Chamber and committees

As I said, a number of those organisations were statutory bodies, such as health boards, which might not have seen the proposal as their number 1 priority. They might have expected others to respond on their behalf.

I am aware that those pieces of legislation have been promised. It was promised that the good food nation bill would be introduced in the previous session, but its introduction has been held across to this session.

The Government has said that it does not plan to incorporate a right to food in the good food nation bill. It has made it clear that it is looking at the issue more in the context of its proposed human rights bill. However, it is not clear to me whether, as part of the human rights bill, it would have the vehicle for delivery that forms part of my proposed bill. If the committee decides that I can proceed with my bill, based on the previous consultation, the Government will have the opportunity, once I have introduced it, to take it over, should it decide to legislate in that way. Therefore, nothing will be lost—it will be able to go ahead and do that. However, if the Government did not want to have such a vehicle for implementation, I could proceed with the bill, and the Government could comment on it at that stage.

In the previous parliamentary session, I had discussions with the previous Cabinet Secretary for Rural Economy and Connectivity about the proposed good food nation bill, because I was interested in whether the bill would include commitments such as those that I am seeking. I have not had formal discussions in this session, although I have been lodging questions and trying to get more information.

I am happy to work with the Government on my proposal and would look forward to doing that; I would like to see what it is doing and how we can work together. I think that most people would agree that in a country that is as rich as ours and that has the food supply that we have—we are so proud of the food that we produce—no one should be going without food. I think that we can all sign up to that aim, and I would be happy to work with the Government to try to realise it.

I do not think so. We have had a Government consultation and Elaine Smith’s consultation, and a fair amount of discussion has taken place—the statement of reasons goes over that ground. Other proposals, including for good legislation, have come forward with much less consultation and far fewer consultation responses. The issue has been well consulted on and another consultation would simply delay action.

If the pandemic has shown us anything, it is the need for a right to food in Scotland. We have seen people going hungry. When people were self-isolating due to Covid, they needed things in place that ensured that they were able to eat. In the past fortnight, we have heard about the very sad case of a pensioner in Scotland who starved to death. I do not think that we can afford to delay action on an issue that is costing lives—it is also costing life chances, because we know that young people who grow up without having an adequate diet end up having huge health issues, for which we all pay, down the line. We see malnutrition and we see obesity—there are huge problems that we need to deal with, right now. The pandemic has, if anything, delayed legislation in the area. We cannot afford to delay further.

As Nick Hawthorne said, approving the statement of reasons and allowing the proposal to go forward today would not interfere with that in any way whatsoever.

I think that the convener is asking me why I am pursuing the matter, because he believes that the Scottish Government will do that. I am pursuing it because, although I know that the Scottish Government has said that it will enshrine human rights in Scottish law, I am not clear about whether it will provide a vehicle to ensure that those human rights are implemented. My bill would do both—it would not only enshrine in Scottish law the human right to food but provide a vehicle to oversee the implementation of that. That is the bit that I am not entirely clear about in relation to the Government. However, as Nick Hawthorne said, if the Government is clear that it wants to do that, it can take over the bill. Approving the statement of reasons would not affect that.

Given the complexity of the food system, it would—in a way—be better if the Government did take over the bill, because it could make it move in ways that I, as a member, probably could not. It could tie it up much better and produce much more complex legislation. I am pursuing the matter not to try to beat the Government to it but to make sure that that happens. If the Government decides to take over the bill, I will cheer it on and happily hand over the proposal.

Does the minister agree that human rights have to be balanced with the human rights of the wider community, to reset the balance away from those who would exploit our land and back into the hands of those who live and work on the land?

I am grateful to the members who supported my motion and so allowed it to be debated today.

The Highlands and Islands are at the forefront in feeling the effects of new forces that are at work in our land markets. Those forces are likely to further embed the stark social injustice in our land ownership pattern of very few people owning most of our land. That pattern of land ownership concentrates wealth, power and influence into very few hands—it delivers for the few, not the many.

Scotland is highly unusual in having almost no land market regulation, which makes it the prime destination for capital looking for an easy, safe and rewarding purchase. A recent report by one of the leading land agents, Savills, made clear that it continues to receive calls from “buyers across the world”. Savills has referred to our concentrated ownership patterns as

“one of the few remaining places in the world where green resources can be acquired on a meaningful scale”.

People can come to Scotland and buy what they like, with no questions asked. Purchasing land in Scotland depends only on the size of a person’s wallet, with no questions asked. The scale of many of our land holdings brings with it, in effect, a local monopoly on land, with no questions asked. That is how Anders Povlsen has become probably Scotland’s largest private landowner, with no questions asked.

