 So, good morning and welcome to the 32nd meeting this year of the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment committee. Before we move to the first item, I remind everyone present to switch off their mobile phones, as they may affect the broadcasting system. However, you may notice that some committee members consulting tablets during the meeting, this is because it provides meeting papers in digital format and for the formulation of questions, et cetera. The agenda item 1 is a decision on taking matters in private. First item today is for the committee to decide whether consideration of item 4 should be taken in private. The committee will also decide whether to take its consideration of the committee's report in part 4 of the community empowerment Scotland bill in private at future meetings. Are we all agreed? We are agreed, so these will be dealt with in private. We move forward to agenda item 2, which is on the community empowerment Scotland bill. We will take evidence from the cabinet secretary today. Good morning, Richard. Good morning, Dave Thompson, head of the land reform policy team in the Scottish Government. I refer members to the paper. Do you have an opening statement? Sure, I can say a few very brief remarks. Well, that would be helpful. First of all, let me just say good morning to the committee after my appearance last week. I take the opportunity to welcome Michael Russell to the committee in particular who I see a new face here today. Also, I would like to pass on Dr Ailey McLeod's apologies. She cannot be here for this meeting today, otherwise I would have not been made to be with her, but she is of course at the climate change talks in Peru, so I am stepping into the breach on this important issue. I realise you are in quite a tight schedule. I also appreciate the chance to have a discussion with you today and try to give evidence on what is a very important bill. Land reform as a whole is undergoing a huge change with recent announcements on the new land reform bill, the extension of the Scottish land fund and our continuing commitment to have a million acres of land in community ownership by 2020. That is a target that will come closer to reality with the introduction of this particular bill that we are discussing today. Because of the extension of the right to band into urban areas, which of course means that communities across Scotland will have an equal right to take control of assets that will empower their own community. By tackling the blight of a band in our neglected land, we are also going to remove one of the obvious barriers to sustainable development in many of our communities as well. The community needs not to wait for it to come into the market, but they can force a sale without a willing seller. Using the last 10 years' experience of using the land reform act, we will make the act easier to use and give communities greater flexibility in how they use the act. The bill as a whole creates new rights for community bodies and new duties in public authorities, providing a legal framework that will promote and encourage community empowerment and participation. The bill aims to support approaches that can contribute to improving outcomes in all aspects of people's lives and can contribute to the growing sense of democratic renewal and change in our country. Of course, there will continue to be discussions with our stakeholders, and today I welcome any suggestions from the committee that would help to improve part 4 of the bill. The committee has taken some limited evidence that part 4 of the bill could have sat within the forthcoming land reform legislation, rather than in this broader bill. I wonder if you could advise us why it was felt that this was the appropriate vehicle for the part 4 provisions. As I said my introductory remarks, Scotland is now embarking on a programme of land reform, so there are various vehicles at the moment that the Government has brought forward or are going to bring forward. We have the land reform bill, which I referred to in my open remarks. We have the community empowerment bill, which we are discussing today. I am undertaking the agriculture holdings review, which relates to tenant farming and how we are using our land for tenant farming and agriculture. We have on-going activity above that, which is already in train, and we have the land fund, which is being boosted from 2016 onwards. I look at the process of land reform in Scotland. I look at it as a wide programme of various elements of activity. At the time of the community empowerment bill, we wanted to use that vehicle to do things quickly. Clearly, at that point in time, we had the land reform review group doing its work and we were awaiting its recommendations, of which we now have 62 recommendations. That is why it is a programme of land reform that is under way in Scotland just now. I note that many of our stakeholders are quite content with the fact that we are using the community empowerment bill to fix some things that need to be fixed in terms of the Land Reform Act 2003. In all the evidence that we have taken, we have asked the panels whether or not—about the policy memorandum that accompanied the proposals. Generally speaking, people have been reasonably satisfied with the level of information that was provided in it, although, as I suspect that you are aware, the local government and regeneration committee had some concerns about that information and, indeed, wrote to the minister about it previously. The fact is that the policy memorandum devotes less than three pages to the whole of part four and summarises 20 sections in seven bullet points. It seems a remarkably robust piece of pre-seeing, if I could put it that way. Last week, two of the witnesses that we had in front of us raised questions about the information that they felt that they had got and whether they felt that it was enough. One said, I am not sure that we have had enough information. I have come to a conclusion having discussed elements of the bill that we have different people saying that provisions mean different things. That means that, somewhere along the line, the explanatory notes and policy memorandum are not providing enough information. My question to you is how best do you achieve a balance between encouraging public dialogue and participation and providing clear and sufficiently detailed information? Are you satisfied that the policy memorandum provided enough information within it to fully explain the purpose and policy choices that lie within the bill? Clearly, the Government always faces a challenge when we are publishing our policy memorandums, because the objective is to give the message as to what the Government is trying to achieve and its policy objectives. You want to be relatively high-level and broad when you are doing that so that people understand the thrust of what you are doing with your legislation and what you are trying to achieve. If you publish a document of many pages of detail, perhaps the message gets lost in terms of the policy objectives. It is also a balance that the Government has to struggle to achieve. Again, I look at some of the feedback from the stakeholders to seem quite content to understand the objectives of the bill. They feel that we have given a succinct explanation of the policy objectives. Clearly, in terms of part 4 of the bill and that part of the memorandum, extending the right to buy to urban communities is one of the headlines and policy objectives of that part of the bill. Of course, the right to buy land that is subject to neglect or abandonment clearly is another headline policy objective. Those are transformational in many ways. You just have to strike that balance. I am not going into too much detail but trying to get the policy objectives across. The point that really came out last week was that those who are used to dealing with legislation were happy with the information provided, whereas some of those who are perhaps not doing it on a day-to-day basis found it quite confusing. We are looking for further information, but I merely leave that as a thought. During last week's evidence, we had very interesting statements from Professor Alan Miller, the chair of the Human Rights Commissioner. One of the things that he said that he did not feel that human rights had been brought into the wider context of the bill enough. I thought that he made some very interesting statements on how, if we had concentrated on the wider aspects of the human rights part of the legislation, he felt that the whole debate had become a bit narrow and could have been much wider focused. I wonder if you could elaborate a little bit on to what extent it is the role of the policy memorandum to stimulate debate on wider issues such as ECHR, particularly given the prominence in the land reform review groups to ECHR issues. Clearly, the ECHR issues have very much featured in our thinking about what proposals we are able to bring forward as part of the community empowerment bill and will heavily feature in what we bring forward as part of the land reform bill, once the consultation for that is complete. There are many legal considerations that we have to take into account as we strike a balance between property rights and the public interest. However, in terms of the ambitious proposals that we are bringing forward as part of the bill and will bring forward as part of the land reform bill, we show that we are giving prominence to the public interest, which of course we are able to promote under human rights legislation. However, as we move through the process of legislating on land reform, we constantly have to strike that balance between the property rights and the public interest. ECHR is a debate that applies to many policy objectives and legislation that comes from government, not just land reform. The policy memorandum has to allude to that, but I do not think that it is the purpose of it. I think that you have to get across your policy objectives, but they have to be in the context of ECHR. I reflect on the points that Professor Miller and others make on that. Can I just make a final point on that issue, convener? Thank you for that response. The phrase that Alan Miller used that could really sort of struck me as being really quite important, if I may quote, was, if human rights is seen in the wider context that I've set out, there will be a realisation that it drives us not towards courts and lawyers, but towards having an environment in which there is a more constructive dialogue between land owners and communities. I hope that you would agree that that is a much more desirable outcome than the potential division and angst that is being added in some quarters and possibility of more confrontational aspects. Would you agree that it is worth looking at those wider aspects in order to achieve a greater degree of dialogue in this whole process? Yes, I do agree and I do have sympathy for those comments. Clearly Scotland is now embarking more than ever before on a debate over land reform in this country and there's going to be a lot of radical measures coming forward or are already forward as part of this bill, for instance. Therefore, as part of the wider debate over how we own and manage land in this country, clearly human rights are a central part of that debate. What I'm keen to see, as I'm sure many members of the committee and across Scotland are, is that we are talking about the rights of communities and the public interests as much as the rights of property owners. There is a balance to be struck and clearly as we bring forward legislative proposals, we have to strike that balance. However, as part of the land reform debate and land in this country, as I said, how it's used and owned, we have to have at the forefront of our minds the rights of communities, the rights of the wider public interest as much as the rights of land owners or property owners. I suspect that there are one or two aspects of that that we might come back to later, but thank you very much. I take it that the cabinet secretary's