Hansard

The bill contains some provisions with which I agree and some with which I do not. I welcome the principle of community empowerment, but I am not sure that the bill will truly empower communities in the most appropriate way.

Although there have been areas of broad agreement, I will raise a number of concerns that remain, in the hope that further discussion will help to resolve the issues. It is vital that key terms in the bill be defined properly, which unfortunately does not appear to be the case. In addition, it is a fundamental point that bills must be costed before they are put to Parliament for approval. As yet, that has not happened. I welcome the general provisions regarding allotments, but wish for greater clarity on them as the bill progresses.

Before I elaborate on the aspects of the bill on which some work is needed, I reiterate my agreement with the principle of enabling communities to have a greater say in their areas. However, I am not sure that the bill would empower communities in the most appropriate way.

Furthermore, it is vital that definitions of when a community’s right to buy can be enforced be set out very clearly. An absolute right to buy without strict and obvious conditions would set a very damaging precedent that would be neither fair nor in Scotland’s best interests. My colleague Alex Fergusson will elaborate on those points.

One of the key aspects of the bill that is to be assessed as it passes through the Parliament is the estimate of the costs that will arise as a result of its provisions. In its report, the committee expresses its concern that best estimates of costs arising from all provisions have not been provided, despite the requirements of standing orders, as Mr Rowley said. I feel the need to reiterate those concerns in the strongest terms, because that omission in particular, regarding asset transfer or participation requests, is a serious matter that must be addressed before the bill goes to stage 2.

Members of Parliament should not be expected to debate accurately the merits of the bill without proper costings; we cannot be expected to sign a blank cheque. We may hear the excuse that there are difficulties in quantifying future costs arising from provisions that will depend on the amount of demand, but that is no excuse, since the committee and Parliament expect estimates within ranges. I am sure that many members share my concerns in that regard; I expect that the concerns will be addressed as soon as possible.

I welcome the bill’s aims to make clear provisions regarding allotments. They are valuable to many people and it is important to explore how we can help. Accordingly, I agree with a number of the provisions. However, I would like to raise two particular aspects that I believe should be considered. The first concerns provisions regarding the size of an allotment plot. The committee heard points regarding traditional plot sizes. People were right to highlight the need for plots to be of sufficient size, but it is perhaps unwise to assume that all allotment holders wish to use them for the same reasons and for the same purpose. For example, some people use allotments purely as a hobby, rather than as a means to feed a family.

Furthermore, different areas will have varying local demands and differences regarding available space, as we heard in connection with Fort William. The point that I am trying to underline is that a balance must be struck. Allotment holders deserve a reasonable sized plot, but local authorities need flexibility to adapt to local circumstances and local demand. With that in mind, as we have heard, the Scottish Allotments and Gardens Society suggested that a particular size could be a reference standard that could be halved or quartered, rather than being an obligatory standard. That is worth detailed consideration. However, it remains sensible for local authorities to have the flexibility to offer plot sizes that are most suitable locally.

The second point that I would like to make on allotments is that, in the interests of fairness, no supplier of grown produce should be excluded through legislation from selling the produce locally in markets or shops. It is only fair that new producers are able to establish themselves without undue boundaries, and local consumers should be able to decide for themselves what they want to buy.

Before I conclude my remarks, I would like to return to what I see as being one of the most important points to be made about the bill, which is that it lacks clear and unambiguous definitions in many areas. For example, I welcome the duty that the bill places on local authorities to establish and maintain a register of all property and assets that are held by them for the common good. That duty will, amongst other things, help to increase transparency. However, the definition of “common good” is not set out clearly, which might result in confusion during the bill’s implementation, as well as opportunities for provisions to be either extended or avoided.

I hope that today’s debate shows a degree of agreement around some aspects of the bill, even though pressing concerns remain over many provisions.