Seòmar agus comataidhean

On Mark Ruskell’s point, it is important that we get this right, as there has been a huge amount of public interest.

My comment is more on the enforcement side. It would be good to hear more from the Scottish Government about how it expects it to work in practice, given that the responsibilities of the enforcement officers will be very public facing. There will be a lot of public interest in getting this right.

I am relaxed about whether we raise that with the Government in writing or through its appearance at the committee, but we need to hear more from the Government about how the fixed-penalty notices will work in practice and about enforcement.

That is helpful to know.

A few years ago—perhaps five or six years ago—you were on SEPA’s board, but there has been a lot of change since then. You have touched on some of the resource pressures. We hear in the committee and in our individual regions and constituencies that people feel that it is hard to get information if they report something to SEPA or have a concern about pollution, and the public do not always hear about the lighter touch that is taken by having a dialogue with people who might be causing pollution. It feels as though there is a growing gap between the concerns that are reported and what the public hear in relation to outcomes and resolutions.

You have talked about your role in the networks and your insight. I have given the example of SEPA, but it is not the only organisation with such issues. How do you see ESS being able to be fair but firm and being able to improve public understanding and confidence? Right now, people feel that there is not a lot of accountability.

I do not know what will happen after today, but I think that we need to hear more about that. Thank you for your answers.

Thank you—no pressure, convener.

Good morning, cabinet secretary. I want to return briefly to the issue of urban land and the convener’s questions about what is not in the bill. In your opening remarks, you talked about the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill being about both the national interest and local needs. It was helpful to hear you talk about the previous recommendations of the Land Commission; however, we are a few years down the line, and quite a lot has changed, including with other bills that the Government is considering.

Will you expand on the Government’s thinking? A constituent in Lanarkshire in my Central Scotland region might be wondering what is in the bill for them, and that will be the same for other communities up and down the country. What amendments are you thinking about?

In addition, related to that, you mentioned other bills, including on community wealth building, and work on community right to buy, purchase orders and compulsory sales orders. What is the Government doing to ensure that the work on this bill will align with those other bits of work? There might be a concern that there are some really good ambitions and objectives, particularly around sustainable development, but that the Government could be too busy, and we could miss the opportunity to make all those connections.

I thought that I had been forgotten there. Thank you, convener.

The committee has had quite a bit of feedback from stakeholders on the bill’s climate and nature aspirations, and I know that you have been listening keenly. You mentioned guidance and further consultation. Might stage 2 amendments be needed to clarify those aspects for landowners and communities?

It is helpful to hear that. The issue with guidance is that we cannot scrutinise it right now, so we are trying to get as much clarity as possible on what could be in the bill and what could be strengthened.

My final question is on urban land, because I think that I understand the points around scale and why there has been a focus on rural areas. In some urban areas, we could be talking about much smaller pieces of land, but there could still be wins for those communities through opportunities to protect and enhance biodiversity and to do work on climate mitigation and so on. Is the Government aware of that? We are behind on our climate and net zero targets in Scotland, so we need to do more and go faster. Can you reassure the committee that we will not miss the opportunity to have bold and ambitious reform in our urban communities?

Good morning, Richard, or rather good afternoon—you have been here all morning. Thank you for putting yourself forward for scrutiny. I was looking at your CV and background information, and my favourite fact is that your PhD is in astrophysics, which, in your own words, makes you “nearly a rocket scientist”—it is good to know that.

I want to ask about European Union alignment. You have said to the committee previously that one of the challenges is keeping pace with environmental law changes at the EU level. Could you say a brief word about the current approach taken by ESS and how you see it developing or improving in the future?

It is fair to say that concerns about access to environmental justice in Scotland are well documented—it is very much a topical issue. You mentioned environmental courts and governance. We do not have an environmental court at present, and we do not know what the Scottish Government will do in relation to compliance with the Aarhus convention. Does that matter to ESS? If Scotland goes down the road of compliance and ends up with an environmental court, will that affect the operation and capacity of ESS and its relationships with other bodies? If that does not happen, what is your take on what would happen next in Scotland? What would be the effect on ESS?

The bill sets out what should be included in a land management plan, including setting out a long-term vision for the land; future objectives; and how the land will be used and managed to achieve net zero emissions, adapt to climate change and in relation to biodiversity. The plan is quite high level. Can you explain how the Government arrived at those factors and criteria? Was anything considered but not included in the final bill?