Meeting of the Parliament 16 March 2016
Amendment 7 seeks to avoid unintended consequences in public or community purchases of land. I hope that I will not want to press the amendment to a vote, as I am seeking assurances and reassurance from ministers that there will be sufficient protection in the bill to ensure that unintended consequences cannot happen.
This crucial issue was first raised with me by a group of farmers in my very first meeting in my constituency on the bill, in Kilmartin glen. They pointed out that they thought that it was distinctly possible under the bill that a community could seek to purchase one part—even a small part—of a farm or agricultural holding because it had some objection to the way that it was managed or to the choices that the person who worked it made. For example, some people object to oilseed rape growing next to their house. In those circumstances, the community might say that it will purchase the field and ensure that that never happens again. However, that field might be a vital part of an economic unit and without it the economic unit might not be viable. Therefore, there needs to be a reassurance such things cannot happen.
At stage 2, I moved a similar amendment, which was perhaps not as well crafted but which also sought that reassurance. I hope that amendment 7 improves on it. The ministers gave that reassurance, but I am now looking to be straight about the matter.
I draw attention to the fact that Paul Wheelhouse has not been through the detailed process. I am very sorry that the Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform, who has done an absolutely wonderful job on the bill, is not here—that is a great pity. However, I hope that Mr Wheelhouse will be able to give me a reassurance in concrete terms—maybe that is not the best phrase—so that those who are in such a position will know what the situation is.
Repetitive applications are another issue that I moved an amendment about at stage 2, and I know that Alex Fergusson will address it in speaking to one of his amendments. No council can call for a school closure twice in a five-year period, and there was an argument that maybe the same should apply to community purchases. However, I am persuaded that that would not be sensible. Although the school closure process is not simple, it is fairly clear in statutory terms, and the process of purchasing land is not nearly as clear or, frankly, as simple. It is not uncommon for communities to find themselves having to withdraw an initial application in order to come back with a second application that has more detail or which relates to a slightly different parcel of ground. If there was a bar so that there could be no second approach in three or five years, that would unfairly disadvantage those who were in that position. I understand that ministers have the power, and will continue to have the power, to ensure that there are no vexatious applications. The amendment’s purpose was to prevent vexatious applications.
We are beginning to get into great detail on land purchase and agricultural tenure. Those are complicated matters, but the simple thing that should guide us is the principle of fairness. There should be fairness in the process. In the part of the process in question, that fairness is about ensuring that those who have viable agricultural units are not unfairly disadvantaged by the bill, and I hope that the minister will be able to give the reassurance that I seek.
I move amendment 7.