Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Thursday, December 21, 2023

Official Report 860KB pdf

---

Scottish Land Commission (Appointment of Chair and Commissioners)

The next item of business is consideration of motion S6M-11733, in the name of Mairi Gougeon, on the appointment of the chair and commissioners of the Scottish Land Commission. I call Mairi Gougeon to speak to and move the motion.

13:10  

In line with the requirements of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2016, the Scottish Land Commission is one of a small number of public bodies for which ministerial appointments to the board are subject to parliamentary approval. Section 10(2) of the 2016 act sets out that

“The Scottish Ministers may appoint a person as a member only if the Scottish Parliament has approved the appointment.”

It does not specify the process that must be followed to obtain parliamentary approval. The parliamentary process to be followed on this occasion was agreed with the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee following an exchange of letters with me. That correspondence was published in full on the committee’s website on 18 December.

The committee agreed that it would take the same approach to consideration of those appointments as it took with the appointments to the board of Environmental Standards Scotland. That approach was to consider the role descriptions and person specifications prior to advertising; to receive information on the proposed candidates from the Scottish Government; to consider and come to a view on whether the process that was followed and the proposed appointments were satisfactory; and to make that view known to Parliament prior to a motion being brought to the chamber. In addition, the convener confirmed in a letter to me on 12 September that the committee had

“agreed not to hear from candidates (either at a formal meeting or informally) as part of the appointment process.”

Appointments to the Scottish Land Commission are regulated by the Ethical Standards Commissioner for Scotland, and the appointments process has been conducted in line with the code of practice for ministerial appointments to public bodies in Scotland. Details of the agreed parliamentary process were subsequently published in the application information pack for candidates, as is required by the code of practice.

I appointed a selection panel to carry out the appointment process on my behalf, which consisted of the deputy director for land reform, rural and island policy at the Scottish Government; the outgoing chair of the Scottish Land Commission, Andrew Thin; and an independent panel member, Dr Patricia Armstrong.

The Ethical Standards Commissioner decided that the round should be overseen at all stages of the appointments process, meaning that an adviser from his office was also assigned to be a full member of the selection panel. I delegated the creation of the appointment plan, assessment and undertaking of the fit and proper persons test to the selection panel.

The code of practice requires that the selection panel recommend only the most able candidates to the appointing minister. I did not have visibility of the candidates ahead of the selection panel’s recommendations; I received a summary from the panel once the assessment was complete. The posts were publicised widely online and circulated to a wide list of stakeholders. Applications were encouraged from a diverse range of backgrounds, and the Scottish Land Commission ran two information events to enable potential applicants to find out more about the roles.

A total of 17 applications were received for the land commissioner roles, and seven applications were received for the role of chair. I am grateful to the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee members for their engagement throughout the process and for their careful consideration of the appointments. I therefore welcome the committee’s recommendation, in its report to Parliament, that Michael Russell be approved as the next chair of the Scottish Land Commission—[Interruption.]—and that Craig Mackenzie and Deborah Roberts be approved as land commissioners—[Interruption.]

Members!

Thank you, Presiding Officer.

In accordance with section 11(4) of the 2016 act, a statement was laid in Parliament on 29 November explaining how Scottish ministers have complied with their statutory duties under sub-sections 11(1) to 11(3) of the act.

We have a process for these appointments and, more generally, for all ministerial appointments that is robust, fair, transparent and accountable—

Corrupt!

Members: Oh!

Cabinet secretary, please take your seat for a moment. I am hearing shouting and commenting, and it is simply not going to continue. Members will be well aware of the standing orders of this Parliament, and if they feel unable to adhere to them, perhaps they might reconsider their behaviour as elected representatives.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. The commentary there was entirely unacceptable. Mr Stephen Kerr shouted out the word “corrupt”. I do not know whether you heard that, Presiding Officer. I assume not, but that is entirely unacceptable.

I point out the need for all members to conduct themselves at all times in a courteous and respectful manner.

For Scottish Land Commission appointments, we also have a parliamentary scrutiny process that is underpinned by statute that was put into effect by the Scottish Government, and rightly so. Ministers appoint and Parliament scrutinises.

