Chamber and committees

That could well be right, but I would want to double check and clarify that before I came back to you, convener. In any case, I ask members not to support Mr Lumsden’s amendments for the reasons that I have set out.

Turning to Ben Macpherson’s comments on compulsory sale orders, I absolutely appreciate the points that he and you, convener, have made in relation to urban land reform more generally. However, the measures in the bill are based largely on the Scottish Land Commission’s recommendations and work, which identified that the most pressing issues at the time were in relation to rural areas. That is why we have introduced those measures. However, as Ben Macpherson has suggested, a range of other work is on-going that I feel could help to address some of those issues, and the bill would not necessarily be the mechanism to do that.

With regard to Mr Macpherson’s amendment 471, he outlined the progress of a similar amendment that was lodged to the Housing (Scotland) Bill, in respect of which the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice announced that the Government would consult on compulsory sale and lease powers before the end of this parliamentary session. I realise that that might now fall within the remit of the new Cabinet Secretary for Housing, but I will be sure to follow up with her on that and ensure that we see progress in that respect.

The amendments that I have lodged in the group mirror those in other sections that we have already largely debated, but I will speak about a few amendments in the group. Amendments 141, 143 and 146 seek to strengthen the definition of a composite holding. Amendments 142, 144 and 148 would resolve cross-referencing errors that were identified in the provisions following their introduction. Amendment 147 is similar to amendments 49 and 127, as debated in groups 3 and 10, and would allow for non-contiguous areas of land to form a holding, provided that they are within 250 metres of each other. I ask the committee to support those amendments.

I hope that we can have further conversations about the amendments that Mark Ruskell has lodged. We have already debated the substance of his amendments in previous groups. The same applies to Tim Eagle’s amendments. Tim Eagle asked for clarification on the issues raised by amendment 426. I appreciate his intentions, but I think that the amendment as drafted would have the opposite effect and would mean that we would never be able to transfer part of a lot. It is important to highlight that element. Tim Eagle suggested that “composite” would apply to other parcels of land across Scotland, which is not the case, because of the measures that we have introduced and how we have defined that in the bill.

We have debated the substance of Ariane Burgess’s and Mercedes Villalba’s amendments, so I do not intend to rehearse those discussions, but I oppose the amendments.

I also ask Michael Matheson not to move his amendments in the group.

Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 429 would run counter to my amendment 147, so I again recommend that it is opposed.

Monica Lennon’s amendment 432 would exempt land that is owned by Scottish ministers from the transfer test provisions. I am interested to hear more about the rationale behind that amendment but, as the largest landholder in Scotland, the public sector has a duty to lead by example. That is why I recommend that the amendment is opposed.

Thank you very much, convener. I will try my best to work through the many issues that we have to cover.

Ultimately—and as you have outlined, convener—all the amendments that have been discussed propose many complex changes that need to be properly considered as well as consulted on. Normally, any changes to devolved taxes that we make are taken forward in tax-specific legislation; a consultation with taxpayers and stakeholders will then take place, in line with the framework that we have established for tax principles and our tax strategy; and, ultimately, the matter would be considered by the Finance and Public Administration Committee in the same way that tax-related measures are usually considered.

Inserting amendments in this way into the bill and potentially agreeing them could lead to unintended consequences if that work has not been undertaken. It is for that reason that, broadly speaking, I do not support these amendments.

I will now touch on some of my key concerns with this particular group. Accepting Rhoda Grant’s amendments, which Mercedes Villalba has spoken to, and which Ross Greer has talked about in relation to land and buildings transaction tax, would not allow for a full assessment of the policy impacts, the external consultation that we would need to undertake or the kind of partnership working with Revenue Scotland that would be essential to ensure effective administration and compliance.

Ross Greer made a general point about lodging the amendments, saying that, sometimes, there can be a frustration that many commitments are made and the work behind the scenes is either not necessarily seen or not seen to be progressing in a way that people would like. However, I would point out that, in respect of some of today’s amendments, a wide-ranging review of LBTT is already under way. The proposals that have been made in relation to that are best considered through that review and in the context of wider changes that might be made to community right to buy as a result of the review that is on-going on that matter. For those reasons, I ask Mercedes Villalba and Ross Greer not to press or move those particular amendments.

