 Okay, okay. But many and welcome to the eighteenth meeting of twenty eighteen of the environment climate change and land reform committee. Fuck we have apologies from Alex Neil. John McAlpine is here as his substitute, and we'll hear his declaration of relevant interests at a later meeting so welcome John McAlpine. Before I move to the first item on the agenda I want to remind everyone present to switch off mobile phones and other electronic devices as these may affect the broadcasting system. The first item on the agenda is for the committee to consider whether to take item 8 in private and to reschedule item 2 for an alternative meeting date. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Thank you. The third item on the agenda today is to hear evidence on the environmental authorisation Scotland regulations 2018 draft from Cabinet Secretary for Environment, Climate Change and Climate Change. Good morning, and from Joyce Carr, head of the water environmental team at the Scottish Government. Cabinet Secretary, do you want to make an opening statement on this? Very briefly, I think that it would be helpful, convener. Effective environmental legislation is obviously essential if we are going to continue to protect Scotland's natural resources. Our legislation has to be efficient and risk-based to ensure that any associated burdens on business are proportionate. Those regulations, before you represent a significant step forward in providing that more efficient, effective and risk-based protection of the environment, the existing legislation for our key environmental regimes has evolved over a number of decades and, as a result, the current framework of environmental regulations has become more complex than it needs to be. The four main environmental regimes for water waste pollution prevention and radioactive substances currently have different procedures and timeframes for granting authorisation, carrying out monitoring and taking enforcement action for non-compliance. Many sites have multiple authorisations, multiple inspections by different inspectors and different monitoring arrangements. That is inefficient both for the regulator and for the operator. The new integrated framework of which those regulations are the first step will create a common set of procedures for those core regulatory components. The majority of the components making up the new framework already exist in one or more of the existing four main regimes. For instance, the framework uses a similar tiered system of proportionate controls as that introduced in the controlled activities regulations in 2005, which is now accepted as an efficient and successful approach. That provides a simple, transparent and integrated system that makes compliance easier and more straightforward for business. The framework also includes a broader fit and proper person test to strengthen SEPA's powers to ensure that the right person holds the authorisation. That will provide a level playing field for business, ensuring that disreputable operators or criminals are unable to obtain or keep authorisations. That will also ensure that people and communities are properly engaged in decision making, particularly those directly impacted by activities. In addition to the common set of procedures, certain technical provisions are required for each of the four main regimes, and those will be contained in technical schedules. We plan to implement the framework in tranches, starting with the provisions for radioactive substance activities, which are contained in the technical schedules to the draft regulations. The technical requirements for the water, pollution, prevention and waste activities will be added in subsequent tranches, so the committee has to look forward to that. I am confident that the integrated framework will provide an effective and efficient approach to the protection of our environment whilst minimising the burden for business, and I would ask the committee to support the instrument. It strikes me reading through the instrument that, potentially, in practice, the fit and proper person test is a big improvement on what we have had up to now. Is that a fair assessment? I think that that probably is. It was one of the things that we were very keen to do. Partly because we had indications of issues arising out of the way that it has been managed up until now, it is going to streamline what are effectively different approaches in different regimes. That means that it is easier then across the whole entirety of this to see who would be and who would not be a fit and proper person. Basically, SIPA will have a duty to grant or transfer an authorization for a regulated activity only where it is satisfied that the proposed person is a fit and proper person to carry on the activity. There are some ways in which SIPA will be able to be more proactive when it comes to waste, crime and repeat offenders. I would have expected that that would have been something that would be pretty much welcomed by the majority of people, perhaps not the waste, crime and repeat offenders themselves, but that would, as you would anticipate, not be welcomed by them. At the moment, SIPA can only consider environmental offences, but the framework will allow a wider range of offences to be taken into account. Involvement in serious organised crime demonstrates a disregard for the law. We believe that people who show such a disregard should generally not be considered fit and proper people to carry out certain activities. There will be other benefits and what have you, but, in the round, what this frame to do is to create a better test and a test that works across all the regimes. Excellent. I will open that up to members. I have already got an indication from Stuart Stevens. I think that Mark Ruskell wants to ask questions. Stuart Stevens. Thank you. I just want to talk about the narrow issue of dealing with radioactive substances in the offshore sector. In your helpful letter to us, cabinet secretary, you refer to the preparation of a section 104 order. I have two questions related to that. First of all, who has been looking after this up till now? Secondly, will the 104 order give ministers the powers to change the regulations, or is it just one-off to implement the particular regulations that are before us? I think that that is the answer. In terms of what is currently happening, our ministers already have powers under the radioactive substances act. The 104 order is merely to extend the new regulations to the offshore sector, as is currently the case. It is simply that, in terms of procedure, because the radioactive substances act is being repealed, we need to go through that process to make sure that the new regulations can apply to the offshore sector, as they do at present. The net effect is nil. You mentioned, cabinet secretary, that one of the objectives of the regulation is to ensure that people are informed and engaged in decision making. I am just wondering how that will take effect on the ground. I will give you an example. Near Dunfermlyn, a former opencast coal site called Myodine, where distillery waste was being pumped into the ground over the weekend, causing an enormous stink. If you go a few miles up the road, you have the most moronethylene plant. In both of those cases, communities do not know who is responsible for regulating. There is confusion about whether it is Fife Council or whether it is SEPA. They are confused about the process of regulation under the PPC regulations at the moment. So how will this new integrated framework allow communities to engage much more in that decision making? How will it look at the front end of the community end if you have an environmental problem? How will that benefit you? As part of the consultation, community councils, for example, were involved, so at a very basic community level, the consultation was reaching into that area of activity. There ought to be a relatively widespread understanding that this is in process. I do not want to get drawn into attempting to discuss individual sets of circumstances. I do not think that this would be the right place to do that. I would have expected that there was a fairly widespread understanding of the role of SEPA or the fact that SEPA is likely to have a role, as well as, in some cases, depending on what the activity is, some local authorities. I would be surprised if most communities did not regard SEPA slash local authorities as their first port of call for when these things go awry. Community councils, at that level, have already been involved in the consultation, which should already be aware that the consultation has been taking place. I think that what is important is that we have brought together existing frameworks into a more coherent framework. I do not want to say that nothing has changed, but I do not want to make it sound as if everything has changed either. Not everything has changed. What we are doing is streamlining a process, making it easier for people when they touch base, whether that be the people who are regulated or those who have concerns, making that more straightforward. I would expect that, once that has rolled out, it will become easier for people to understand because they are not dealing with a lot of different rules in different sets of regulations, which I suspect is what causes some of the confusion up until now. I think that perhaps the confusion arises because you said about SEPA slash local authorities. There is a confusion about where the responsibilities of one organisation lies and where the responsibility of another organisation starts and stops. In terms of the front end, I am just struggling to understand. If I am sitting there in a community and I have got an environmental problem, where do I go? How does that change the process, regardless of the issue, and make it more streamlined for me as a concerned citizen? Does it provide a new portal? I do not know. At the moment, it is just one organisation slash another organisation. I do not know which one to go to. I would imagine that most people's first port of call would be SEPA. If it is something that is a local authority responsibility, I dare say that SEPA will direct it to local authority. The local authority obviously has lots of responsibilities, particularly because they are the planning authority, the environmental health authority, and unless you are proposing taking powers away from local authorities—and I am assuming that you are not, but you may be—that will continue to be the case. There will continue to be situations in which both local authority and SEPA will continue to have a role. This is not about setting up some kind of one-stop shop somewhere. SEPA is most likely to be the first port of call for people with a concern, and SEPA will know when the issue is raised