Chamber and committees

I appreciate Martin Whitfield’s point. I ask him not to move his amendments, but I hope to work constructively with members ahead of stage 3.

Okay. Thank you.

I will come to that amendment shortly. Obviously, these are areas of policy that I do not lead on in Government. Some of the work on priority intervention that I have just touched on is still in the early stages, and substantial work is already happening on LBTT. I would be happy to get colleagues to set all that out in a letter that specifically establishes the timelines for that work and where things currently sit, if that would be helpful.

As for amendment 479, I am not clear how it interacts with the agricultural exemption from the rating. The way in which it has been put forward risks requiring that crofts be treated differently from the rest of agricultural properties in Scotland, but perhaps Ross Greer can add something to help clarify the point.

I am not able to commit to that at this stage, without having had those further conversations. As has been highlighted in our discussions today, there could be wide-ranging implications. Moreover, I do not lead on this policy area, so I would need to discuss it with my other colleagues, too. I will understand it if you still want to move the amendment, Mr Greer, but I must ask the committee not to support it, as a whole host of other work would need to happen in the background for the issues to be resolved. I do not believe that the bill is the right vehicle for that to happen.

With regard to Ross Greer’s amendment 485, on a carbon emission land tax, we have, as Ross Greer has outlined, committed in our Scottish budget to working with the Scottish Land Commission to consider options for a land tax. In the letter and the update that I have committed to providing to Ross Greer, I am more than happy to provide an update on the work that is already under way specifically in relation to that tax.

Engagement with stakeholders has also been taking place to ensure that we develop the necessary evidence base for understanding any potential impacts. I am concerned that the way in which amendment 485 is set out and what it requires would mean that the Government would have to set out a plan to implement a carbon land tax, regardless of the evidence that we received during our consultation, which would, in turn, undermine its purpose. For that reason, I ask the committee not to support the amendment.

Thank you, convener. My colleague Gillian Martin has recently met community energy stakeholders in relation to proposals to use public land for community energy projects. Either I or my colleagues would be happy to speak to Ariane Burgess on the matter, too.

Notwithstanding the concerns that the convener has outlined, there are a few practical difficulties with amendment 467 as it stands. For example, the proposed changes to the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015 appear to apply to all land and buildings owned by all public authorities, irrespective of the nature of their use or of their location. It is unclear what is within the scope of the phrasing.

Public authorities have to consider five criteria in particular when they are assessing asset transfer requests, which include matters such as public health and economic development. Amendment 467 would add an overarching green energy priority, which would not work in practice. It would make it too hard to ensure that we give due weight to the particular merits of an application.

However, I appreciate what Ariane Burgess is trying to achieve and I am more than happy to have further discussions with her and with my colleague Gillian Martin.

I thank everyone for the points that they have made and for the discussion.

Throughout the committee’s evidence taking on the bill, I heard the criticism on the timing of the community right to buy review. I accept that, as well as the points that you and Mercedes Villalba have made on that, convener. That is a significant piece of work, and it is important that we continue with the significant work that we are doing now on the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill.

Some of the examples that Mark Ruskell touched on are really important, and they highlight why the review is so important. That is the only reason why I would ask members largely not to support the amendments in this group. It is purely because they relate to exactly the kind of issues that we need to tease out in the course of the review.

I am more than happy to have discussions with Mark Ruskell and other members of the committee to talk about their concerns in more detail. As I set out in relation to a point from Douglas Lumsden last week, we are looking to publish the consultation on the community right to buy review in the coming weeks. The intention is to outline and publish the overall outcome of the review towards the end of this year. I am happy to engage in conversations with members throughout that process, so that we can pick out specific examples that highlight issues with the existing community right to buy.

I was grateful to hear from Monica Lennon about the rationale behind amendment 514. I do not believe that it is necessary, because the right to buy does not exclude common good land. I accept what Monica Lennon is trying to say, which is that it is about not necessarily having to purchase the land. However, it is not clear from the drafting what “seize” means in that context. I am also not sure why Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh and Glasgow councils are excluded from the provision. That is why I ask the committee to oppose amendment 514.

Again, the only reason why I ask the committee not to agree to amendment 486, which is from Tim Eagle, is that we are undertaking the community right to buy review. The amendment would mean that, once the bill has been passed, we would have to do another review in quick succession, which I do not think is necessary.

No, and it should not be interpreted in that way. It is not meant to come across in that way or as being hierarchical. As with the four broader aims, the overarching purpose of the national parks is to collectively achieve the aims together.

The bill does not change the Sandford principle, which applies under section 9(6) of the 2000 act—if there is deemed to be a conflict between the aims, the first aim is the overriding one. However, in relation to the list in the proposed new subsection, the aims are not intended to be hierarchical, and one aim should not be prioritised above another.

I completely appreciate your arguments about creating a list. I have touched on that point myself, because it can become about what is not there. It is important to at least reference biodiversity and climate change, given all the work that is happening in that regard. I am more than happy to take away the views of the committee.

By their very nature, the aims can never be all-encompassing and capture all the actions. It is about trying to strike the balance between being general enough that they can cover a lot of that activity and not being too specific, but I am more than happy to hear views.

You are absolutely right about the boundaries. NatureScot had said that, should ministers decide to designate, it would have recommended the smaller core area, as it outlined in its report.

The situation was difficult according to the different reports that came out. NatureScot also outlined in its report that, if somebody felt that they were against a national park, it was harder to engage with them about the different options of what boundaries could look like and what shape governance could take. The boundary choices were informed by engagement with local people and other stakeholders. There were always going to be difficulties with that.

Can you remind me of your second point?

“Cultural heritage” is defined in the 2000 act as including

“structures and other remains resulting from human activity of all periods, language, traditions, ways of life”

and so on. I think that adding an aim of cultural development is important, because it takes that a step further. It is not just about sitting still and appreciating what we have; it is also about how we can develop that further, into the future. To me, that means also looking at how we can help to develop the creative sectors, for example. It could well mean supporting other community projects related to the creative sector and arts. I see that addition as a positive step forward.

If committee members feel that further definitions or changes to the language are needed, I would be happy to look at that. I am keen to hear what recommendations members might have.

No, and it should not be interpreted in that way. It is not meant to come across in that way or as being hierarchical. As with the four broader aims, the overarching purpose of the national parks is to collectively achieve the aims together.

The bill does not change the Sandford principle, which applies under section 9(6) of the 2000 act—if there is deemed to be a conflict between the aims, the first aim is the overriding one. However, in relation to the list in the proposed new subsection, the aims are not intended to be hierarchical, and one aim should not be prioritised above another.

I completely appreciate your arguments about creating a list. I have touched on that point myself, because it can become about what is not there. It is important to at least reference biodiversity and climate change, given all the work that is happening in that regard. I am more than happy to take away the views of the committee.

By their very nature, the aims can never be all-encompassing and capture all the actions. It is about trying to strike the balance between being general enough that they can cover a lot of that activity and not being too specific, but I am more than happy to hear views.