team is aware of the evidence given by Malcolm Coombe, who has done work in South Africa, about article 11 of the UN international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights, which guarantees certain rights such as sanitation, food and housing. Therefore, that any question of Scottish legislation that might be seen in breats of ECHR could well have reference to this other wider set of guidance from the United Nations? Yes, and I think that that just reinforces what I've just said in terms of we have to take into account human rights for everyone in the society, not just landowners and property owners, which sometimes is the safe option for legislators, so we have to strike that balance. Indeed. Right to financial memorandum, Jim Hew. Good morning, cabinet secretary. Just going on to the financial memorandum, the financial memorandum states that there shouldn't be any significant additional cost on the Scottish Government regarding this bill going forward and that all additional costs would be met from existing resources, but it also goes on to state that there's a large degree of uncertainty on the level of costs for communities and landowners, of course. I would just be interested in the cabinet secretary's views on what costs he does anticipate that there will be for communities and landowners and also what costs perhaps public bodies may incur. One of the challenges that we face is that as we move forward with land reform and the measures under this bill in terms of extending the rights of communities, everything will be demand led and it's difficult for ministers, the Government to sit here and anticipate exactly what the demand will be in the years ahead. However, we have taken steps to ensure that there is more funding available to achieve our objectives. We've already announced that the land fund will increase substantially from 2016 onwards to £10 million a year and we also have the Empowering Communities Fund, which the First Minister announced as part of our programme for government just in the last few days. That's a further £10 million that will be available next year and we'll, of course, have to consider how to take that forward in future years. That will also be available to help communities to take advantage of the new measures that are available in this bill. In terms of the financial memorandum, because it's demand led, there is a degree of uncertainty, but we do feel confident that with the increased land fund and the other fund that I mentioned, funding will be available to help communities to take more control of their own destiny. With that extra money that you are talking about, would that be directly directed to communities or would it be to public bodies to help perhaps communities to have the community right to buy? We'll have to give some thought to that. Clearly, there are some commitments for government to carry more of the costs in relation to the right to buy for communities in terms of the balloting costs, etc. Therefore, we'll have to meet those costs at our budgets. Primarily, of course, those budgets are going to be used for communities as opposed to public bodies, but in terms of the cost of public bodies, if there are to be costs, clearly that's something we'll have to take into account, but the primary focus of those funds is to help communities. Just to perhaps finish up, I would just want to know what sort of organisations you see as moving forward the agenda of community right to buy with not just financial support, but including financial support, and administrative support. Has that all been worked out yet? Organisations in terms of public bodies? Public bodies or other third party or third sector organisations? Clearly, there's going to be an onus on many public bodies ranging from the general registrars of Scotland, and they'll be funding brought forward separately for that, as we register the ownership of all land in Scotland over the next 10 years, which is all about transparency of land ownership in Scotland. There's going to be a huge task in itself, so there are a number of public agencies and bodies that will have to take the burden of this agenda as we move forward. Even within my own portfolios, of course, the Forrester commission will have a bit more work to do in terms of promoting this agenda in the future, and we'll have to look at the budgets for the Forrester commission. A lot of that should not be substantial costs, and we would expect that to be carried within existing budgets. Clearly, this is demand led. We do not know what neglected or abandoned land will be bought by communities. We do not know where the future applications will be for the urban right to buy or whatever, so it's demand led. It's quite difficult to predict exactly which bodies are going to carry the costs or the extra burden, but clearly it's something that we have to pay close attention to. As I said before, those are substantial funds that we've brought forward, and we'll have to keep reviewing those funds in the years ahead as the legislation kicks in. Mike Russell and Claudia Beamish Good morning, cabinet secretary. Availability money would be a huge boost, and obviously in the last year more money has become available, and the idea of more money being possible as a result of other changes is great. Lack of money is only one problem. There is a quagmire of issues such as state aids, regulations under public finance, and a range of other matters that can create very genuine difficulties for communities in buying land and buying assets. I would be interested to know what steps you are making to put this in place. What is required is a diagram of the way through for communities, some thinking through of the difficulties that each community will have, and a way to create a path for community purchase that is not bedeviled by those issues. As you know, in my area, we have the issue of Castle Tower at present, where state age is being used as possibly an excuse for trying to delay or even derail a buyout, where in actual fact a political will would allow that to take place without much difficulty. I wonder what your thinking is about this, and how you're going to assist communities and community organisations to undertake it. One of the persistent criticisms in public policy is that what government high-level policy then gets bogged down in interpretation and implementation. How are you going to make sure that this is implemented? You're illustrating your knowledge and your interest in land reform issues, so I think that hopefully we can tap into your ideas and that will be reflected in the committee's recommendations in stage 1 on those issues. State aid, of course, and I know that Michael Russell has taken a close interest in this for many years, has been quite a challenging issue at times for the Government in terms of taking forward the community right to buy and the use of the land fund, etc. We have, of course, just recently issued fresh guidance, taking a much more relaxed view of the state aid issues, and quite clearly opening a cafe that's run by a community in the middle of Argyll is not necessarily going to be a threat to competition 50 miles away, so we should take a much more relaxed attitude to that, and that is the instruction that we are giving. In terms of moving forward, the idea of equipping communities with more information and understanding of those kinds of issues is a good point. We have to give a lot more thought to that. I will remind the committee that the land reform review group has recommended that we set up a community land agency, and our response to that has been that we will then set up a unit that will look at those issues and work with communities to give much better advice and, of course, to be there as a huge support mechanism and to try and facilitate community buyouts. I do feel that that is a role for the unit that we are setting up in Government in the state aid issue and explaining the pathway that Michael Russell puts it to our communities. It should be a very important function for a new unit, and I will make sure that that happens. That is very helpful. Can I just press you on the state aid issue a little? The new guidance is, I know, quite clear that there should be a much more relaxed view of that. Is that being punted, if I may use that word, to local authorities in a similarly aggressive manner so that local authorities do realise that those burdens do not normally exist in terms of community buyout? I will do my best to make sure that that is the case, and the Aegis Forest in the north of Scotland, of course, the buyout of that has just been unlocked by a much more relaxed attitude towards state aid rules. I think that some evidence there that it is being listened to and heeded, and I take on board the point that we have to make sure that all public agencies and communities are aware of the guidance and understand the message that is sending out. The message is that this is an easier matter to do. Claudia Beamish Following on on those points about support for communities, you will be aware of the social and land remit of high, and I am wondering whether there are any plans to extend the remit of Scottish Enterprise in view of that support, but also in view of the different agencies that you have highlighted this morning that are coming online anyway. Sometimes people say that there is not the appetite for land reform in South Scotland, for instance, which I represent, but one wonders the degree to which that might be related to capacity building and support and advice. Michael Matheson One of the key messages from the land reform process that we are now embarking on is that land reform, as you quite rightly say, is not just an issue for the Highlands and Islands, it is an issue for the whole of Scotland, and it is not just an issue for rural Scotland, it is an issue for urban Scotland as well. That is why there is quite clear a transformation in terms of the approach to land reform and the land question in Scotland. All our agencies, be it Scottish Enterprise or Highlands and Islands Enterprise, will have to play their role in taking forward the agenda. In terms of support for communities—I will come back to the remit of Scottish Enterprise in a second, but in terms of support for communities, I can only reiterate my answer to Michael Russell, which is that we are taking significant steps to beef up the support from the Government, from the public agencies, for communities to help them through the process. Clearly, that is communities throughout Scotland. The unit that we will set up within the Government to answer the requests from the review group on land reform will be there to help communities in the south of Scotland, as much as the rest of Scotland. Perhaps even more so, the south of Scotland, given the HIE, has had a proactive role in the Highlands and Islands. In terms of the future of the debate over the remit of Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise, it is an issue. Clearly, there are historic reasons as to why there is a social and economic remit for Highlands and Islands Enterprise, and Scottish Enterprise does have, of course, a role within its rural communities, but not the same social remit that Highlands and Islands Enterprise has. Those are on-going discussions within Government between myself and the other ministers with the responsibility for the Enterprise agencies, but we will have to give some thought to how the agenda is taken forward in terms of the social remits outwith the Highlands and Islands. Cabinet Secretary, we talked about many of the public agencies that might be involved or could actually have to bear the burden of dealing with the transfer of land. Is this an opportunity for us to include the Crown Estate Commission in our thoughts just now? Given that Lord Smith has suggested that much of its activity should be devolved to Scotland and that something that could be done perhaps earlier than certain other measures, which are more complex, we should think in terms of their involvement in liberating land for