if that is something that is better directed towards a local authority than sitting with them. In most cases, SEPA responds in one way or another. Although people may not always be content with the outcome or the results of what SEPA does or does not do, I think that SEPA will usually be the first port of call for the vast majority of people. John Scott Can I ask you to expand on the missing of the transposition deadlines a little, please? Some of that, I am afraid, was a situation beyond our control. If I can just find the actual detail of what has happened, because SEPA is tied up with changes south of the border as well. That was not entirely our doing. I think that we have written to the committee with some elaboration that there are various sets of UK regulations that cover a mix of reserved and devolved measures, which could not be straightforwardly accommodated in existing regulatory positions. The reference to section 104 order is an example of that. We have been caught with an issue that has not really come out of our own making. We are advised by Bays that the commission is unlikely to do anything in terms of infraction in regard to the UK before the year's anniversary of the transposition deadline. Bays are conscious that trying to align the different jurisdictions has been a problem. I do not know whether there is further choice. That is not about assigning blame, but we have been pretty much held to a timescale that was not entirely of our making. I see you in your letter to the convener that you are talking about bringing forward a consultation. Are you a timescale for that? I presume that that is a Scottish consultation, but I do not know. Are you aware of a timescale consultation? As soon as it is reasonable, my colleagues who deal with radioactive substances have been actively working on that consultation. The constraint will be the legal resource to develop the draft regulations, so that is what we are waiting for. That constraint lies within the Scottish government. Claudia Beamish Thank you, convener, and good morning, cabinet secretary and to your official. Could I just look at the other end of the community engagement with the role of the new regulatory regime as it integrates and ask you if you could give us any reassurance about the feedback to communities on such significant issues as mos moran and issues such as the spreading of sewage sludge in my constituency at Glentaggart, for instance? What is the process whereby communities know what decisions have been made? Claudia Beamish Well, SIPA is actually in the early stages of implementing a sector approach to regulation, and sector plans are going to be at the heart of everything they do. That is designed to try and develop confidence in the system so that people would have easy recourse to those sector plans. There is a 24-hour pollution hotline and a mobile phone app for members of the public. There may be a question over how many members of the public are aware of the hotline in the mobile phone app. I will ensure that the question is asked of SIPA to admit that perhaps it needs to up its publicity activity around that. That is really for reporting any possible pollution incidents. That should give reassurance to the public that, when something does happen, they have the ability to register that issue straight away. Communities have to be kept informed responding to incidents as they emerge and getting clarity around the role and response. That is, in a sense, a constantly developing thing. I do not think that you ever get to a point where that is a perfect activity. However, the 24-hour hotline and the mobile phone app, certainly I would hope that the public were aware of those two things and that those things can be brought to people's attention if they were not aware of it. That allows people instant access to some of that. It is hard to know just how—once it is happening—that that instant access is important. I mean, I am aware that SIPA is also at public meetings. It will go out to areas and engage, particularly when there is perhaps an on-going situation. I expect that activity will continue. The authorisation framework is not going to change that activity. I hope that it streamlines the message that is able to be gotten across and simplifies it, but it is not going to change that activity. At the further end of that, cabinet secretary, if we take the example of Glen Taggart—as I know quite a lot about it—could there be a commitment by the Scottish Government to put up any results and decisions on the SIPA website so that that could easily be accessed by the public? Is that something that perhaps happens anyway? I do not know. Or is that something that we could go forward and let people know? I think that we can certainly raise that. There is a provision for publicity notices. Is it not relevant in this one? No, SIPA does publish all decision-making on their website. I was reading about publicity notices, which are matters for the courts, because there is a process by which publicity orders can be made. That is perhaps a big bit of artillery that is beyond what you are talking about just now. I think that it may be that people are not engaging with what is available already on SIPA, which suggests to me that SIPA needs to perhaps be a bit more proactive about what is already available. If all their decisions are being published on their website, the website itself becomes—I think that the work that SIPA did around the flooding activity is possibly a case study for how good it can be in terms of managing the publicity around issues. Perhaps we need to think about extending that particular way of dealing with things across a wider set of regimes. I know that you are doing what you are talking about in specific cases, but I could say to you, in all honesty, that the confidence that people have in SIPA in Fife when you start to look at specifics, there is a real problem there. I will confirm an example from Thursday through to Sunday, where the smells were so horrendous that people were being physically sick. In the lackey communication, whether that is with SIPA, a Fife council, of what was going on. There is then the Mossmorne situation, where a final written warning has been given to Mossmorne, not to understand what that final written warning really means. SIPA has not published in detail why they have issued that final written warning. You have the former naval base up at Le Thamont, where it took a year and a half to get a conviction to people for the mess they left here. SIPA will now not clean it up, have not printed the details why. Every time you come across cases involving SIPA, you end up thinking, did they have the powers to act on behalf of communities? Time and time again, communities are down. I hope that we can see more joined up working, but there needs to be a number of questions answered around communities and their dealings with SIPA, where they have problems. SIPA just seems either powerless or unable to address issues. There is a whole load of issues wrapped up in that, which are not easy for me to unpack in the context of this conversation this morning. Not least of which is that, ultimately, once something goes into the judicial system, SIPA does not have control of the timescales of court proceedings. If something takes a year or 18 months through the court, it is not actually SIPA that is causing that delay. It is the normal court processes that will slow things down. I appreciate that that is frustrating for people, but it is what it is and will apply to a lot more than SIPA. We need to be clear about which aspects of what we are talking about are things that are in SIPA's control and which are not. That would then suggest to me that there are some people who think that the legislation on which SIPA was set up in the early years of the Parliament is something that they would like to revisit. I am not entirely sure that it is something that I can answer just off the top of my head without looking at a lot of the detail of individual decision making and understanding why, in some cases, SIPA clearly believes that they do not have powers and where they do. If I could come back and ask what is the right of the community to challenge SIPA? If you take the Lotharman case, where the conviction is now taking place, the mess is still there, SIPA will not clean up because it will cost over £1 million and they say that it is safe enough. The judge was highly critical in the case, but what is the right of the community to appeal where SIPA takes a decision not to clear something up? What rights does communities have? We are straying away from the instrument in front of us. However, Alex Rowley raises some interesting points. Can I ask the cabinet secretary to write to the committee on that point right back to us about the rights of the community in circumstances such as these, not necessarily that case, and about what does a final written warning constitute? If you could write back to us on those generalities, that would be useful rather than the specific case that is referred to. Do any other members have questions? No. In which case we will move to the fourth item on our agenda, which is consideration of the motion S5M-1203, in which the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee recommends that the environmental authorisation Scotland regulations 2018 draft be approved. Cabinet secretary, do you want to speak to and move the motion? I do not think that I need to say anything further, so I move that the regulations be approved. Thank you. Do any members wish to comment on that? Thanks, convener. I am quite happy to support this. It makes a lot of sense in terms of providing more integrated framework and welcoming the first tranche coming in around radioactive materials. I think ahead of the next tranche coming in, particularly around pollution, prevention and control regulations, I would like to see how this is actually going to work on the ground and whether we are going to see improvements, particularly for environmental reporting with communities. The situation that I have raised earlier on Alex Rowley's raised it as well in relation to the older nuisance at Dunfermline. On Thursday night, there were nearly 2,000 shares of a post on Facebook. If you read the threads, comments that are being made after this post, there is just a continual debate about whose responsibility it is. Is it SEPA, is it Fife Council, who has got responsibility for this? Does anybody know what is meant to be spread at this site, compared with what has been spread? There are major issues around information flow. Obviously, it is not entirely relevant to this regulation because it is more about the PPC regs that will come later. When we get round to that second tranche, I would be interested to know what improvements