Scottish Parliament, 23 January 2003

605 contributions from 77 members. The official report.

Introduction

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

Under rule 8.1.2 of standing orders, I request permission to move a motion without notice, which will allow for an extension of this morning's consideration of amendments at stage 3 until approximately 1.40 pm. Members will find a copy of motion S1M-3797 on their desks.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I accept the motion without notice.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees that, during Stage 3 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, debate on each part of the proceedings shall be brought to a conclusion by the time-limits indicated (each time-limit being calculated from when the Stage begins and excluding any periods when other business is under consideration or when the meeting of the Parliament is suspended or otherwise not in progress)— Groups 10 - no later than 2 hours 35 minutes Groups 11 to 13 - no later than 3 hours 25 minutes Groups 14 to 18 - no later than 4 hours Groups 19 to 21- no later than 4 hours 30 minutes Groups 22 to 27 - no later than 5 hours 30 minutes Groups 28 and 29 - no later than 6 hours Group 30 - no later than 6 hours 30 minutes Groups 31 to 34 - no later than 7 hours 30 minutes Motion to pass the Bill - 8 hours—[Euan Robson.]

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The question is, that motion S1M-3797, which sets out a revised timetable for stage 3 consideration of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Motion agreed to.

Land Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

This morning and after question time this afternoon, we will continue to deal with amendments to the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill. That will be followed by a debate on the motion to pass the bill. Members should have the bill as amended at stage 2—SP Bill 44A—the second marshalled list, which contains all the amendments that I have selected for debate today, and the groupings for day 2 of stage 3 consideration. I should notify members that the Presiding Officers have decided that the voting period will be one minute for the first division that occurs after each debate on a group of amendments. That will save about 15 minutes in the course of the day.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

We resume with the debate on amendments in group 10. The Minister for Environment and Rural Development has moved the lead amendment in that group, amendment 81.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

I will try to be as brief as possible. The minister has indicated his acceptance of amendment 83A. I thank him for that.

Amendment 85A has a similar intention and we do not see that there is a problem with it. I suggest to the minister that the taking away of fruit rather than the crossing of land would be outwith the right. My concern is that if people cross land in order to pick fruit for profit or to go mushrooming, where the activity does not take place on the land that is being crossed, those people will end up being challenged. As the minister will know, mushrooming is becoming a major activity in some parts of Scotland, so I urge him to consider accepting amendment 85A.

I am astonished by amendment 42. As a walker, I am concerned that agreement to amendment 42 would mean that I would be in trouble if I woke up a cow when I was walking. That is the import of the amendment. It is amazing that amendment 42 provides no definition of what it would mean to disturb any wild or farm animal. The biggest disturbance that a rabbit is likely to experience is terminal disturbance at the end of a farmer's shotgun. I am sure that being disturbed or frightened by a walker pales into insignificance in comparison with that prospect. I am not sure what the Tories are on about with amendment 42, which is a daft amendment.

I commend the SNP amendments to the Parliament.

Dennis Canavan (Independent, Falkirk West)

Amendment 83B would delete the reference to fishing in Executive amendment 83. The common law on angling in Scotland is that fish in free-running water or in an open loch are not the property of anyone. When those fish are caught, they become the property of the person who catches them, irrespective of whether that person has permission to fish.

Of course, the common law is often overridden by statutory law. In particular, the Freshwater and Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1976 makes it a criminal offence to catch any freshwater fish without permission in waters that are covered by a protection order.

In unprotected waters, if the owner of the fishing rights wanted to take action against any person fishing without permission, the owner would have to seek a civil interdict in a court. If someone were to cross land or access water to commit a crime, or were in breach of interdict, such activity would already be excluded under section 9 of the bill as it stands. Therefore, the inclusion of fishing in amendment 83 is unnecessary because, as I said, appropriate action could be taken by the landowner or owner of the fishing rights under section 9 as it stands.

I submit that the Executive's amendment 83, which seeks to include angling in section 9, is not only unnecessary but undesirable, because it would deprive people of the statutory right of access to land or water in order to fish, even in circumstances where it would not be unlawful to fish.

Moreover, the Freshwater and Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1976 is under review; the minister referred to it yesterday. I hope that the act is repealed in its entirety and replaced with better legislation to allow more access for ordinary anglers. In the meantime, I do not think that there is a case for a specific reference to angling or fishing in the bill, which is a land reform bill rather than a bill to review the existing law on angling.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

Amendment 42 is a continuation of the old adage that one should not frighten the horses. It has to be recognised that the countryside is an area that is not only beautiful and used for recreational purposes, but from which a lot of people derive their living. We seek to protect that living with amendment 42.