communities, because they rent land, i.e. moorings, for example, to communities at the present time. In fact, I have evidence from their session with us that they are selling areas of the foreshore in the Isle of Lewis, I think that the example was, to a local community. Is this the best way in which the Crown Estate should be divesting itself, or does best value only include market value for them? Should we be thinking about including in our thoughts at the moment about the public agencies their role in releasing land for communities? I welcome the recommendation from the Smith commission that the Crown Estate should be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. That is, of course, long overdue. Indeed, at least one of the coalition parties in the UK Government promised that back in 2010 and, of course, it is 2014 and we are still waiting. Finally, we have a recommendation and, as you will be aware, the Scottish Government is calling on the UK Government to ensure that those pledges or recommendations are delivered as quickly as possible and some, quite easily, could be delivered rather quickly compared to others, as suggested by Crown Estate, as one recommendation that could be delivered sooner rather than later. I ask a couple of questions about its current activities. I would ask the Crown Estate to begin to act as if it is already devolved and the democratisation and accountability of the Crown Estate. I would like to see put into place as soon as possible. In other words, even though if the Crown Estate is not formally devolved at the moment, I would ask the Crown Estate to consult our local authorities on any of those disposals and, indeed, the Scottish Government and we should start acting as if it is devolved at the moment. That would be a sign of respect from the UK Government and the Crown Estate, so I would make that plea. Clearly, the Crown Estate being devolved to Scotland will give both local authorities because many of the powers within the Crown Estate will be devolved to local level, particularly to our island communities. In terms of the Scottish Government's responsibilities for managing the Crown Estate in the future, the economic and social remit of how we manage the Crown Estate assets in Scotland should reflect our land reform agenda and our other social and economic policy objectives. That is one of the key benefits of having the Crown Estate devolved to Scotland, which is that we would clearly ensure the remit of how the Crown Estate was managed reflected our social and economic objectives in Scotland. It was just a point regarding the Highlands and Islands enterprise. We have been very much involved with community buyouts and Scottish Enterprise within the past. We have seen, of course, devolved budgets of the local enterprise companies many moons ago now taking away, whereas Scottish Enterprise, all the decision making seems to be taken only in Glasgow now, so that seems to be a contradiction there. In the draft budget, we see that rural enterprise budget is to disappear by about 96 or 97 or 98 per cent, or they are about and will disappear off. I wonder how you are balancing, stating that Scottish Enterprise hoped to do more in the communities, but the history and the proposed draft budget seems to say the opposite. The point that I was making about Scottish Enterprise, even though it is not part of the formal remit to have the social and economic dimension to that, in the same way that Highlands and Islands does, does not mean that Scottish Enterprise is not responsible for promoting sustainable development in rural communities in the south of Scotland or anywhere else that is the point that I was making. In terms of the budgets, you will know in recent years that there has been an extra focus given to Scottish Enterprise in terms of its key objectives and how it focuses in certain parts of the economy and the businesses that it is working with. The backdrop to that is, of course, the financial climate that we have had to cope with at Scottish Government level with our budgets. However, moving forward, I have acknowledged that in terms of how we deliver the land reform agenda and the social agenda overall, we have to ensure that Scottish Enterprise is playing its role as much as Highlands and Islands will continue to do with its remit as well. Some other points on the finance committee's view of this. Angus MacDonald. Good morning, cabinet secretary. Good morning, Mr Thomson. You will be aware, cabinet secretary, of the crucial downrules that provide for land that has been compulsorily purchased by a public authority, but is then deemed surplus and subject to disposal by the public authority in question. In those cases, it is government policy for the previous owner to have right of first refusal. Do you have a view on how the extension to community right to buy might interact with those crucial downrules? Of course, I am an expert on those rules, at least in the last 30 minutes before I came into the committee. I became an expert on those rules. I have looked at this, and I know that it is featured in the previous discussions for the committee. As I understand it, it relates to land that has previously been compulsorily purchased probably by public agencies for certain reasons. Therefore, the previous owner has the first option when the land is being disposed of. The question, as you quite rightly asked, is how does it interact with the communities right to buy. Our view is that it will depend on what is in the public interest. The rules do not preclude the communities having the right to buy, but it would be a case-by-case basis in terms of whether it is in the public interest and the proposals being put forward by the community. The message that I am trying to convey is that it would not preclude communities having the right to buy, but I cannot speak for every single potential case that is coming forward. Clearly, of our public agencies compulsory purchase land is for a whole variety of different reasons, and therefore it is difficult to predict what would happen in each different case. There is no reason why it should preclude that the rules are not statutory rules. Therefore, they would be taken into account, but they would not necessarily determine the decision as to whether or not a community could buy land. I will follow up by saying that we abolished preemption when the furos system was changed so that, for example, schools that were no longer used would go back to the landowner who provided the land in the first place. Surely that would be the same approach that we would adopt with regard to land that had been compulsorily purchased, which is a very similar circumstance that the Cryptural Down Rules apply to, but they are only rules. Well, exactly. They are only rules. I will reflect as we take the legislation forward as to how we should best handle this. I welcome the committee's views on how this can best be handled as well. The Cryptural Down Rules will be a case in which the Secretary of State for Agriculture had to resign, so I am sure that you will take them to heart. It should surely be possible to modify them by simply applying an additional test, which is whether the land in question would have not been purchased by the Government, and have been likely to have been available for community purchase because it applies to land that is bought from private landowners. Given that they apply to land that is bought during the Second World War, I think that the test would be easily applied, and if that test was applied, most land would not be covered by them. I knew when I said that I was an expert on the rules that Michael Russell would be sitting here thinking not as much as he is, so I do not want to resign over this issue, and I will make sure that we clarify it. I take the point—I am sympathetic to the point made by Michael Russell—that it does seem to be something that should be relatively simple in terms of how we get round it, so I will reflect on that. Sticking with the financial memorandum, an issue was highlighted in evidence from Sport Scotland, who said that they would not wish to see liabilities handed to community groups who then need to seek financial or other support from national organisations such as Sport Scotland, which funding rules do not allow them to give. In the distribution of national lottery resources, we know that bodies such as Sport Scotland must follow the additionality principle. I am a physician to clarify how rules relating to lottery funding might impact on the community right to buy. I will clearly have the lottery funding rules checked and double checked as we move forward, but, in general, the rules relating to lottery funding, in our view, would not really have any impact on the right to buy and we do not see a conflict there. Clearly, I would want to double check the actual lottery rules to make sure that we get that right, but our initial view is that there is not a conflict and it should not present a problem. We will move on to Delegated Powers memorandum. Just looking at the memorandum, the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee have raised concerns that the new section 97C3A on eligible, abandoned or neglected land in relation to eligible land and individuals home and prescribed classes is very vague in respect of how this power will actually be used. They have said that the Government explanation so far is inadequate in light of the significance of this power. I would like to ask what you think it is behind taking this new power on and if you can offer any examples that demonstrate how the power may be used in practice and explain, indeed, how you intend to use this power. Okay, thank you. Well, this is clearly to give the opportunity to ministers to exclude land from the right to buy. The obvious case in point is someone's home, which would happen to be part of the area that a community wishes to purchase. We would take a sensible approach to those issues in terms of the next question would be how do you define a home? Is it someone who lives there once every two years or has not lived there for five years and is still their home? Clearly, we would have to drop some rules and guidance to define the issues that we take into account as to the fact that a home should be excluded in an individual case. I know that there are some concerns that perhaps we have over egged of pudding in terms of this power, so I am going to review that and ministers will review it. We will still have to have the power to exclude, for example, homes, but I am reflecting some of the comments that the committee has received and, of course, again, if the committee has some specific views on this delegated power and how it should be used, I would welcome that, but the purpose is just an obvious one. There are some areas that would have to be excluded. Okay, any other points on that? Yes, Crem Day? Thank you. Just going back to the point that you made, cabinet secretary, but the rules and guidance being drawn up in a very sensible approach, given that current Scottish ministers may well interpret those rules in a fair and appropriate way, how do we ensure that successor ministers in years to come, decades to come, would do the same thing? How do you draw those powers up in a way that ensures that they would only ever be used properly? Firstly, they will be what is in the face of the bill, and then there will be secondary legislation if required to give further definitions, and we are giving some thought to that. In terms of future ministers, as is the case always, ministers will have to take a judgment when they receive an application as to whether or not, in their view, they can defend that following under certain rules or exemptions. So, as I said before, we will give some further thought to this to make sure that it is easy to understand and simple to put in place, but there is a case, of course, as I said before, to have some exclusions. Okay, thank you. Thinking about the nature of land in which an interest may be registered, I will start off with Jim Hugh. Thank