Bicycles, car sharing and winter mini bus transport scheme and researching setting up a mainland car club

• Replaced 40 tonnes of coal with wood and are now looking at developing a island based wood fuel business

We were joint winner of the Big Green Challenge and won £300,000

Future plans include: • More solar water panels • • Extend insulation programme to all homes • Programme of installing efficient wood burning stoves/boilers • Community Orchard • Waste and recycling projects to add those we’re already doing • All of these create jobs, save money for residents, improve quality of life and offer

new opportunities for existing and new residents • But we believe we can go further than a purely internal economy What we’ve discovered, and what we need to develop and learn more about, is a source for learning and knowledge for Joe Public to Peter PHD and all persons between. Our electricity scheme and what we’ve done during our Big Green Challenge year is just the start. We’re investigating the potential of storing the excess energy created by winter’s wind and rain for use in the summer months when they’re in short supply Our renewable electricity, or perhaps hydrogen or wave generated power (when this develops) could see our island vehicles run on fuels not based on oil. Our experience in combining voluntary action, social and private enterprise has inspired others and continues to be a model for communities across the globe. So, could Eigg be Scotland’s Centre for Alternative Technology? Very definitely yes, but its strength is that its not just a visitor attraction which turns out the lights and locks the doors at the end of the visitor day – this is a living learning environment where ordinary people work together to do extraordinary things to improve their lives and those of others with whom they share the planet. The “Big Green Challenge” and Electric Scheme played a big part in uniting the community; helped settle some long standing issues; harnessed enthusiasm; nurtured self-respect and community confidence and brought forward the next generation of activists. In summary, our 12 month plan shows a major reduction in CO2 (32%) which will be reduced further beyond BGC year; can be grown and replicated using our education programme Build Your OWN Green Island; is sustainable in economic, social and environmental terms

22

We are a highly motivated and involved community who have skills knowledge and commitment to complete Big Green Challenge Year and go beyond to transform our community to a national learning hub, demonstrating the best in green living. In conclusion, looking at the Act itself, it certainly creates some bureaucratic anomalies. Some food for through….. Is the Act over prescriptive? Is the Act trying to specify how democracy must work? Should communities not simply be required to demonstrate that active democracy exists and that there is support for the proposal being pursued? Does the legislation simply give grant-givers something to shelter behind?

David Cameron – North Harris Trust North Harris was purchased before the legislation was in place and therefore the presentation focused on the benefits of community ownership.

A lot can be achieved with three important elements - political will; community desire and economic & technical support. Taking the example of Gigha, purchased by the community in 2002, 8 years later,

• 18 houses totally renovated and further 5 almost completed • 11 new businesses started up and still in operation • Population has risen from 98 to 151 • School roll has risen from 6 to 22

In North Harris, projects have included:

• Hydro-electric scheme • Recycling • Jetty Construction • Environmental Woodland – creating new jobs • Environmental Monitoring – training local people • Deer Management • Track maintenance • Housing – 8 new houses in 5 plots • Energy-saving measures – cavity wall and roof insulation for house holders.

Important to put people at the heart of decision making.

9.0 IMPROVING THE LEGISLATION? Simon Fraser

Simon Fraser, a solicitor in private practice based in Stornoway and a specialist in Crofting Law, spoke about what he saw as the deliberate and inbuilt complexity of Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003. He noted that there were so many hurdles within the Act, that it would be almost impossible to proceed legally under the Act itself. For example, he highlighted the mapping requirements of the Act:

Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 Part 3 Act S 73:

23

Such an application shall be made in the prescribed form and shall include or be accompanied by information of the prescribed kind including information (provided, where appropriate, by or by reference to maps or drawings) about— (a) the location and boundaries of the land or sporting interests in respect of which the right to buy is sought to be exercised (the “subjects of the application”); (b) all— (i) rights and interests in the subjects of the application; (ii) sewers, pipes, lines, watercourses or other conduits and fences, dykes, ditches or other boundaries in or on the land, known to the applicant body or the existence of which it is, on reasonably diligent inquiry, capable of ascertaining; Subordinate legislation The Crofting Community Body (Prescribed Form of Application and Notices) (Scotland) Regulations 2009 Schedule 1 3 ‘. ..show the crofting community in relation to the land…provide a map ..which identifies those individual households of members of the ..resident….crofting community 4 a. ‘Please provide a map showing the location and boundaries of the land... 4 b. ‘Please provide a written description of eligible croft land... This should include proposed boundaries and all rights and interests in the land ...and the lines of all sewers, pipes, lines, watercourses.. and fences, ditches or other boundaries in or on the land.’ The Act requires the mapping of every household, boundary, ditch, pipe, sewer etc and definition of the land itself. This extreme level of detail would cost potentially more to produce than the cost of buying the land. And, once the application had been submitted, the detail could not be amended, but could be challenged. He noted that the requirements of the Keeper of the Land Register of Scotland are much simplier – stating that ‘Any application for registration must contain sufficient information for the Keeper to identify the subjects by reference to the ordnance map’ - so why should the RtB legislation need so much more information? He also looked at the issue of “disposal” of public land under the Act.

Transfer of Crofting Estates (Scotland) Act 1979 The Secretary of State may dispose of crofting property under this Act only to a body, corporate or unincorporated, which has been approved by him, after consultation with the Commission, as a body which— (a) is representative of the crofting interests in the property to be disposed of; and (b) has the promotion of the interests of persons residing on such property as its primary objective. The two main problems which arise from this legislation – in addition to the resistance of paying public money for public assets are -

• State Aid Rules The State Aid Rules have the 5 tests – and there are penalties for breaking these rules: ...granted by the state?

24

...confers an advantage on an undertaking?

...is it selective?

...distort or have the potential to distort competition?

...activity tradable between member states?

In addition, De minimis rule 200,000 Euros applies.

• Scottish Public Finance Manual The Scottish Government does in theory have the ability to make ‘gifts’ but prior approval of Portfolio Finance Team required, there would be financial implications for departmental budget and worries over setting of precedent for other public land.

In conclusion: he suggested some possible changes to the Act:

1. Reconsider the onerous mapping requirement -take as guide much more limited requirements for land registration.

2. Establish a programme within Scottish Government solely related to the disposal of the Crofting Estates - negotiate interdepartmentally the necessary Treasury related issues.

3. Clear the way on State Aid Rules either as a de minimis programme or get acknowledgement that rules do not apply in this restricted field.

4. Identify ways to properly reduce land valuation for the purposes of community bodies and sustainable community development

10.0 WORKSHOP SESSIONS

Workshop 1: “Raising awareness of RtB and helping communities achieve the goals” - to include discussion of funding and GCA Workshop felt that awareness of CRtB needs to be raised as one of a number of possible options towards community ownership of land. It was recognised that the most effective ways of raising awareness of CRtB with community groups would be by: (1) promoting successes and good stories Who: HIE pulling together report / publication - Community Land Initiatives themselves – other potential ambassadors (2) feeding in good quality information at particular times (eg a threat, such as proposed sale) Who: CLU with public sector partners? (3) incorporating land ownership (potential community ownership) within local plans consultations Who: Councils Helping communities achieve their goals requires community organisations to develop clear objectives and action plans. It was felt that their already are a number of people / agencies offering action planning support. Again it was stressed that community ownership of land should be a means to an end, and not, necessarily an end in itself. Funding of land acquisition is often a barrier, but no magic wand. Suggestions: Maximise access to current grants, develop income generation activities and use loans (eg SIS)

25

Key action points: • Further information / research on community land bank proposal Who: Community Landowners Organisation • Pursue a more sympathetic approach to land valuation (as per other workshops) Who: Community Landowners Organisation • GCA may offer some opportunities but need to make representations to clarify

definition of “need” Who: Community Landowners Organisation / Highland Council

• BIG won’t fund acquisition of public assets (eg woodlands) need to address impasse

