—whether it be through insulation, solar batteries or heat pumps, given the cut to the solar funds? For local authorities and housing associations, where is the support that they will need now, because it is not—

That is one of the things that is raised regularly by campaigners, but it involves consideration of the structure of our legal system. Without other changes, we will need that kind of focus.

It is clear that we need change. Our citizens should be able to have the power to influence or reject changes to their environment, but the measures that are currently in place make that difficult, if not impossible. One thing that we could do is resource our planners in local authorities, because we do not have the scale of resource to deliver on time. That is a frustration that communities—urban and rural—raise with us. We must do everything in our power to see measures delivered to entrench people’s rights because, as the Aarhus convention has clearly established, environmental rights are human rights.

I have a member’s bill in front of the Parliament that would mean that the principles of sustainable development and wellbeing would be addressed by public sector organisations. However, we need action. It is on the Scottish Government to take that action, and it needs to act now.

Will the minister or the cabinet secretary agree to meet Lothian Buses to discuss the issue of enabling bus operators to withdraw the under-22 bus pass when the cardholder has been involved in antisocial behaviour? My understanding is that the pass can be removed only when there has been fraudulent activity. The inability to remove the pass is creating a big problem for people in the Lothians at the moment.

The minister was at a very positive Scottish Offshore Wind Energy Council event in Parliament this week, where many people raised with me the issue of supply chains in manufacturing. My question follows on from the minister’s answer to the previous question. Will he focus on providing certainty by speeding up decisions? Supply chains are a major issue that Lothian region faces, and we need to be able to get the investment that we need.

I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests.

We know that there is a housing emergency in Edinburgh and that there are huge pressures on the health and social care budget. At what point will the cabinet secretary acknowledge that the huge increase in the population of, and the pressures on, Edinburgh are not going away and that our constituents are being let down by the Government?

It has been a really good debate. For Scottish Labour, land reform is in our DNA. It has been part of our identity since the Crofters Party was involved in the creation of our party.

Scottish Labour will vote for the general principles of the bill at stage 1 but, on the basis of the evidence that was given to the committee, we believe that it must be improved.

In her opening speech, the cabinet secretary spoke positively about the importance of land reform but, as members across the chamber mentioned, after 17 years of SNP Government, land ownership concentration is getting worse. The statistic that less than 1 per cent of Scotland’s population still own 67 per cent of Scotland’s rural land should make us reflect. The comments by Mercedes Villalba, Kevin Stewart and Monica Lennon need to be reflected on.

The bill needs to go further if we are to change land ownership patterns. As Rhoda Grant rightly said in her opening speech, the purpose of land reform is to empower communities, build economies and retain populations. Stakeholders are disappointed that what is currently in the bill will not deliver the change that our communities need.

There is a really important bit in the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee’s report that is worth restating:

“It is clear that in much of rural Scotland, a lack of available land is a serious impediment to economic development, local services, affordable housing and other quality-of-life issues. Put simply, the scarcity of useful land stops some communities flourishing. There can be a power imbalance that leaves landowners, and not the community, the key local decision-takers.”

We all need to work together so that, when we get to stage 3, we have pushed the bill forward and strengthened it. That will take a lot of work, but we are willing to work with the Scottish Government to do that. There is an appetite around the chamber for it, so let us get on with it.

One change for which we want to push is a lower threshold to define a large landholding. We also want to ensure that all thresholds across the bill are aligned. A majority of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee agrees with the principle that the threshold for community engagement obligations for mainland estates is set too high at 3,000 hectares. That point was made by several stakeholders who gave us useful briefings in advance of the debate.

If the bill is to deliver on the needs of our communities, it should set a lower threshold that people can all understand. If thresholds were to be reduced to 500 hectares, that would keep all crofts and 97 per cent of farms outwith the scope of the bill but could be transformative.

A key point that Rhoda Grant made in her opening remarks, which was then made by Mercedes Villalba, Ben Macpherson and Michael Matheson, was about the need for a public interest test. That is crucial, because people know what a public interest test is, it has legal precedence and provides greater protection to family farms. We do not think that a public interest test on land should have been dumped from the bill, so we need to do some cross-party work on that to look at the detail and make sure that we get it right for stage 2 and then stage 3.