you, convener. Just regarding extending the community right to buy into urban areas, the Law Society had some concerns stating in a quote, small communities in an urban environment might be interested in a particular asset that is part of a larger asset that is capable of development. In such a case, development could become blighted and there could be a scenario of competing interests and they go on to state that they think that there should be safeguards to balance that out. I wonder if the cabinet secretary shares a lot of society's concerns in relation to developments that are more development-blighted should state, and if he is considering amendments at stage 2 to address that? Clearly, for any application for the right to buy, ministers have to take into account a couple of tests. One being the proposal from the community, will it promote sustainable development and is it in the public interest? Secondly, would leaving the current ownership arrangements in place further sustainable development? It's just like a double test, if you like. Therefore, the issue of blight would clearly be taken into account as part of those tests. In other words, if ministers judge an application to be in the interest of sustainable development, then that would suggest that there is not really a blight. If the view of ministers was that that was to cause significant blight and harm sustainable development, ministers would clearly have to take into account whether or not they can give the right to register or the right to buy. I'm just thinking that the law society is creating a scenario that would be taken into account as part of the process, because ministers would not want to create a blight, because a blight is negative. Therefore, that would be taken into account in itself in terms of sustainable development. I'm just trying to give an example to make this sound more understandable. If, for instance, there was a new bloc of flats being built and it was good for the area and suddenly there was an application to buy part of that or part of the land, you could argue that that would cause a blight potentially. The ministers would have to take into account whether or not accepting or rejecting an application is good for sustainable development and it might be in the interests of the community that the bloc of flats is not blighted and is allowed to be built or completed or whatever and therefore would not allow the application to go forward. I think that there are ways of avoiding the blight. Okay, thanks for that. I just want to move on to some evidence that we received last week regarding local authorities and the lands that they hold. We heard that Glasgow local authority has land but has bonded some of their land to Barclays Bank, if I'm not incorrect. Therefore, it would be very difficult for them to release their land for communities. Now, that may be the same in other local authorities. I don't know if you have evidence on that. I'm putting that to the side. Some local authorities do hold land and maybe see as best value as being the best financial value for their community taxpayers, so they see it as a financial and perhaps not community being their number one priority. I wonder what your thoughts are on local authorities' views on what they interpret best values of land and if that could be a potential hindrance to some communities that we maybe want to access some of this local authority and public body land? Local authorities do have the power to dispose of land at less than market value and they are able to take into account the public interest as a value. Therefore, this should not be an obstacle and local authorities clearly have the ability to have discretion on how they define the value of the public interest or whether or not they want to sell at the market value. However, that should not be an obstacle and we would encourage local authorities to recognise that supporting the public interest is a value itself. When we are looking at the value of what you are receiving for disposing of an asset, it is not always monetary value, it is the value to the community and for the public interest. That should be a factor in the thinking of a local authority. I would guess that some local authorities would look at that differently to other local authorities. I wonder what mechanisms would be available then for a community if we maybe got to the stage where the local authorities decided we do not want to sell below market value. We have got to look after the rates payers and so on. We are not going to sell where does a community go from there? I would hope that that would not occur or at least be very rare. I think that we have to take a step back for a second or two and just remind ourselves that many of those negotiations are conducted in a constructive manner. I would hope that local authorities would engage with communities, as they often do, in a constructive manner and reach an agreement. I do not think that there is a great history of local authorities or public agencies trying to frustrate or resist communities and their aspirations. I would hope that those occasions would be very rare. I do not have a formal mechanism whereby someone can intervene to force the local authority to sell other than what is coming forward in the bill in terms of neglecting and abandoning land. It is not always easy to give answers to all those potential scenarios. We have to try to avoid them happening in the first place, and I think that ensuring that our local authorities are engaging constructively with communities is the best way to do that. I hope that that is rare, but I would appreciate that the cabinet secretary would keep an eye on that in some respect and maybe even give some guidance to some local authorities to perhaps look at their assets in perhaps a more broader way than has perhaps happened in the past. That is something that we would be keen to do as we take forward the bill. Again, if the committee is getting specific suggestions to address that potential scenario, we are all ears. Mike Russell? Would it be possible to address the issue in the subsequent land reform bill with a role for a putative land commission or standing land body to have a role in adjudicating cases where local authorities regrettably will sometimes endeavour to frustrate communities? I think that that is a good point, and it is a good suggestion. We should take away and ask the unit that we are setting up to facilitate community purchases in the Government to look at and to take responsibility for to help to mediate and facilitate is a perfectly sensible idea. Cabinet secretary, you said that you were not sure whether you had powers to ensure that local authorities actually divested themselves of land in a suitable fashion for communities. Is that the kind of thing that you are talking about, the land commission developing? Or is it the kind of thing that should be written into the land reform bill? Local authorities have guidance, and there are statutory obligations in terms of some of those issues. I was just trying to address the specific scenario that Jim Hugh mentioned. However, we are undertaking at least two things that I want to clarify here as part of land reform review group recommendations. Firstly, it is the land commission, which will be a standing body that will look at land reform issues and advise Government as to how to solve them and how to take forward certain policy objectives. That is the land commission that we will set up in due course. The second thing is the land unit within Government, which will be the equivalent of the recommendations from the review group to set up at a community land agency, which will facilitate, advise communities to help further community ownership of land in Scotland. Just to address your question, there are two bodies there. It would be something that the land commission will look at in terms of public agency and public land. We are already committed, as a Government, to facilitating public land that is made available to communities. That is already there, that commitment. If there are specific scenarios that arise that are problematic, we would seek advice from the Land Commission. Both Jim Hugh and Mike Russell have raised questions that arose, particularly from evidence about the city of Glasgow. We do not know what other local authorities think about that. It could be something that could be valuable to the process of the community empowerment bill. Do you think that the Government is in a position to find this out for us about what other attitudes there are out there? It was, frankly, quite shocking to hear that it was likely that much of the derelict property in Glasgow could not be passed to communities. The attitude of local authorities to passing on resources was brought into question by the witness who suggested that they knew how to look after them, but probably communities might not. Again, that is a good point. Clearly, a number of members have raised this issue, so you have to let me reflect on that and see if we can take forward anything at stage 2 of the bill or whether we should be having some separate communication with local authorities in Scotland about that. We are keen that we are all wanting to further the policy objective of community ownership in Scotland. I am sure that applies to local authorities as much as the Scottish Government and that we have to work together to achieve that. If there is something that we should be doing at stage 2 in terms of legislation or whether there is something else that we should be doing, I am keen to look at that and reflect on what you are saying today. Mike Russell. I know that the Scottish Government is committed to land reform and to the transfer of assets. I do not think that there is any doubt that many communities are committed to it. I think that the question is—I am not making a blanket statement about local authorities—our local authorities are fully committed to it. If they are not fully committed to it and there are instances where either they have entered into arrangements that make it impossible, as with Glasgow, or there are other local authorities whose enthusiasm is not pulpable—I think that you could put it that way—then I think that there will need to be a mechanism to drive that forward. I think that the question, cabinet secretary, is what that mechanism is, of where it can be found and how it can be placed on the face of the bill, because that will be essential. I take the point. I expect, as Minister, that the Government expects all public authorities and bodies to deliver the policy objectives that Scotland wants to see delivered. There is a mechanism that needs to be designed. We will certainly reflect on what that could be. Thank you for that. The meaning of community, but Claudia Beamish. Cabinet secretary, the definitions of community are very complex and varied. As you will know, in section 34 of the 2003 act, there is a provision only for a legal entity, which is a company limited by guarantee, to register. There are also issues around postcode units, which are going forward, and we have heard about them in committee. There are also issues about the Scottish Charitable Incorporated Organisations, or SKIOS, and Bencoms have been raised as a possibility, which are not identified, as I understand it, so far in section 28 of the bill, I think, or beyond that. If I could just highlight that, according to the policy memorandum, the section makes it easier for communities to define themselves in a greater variety of way, rather than postcode, but oral evidence did broadly support this amendment. However, there was a divided opinion about communities of interest, and someone stressed that this would be a good deal more complex to define. On the other hand, there was the argument that a way had to be found, and I quote, to put more emphasis on people rather than place. Those were views that were expressed to the committee, but it is obviously important going forward that we are aware of your view on this as a committee. Is it your intention, could