Chamber and committees

Paul McLennan highlighted that we are extraordinarily good at watching sport. On the point about 2014, I disagree with Bill Kidd about one thing, which is that we never made the most of the legacy opportunity. In fact, the legacy from 2014—by accident—is that we will get the 2026 games. What will the Scottish Government do to ensure that we make the most of the sporting legacy?

Will the minister take an intervention?

Thank you. We are now back on time.

It is always a pleasure to follow George Adam when we are discussing football. I am sure that it will not surprise members to hear that I am pleased to speak in this debate about bringing a major international sporting event to Scotland. I have spoken many times about the influence of sport, but I welcome this opportunity to do so again and to speak about how it brings culture and resilience—goodness knows, our Scottish supporters sometimes need that—as well as togetherness and confidence. As well as health benefits, sport can also engender aspiration, hope and community. Bringing such international sporting events to Scotland is part of a jigsaw that can help us to move from being a nation of sport watchers to a nation of participation.

As other speakers have said, Euro 2028 offers Scotland an exceptional opportunity to show itself off on a world stage, not only on the pitch, but more widely across the country. Football holds a special place in the hearts of many Scots, and Scotland’s tartan army is always a great ambassador for us across the world.

Euro 2028 is an opportunity for us to welcome football fans from around the world to our shores, and all of us on the Conservative benches want us to make the most of that opportunity. That is why, as my colleague Stephen Kerr alluded to, we have a responsibility to ensure that our preparations, including the bill, leave us ready to be a welcoming and effective host. That means not only being a good host for the tournament and the many international visitors that it will bring, but also ensuring that the tournament is both welcoming to and welcomed by Scots.

Some aspects of the bill unquestionably cause concern in that regard. Although I appreciate that there are requirements that UEFA and other international sporting bodies demand of any host country on issues such as ticket touting, street trading and advertising, some of the powers that are granted in the bill seem a tad heavy handed.

I am therefore pleased that the bill is being presented well in advance of the event, noting that a lack of time for communication with the public was highlighted as an issue with the previous legislation for Euro 2020. Most people will not necessarily notice the effects of the legislation; however, it is critical that sufficient time and effort is used to inform those whom it affects. The broad restrictions on street trading and advertising, while understandable, raise questions about how the Scottish Government and UEFA balance the commercial interests of the tournament against giving established local traders an opportunity to benefit from the increased footfall. Many major sporting events, from the Olympic games to the open championship, struggle with that balance, but that alone cannot be an excuse for local traders taking a financial penalty.

On ticket touting, although I agree that reselling tickets at vastly inflated rates to desperate fans is an issue that needs to be addressed, I argue that legislating piecemeal for specific events feels like an ineffective approach in the long run. The issue may arise in the public consciousness only when we read reports of resellers offering tickets for major concerts or sporting events at ludicrous premiums, but it should be tackled. The passion that fans have should not be an opportunity for touts to exploit. Both the Scottish and UK Governments should do more to protect fans from that cynical practice. In fact, it will take a unified approach from all UEFA members to tackle ticket touting effectively.

I want Euro 2028 to come to Scotland and succeed, but a successful tournament must bring benefits to Scotland long after the football circus has packed up and left town. If it becomes an event that lands in the country, closes itself off from the economy and disrupts lives and livelihoods for no lasting gain, I will not judge it a success.

Just as I have spoken previously about the importance of legacy from fantastic events such as the Commonwealth games, so, too, must we consider the legacy of Euro 2028. The bill is an opportunity to do that, because legacy is not necessarily just about investing in shiny new facilities or supporting grass-roots sport—although, obviously, I welcome all of that. Legacy is also in the memory of the event. Was there a welcoming atmosphere? Did Scots feel part of it? Those questions matter, and I hope that the Scottish Government will consider them as the bill progresses.

A regular and reliable rail service plays an important role in both supporting the local economy and connecting people across communities, but those services must be welcoming to passengers. Several constituents have recently contacted me with concerns about antisocial behaviour and even about the basic cleanliness of carriages on that service. Does the cabinet secretary recognise the importance of maintaining basic quality standards of safety and hygiene? What specific measures are being taken to taken to deal with those issues on the Glasgow to Kilmarnock service?

I should declare an interest, because I have a daughter who is a midwife.

Listening to the cabinet secretary’s statement today, and to the questions and answers, spins me back to the start of my political career, nearly 10 years ago, when one of my first cases was a constituent who, tragically, had lost a child in childbirth. Over an extended period, we worked out that Crosshouse hospital was nearly 24 neonatal staff short, and that of course was addressed, but here we are, nearly a decade later. My colleague raised the issue of reputational management. How do we get past that? How do we get NHS boards to bin the idea of protecting reputation and reputational management, so that we can learn from mistakes that are made?

In speaking to the amendments, I return to the question that I asked when the initial consultation on the bill was launched, which is: what problem are we trying to solve here? Throughout the passage of the bill, its supporters have repeatedly argued that large-scale land ownership is inherently harmful and that smaller community-based land ownership is inherently positive. Those broad-brush positions seem to rely as much on anecdote and ideology as they do on evidence, if not more so. I do not doubt that there are individual examples of poor behaviour by large landowners and exemplary outcomes among community-based ones but, equally, many landowners in Scotland—in fact, I would say the vast majority of them—regardless of size, are good stewards of the land.