Increasingly, flying mechanised toy planes and other aerial devices is becoming a sport and provides recreation for many people. Such devices could cause considerable unrest and disturbance to nesting birds and present a conservation question that needs to be addressed. It must be recognised, for example, that there have been cases of pregnant ewes aborting as a result of disturbance by mechanised biplanes. In our dual-purpose amendment, we seek to protect wildlife and to ensure that farm animals are not disturbed to the extent that there is any danger to their health or well-being or difficulty with regard to business.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Does the member recognise that the point about aviation is covered by the relevant air navigation order that prohibits aircraft coming within 500ft of any animal?

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

Mr Stevenson has great experience of aviation, as he has of many other matters, but I point out to him that the aviation legislation applies only to piloted aircraft, so his intervention is not apposite.

I have no further points to make.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

As the knife falls on this section at 9.44, I ask members to keep their remarks tight.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

I rise to welcome the changes the minister has brought about to ensure that people with physical disabilities will be able to use motorised vehicles for access. It is vital that, no matter what a person's ability, they have a right of access to the countryside. For many people, that means their right can be exercised only by using an electric or motorised buggy.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

Will the minister explain how the phrase "under proper control" will be defined? We all accept that it is absolutely essential that dogs be kept under proper control. That could mean keeping a dog on a lead, but might it also mean a dog that is properly trained to respond to its owner?

Will the minister also explain how, in the absence of an explicit provision, there will be adequate protection against farm animals—particularly sheep and lambs—becoming mismothered, and cows possibly contracting hypomagnesaemia?

Amendment 42 says that no one may be on any land where there is a possibility of disturbing wild animals. I suggest to Mr Aitken that the amendment seems to be a back-door, Tory attempt to ban fox hunting. If anyone goes on any land anywhere, they are likely to disturb deer, for example. Amendment 42 would effectively ban access to all Scotland's land. It is an absurd and preposterous amendment.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I support amendment 84 in Ross Finnie's name. It is important to ensure that those who take access to land make sure that their dogs are under their control and that anyone who does not have their dog under control is excluded from access to land.

Bill Aitken lodged an amendment similar to amendment 42 at stage 2. It is nothing more than a wrecking amendment. It would go against the principles of the bill, as it would mean that no one could take access to the countryside. It should be opposed.

Sylvia Jackson (Labour, Stirling)

I welcome amendment 84 because of the difficulties that uncontrolled dogs can cause to ground-nesting birds and young wildlife in general. The Scottish Gamekeepers Association has approached me to make that point. Human safety issues may also arise with cows and deer. I ask for an assurance that, in the code, the minister will consider dealing very firmly with how dogs should be controlled in areas where people are walking.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I understand the opposition to amendment 42 because it is drawn far too widely. However, I am concerned about the problem of access disrupting legitimate grouse-shooting activities. Will the minister confirm that the bill will not disrupt such activities and that access rights can be suspended for the duration of a shoot?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

I will deal with amendment 42 first. I do not believe it; it is nonsense. Other members have made the point about how inapplicable such a wide-ranging amendment would be. It is a wrecking amendment and I ask members to resist it.

Roseanna Cunningham raised an interesting, if narrow, point. I will have to repeat myself but we have defined what can be taken off land and have distinguished that people can go on to land for that purpose. We are saying that there are legitimate activities that involve crossing land in order to conduct an activity elsewhere. The danger presented by amendment 85A is that it would bring back the confusion that we have sought, through the bill, to clarify. People can be on land to get access to where they are going to be hunting, shooting or fishing, but they cannot carry out those activities on that land. Amendment 85A would leave confusion about that provision.

In relation to amendment 83B, in the name of Dennis Canavan, I made it clear that we believe that the Freshwater and Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1976 needs to be revised. That is the appropriate place for amendments such as that lodged by Dennis Canavan. I do not believe that the bill is the correct place to try to amend that legislation. The review of the 1976 act is underway and we expect to publish the results of that review shortly.

I cannot find the relevant sections to which I need to refer Mike Rumbles. I can be clear that there is no inhibition on the grouse moors but I will get back to him on that point.

Amendment 81 agreed to.

Amendment 82 moved—[Ross Finnie]—and agreed to.

