Hansard

When an application is made under part 5, ministers are required to invite the owner or the tenant to give them information about certain matters. Amendment 54 requires ministers to invite the owner of the land or the tenant to provide them with information about the likely impact on their interests of the proposals in the application. That includes information about the impact of the application on the current use of the land, the tenant’s interests or any intended use. Amendment 54 works in tandem with amendment 60, which would require ministers to take account of any such information provided by the landowner or tenant in considering whether the transfer of land or the tenant’s interest was in the public interest. I appreciate the concerns behind amendment 87, but I have some difficulties with it. In some circumstances, it could create a significant restriction to the right to buy that I do not consider to be appropriate. Any application to buy land under part 5, including an application to buy agricultural land, could be consented to by ministers only if all the sustainable development conditions were met and the procedural requirements were complied with. That means that the transfer of land would have to satisfy the sustainable development conditions, including that the transfer was in the public interest, that the transfer of land would likely result in significant benefit to the community, that it was the only practicable way of achieving significant benefit for the community and that not granting the transfer would likely result in significant harm to the community. Those are strong tests. It is legitimate that agricultural land should not be excluded from a part 5 application when a transfer is needed to prevent significant harm to the community, to provide significant benefits when there are no practical alternatives and it is in the public interest. There may also be circumstances in which, for example, buying a small piece of agricultural land could result in significant benefits to the community but have limited impact on the landowner. Therefore, the test allows for all relevant factors to be considered. Amendment 60 requires that, in considering whether the transfer of land or assignment of a tenant’s interest is in the public interest, ministers must take into account any information that is provided by landowners or tenants on how a part 5 application would affect their interests. It also requires that when they consider whether the transfer of land or assignment of a tenant’s interest is in the public interest, Scottish ministers must consider the likely effect on land use in Scotland of granting or not granting consent to the transfer. Amendment 60 therefore addresses concerns about agricultural land that were raised by some of our stakeholders, and it confirms the Scottish Government’s commitment to a flourishing and vibrant tenanted sector. Given those reassurances and the points that I have made about not unduly restricting the community’s right to buy for sustainable development, I ask Mr Russell to withdraw his amendment. I am happy to go on the record as saying that we will always take account of the effect on agriculture of any community buyout in considering a part 5 application, where relevant. I appreciate the good intentions behind amendment 88 although, with due respect, I am unable to support it. Ministers cannot consent to an application under part 5 unless they are satisfied that the transfer of land or assignment of the tenant’s interest would be in the public interest. I am happy to go on the record as saying that that will involve consideration of the impact of the transfer or assignment on the landowner or tenant. To make that clear in the bill, amendment 60 requires that, in considering whether the transfer of land or assignment of the tenant’s interest is in the public interest, ministers must take into account any information that is provided by landowners or tenants on how a part 5 application would affect those interests. It also means that, when they are considering whether the transfer of land, or the assignment of the tenant’s interest is in the public interest, Scottish ministers will be obliged to consider the likely effect of granting or not granting consent to the transfer of land or the tenant’s interest on land use in Scotland. It is useful to remember that the Scottish ministers could not consent to an application under part 5 if to do so would be incompatible with any person’s rights under the European convention on human rights. I have already discussed amendment 60 in relation to amendment 54, Mr Russell’s amendment 87 and Mr Fergusson’s amendment 88. It requires that, in considering whether the transfer of land or assignment of the tenant’s interest is in the public interest, Scottish ministers must take into account any information that is provided by landowners or tenants on how a part 5 application would affect their interests. As I said, amendment 60 also required that, when they are considering whether that transfer of land or assignment of a tenant’s interests is in the public interest, ministers must consider the likely effect on land use in Scotland of granting or not granting consent to the transfer. Amendment 54 addresses concerns that some stakeholders and committee members raised about agricultural land. I reiterate that it confirms Scottish ministers’ commitment to a flourishing and vibrant tenanting sector. I move amendment 54.