³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

He is just checking that we are paying attention.

My amendments in this group relate to my original amendments in group 3, which were to do with community significance. These amendments are consequential to those earlier amendments, so I will not be moving them.

On that point, convener, my reading of amendment 97 is that it would provide for exactly what you suggest, namely that someone could receive multiple consecutive enforcement notices that imposed a fine if the breach remained unremedied. Therefore, it would be perfectly within reason for those imposing the fine to start at a lower level and then to progress the fine to a higher level on the basis of multiple breaches, through enforcement. I think that amendment 97 makes provision for what you are looking for, but it sets the cap at £40,000.

The principal purpose behind my amendments 178 and 181 is to help to clarify the way in which the land and communities commissioner will interact with the Scottish Land Commission. The powers that will be provided under this legislation by the new provisions very much rest on the individual who will hold the role as the land and communities commissioner, as opposed to the Scottish Land Commission itself. That will therefore make the process and the role dependent on the expertise, experience and knowledge that the individual commissioner would hold during their term in office.

The Government has sought to shape the role of the commissioner in a similar fashion to the way in which it shaped the tenant farming commissioner. However, a strength with the tenant farming commissioner has been the way in which the role has been driven by the individual postholder rather than the way in which the post has been designed and incorporated into the Scottish Land Commission.

I essentially lodged these amendments as probing amendments, to enable the Scottish Government to clarify how it intends to codify aspects of the process that will be progressed through the role of the land and communities commissioner and how that will be embedded in the Scottish Land Commission.

On amendment 181, I recognise that the regulatory function of the Scottish Land Commission will expand under the bill. There is an opportunity to update some of the issues on which the Scottish Land Commission may work, given its new, broader remit, and to consider how we can help to support it in its policy development work in those areas.

One aspect of amendment 178 is the way in which the Scottish land and communities commissioner would have to consult the Scottish Land Commission prior to issuing guidance. I am keen to understand why the Government does not feel that the new commissioner should have to engage with the commission prior to issuing guidance, given the close nature of the working relationship that they will have with each other. I am keen to hear the Scottish Government’s position on those matters in order to explore the issue further.

On the figure of £40,000, it is important to reinforce the point that the fine could be up to £40,000, but that it could start off at £50, £500 or £5,000, for example. Are you arguing that the cap should be lowered from £40,000, and, if so, what should the cap be? The figure of £40,000 is not the amount of the fine, but a cap that you cannot go beyond, so there is a range from no fine to a fine of up to £40,000.

No.

The existing powers are not sufficient, which is why some communities that would like something to be done about areas of land that they believe are sites of community significance would like to be in a position to be able to progress that. As I mentioned, I am trying with amendments 42, 121 and 139 to provide some structure to the organisations that could initiate the process of doing something about that. The amendments would go beyond the Scottish ministers and allow community-based organisations to be engaged in and initiate that process. I am trying to give a bit more scope for local communities to be the initiator in identifying sites of community significance. I am conscious that, as in any amendment, when you start to list things, you will inevitably end up leaving things out. However, I want to open the issue up, and it needs to be explored further, because the existing arrangements are not working effectively.

That could be a trigger. You will be aware of the challenges that relate to the number of community place plans that have been put in place in different local authority areas, which is very limited. Equally, once a place plan has been put in place, it may be that a new area of land is identified by that local community as being of significance to the community. The intention behind my amendments is to provide a mechanism that would allow the local community to trigger that as an area of significance.

I recognise the complexity and the challenges that are associated with this issue, which is why I am keen to hear the Scottish Government’s views on the matter and how it believes that the existing system could be developed further. In probing the issue with these amendments, I would also like to know whether there is scope—if not at this stage, then at stage 3—to address some of the issues regarding urban land reform.

I move amendment 11.

I have listened carefully to the comments of committee members and the cabinet secretary. I am conscious of a couple of arguments being deployed by the Scottish Government about the need to keep the bill simple and clear. I agree with that need when it comes to land reform, and I agree that the bill is specifically trying to address an issue that the SLC sought to identify in its own report.

My only slight push back on that is that the bill as drafted does not adhere to all the areas that the SLC has identified and does not accept all its recommendations. Equally, when a bill is introduced, its scope is in the hands of the Scottish Government and is decided by how far the Government wishes it to go.

We have to be mindful that, through the bill, we are—rightly—empowering communities in rural Scotland. However, how we are doing that means that communities in some of urban Scotland will not have the same powers over significant pieces of land in their local area. If there is a requirement for a land management plan for significant rural land, why should there not also be one for significant urban land? That is an issue.

I recognise that the bill is probably not the place to address that issue at this stage, but I encourage the Scottish Government to explore further—if not at stage 3, in future legislation—how we can address what I think is a growing disparity between the rights of communities in rural Scotland and the rights of communities in urban Scotland.

On that note, I withdraw amendment 11.

Amendment 11, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 11, alongside several other amendments in the group, seeks to explore some of the issues with sites of community significance.

The cabinet secretary will recognise that land reform encompasses the urban and rural context. The bill as drafted does not cover urban Scotland and other settlement types unless they are situated on a large landholding. Consequently, the bill does not provide a mechanism to ensure that the public interest is considered in urban land management and/or urban land sales. I am aware that some 67 per cent of the respondents to the Scottish Government’s consultation were in favour of the inclusion of urban Scotland in the bill’s provisions. Therefore, I am keen to explore with the cabinet secretary how we can try to address some of the issues, particularly the pressing issues in urban and peri-urban areas. At times, they can be blighted by vacant or derelict land, absentee owners, or corporate landowners who use the land as land banks. In drawing this together, I am conscious of some of the potential complexities, which is why the amendments are probing amendments that seek the Government’s view on how it would deal with the issue.

I recognise that there are particular challenges with identifying sites of community significance. My amendments 42, 121 and 139 seek to provide some sort of structure around how sites of community significance could be identified. Given the pressing nature of the issue, and the issues that some of our urban communities face with such sites, I would be keen to hear how the Scottish Government believes that it could be addressed more effectively.