Chamber and committees

Land is a public good and a natural resource that should serve our common interests. It is vital for our sustainability and for Scotland’s biodiversity. However, we currently have a system of land ownership that concentrates wealth and power in the hands of a few. The system operates at the expense of the social, economic and environmental benefits that land offers. That is why I cannot welcome the growing trend of wealthy individuals and corporate interests seeking to use land to greenwash their record. It is a sign not of growing corporate responsibility or the rich engaging with the realities of the climate emergency, but of an unjust transition and a further transfer of wealth and power at the expense of working communities and our natural environment.

If we are serious about tackling the climate and ecological crises, now is the time for redistribution of land. We must create a new system of land ownership in rural and urban spaces that empowers local communities and delivers for the common good.

Rhoda Grant was right to say that the biggest problem that we face is Scotland’s “no questions asked” approach to land markets. The Scottish Government’s commitment to introduce a public interest test for land transfers is a welcome step forward. Such a test would send a signal that common good is at stake when land is exchanged. It would also provide greater transparency around sales. The Scottish Land Commission has also suggested introducing land management plans and a review of land rights and responsibilities. Those measures would be welcome, but they must have teeth and protect the public interest.

There should not be a limit on our ambitions. There is much more that the Parliament can do with the powers that it has. More radical proposals, such as caps on private land holdings and a land value tax, must be considered. After all, why should money and connections enable a wealthy few to monopolise a public good such as land? Why should landowners continue to benefit from the increasing value of land, which was created by public money? The Parliament should empower communities to take ownership of their space and their land.

The issue of land reform has dogged Scottish politics for decades. We have had years of discussing and debating the issue, but now is the time for change.

I will stay with the topic of land use and management. The number of farmers is reducing, we have an ageing population and many potential new farmers are priced out of starting up because of the cost of land. The recent programme for government contained commitments on modernising tenant farming and reforming legislation on small holdings. Are there any measures that the witnesses would like to be taken to make things easier for potential new producers starting out and to put power into the hands of people who work the land?

I thank the cabinet secretary. I am sorry if I did that wrong, Presiding Officer.

On transport, the Scottish Government’s motion emphasises the need to reduce car dependency, but its current actions undermine that aim, because Scotland’s railways are set to face cuts to services that will put them at below pre-pandemic levels. Scotland’s bus network is still run for private profit and not to meet passengers’ needs. Entire communities face cuts to routes and will be left without reliable services. On top of that, the Scottish Government is set to spend millions on the M8 motorway just weeks before Glasgow is due to host COP26.

The Scottish Government must do everything in its power to tackle the climate and biodiversity emergencies. The truth is that it is not doing that. It is missing its energy and renewables targets and dragging its feet on delivering sustainable transport. Labour is offering constructive solutions, which is why our amendment calls for the creation of a publicly owned energy company. It is also why I have outlined a practical solution to help to deliver a just transition for offshore oil and gas workers.

If the Scottish Government is serious about delivering the urgent action that is needed, it will back the Labour amendment.

Sorry, Presiding Officer.

The motion seeks to paint a picture of a Scotland that has not endured 14 years of inaction and broken promises at the hands of this Government. In June, we saw the consequences of that continuing inaction from the Scottish Government when it failed to meet its target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and it has allowed emissions from domestic transport to reach worryingly high levels. At this rate, Scotland will struggle to meet its 2045 net zero target without significant intervention.

The Scottish Government is also failing to meet its targets on renewable energy. The latest figures show that just 24 per cent of current energy consumption is coming from renewables. With energy bills set to rise for households across Scotland, the Scottish Government’s failure to deliver a publicly owned, not-for-profit energy company is unforgivable. However, it is not too late for it to reconsider. A publicly owned energy company that produces local energy as well as supplying it could reduce costs for consumers and direct investment into much-needed green technologies.

The motion rightly recognises the need to deliver a just transition. That is particularly important to the workers and communities that I represent in the north-east. At First Minister’s question time two weeks ago, I challenged the First Minister to consider introducing an offshore training passport. Last week, I received a response from the just transition minister that avoided giving a firm commitment to introducing such a passport. Warm words are not enough. We need practical solutions.

One such solution would be to expand the role of the Energy Skills Alliance, which is developing an all energy apprenticeship. That is good for new entrants, but it does not help the current workforce. However, that work by the ESA suggests that standardised training for the energy sector is possible. Will the Scottish Government consider tasking the ESA with developing an offshore training passport as part of a wider, all-energy training programme for the existing workforce?

I do not know whether the cabinet secretary wants to intervene on that. As I asked a question, I think that I should give way if he wants to answer it.

My questions are about fishing management. The marine protected areas were designated in 2014. I believe that NatureScot gave advice on fishing management in 2013, which stated that dredging and trawling ought to be banned in a number of MPAs. However, there are still many MPAs where those activities continue unrestricted. Are the NatureScot representatives concerned that their advice has not been heeded? What do all the witnesses think that we can do to ensure that similar mistakes are not made in the creation of the new future fisheries management strategy?

