Meeting of the Parliament 28 October 2025 [Draft]
That is not a fair assessment of what has been set out. The measures in the bill are an important step forward. Of course, when we introduce measures, we need to monitor them, see how they are working and capture evidence, which we can build on for the future. We have powers in the bill to modify any provisions.
On Rhoda Grant’s amendments 115, 233, 129 and 261, although I agree with the public interest objectives that are listed, regulations are the right place to set out the detail of what will be required under community engagement obligations. However, I want to highlight that I will support similar amendments that Rhoda Grant has lodged on that, and particularly amendment 187, which is in group 10.
Rhoda Grant’s amendments in this group would require all the duties that are listed to be imposed on all landowners, regardless of the type of landholding, when preparing a land management plan. For example, a hill sheep farmer would need to prove that they had regard to securing a greater proportion of community-owned energy when preparing their land management plan. That would not be proportionate, and it would risk plans turning into box-ticking exercises. It is better for requirements to be developed through consultation with those affected and specified in future regulations, rather than being in the bill.
My colleague Michael Matheson has lodged amendment 269, which would place a duty on ministers to issue guidance about the community engagement obligations on landowners. That wider duty would cover the kind of guidance that is being sought by Rhoda Grant’s amendments, but it could also cover guidance on other aspects of the obligations. Because of that, I ask members to reject amendments 115, 233, 129 and 261 and to accept amendment 269, which will be considered as part of a later group.
On amendments 43 to 45 from Edward Mountain, the bill as drafted already allows for prohibitions to be lifted where a landowner can evidence financial hardship. That is a proportionate approach that reflects the Government’s support for community ownership. I therefore recommend that members reject amendments 43 to 45.