Hansard

I look forward to hearing the minister’s wind-up speech. I agree with Mike Russell that this debate is key to the whole bill. I will speak about amendment 89, which is minor, before moving on to amendment 54 and making general comments. The regulations that follow on from the bill will be crucial. The debates that we have had throughout the process have been about what is in the bill and the regulations that will follow from that. The combination of those will be the test of whether the bill makes it possible for communities to exercise the rights that the Government intends for them. Part of the issue is the commitment to ensuring that people are properly consulted, which is an easy thing to agree about, but a commitment must also be made on timescales. Proposed new section 97C(2) of the 2003 act requires ministers to make regulations setting out the factors that they must have regard to in deciding whether land is, in their opinion, eligible under part 3. Amendment 89, along with consequential amendment 97, would require ministers to consult on the regulations within a year of the bill receiving royal assent. I have suggested a timescale because we need to get on with the bill. Once we have passed the detail in the bill, it is important that the next stage is followed through swiftly because, until that happens, communities will feel unsure and there will be uncertainty. Today’s debate about eligible land is a key aspect of our consideration of the bill. The debates that will follow about how the eligibility of land will be judged, and the minister setting out at more length how she sees that happening in practice, will be crucial. For example, we are only now seeing the public duty from the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 coming into effect. The commitment that I am looking for is not just from the minister but from the whole Government system. Having been a minister, I echo Mike Russell’s point that being a minister is about getting everybody and all the resources aligned, which is why I am asking for a commitment not just from the minister but from the whole system. Amendment 54 is about the exemption of certain types of Crown land. New section 97C(3) of the 2003 act makes provision for land that is exempted from part 3A, and amendment 54 would remove paragraph (e), which exempts “land which is owned or occupied by the Crown by virtue of its having vested as bona vacantia in the Crown, or its having fallen to the Crown as ultimus haeres”. I have listened to the minister and I will probably want to go away and read the Official Report. It was not clear why some categories of Crown land are exempted in proposed new part 3A of the 2003 act when other Crown land is included by virtue of section 100(2) of that act and there is not a similar exemption from the definition of eligible crofting land in part 3. I have listened to what the minister said and I want to think about her reflection on why the exemption is at all necessary; she gave reasons, but I want to think about them further. I have some comments on amendments 34 and 35, which Mike Russell lodged. I have problems with the bill referring only to “wholly ... abandoned or neglected” land. I have problems with what is meant according to the dictionary definition. The last time she came to speak to us, the minister said that she is using the normal understanding of the words and that we should look them up in a dictionary. I have concerns about the situation in urban and rural settings. The Government’s intentions that led to the bill might be frustrated by the interpretation of neglected and abandoned land if that is not properly defined. I have concerns about how the minister suggested that it would be defined. 10:30 The 2003 act was all about furthering sustainable development; the bill is about removing barriers to sustainable development. The policy memorandum to the bill is absolutely clear that “The Scottish Government considers that there is a general public interest in removing barriers to sustainable development of land by enabling community bodies to purchase neglected and abandoned land.” I agree with that ambition, but we have to make that a real outcome of the bill. That is why it is important to include the term “sustainable development”. It is a legally defined and accepted term, as Mike Russell said. It appears in environment legislation and planning legislation and it is internationally accepted. Including that is important because the land does not need to be neglected or abandoned. The idea of benign neglect is interesting. The issue is all about perception. It is questionable, for example, whether the Eigg buyout would have met the requirements in the bill. I also have in mind the Calton test from Glasgow. I visited the east end of Glasgow, where there is land that has been lying for years with no proposals to do anything with it, which causes blight to the community. For how long does land have to be in a neglected or abandoned state before it counts under the minister’s definition in the bill? In an urban context, we can take for example a piece of land for which a planning proposal—which might be completely against the local plan policy—is made regularly but has no chance of success. Would that land be accepted as being neglected or abandoned, given that, even though the owner has some ambition for it, there is no prospect of that being given planning permission? The point extends to buildings. There is the Odeon test from the Edinburgh south side, where that building has been vacant for a decade. The owners have ambitions for the site, but there is no prospect of their being given planning permission. As the bill stands, it is not clear to me how communities will be able to exercise the right to buy. It is good to have the minister’s commitment, which I very much welcome, that she is prepared to look at the issue further. Everybody round the table agrees with the objectives in the policy memorandum; the issue is about making sure that they are delivered. The minister referred to the ECHR requirements. It is really important that this is tested properly. The test that she mentioned was that the legislation is clear and is not arbitrary—it is about foreseeability and predictability. If we look at planning legislation or the secondary legislation on antisocial behaviour that we have passed, we can see that legislation means that landowners do not have unlimited or unrestricted rights to enjoy their property—their right to enjoy their property is already limited by legislation. This needs to be pinned down and teased out. I am very supportive of the commitment that the minister has given to look at this further. The challenge is that, once we have got through stage 2, the clock really starts ticking. The opportunity that we will have to debate the subject over the next two or three weeks or over the recess is important. I ask the minister to say how she will take matters forward. She has given a good commitment. We all agree that this is the key issue in the bill. It is about not just environmental sustainability but the social and economic impacts of neglected and abandoned land. We are frustrated that the terms as they appear in the bill will take us back rather than move us forward, in both urban and rural contexts. I have spoken at more length than I normally would, convener, but this is such an important issue for the bill that I was keen to state our position and draw out how the minister will deliver her good commitment to making sure that we can make this the bill that we all want it to be during a difficult stage that is usually just a rush towards stage 3, because that would help us all.