���˿���

Apologies—I need to speak to quite a few amendments here.

Amendment 434 would allow for landowners or creditors to include their own plan when making a valid application for lotting to ministers. That plan would set out the proposed lots for the purpose of the land being transferred in. I would welcome comments from the cabinet secretary on my thoughts on the matter.

Amendment 436 seeks to delete the entire section in the bill that allows for an expedited lotting decision. That is not because I do not support an expedited lotting decision—I very much do—but rather because I find that section a bit unclear. I have other amendments on timing, but I would be grateful to hear from the cabinet secretary about her approach to this section.

My amendment 437 would change the wording from “expedited” to “emergency” lotting decisions, to better reflect the circumstances in which an emergency lotting decision is needed for those people who are facing hardship. My amendment 438 is along similar lines. Currently, the bill allows ministers to make expedited lotting decisions in the sense that they “may” make such decisions if they are satisfied that certain conditions are met. The amendment would change the word “may” to the word “must”, which seeks to ensure that those who are facing hardship can rely on such an emergency procedure if conditions are met.

My amendments 149 and 439 would add a timeframe to the expedited or emergency lotting decision. Amendment 149 would set a timeframe of 14 days; amendment 439 would cut that to seven days. That seeks to ensure a quick decision for those people who need it. I look forward to hearing the cabinet secretary’s approach on that. Following my amendments 149 and 439, my amendment 440 would offer a second option if members did not agree to set a 14 or seven-day period, as it would require ministers to set a specific period by regulations.

My amendments 441 and 445 seek to add to the definition of community in proposed new section 67N of the 2003 act, to make it clear that that definition must be restricted to communities in the vicinity of the land in question. I argued that in relation to previous provisions as well.

Proposed new section 67N of the 2003 act allows ministers to make lotting decisions if the decision would be more likely to lead to the land being used in ways that might make a community more sustainable. My amendment 442 seeks to add the word “significantly” to the word “sustainable” to add more clarity to the provision as drafted.

My amendment 443 would require that, when ministers are making lotting decisions, they must consider environmental designations and any contractual arrangements. That would avoid any lotting decisions having unintended negative environmental impacts by interfering with existing processes and pre-existing commercial arrangements.

My amendment 444 would put a duty on ministers, during a lotting decision, to specify lots that have been specified in a plan submitted by the landowner or creditor when an application for a lotting decision has been submitted.

My amendment 447 would add a new requirement—to consider whether

“a community body has registered an interest in the land.”

As currently drafted, the bill requires ministers to have specific regard to certain provisions when making a lotting decision. The amendment seeks to shift some of the responsibility on to communities to proactively engage with landowners and register their interest.

My amendment 157 seeks to add timescales to the bill. Currently, the bill, via proposed new section 67P of the 2003 act, requires ministers

“to review a lotting decision”

if they receive

“a valid application asking them to do so.”

However, no time period is set out for when that decision will take place, and I believe that to be a failure in the bill. Amendment 157 would require that a decision is made no later than 60 days after the application is made.

I think that I will move that one, convener.

I will move it, convener.

I think that I have the group all to myself. My amendments centre on the ability of ministers to offer to buy land and to make compensation.

My amendment 450 seeks to allow for compensation to be provided if a new lotting decision, under proposed new section 67R of the 2003 act, is substantially the same as the original lotting decision. I believe that if the new decision is substantially the same as the landowner’s original lotting plan, then some compensation should be provided for lost time and expense and the loss of interest on the sale price in the intervening period.

My amendments 451 and 452 seek to strengthen the language around the buying of land by ministers. In the bill as drafted,

“Ministers may offer to buy land”

following a review of a lotting decision if they are satisfied that the reason why the land has not been transferred is that it is likely that the land is “less commercially attractive” since the lotting decision. Amendment 451 would provide that ministers “must” rather than “may” offer to buy.

Taken together, my amendments 453 and 454 mean that the “appointed valuer” who, under proposed new section 67S of the 2003 act would determine the price of the land that ministers offer to buy following a review, must be jointly appointed by ministers and the owner of the land in question. I believe that that is required, as the purchaser would be the Scottish ministers and they would be setting their own price. It is therefore vital that there is some independent adjudication, rather than ministers being able to do everything.

My amendment 455 follows on from amendments 453 and 454. If ministers and the owner cannot agree on the appointment of a valuer, the valuer is to be appointed by the chair of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, which is an accredited organisation that deals with land for sale.

