Chamber and committees

But surely one of the outcomes should be a happy workforce that does not have to go out on strike every year. Is that a good sign that things are going well? You talked about customer service and internal surveys, but is it a good sign that the workforce is out on strike again, having to give up a day’s wage?

Did you have legal advice to that effect?

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.

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.

It is important to get clarity on that. We know that some local authorities have queried it and asked how the new approach would interact with their role in dealing with odour nuisance complaints. For example, East Ayrshire Council has suggested that revised guidance should be provided to clarify roles. There are definitely questions about the interaction between SEPA and local authorities in relation to statutory nuisance complaints.

I still have questions, convener. I want to ask about environmental governance, if that is okay.

One of ESS’s analytical priorities is environmental governance. Earlier in your opening statement, Dr Dixon, you referred to the Scottish Government’s governance review. You used the word “lacklustre”, so I am keen to hear more about your thinking on that.

I am also keen to know what work ESS is doing, or is planning to do, around Aarhus compliance. My understanding is that, because we do not have access to an environmental court or tribunal, because we have unequal rights of appeal in relation to our planning system and because the costs around access to justice in environmental matters are very prohibitive, people feel that they do not have routes to environmental justice. You said that what the Government is doing there is lacklustre, but what more is ESS doing to try to get some progress and compliance?

Do you think that the Scottish Government is failing to understand that?

Thank you. I think that we all want to see an improvement on “lacklustre” and “shoddy”.

I turn to the issue of sewage pollution, which ESS has done a lot of work on. There have been many concerns across the UK about the antiquated condition of sewage infrastructure and about monitoring and data. There are also concerns about complacency in Scotland, in that our situation is not as bad as what is happening over the border. I know that that issue has been looked at closely.

The committee previously took evidence from Scottish Water, which, it is fair to say, disputed allegations that it was acting illegally in relation to discharging combined sewer overflows during dry weather. Are you able to give any update on ESS’s analytical work into the matter and on whether there is any evidence of illegal sewage discharges in Scotland?