Chamber and committees

As the convener stated, we have had a lot of evidence, including from organisations that are involved in crofting. Crofting legislation is seen by many as a good thing. Have you considered extending the crofting counties to ensure that crofting is an option across Scotland—although I realise that there are some cases outwith the traditional crofting counties? Would doing that not lead to greater diversification?

The point that I am getting at is about expanding crofting outwith the traditional crofting counties. We have heard—I have heard this even though I have a very urban constituency—that many small landholders in parts of Scotland outwith the traditional crofting communities think that they would benefit if they were covered by crofting legislation.

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?

Thank you.

Is there no way of melding the two? Is there a way to allow aspects of this bill to take account of any future changes in crofting legislation, such as by providing for a secondary legislation route to change some of the land reform provisions?

That is a fairly good answer. I look forward to receiving further information on that. Whether it is a fiscal reason or a legislative reason that folk outwith the traditional crofting counties have an interest, there is obviously interest out there. Would you consider the expansion of crofting outwith the traditional crofting counties?

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?

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?

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?