My amendment 456 relates to proposed new section 67T of the 2003 act, which allows an owner to request that ministers consider buying land to which the lotting decision relates. Ministers can make a decision on that, and an applicant can appeal to the tribunal if they are unhappy with the decision. If the tribunal is satisfied that the land has not been transferred because it is less commercially attractive following the lotting decision, the minister

“must consider making an offer to buy the land”.

My amendment strengthens the wording to change “consider making” to “make”. That seeks to help the landowner or creditors and so on, when the minister’s decision to sell in lots has made it difficult to sell.

My amendment 164 seeks to extend the time period for lodging an appeal from 21 days to 35 days. Proposed new section 67V of the 2003 act allows for the owner to receive compensation from ministers when a loss is incurred as part of the lotting process. Currently, the bill requires an appeal to be made within a period of 21 days and, as I said, amendment 164 proposes to increase that to 35 days. That would allow more time for those who are trying to sell land to appeal against the minister’s decision and give them more time to gather evidence, should they need to consult with other land managers, for example.

My amendment 460 seeks to increase parliamentary scrutiny of the bill’s provisions. It would require any regulations made under new section 67DA of the 2003 act, which would be introduced by my amendment 427, to be subject to section 98(5) of the 2003 act. That would mean that any statutory instruments made under the new section would have to be laid before and approved by the Scottish Parliament.

I move amendment 450.

Convener, you have just made an important point. I am a member of the RICS, which I should have declared, and I probably should have re-declared the fact that I am also a small farmer.

I do not have much to add. In reply to Bob Doris, it is no great surprise that I am trying to take as many people out of the lotting process as possible, as that is what I have argued for previously. We disagree fundamentally on the direction of travel, but that is fair enough, and I respect your views on that.

That is it, convener. I am happy to press amendment 426.

We have reached lotting, which has been discussed a lot in relation to other measures in the bill, and which I think is the provision that many owners of land are most concerned about.

My amendment 426 seeks to remove the measures in the bill that allow ministers to transfer part of a lot that is involved in a lotting decision. I am happy to listen to the cabinet secretary’s explanation, but I am not sure why ministerial approval is needed to approve the transfer of part of a lot, and I have concerns that it will put a brake on the system.

My amendment 428 seeks to increase the size threshold for land that will be subject to prohibitions from 1,000 to 2,500 hectares. That is in line with arguments that I have previously made.

My amendments 430 and 431 would delete the word “composite” from the bill. As such, I am not minded to support the cabinet secretary’s amendments on composite holdings, as I do not support that idea being included in the bill. I believe it to be unworkable, because two landholdings could be located in opposite areas of the country with very different requirements. However, I will be guided by her explanation.

I will oppose Mark Ruskell’s amendments in the group, which seek to increase the area threshold by defining what is meant by “contiguous”.

My amendments 166 and 172 would remove the ability for ministers, provided by proposed new section 67Y of the 2003 act, to modify parts of section 4 by regulations. That could include modifications to the size threshold for land that can be considered for lotting decisions. The thresholds should be set out in the bill. My amendment 167 seeks to prevent ministers from lowering the land size threshold in future.

I will briefly mention the remaining amendments in the group. I am happy to support my colleague Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 429, which is an important amendment to ensure that the land referred to in the bill is contiguous. As such, I will not support Mercedes Villalba’s amendment 140, which seeks to delete “contiguous” from the bill. I do not intend to support Michael Matheson’s amendments 138, 139 and 168 as I do not wish to see an extension of lotting. I am interesting to hear the policy intention behind Monica Lennon’s amendment 432. I will oppose Mercedes Villalba MSP’s amendments in the group, as I want to see the threshold increased and have lodged a number of amendments to that effect.

I move amendment 426.

I have nothing further to add, convener. I press amendment 450.

I will not press amendment 434, but there are others in the group that I want to move.

Thank you and good morning, convener. My amendment 486 would introduce a new section on a review of the community right to buy. As Mark Ruskell has pointed out, the Scottish Government announced a review of the community right to buy last year, and I have heard from stakeholders that they are disappointed that the bill is proceeding before the conclusion of the review. Amendment 486 seeks to insert such a review in the bill and to include in it consideration of a less onerous pre-registration of interest stage, which would be brought forward if appropriate.