Chamber and committees

Unusually, I have not prepared a speech, because I have been asked to close for Labour this evening and wanted to listen to the debate and to speak to the points that have been raised.

On that note, it is important to begin with the reason for today’s debate. The Scottish Government lodged a motion supporting Scotland’s fishing industry, but that motion seems to focus solely on the allocation that has been made from the fishing and coastal growth fund—one that is disproportionate to the size and value of Scotland’s fishing industry. I understand why the Scottish Government chose that issue for its debate today, but it is surprising that, after many years of what used to be an annual debate, fishing is only now being debated, and seemingly in response to that issue. That is a real issue and it is right that we debate it, but I would have expected it to be the Scottish Government’s priority to use Scottish Parliament time to discuss and debate issues for which a minister has responsibility.

During the debate, we heard from Beatrice Wishart that February this year was the first time in quite a while that the issue of the fishing industry was given debate time in the Scottish Parliament. The Conservative Party used its business time a few weeks ago to deal with the issue, which Tim Eagle pointed out again today. I reiterate the point that has been made by a number of parties, which is that we need parliamentary time for fisheries debates. I hope that the Scottish Government will provide debate time for the issues that are not included in its motion but for which it is responsible, so that we can hear more.

The cabinet secretary’s opening speech included a lot of detail and was very dense. I will have to go back and read the Official Report to get all the detail, but I do not think that I heard any specific commitment by the Scottish Government to support the processing sector, and I do not know what it intends to do about marine spatial planning. Those crucial issues warrant debate time.

Beatrice Wishart pointed out that the fishing and coastal growth fund should not have been devolved without prior agreement to proportionate calculation. My colleagues Rhoda Grant and Carol Mochan noted that the issue of the disproportionate nature of that fund is being raised by Labour MPs. I also heard the cabinet secretary say that she is raising the issue directly with the UK Government and I heard her frustrations about the interministerial group.

It is regrettable that so much Scottish Parliament debate time is being spent discussing intergovernmental relations.

I will take Mr Carson’s intervention first.

I will in a moment.

I think that any fishers who are watching the debate want to hear about the practical measures that our parties and Governments will take to support them, so that situation is a shame.

[Made a request to intervene.]

I do not think that anyone is saying what Mr Carson has just said. The point is that, when a fund is devolved, there are procedures in place for that to happen, and it would not be right for the Scotland Office to intervene in intergovernmental negotiations. I see Mr Carson shaking his head. There is definitely a way forward, but I do not think that it serves any of our communities for us to point the finger at one another. I have said, and members on the Labour benches have recognised, that the fund has been allocated in a disproportionate way. What I have not heard is any contrition or any acknowledgement that the Scottish Government has let our communities down by not having the foresight that was needed. It is very easy to criticise in hindsight a decision that has been made, but our communities have the right to expect the Scottish Government to have its head in the game.

I hope that we will hear from the cabinet secretary in her closing speech how we can work together, given the unanimous support across the Parliament for the fishing industry. I do not think that we will get unanimous results on the motion or amendments, but that does not mean that we cannot continue to discuss the subject and work together outside this debate. However, that starts with respect for one another during debates. Just today—like every other member, I think—I received a revised and updated code of conduct from the Presiding Officer. This afternoon, I was disappointed to see one member use his speech to make personal attacks on members of other parties and to goad members. I do not think that that serves either our constituents or the issue at hand.

I know that the cabinet secretary wanted to intervene, but I am sorry that I have run out of time. I will conclude there.

It is a great privilege to close this debate for Scottish Labour and to speak alongside my comrades Rhoda Grant and Richard Leonard. I start by paying tribute to everyone who has engaged in the land reform process. Any success in the bill that will diversify land ownership in Scotland is the collective effort of everyone who responded to the consultations, everyone who provided expert advice evidence and everyone who challenged the Scottish Government to make the bill count. That work will continue, because it must.

Scotland is now prey to mega lairds, private corporations that buy up land for the benefit of portfolio shareholders and investors. Their accumulation of land, wealth and power is often dressed up as climate friendly or environmentally responsible. Let us be clear: it is not.