SEPA is going to make and how they are going to make that front end absolutely seamless for communities that need information. I think that very specific and very individual cases are going to be referred to. It would be really helpful if we could get an indication of what they might be. As you will appreciate, there are enormous differences from case to case. Every one of them will probably turn on very specific sets of information. If I am to be helpful in those circumstances, it would help to have some of those things flagged up so that we can do a little bit of work and understand and therefore be able perhaps to explain more clearly why a particular set of circumstances is what it is. I can answer generally in terms of generalities, like once something goes into the justice system, it is out with SEPA's control in terms of timescale, but if there are very particular sets of circumstances, otherwise we will just be in a position where I have to then promise a letter again. You have also picked up on that point and you can perhaps respond to us in the course of the letter that you are going to write subsequently. Richard Lyle forward by Claudia Beamish. Sorry, convener. For those of us who were previously councillors, I would say that any pollution, any smell is the responsibility of the environmental department of local council rather because they are on the ground. SEPA's can then be contacted. I have a SEPA office in my constituency and I regularly contact them if I have a particular problem. I would, on this occasion, agree with the cabinet secretary that people should be doing that. I am supportive of the regulations. I would like to highlight what came up in previous discussion, which is about the generality of the processes for community engagement right through a process and the feedback at the end of a process. The conversations that were had earlier, I hope, will help with those. They are very important if we are to have a Scotland that really does involve our communities in the processes that protect them. Are the other members going to have any questions to raise or points to make? No, okay. Cabinet secretary, do you want to wind up? No, I think that the conversations. I therefore put the question on the motion, which is that motion S5M-1203 in the name of Rosanna Cunningham be approved. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. I will suspend briefly for a changeover of witnesses. Good morning, and welcome back to this meeting of the environment climate change and land reform committee. The fifth item of business on our agenda today is to hear evidence on the community right to buy abandoned, neglected or detrimental land regulations 2018. We will hear from the cabinet secretary, Rosanna Cunningham, and her officials, Dr Simon Cuthbert Kerr, who is the head of the land reform unit, and Andrew Rockstone, from the Scottish Government's legal directorate. Cabinet secretary, I want to invite you to make an opening statement, which I understand will cover all of the relevant instruments before us today. Thank you, convener. The second legislation that we are discussing today will bring into force part 3A of the Land Reform Scotland Act 2003, the community right to buy abandoned, neglected or detrimental land. That is land that is wholly or mainly abandoned or neglected, or the management or use of which is causing harm to the environmental well-being of the relevant community. It is really important to emphasise that part 3A is not intended to be the first step that a community should take when trying to buy land in order to deal with the problems that it might be causing. The Land Reform Scotland Act 2003 requires that they should have already tried to buy the land through some other means. Where they are claiming that there is harm being caused to the environmental well-being of their community, they should have tried to fix that harm by going to relevant regulators. That obviously relates to what we have been discussing before applying for a right to buy. However, it is a powerful and far-reaching right to buy, particularly as it introduces an element of compulsory purchase. It will add to the existing community right to buy, which has been operating successfully for over 15 years. Obviously, we have had the most recent successful buyout of Ulva. Those affirmative instruments cover the more substantive elements of the package of instruments. They are largely concerned with the matters in which ministers must have regard to when considering whether land is eligible to be purchased under the right to buy, as well as the prohibitions that are placed on the owner while an application is being considered. In considering whether or not land is eligible under part 3A, ministers must have regard to matters set out in the regulations. As part 3A is a right to buy, which is compulsory, it is right that ministers have regard to a number of different matters when considering whether land is, in fact, wholly or mainly abandoned or neglected, or is causing harm to the environmental well-being of a relevant community. Regulations 3 to 5 set out matters that ministers must have regard to in relation to the physical condition, designation or classifications, and the use or management of the land. Regulation 6 sets out the matters that ministers must have regard to relating to environmental well-being. That includes whether the land has caused a statutory nuisance or whether it has been subject to a closure order or notice under the Antisocial Behaviour Act. It looks at whether harm is being caused to environmental well-being. I know that some stakeholders want environmental well-being to extend to social and economic matters, and that was debated during the passage of the Community Empowerment Scotland Act 2016, which is what inserts part 3A into the 2003 act. In assessing whether land is eligible for part 3A, some social considerations can in fact be taken into account, but only where they result in harm to our community's environmental well-being it's important that we don't try to stretch the meaning of environmental well-being too far because, if we stretch it too far, it will break and it will break in court. I recognise the importance of those matters being taken into account, and I have instructed my officials to explore ways in which that might be achieved. Part 3 is a compulsory purchase right, and we absolutely do not want that to interfere with individuals' homes. That is why land, which is someone's home, is excluded under the act. However, if that land is occupied under a tenancy, it is not automatically excluded, and that allows a community body to apply for land even where there is a tenant in place. Part 3A does not interfere with a tenant's rights under their tenancy, however, and the instrument takes account of protections offered to tenants by other legal arrangements. The first of the negative instrument sets out how any person, including an owner, who incurs additional costs as a result of complying with the act, can claim compensation under section 97T of the 2003 act. The second of the negative instruments covers a wider range of subjects relating to the process that a community must follow when applying under part 3A, including the ballot, advertising the fact of the application and what costs a community body can claim from Scottish ministers. I know that the committee will have questions and I am happy to answer them. I think that a number of members do, but let me kick this off. You touched there about concerns that stakeholders have raised. Could you briefly talk us through the consultation process that took place around those and how stakeholders' views were taken into account in developing the regulations? Yes, there was a public consultation and all of the instruments that took place actually in 2016, immediately following the legislation, I presume, from March to June of that year. A total of 51 responses were received and there was an analysis of the consultation responses published in September 2016. During January 2018—that is this year—a series of face-to-face meetings with key stakeholders were held to discuss the draft regulations. That included Scottish Land and Estates, Community Land Scotland, Community Ownership Support Services, NFUS, Cairngwam's National Park and various housing groups. Additional engagement with stakeholders and community groups has also taken place. John Scott I ask the cabinet secretary about the Scottish Land and Estates' questions that he has raised in this regard. There is no longer a need for an owner to be informed of an intention, apparently, of a right to buy. The impact that this might have on an owner's ability to defend his position and that it could have further implications if they are not aware of this to carry out in good-face transactions, which would limit their ability to do so. They might be falling foul of the law inadvertently and carrying out transactions in good faith. Why has that been changed? There were some changes that were made after discussion with stakeholders. There are key changes. I do not know whether that is what the member is particularly asking about. There is a key change to the restriction period and a change in respect of balloting information as well. I do not know whether the SGLD wants to just come in here on this particular issue. I think that, in relation to the point raised by the Scottish Land and Estates, that was relating to the restriction period, which is set out in the draft affirmative regulations. As I understand, the provisions relating to that particular provision were changed following discussion with stakeholders. The restriction period now starts when an application appears on the register of applications by community bodies to buy land rather than when a person is notified. I understand that the reason for that was that following discussions with stakeholders, there was a small window where between Scottish ministers receiving an application and it being placed on the register, it would have been possible for a transaction to take place without the buyer or seller being aware that the right to buy application or prohibition was in place and the change to the regulations closed that window. It was essentially what happens at the moment under the right to buy is that the community body must write to the owner of the land as well as the Scottish ministers, so they will receive notice at the same time. It is not that the Scottish ministers write out as they do currently. However, the concern was that, if the prohibition period started when the person was notified, there was a very small window between that notification and the application going on to the register where it was potentially unreasonable for owners to be aware of the application process. Placing and starting