Hansard

Most people would agree that section 48 is at the heart of the part of the bill that we are considering. I will address my amendments and the minister’s comments together. The key issue that the bill presents is how we enable and assist—indeed, empower—communities to take possession of land for their use. That is not a judgment on other landlords; it is about treating land as an asset and a resource, the possession and use of which can enrich, enable and empower communities. If we make the process difficult in any way, we run the risk of not achieving the bill’s central objectives. We know from the experience of the operation of land reform legislation in Scotland that, despite the strong good intentions that lay behind it and the Parliament’s strong support, there have been difficulties for communities in taking possession of land. The process is an incremental one that involves finding out what works and ensuring that that is in legislation so that it may work well. My problem with leaving the bill as it stands is that the terms “abandoned” and “neglected” as they are presented are in many people’s view—not simply mine—not sufficient to achieve the bill’s objectives. The minister argued cogently that there are difficulties in the wording of amendment 34 and that the phrase “in ... need of sustainable development” is too vague. I think that she said that a better and stronger definition is needed. The minister also said that terms should not be subjective. However, I believe that the term “neglected” as presented in the bill is subjective. It is perfectly possible to look at a piece of land in many different ways. For example, someone might say that a piece of land has been subject to benign neglect. Landowners who do not wish the bill to operate—there are some—will undoubtedly use the law to say that land that appears to be abandoned or neglected is not abandoned or neglected. As the committee heard in evidence, they will also use the legal definitions of abandoned and neglected as a barrier to allowing land to be bought. The minister referred to a third leg. There needs to be something in addition that buttresses the terms “abandoned” and “neglected” in a way that fulfils the bill’s intention. My view, which I know is the view of others, is that the term “sustainable development” is clear and has been used before in legal proceedings—for example, it was used in the Pairc judgment. We should insist that the term becomes more common in legal usage. If we add the phrase “in ... need of sustainable development”, when we judge whether a piece of land is abandoned or neglected, we will be able to see much more clearly what a community might be entitled to do. However, if there is a difficulty with the term “sustainable development”, we need to find another term that will allow proposed new part 3A of the 2003 act to operate effectively. As I understand it, the Government has moved from its position at the start of the process to the position that the minister articulated, which is that the Government wishes to work with the committee to address the issue that we all raised in the stage 1 report of needing to find the third leg—the other term that will allow us to move forward. If the minister confirms in summing up that that is the case and that the Government fully accepts that a third leg is required and will work with the committee, I will be willing, with some reluctance, not to move amendments 34 to 37 at this stage. As a new member of the committee and as a recently returned back bencher, I am mindful that it gets harder to amend bills the longer the process continues and that, when we get to stage 3, it becomes considerably harder. We are proceeding very much on trust, but I very much trust the minister to do what she says. Sarah Boyack will speak to her amendments, but there was a proposal to remove the terms “abandoned” and “neglected” entirely from the bill. I can understand that but, the more I look at the bill, the more I think that that would create additional confusion, because we would be using the terms in one part of Scotland and not in another part, which would create problems for communities. Provided that I am assured that the Government absolutely accepts that the terms are not yet fully and properly expressed and that, after consultation with the committee, there will be a stage 3 amendment to strengthen the bill and allow communities to use the bill with the third leg in place, I will be prepared not to move my amendments. I say that reluctantly, because my objectives and those of the committee are exactly the same as the Government’s—we want to do everything possible to empower communities, but the provisions that we are discussing do not yet achieve that.