One thing that several members have commented on, which I strongly agree with, is that there are problems with communities being given only 30 days to register an interest in sales of land that is more than 1,000 hectares. That is simply not realistic. If communities are to come together, they will have to think about how to raise the money and pull together the plans. They need a bit more space to pull together the resources. The good examples that were cited by Emma Roddick, for example, about the transformation that can be delivered by community ownership, are worth bearing in mind.

A lot of people have talked about the lotting process and the importance of giving rural communities the chance to put in bids. That is important, but the committee again questioned how the decisions will be made. The suggestion of independent advice is critically important. The recommendation that the proposed new land and communities commissioner be empowered to proactively investigate potential breaches of the community engagement obligations is important. We cannot wait for the wrong decisions to be made before we act.

At the moment, there is not really a requirement in relation to how the complex process that is being suggested involves local communities. I have mentioned the timescales, and a lot of detail needs to be sorted out. One example that could be looked at is the unnecessary administrative burden. Admittedly, it is placed on a small percentage of farmers, but could the land management plan not be done in the same way as the legally required whole-farm plan, rather than our having a double approach? That would pull resources together and, if the process is crafted correctly, we would get the same outcomes.

One other issue that I would like to mention in relation to land management plans is the point that was made by Ramblers Scotland about the fact that we are seeing too many examples of restrictions on access creeping in. I have seen that for myself when I have been out walking in the countryside, and I think that the proposed new section 44B of the 2016 act is absolutely crucial in that regard.

One of the things that I want to focus on in my final remarks is the fact that urban land reform is not included. That is a huge missed opportunity, not just for constituents in my Lothian region but right across Scotland in our towns, cities and villages. People are going to miss out.

We will push hard for change in the bill. We have worked really hard on the previous two land reform bills, and we cannot afford this third land reform bill to be a missed opportunity. As I said at the start of my speech, we will be constructive but we will propose amendments to the bill, because we think that, at the moment, it does not deliver on the ambition that we need in Scotland to deliver for our communities.

I want to make one call to the Scottish Government. Will the cabinet secretary come back to members before we hit stage 2, so that we can have a more intelligent and joined-up discussion on amendments and are not just flying through amendments at stage 2, with some getting passed and some not, and some more arriving at stage 3? I ask the cabinet secretary to reflect on whether we could come together, have some rational conversations and make sure that the bill delivers in the way that it could.

I will seek the committee’s permission to withdraw amendment 1077. However, I want to get the issue up the agenda, because it is seen as an issue in Edinburgh. I accept that the GDPR issues would need to be worked through, but I go back to the point about having a framework so that we know how many people need homes, because tackling the housing emergency must be a priority.

That is why I want to explore the issue further. The City of Edinburgh Council raised the issue as a challenge, so we need to pick it up.

The minister’s response was constructive, so I am happy to seek to withdraw amendment 1077, but I hope that we can make some progress, ideally before stage 3. We should at least have a conversation so that the minister can understand the concerns of that local authority, which is facing a housing emergency.

Amendment 1077, by agreement, withdrawn.

I declare an interest as a result of my former work with the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations.

Amendment 1077 is important because we need to understand the scale of our national housing emergency. Currently, we do not have enough detailed data on those who are threatened with homelessness or those who are now experiencing homelessness. The amendment would provide a national register of homeless households.

The amendment follows on from an excellent cross-party briefing by the City of Edinburgh Council, which I attended. Preventing homelessness and supporting people who become homeless are huge priorities for that council. If the amendment were to be accepted, it could ensure that organisations are able to work together in order to allocate suitable housing, which would streamline the resources required for households that have applied to be assessed as homeless in different local authority areas.

The amendment would also result in the provision of more detailed information about the depth and breadth of the housing issues that are being faced in Scotland. It is important to understand the scale of the issue in order to identify how many new homes we need. The amendment offers the opportunity to get exact information on the scale of the housing need through a deliberative, preventative framework, and to deliver an opportunity as a result. Having a high degree of accuracy about the number of homeless households and where they are will help us to be more exact about building and planning for the homes that we need to address homelessness.

I move amendment 1077.