the prohibition period from the point at which the application goes on the register is hopefully trying to be a bit fairer to owners because it is clear at that point that that is when the prohibition period starts, so anything that happens before that is not affected by the prohibition period, which is slightly different to what the regulations have previously said. That tries to address that concern. I should also declare an interest in this regard as a land owner. It does not appear notwithstanding what you have said that you have convinced Scottish land in the state of the reasonableness of your argument in that regard, so you are swapping one unreasonable position for perhaps an unreasonable position in your view for an unreasonable position in other people's view. What has been done is to try and bring some clarity to this and to not have even a short space of time, which might be no more than a day where folk are unaware or could argue that they were unaware of a situation having developed. Given that we are talking about people's property rights, the need for absolute clarity is important. We have attempted to ensure that what is introduced into the legislation is absolute clarity. I suppose that one could argue that it is never necessarily going to make everybody happy, but what it does now is remove any hours of dubiety that may have emerged from the way that it was originally drafted. Since we are in the business of making things absolutely clear, then if a community is now incumbent on a community to make an owner aware of the intention to buy, if they do not do that for whatever reason, could reason or none, does that render their application invalid? There are duties that are placed on people and the duty that is placed on a community body is to make that notification. I am just looking for absolute confirmation of that, but the community body is now required to do that as well as the Scottish ministers. The existing right to buy does not work like that, but it does because we are talking about the introduction of a compulsory right to buy element to it. It is about absolute certainty for those who are in ownership of the land, keeping in mind that we are talking about land that is neglected, abandoned or in detrimental state. What happens if, in the interim, a transaction takes place that the owner carries out a transaction before he is aware of the community right to buy, but after the community takes that transaction in good faith, being unaware of the community right— The point about the changes means that the restriction on the owner will now begin when the application appears on the register of applications rather than when the person is notified, so that the owner— You see my point, not what I'm saying. No, I can see the point. What you are saying is that an owner could, between noon on Tuesday and 9am on Wednesday, effect a quick sale to avoid— Well, or in good faith, I know things happen without their being. Effectively, that's what we're talking about. We're talking about that really narrow window, and it is precisely the kind of thing that we're discussing here that we wanted to just bring some clarity in. Now that the prohibition period starts, the minute something appears on the register. That would require a landowner or an owner to check the register for them to be informed of that position. Before they'd received the letter and notified them of that position, and in the reality of the world— Well, no, it would be notified by the community body and by Scottish ministers. In due course, but after it has appeared on the register. So there may be, in the reality, rather from noon on a Tuesday, it's more likely to be noon on a Wednesday or a Thursday or a Friday before a landowner or owner is notified. That was—on discussion with stakeholders, that was the concern about the pre-existing way things were drafted. That is what we have. That uncertainty is what we are now closing the door to by shifting the prohibition period forward slightly to make it on the registration. That is in direct response to the concerns that you're expressing today. Mr Ostefans. Just very simply to summarise that you can sell your—and I'm a landowner beyond my household—you can sell your land up to the moment you get a notification from a community body of an intention to proceed. You can technically sell your land up until the point at which the— Restriction periods. The restriction period starts, which is when the entry appears on the register. Ministers and the community body are obliged to inform the landowner. In what happens under the provisions at the moment is that when the community body applies to Scottish ministers they must send a copy of that application to the landowner at the same time. The prohibition will not take place until Scottish ministers actually tell registers to place the application on the register, so in practical terms— A copy of that instruction goes to the owner as well. When we instruct the application to go on to the register, we send a copy to the owner as well. The owner is being kept informed within this small space of time, but for the crystal clear nature of it the prohibition period, the formal prohibition period, starts when the application appears on the register. So, cabinet secretary, there is additional communication with the owner of the land compared to what prevailed before. Yes. Guidance on the interpretation of the regulations? Yes, there will be guidance and I expect that guidance to appear be available to communities shortly. We have already engaged directly with communities and other organisations, and we will be continuing with that activity while the guidance is developed. In terms of a timescale, I would be loath to commit officials to a timetable, but I am looking at the senior official here, so he may be able to give us a bit more. We are looking to bring guidance as soon as possible following the regulations coming into force, so late June, early July, was there a reason why you could not provide draft guidance to inform our scrutiny of that? There seem to be some issues around interpretation, and it maybe would have helped if we had draft guidance. There has been a very great deal of discussion about some of the drafting of that, so I think that if we tried to produce guidance it would have been premature guidance and would not have been particularly helpful and probably would have had to have been revised in any case. If we have exhausted that particular point, John Scott has got a further point. The further issue that Scottish land in the States raised with regard to forestry, in the letter to us, there is no reference to forestry plans, which in a rural context can be quite significant. There is apparently, for example, post-felling that it could appear to be abandoned land, and should that be part of the regulation? If land is deemed eligible, issues such as forestry plans, et cetera, are taken into account in the overall consideration of the application anyway as part of the public interest test. The regulations set out matters that ministers must have regard to, but that does not preclude other matters from being taken into account, as long as they are relevant to the various statutory tests. Owners are asked to provide comments on the application, which gives them the opportunity to comment on any and all matters that they consider relate to the specific situations that are raised in the letters. Those comments are considered as part of ministers' decision-making process, so the kinds of issues that are being raised specifically here are things that I would expect to see an owner flag up as part of the provision of comments to the minister. This is very much more a ministerial decision than some of the existing right to buy. Obviously, the existing right to buy is a ministerial decision, but it is much more of a subjective decision-making process for a minister, so all that information will be gathered in and taken on board. However, it will be very much the responsibility of the owner in those circumstances to make sure that they bring to the table all the issues that they think are important in respect of the land. I hear what you say. I am not sure if I am filled with confidence when you tell me that it is more a subjective process than it was before. Is the community right to buy that it is pre-existing? As long as communities go through the set process and fulfil all the various conditions, unless there is a complicating factor such as a late application, the strong likelihood is that it will have its application agreed. The particular process, because of the nature of it, means that a huge range of issues need to be taken into account. You cannot legislate for every single one of them because every single circumstance is going to be different. Every single application that comes before a minister will be different from the one that has come previously. Therefore, there is a wider degree of ministerial decision-making power there than exists with the way that the present right to buy is defined. A forestry plan would be a relevant consideration. It would be absolutely a relevant consideration. The point about that is that owners are effectively invited to put forward anything that they consider to be a relevant consideration in the knowledge that it will be looked at as part and parcel of the whole balance of decision-making in that particular case. That is very helpful as an explanation. I am grateful to you for that. I will ask you about the balloting process and why the transparency has apparently been taken out of that process and that it is no longer regarded as being appropriate to share ballot information with those who have invested interest in asking for that. As it was suggested in the 2003 act, it would be reasonable. The option to request ballot information from a community body was removed because of legal concerns about data protection issues. However, provision of information to Scottish ministers is already provided for in the 2003 act. As such, we believe that ministers will be able to request information where necessary. Rules of evidence would allow another party in an appeal to request such information if need be. Has there been any engagement with communities who may wish to use those provisions? Do you have any indication of how many could come up in the coming months? Practical examples would be helpful. I know that the cabinet secretary is aware of the issues with Dromor harbour. Do you think that those provisions are going to assist that community in moving things forward, because at the moment they are getting very little support from QLTR and other bodies within the Scottish Government to progress their application? Is this going to make it easier? Well, they are not currently taking forward an application