Hansard

I welcome the intention behind Mike Russell’s and Sarah Boyack’s amendments, which seek to ensure that the guidance that is to be developed under part 4 is as effective as it can be in promoting engagement between landowners and their tenants and communities on land-related decisions. I absolutely agree with that. Part 4 is aimed fundamentally at improving collaboration and engagement between landowners and communities, and it stresses that there are responsibilities on both sides. Communities need to be clear about their needs and landowners need to take those needs into account in their decision making. The committee’s stage 1 report indicated that there is strong support for that in principle and—as I confirmed when I gave evidence to the committee and spoke in Parliament at stage 1—my intention is to develop the guidance that is provided for in part 4 through consultation and in partnership with all parties that have interests. By bringing everyone together to develop the guidance, we will not only ensure that the guidance is as effective as it can be, but will begin to build the relationships and understandings between parties that will be necessary for the guidance to have the desired impact. It is important that that co-productive process is not pre-empted by the Government or Parliament. How best to develop and review the guidance and monitor its effectiveness, thereby ensuring that the guidance is considered and followed, will be discussed and decided in developing the guidance. I reassure Sarah Boyack that part of developing the guidance will be consideration of what support both communities and landowners require to access the guidance effectively. I appreciate that Sarah Boyack’s amendment seeks to provide reassurance that progress against the guidance will be monitored and assessed and that Parliament will be provided with an opportunity to assess that progress. Although I currently consider three years to be too short a timeframe to allow real progress to be made and reviewed, and although I consider that there is a greater need for flexibility than is currently provided for in amendment 14, I would be content to accept amendment 14 in principle pending a further discussion about an appropriate timescale for the review, which would be confirmed at stage 3. On Michael Russell’s amendments 82 and 98, I stress again that how best to review and monitor the effectiveness of the guidance and to ensure that it is considered and followed will be discussed and decided as part of developing the guidance. With part 5 applications, I appreciate the desire for greater clarification on potential options, should the guidance not be followed. As we state clearly in the policy memorandum, and as Mr Russell mentioned, ministers could consider a lack of consideration of part 4 guidance and a lack of engagement as part of the evidence in assessing a part 5 right-to-buy application. That may provide evidence of why the transfer of land to the community body or nominated third party is the only way of achieving a desired benefit to the community. However, I stress that, depending on the final content of the guidance and the circumstances of each case, whether the guidance has been considered and followed may or may not be a relevant consideration in determining whether the conditions for consenting to a part 5 application have been met. I would welcome the opportunity to work with Michael Russell on a stage 3 amendment that would make it clearer in the bill that failure to consider or follow the guidance can be a relevant consideration in a part 5 application. The most appropriate way to do that would be through an amendment to part 5 rather than an amendment to part 4. On future grants and awards, the criteria and conditions for awards and grants can take into account only factors that are relevant and proportionate to the grant or contracts. Attempts to make non-compliance with the part 4 guidance a factor in assessing grants and awards can be expected to be at high risk of a legal challenge where the link is not relevant to the purpose of the grant, or does not impact proportionately on the grant. However, in developing the detail of the guidance, we will be able to consider and begin identifying where it is appropriate to add that it is just in relation to future awards and grants that the Scottish ministers control the criteria that relate to engagement and consideration of the guidance. We will also be able to begin working with the public, private and third sectors to encourage similar considerations across all awarded grant providers. It is not necessary to legislate to achieve that. There are a range of tools that we can use to promote better engagement and ensure that there are clear expectations that guidance should be followed. A range of measures will be considered as part of the development of that policy. For example, the Scottish business pledge has been effective in building stakeholder alliance in support of a policy. Businesses are signing up to make a pledge about paying the living wage and about a range of other actions that bring business benefits and inclusive growth. We will consider whether a similar model could be part of the development of the guidance. Obviously, we will monitor the guidance’s implementation against our policy intentions. We will return to the issue if we identify failures in the operation of the guidance, but it is important to ensure that we have all the necessary tools to support and promote consideration of the guidance. I appreciate that colleagues seek some confirmation in the bill that that will happen. To give the committee and Mr Russell reassurance on that, I would be happy to have the opportunity to work further with Mr Russell ahead of stage 3 on a proposal to expand the purpose of the review and the report that is to be produced as a result of Sarah Boyack’s amendment 14 to include an assessment of whether there is a need for further action or tools to ensure that the guidance is considered and followed. If he finds my offer agreeable, I ask him not to move his amendments and to consider the alternatives. I confirm that I would welcome the committee accepting amendment 14 and would welcome Sarah Boyack’s agreement to discuss further with me and the committee whether the bill could be further amended at stage 3 in relation to timescales.