Chamber and committees

I have nine amendments in the group, which cover three areas. I put on record my thanks to the organisations that have engaged with me in drafting my amendments: the Scottish Rewilding Alliance, Scottish Environment LINK, the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Royal Society of Edinburgh. I also thank the Scottish Parliament’s legislation team for its support in drafting the amendments at what must have been a very busy time.

The first set, amendments 19 and 20, relates to an area of concern raised in committee evidence at stage 1 and through the call for views. There is a crucial need to distinguish between habitat condition and habitat extent when discussing how best we can support habitats. Given that habitat condition and extent are distinct and are each in their own right significant areas of conservation importance, the reasoning is that they should be treated in the bill as separate targets. Amendments 19 and 20 seek to do that. The goal is to clarify and strengthen the bill’s focus on measurable outcomes. If the Scottish Government cannot support the amendments as drafted, it would be helpful to hear from the cabinet secretary how she will address that issue ahead of stage 3.

My next set contains four amendments. As my colleague Sarah Boyack mentioned, they seek to add additional target topics to the bill. Namely, amendment 42 would add

“the restoration of natural processes”;

amendment 43 would add

“the condition of marine and terrestrial ecosystems”;

amendment 44 would add

“the status of keystone species”;

and amendment 22 would add

“the ecological connectivity of natural habitats”.

Amendment 42 relates to the restoration of natural processes and, by introducing a target topic on that area, it recognises that the health of our ecosystems depends on the proper functioning of natural processes. It seeks to explicitly add natural processes to the list of targets topics, which would enable secondary legislation to be introduced to create targets on that topic. The term “natural processes” would refer to any ecological cycles or processes that are hydrological, geological, atmospheric or that otherwise relate to flora and fauna. For example, it would include seed and pollen dispersal via wind, wildlife or water.

Ecological change and decline in Scotland are often related to disrupted natural processes such as the seed rain from the invasive non-native Sitka spruce, which dries out peatlands and leads to the release of previously stored carbon. As it stands, large swathes of Scotland’s land are being managed under conservation efforts, yet biodiversity continues to decline. Amendment 42 is ambitious in that it would shift the conversation from merely protecting our natural environment towards restoring Scotland’s biodiversity.

Similarly, amendment 43 would ensure that marine and terrestrial ecosystems are included in nature recovery targets. As my Labour colleague Sarah Boyack has highlighted in her amendments, urgency is needed in our actions to protect the marine environment. The alarming fact that less than 1 per cent of Scotland’s inshore waters are in recovery further highlights the need for the inclusion in the legislation of marine and terrestrial ecosystems. As a result of amendment 43, secondary legislation would set targets for the recovery of Scotland’s seas as well as land.

Amendment 44 is closely related to the previous two amendments in that it provides the opportunity for the Scottish Government to be ambitious in upscaling its work on ecologically threatened species. Keystone species are species that have a disproportionately large effect on ecosystems compared to their relative abundance in nature. It follows that if restoration and conservation efforts are focused on only threatened species, there is a danger that approaches for species that are not critically threatened may be delayed.

Habitat fragmentation is one of the leading drivers of biodiversity loss; therefore, improving ecological connectivity is a vital step not only in improving the resilience of our natural environment but in being ambitious in our legislation by looking to restore our natural woodlands. Amendment 22 is intended to address that through the introduction of a dedicated target on connectivity. I know that Ariane Burgess has an amendment in a later group—amendment 47—which may seek to achieve something similar in that area, so I will listen to her contribution on that group with interest.

My final three amendments in this group seek to broaden the scope for species targets beyond those species that are classed as threatened. The goal is to promote conservation and restoration, thereby securing and safeguarding the recovery of Scotland’s natural environment in its entirety. Amendment 21 would amend the species target to refer to

“species including but not limited to threatened species”,

whereas amendment 105 would replace

“threatened species”

with

“species of conservation concern”,

and amendment 106 would provide a definition of

“species of conservation concern”.

Amendment 104, in the name of Evelyn Tweed, and amendment 23, in the name of Mark Ruskell, seek to achieve a similar aim. I will listen to their contributions and the minister’s response before deciding whether to move my amendments.

You say that it is obvious. It might be so, but my understanding is that legislation has to be taken as it is written. As drafted, would the amendment allow for anyone who has an interest, anywhere in the world, to be consulted?

Amendment 25 is my only amendment in the group. I lodged it following concerns that were raised at stage 1 by groups such as the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management and Scottish Environment LINK regarding the potential consequences of measures that could result in reduced transparency and uncertainty around statutory targets—namely, the provision in the bill that the

“Scottish Ministers may by regulations amend this section to specify a different person”

—other than ESS—

“to carry out the assessing, reviewing and reporting functions conferred.”

That is in new section 2G(4) of the 2004 act, introduced by section 1(3) of the bill. Amendment 25 seeks to remove that wording; it is intended to underscore the vital role of Environmental Standards Scotland and the crucial role that it plays in independent oversight and enforcement of environmental law.

The targets that the bill creates will be meaningful only if there is an independent body through which the Government and relevant public authorities can be held accountable for meeting them. There is concern, therefore, regarding the provisions on the reassignment of functions that are currently granted to ESS.

It will be helpful to hear from the minister on that today in order to ensure that there will be no weakening of oversight, nor any reduction in transparency. There can be no question as to the fact that the bill should strengthen, not weaken, the scrutiny of Government and how it achieves its targets. As it stands, however, I am not persuaded that allowing the reassignment of those functions achieves that.

I am sympathetic to a number of other amendments in the group, which have already been discussed, in particular Emma Roddick’s amendments 50, 51 and 52 and Mark Ruskell’s amendments 24 and 49. I believe that those amendments share the underlying principle of my amendment, in that we must have a serious conversation about transparency and accountability in relation to our environmental targets.

My concern is that, under the bill’s provisions, there seem to be no restrictions on who the person or body could be. At the moment there is ESS, which is clearly defined and independent. It seems that, under the bill, anyone could be appointed as an alternative, according to the preferences of Scottish ministers at the time. That provision therefore does not seem to be quite strong enough.

I am happy not to move amendment 25 today, but we could have a conversation ahead of stage 3 about strengthening the provisions in this area, to ensure that the body will always be independent and will always have its important scrutiny function.

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.