you let us know at this stage, to do any of this by amendment to the bill, or in subsequent guidance? What is the view of the evidence that suggests that it might be helpful to specify characteristics of an eligible community by how it is a legal entity, rather than specifically what it actually is, if I am being clear about that? That is quite complicated, but it would be helpful to know your views on those areas. Yes, the issue that you raised has certainly featured in your discussions, and it is something that we have been given thought to. Firstly, one of the purposes of part 4 of the bill is to make it easier for communities to register and ultimately take over land. One of the relaxations that we are putting in the bill to make that a bit easier and streamline the relevant provisions is to relax the definition of communities. You are quite right to include not just companies that are limited by guarantee, but Scottish charitable and incorporated organisations, the SKIOS, which are creatures of Oscar, the regulator for charities. We are looking at potential amendments to stage 2 to extend that list further, perhaps to other kinds of community bodies that can be created. However, it is important that the community that defines itself as a community is actually the community, and therefore communities of interest, which is one of the debates that you mentioned, whether or not we should allow communities of interest to be created and defined as a community, does give us some concerns, and therefore we are not proposing to include that as things stand, because quite clearly that could be something that is set up that has an interest in the community, but it is not the community itself. We want to maintain the sense of place and ensure that we generally are dealing with the communities. A community of interest, in theory, could be an organisation that is based far away, has perhaps some local members and has an interest in the community, but it is not really the community in our view and does not have that sense of place, not rooted there. We want to avoid, at this stage, going down the routes of allowing communities of interest to be defined as communities. Do you think that that might be quite restrictive in a way? If I give the example of, say, in a large city, an ethnic minority group that wanted to buy some land for a purpose that was related to the community, that it would be much larger than a clearly defined smaller geographical area or place, and that would just be one example, and I'm sure there are many others of groups that—well, I'm not sure, actually. I wonder—I'll ask the question, if there are many others, which might come into that sort of an area of interest. First, we'll ensure that we've got the ability in the future to bring forward further definitions of community. Should, in future years, we take decisions that there is a case for extending definitions of communities, however, we just don't want to open the gates too much to new definitions of community that could create problems in the future. I'm trying to think of an analogy. For instance, I've had wind farms in my constituency opposed by many, many people, and it transpires that 80 per cent or 70 per cent of the people that have opposed live several hundred miles away. They may argue that they've got a community interest, but I don't think that anyone would recognise that they're the community, and, therefore, we've got to balance those issues. I just think that communities of interest could just open up the gates too wide and allow the definition of community to be just too wide and not actually genuinely be the sense of place and the sense of community that we expect when it comes to a community taking control of its own destiny. I'll reflect on any views that the committee has. I think that David—we've got two Dave Thompson's here today, I think that I'll ask my Dave Thompson next to me to stay a few verse. What's that? As far as community of interest is concerned, the bill, as it stands, doesn't categorically preclude them. For example, say that you have leaf amateur dramatic society. They are a community of interest in dramatic society. You would expect that the majority of their members are situated in leaf within the geographic area that the community body is set up to do. In no circumstances, one of the issues that we have with communities of interest is that, as part of the process, a community body when purchasing an asset has to undergo a ballot. Who was eligible for that ballot in a community of interest? In terms of the practical process, we have to be able to check that everybody on the list is eligible. They've not put Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck etc. on the list. That's the sort of thing that we have to check. That's very difficult to do with a community of interest. As I say with the dramatic society, they will still have an element in leaf and those that stay within that geographic area who are members of that community of interest will have and can set up that community body. So there's the geographic element and those within that geographic element will have the right to set up the body to vote etc. I realise that that doesn't cover all of them, but it takes the issue of having community of interest, which is 600 miles away, influence what's happening in the community next door to you. Just through the convener, I understand the argument that you're making. It's very important that it's clearly defined in terms of membership, but it's slightly different in leaf to say stradwn, which I represent, where there are people in rural Clydesdale who I know who travel 20 or 30 miles to go to stradwn or coral society. So I think we do need to look at that issue of definition in relation to people as well as place. I just wonder just finally about there's been the suggestion of specifying the characteristics of an eligible community body rather than specifying the specific types of legal entity. I wonder if that might help to make it more possible for communities to apply or to register. I think that if we took the route of just defining the characteristics as opposed to the kind of entities, then that really would open up a can of worms and do their whole debate over what the characteristics should be and then you'd stray into some of the debates we've just been having. You just have to be cautious about that. However, as I said before, we are keeping an open mind and will have the ability to bring through secondary legislation additional definitions if we think that's required. Again, if the committee has strong views on this, please convey them to the Governments. We will indeed, I'm sure. Detailed procedures and requirements. Dave Thomson Thank you very much, convener. Good morning, cabinet secretary and Dave Thomson. We've had quite a bit of discussion in relation to registration and indeed whether registration or pre-registration, I suppose, is should be necessary at all, because many communities won't know that a piece of land is going to need to be taken over by them if I can put it like that until something actually happens, and we had evidence from the Homehold people about a piece of what they thought was public ground suddenly going on the market and it was a great asset for that community. First of all, I'd just like to get your views on whether we actually need any kind of pre-registration, and then I'll follow up on some other issues to do with that after your initial comments. Thank you, and it's quite a fundamental point that you're raising. Clearly, the Government has to balance the rights of someone to sell their assets with the rights of the community, so there's a couple of issues that we have to take into account in response to the point that you're raising. Firstly, as part of the process for application, we have to know that we have a community and the community is taking steps to take on the responsibility of ownership. If there were to be no need to register and you were just to wait for the land to come up for sale before you had the process in place and a body to apply, then you don't really have a community. It has to be created, whereas the process we're laying out means you have a community, it's defined, it's thinking about the future, it's preparing the option of taking on responsibility for ownership and everything that comes with that, and it has a vision for the future and it has a desire to have more control of its own destiny. That's all in place, and then the process kicks in at that point. If you didn't have that, clearly you'd have to create it, so not only would you have the challenge of having to create that, but you'd also be interfering with the rights of the individual or body that wants to sell property or assets, because, quite clearly, you would have to wait. The seller would be disadvantaged because they would have to wait until everything was set up, the community was formed, it was decided who the community were, they had to put together a plan, they had to get through the various processes to get the go-ahead, and therefore, if you were selling a bit of your land, for instance, would you want to wait a year or two after putting it on the market before you could actually do anything with it because the government would have to stop you while the community was created? That would, we believe, interfere with the rights that people have to sell their assets, whereas the process we are proposing and we have in place already is a bottom-up process that allows the community to express its desire to control its own destiny, and there is a community in the first place, so that's the rationale behind the process. Thank you very much for that. If there has to be some kind of pre-registration, as opposed to late registration, I'll come on to that in a minute. One of the suggestions that we heard last week, I think, was that it might be better if a community could register for a purpose rather than for a piece of land, because the community may have aspirations in relation to something that they want to do in their community, create some kind of park or create some kind of building for a function. If a community group wasn't aware of particular pieces of land that they might identify as being suitable or particular buildings, what would your view be on allowing registration to be for a purpose rather than purely for a specific piece of land or building? I'll ask Dave to come in on that, because I think that there has been some discussions with stakeholders over that. Again, I'll come back to the balance, because you still have the situation of when the land went for sale and how that relates to what the community has registered for. David, I think that there has been some discussions with stakeholders and I will update us on that. Thank you. This comes on to one of the changes that is in the bill to show where at the moment, in terms of a late application, which will probably come on to everywhere, there are good reasons for the application being late in the first place. That has been changed to show that they must have taken relevant work and reasonable steps. What that is intended is the sort of scenario that you are talking about where a community body is there and has been set up and they have considered the fact that they have particular needs. That may—again, it will be on a case-by-case basis—but that may be one way to show that they have undertaken relevant work prior to the land going on sale. We are trying to give more flexibility in communities to show that this is the work that we have done. No, we have not started to fill the form in yet, but we have taken these steps. We have identified the need. We have said that we may need five hectares. We have not said where and we have not said which specifically, but we have taken the steps. We have had a community meeting and we have got agreement from the community to say that they are behind these ideas, but we do not exactly where yet. They can all be examples of reasonable steps or reasonable work. I understand that, and that is fine in