in respect of this. These are regulations that have not been brought into force yet. I have just indicated that it is going to be very hard to set down a concrete list of rules that will apply right across the board beyond what is here, because in every individual case there will be a lot of individual issues that will require to be dealt with. The community land team has been raising awareness of the regulations, and that includes engaging directly with communities. For example, most recently there were workshops run at the Community Land Scotland annual conference, which was just a week or so ago. We know that there are a number of communities who are planning to use the new regulations, but we do not have an estimate of how many applications might be made. We do not know from where they will come, and therefore it would be a pointless exercise for me to start trying to hypothesise on any individual potential application that might exist in the future. Whether the community involved in the process that the member is raising chooses to have a look at those new rules, it will be a matter entirely for them. However, I remind everybody that this is not a first resort set of rules, but a final resort set of rules. Let's open this out. John McAlpine wants to come in. Thank you very much, convener. Many of the communities that you refer to will have been very heartened by the definition of harm to environmental wellbeing, laid out by the previous minister, Eileen Dr Eileen McLeod, during stage 3 of the Community Empowerment Scotland Act 2015. That is obviously raised in the briefing from Community Land Scotland to the committee. Originally, Dr McLeod said that harm to environmental wellbeing. She wanted it to the definition of environmental wellbeing to be a very broad one, and she suggested cases where use or management of land would cause harm to the community, such as boarded-up shops and unoccupied housing. I have a community group in my constituency that is very interested in buying back its high street, and it will have been inspired by the way that Dr McLeod laid out the definitions. Now, Community Land Scotland is saying that the regulations that you have put forward are so tightly drafted in terms of the fact that land has to be seen as being subject to environmental protection notices and that it may not be able to go forward with its plans. I wonder what reassurances you could give to organisations like that that we have not backtracked on the legislation. I cannot go into the details of discussions that took place three or four years ago, and I was not involved in them. The detail of those conversations and how they have been construed is difficult for me to refer to. However, I need to say that those regulations will allow communities to take action where the use or management of land is causing harm to the community's environmental wellbeing. They will also allow some social considerations to be taken into account where they lead to environmental wellbeing. The environmental wellbeing elements of the regulations will provide powerful opportunities for communities. However, environmental wellbeing has a particular meaning in law, and it is not possible to make it mean something beyond what it is. I know that stakeholders are keen to ensure that a wider range of issues can be taken into account when determining the eligibility of land. Rather than trying to fit those concepts into a definition of environmental wellbeing and knowing that it is likely to be subsequently rejected, it is better to explore, in our view, other options for how we might achieve those ends, because we still want to achieve those ends. There are two potential ways to look at it. One option is to amend the 2003 act so that specific issues can be taken into account. I have asked my officials to look at ways in which that can be done effectively. The other potential option is to look at part 5 and the regulations that will emanate from part 5, which have to do with sustainable development. We are actively pursuing other ways to manage that. However, if we try to press ahead with the pre-existing idea that environmental wellbeing can be stretched as far as people currently want it to be stretched, it will come apart at the first test. I do not think that that would be helping anybody, because we would end up in a situation where the first challenges led to failures, and that would not be helpful. How can the committee have confidence that that will happen? Would we not be better waiting to see what your officials come back with once you have had the time to consider how we can make that work? I presumed that the committee would want to see those regulations brought into force as soon as possible, while we explore ways in which we can ensure that what I know people want to see apply does apply. If those regulations do not come into force now, there will be nothing for communities under that particular right to buy at all. I am assuming that most communities, and as I understand it, Community Land Scotland, want that to go ahead. Community Land Scotland suggests some new drafting for the regulations and the appendix to the briefing to the committee today, which I am sure that you are aware of. Was there a problem with the suggestions that they came up with in terms of their draft regulations? Those are issues that were also considered by Government beforehand. The main issue is a virus issue in terms of whether the concepts that are set out there are things that relate to the environmental wellbeing of a community. There is also a secondary concern about the width of some of the concepts and the fact that that might create an ECHR issue in terms of the foreseeability of, in order for owners of land to be able to arrange their fares in a way that does not mean that they fall foul of those regulations in terms of how they use their land. The main issue for some of the wider consideration such as economic or social wellbeing is that it is stretching, as the cabinet secretary said, what is able to be done under the current primary legislation that relates only to environmental harm and environmental wellbeing. The primary legislation tries to make that wider because it says that harm to environmental wellbeing can include harm that has an adverse effect on the lives of the persons in the relevant community. It tries to recognise that it is not strictly focused on environmental concerns of themselves. It is the impact that those environmental concerns can have on the lives of the community. I am encouraged by that in the primary legislation. Have you tested the regulations that you have laid down here? For example, it has to be subject to a closure notice, it has to be subject to anti-social behaviour notices or statutory nuisance notices. Have you explored the instances in which those kind of regulations are laid down? My understanding is that they are really quite tightly drafted. How many anti-social behaviour notices are laid down, how many statutory nuisance notices are laid down? I just think about my own community and their constituents who come to me about land where any reasonable person would think that it was a statutory nuisance, but the local authority did not put down those notices. I remind members what I said in answer to an earlier question, which is not a process of first resort. It is meant to be a process when all other things have been exhausted, so you do not leap straight to this. You actually try to fix the harm. There are attempts to fix the harm before you get to the process. I think that there is a tendency for people to perhaps presume that this is our right to buy, which they can go to as a first resort. It is not designed to be that. The primary legislation says that it is not designed to be a first resort choice. I would be in the role of a community body looking very carefully and widely at what has and has not already been done in respect of particular properties and what other processes and what other routes are already available. It is not designed to be a choice of first resort. I think that there is a danger that people become caught up in the notion that that is what it is. The member is keen to come in on this specific point. Finlay Carson followed by Stuart Stevenson followed by Claudia Beamish. It is just at the back of John McAlpine's example. We heard evidence previously of this committee, and I cannot tell you exactly what session that was, but I asked the question about high streets and whether it would give community bodies the ability to buy flats above shops or whatever that had been abandoned and so on. I got the feeling that this was exactly something that this new legislation could do. It could allow communities to make decisions on the adverse effect of those abandoned flats or whatever has on their lives, but it sounds like you are backing off that. That is the case. It may very well do, but it would depend entirely on the circumstances and the specific issues that are around that particular piece of property. The antisocial behaviour orders, I know that some properties end up being used for illicit purposes, etc. Those are the kinds of things that would all be parcel off that. I think that the point that I am trying to get across is that there is a presumption and a lot of the discussion around this, that community bodies can go straight to this, but that is not how this is designed. It never was intended to be a first resort, so the hypothetical block of flats may very well be some years' worth of action and activity around that before a community gets to a point where this becomes the appropriate way forward, but other means have to be exhausted. Other means have to be tried and exhausted, so there are other right-to-buy options available as well that I would remind people of, so this is the first one. There is also the pre-existing right to buy in urban communities, which can also be brought into play. This is adding something, but it is not the be all and end all and was never intended to be the be all and end all either. A hypothetical block of flats could have a whole set of issues around it, which would make it applicable for that. However, there may have been not enough activity that would be exhausted before a community bodies gets to this stage. That is the point about the regulations. I am looking here at the 1990 Environmental Protection Act, section 79. In particular, the definition of a statutory nuisance, which is in 1A, any premise in such a state as to be prejudicial to health or is a nuisance. There is more to it than that, but it is a helpful starting point. I wonder, based on an experience that I had in an area that used to be in my constituency before the change of boundaries, whether we had a derelict building in a particular village on the high street