Who: Community Landowners Organisation Broad based campaign targeting BIG / Scottish Government • Explore potential of community shares Who: DTAS and Community Landowners Organisation

While plans can also be thwarted by landowners who do not want to sell, CRtB is often not the short term solution to this issue. Additional actions:

1. Extension of land reform legislation Who: MSP’s / broad based campaign (longer term issue!)

2. Opportunity identified to link land reform with current Scottish Government consultation around Land Use Strategy (use climate change / sustainability / localism arguments). Establish timescale and engage with process Who: RAEC and Scottish Government

3. Consider options for the creation of a Community Land Bank Who: RAEC and Scottish Government

Workshop 2: “Improving the legislation – simpler and more relevant” Workshop felt that the whole process needs to be focused on sustainable development outcomes and that a process must be devised that is reasonable and proportionate. Key action points: 1. Pt 3 Mapping requirements simplified to match needs of Land Registry 2. Assessment of a wider range of governance structures for community bodies –

esp. for Pt2 registration (need for flexibility throughout) 3. Pt 3 bodies should be recognised as eligible as Pt 2 community bodies 4. Remove the blanket requirement for “audit” – use company/charity regulations to simplify audit requirements 5. Ensure that requirements re eligible voters are compatible with subsequent

electoral legislation and work with local authorities to implement. How: These are primary legislative issues Who: Rural Affairs and Environment Committee and Scottish Government – make sure we feed into their research/ consultation. Workshop 3: “Pump priming - the role of public land”

26

Workshop identified need to address the inconsistency in how different groups and Government departments use and perceive the public finance manual, need for new forms for equity investment to address shortage of public/private finance eg community bonds, look in greater detail at the meaning of valuation – eg added value of good stewardship of land and address issue of getting hold of public land – don’t block development. Key Action Points 1. Rethink perception and application of public finance manual 2. Look for new forms of equity, including long term leasehold 3. Rethink meaning of valuation – appropriate valuations should reflect best value anticipated public benefits, best value and outcomes 4. Rethink opportunities for discounting 5. Public agencies to review opportunities to make their land holdings available for community purchase How – change political will, tap into current opportunities (eg Rural Affairs consultation). Who – Councils should take this on at a National level, communities – press politicians during the election period. RAEC and Scottish Government

11.0 PANEL DISCUSSION

The discussion panel consisted of the chair, Cllr Michael Foxley; speakers - Professor Jim Hunter; Neil Gerrard (HIE); David Cameron (North Harris Trust) and Simon Fraser (Anderson MacArthur) - , along with Heather Holmes (Scottish Government – Community Assets Unit) and Brian Wilson. The session was facilitated by Donald Macleod and considered the actions suggested by workshops.

Q. How can these recommendations be taken forward?

Heather Holmes

Issue of improving the legislation – we can make improvements to the existing legislation by providing new and better guidance. Clear need to provide additional guidance on the mapping exercise (part 3). Working within framework of the legislation, ensure that the community bodies have as much time and knowledge as possible. Scottish Government will shortly be providing new guidance which includes lessons learned.

Brian Wilson Important that focus is created on land issues – seems to have dropped off the political agenda. Would like to see new legislation so can move on and extend the agenda. Land Reform was never meant to be a static feast, only defined in terms of what is already legislated. The Crofting Community RtB is important – but there are still huge areas not under legislation. We need political champions to challenge and create debate to move forward the legislation. Need to create political demand/political agenda. Jim Hunter This is a political issue and Government can do just about anything it wants to do. The Minister is very much in favour of Land Reform legislation, but there is little evidence of the Scottish Government doing what needs to be done. Would like to see local authorities taking the lead. Need to show the demand – push but needs momentum and a political champion. Highland Council and others can now go forward with beginning of an agenda.

27

Michael Foxley As a representative of the local authority will say that we are happy to take up the challenge – but need to grow the popular base for change. Use best examples to show what that community ownership can deliver.