I thank everyone who has played their part in the appointment round. I also put on the record my sincere thanks to the outgoing land commissioners, David Adams and Megan MacInnes, and the outgoing chair, Andrew Thin, for their achievements and contributions. With the other commissioners, they have worked really hard to develop an incredibly effective organisation. From getting the commission up and running on time, on 1 April 2017, to establishing it as a respected and authoritative voice on land reform, their marvellous achievements have set the commission on a really firm footing. The leadership of Andrew Thin has been key to all of that, and I pay tribute to his long track record of effective and diligent public service.

The new chair and land commissioners now have the opportunity and the challenge to build on those achievements and continue the work to create a Scotland where everyone can benefit from the ownership and use of the nation’s land and assets. As we enter a further period of land reform, so, too, will the role and work of the commission enter a new phase, and I look forward to working closely with it on that journey. That is why I am pleased to recommend that the Parliament approve the appointments.

I move,

That the Parliament notes the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee’s 21st Report, 2023 (Session 6), Report on appointments to the Scottish Land Commission (SP Paper 499); welcomes the Committee’s recommendation that the Parliament approves the appointment of Professor Michael Russell, Professor Deborah Roberts and Craig Mackenzie as Land Commissioners to the Scottish Land Commission; further welcomes the Committee’s endorsement of the selection of Professor Michael Russell as Chair of the Commission, and approves the appointments as required by section 10 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2016.

I call Douglas Lumsden to speak to and move amendment S6M-11733.1.

13:16  

It is regrettable that the committee was unable to come to a unanimous decision on the issue. Perhaps the fact that the vote was split along party lines tells us a lot about the situation that we are in. We should make no mistake—this is a political appointment from an increasingly desperate devolved Government.

Let us look at how the appointment was announced. On 1 December, we heard that Mike Russell had stepped down from his role as president of the SNP. The SNP spin machine swung into action, and, a couple of hours later, an SNP press release told us that he was taking up the role of chair of the Scottish Land Commission, no doubt to quell rumours about why he was leaving. That showed no respect for process and no respect for this Parliament. That is what the SNP had decided and there was no thought at all of respect for the other candidates. It was simply a matter of jobs for the boys. [Interruption.]

The job profile calls for someone with integrity and someone who can be an ambassador—[Interruption.]

Thank you, members.

—yet Mike Russell has continuously made disparaging comments in the media about people in public life, describing a well-respected female MP as having a tantrum and an MSP as being arrogant. Those are shocking words from someone who is supposed to build relationships. In other comments, Mr Russell has described political opponents as enemies and Conservative MPs as traitors and hard right. This is the person who will be speaking on behalf of the Scottish Land Commission—a person who has used degrading language towards women in public and who has called people who do not agree with his politics enemies—and yet we are supposed to believe that he will now build relationships and engage with stakeholders. What an absolute joke.

This badly judged appointment will not build bridges but will sow division and be bad for our rural sector. The SNP is politicising the commissioner’s role at a time when the Scottish Land Commission will play a vital role in feeding in to the land reform process. It is the equivalent of the SNP marking its own homework, and it should be resisted. It is a “jobs for the boys” approach, and the fact that the SNP and its Green lapdogs are simply going to vote this through to keep their cabal together as the last gasp before the Christmas recess is simply shocking. The SNP is making bad decisions that will harm the future of our rural sector.

In a week that saw the worst budget for Scottish businesses and for our rural economy, Scotland’s rural community deserves better than this. This Parliament deserves better than this. The appointment simply reeks of nepotism. We all deserve transparency and clarity from the Scottish Government and its ministers. [Interruption.]

Members!

His blatant lack of respect for democratically elected individuals, use of derogatory language and nasty comments about others on social media should have been investigated by the recruitment panel. If that panel is open and transparent, what did its members make of those comments? If they did not take them into account, why not? The committee should be able to question the applicant prior to their appointment so that we can ask those questions in an open and transparent manner.

The sidelining of the Parliament is a disgrace, the leaking to the press is a disgrace, and the proposed appointment is a disgrace. We all deserve better than this.