There is nothing new about the unregulated land market in Scotland; what is new is the latest way in which it is being exploited. A new type of buyer is emerging in response to our real concern about the climate emergency. There is evidence that those who market land see the climate emergency as a valuable selling point. We are seeing the commodification and financialisation of the climate emergency, which is stimulating private land grabbing.

In recent months, we have seen corporate buyers moving in. BrewDog is seeking to offset its carbon emissions, promote its green credentials and win new investors by purchasing thousands of acres of land in the Highlands. Standard Life Investments Property Income Trust? has just bought thousands of acres in the Cairngorms national park. Gresham House is promoting a £300 million private investment that has Scottish forestry firmly in its sights.

What unites that group of buyers is the climate emergency. It provides the chance to build corporate reputation, enhance market share and grow corporate wealth on the back of the climate concerns that we all have. The approach allows some to continue as carbon emitters while offsetting those emissions through their Scottish land holdings. Some purchases are likely to be a hedge against future carbon tax liabilities, too. It is low-risk investment with very high returns.

With the land comes access to Scottish Government subsidies. The land grabbing and exploitation of an unregulated land market are underpinned by taxpayer subsidies. Standard Life has made clear that the cost of the tree planting on the land that it was happy to buy for £7.5 million will be “met through grant funding”. The benefits go to those with capital to invest. Enriching the already rich for climate action cannot possibly deliver a just transition through the climate emergency.

Many purchases take place off market in secret, private sales. That device acts against communities seeking a late registration of interest in land to give them the opportunity to purchase it. However, such is the scale of land price inflation that, in practice, the hard-won right to register an interest in land may be of little value to them. Even with the doubling of the Scottish land fund, it will be hard for communities to secure land, even if they had the opportunity.

We know that the community ownership of land delivers multiple public benefits. Community owners are not absentee owners; they are local people who live in the area. All revenues are kept locally and reinvested, which builds community wealth. Local affordable housing gets built, population is retained, places are repopulated, jobs are created, trees are planted and peatlands are restored. The new owners—the green lairds—may be playing to our climate concerns, but what regard do they have of those other public interest issues? We have no guarantees because, when land is bought in Scotland, no questions are asked.

We need to recognise that the time is long past for Scotland’s land markets to be regulated. Ministers must be empowered to act on land issues in the public interest and to move from that exploitable, unregulated land market to one that regulates land as a national asset to deliver on our collective aspirations.

My party and the parties of Government are committed to a public interest test in questions of land ownership. That would be an important step, but we need to go much further. It appears to me that a presumption against ownership of land over a set scale is now necessary. We impose a residency requirement on our crofters, so why do we not do so on our landowners? The land and buildings transaction tax has a higher rate to discourage second home purchases. Why is there not a higher rate to discourage land grabbing?

I agree with that. However, there is an onus on landowners to make land available for housing, especially in rural areas. Two wrongs do not make a right.

We need to protect the public interest by acting especially on off-market land purchases. The Scottish Land Commission needs powers to act on land monopoly issues and to better enable public interest purchases. We need to make observing the land rights and responsibilities statement statutory and its expectations much firmer. We need to consider capping the total public subsidy of any large-scale landowner, and we need to see the uplift in the value of land effectively underwritten by public subsidy clawed back for public benefit. We should act on Community Land Scotland’s suggestion for a community wealth fund, and we need to task Co-operative Development Scotland with promoting co-operative and mutual ownership of land in Scotland.

Those suggestions begin to map out some of the potential ways forward. The more radical change that is desperately needed here would already be regarded as normal across the world.

The emergence of the so-called green lairds shines a light on the inadequacy of our land laws and on how we subsidise the creation of private wealth from owning land when we could be building community wealth instead.

If the minister acts on those issues, she can expect fierce opposition from the vested interests. However, if she takes the right action, she will get support from Labour members. My colleagues and I will bring forward ideas. We will also be a force for more radical action. That action is essential to create a more just and fairer Scotland.

The cabinet secretary will be aware that qualifying as an HGV driver is expensive, which prevents many people from entering the profession. Once young people are qualified, they find it hard to get a job because the insurance premiums for young drivers are eye watering. Is the cabinet secretary looking at ways to train young people to become HGV drivers, and is he speaking to insurance companies about the premiums for young drivers, especially in relation to smaller companies that do not have the economies of scale to make those manageable?

To ask the First Minister what steps are being taken to ensure that women who have endometriosis are diagnosed within a year. (S6F-00287)