Good morning. My question relates to labour, particularly off the back of what Jimmy Buchan said about the need for a global workforce. Constituents in my north-east region have raised concerns about the living and working conditions of some workers in the industry, particularly those who come from international areas, such as the Philippines. What more do panel members think can be done to protect the rights and wellbeing of workers locally, whether they are from Scotland, Europe or somewhere else? What can be done to create decent jobs in local communities, as well?

As has been said, we are facing a climate and ecological emergency. We have also heard about the importance of blue carbon as well as the damage that is being done to our marine environment by some parts of the fishing industry. Are any sections of the fishing industry incompatible with Scotland’s ambitious targets?

With this motion, the Scottish Tories seek to exploit workers and communities who are concerned about their future. The motion is unrealistic, lacks credibility and offers no new ideas on how we tackle the climate emergency and deliver a just transition for those most affected by climate change. In just a few weeks, Scotland is due to host COP26, and the eyes of the world will be upon us. How could we vote to back the Cambo oilfield—[Interruption.]—when all the signs point to it having a hugely detrimental impact on our environment?

Passing the Labour amendment would signal a clear intention to take decisive action on climate change, create green jobs and develop a green industrial base. We can no longer accept Scottish Government inaction in the face of the escalating climate emergency. Years ago, the Scottish Government promised to deliver 130,000 green jobs by this year, but it has delivered only just over 21,000; it also pledged to create a publicly owned energy company, but it has now backed out of that as well. For all the talk of investment, the Scottish Government has failed to develop the green industrial base that we need; and despite its commitment to achieve net zero by 2045, it continues to refuse to clarify its position on Cambo.

I was pleased to hear Jenni Minto express in her speech her personal opposition to Cambo. Like her, I attended the Rainbow Warrior event by Greenpeace in July, where her colleague Paul McLennan also voiced his opposition to Cambo. The Scottish Government and its ministers need to make a choice: to stand with the Tories and the multinational companies that pollute our planet for private profit; or to stand with climate campaigners, workers, its own back benchers and its co-operation partners in calling for a just transition.

At First Minister’s question time last week, the First Minister expressed her willingness to consider developing an offshore training passport for oil and gas workers. However, last night, I received a response from the just transition minister that appeared to suggest that there is no desire to introduce an offshore training passport as part of the just transition fund. To be honest, we are all sick of empty rhetoric that never matches reality. Now is the time for the Scottish Government to get off the fence, oppose Cambo and support the Labour amendment for a worker-led transition.

I thank Maggie Chapman for inviting me to second the motion, and I am grateful for the opportunity to speak about the issue in the chamber.

In the summer, I visited Torry, where I met campaigners from the Friends of St Fittick’s Park. As Audrey Nicoll and Maggie Chapman have already said, they should be commended for fighting to protect a community green space for all residents of Torry. It has also already been said that that is a well-loved and well-used space.

I find Aberdeen City Council’s decision to rezone St Fittick’s park and Doonies Rare Breeds Farm as opportunity sites for industrial development to be clearly short sighted. As has been said, St Fittick’s park is an award-winning biodiverse area of woodland, wetland and recreational grassland. It is also currently designated as urban green space. Doonies Rare Breeds Farm is a key conservation site that houses 23 rare breeds. The Covid-19 pandemic has surely demonstrated the value of such assets to our communities. They are vital for mental and community wellbeing, and they ensure that local people can exercise their right to a healthy environment.

The energy transition zone project brings with it the risks of overindustrialisation for Torry. Overindustrialisation can lead to poor air quality and create various forms of pollution, such as noise pollution. It can also lead to the loss of green space, and to severe environmental and community wellbeing consequences.

With all that in mind, it is unsurprising that Torry residents and campaign groups such as the Scottish Wildlife Trust are opposed to the ETZ project. However, local opposition to the ETZ is not purely motivated by those environmental and community wellbeing concerns. Torry residents and campaigners are, rightly, frustrated by the lack of meaningful consultation. The Scottish Government says that it is for Aberdeen City Council and the developers, Energy Transition Zone Ltd, to engage with the community, but Aberdeen City Council and Energy Transition Zone Ltd say that a statutory consultation will be driven by the Scottish Government.

The game of shifting responsibility is unacceptable. The people of Torry should have been proactively engaged with from the start of the ETZ project. Residents feel that the lack of meaningful engagement reinforces their concerns that the decision has already been made to proceed with the project.

The Scottish Government seems unwilling to engage with the concerns of residents. I asked the cabinet secretary to outline how the proposed site for the ETZ was chosen, given the significant public investment that the project is receiving. He was quick to pass responsibility on to Aberdeen City Council and the developers. When I pushed him on what the benefits would be for the people of Torry, he said that the ETZ should offer benefits such as the provision of open space for residents and improvements in biodiversity. However, I do not think that any Torry resident or campaigner believes that the ETZ can deliver such benefits.

It is important to know that nobody who is opposed to the ETZ project is refusing to recognise our need to transition away from fossil fuels, but we should not transition by sacrificing existing biodiverse green spaces that have strong community support, such as St Fittick’s park and Doonies Farm. Those two sites are of great value to the local community and worthy of protection, which is why I support the motion and urge all members to do the same.