relation to the late applications. I want to maybe tease that out as well. However, in terms of allowing people to register an interest for a purpose rather than for a piece of land or a building, has any thought been given to that? It would allow groups that have got ambitions to say that a group decides that they want a skatepark in their area, but there is no obvious piece of land that springs out or that they might have to register for a number of pieces of land, none of which they know is going to come for sale. However, they want to register to build a skatepark for the youngsters and they want to have gone through the process, hopefully a simple registration process, ready so that when a piece of land in the area comes up and it could be anywhere and it might just suddenly pop up and maybe a piece of land that nobody ever thought would be available, they have done everything, they have shown that they are a community, they have registered to build this skatepark, so they are ready to go right away. Is that something that the Government will consider? Even though it is called late registration, which perhaps is not the right title for what you are referring to, as you have just heard, there is a potential scenario whereby if they have carried out the work, albeit not the specific part of land that has been identified, then they may well qualify. I think that we might have to reflect on that and see if that needs finessed because clearly that is under the title of a late registration and that is not exactly what you are speaking about, but it would still have the same outcome potentially. I can see that it might have the same outcome. Because the work has been done, you have just thought of a specific bit of land identified, therefore you could qualify as a late registration for a specific part of land that did then become available in the market. The only difference would be that the criteria then that relate to a late registration, which might be an opportunity to move on to that, might be more difficult for them. I suppose that if you have done the work previously, you are right that it would not. I just want to make sure that it is as easy as possible for communities to get registrations. Why not allow them to register for a purpose, as well as a piece of land or a building early? Then they are registered and their forum does not have to come in late and therefore block somebody's sale. Maybe it is something that you could consider as an additional purpose, so that if they can register for a purpose, as well as for a specific piece of land, that might be worth looking at. Also, one quick point, the re-registration process. We have had evidence there, too, that, at the moment, it is five years suggested. Ten years, I think, would be a more reasonable time for re-registration. Also, it should be easy for people to re-register, because if there have been no material changes and they are just saying, look, I want my registration to continue, they should basically be able to sign a bit of paper just saying that, rather than, as I understand at the moment, having to go through the full process from scratch every five years. I think that a simple re-registration process would be useful, as well. Firstly, we are simplifying the registration process, so they do not have to start from scratch every five years. That will be addressed in the bill. I think that your second point gives us perhaps a bit more of a problem in that if you were to extend the five years threshold to ten years, things can change in ten years. You can imagine a community defining itself, thinking its future, putting its ideas together, carrying out its registration, and then ten years later on, things could be quite different. That, we do not think, would be wise. Therefore, five years was a judgment of a good timescale. To a certain extent, you are just picking a timescale, but five years is there because it is a reasonable timescale where things are unlikely to have changed dramatically in terms of the land that has been registered for, and the dynamic behind the community that got going and registered. Whereas ten years down the line, or whatever figure you want to pick, things could be quite different, and the judgments that the ministers have to make, as well as to give the go-ahead, could be based on different dynamics. If it is a very simple process, every five years it would not be too onerous. I look forward to that simple process. It is just the mere fact that communities can change in ten years. If you have gone through the hurdles of registering, the people who have gone through those hurdles, involved in the project, involved in defining the community, being the community, the 10 per cent of the community, you need to get behind the registration in the first place, all that could have changed in ten years' time. We think that five years is a sensible timescale. Thank you for that, cabinet secretary. I have just got a couple of other wee points. The way that late registrations are proposed to be dealt with, the good reasons test has been taken out and that is welcome, but the one that has been put in is that the community has to show that such relevant work, as ministers consider reasonable, was carried out. Now, again, I think, from the Homehill community evidence, the piece of land that came up for sale in their community, and they had lots of difficulty dealing with the current legislation, was a lovely piece of common land, as they thought. They had no inclination whatsoever that there was any chance of that coming on the market, so they had done nothing. Therefore, that test would mean that they would not even be able to start the process of a late application. Communities are often not going to know and never going to anticipate that certain pieces of land or buildings are maybe going to come on the market. Is that not too tough a test for these late registrations? I think that, to some extent, you are repeating the debate that we just had a few moments ago about balancing the rights between the seller and the owner and the rights of the communities. It addresses the same points in that you are asking for no need to register just to have the opportunity to buy a land that comes on the market. It is not really that they should not need to show that they have done anything prior to the late registration. Well, just for the reasons that we are trying to balance the rights that we have to do, as you understand, between those who are selling their own property and the communities. However, to make life a lot easier for the communities, we are relaxing a lot of the criteria, and we are making the process much more streamlined. We are, I believe, empowering communities. We are clearly wanting to go a slightly step further. It is also worth bearing in mind that, in those circumstances, often negotiation takes place. The history of many community buyouts in Scotland, as we are all aware, is that the negotiations take place, and often they are concluded to everyone's satisfaction. So, what you are speaking about is a last resort in terms of if this community had wanted this land and suddenly did not realise that it was ever going to come up for sale, but it did come up for sale. Well, hopefully the negotiation took place there with the seller and the community would get access to it. Using legislation in those circumstances, of course, would just be a last resort. I will reflect on the point that you are making. Again, if the committee feels that there is a way in which we can balance those rights and achieve that outcome, you want to achieve, please make your recommendations and we will listen closely. Okay, thank you for that. A couple of other very minor points. If a piece of land comes in the market, the community successfully gets a lead application in, the landlord does not like that and withdraws it from the market, that kills the whole thing, as I understand it. Would it be worth considering something in the bill, or in regulation, or whatever, that would prevent a landlord withdrawing a piece of land or a building from the market once they put it on the market to prevent them from thwarting a community's wish to buy that land? If it just comes up and the community goes in for it and the landlord thinks, oh, no way, and withdraws it, that's it dead. Would it be worth considering looking at preventing it? Once it goes on the market, it's on the market and the community would have a right to see that whole process through. One other very tiny thing. There's no ability to amend applications, as I understand it at the moment. If there's a minor change needed to an application, the whole thing has to start again. There needs to be an ability to amend applications as you're going through the process. That was evidence that we got last week, I think, from Simon Fraser, if I remember correctly. I'll take away the point about amending the legislation, the application, once it's submitted. The Government would want to co-operate and help communities as much as possible. If there's a way of doing that, I'm sure we'll find a way of doing that, but I'll reflect on whether that needs to be reflected in the legislation itself. In terms of your second point, clearly what you're effectively suggesting is compulsory purchase, because if a seller puts a property or land in the market, in theory they have the right, of course, to change their minds, as any of us may want to do if we were ever to sell an asset. Your point is that the motivation for taking it off the market is the fact that the community wants to purchase it. I think that we'll have to give some thought to how that would work, because the outcome is a compulsory purchase. While there's powers clearly for profiting communities and there's powers over neglecting abandoned land, you're speaking about a further power, which is compulsory purchase, where the specific motivation for taking land off the market was because the community wanted to purchase it. You'd have to prove that. I'm sure that that would be challenging in itself, so I don't see an easy answer to that within the context of the legislation, so I'll have to reflect on that. I appreciate that. I would be thinking once it's on the market that it should be absolute, so you wouldn't have to prove anything. Again, you're interfering with the rights of people to change their minds. We're not simply talking about landed estates or large areas of land. We're talking about all kinds of assets here, and people have to have the right to change their minds, as we would want to perhaps in some time. Cabinet Secretary, part of the problem about that is communications. It seems to me that community planning partnerships have been the organisation set up under the first executive of the Scottish Parliament, and community planning partnerships should be a place where people discuss the potential uses of particular parts of the land in an area. Do we think that they are providing the kind of service to this important new power that's being developed with regard to communities having a greater right to buy assets? Are they actually local enough to be able to do this, or indeed are they active enough to engage people in the process that needs to take place where discussions about potential matters of interest take place arise and indeed then relate to particular pieces of land? First, I think that community planning partnerships should be local enough. The question is whether they are committed to the agenda and are spending enough time working together, which is the purpose of community planning, to further facilitate the issues of land reform. That is something that we have to take forward in terms of communication and working with our community planning partners across Scotland, and we will undertake to do that. I want to move on to the next questions of abandoned and neglected land definitions. Mike Russell is going to lead us on this one. Cabinet Secretary, when we took evidence last week, and I think the week before though, I wasn't there, the issue of abandoned neglected