Chamber and committees

Amendment 467 would make small changes to the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015 and the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 to support community bodies to own land or take leases for community energy purposes. It would ensure policy coherence across portfolios, and it would align Scottish Government objectives not only on land reform, by empowering communities with more opportunities to own land, but on community wealth building.

The Government has stated its commitment to increasing community-owned energy. We have a target of 2GW of capacity by 2030, but we do not think that that will be met without making more land available for community energy. The cabinet secretary has stated that the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill will

“allow the benefits and opportunities of Scotland’s land to be more widely shared.”

Community energy projects really show us how that can take place. There are some great examples on Lewis, including the Point and Sandwick Trust wind farm, which generates £900,000 a year for the local community. That will rise to £2 million a year once the project’s capital costs have been repaid. That is really powering the community, and it is providing grants to local primary schools and to people who live in fuel poverty. In my constituency, the Fintry Development Trust has done amazing work over many years in pioneering such development. There are lots of positive examples of communities backing renewable energy, being part of the successful picture of renewable development in Scotland and sharing in its rewards.

However, none of those projects could have happened without the land being available for community renewables. It is quite clear that although partnership working can take place between developers and communities, communities can get the best deals when they are landowners. If they own the land, they can strike the best partnerships. Making more land available for community-owned renewables benefits not only the communities concerned but the whole of Scotland. It means that more of the wealth from renewable energy generation in Scotland stays here—it does not get offshored or go to shareholders.

That approach also increases public support for community energy projects. We see good evidence of communities developing renewables themselves, in the right places, by entering into positive agreements with developers, which drives support for renewables projects. That will be important going forward. People need to be able to look up at the wind turbine on the hill and recognise that they, their community and their families are benefiting from it, otherwise, it can feel as though wealth is being extracted from Scotland. Increasing public support will therefore be critical as we go forward.

When there is space on public land that is suitable for renewables, the first step should be to offer that land to local community organisations that wish to use it for that purpose.

The first part of amendment 467 would place a duty on ministers, when deciding community asset transfer requests, to exercise their function in a way that

“prioritises community ownership of green energy assets.”

At the end of the section that would be inserted by Ariane Burgess’s amendment 467, a duty would be placed on ministers, when assessing proposed land purchases under the community right to buy, to

“consider the public interest”

reasons for

“increasing community-owned green energy.”

It is important that we move beyond what has become quite a polarised debate—including in this committee, given some of Douglas Lumsden’s amendments on whether we need to restrict transmission infrastructure—about whether we need to restrict the growth of green energy. There is a way to advance community energy generation that reflects its benefits, notwithstanding concerns about planning decisions and getting renewables projects in the right place. The idea of community ownership, and getting communities to invest in and engage with projects, will be really critical to their success. I think that we could see renewable energy develop in a way that would benefit everybody.

I move amendment 467.

We are where we are with the legislation in this area. There is a lot of frustration in communities. There is a call for reform, particularly on crofting legislation, and a bill on that has been introduced in Parliament. There is also the long-awaited community right to buy review.

Some of the issues are really long standing. The Largo community has been active on the issue that I referred to since 2017, and it is clear that the law, as currently constructed, is not working. In terms of the intricacies of valuations and buyouts, the provision on abandoned and neglected land has very rarely been tested. That is partly because it is not a robust provision. There are loopholes that allow landowners to effectively avoid or bypass the right that communities have.

I welcome the cabinet secretary’s comments that the examples that have been raised today will be consulted on and reflected on in the community right to buy review. We look forward to that process. I hope that it will be on time and that the next Government that comes in will be able to act quickly on the issue. I do not want to find that I, or my successor MSPs from Fife, are sitting here making the same point in another five years’ time, perhaps in speaking about another land reform bill, because communities are still trying to get control over historic assets that are abandoned and neglected. Right now, those assets are literally crumbling away because of a technicality. That is holding back economic development and conservation and the vision of communities around Scotland, which is a shame.

I will withdraw amendment 355, but I look forward to continuing the conversation with the cabinet secretary and taking that forward into the community right to buy review in the months ahead.