that was accepted as being a nuisance by the local authority whose duty it is. The real difficulty was that the owners were hidden in Panama, and it took 10 years to find the decision maker. I suspect that, based on my experience, there is enough power to which we are adding today to deal with the most egregious of cases, like the ones that are being talked about. However, it is not the issue with finding the owner, because often that is the key to a resolution, in particular before we get to the point of invoking those laws anyway, because it is about communication. Ultimately, that one was solved by communication, not by law, so to speak. Is that a fair comment to you, cabinet secretary? I think that that probably is a fair comment. I suspect that most of us have experience of some properties where whoever the owner was is very much lost in the mists of time. Even tracking one to the Bahamas, in some cases, would have been parent, whatever. Even that would be an advance on some experiences that we have had. That can be an issue, but that is already an existing issue for, for example, local authorities who try to progress compulsory purchase orders. The difficulty of establishing ownership is an underlying problem for any of those processes. It is not one that we can fix overnight. Indeed, cabinet secretary, it may not be one that we can fix in this Parliament. In relation to foreign registered owners? There are a number of people who want to come in. Can I just summarise where I think we are at, and you can correct me if I am wrong, from what you are saying? I am notwithstanding the concerns that are being expressed, and I understand them having served in the last Parliament with this bill in front of us. If we do not pass those regs today, there will just be nothing that would allow any progress to be made. If we do that, it could be quite some time before you worked through the concerns that are being expressed and committed to working through before we had anything. Potentially we could have a number of potential projects not being brought forward and taken to fruition. Is that what you are saying? Yes, because if those regulations do not go through just now, the right to buy will not be available for any of those reasons. We have had a fairly interesting discussion about where, even with the existing, as currently drafted regulations, there will be a number of different communities who will be in a position to be able to begin to act on that. I would presume that most of them would like to be in that position in the nearer future than would be the case if we halted everything to wait for a solution to that bigger problem to be developed. That is just the reality. I do not suppose that any of us want to be in the position that we are in. Ideally, I could make words or a phrase mean whatever I want them to mean, but this committee has experience of some of that kind of conversation in dealing with previous legislation. The courts will apply the normally understood meaning of words and that is where we are. Attempting to stretch the normally understood meaning of words beyond that is where we run into real difficulties, so we have to find a different way to fix it. However, we have had a good conversation about where, in actual fact, this might not be as restrictive as it looks at first glance. I always want to come in on this. Claudia Beamish is followed by John Scott. Thank you, convener. Cabinet Secretary, I would like to build on that conversation. I still have concerns having been involved in the previous Parliament in the act and taking evidence on it. As John McAlpine has already highlighted, Dr McLeod made a commitment at stage 3, in which he said in the stage 3 debate that the definition of environmental wellbeing has a wide meaning and encompasses some social considerations. I have listened carefully to what you have said. I understand that there can be legal challenges to any law, but it would be helpful if you could clarify for us the first part of my brief line of questioning, I hope. What in law is the definition of harm to environmental wellbeing? If I do not want to put words in your mouth, but which my understanding is, has made the Scottish Government decide to back away from the draft regulations that have been withdrawn, which were being under discussion? Part of the conversation that we have been having highlights where some of the difficulties will lie, the understanding that a court will construe the phrase environmental wellbeing in a particular way, not necessarily in the way that we would want them to, or as widely as we would want them to. Although, when you look into this, some of the social considerations that the previous minister was talking about are still absolutely applicable in respect of this. We have talked about some of them here today. It currently will include anti-social behaviour orders. That has been imported into it, so it is beginning to look at a wider social consideration through that. The very helpful intervention by Stuart Stevenson on the Environmental Protection Act indicates another rather wider definitional opening than perhaps people would be necessarily thinking of. What we are trying to do is all get to the right place. The issue is whether we can do it in precisely the way that we first thought we could do it, and that is where the problem arises. Now we have to find a different way to achieve exactly the same end. I understand what you are saying. I agree with you that effective legislation is really important, but that is the reason why I have concerns about the possibilities. You have said that your officials are looking at the 2003 act and part 5 in relation to sustainable development. As we all know, those are very complex issues. I have concerns about whether those investigations do not come up with it. That will not be the effective legislation that Dr McLeod and those of us who were involved in that process at that point were expecting. If I can just highlight to you the three aspects that, as I understand it, and please correct me if I am wrong, have been withdrawn from the previous drafting process. That is in regulation 6, the extent to which the use or management of land has always likely to have a detrimental effect on. The first one is the amenity and prospects of the relevant community, then the preservation of the relevant community or its development, and thirdly the social development of the relevant community. From my perspective as a layperson who went through the process of that bill in committee and spoke in those debates, I do not understand in what ways we are risking the courts by including those aspects in it. I really have a concern about it being passed today on that basis because I agree with you, cabinet secretary. It is a last resort, but that does not mean to say that we must risk getting it wrong. Well, we are not going to get it wrong by doing what we have done today. From the perspective of those wider issues, the point that we are making is that that will simply take us beyond any reasonable definition of environmental wellbeing and will fall apart in the court. The member is shaking her head, but I am sorry that that is a reality in which we have to live. If that ends up in a court, the court is not going to say that environmental wellbeing is all of the things that we might want it to be. Even a Parliament cannot override that. I am not suggesting that, cabinet secretary. I am still asking what is the definition that is being used that prevents those clauses being in it. If they have been prevented, how can I, as a member of the committee, vote for the passing of the motion today? I do not know whether the other two recommendations that your officials are working on—the other two possibilities—in good faith, I understand, are necessary. Will you give us the answers that the communities need? If you do not vote for it today, that will be a matter for the committee, but then there will be nothing available. We have had a discussion today about what can and cannot be done under the regulations that are currently drafted. If they do not go through today, none of that will be available to any community. There will be lots of communities where the properties that are considering will fall within this set, this definition, this way of approaching it. We want to all get to the same place, but this is not the way in which we can do it. I cannot say to a Parliament and then have a Parliament vote on something that will have to be struck down because it is simply beyond the bounds of what is legally possible for us to be doing. My concern is that it is not only community land Scotland. We had evidence when we were taking evidence on the bill, which is now an act, from Development Trust's Association Scotland, Community Woodland Scotland, Scottish Community Alliance and, indeed, the Scottish Land Commission at that stage. Then Dr McLeod gave that commitment. I find myself in a difficult position today, and I need that recorded officially. It is, of course, a case that none of those other bodies have come back raising concerns about the service to men. I am sorry if I was not clear convener, but, for clarity, my understanding is that this is only from Community Land Scotland that the draft provisions, which have now been removed, were also endorsed by those stakeholders. However, I am simply saying that it puts me in a difficult position. John Scott, to be followed by Stuart Stevenson. Thank you. There are certainly other parties that are on Community Land Scotland who are voicing concerns about this Scottish land and the state's historic houses. However, in terms of what Claudia Beamish has just said, it is perhaps worth noting that, in the paragraph that she quoted with regard to Dr Eileen McLeod, she went on to say, following your quotes, that we were not able to consult fully and extending the right to buy beyond what I have proposed in the Government amendments in the group. If Parliament were to widen the circumstances in which communities can acquire ownership of the land through compulsory purchase, we would want to be clear about the evidence of the harm that the proposals would address and to consult on that to find a proportionate solution. I am not sure that consultations have ever taken place, has it? I do not believe you. I am sorry. The consultation that followed the passing of the legislation was set out in March 2016. That is the consultation that took place. I do not know who was— On that point of environmental lobbying? It would have been on the whole of the regulations. I see. Stuart Seamus, followed by Donald Cameron. Thank you very much, convener. I am looking at regulation 6 within what is before us, and 6.1A, whether the use or management of the land or any building or other structure on the