I move amendment S6M-11733.1, to leave out from “recommendation” to end and insert:

“unanimous recommendation that the Parliament approves the appointment of Professor Deborah Roberts and Craig Mackenzie as Land Commissioners to the Scottish Land Commission; recognises the widespread concerns expressed regarding the recommended appointment of Michael Russell; highlights that Michael Russell’s appointment was not approved unanimously by the Committee because it had not had the opportunity to take evidence from him regarding any potential conflicts of interest that would arise from him having recently been an MSP, president of the Scottish National Party, interim chief executive of the Scottish National Party, and a Scottish Minister; understands that Michael Russell has made a number of inflammatory comments in the past about opposition politicians and parties, as well as about land reform, and therefore questions his ability to be impartial, and approves the appointments of Professor Deborah Roberts and Craig Mackenzie as required by section 10 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2016, but, in the interests of protecting the reputation of the Scottish Land Commission, does not approve the appointment of Michael Russell until such time as the Committee has undertaken further scrutiny.”

13:20  

I will start with a quote from the opening paragraph of the Scottish Government’s webpage on the Open Government Partnership.

“As members of the Open Government Partnership, we’re working alongside governments from all over the world to open up government by committing to the values of openness, transparency, accountability and citizen participation.”

Juliet Swann from Transparency International UK has said that

“a lack of complete transparency leads to rumour, hearsay and conjecture which all undermine the principle of openness which was so celebrated”

by the Scottish Parliament when it was first founded.

I will go back to a motion that was passed by the chamber on 3 May 2023. It said:

“That the Parliament agrees that good governance and transparency are matters of the utmost importance”.

I again reflect on the Nolan principles of objectivity, accountability and openness. Those principles say that “Holders of public office” must “act and take decisions” impartially and fairly, and be held to account. Those decisions should be taken

“in an open and transparent manner. Information should not be withheld from the public unless there are clear, lawful reasons for so doing.”

In 1997, the chosen founding principles of the Scottish Parliament were accountability, being open and encouraging participation, power sharing and equality of opportunity.

We have heard from the minister about the Scottish Government’s commitment to parliamentary scrutiny. The situation that is before us is as follows. On 18 December, two of the land commissioner posts became vacant. The chair vacancy does not arise until 18 March next year. Douglas Lumsden’s amendment would allow the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee the opportunity to review the decision—not about all three nominees but about one nominee who will not take their seat until next year. It may well be—I strongly disagree with the previous speech—that the person who has been appointed is the best person to hold the post.

I agree with the cabinet secretary that there is evidence that the committee said that it was going to follow the procedure that had been adopted in the past before it knew the names of any nominees. During the current and previous parliamentary sessions, members and the Scottish Government have spoken about the importance of honouring scrutiny. That allows a person to take up a role knowing that their appointment has been fully scrutinised, so that the people of Scotland can have absolute confidence that that person is the right person for the job. That is recognised in the founding principles of the Parliament. The Scottish Government has an opportunity to take what I agree is a difficult decision. However, that decision will not hinder the work of the commission, because two of the commissioners have been supported and could take up the vacant post.

I do not speak on behalf of the committee, nor do I intend to. I am sure, however, that the chair can have a public hearing before the date that they take up the post in order to reassure themselves that—just as the minister is confident that the information that she was given during the recruitment process is accurate—they can be confident that the principles have been applied accurately and that the right person is being appointed for the job. Irrespective of the individuals concerned, we have an opportunity to say to the people of Scotland, “We are transparent. We stand by that. Even when it is a challenge, we support it.”

13:24  

I am relatively new to the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, so my role was to content myself that the process, which previous members of the committee had agreed with the Scottish Government, had been fulfilled and that fidelity to the process had been observed. That was underpinned by the office of the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland. That was my duty as a new member of the committee. When we looked at the available information, it was clear that that was the case.

I will not include Mr Whitfield in the observations that I am about to make. We have to look at the motivation for objecting to the appointment. We have heard Mr Kerr’s scurrilous accusations from a sedentary position—shame on him—and Mr Lumsden has said in public what his motivations are. Is it to re-run an interview process that was independent of Government and overseen by the office of the Commissioner of Ethical Standards? Is it to make up unsubstantiated inflammatory and spurious party-political points at a committee? I suspect so. Is it to honour the fidelity to the process that our committee signed up to? Absolutely not.

I look forward to the new chair, when they take their place, attending our committee early. I fully expect robust exchanges, which is absolutely as it should be.

My role is simple. I need to assure myself that the process, which the committee said would be robust, open, certain, independent and scrutinised—not just by our committee but by the Commissioner for Ethical Standards—has been adhered to. It has been.

On that basis, and only on that basis, I support all the appointments that are being made this afternoon.

