Chamber and committees

Cabinet secretary, in your opening statement, you talked about the “imbalance of power” and said that the Parliament has a

“proud history of land reform”,

but the concentration of privately owned land continues to be in fewer and fewer hands. In Andy Wightman’s most recently published book, he says that 50 per cent of privately owned land is now owned by 421 owners, compared with 440 in 2012; 60 per cent is owned by 917 owners, compared with 989 in 2012; and 70 per cent is owned by 2,589 owners, compared with 3,161 in 2012. We are seeing a greater concentration of land ownership among fewer people. One aspect of the bill is to try to resolve that power imbalance. How can you assure us that the bill as it is will do that? How do we ensure that there is greater diversification of Scotland’s rural land?

You talked about greater transparency and opening up new routes into right to buy. How will you monitor the effectiveness of the bill to ensure that diversification is taking place? At what point, in terms of years, will you look at whether there has been a turnaround in the concentration of land ownership towards more diversity of ownership in our rural areas?

Are you looking at tackling some of the issues that you have highlighted in crofting legislation?

Recently published advice by the Scottish Land Commission states that it supports the intention to improve the position for small landholders and to align their rights and opportunities with those of mainstream agricultural tenants. In a letter to the committee last year, the cabinet secretary acknowledged that there needs to be more consistency for small landholders by aligning them with the tenant farming legislation. What elements of the provisions will be changed in order to achieve that? With that positivity about aligning legislation with tenant farming legislation, is there also an opportunity to align small landholders with crofters?

Good morning. We have heard evidence that the governance and set-up of city and regional growth deals were really arranged to suit English combined authorities. You said that there are unique elements to all the deals here and that things have been shaped by local circumstances. We have some very different governance situations. Glasgow has the political leaders cabinet and, in the north-east, there is an element of public-private governance. Has the Government looked at what has worked best, what has worked well and what we can learn about what might need to be done in future?

Is best practice shared through that board, too? Is there any overview of which projects have worked and which have not? I do not know whether I coined this or whether somebody else did, but it has been said that, often, the projects are not the people’s priorities per se. There is reasoning behind them, but they are not necessarily the people’s priorities. How do you take an overview of all that and ensure that best practice from some of the older deals is brought to bear on some of the newer ones, such as the Ayrshire deal and, indeed, the Argyll deal, which is about to come on stream?

I do not think that anybody would disagree that partnerships help to make things work.

You talked about the tripartite agreement between the UK Government, the Scottish Government and local authorities, but I think that, based on the discussion that we have just had, we can grow that even more to become a quadripartite agreement that also involves the private sector. That would ensure that we are maxing out private sector investment as well as public sector investment, which has happened in the north-east of Scotland. Do you think that that should be the ambition for the future?

I think that we all expect that, but I do not know whether that is what we are necessarily getting at points.

We have a situation where all the deals are different. Some, such as Glasgow, with its structure, are now a decade old. The growth of the Aberdeen city and shire deal has been somewhat unique, because it grew from an existing forum—the Aberdeen city and shire economic forum, which became Aberdeen city and shire economic future—and there has been a lot more input from the private sector. As with the Edinburgh and south-east city region deal, there is a focus not so much on infrastructure but on jobs for the future and projects that would create those jobs.

I am keen to see input from all the deals so that we come up with projects that ensure economic success not just today but for a lot of tomorrows. Do you think that we have learned enough about what has happened in the Aberdeen deal, the growth of which has been organic, when it comes to even the new deals such as the one for Argyll?

You talked about more ownership by the private sector. Equally, I am sure that, from the briefings that you have received, you will have seen that there has been much more private sector investment in that deal. That multifaceted ownership probably means that folk are more willing tae put their hands in their pooches, as we would say in the north-east, to help to fund some of those projects. Without a doubt, we should all be looking at and learning from that.

You said that that deal is due to come to an end in 2027. What is the next stage for city region deals? Can we expect an Aberdeen city and shire deal mark 2 to appear in 2027, when the current deal ends?

I could ask a lot more questions, but I will bring it to an end.