land, has resulted in or caused directly or indirectly a statutory nuisance. Then, at subsection 2, statutory nuisance means statutory nuisance in the meaning of section 1791 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. I go to that. I find that what we are doing is that we are importing that quite long list of statutory nuisances, including in particular 1, which is nuisance and becomes statutory nuisance under the 1990 act. We are importing that in to give us the leverage here to empower communities to act, as I found in my constituency. They had, by a tortuous route previously, used the local authority and the existing act but without having directly a power. Is it not the case that, by importing that statutory nuisance definition from the 1990 act, we are now giving a direct power that that can be used in this way? Previously, it simply enabled the local authority to take action against people when a statutory nuisance is known. It is the community that can take action when there is a statutory nuisance, including the amenity and prospects of the relevant community, the derelict building, the preservation of the community and its social development. I am not so quite so clear. The point that community land Scotland is saying that environmental wellbeing is not being defined in the bill, as I want it to have a broad meaning, but to restrict it to the 2003 act and not to look at the 1990 provisions that define statutory nuisance is perhaps where there is a bit more to it than community land Scotland has been saying to us. That has partly come out of the conversation that this allows far more leeway than just looking at it in the very narrow sense. Yes, it does import into the legislation direct reference to other pieces of legislation. Interestingly enough, that includes antisocial behaviour legislation. It brings into it, I suspect, quite a lot of the things that a lot of communities would want to be looking at anyway, and it does that quite explicitly. In doing that, it opens up the potential for communities, but it will mean that communities have to look closely and carefully at building their case and be able to show that it does fall into one or other of those categories. Those categories mean that the rationale for it goes quite wide in comparison to what people may at first glance have thought. I have got Mark Ruskell and Angus MacDonald when they come in at this point. We need to move on and explore other elements of this. Mark Ruskell. I think that that emphasises the need for guidance again. You have given a commitment to the timescale for that guidance being brought forward, but I can ask for a couple of other commitments on timescales as well. You mentioned the two reforms, the Possible Amendment 2003 Act, a look again at part 5 on sustainable development. When would those be brought forward? Relynt to that, none of us sitting here today can predict exactly how the regulation will pan out, whether it restricts communities, if it has a very good case to be brought forward to buy, or whether it provides an appropriate definition that will allow them to proceed through courts with a robust legal case. For me, it is an issue about monitoring this. I am interested to know how it will be monitored. If it does not work, if it does not meet the original intentions that were set out by Eileen McLeod of the original legislation, what is the prospect to come back and look again at those definitions? I have already committed to looking at those other options. That is a commitment that has already been made. At the moment, the part 5 regulations at the moment are penciled in to come forward next year. If that becomes a suitable vehicle for doing something, I do not know whether next year is a reasonable timescale if it is going to have to be looked at in this context as well. However, those regulations at the moment, as I understand it, are penciled in for next year. In terms of looking at the part 3 route, it is very difficult for me to give you a timescale, because it involves a very long, hard, serious look at all of that and drafting regulations. In terms of monitoring this, the guidance on this is going to have to be explicit along the lines of the issues and the other statutory references that have been brought to play in this, so that people understand the variety of different things that they can consider when they are looking at the question of this kind of right to buy. The guidance will need to be able to be read by community bodies easily and clearly. We have committed to having that done by summer, so that will be in fairly soon. In terms of monitoring impact and performance, at a basic level, do not forget that those things will land up on my desk. I will begin to see that, presumably fairly quickly, if people are beginning to use this or not, questions will be able to be asked at the moment about the numbers of right to buy over the last however many years. All of that information is then broken down by whether or not they were withdrawn, late or whatever, so that will apply to this as well. At that level, there will be a constant ability to be able to establish how often it is being used and, presumably, after a period of time, the success rate or otherwise. However, we have also now got the Scottish Land Commission, so that the Scottish Land Commission will be able to play a role in monitoring impact and performance too. For example, I have asked the Scottish Land Commission specifically to look at the number of late applications in the normal community right to buy scenario, because that worries me slightly that communities are leaving it quite late to put their right to buy applications in. It is the kind of thing that, if I saw, particularly if there were specific issues that began to arise through this, asking the Scottish Land Commission to continue to do a piece of work, would be an option as well. All of that, I expect there to be almost like on-going, as we continue to monitor the normal right to buy performance, we would continue to do so on this as well. That will begin almost when the first applications appear, so that process will start almost immediately. Would it be realistic, then, to expect some form of monitoring ahead of these part 5 redefinitions coming forward so that we can see any definition changes in relation to sustainable development that we can assess in relation to the early days of this regulation, assuming it is passed? This is an entirely demand-led process. I am entirely in the hands of communities as to how quickly they begin to feed up applications. If I get early applications, relatively early applications, then absolutely yes. If applications do not come forward for a while while communities think about whether or not this is the appropriate way forward, or whether there is another route for them, I cannot say that, but I would expect there to have been at least some of those applications coming forward before we are in the process of doing the sustainable development regulations next year. Is not part of the issue here about the applications that do not end up on your desk because communities are put off? How do you monitor those? In the same way that we currently do, we always say to communities that when you first consider anything under right to buy, be in touch with the community land officials and they will immediately start to give you assistance, which is what they do at the moment. Communities are in touch with the community land officials usually from a very early part of the process, and I would expect and hope that that would continue to be the case. Communities, when they start to think about this, should be in early conversation with community land officials, and in particular the one that a couple of members have referred to in Dumfries, to my knowledge they have not yet been in touch with officials. I would strongly urge them to do so at the earliest possible opportunity, because often officials can steer them in the right direction and that helps an application to go through much more smoothly than it might do if a community picks up and goes off in the wrong direction too early. Angus MacDonald forward by John McAlpine. I think it's fair to say that underpinning the key policy intention is clearly what we all want to see, but following on from the monitoring point that was raised, if I could take that a bit further. Specifically, Community Land Scotland has called for a review of the effectiveness of the regulations if they go through today in meeting the policy intentions within three years of their implementation. I have also called for further commitment to make any necessary amendments to the regulations and or the primary legislation to ensure that the community right to buy is underpinning the original policy intention. Is there any commitment to do that? I'm sorry, but the first one is about a three-year review. I would just remind everybody that three years from now we will have just had an election, so that's a slightly problematic timescale. That's a call from community. I understand that, but three years from now we will have just had an election. I would say that we would want to keep those under continual review, and that's how I would prefer to put it, so that people can see on a continuous basis that they were working and perhaps working better than they thought or not, because I wouldn't want to wait for three years before I flagged up, for example, to the land commission and to officials if there were issues beginning to develop. The danger of setting a time limit for a formal review in three years' time means that, effectively, between now and that review, you just let it chunter on. I'm not sure that I want to be in that place, because at the same time we're also going to be developing these other regulations, so we'll need to just constantly be checking back on the way that these work in practice for our consideration of how else we can fix to widen it even further, so that those two things will be going side by side. In terms of a timescale for developing those other regulations, well, I've indicated that the sustainable development regulations are due next year. If that is the route that is considered to be the appropriate route, this might delay them by a couple of months, but it probably shouldn't delay them any longer than that. If it's a question of coming up with an entirely new route, I wouldn't like to be tied to a timescale, but I certainly think that it would be absolutely reasonable for me to say that that can be sorted in this Parliament. Thanks very much. Cabinet secretary, you've been very clear that if we don't pass these regulations then there's nothing, and that's why I'll be supporting them despite very serious concerns. I just wanted to return to your answers to myself and Stuart