Amendment 83 moved—[Ross Finnie].

Amendment 83A moved—[Roseanna Cunningham].

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The question is, that amendment 83A be agreed to. Are we agreed?

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

There will be a division.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The result of the division is: For 88, Against 14, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 83A agreed to.

Amendment 83B moved-[Dennis Canavan].

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The question is, that amendment 83B be agreed to. Are we agreed?

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

There will be a division.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The result of the division is: For 26, Against 77, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 83B disagreed to.

Amendment 83, as amended, agreed to.

Amendment 84 moved—[Ross Finnie]—and agreed to.

Amendment 85 moved—[Ross Finnie].

Amendment 85A moved—[Roseanna Cunningham].

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The question is, that amendment 85A be agreed to. Are we agreed?

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

There will be a division.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The result of the division is: For 42, Against 60, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 85A disagreed to.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The question is, that amendment 85 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

There will be a division.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The result of the division is: For 77, Against 27, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 85 agreed to.

Amendment 86 moved—[Ross Finnie]—and agreed to.

Amendment 42 moved—[Bill Aitken].

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The question is, that amendment 42 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

There will be a division.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The result of the division is: For 15, Against 90, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 42 disagreed to.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Amendment 87 is grouped with amendments 88, 88A, 170, 89, 89A, 90 and 91.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

During stage 2, there was a useful discussion on the role of the access code to be drawn up by Scottish Natural Heritage. Concern was expressed about references in sections 2 and 3 to rules of responsible conduct, and those references were removed. That led to a discrepancy in the bill, in so far as sections 2 and 3 now refer to

"guidance on responsible conduct set out in the Access Code"

whereas section 10(1) talks about "rules of responsible conduct".

Amendments 87 to 89 seek to reintroduce consistency between sections 2, 3 and 10 in relation to the content of the access code. They would provide that the access code sets out guidance as to the circumstances in which those exercising access rights and the owners of land may be regarded as acting in a way that is not irresponsible in respect of access rights.

Amendment 91 is consequential to amendment 87 and would remove section 10(1A).

I acknowledge the point that Scott Barrie makes in amendments 88A and 89A, which is that the code should set out guidance not only on what is responsible conduct but on what is not responsible conduct. I am happy to accept his amendments to put the matter beyond doubt.

Amendments 90 and 170 have also been the subject of consideration in relation to the scope of the code. We have concluded that it would be appropriate to provide for the code to include guidance on the management of excluded land in so far as that affects the exercise of access rights—we referred to the matter yesterday in another context. For example, we would allow the code to provide guidance to farmers in respect of access rights through or round farm steadings, which we discussed yesterday. Along the same lines, the code should give guidance on the carrying out of activities excluded from access rights where that might affect the exercise of access rights by other people. A good example of that might be guidance about angling on a stretch of water that is also used by, among others, canoeists. We discussed that matter at stage 2. Amendments 90 and 170 seek to address those issues and the provisions that they would introduce would provide for a better access code.

I move amendment 87.

Scott Barrie (Labour, Dunfermline West)

As the minister indicated, amendments 88A and 89A are simple amendments. Under the Executive amendments, the Scottish outdoor code would state which conduct is not responsible, but, under my amendments, the code would also state which conduct is responsible. I am glad to hear that the minister accepts the amendments, which would put beyond doubt exactly what is to be contained in the Scottish outdoor access code.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

We do not have any real problems with any of the proposed amendments. Initially, my view and the view of my group was that amendments 88A and 89A might tighten the situation a little bit too much but, having heard Scott Barrie's explanation, we will accept them.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

We, too, are pleased with the group of amendments. It is important that the code of conduct provide guidance rather than rules. We are also pleased with Scott Barrie's amendments and that the Executive has reflected on the matter.

It is important that, following the expected approval of the bill later today, the process of consultation on the Scottish outdoor access code is as wide and deep as possible. I have been approached by interested groups, including the Scottish Gamekeepers Association, that want to contribute to the deliberations. I hope that the ministers will give the appropriate guidance to Scottish Natural Heritage on the groups that should be included in the consultation process. From the answer to a parliamentary question that I received yesterday, I know that it is intended that all groups should be able to submit to that process. However, I want the minister to assure us that the consultation will be as wide as possible. The access code is as important as the bill, but because the code will be introduced by an order, the Parliament will be able only to accept or reject it. That is why it is important that the minister gives us an assurance on the matter.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

I am happy to give members all the requisite assurances that the consultation on the content of the access code will involve the widest possible spread of organisations and individuals, as that will be in everybody's interest. I suspect that there is unanimity among members on that, if on nothing else. I am happy to give the assurances that Stewart Stevenson seeks.

