Chamber and committees

I think that I will move it.

I am grateful to members and the cabinet secretary for their contributions. It has been quite a considered discussion. It was good to hear your reflections as well, convener.

On Michael Matheson’s question about the role of Crown Estate Scotland, I recognise that it currently manages property rights and interests. There is no reason why that could not continue with regard to my amendments, although there would have to be some amendment to the duties under the 2019 act.

These issues are not new; they have been hanging around since the beginning of devolution. The former Scottish Labour-Lib Dem Executive asked the Scottish Law Commission to consider the law of the foreshore and seabed back in 1999. The commission reported in 2003 but, 22 years down the line, nothing has been done on that.

I hope that that is helpful in outlining what I think the on-going role of Crown Estate Scotland would be in relation to the amendments.

This is a welcome opportunity to talk about the role of our planning authorities and the need to have more planners. I am not currently a member of the Royal Town Planning Institute, so that is not in my entry in the register of members’ interests, but that was my background before coming into the Parliament. It is worrying that there is a real shortage of planners. We need to get more people in, not just for our planning authorities but for other important organisations, including in the private sector. I am pleased that the Scottish Government is working with partners to begin to widen access to the planning profession. I will never miss the opportunity to agree with colleagues that we need to champion planners and get more of them.

The Government often asks local authorities to take on more responsibilities. Where that is right and proper, we should not make the underresourcing of our public services an excuse not to do things. If we need to talk about how we invest in public services, that is what we should do.

Good points were made by Michael Matheson about spatial planning.

I am not really qualified to contradict the cabinet secretary when she advises the committee that I am encroaching into reserved matters.

Having listened to what members have said, therefore, I will seek to withdraw amendment 515 and I will not move amendment 516. Nonetheless, there could be some further discussion to be had, and I hope that the Government appreciates the intent behind the amendments. It should recognise that many people in Scotland feel that there is unfinished business with regard to the ambitions of the Scottish Executive in 1999 and the questions that were posed at that time. Those questions have still to be answered, and if that is not to happen in this bill, when will it happen?

Amendment 515, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 516 not moved.

Section 7—Duty to publish model lease

Then no, I will not move it.

I have had the numbering clarified. I am sorry—there is a lot of paperwork here.

Yes—thank you, convener.

Amendment 514 not moved.

Apologies—my papers are out of order. Can I have a second to double-check which way I will go?

Thank you, convener—I have the right paperwork in front of me now. It has been a long day. I will speak to amendments 515 and 516 on Crown rights to the foreshore and the seabed.

The devolution of the management of the Crown estate was an important and overdue reform, but that journey is not complete. Back in 2000, the Parliament abolished the Crown’s role as paramount superior, as part of the abolition of the feudal system. It is within devolved competence to legislate on the Crown’s property rights and interests, as is set out in paragraph 3 of schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998.

Amendments 515 and 516 seek to complete the modernisation of Scotland’s land law by abolishing the remaining archaic role of the Crown in Scotland’s land tenure system by transferring ownership of the Crown foreshore to local authorities and that of the seabed to Scottish ministers. That would enable those important assets to be managed as assets of democratically accountable organisations rather than of the Crown, which, at the accession of every new monarch, is entitled to reclaim control of them.

Of Scotland’s 375 harbours and ports, 241 are owned and managed by local authorities, 24 are owned and managed by other public authorities and 33 are trust ports. They all operate under a statutory framework that is intended to secure the public interest, and they are critical to Scotland’s marine economy. It is important that that public interest extends to the foreshore and the seabed around those harbours and ports.

Amendments 515 and 516 would also prevent any future re-reservation of the management of the Crown estate, because it would cease to exist. The amendments that I have lodged might sound familiar—they were first proposed by Andy Wightman MSP during the passage of the Scottish Crown Estate Bill but were ruled out of scope because that bill dealt with the management rather than the ownership of Crown property. No such inhibition applies to the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, which concerns the ownership and management of all land in Scotland.

I move amendment 515.

Amendment 514 is the only amendment in my name in this group. Common good is the oldest form of community ownership in Scotland, dating back to the 13th century. It is an important part of the heritage of many communities, and those places should have the opportunity to take back ownership and control of such assets should they wish to do so.

With the abolition of town councils 50 years ago, in May 1975, 194 of Scotland’s burghs lost ownership and control of land and other assets that they had held for centuries, in many cases. Through two reorganisations of local government, the administration of those assets has been somewhat chaotic and has lacked direct accountability to the communities concerned.

There are 25 burghs in Fife, for example—and I hope that Mark Ruskell will not contradict me on that. They are 25 distinct communities, from St Andrews to Dunfermline, and all their common good is owned and governed by the local authority, Fife Council. If we believe in community empowerment, community ownership and community wealth building, those highly significant and historic assets should be owned by the communities to whom they belong.

Amendment 514 ensures that there will be a legal framework to enable that to happen, should communities wish. The amendment suggests that that can be done by way of an amendment to the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003, but I am open to hearing about other ways of achieving the same goal. The amendment also refers to the right to buy common good assets. I want to make it clear that those assets already belong to the communities, and they should not have to pay money for them. I would expect transfer of ownership to be at a nominal cost. The phrase “to buy” is better read as meaning “to transfer ownership”.

I am sorry for interrupting you, cabinet secretary. You have made some fair points in relation to amendment 473. However, I have just realised that I did not speak to amendment 474, perhaps in the interest of time.

The issue was raised at stage 2 of the previous Land Reform (Scotland) Bill and there was some back and forth at that time. There has been a question mark over what exactly was agreed and what the Scottish Law Commission would or would not do in that regard, and there is an appetite to tidy up what looks like quite archaic legislation. I appreciate that this may not be the right time to do that, but does the Government have a view on when might be the right time to give that issue some attention?

I will limit my remarks to amendment 503, but, like Mark Ruskell, I am interested to hear what the cabinet secretary has to say and to see whether we can work to get the best out of this group of amendments, perhaps for stage 3.

I will not read out all the things that are listed in the amendment, but it is quite clear that it is about better reporting on land management and ownership. It is about having a report that gives more detail about the extent of privately owned and publicly owned land, and about the concentration of privately owned land.

I will explain a little bit of the rationale behind my amendment. First, it is about providing better statistics on the use of the existing right to buy and the amended late application procedures in the bill. Secondly, it is about requiring the collation and publication of reliable statistics on the pattern of land ownership in Scotland.

I think that it is fair to say that a feeling has been expressed in the committee and by other members that we would have benefited from having better information on the effectiveness of the existing community right to buy, which would have helped with the scrutiny of the likely impacts of the measures in part 1 of the bill. We would also have benefited from a deeper analysis of the pattern of land ownership and how it is changing and has changed over the years in order to have a better assessment of the likely impact of measures in the bill.

Meaningful debate on and scrutiny of land ownership in Scotland will be constrained if we do not have robust official statistics. I have set out in amendment 503 how things could be improved in that regard, and I am open to hearing what the cabinet secretary has to say about that.