Stevenson, which were helpful in terms of you talking about the breadth of options open to communities, but for many communities you can be talking about empty buildings that might not be used for criminal activities or illegal parties or they may not be overrun by vermin, they may be wind and water tight, but they're lying empty because of land banking and they're causing serious social harm to the community and the development of the community. Will those regulations help in those cases? I hope that we can develop a way of putting something like that into legislation. That's what we're trying to do, but we have to be mindful of keeping the Parliament within the law and ensuring that what we actually do is legally robust and is in compliance with the CHR, which everybody loves when it suits them, but isn't so keen on when it begins to be a bit of a problem for them, and that is the case here. I've been handed something to read and my eyesight is so poor, I'm not sure I'm going to be able to read it without holding it out to here. The use or management of land does include a consideration of the length of time that the land buildings and structures have, as the case may be, being used or managed as identified under previous paragraphs and not being used or managed for any discernible purpose. The not being used or managed for any discernible purpose is already a specific phrase that can be looked at. What's coming forward is that perhaps the guidance needs to be very clear and run through perhaps without reference to other considerations and other legislation, but it makes it very clear what it is that people can take into account and put it all in a simple straightforward place that allows them to begin to think about whether or not that can be a route forward. However, I go back to the thing that I've said already twice, that there have to have been other attempts to fix the problem, so this is about a community considering other ways to do it. Can they directly approach the owner? Can they have to exhaust other actions before they resort to this? That's another thing that we would need to make crystal clear in the guidance that, before you even get to that point, it would be something that officials would flag up if people would be in touch with officials. What have you done already? What things have you already considered? Officials will be in a position to be able to say, that is what we expect you to have done. Therefore, you are now in a position where proceeding with this community right to buy application is an appropriate thing to do. I'm conscious that we may have one or two other questions to ask. I suspect your Stevenson wants to ask on about mineral rights. Yes, indeed. As the self-appointed committee geek, I raised on the sixth of March issues around mineral rights. All that I need to perhaps say is that the rewording that is resulted from that, which separates, more clearly, the mineral rights from other rights. Of course, mineral rights are in legal terms themselves land, although they are not what we would commonly identify as being land. I think that I am very content with the new wording that we have before us. I thank the minister and her officials for responding to my geekish inquiry a couple of months ago. I don't think that there's really anything I need to add to that. Can I ask members of anyone else if there are other questions relating to this instrument? No, we're content with that. Okay, where am I? So we now move to the debate on the motion agenda item 6, which is that motion S5M-1209, that the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee recommends that the community right to buy abandoned, neglected or detrimental land, eligible land regulators and restrictions on transfers and dealing with Scotland regulations 2018, be approved. Can I invite you to speak to and move the motion? I would simply formally move the motion, convener. Thank you for that. Can I invite any members to make comment? Claudia Beamish. Thank you, convener. From the evidence that I've heard, I don't feel able to vote for the passing of the motion today. It has given me some reassurance about the two areas of work that are going to be taken on by the Scottish Government in the future in relation to the 2003 act and part 5 on sustainable development. I appreciate that these are very complex issues and I've listened very carefully to the arguments made by your cabinet secretary about the risks to communities of delaying this secondary legislation. However, my view is that the legislation has to be clear and effective. I can't vote for it today because my view is that I would be letting down a considerable number of stakeholders in relation to the regulation 6. Therefore, I don't feel, especially as the issue is a very complex backstop. I don't feel that without hearing about the other arguments and where those are going and having some reassurance on those that I can vote for it, I'm afraid. Stuart Stevenson. Thank you, convener. I think that it was very helpful to have the cabinet secretary confirm that it imported some existing provisions but created new powers for communities to use those provisions, not simply being confined, as it previously was, to local authority or other statutory officials to do so. In particular, understanding what statutory nuisance would mean by importing it here strikes me that we've got the confidence that communities have that backstop power and that we're adding very useful powers here. What I would encourage colleagues who are wrestling with some doubts on this, that, at this stage, at least not to oppose, even if they are wishing to withhold support, because I think that we seem in the discussion to have a shared view that this does take us forward. We only differ to some modest extent as to whether it is sufficiently far forward or whether it can only be seen in the context of subsequent legislation. Does anybody else wish to comment? From my perspective—sorry, John Scott. It's good to say that. I think that it's quite remarkable that this affirmative instrument has not satisfied those who are in favour of a right to buy or, indeed, those who are against it. I'm not certain about this instrument at all. I think that it's possibly a work in progress, but I'm still making out my mind, whether or not I should support it, because it's incomplete in my view. You say that there's a matter of urgency, but this has been a matter of urgency since 2003. Make the point that I am not aware of any of the stakeholders who want this legislation to be withdrawn or not go through today. From my perspective, I think that there is a consensus here that we're not in an ideal situation. I think that we would all agree that, but I think that we would be letting down many, many more stakeholders by not passing it than if we were to pass it. Given the commitments that you've made, cabinet secretary, on exploring other means of achieving the desired outcome, with some concerns, I'm going to support it. Does anybody else wish to comment? Perhaps. The point that you made there about the commitments that have been given, perhaps back in June 2015, people felt that about Dr McLeod's assurances at that time. Richard Lyle? I think that there are several projects that people raised in the last week while. If we don't pass this today, that totally stops them, so they'll need to go back and explain why they voted against it. I'll be supporting it because we have to move forward. Mark Ruskell? I sense a lot of disappointment that this doesn't meet the intention that Dr McLeod laid out several years ago. That's a bit of a shared frustration all round. I think that everybody in this room wants to see a very effective statutory instrument coming that gives the strongest possible backstop powers to communities to bring in neglected and abandoned land and buildings back into use in their communities again. I'm prepared to support this on balance, very much on balance. I've heard some commitment today. I've heard about penciling in of regulations, and hopefully that can be inked in. We actually know that this is coming, and we can timetable it. As a committee, we can go back and look at the first year of operation, see how it's operating, get evidence from stakeholders and look forward to tightening up of the other aspects of legislation that are needed to fully enact what was promised several years ago. On balance, I'll back it as a small first step towards delivering what I think communities need in Scotland, but there's still a lot more to go to build on that and to deliver what I think we would all recognise our communities need as an important power. Thank you. Does any other member wish to comment? No? Cabinet Secretary, do you wish to wind up? No, I think that I've said everything that needs to be said. Okay, so I put the question on the motion. The question is that motion S5M-1209 in the name of Rosanna Cunningham be approved. Are we all agreed? Yes. We're not agreed, so we'll move to a vote. All those in favour, raise their hands. All those against. Can I note any abstentions? So by nine votes to two with no abstentions, the motion is passed. I'm now going to suspend for five minutes to allow the cabinet secretary to depart. Thank you for your time. Welcome back to this meeting of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee, the fifth item of business on our agenda today is to consider the following negative instruments. First, the community right to buy abandoned neglected or detrimental land, compensation Scotland order 2018, SSI 2018, forward slash 137, and community right to buy abandoned neglected or detrimental land, applications, ballots and miscellaneous provisions Scotland, regulations 2018, SSI 2018, forward slash 140, and I invite no comments from members. Can I therefore take it as agreed that the committee has agreed that it does not wish to make any recommendations in relation to these instruments? I think that the same arguments and the same uncertainties obviously surround these instruments. I'm sorry I'm cutting back across what you said, but I still have particular concerns about them, I must say. However, we are where we are. We are agreed unanimously with those concerns that you have expressed. Thank you for that. At its next meeting on 5 June and subject to its report being published, the committee will take evidence from the Scottish Government's EU environment and climate change round table. The committee will consider a petition on drinking water supplies in Scotland. The committee will also consider subordinate legislation on the use of microbeads and the code of practice on litter and refuse. As agreed earlier, the committee will now move into private session and I request that the public gallery be vacated as the public part of the meeting is now closed.