Q. How can that base be built? 1. Development of a new community organisation – aimed at putting community land

back on the agenda. 2. Political representation and lobbying – aimed at changing the political will

Communities are angry about being imposed upon by renewable energy companies and the benefits going elsewhere. Look at potential for renewable energy development fund – equivalent to the Shetland Oil Fund.

David Cameron Develop an independent umbrella organisation that will serve its members. This type of organisation can have quite a big impact. What is important is that all members are “singing from the same hymn sheet”.

Note: The Conference agreed that an umbrella group should be established. Funding is a problem in the short term (next 10 years) – need help at this moment in time, but could be sustainable in the longer term Simon Fraser Assynt and Eigg raised awareness and political interest. But things have changed. Can’t expect the political story to run and run – needs to create a new narrative and built on that. But we require the continuing support and drive of different organisations.

Neil Gerrard The Minister said that the issues is that there is “Nae Money” – but on a scale that HIE had done things in the past, this is not a huge project. Need to quickly review the whole thing. The last administration promised a review of the legislation, but never got around to it. Need to iron out the problems. HIE is willing to help, within whatever budget we have.

12.0 SUMMARY OF PANEL DISCUSSION

Main Points agreed:

1. Actions identified by workshops were agreed

2. A Community Land Ownership Organisation should be established

3. Outcomes and recommendation of the conference should feed into Rural Affairs Committee consultation

4. Lobbying the Scottish Government should seek simplification of the existing

land reform legislation in favour of community acquisition (Workshop 2)

5. A more flexible approach to land valuation is urgently required in order to take account of the public/community benefits that flow from community acquisition.

28

6. Alternative forms of land tenure should also explored, including the potential to adopt long term leases

7. Progressing land reform should feature in the election processes– raise the

issue on the political agenda and incorporate into manifesto commitments

8. Highland Council and public sector partners to lead on appropriate actions and to assist development of a Community Landowners Organisation

9. A short term Action Group to be set up to take forward issues and an action

plan developed

10. Funding – public sector partners and Community Landownership Organisation to look at opportunities for a Community Land Fund, and potential sources of funding.

11. Land reform partners should co-operate to demonstrate public benefits and

how best this could be achieved via the proposed Community Land Ownership Organisation

Those interested in taking forward/ joining a short term Action Group (show of hands requested) • Michael Foxley, The Highland Council • Jon Hollingdale, Community Woodlands Association • Neil Ross, Highlands & Islands Enterprise • Ian Cooke , DTAS • Angus McCall, Scottish Tenant Farmers Association • Cllr George Farlow, The Highland Council • Huw Francis, Storas Uibhist • Jim Lugton, SCVO • Neil Gerrard, Highlands & Islands Enterprise • Simon Fraser, Anderson MacArthur • Norman Thomson, Galson Estate Trust

29

13.0 CONFERENCE CONCLUSIONS

The conference presentations and discussions highlighted the need to amend the current over-complicated legislation to simplify the process of buying land. It was concluded that the process must be made more straight-forward and less expensive in order to encourage many more community and crofting groups to use the Community Right to Buy legislation. In addition to amending the existing legislation, the conference also noted the desire to extend the Land Reform (Scotland) Act, suggesting more radical ways of enabling greater participation in the community’s right to buy. It was agreed that an independent umbrella organisation should be established to represent communities, offering advice and support to those who have already used or who are interested in using the legislation, and to take forward some of the recommendation arising from the conference. Funding is a key issue for communities hoping to use the legislation and a further significant proposal was the creation of a Community Land Fund, a revolving loan fund which would offer assistance to prospective purchasers. Finally, putting the Land Reform debate back on the political agenda was identified as a key outcome. The Highland Council agreed to take a lead on some of the issues raised with the Scottish Government, but everyone was agreed to take action though the electoral process and by feeding comments into the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee review of the land reform legislation. A short term Action Group will be set up with the aim of taking forward the actions from the conference, political lobbying and putting community land back on the agenda. The Action Group was given a clear mandate, by the conference attendees, to pursue the matters agreed upon with urgency.