land was subject to some comment. For a variety of reasons, first of all because the legal definition of abandoned land is not the definition that the bill has, and that would lead to some confusion. Secondly, I think that the word I went up to witness, the term was regarded as suboptimal in terms of what was trying to be achieved. Thirdly, because there are some issues to do with the use of land, which could lead to abandon and neglected land being, for example, neglected by a tenant, but still perfectly usable by the owner. There might be some environmental issues that would arise here. All in all, it was felt that considerably more work was required on the issue of abandoned neglected land. There was also a concern that if the definition of abandoned neglected land was left to guidelines, that would not be fair on anybody and might indeed be subject to legal challenge. There is a general set of concerns not at what the policy intends to achieve. All of us now, particularly in urban areas, it is quite easy to point to, but it needs to achieve it in a way that is, if I may put it this way, achievable, rather than a way in which it can either be legally challenged or which will lead to the legislation not being used. What I am looking for is a commitment to take this away and consider it for amendment in a way that can be more useful. Thank you. Clearly, one of the more radical aspects of legislation is the ability to buy abandoned or neglected land. We are giving some thought to whether there is a need for additional clarity. Again, the views of the committee have been most helpful. Michael Russell has also made a couple of good points there. We have to balance the interpretation of abandoned and neglected with the need to make it relatively wide in terms of definition. If we are too specific, there may be circumstances that are excluded. We do not want to be excluded. We have to reasonably wide-ranging our definition. That is why the bill, as proposed, sticks to the simple definition, the dictionary definitions of abandoned and neglected, which everyone understands and we believe would give good grounds for communities to purchase. There are issues that have been raised, such as the definition of wholly or mainly neglected or abandoned. Ministers will have the ability to interpret what that means. We do not want to dwell too much on definitions, because we are dancing ahead of a pin. Ultimately, ministers will recognise as will the communities who are making the applications what is neglected or abandoned. There are other facts that you are quite right to have to be taken into account. Environmental considerations will have to be taken into account if it appears to be abandoned, but it is because of environmental designations or whatever that may be. Clearly, that would then be exempt, and the ministers would take that into account. We will give some more thought to the arguments that were made by the committee and the need for potential clarity, but I am just trying to say that we do not want to narrow down too much definitions. I think that they wise, but I do disagree with you in terms of everyone knows what it means. If I may use the two words, somebody's wildflower garden could be to somebody else a neglected piece of ground. I think neglected is very subjective indeed, and abandoned has regrettably another legal definition. Abandoned land is land that a landowner has deliberately walked away from, does not want. It is not theirs as far as they are concerned. I think that it would be very difficult if the term was to be used in one sense in a piece of legislation and in another sense commonly in Scots law. I think that there will need to be either a much clearer definition, and I know how difficult definitions are, or alternative terms will need to be found. I think that environmentally, too, it is very important that if the land is to be put to better purpose, there is some definition of what that means. Again, and notwithstanding, I agree that we will look at the issue of further clarity. We will be taking into account the public interest and what is best for sustainable development. That is the ultimate test, but in terms of definition of neglected and abandoned land, there are definitions. The more you add into the bill, the more you move away from the simple definition, and then the more argument there is, we have the simple definition. I will reflect on the arguments that have been made to the committee and the committee itself to see if there is a need for further clarity. A number of witnesses last week inferred that this whole area was probably more relevant and would certainly be easier to implement in urban situations rather than rural situations. Indeed, one even suggested that we should perhaps be looking at a differentiation of the section of legislation between urban and rural situations. I just wonder whether that is something that the cabinet secretary is sympathetic to at least looking at as we go forward in this legislation. I read the evidence and I am aware of it. We have not reached the decision, as we are going to address that yet. We will have to reflect on what that means. Quite clearly, circumstances in urban communities in the middle of a town or city are radically different to large tracts of land in rural communities. The definitions could potentially be interpreted in different ways, but that is for understandable reasons. A few acres in the middle of a city where it would appear to be neglected or abandoned, but there may be one part of it that the owner could argue is not abandoned or neglected. We would be an argument to perhaps put forward, but that is why you have the definitions of mainly or wholly neglected or abandoned in the bill, because quickly the minister, the Government, can look at the situation and use sensible judgment as to whether it really is abandoned or neglected, and looking after one hut or one shed in a big bit of waste grounds is not necessarily a defence against it being neglected or abandoned. It is still neglected or abandoned, so we have to be sensible to these interpretations. Circumstances are different. You would accept that there is a differentiation between rural and urban? Well, there is a different challenge, because measuring neglect or abandonment in a rural area is potentially of course different to the middle of a city centre. Not for the first time, Alec Ferguson is right and has read my mind that. Nothing else to ask. I was good to ask precisely that point, but he put it so much better. Okay, in that case we will swiftly move on to the interpretation of sustainable development, and the key to part 3A of the 2003 act is public interest and furthering achievement of sustainable development. That being so, cabinet secretary, the policy justification for the inclusion of the double requirement for community bodies to show that they are furthering the achievement of sustainable development and for ministers to be satisfied that if ownership were to remain in the same hands that it would be inconsistent with furthering the achievement of sustainable development in relation to the land. How do you respond to that? Well, the thrust of our land reform legislation is to promote sustainable development, and that is the motivation for intervention and of course the justification for intervention. Therefore, looking at sustainable development, we are proposing to look at two factors, which is whether the new ownership from the community will further sustainable development, and you have to measure that against whether leaving it under current ownership would further sustainable development. Yes, it is a double test in that sense, but it is a sensible approach. Again, we recognise that people are saying that perhaps this is just a step too far, and it makes it slightly more difficult for communities. We will take that on board, but I think that there are relatively sensible approaches, because you have to weigh up the both factors. It is a fact that there is now some case history for communities that have bought under the existing law. How has the public interest in sustainable development tests actually been assessed up to this point? Have they been more difficult for communities, or are they not? I am not quite sure that you understand the question that you are saying on the experience of past buy-outs. There appears to be a problem here that the public interest in sustainable development has been assessed to date, and therefore the impact of the two questions together for existing community right to buy applications that have been approved. Do you think or foresee any difficulties for communities in meeting those two tests in future? Clearly, we do not see significant difficulties, and that is why we are proposing it in the legislation, because we expect a community to be able to show why taking ownership will further sustainable development, and that clearly is a key criteria for ministers to take decisions as to whether to support it proceeding. Part of that argument is what is happening with the land or asset at the moment and what contribution it is making to sustainable development. I would hope that that is not presenting additional difficulties, and clearly ministers will have to look at what the situation is with the asset at the moment, as well as the proposals from the community. I think that that is a sensible approach, but, as I said before, if it is seen as an additional obstacle or a hurdle too far, I am keen to hear views on that. The double test is in part 3 of the bill, so it is only in relation to neglecting and abandoning land, not the wider parts 2 and 3. It is only in that specific element that that desk comes into. Graham Day has a point here. For the evidence that we have taken suggested in a quote, this appears to be a very high and, most probably, an impossible hurdle to overcome and unnecessary to meet under ECHR requirements. We have taken evidence that, perhaps on the contrary to the point that you have made, Cabinet Secretary, I think that we would appreciate you looking at that. I take seriously the views of the committee, that is the purpose of the stage 1 investigation in taking evidence, so if you want to bring forward suggestions to the Government, I will certainly give them seriously consideration. I only want to just give the reassurance that, in terms of the second part of the test, as to whether or not continuing ownership under the current arrangements from the existing owner for their sustainable development, clearly ministers will want evidence and proof from the existing owners. The community is making an argument that taking over ownership will further sustainable development in terms of buying because of neglect or abandonment. The existing owner is arguing against that and saying, no, no, I am furthering sustainable development. Clearly, the Government would ask and demand for evidence from the existing owner who is trying to resist the community having the right to purchase that they are taking steps to promote sustainable development. Ministers, quite clearly, are not going to accept just that as a reactionary statement from the existing owner to try to prevent the community from taking over. They want evidence that things are happening and investments are being made. There is a plan in the pipeline. People have been commissioned to bring the land out of neglect or abandonment. They have to bring forward evidence. In terms of—is that about Dave Thompson? Just a wee bit of clarification on that particular point, convener. Fair enough. I mean, I want to ask another point about sustainable development, so yet on that point. Thanks, cabinet secretary, when you were explaining the situation there. But it seems to me that the wording is the other way round, because it says, if the owner of the land were to remain as its owner, that ownership would be inconsistent with furthering the achievement of sustainable development in relation to the land. It looks as if the owners would be on the applicant to show that the current ownership would be