Seòmar agus comataidhean

I have listened carefully to the comments of committee members and the cabinet secretary. I am conscious of a couple of arguments being deployed by the Scottish Government about the need to keep the bill simple and clear. I agree with that need when it comes to land reform, and I agree that the bill is specifically trying to address an issue that the SLC sought to identify in its own report.

My only slight push back on that is that the bill as drafted does not adhere to all the areas that the SLC has identified and does not accept all its recommendations. Equally, when a bill is introduced, its scope is in the hands of the Scottish Government and is decided by how far the Government wishes it to go.

We have to be mindful that, through the bill, we are—rightly—empowering communities in rural Scotland. However, how we are doing that means that communities in some of urban Scotland will not have the same powers over significant pieces of land in their local area. If there is a requirement for a land management plan for significant rural land, why should there not also be one for significant urban land? That is an issue.

I recognise that the bill is probably not the place to address that issue at this stage, but I encourage the Scottish Government to explore further—if not at stage 3, in future legislation—how we can address what I think is a growing disparity between the rights of communities in rural Scotland and the rights of communities in urban Scotland.

On that note, I withdraw amendment 11.

Amendment 11, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 11, alongside several other amendments in the group, seeks to explore some of the issues with sites of community significance.

The cabinet secretary will recognise that land reform encompasses the urban and rural context. The bill as drafted does not cover urban Scotland and other settlement types unless they are situated on a large landholding. Consequently, the bill does not provide a mechanism to ensure that the public interest is considered in urban land management and/or urban land sales. I am aware that some 67 per cent of the respondents to the Scottish Government’s consultation were in favour of the inclusion of urban Scotland in the bill’s provisions. Therefore, I am keen to explore with the cabinet secretary how we can try to address some of the issues, particularly the pressing issues in urban and peri-urban areas. At times, they can be blighted by vacant or derelict land, absentee owners, or corporate landowners who use the land as land banks. In drawing this together, I am conscious of some of the potential complexities, which is why the amendments are probing amendments that seek the Government’s view on how it would deal with the issue.

I recognise that there are particular challenges with identifying sites of community significance. My amendments 42, 121 and 139 seek to provide some sort of structure around how sites of community significance could be identified. Given the pressing nature of the issue, and the issues that some of our urban communities face with such sites, I would be keen to hear how the Scottish Government believes that it could be addressed more effectively.

Of course. I will just finish my point.

I would be keen to understand whether there is scope for the bill to include some sort of provision to address the issue.

Thank you very much. I thank those officials who attended the meeting for this item. The cabinet secretary will remain with us for the next agenda item. I suspend the meeting until 10.23.

Good morning, and welcome to the 19th meeting in 2025 of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee. Apologies have been received from Monica Lennon and Kevin Stewart. I welcome Sarah Boyack, who is attending as Monica Lennon’s substitute, and Ben Macpherson, who is attending as Kevin Stewart’s substitute. Apologies have also been received from Edward Mountain, the convener, so I will convene today’s meeting.

Our first item of business is a decision on taking business in private. Do members agree to take in private item 9, which is consideration of the evidence that we will hear on the legislative consent memorandum on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill?

Members indicated agreement.

Douglas Lumsden has a brief supplementary question.

Douglas, do you have a supplementary on the deposit?

I invite committee members to make a contribution to the debate.

That concludes contributions from committee members. I invite the cabinet secretary to sum up and to respond to the issues that have been raised in the debate.

The committee will report on the outcome of our decision in due course. I expect that committee members will agree that it makes sense to produce one report on both the instruments that we are considering today. Are members content to delegate the authority to approve the draft report’s publication to me, as deputy convener?

Members indicated agreement.