Some time ago, during Mercedes Villalba’s members’ business debate on her proposal for land reform, I argued that, if we are serious about land reform that makes a positive difference, we should be more concerned with how the land is managed than with who owns the land and how much they own. My position on that has not changed.

That brings me to my amendments in the group, three of which are intended to address an apparent disparity in the use of land management plans between community-based organisations and other forms of landowner, whereby community organisations are not held to the same standard. Amendment 277 would require community bodies to produce land management plans in the same way as any other landowner whose holding meets the 50-hectare lotting threshold. It seems entirely reasonable to me that we should expect any large landowner, regardless of their structure, to be held to the same standard on land management.

Amendment 259 would ensure that, should a landholding with a land management plan that is already in place be purchased by a community group, the community group inherits that land management plan and should continue to deliver it until its own plan is developed. Recognising that community bodies may require some time to develop practical land management plans, amendment 366 would provide a five-year grace period from royal assent before land management plans are required for community-based landholdings.

In addition, I am proposing amendment 252, which is intended to address the issue of succession planning in community bodies. The nature of community bodies means that membership and leadership of an organisation can change frequently. Members come and go, priorities of communities change and so on. In that situation, it is important that the group considers the implications of that for how its landholding is managed and ensures some level of continuity.

I previously raised concern about how we ensure that community groups have the tools and structures in place to be effective long-term owners of land. Unfortunately, those concerns were dismissed at the time. I am a supporter of the principle of communities owning land, but I am acutely aware that land management is a long-term, even multigenerational, task.

Most members in the chamber will know of community organisations with good intentions that have failed following the departure of key members due to a lack of succession planning or other management failings. I believe that it is important that we take steps in the bill to address that risk. If, as some members have asserted, accountability is the key element of the bill, it is only right that every owner of land above the set threshold is required to meet the same standard of accountability.

Although I am aware that there are people who believe that community ownership automatically bestows some greater moral authority that allows such owners a greater level of trust, I do not think that that is sound basis for legislation—hence my amendments. In short, the amendments seek to ensure that community-based owners of land are held to the same standard as others in their management of the land and manage the risk to that management in the event of instability within the organisation, both of which I believe are entirely reasonable measures to take.

I move amendment 252.

The comments that have been made by the cabinet secretary and Rhoda Grant are, at best, anecdotal and are not based on any evidence whatsoever. The whole point of my amendments is to ensure that land ownership is developed to the same standard. At the end of the day, surely it is not about who owns the land but about how the land is used. Quite frankly, like my colleague Edward Mountain, I find the comments by the cabinet secretary and Rhoda Grant disingenuous and, at best, anecdotal.

I will correct what Rhoda Grant just said. My amendments are there to hold all land ownership to the same standard. They are not holding anybody above anybody else—it is the same standard.

Not at all. My amendments would bring them into line with the same standards that we have for every other land ownership. The amendments would not put any greater burden on them whatsoever. As I said, the cabinet secretary is being quite disingenuous in saying that.

I press amendment 252.

Does the member mean bills such as the Care Reform (Scotland) Bill, which had two thirds of it chopped away at stage 2? This is hardly the first time that members have radically altered a bill after stage 1. That bill was so thoroughly and comprehensively altered from its original form that it had to be renamed before it could be passed into law. Voting for the principles of the Right to Addiction Recovery (Scotland) Bill today binds members to absolutely nothing, except to agree that they will keep every option on the table.

I began my contribution with a call to arms for those dealing with the consequences of drug addiction, when I used the phrase, “You keep talking, we keep dying.” That is a plea for action, but what happens if even the talking stops? What happens if we shut down discussion on an issue that continually highlights not only the Scottish Government’s failure but this Parliament’s failure? Does falling silent and moving on do more to help?

There are certainly other conversations that the Parliament seems all too willing to have. We have spent days debating hundreds of amendments to the Housing (Scotland) Bill that will not build any houses; there have been three separate members’ bills about the welfare of dogs; and, after the October recess, we return to late nights of amendments to the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill. Those are all issues of importance to the people of Scotland, but perhaps they are not of equal importance.

That said, we can debate serious and profoundly significant issues. As a Parliament, we quite rightly voted to let the debate on assisted dying continue. Despite my misgivings about the legislation in its current form, I was one of the members who backed the bill at stage 1. I did that because, although I am far from convinced that I can back the final bill, I am not opposed to the principles behind it. More than that, I want the opportunity to discuss and debate it further. Like members from across the chamber, I want to keep that conversation going. Bluntly, Presiding Officer, what does it say if members will overcome their discomfort and uncertainty to continue the debate on a bill about helping people to die but cannot bring themselves to do the same on a bill that is trying to help people who are dealing with addiction to live?

My plea to colleagues across the chamber is a simple one: if they believe in giving people who are dealing with addiction the help that they need when they need it, the bill must continue. Do not slam the door on a chance for Parliament and organisations to discuss, debate and build the bill into something better than it is today. I am looking directly at the Scottish Government’s front-bench members—they should give themselves the opportunity to make the bill one that they can support. They should lodge the amendments that they think need to make a difference, and argue their points. Please support the principles of the bill at decision time. It commits them to nothing except continued consideration of resolutions to this persistent crisis; then, when the bill returns at stage 3, if they cannot vote for it, at least they will know that they tried.