Meeting of the Parliament 16 March 2016
My amendments 107 and 109 would simply provide an improved alternative to Mike Russell’s amendments 7 and 9.
Whereas Mike Russell’s amendments apply only where the land in question “includes agricultural land”, my amendments would bring into the equation other land-based businesses, such as forestry and tourism, as well as other rural-related activities. As a result ministers could not consent to an application to buy land under section 45 if the purchase would have a detrimental impact on the business of the landowner or on the productive management of the land.
Mike Russell—rightly—seeks to protect agricultural and farming businesses. I seek to apply the same principle to a slightly wider sector of rural economic activity. I live in hope that the minister will see the sense in what I say and encourage Mike Russell to withdraw amendment 7 and to not move amendment 9 in favour of my amendments 107 and 109, although I am possibly being slightly optimistic.
Amendment 108, as Mike Russell highlighted, seeks to ensure that any owner or tenant of land cannot be constantly subjected to applications to purchase. Being the owner or tenant of any land that is subject to an application to purchase, particularly when that is against the seller’s will, can only be a fairly stressful experience, and it is important to protect them from repeated applications. Therefore, amendment 108 proposes to make it impossible for an application to be made within three years of a previous application. That would reduce any stress involved; perhaps more important, it would allow the business involved to plan ahead with at least some certainty for that three-year period.
It is particularly important to protect small family farms—whether owned or tenanted—from repeated applications.
Amendment 108 would also encourage the best possible practice in communities, because it would encourage only the best possible applications to be made.
We have no difficulties with the other amendments in the group, apart from those in the name of Dave Thompson, which simply weaken and dilute key tests that communities will have to pass in order to make an application to buy. I do not favour any dilution of those tests, and we will not support those amendments.