Chamber and committees

And what is the reason for that?

You say that you are ready to meet them. Are you talking about this week? Do you have availability this week?

I always worry when the convener is quiet—but thank you, convener.

I will follow on from the deputy convener’s questions about the evidence that Scottish Water gave the committee in October 2023 about CSOs and dry spills, and pollution impacts. At that time, when I put questions to you, Alex, you said that media coverage around the issue was “misleading” and that there were a number of inaccuracies. I asked whether Scottish Water was

“planning to take any legal action in that regard”,

because it is obviously very serious if people are making wrong allegations about Scottish Water. In response, you told the committee:

“We are not planning to take legal action, at this stage.”—[Official Report, Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, 31 October 2023; c 18.]

Can you give an update on that? Did you take any legal action?

You are aware that there is a problem because, yet again, the workers are out on strike. You, personally, have not met anyone from the unions in relation to the pay deal, and there is now reputational damage to Scottish Water because, as an employer, you are now being framed as anti-union. When you were previously before the committee, I asked you about fair work principles, and you told the committee that you absolutely honour them; however, you do not meet the unions, and the senior management team sends anti-union emails. You tell us and the unions that you are happy to meet, but you have not managed to meet. Why is that not a priority for you, as chief executive?

Please hold on just a second, because I am not finished. It is important that I ask you as chief executive about this. As a member of this Parliament and a Central Scotland representative, I would much prefer people to be at their work.

Some people hold the view that it does not matter who owns Scotland’s land. They do not mind that Scotland’s pattern of private land ownership is probably the most concentrated in the world. Some people are relaxed that anyone in the world can buy large amounts of land in Scotland with relatively little scrutiny. Scottish Labour members believe that those things do matter. It matters that less than 1 per cent of Scotland’s people own two thirds of Scotland’s rural land.

The story of who owns Scotland is a long history of inequality, and we need to write a new chapter. The bill is the latest attempt to spread the ownership of Scotland’s land into the hands of the many, not the wealthy few. Scottish Labour absolutely supports the bill’s principles, because we know that the land reform journey is far from over.

We have not waited for the Government to do all the work. My colleague Mercedes Villalba consulted on a member’s bill a couple of summers ago, and I hope that the Government is very much looking at that work as we try to improve the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill.

Rural communities deserve the opportunities that can be unlocked if land is owned, managed and used in the public interest. Our ambition is for urban communities to also benefit. As a Central Scotland MSP, I know that there is an overreliance on speculative private developers, which contributes to the acquisition of strategic land banks. We have heard about the community right to buy, but we need that to be more meaningful and to be a reality.

We know that wealthy landowners are powerful and have huge influence over decisions that impact the people of Scotland. A Scotland that aspires to be modern and democratic needs to change that. Tim Eagle spoke about large estate owners gifting small plots of land to local people to build homes on, but our communities deserve to have greater control over their own destiny. They deserve choice, not charity.

As a member of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, I am in the privileged position of being one of the seven committee MSPs who have been scrutinising the bill. We have read and listened to a colossal amount of evidence. Like the convener, I am hugely grateful to everyone who has contributed, and a special word of thanks must be recorded for the committee clerks and SPICe colleagues.

I recognise that the cabinet secretary and her officials have worked really hard to reach this stage. Mairi Gougeon has signalled her intention to leave the Parliament at the end of this session, and there will be opportunities to say nice things about her closer to that time.

Despite all the doom and gloom that we have heard from members of the Tory front bench today, there is a majority in the Parliament for advancing Scotland’s land reform journey.

The committee’s stage 1 report recommends support for the bill’s general principles. However, we make really important recommendations on how the bill should be improved and strengthened, and we set out where more clarity is required. I welcome the cabinet secretary’s letter to the committee last night and the fact that she has restated today that she will continue to listen, reflect and work with MSPs, stakeholders and, importantly, grass-roots voices, because we must ensure that the bill is amended at stage 2 in a coherent way.

I agree with the cabinet secretary that Scotland should be a land of opportunity, and we need to be bold to ensure that Scotland is not just a playground for the extremely wealthy. I think that some members in the chamber would gladly keep things that way, so we need to work hard and be bold and ambitious at stages 2 and 3.

My colleague Rhoda Grant, who attended stage 1 evidence sessions and has championed land reform throughout her political service, has set out areas in which Scottish Labour will seek to improve the bill. That includes public interest tests—I was glad to hear Michael Matheson speak about them, because the Government needs to show a bit of courage and be bolder in that area.

Rhoda Grant talked about issues on which Scottish Labour will lodge amendments or support others, particularly in relation to thresholds, lotting and the role of the land and communities commissioner. We believe that the commissioner should be able to proactively investigate potential breaches of community engagement obligations.

Any good practice is always welcome, but what I am hearing from Fergus Ewing today is that he is in alliance with the Tories, who do not want land reform. It is a shame that the member feels that way, too.

I will draw my comments to a conclusion. I have missed out a few things, but I want to touch on something that Finlay Carson said. He warned about the economic implications of the bill. Maintaining the status quo or allowing landowners to become even more powerful in Scotland would also have serious economic implications.

I commend to the chamber a blog by the economist Laurie Macfarlane, who wrote that

“Land is Scotland’s most important economic asset.”

He also said:

“How land is owned, managed and used plays a fundamental role shaping Scotland’s economic, social, environmental and cultural landscapes.”

I completely agree. That is why Scottish Labour will work with the Government to support the bill at stage 1 and improve it.

This is not Scotland’s first land reform bill and it should not be the last. We can improve the bill, but the next Parliament will have to go further and be bolder, because Scotland’s land reform journey has many miles to travel yet.

Okay, so you recognise that additional guidance is perhaps required.

Is there still work to be done on having a clear plan to address that?

I will press you a little bit more on that. Although I appreciate there are a lot of different moving parts, particularly in relation to EU alignment, I would like to get a bit more clarity about when the recommendation, which dates back to 2016, will be implemented.