Amendment 87 agreed to.

Amendment 88 moved—[Allan Wilson].

Amendment 88A moved—[Scott Barrie]—and agreed to.

Amendment 88, as amended, agreed to.

Amendment 170 moved—[Allan Wilson]—and agreed to.

Amendment 89 moved—[Allan Wilson].

Amendment 89A moved—[Scott Barrie]—and agreed to.

Amendment 89, as amended, agreed to.

Amendments 90 and 91 moved—[Allan Wilson]—and agreed to.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Amendment 92 is grouped with amendments 92A, 92B, 92C, 92F, 92G, 92H, 92I, 92J, 188, 44, 172 and 173. If amendment 92G is agreed to, amendment 92H will become an amendment to leave out "two years" and insert "one year". The same will apply to amendment 92J, if amendment 92I is agreed to.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

We lodged a number of amendments at stage 2 to what was section 11, all of which were agreed to. However, the Justice 2 Committee then voted narrowly to remove section 11. I am still convinced that there is a need to provide in the bill a procedure that will enable local authorities to exclude land from access rights. SNH and the access forum have argued that access should be arranged locally. We agree with that completely, which is why the bill places a duty on local authorities to uphold access rights. It is entirely consistent with that approach that local authorities should have powers to exclude areas of land from access where local public interest dictates that to do so is necessary. That is why we lodged amendment 92.

It might be helpful for members who have not been closely involved with the bill if I outline some of the circumstances in which such powers might be used. Those circumstances fall into two categories—exclusions of land from access rights for a few days and relatively long exclusions.

The bill establishes rights of access to all land, except land that is specifically excluded by section 6. That means that a new charge cannot be levied for entry to land. As a consequence of that, where an event is held on land over which access rights may be exercised, there is no means of enforcing a charge for entry to that event. That would mean that no fee could be charged for entry to a village or agricultural show that is held in a local field, and that spectators could not be charged at numerous sporting events, such as athletics or autocross meetings and hill climbs. It is not our intention to threaten the viability of such events by preventing charging. At some sporting events there could be other issues, such as security, and there might be a need to restrict access. I hope that members will reflect on that and recognise the distinction that we are trying to draw.

We need a straightforward procedure for taking land out of access rights for short periods, primarily to allow charging of visitors to events. Local authorities have powers to close particular roads by order; for example, for processions or Hogmanay celebrations. Those arrangements work well, and we propose something similar in respect of access rights.

The second category of longer exclusions could again be in relation to entry charges. We have received representations from the National Trust for Scotland and others following the deletion of section 11. They are concerned that there is now no mechanism in the bill that will allow the introduction of entry charges where there has been no charge in the past. It could, for example, undermine the trust's ability to agree to take on a new property if there is no facility for charging visitors in order to offset the upkeep costs of the property.

Historic Scotland has similar concerns. If a new archaeological site was opened up, it could become an important local visitor attraction, but if there is no means of excluding the site from access rights in order to allow visitors to be charged, the site might simply have to be filled in again. That would be wrong, and I suspect that it was not what the committee had in mind when it deleted section 11.

The procedures that we have set down are onerous and I cannot see any local authority embarking on them lightly. Nevertheless, I consider it to be important that such powers are available to local authorities. We have discussed the matter with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and although some local authorities were initially not convinced of the need for the powers, COSLA has now indicated its support for what we propose.

The powers that are proposed in amendment 92 differ significantly and in several ways from those that were in the bill previously. First, although section 11 would have allowed local authorities to exclude by order particular conduct from access rights, I do not consider that such a power is necessary and amendment 92 will not provide such a power. Secondly, all orders that would have effect for six or more days would have to be confirmed by ministers. That will be considerably more onerous than the previous requirement that there be ministerial confirmation only of orders that would have effect for 30 or more days. Thirdly, local authorities will be required to review and, if necessary, remake any order not later than five years from its date of coming into force. Local authorities will be required to give public notice of the intended purpose and effect of any proposed order and to invite objections.

Amendments 172 and 173 are consequential on amendment 92.

Amendment 92A would require the order to specify the particular purpose for which the land was to be excluded from access rights. Subsection (2)(b) of the proposed new section would require the local authority to give public notice of the intended purpose and effect of an order. Having given consideration to it, we are happy to accept amendment 92A.

