Chamber and committees

No.

He is just checking that we are paying attention.

On that point, convener, my reading of amendment 97 is that it would provide for exactly what you suggest, namely that someone could receive multiple consecutive enforcement notices that imposed a fine if the breach remained unremedied. Therefore, it would be perfectly within reason for those imposing the fine to start at a lower level and then to progress the fine to a higher level on the basis of multiple breaches, through enforcement. I think that amendment 97 makes provision for what you are looking for, but it sets the cap at £40,000.

My amendments in this group relate to my original amendments in group 3, which were to do with community significance. These amendments are consequential to those earlier amendments, so I will not be moving them.

On the figure of £40,000, it is important to reinforce the point that the fine could be up to £40,000, but that it could start off at £50, £500 or £5,000, for example. Are you arguing that the cap should be lowered from £40,000, and, if so, what should the cap be? The figure of £40,000 is not the amount of the fine, but a cap that you cannot go beyond, so there is a range from no fine to a fine of up to £40,000.

The principal purpose behind my amendments 178 and 181 is to help to clarify the way in which the land and communities commissioner will interact with the Scottish Land Commission. The powers that will be provided under this legislation by the new provisions very much rest on the individual who will hold the role as the land and communities commissioner, as opposed to the Scottish Land Commission itself. That will therefore make the process and the role dependent on the expertise, experience and knowledge that the individual commissioner would hold during their term in office.

The Government has sought to shape the role of the commissioner in a similar fashion to the way in which it shaped the tenant farming commissioner. However, a strength with the tenant farming commissioner has been the way in which the role has been driven by the individual postholder rather than the way in which the post has been designed and incorporated into the Scottish Land Commission.

I essentially lodged these amendments as probing amendments, to enable the Scottish Government to clarify how it intends to codify aspects of the process that will be progressed through the role of the land and communities commissioner and how that will be embedded in the Scottish Land Commission.

On amendment 181, I recognise that the regulatory function of the Scottish Land Commission will expand under the bill. There is an opportunity to update some of the issues on which the Scottish Land Commission may work, given its new, broader remit, and to consider how we can help to support it in its policy development work in those areas.

One aspect of amendment 178 is the way in which the Scottish land and communities commissioner would have to consult the Scottish Land Commission prior to issuing guidance. I am keen to understand why the Government does not feel that the new commissioner should have to engage with the commission prior to issuing guidance, given the close nature of the working relationship that they will have with each other. I am keen to hear the Scottish Government’s position on those matters in order to explore the issue further.

I will speak to amendments 150, 151 and 158, which are in my name.

During the committee’s evidence sessions, it was clear that there was a strong desire to see the term “public interest” in the bill, given precedent elsewhere in Scottish legislation. The main purpose of amendments 150, 151 and 158 is to address that point and to make public interest considerations clear and up front. The amendments also make it clear that the Scottish ministers would be able to consider other elements of the public interest when thinking about whether to require lotting to be undertaken.

Amendment 150 seeks to insert a new subsection in proposed new section 67N of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003, to clarify that the powers to require that the land be sold in lots may be used only where the Scottish ministers consider that doing so is in the public interest.

Amendment 151 seeks to amend proposed new section 67N to provide that a lotting decision will not be in the public interest unless the test that is set out in the subsection is met.

Amendment 158 seeks to amend proposed new section 67N to update the cross-reference relating to amendment 150.

Although we never explored that in detail, it will always be the case at stage 2 that amendments will come forward on areas that we have not fully explored—including, for example, electricity infrastructure. [Laughter.] However, that is not to say that such issues should not be explored.

I largely drafted these amendments—I should thank Community Land Scotland for its assistance—to try to explore the issue further and to see whether there is a way in which we can address pressing issues regarding land banking, derelict land and absentee landlords who hold land in urban areas that communities feel is significant and of value and which they would like something to be done about. These amendments are framed in a way that tries to provide some form of structure in that regard, notwithstanding the challenges that there could be in implementing it.

Amendment 11, alongside several other amendments in the group, seeks to explore some of the issues with sites of community significance.

The cabinet secretary will recognise that land reform encompasses the urban and rural context. The bill as drafted does not cover urban Scotland and other settlement types unless they are situated on a large landholding. Consequently, the bill does not provide a mechanism to ensure that the public interest is considered in urban land management and/or urban land sales. I am aware that some 67 per cent of the respondents to the Scottish Government’s consultation were in favour of the inclusion of urban Scotland in the bill’s provisions. Therefore, I am keen to explore with the cabinet secretary how we can try to address some of the issues, particularly the pressing issues in urban and peri-urban areas. At times, they can be blighted by vacant or derelict land, absentee owners, or corporate landowners who use the land as land banks. In drawing this together, I am conscious of some of the potential complexities, which is why the amendments are probing amendments that seek the Government’s view on how it would deal with the issue.

I recognise that there are particular challenges with identifying sites of community significance. My amendments 42, 121 and 139 seek to provide some sort of structure around how sites of community significance could be identified. Given the pressing nature of the issue, and the issues that some of our urban communities face with such sites, I would be keen to hear how the Scottish Government believes that it could be addressed more effectively.

Of course. I will just finish my point.

I would be keen to understand whether there is scope for the bill to include some sort of provision to address the issue.