Chamber and committees

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.

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.