Amendment 92B would remove from subsection (1) of the proposed new section the clarification in brackets concerning the terms in which an order might describe the times during which land is excluded from access rights. We agree that the power should not be exercisable by reference to the "hours of darkness"—there was some confusion about the wording of amendment 92—therefore, I am willing to accept amendment 92B.

I assume that amendment 92C is intended to ensure that any order has effect only for the minimum time that is necessary to achieve its purpose. We consider that amendment to be unnecessary, given the detailed provisions that relate to the making of an order, including consultation and ministerial confirmation.

Amendment 92F seeks to prevent the making of an order contrary to the general principles of the act. Any such order would, in any case, be ultra vires; therefore, the amendment is unnecessary.

Amendment 92G calls for an order to be reviewed and, if necessary, remade every two years rather than every five years, as is currently stated in the new section that is proposed by amendment 92. We think that there is merit in that proposal. There is an issue about orders' being reconsidered, notwithstanding the necessary consultation and ministerial confirmation. I expect that very few orders will be made that will last for any great length of time. Nevertheless, I am willing to accept amendment 92G, which would reduce the review period from five years to two years.

Amendments 92H and 92J propose powers for the remaking of orders every year. We consider that to be an unreasonable provision because it would mean that an order would barely be in operation before a local authority had to consult on remaking it. We accept the two-year provision, but to reduce that to one year would be less necessary than the original proposal for renewal after five years. Therefore, I reject amendments 92H and 92J.

Amendment 188 would mean that byelaws would have the effect of excluding an area of land from access rights. As we said at stage 2 when we discussed a similar amendment, it might be appropriate for a local authority to do that in certain circumstances as part of the overall management of an area. It seems to us that management measures that were introduced by byelaws would require exclusion powers, and that the checks that will be available will ensure that local authorities cannot without good reason exclude land from access rights. That power will exist. Therefore, I ask Roseanna Cunningham not to move amendment 188.

Amendment 44 would give landowners the power to suspend access rights where the exercise of access rights would interfere with any lawful activity by, or authorised by, a landowner, or where an activity is likely to constitute a danger to any person exercising access rights. The consultation draft of the bill that was published in February last year included a provision that would allow landowners to suspend access rights. Those provisions attracted considerable criticism and similar moves to reintroduce such a provision at stage 2 were resoundingly rejected. We said at stage 2 that reasonable, responsible exercise of access rights means that landowners can continue to manage land without interference. That will be backed up by guidance in the Scottish outdoor access code. Therefore, I deem amendment 44 to be unnecessary.

Amendment 92 will provide the necessary powers for a local authority to exempt particular land from access rights for a specified period—for example, for a village show or other event. On safety, land managers have responsibilities under health and safety legislation. They will still be required to comply with that legislation, but that does not require a power to suspend access rights—we have been over this ground before in committee. The arguments in favour of the provision have been rejected and I hope that Bill Aitken will agree not to move amendment 44.

I move amendment 92.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

In my view, our approach to the extent of local authority powers is critical to the operation of the bill. As the minister pointed out, concerns were expressed at stage 2 to the extent that the Justice 2 Committee decided to remove section 11 as an indication of how concerned it was about the extent of local authority powers. I accept that the new section that is proposed by amendment 92 is a revised one—we see that particularly in respect of the requirement for ministerial authority for an order being needed for an order that would last 6 or more days, rather than one that would last 30 or more days.

Many members reported their experiences during the foot-and-mouth crisis, when some landowners closed down huge areas of land, which was in contravention of the general rule. That situation will continue if we do not ensure that the powers that we give local authorities are not too wide. I am pleased by the Executive's acceptance of amendment 92A and other amendments—COSLA also supports those amendments. Unlike in respect of ministerial powers, there is little opportunity for the Parliament to re-examine the powers that we will give local authorities under the proposed new section, which it is why it is crucial that we get it right.

I also support amendment 92B, which is in the name of Dennis Canavan. The Justice 2 Committee believed at stages 1 and 2 that the mention of "hours of darkness" had to be removed from the bill because the relation between wildlife crime and people's being in the countryside during the hours of darkness can be dealt with under our criminal law. The idea that we should normally be suspicious of people who are out on our moors or hills after dark is ludicrous. Amendment 92B is welcome.