13:26  

First, I thank Kevin Stewart for making his point of order and putting in the Official Report the comment that I made from a sedentary position, which was that, to people who are observing the proceedings of Parliament, the process shows every sign of being something that could easily be perceived as being a corrupt abuse of power.

Is Mr Kerr being mindful of the fact that the process for the public appointment that we are considering today is the same as the process for every other public appointment? If that is the case, is Mr Kerr—it would be unwise, in my view—questioning the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland?

I am questioning the suitability of the former president of the SNP and the former interim chief executive officer of the SNP as an appropriate person to hold such a critical and sensitive role. [Interruption.]

Members!

On top of that, there is the stench of cronyism and deep cynicism from the SNP putting forward that name at this moment—in the very last moments of the very last sitting day before the Christmas recess.

Mike Russell has engaged in personal abuse as the stock in trade of his style of politics. He has gone beyond the boundary of robust political debate. He has described those who disagree with him as being—

Mr Kerr has just said that Mr Russell has gone “beyond ... robust political debate”—a situation of a pot calling a kettle black. Presiding Officer, it is up to you to decide, but I would say that what Mr Kerr has said today has gone way “beyond ... robust political debate”.

I am not sure whether that was an intervention or a point of order.

I reassure Mr Stewart that I will intervene as and when I think that it is appropriate.

I believe in robust political exchanges and debate, and I would never deny that. However, when it comes to personally attacking or abusing political opponents—[Interruption.]—when describing those—[Interruption.] When there is a robust debate and exchange of ideas, we are not attacking the person; we are attacking the ideas. To engage in political debate—

Mr Kerr, conclude your remarks. Thank you.

It is wholly unacceptable for someone who has used political debate for personal abuse and to attack people on a personal basis, and who has described those who disagree with his ideas as “enemies”—enemies of Scotland—to sit in this role, and it is deeply—

You must conclude.

It is deeply cynical of the Government to even suggest that, and Scotland can see it.

You must conclude, Mr Kerr.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I seek your guidance on whether Mr Kerr has crossed the line between criticising an individual and casting doubt on the efficacy and propriety of the processes of this Parliament.

I thank Mr Allan for his contribution. As I have said, I will intervene as and when I think that it is necessary.

We move to winding-up speeches.

13:31  

Given Mike Russell’s legendary reputation for modesty and self-effacement, I, like others in the chamber, will be astonished that he has managed to overcome that and consented to be nominated. How he must have agonised as he resigned from those many prestigious, if empty, political honorariums that, only days before, he had so coveted. One can only speculate about what it was about this well-remunerated role that first appealed to him.

We know that this master of self-awareness will have realised the problem already. We know that Mike Russell will do anything for independence, even ride around in a horse-box for a summer tour. However, can he truly be independent? The evidence is clear that he cannot.

Just so that we are clear about the acme of good practice in making appointments, what does the member think of the appointment of people such as Michelle Mone to the House of Lords?

The appointment that we are discussing right now is of Mike Russell, the previous chairman of the SNP.

Mike Russell has called his political opponents “enemies” and “anti-Scottish”. This is a man who, last month, blamed the Scottish Conservatives for the scandal over Michael Matheson’s £11,000 iPad bill for streaming Celtic games in Morocco. His judgment is skewed, he is biased beyond repair and he is clearly unfit for such an important role.

Although the SNP Government has delayed it, we are about to embark on important legislation regarding land reform. That process was supported by the formation of the SLC in 2017, chaired by Andrew Thin. For five years, he and the SLC have stimulated debate based on issues, not politics. Mike Russell’s uncompromising and entrenched political views and divisive approach will undermine that important work. There is a fear not only that politics, not the issues, will dominate land reform but that many organisations that know Mike Russell and his views will cease to engage. Therefore, this job for the boys will compromise land reform, not facilitate it.

Why has the man who is infamous for his dyed-in-the-wool nationalism suddenly decided that he wants to move away from party politics? Earlier this year, the former SNP president said:

“In my 50-year association with the party, this is the biggest and most challenging crisis we’ve ever faced, certainly while we’ve been in government.”

When the going gets tough, Mike gets going.

In the same interview—

Please conclude, Ms Hamilton.

In the same interview, he said:

“My main focus is how we can create a new Yes movement that allows for different visions but conducted in an atmosphere of mutual trust.”