As for Ross Greer’s other amendments in the group—amendments 479 and 480—we are, as the member will no doubt be aware, and as I think he has already set out, already committed to exploring whether any shooting estates are in receipt of the small business bonus scheme, as requested, and whether that could be removed without risking a negative impact on small businesses. His amendments would prejudge any of the work happening in that space.

Again, I hark back to my earlier point about unintended consequences, particularly with regard to properties where no shooting takes place and which might therefore be eligible for local empty property relief.

On amendments 450 and 462, the bill already allows for compensation to be provided for loss or expense that is attributable to a decision that land may only be transferred in lots, so I do not think that those two amendments are required.

As Tim Eagle has outlined, his amendments 451, 452 and 456 seek to place obligations on ministers to buy land during and after a review. I agree that measures in the bill must be fair to landowners, but the amendments would leave landowners and ministers in a worse position. Under the bill as drafted, there can be three possible outcomes of a review. We can either keep the original lotting decision; replace it with a new decision, which might change the lots or mean that lotting is no longer required; or ministers could offer to buy the land. Tim Eagle’s amendments would force ministers to buy the land even when removing or amending the lotting decision would allow the land in question to be sold. Even if the landowner or creditor would prefer a new lotting decision—for example, when they had a buyer of another lot with an interest in the unsold lot—the amendments would prevent ministers from taking those landowners’ views into account. Given that, I ask the member not to move his amendments.

I also have some concerns about the changes that are being proposed through amendments 453, 454 and 455, because of the administrative complexity and delay that they would add. The bill’s approach to the appointment of a valuer is based on current practice that we have set out for the community right to buy and it provides a right of appeal against a valuation.

Finally, on amendment 164, 21 days is the standard period for compensation appeals across a range of legislation. However, I hear Tim Eagle’s concerns and I am more than happy to have a conversation with him to discuss the potential for an alternative amendment to look at a suitable timeframe.

I appreciate the points that have been made. However, the keeper and the accountable officer have to provide the Economy and Fair Work Committee with regular updates on and accounts of the work of Registers of Scotland, including on ScotLIS, which might be a more appropriate route through which progress could be reported. I am therefore unable to support amendment 475.

What amendment 477 is trying to achieve is unclear. My understanding is that the keeper is already obliged to reflect the consideration on the face of the title sheet, whether it is monetary or not. If it was considered necessary to make changes to the Land Register Rules etc (Scotland) Regulations 2014, that could be done through the usual mechanism for amending regulations; we would not necessarily need primary legislation to do so. There has not been wider discussion or consultation with relevant stakeholders on any of the proposed changes. For those reasons I cannot support amendment 477.

I am happy to follow that up with my colleagues and ensure that that happens. Given that the powers in question will be significant, the consultation will help to ensure that any such powers deliver what is needed and that they are appropriate and proportionate. The consultation will also be vital in building safeguards into the system, such as an appeals process and rights to compensation, both of which are not included in amendment 471.

Compulsory purchase powers can already be used to acquire land and property in a wide range of circumstances, including by bringing vacant and derelict land back into use for housing. Notwithstanding that, we are implementing a comprehensive programme of work to reform and modernise Scotland’s compulsory purchase system with a view to making it simpler, more streamlined and, ultimately, fairer. A substantial consultation on the changes that we propose to introduce through that work is proposed for the coming months, and I am happy to keep members updated on that.

Yes, that is right.

Taking all that into account, I ask Ben Macpherson not to move his amendments today.

Overall, I support the outcome that Ariane Burgess is trying to achieve through amendment 469, which Mark Ruskell spoke to. Ultimately, this is about increasing the provision of homes of the right type. However, I do not believe that amendment 469 is the most effective way of doing that. If we want to bring stakeholders together, we do not need primary legislation. Ariane Burgess has proposed something that we have already committed to through the rural and islands housing action plan, in which we set out our work with local authorities and other stakeholders.