inconsistent, but what you described a minute ago is that the owner would need to show that his or her continued ownership would be consistent. There is a difference in emphasis that maybe needs to be looked at. Perhaps there is, but I think that the overall point that I am trying to make here is that you have to look at the consequences of ownership continuing under the existing owner as opposed to the community taking over and what that would mean for sustainable development. In other words, I am just trying to think of a practical example to illustrate the point. Clearly a community makes an application to purchase neglected or abandoned land, and the argument is made that that is the interests of sustainable development and the public interest, and that is good. Clearly the existing owner of the land may suddenly say that last month I hired a company to come and build on this land and reinvigorate it, and that would have to be taken into account. However, what I am trying to say is that the Government, of course, would ask for evidence, and it would not be a case of simply the owner trying to get out of the community buying it by simply saying, oh no, but I am going to redevelop it and I am going to do things in the future. The Government would be strict and say, we need evidence, this is already happening and it is not neglected or abandoned. It is just to give that comfort that it is not simply we are not equipping the existing owner to get out of things easily. One final follow-up, convener. Surely that additional clause in a sense would be unnecessary because the application would already have to show that it furthered the achievement of sustainable development if the owner can show that his intentions, evidence intentions, are already furthering sustainable development than the community application would not have a leg to stand on anyway. What I am not clear about is why you need the belt and braces of that additional clause, which may well make it possible for a community, especially if the onus is on the community side. I take the points and reflect on it on saying that you, I feel, should at least look at what the situation is with the neglected or abandoned land. If there are genuine issues there that should be known about, that should be part of the minister's decision making process. In terms of sustainable development, I wonder if the minister has reflected on the retention of sporting and mineral rights that are guarded by the Titles and Conditions Act. Communities might not be able to make the most of their assets without access to those mineral rights. Would you consider in this bill or in the land reform bill looking at means to convey access to mineral rights if it was in the interests of sustainable development of that community? I should add sporting rights as well. That is an issue not just for the bill, but for the wider land reform debate. I will reflect on that. I know that the bill is featured in past land reform debates, and I would like to revisit the conclusions that were reached then, especially with regard to mineral rights, which are all featured in previous debates. I will ask to reflect on that. The reflection might take into account that the island of Ireland has a very different system of mineral rights organisation, which was passed before the Republic was set up. Under 19th century legislation, it was organised so that there were mineral licences rather than ownership rights of the land down to the centre of the earth. It might be something that is well worth looking at in terms of communities' ability to sustainably use their land. I will give a commitment to look at that. Clearly, there are examples in Scotland of communities owning the sporting rights, in particular in some cases, albeit I know your questions also with mineral rights, which I will certainly look at. Thank you. I want to move on to some amendments at stage 2 with regard to the crofting business. This is the second part of this committee's activity, and we will be taking evidence at that stage, but there has been a call for evidence for the amendment of part 3 of the 2003 act. I wonder if, cabinet secretary, you can give any early indication of the level of support for the amendments being proposed by you from the responses to the call for evidence? Clearly, in the early days of the bill, the focus was on part 2 of the bill and many of the issues that we have just been discussing for the past hour and a half. During our discussions with the stakeholders, it was clear that there was a desire to use the bill as a vehicle for addressing some of the crofting issues that arise in part 3 of the act. Having listened to the stakeholders, that is why we are proposing to bring forward some amendments in stage 2, particularly to try and relieve crofting communities over some of the onerous burdens of mapping, for instance, when it comes to the applications for the purchase of their estates. We are bringing forward those amendments. So far, the feedback from all stakeholders has been very positive in the support that we are doing, so we are encouraged by that, and it is still our intention, as I say, to bring forward those amendments at stage 2. That is useful, because amendments to parts 2 and 3A involve such complex matters as mapping blanket registrations, re-registration or identifying landowners. All of those things will require to be addressed. Have we any early indication of any other amendments that might be brought forward at this stage? Officials and lawyers are drafting up various amendments at the moment for stage 2 on the part of the bill, so it is probably wise for me to write back the committee as soon as I can on that issue. Okay, that sounds very good indeed. Right, thank you very much, cabinet secretary. That's good. We've managed to cover quite a lot of the ground here that will help us to make our report. It's been a very interesting session, because we can see that it's breaking new ground, that it's an opportunity to actually give communities a better chance to succeed. We're interested in making a report that reflects the optimism that there seems to be, certainly, around the evidence that we've been given by most people. Thank you very much for your evidence just now and to Dave Thomson, the official. I suspend for five minutes before we move on to the next item for a comfort break for me. The third agenda item today is for the committee to consider the Public Petition Pee 01519 by John F. Robbins on behalf of Save Our Seals Fund. Petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to stop issuing licences permitting salmon netting from salmon angling interests to shoot and kill seals in Scottish waters and instead require the salmon farmers either move their farms into onshore tank systems or legally require marine salmon farmers to install and maintain the high-strength, high-tension predator exclusion nets that they require to meet their legal obligations under the Animal Health and Welfare Scotland Act 2006 to protect their stock from the attention of predators. We further ask that the Scottish Parliament ask the Scottish Government to legislate to close down all salmon netting stations in Scottish waters, allowing tens of thousands of Atlantic salmon and sea trout to return to their native rivers to breed. This is a catch-all discussion about not just seals while I look at it, so I refer members to the paper and I invite comments from members on the petition and seek some agreement about the way forward. Who wants to kick off? Alex Ferguson. I'm happy to make a comment, convener. Members will recall that we gave some considerable consideration to this question during our consideration of the Aquaculture Scotland Bill. I think that we all came to the conclusion then that we were basically content while accepting that there are concerns over this issue. I think that my recollection is that we were content with what we heard that the steps being taken by Aquaculture practitioners were as robust and practical as they could be and that the shooting of seals was only used in extremists. I was personally quite satisfied about that and I'm not sure that continuation of this petition from our point of view will do anything to resolve the situation. I really can't see any future in us continuing this petition given our considerations during the Aquaculture Bill. Other people want to speak. One, two, three. Thank you, convener. Briefly, I concur entirely with Alex Ferguson on this. I read the evidence that the petitioner gave to the petition's committee. That didn't, in any way, allow my concerns about the petition. There were a number of claims made that seemed to be unsubstantiated about the number of seals that are being shot. I would tend to agree with Mr Ferguson. Given that there are a number of strands to the petition, which have been, I would reckon, properly addressed, I'd be minded to close the petition. I think Marine Scotland has adequately or satisfactorily addressed the issue of seal control. The salmon industry is evolving and we're seeing the introduction of increased use of high-tension predator exclusion nets. We're also seeing the introduction and rolling out of onshore tank systems, as the committee saw when we visited Lochaber. Clearly, that's another aspect of the petition, which has a number of strands to it. The only issue in the petition that hasn't been satisfactorily addressed are the salmon netting stations. However, that's work that the committee still has to do to look at following the Wild Fisheries review report. Given that a fair bit of work has already been done on the issues that I raised in the petition, I would be minded to close. The law does everything possible to avoid the killing of seals. Is the law being flouted or not observed in any significant way? I don't think that the petition has presented any evidence that that is the case. If he has any evidence, he should not only present it to the Parliament, but to the police, because it's an offence so to do. The second question is, should the law be changed? Is there a further change required to protect seals? That's a legitimate campaign, but it's not the campaign that he seems to be pursuing. He seems to be pursuing a campaign based on the law being flouted. If there is no evidence that the law is being flouted, he has brought no evidence forward to the law being flouted, then I think that the petition just has to close. However, we should bear in mind whether or not the law is being flouted and whether or not a better law can be found as we continue with our work. Anyone else who wants to comment? Claudia Beamish? I'm persuaded by the arguments that have been put forward by others that this petition should be closed. I would just highlight that we are going to look at the Wild Fisheries review and that the Aquaculture Bill has regulations but also that those can be amended as appropriate by ministers. I don't see anything that would argue that this petition should be kept open. Thank you for that. If I'm summing up the views of members, I think that we know that the National Marine Plan has a section in it with regard to aquaculture and, indeed, therefore regarding the nature of predators like seals, the salmon netting issue will come up in secondary legislation next week and that the Wild Fisheries review will take considerable evidence and show that we are showing a continued interest in making sure that the question of seals in the natural environment and in terms of man-made structures is taken into account. So if that's the case, can we recommend, as a committee, that we close this petition and maintain our interest in the matter, as suggested? Are we agreed? Thank you for that. In that case, at future meetings of the committee, the next week we will be discussing—that is on 17 December—an evidence session on the National Marine Plan with the Scottish Government officials and consider its draft budget report to the Finance Committee and Further Work programme. I now ask the public gallery to be cleared and formally close this meeting.