Amendment 355, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 356 moved—[Mercedes Villalba].

I think that the challenge will be to get robust evidence. I heard the cabinet secretary’s remarks that some people might have a security concern and, therefore, would be exempt from providing information, but we do not know. We are where we are; we are discussing the bill, it is before the Parliament, and there is a desire to change and fix a lot of things that we think are problematic. We might be reliant on the Government making commitments to change regulations or carry out reviews in the future, but now is the time to pin down such commitments so that there is some assurance for the committee, here and now, that we know what will happen as we go forward.

That also brings us to the subject of ScotLIS. We all agree that it is a powerful and useful tool, but that it could be more so. Again, we are fishing around to see what the next stage of its development might be. The cabinet secretary admitted that it would cost more money to make the service better and more effective, but what is the Government’s commitment on that? Is ScotLIS a priority, or not? If it is not a priority, we should name it and say, “There is no programme to expand ScotLIS. The commitments that were made in 2015 by the digital working group will not be carried forward, and we will deal with what we have at the moment.” I am aware that another committee would scrutinise the work of the keeper and ScotLIS, but it is so fundamental to our work on land reform that I think it important to bring that into the discussion.

I will not press amendment 375. I will not move amendment 376, but I will move amendment 470. We will see where we get to with Monica Lennon’s subsequent amendments 475 and 477. Although her amendments are supportable, I would like to test with the committee the idea of putting something into legislation now.

Amendment 375, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 376 to 378 not moved.

Sorry, I just—

I do not have an answer to that.

Amendment 366 introduces a duty on public bodies to ensure that they are contributing to nature recovery on publicly owned land over a certain size. This is an alternative to Ariane Burgess’s amendment 320, which we discussed last week, which was more about land management plans.

Under the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004, public bodies already have a duty to further the conservation of biodiversity when carrying out their responsibilities. Mandatory reporting on that was introduced in 2011, but a 2016 report on compliance with that duty found that less than half of public bodies had published a biodiversity duty report as required. Introducing a duty that specifically relates to land management practices is therefore an important step.

Amendment 366 also clarifies that the duty is to enhance biodiversity on public landholdings, not just to sustain biodiversity. That reflects our commitments under the 2023 global biodiversity framework, which calls upon countries to enhance biodiversity across 30 per cent of their territory.

The Scottish Rewilding Alliance estimates that about 243 land parcels that are in public ownership are over 1,000 hectares. Those landholdings have huge potential to contribute to Scotland’s ecological recovery in line with our international targets. The existing biodiversity duty is not sufficient.

Members will recall that, just over a year ago, the Parliament passed the Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Act 2024, which introduced a licensing scheme for shooting red grouse in Scotland. The intent behind that legislation was for the whole area of an estate to be included in the licence, given that gamekeepers are normally employed to undertake predator control over an entire estate.

However, a loophole in that legislation is allowing grouse moor managers to specify a particular part of an estate to which the licence is to apply—essentially, the grouse moor itself, rather than the surrounding land of the estate. That is really concerning, given that incidents of raptor persecution often occur outwith grouse moors.

As members will recall, the issue was brought up in evidence at stage 1 of this bill. Even though the scope of the bill is quite narrow, the RSPB and other stakeholders have raised it as an issue. Amendment 374 seeks to close that unintended loophole, clarifying that a grouse moor licence would cover an entire landholding, keeping the licensing scheme in line with the intention of the Parliament when it passed the legislation last year.

I move amendment 374.

—on that basis, I will not press the amendment.

Will Douglas Lumsden clarify whether “energy infrastructure” includes nuclear reactors and any infrastructure that would be required to repower the Peterhead gas-fired electricity generation station? Are all forms of energy infrastructure covered, including nuclear power?

May I clarify, based on what the cabinet secretary said, that the provisions are about businesses that are being sold voluntarily? It is up to the new owner—whether for an entire estate or whether, because ministers intervened, it is lotted—to decide whether to restructure the workforce, close certain aspects of the business down or maybe expand into other areas. It is ultimately a business decision. Selling in the first place is also, ultimately, the landowner’s business decision.