Take Oxygen Conservation, whose stated business is supposedly to help fight the climate and biodiversity crises. It has quickly taken ownership of numerous Scottish landholdings and estates. Most recently, it bought up BrewDog’s failed Lost Forest estate, which has taken its total holdings to nearly 20,000 hectares. However, its extractive business model and inadequate community engagement have raised alarm bells among land reform experts. A revenue model that is based on polluting carbon credit sales will not deliver what our land, climate and natural environment so desperately need. Aggressive acquisitions and the quick flipping of land as a portfolio treats one of our most priceless common goods as a cheap commodity to be traded by the wealthiest.

That is why it is right that, under the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, some large landholdings will be required to produce land management plans to show how they intend to manage and develop the land. I truly hope that those modest changes make a difference. However, because of the Government’s refusal to accept my amendments to lower the threshold and introduce a presumed limit on ownership of 500 hectares, more large landholdings will be left out of the scope of the bill than will be included in it. Instead, the Scottish Government has taken a blinkered approach to ownership and aggregation of landholdings. Concentrated land ownership is a nationwide issue, yet the Scottish Government has refused to take a nationwide approach to aggregate land holdings.

Gresham House is now the second-largest private landowner in Scotland, thanks to 244 separate landholdings across roughly 74,000 hectares. That kind of superscale land ownership will barely be impacted by the bill, however, as only a handful of those 244 fragments are over the 1,000-hectare threshold. That is why I am proud that my amendment to review whether the size of the areas of land included in the bill needs to be reduced was passed yesterday. I look forward to seeing that review take place.

The examples of Oxygen Conservation and Gresham House demonstrate the inadequacy of Scotland’s current system and how the Scottish Government’s bill—while welcome—will not go far enough. Both examples show how private corporations will always seek private profit before public good, even while claiming that they are acting in the public interest. That is why it was so important to have a forward-facing public-interest assessment of buyers of land in the bill. It is deeply disappointing that, even after months and years of scrutiny, evidence and amendment, the Scottish Government did not accept that.

Large-scale and corporate land ownership cannot contribute to action on inequality while its decisions on land ownership and land management remain focused on extracting wealth. Instead, we need land ownership that works for people, not profit. The Land Reform (Scotland) Bill was an opportunity to challenge the current pattern of land ownership and to create a fairer, more accountable and more democratic system of diversified land ownership. It remains to be seen how much of an impact its provisions will have but, given what was left out of the bill, it seems like yet another missed opportunity from the Scottish Government.

Environmental groups such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds have highlighted the high financial costs for removal of conifer seedlings and seed rain. As things stand, NatureScot and other environmental restoration groups must use already stretched budgets to mitigate the environmental damage that is caused by the negligence of private companies. There is concern that, if the bill does not address that issue, it might unintentionally further embolden big polluters. Does the Scottish Government support the principle that the polluters must pay for the environmental damage that their industry causes?

I press.

Scottish Labour supports amendment 206, which would update the definition of “peatland” in the Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Act 2024. We have repeatedly raised the issue throughout the parliamentary session, and we see no reason why that cannot be done today. If the Scottish Government is not able to support this reasonable amendment, we will expect to hear why, as well as how the issue will be addressed—perhaps through the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill, for example.

I have two amendments in this group. Amendment 89B is an amendment to the review amendment lodged by Martin Whitfield and would make an express provision that the review must consider the appropriateness of the land described in each of the part 1 provisions, with particular regard to the size of the areas of land. In effect, it would look at whether the 1,000 hectare threshold was still appropriate. Amendment 89D is a variation on amendment 89B and would require the review to have particular regard to whether the size of the areas of land should be reduced.

Members are already familiar with my arguments in favour of lowering the threshold and my attempts to do so in the bill, so I will not repeat myself tonight. However, I note that we have heard frequently from the cabinet secretary that the Scottish Government requires further evidence to lower the threshold. My hope is therefore that we can agree to amendment 89D to ensure that the review of the provisions includes that crucial point.

I will listen carefully to the cabinet secretary’s response to both amendments. If she is minded to support amendment 89D, I will not move amendment 89B.