Meeting of the Parliament 17 June 2015
We are almost at the culmination of a long process that, as we heard, has involved several parliamentary committees and a vast array of witnesses, stakeholders, civil servants, parliamentary staff and others. Whatever our overall views on this weighty piece of legislation, they should all be warmly thanked, and I am delighted to do so from these benches.
As the minister said in opening this debate, there are not many differences across the chamber on the overall aspirations of the bill, but there are differences on matters of detail. We cannot pretend that they do not exist, despite the excellent spirit and, sometimes, humour that have marked today’s stage 3 process.
I dearly wish that the Government had differentiated between the right to buy in urban Scotland and in rural Scotland because, although I can see situations in an urban context that would absolutely justify the right to buy without a willing seller, I can also see that that could have significant unintended consequences when translated into a rural context. Several witnesses at the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee echoed the desirability of making that differentiation, as did the Law Society of Scotland, and I think that the bill is poorer for its absence.
Marco Biagi also said during the discussion of amendments that everything in the bill is about empowering communities, and so it should be. However, as members will have picked up from this afternoon’s debate, we on these benches believe that, in seeking to empower communities, ministers are taking too much power to themselves. We do not agree that outcomes should be determined rather than prescribed by regulation; we do not agree that the identifying of local priorities by community planning partnerships should be decreed by ministers; and we do not agree that extending the definition of land that is eligible for a compulsory right to buy by a community is in any way helpful in delivering a clear, concise and easily understood way forward. This party is not against community ownership—far from it. However, the land that is eligible for takeover by any community under any circumstances should surely be clearly defined in law and not subject to the opinion of any individual, agency or—dare I say it—politician.
I genuinely believe that the Scottish Government is genuine in its belief that it is going about the business of community empowerment in the right way with this bill, and there is much that is entirely commendable in it. I really—and equally genuinely—wish that we could give it our whole-hearted support. However, Tavish Scott made valid points about the breadth of the bill and its clarity in some aspects, and those two issues are at the very core of the reservations that we hold.
Not for the first time in this Parliament I hope that our reservations may prove to be unfounded, but I fear that they will not be. For the reasons that I have tried to outline in the brief space of time that is available to me, and despite the many positive aspects of the bill, we will abstain tonight at decision time.
20:00