Hansard

The mapping requirements that are proposed in part 3A are similar to the mapping requirements in part 3 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 on the crofting community right to buy. I propose the group of amendments to replace the proposed mapping requirements in part 3A, taking account of stakeholder feedback in relation to the mapping requirements in part 3 of the 2003 act, and to incorporate the proposed amendments in part 3A of the 2003 act. Currently, the application form that ministers must prescribe requires the community body to identify all rights and interests in the subjects of the application. Those rights and interests are “sewers, pipes, lines, watercourses or other conduits and fences, dykes, ditches or other boundaries in or on the land ... known to the applicant body or the existence of which it is, on reasonably diligent inquiry, capable of ascertaining”. Those requirements are widely recognised as likely to be particularly onerous and complex for a community body. We propose the amendments because we recognise that the current mapping requirements are particularly complex. Ministers will still set out the required information for the application in regulations, but there will no longer be a requirement to include those interests that I mentioned as being considered particularly difficult to identify. The purpose of amendment 73 is to clarify that the part 3A community body is required to include in the application all rights and interests known to the part 3A community body. Amendment 74 removes the provision requiring a part 3A community body to specify “all sewers, pipes, lines, watercourses etc.” and simplifies the mapping requirements to a more reasonable level, in the same way as it does for part 3. 11:00 Amendment 75 removes another particularly onerous provision, which requires a part 3A community body to detail how its “proposed use, development and management of the land” would affect any of the sewers, pipes, lines, watercourses, fences, boundaries and so on. Section 97H sets out the matters about which ministers have to be satisfied before they can grant consent to an application. Section 97H(c) provides that, in order to approve an application, ministers must be satisfied that, if the owner of the land were to remain as its owner, that ownership would be inconsistent with “furthering the achievement of sustainable development in relation to the land”. The purpose of amendment 45 is to introduce a different standard of test of which ministers must be satisfied in order to approve the application. The test that is proposed in the amendment is that ministers must refuse consent unless they are satisfied that it is unlikely that the owner’s continuing ownership would further the achievement of sustainable development in relation to the land. Section 97G(6) states that the part 3A community body must demonstrate in its application that its proposals are “compatible with furthering the achievement of sustainable development”. When considering section 97H(c), ministers must satisfy themselves that, if the land were to remain with its current owner, “that ownership would be inconsistent with furthering the achievement of sustainable development in relation to the land”. That is not something that the part 3A community body is required to demonstrate. Ministers will come to a decision based on all the facts and circumstances. Of course, the part 3A community body has the option to demonstrate in its application that it is in the public interest for the application to be approved because the current ownership would not be consistent with the sustainable development of the land, but that is not a requirement. Equally, it would be open to the landowner to make representations to the effect that their continued ownership would be consistent with the sustainable development of the land. In essence, the purpose of section 97H(c) is to ensure that the application is not approved in cases where the current owner has demonstrated that his continued ownership of the land would further the achievement of sustainable development of the land, because if that is the case, the policy objectives of the bill will already have been met. Amendment 45 seeks to achieve a similar goal. Having listened very carefully to the view of the committee, I am very happy to support the amendment. In deciding whether to consent to the exercise of the right to buy, ministers will have to act reasonably and that will include taking account of all relevant information, including any plans that the landowner has for the land. The change that is made by amendment 45 will not affect that. The community body is required to accurately identify the current owner of the land in a part 3A application in order for the application to be valid. If the application does not accurately identify the owner, ministers are bound to reject it. Amendment 90 proposes the removal of the requirement for the community body to accurately identify the current owner. The community body would instead be required to have exercised all reasonable diligence in seeking to identify the owner, although the community body is not able to provide an accurate identification of the landowner in the application. The effect of amendment 90, in circumstances where a part 3A application had been approved without an owner being identified, would be to require title to land to be transferred to a community body even though the current landowner is unknown. First, that amendment could deny landowners the opportunity to comment on the application to buy their land and thus make it difficult for ministers to come to a fair decision about the application. Further, in circumstances where a community body has tried and failed to identify the owner, the community body has the option of contacting the Queen’s and Lord Treasurer’s Remembrancer to see whether the land has been deemed bona vacantia. If so, the body could take steps to acquire the land when the land is disposed of by the QLTR. For those reasons, I ask Sarah Boyack not to move amendment 90. One of the current criteria for approval of an application under part 3A is that the application accurately identifies creditors in a standard security over the land that is the subject of the application. Amendment 76 seeks to restrict that so that only creditors in a standard security with a right to sell the land must be identified, and not all creditors in a standard security. Amendment 76 seeks to make the application process less onerous on the community body, whilst ensuring that the appropriate creditors are identified. If the amendment is approved, there will be no requirement for the community body to identify a creditor in a standard security who does not have a right to sell the land that is the subject of the application. I move amendment 73.