Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Committee

Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee 11 March 2015

11 Mar 2015 · S4 · Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee

Item of business

Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Boyack, Sarah Lab Lothian Watch on SPTV

I welcome amendments 73, 74 and 75 because they will help to remove hurdles to community purchase. In some circumstances, it can be a huge challenge to identify the detail of sewers and pipes—that is a level of detail that is not required in relation to pursuing the option of community ownership. If I understood correctly, the minister now accepts Dave Thompson’s amendment 45. Amendment 45 proposes a more proportionate test of ownership, rather than requiring bodies to prove 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”. Amendment 45 is an improvement to the bill and I welcome the minister’s acceptance of it. I am disappointed that the minister does not feel able to support amendment 90, which seeks to ensure that where a community group has exercised all reasonable diligence in seeking to identify the owner, that is sufficient. The new section 97H of the 2003 act sets out that “Ministers must not consent to an application” for a part 3 community right to buy, unless they are satisfied about the matters that are listed in the section. Paragraph (d) provides that ministers must refuse consent unless they are satisfied “that the owner of the land is accurately identified in the application”. Community Land Scotland raised concerns that that sets a high bar for part 3 community bodies to meet, given the often complex process of determining ownership. Amendment 90 would give the minister flexibility to consent to an application where the community body has exercised all reasonable diligence in seeking to identify the landowner, but has not been able to do so. What if there is a complex trail of ownership and, ultimately, the land is owned overseas and the community body cannot track that? There is a similar provision in section 73(5)(b) of the 2003 act, in relation to applications by crofting community bodies for consent to buy croft land. That section requires the inclusion of information regarding all “rights and interests in the subjects of the application ... known to the applicant body or the existence of which it is, on reasonably diligent inquiry, capable of ascertaining”. I want to tease out from the minister whether she objects to the principle or the detail of my amendment. I could understand it if the land in question was regarded as bona vacantia; in that respect, I go back to my earlier amendment 54, which I did not move. However, the real question is how much time and resource communities are expected to put into tracking down owners. There is a lack of clarity, and my amendment seeks to ensure that a community will not be frustrated in bringing forward its proposals merely because the ownership of the land is hidden or the trail of ownership is too complex for it to understand. We are not talking about bona vacantia; the land in question is owned, but a community is unable to track down the owner. That frustrates the bill’s ambition for communities to be able to exercise their right to buy in line with the bill’s aims. I am keen for the Government to give amendment 90 proper consideration, because I think that there is a real reason why it should be accepted.

Search Hansard contributions

Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee 11 March 2015

In the same item of business