That should disqualify him from this post. He has made it abundantly clear that his main focus is on creating a new yes movement. The SLC does not need a yes man; it needs someone credible who can make their own decisions, not toe the party line and act on the SNP’s behalf at every turn. Mike Russell will do the SNP’s bidding. He will not act in Scotland’s best interests. I urge members to vote against this appointment.

13:34  

I was going to say that I am really disappointed by the turn that the debate has taken today, but I am not just disappointed—I am disgusted by some of the comments that I have heard about the process in the chamber this afternoon. The only things that have been a disgrace today are Douglas Lumsden’s politicisation of the process and Stephen Kerr’s disgraceful comments.

Land reform is a key priority for the Government and our co-operation partners. From the contributions across the chamber, I know that the issue is important to the Parliament. The Scottish Land Commission is clearly important to the delivery of land reform measures that have already been enacted and to supporting further reform through advice and research.

These appointments are therefore significant, so it is important that we get this right, and we have done that. The ministerial appointments process has been adhered to fully.

In addition, I want to reiterate a few points. The parliamentary scrutiny process was agreed with the lead committee via correspondence in advance of the appointments being advertised. The details of the role that the committee would play were subsequently published in the applicant information pack for candidates, as required by the “Code of Practice for Ministerial Appointments to Public Bodies in Scotland”.

In addition to complying with the statutory requirements and the lead committee’s handling preferences, the appointments were fully regulated by the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland, and the commissioner’s adviser was a full member of the selection panel that I appointed to oversee the process.

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

Not at the moment.

Mr Lumsden’s amendment to the motion implies that the committee, of which he is a member, was not given the opportunity to scrutinise the appointments. That is patently not the case. It was offered that opportunity in September, but it chose not to do so. [Interruption.]

In fact, in a letter from the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee to me, dated 12 September, the convener stated:

“For clarity the Committee has agreed not to hear from candidates (either at a formal meeting or informally) as part of the appointment process.”

It feels really disingenuous and inappropriate for some members of the committee to now change their minds—[Interruption.]

Let us hear the cabinet secretary.

I will repeat that last bit, because it is really important. It feels really disingenuous and inappropriate for some members of the committee to change their minds now that they know who the successful candidate is. [Interruption.]

Thank you, members.

Indeed, I would contend that to allow such an approach would discredit and threaten the whole viability—

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

I am sorry, cabinet secretary. Monica Lennon has a point of order.

I regret that the cabinet secretary did not take my intervention, but what she has said is not appropriate. Yes, we put out that letter in September, but information—[Interruption.]—about the process was leaked to the media, and that should not be lost. Can I ask your advice, Presiding Officer—

Ms Lennon, I confirm that points of order refer to whether the correct procedure relating to the current item of business has been, or is being, followed.

The cabinet secretary has accused the committee of being disingenuous. Part of our scrutiny involved reacting to information about this confidential process being leaked to the media.

Ms Lennon, I will again say that that is not a point of order. I ask the cabinet secretary to resume.

Thank you. To clarify, I did not accuse the committee of being disingenuous and inappropriate—

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

I believe that the member has made her point. I said that, for some members of the committee to change their minds once they know who—[Interruption.]

Members!

I want to focus on the independent nature of that process. Following my appointment of the selection panel, I delegated the creation of the appointment plan, the assessment and the undertaking of the fit and proper person test to the selection panel. That is entirely in keeping with usual processes for public appointments. I had no sight of that process until the panel sent me a summary once it had made its assessments, as happens in all other ministerial appointment processes. For the chair role only, agreement was also required by the First Minister. That is the standard process for the appointment of chairs to public bodies, in accordance with the ministerial code.

I want to assure the Parliament that the process has been conducted in full adherence with the requirements of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2016 and the preferred handling by the lead committee, and that the process was fully regulated by the ethical standards commissioner.

You should conclude, please.

I am drawing my comments to a close, Presiding Officer.

That is why I am confident that the nominated chair and the two nominated land commissioners will join the Scottish Land Commission, will contribute their talents, knowledge and expertise, and—as all other commissioners do—will make their contribution to the work of the commission with integrity, passion, impartiality, transparency and enthusiasm. I look forward to working with them in the coming months and years in order to make further vital progress on our land reform journey.

That concludes the debate on the appointment of the chair and commissioners of the Scottish Land Commission.