Local authorities, national parks and the Scottish Government already have duties to support the provision of housing, and the establishment in legislation of a new forum probably has more potential to confuse than to strengthen the focus on addressing housing issues. There is no requirement for legislation in that regard. I am not able to support the amendment because the purpose and operation of the forum, how it would be resourced and the powers that it would have remain unclear.

I am still not sure what is behind amendments 473 and 505, in the name of Monica Lennon, but I have a number of concerns with those amendments. Amendment 473 seeks to establish a new register for various types of common land. The creation of new registers is a long, complex and expensive process, and it is likely that very few examples are left of the common land types that are listed in the amendment. The amendment would also require local authorities to seize land that is identified as common land. That has the potential to cause unintended consequences and would have a significant impact on the property rights of the current owners and rights holders. More broadly, this area was not raised during the stage 1 consideration of the bill or in the stage 1 report, and more detailed consideration and engagement with stakeholders, including local authorities, would be needed as part of any discussion.

With regard to amendment 474, the Division of Commonties Act 1695 allows an area of commonty to be divided between the owners in two circumstances: first, where holding that land as a commonty no longer suits the parties; and, secondly, to allow enclosure and cultivation of the land. We do not think that there is merit in removing that right from the owners of the commonties, which are not common land in the sense that that term is usually understood. We do not expect there to be many commonties left in Scotland, although there are some. Any decision to repeal that provision would need to be given appropriate consideration. Again, that has not been consulted on or more widely considered during the development of the bill. For those reasons, I ask the committee not to support amendment 474.

I believe that Roseanna Cunningham, who was the cabinet secretary, wrote to the Scottish Law Commission at that time, but I would have to follow that up to find out where that work ended up, because I do not have that information to hand at the moment.

I will address that as I continue with my comments. Ultimately, it comes down to my initial point that it is a voluntary choice by the landowner to sell their land. I appreciate your point, but it comes down to what we have to consider as part of a lotting decision anyway and to the guidance and the consultation that we will have to produce under Michael Matheson’s amendments. However, I hope that, as I continue, I will address your question.

Under the bill as drafted, we will be able to take account of those factors, where appropriate, as part of considering community sustainability in relation to a lotting decision, but that does not change the fact that the decision to sell is for the landowner or the fact that decisions on the employment of individuals are for subsequent landowners, too. It is ultimately those decisions, and not any requirement to sell land in lots, that would directly impact on current employees. I do not believe that such decisions are for the Scottish ministers. It would not be right for ministers to set out guidance or take liability as Douglas Lumsden proposes, and that is why I recommend that the committee opposes his amendments in the group.

I turn to Rhoda Grant’s amendments, which Mercedes Villalba spoke to. I absolutely agree with Rhoda Grant about the many benefits that crofting communities bring, but I am concerned that her amendments could give rise to significant interference in the use of land and in property rights that would go beyond the evidence base for the bill. It would not be proportionate to require a new owner to apply for land to be constituted as crofts.

I understand the aim of amendment 363, but it would require ministers to have regard to information on boundaries that is not available on any register, so it would not be practical. However, I am happy to engage and have further conversations with Mercedes Villalba or Rhoda Grant to see whether there is an alternative way to emphasise that ministers will consider impacts on crofters and common grazings when we make lotting decisions.

In relation to amendment 361, I suggest that further detail of the kind that is proposed is better considered as part of guidance. Again, I am happy to discuss that with Rhoda Grant. That is why I recommend that the committee opposes her amendments in the group.

I turn to Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 435. It was never the intention that a request to ministers to stop a lotting decision would count as taking action with a view to transferring land under pre-notification. There are also issues with the drafting of the amendment that mean that it would not have the effect that I believe that Rachael Hamilton is trying to achieve. If Douglas Lumsden is happy not to move the amendment today, I will be happy to have a further conversation with Rachael Hamilton to better understand the concerns and see whether there is merit in looking at an alternative ahead of stage 3.