Seòmar agus comataidhean

The existing powers are not sufficient, which is why some communities that would like something to be done about areas of land that they believe are sites of community significance would like to be in a position to be able to progress that. As I mentioned, I am trying with amendments 42, 121 and 139 to provide some structure to the organisations that could initiate the process of doing something about that. The amendments would go beyond the Scottish ministers and allow community-based organisations to be engaged in and initiate that process. I am trying to give a bit more scope for local communities to be the initiator in identifying sites of community significance. I am conscious that, as in any amendment, when you start to list things, you will inevitably end up leaving things out. However, I want to open the issue up, and it needs to be explored further, because the existing arrangements are not working effectively.

That could be a trigger. You will be aware of the challenges that relate to the number of community place plans that have been put in place in different local authority areas, which is very limited. Equally, once a place plan has been put in place, it may be that a new area of land is identified by that local community as being of significance to the community. The intention behind my amendments is to provide a mechanism that would allow the local community to trigger that as an area of significance.

I recognise the complexity and the challenges that are associated with this issue, which is why I am keen to hear the Scottish Government’s views on the matter and how it believes that the existing system could be developed further. In probing the issue with these amendments, I would also like to know whether there is scope—if not at this stage, then at stage 3—to address some of the issues regarding urban land reform.

I move amendment 11.

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.

I will speak to amendments 150, 151 and 158, which are in my name.

During the committee’s evidence sessions, it was clear that there was a strong desire to see the term “public interest” in the bill, given precedent elsewhere in Scottish legislation. The main purpose of amendments 150, 151 and 158 is to address that point and to make public interest considerations clear and up front. The amendments also make it clear that the Scottish ministers would be able to consider other elements of the public interest when thinking about whether to require lotting to be undertaken.

Amendment 150 seeks to insert a new subsection in proposed new section 67N of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003, to clarify that the powers to require that the land be sold in lots may be used only where the Scottish ministers consider that doing so is in the public interest.

Amendment 151 seeks to amend proposed new section 67N to provide that a lotting decision will not be in the public interest unless the test that is set out in the subsection is met.

Amendment 158 seeks to amend proposed new section 67N to update the cross-reference relating to amendment 150.

Although we never explored that in detail, it will always be the case at stage 2 that amendments will come forward on areas that we have not fully explored—including, for example, electricity infrastructure. [Laughter.] However, that is not to say that such issues should not be explored.

I largely drafted these amendments—I should thank Community Land Scotland for its assistance—to try to explore the issue further and to see whether there is a way in which we can address pressing issues regarding land banking, derelict land and absentee landlords who hold land in urban areas that communities feel is significant and of value and which they would like something to be done about. These amendments are framed in a way that tries to provide some form of structure in that regard, notwithstanding the challenges that there could be in implementing it.

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.