I ask the minister to give one commitment in his summing up: if we give the new section 11 powers to local authorities and they abuse those powers, ministers will use the powers that we gave them yesterday to regulate and change section 11, if necessary.

Dennis Canavan (Independent, Falkirk West)

I thank the minister for agreeing to my amendment 92B. Without it, Executive amendment 92 would have encouraged local authorities to impose what would, in effect, be countryside curfews—indeed, some local authorities might have come under pressure from landowners to impose such curfews during the hours of darkness. Some landowners seem to assume that people who walk in the countryside during the hours of darkness are up to no good and are all poachers or thieves. However, it could be argued that people walking innocently in the countryside during the hours of darkness or daylight can act as a deterrent to poachers and people who are intent on committing—[ Laughter. ] The Tories laugh, but I inform them that there is evidence from the rambling community that, during the recent foot-and-mouth outbreak, when walkers obeyed the advice not to go into the countryside, there was an increase in wildlife crime because some so-called estate managers had the place all to themselves and were up to no good because they could go about unobserved.

Many legitimate activities are undertaken during the hours of darkness in the countryside. Many young people go on Outward Bound Trust courses that involve overnight camping, for example, and many mountaineers and hill walkers camp out on the hills. Such activities should be encouraged and I am pleased that the minister has seen the sense in amendment 92B. I am pleased that the amendment is supported by people such as the Ramblers Association, the Mountaineering Council of Scotland and Pauline McNeill, the convener of the Justice 2 Committee. Furthermore—believe it or not—Lord Larry Whitty, the former general secretary of the Labour Party, successfully moved a similar amendment when similar legislation was being dealt with in the House of Lords. I hope, therefore, that I can rely on the support of all Labour members for this reasonable amendment.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

I am glad that the minister has accepted some of the amendments. The reduction of the review period from five to two years will improve the proposed new section, although we do not believe that it fixes the situation. If amendment 92 is passed—the SNP is opposed to the amendment in its entirety—we would prefer the review period to be reduced to one year. The argument that the minister used does not hold up; after all, some of the establishments to which he referred must apply annually for drinks licences. They cannot guarantee that they can sell alcohol to their customers from one year to the next, so I do not see why the situation with regard to access should be any different.

Amendment 188 deals with the general power for local authorities to make byelaws that will exclude land from access rights. At present, a circularity seems to have crept into the legislation. The situation is complicated. Sections 6(1)(k) and 12(1)(b) refer to each other and appear to give local authorities a general power to make byelaws that will exclude land from access rights beyond the powers to regulate access in section 12(1)(a) and the powers to prohibit access for various purposes in section 12(1)(c). Section 12(1) will grant the power to local authorities to make byelaws. There are three subsections, each with separate powers. Section 12(1)(a) will allow authorities to make byelaws that will provide for

"the responsible exercise of access rights"

and

"the responsible use, management and conduct of the ownership of the land".

Section 12(1)(c) will allow authorities to make byelaws for

"the preservation of public order and safety ... the prevention of damage ... the prevention of nuisance or danger"

and

"the conservation or enhancement of natural or cultural heritage."

Section 12(1)(b) will allow local authorities to make byelaws for the purposes in section 6(1)(k), but section 6(1)(k) allows land to be excluded from access rights by byelaws. Byelaws that are made under section 12(1)(b) are therefore not subject to the conditions in sections 12(1)(a) or 12(1)(c). That is indicated by further reference in section 12(2) to section 12(1)(c) as a separate byelaw-making power.

We therefore need clarification of what section 6(1)(k) is for, because there is a circularity that means that any land could be exempted through byelaws. Perhaps the minister will clarify that and explain why he thinks that sections 12(1)(a) and 12(1)(c) are not broad enough without further powers.

As I said, the SNP has general concerns about amendment 92. We do not believe that local authorities should be allowed to use provisions in the bill in order—in effect—to reverse the bill's intent, but that is precisely what amendment 92 will allow. We have seen plenty of examples in which local authorities make decisions that people find incomprehensible. For example, recent decisions about taking photographs at school Christmas plays indicate some of the ways in which local authorities can interpret provisions.

Amendment 92 should be agreed to, but if it is to be agreed, I would prefer that it were amended as the SNP suggests in amendments 92H and 92J.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

As the minister said, the purpose of amendment 44 is to reinsert in the bill that which it originally contained. In this case, it can certainly be argued that first thoughts were the best.

I will explain in detail why amendment 44 will be moved, because it is a commonsense amendment. Sometimes, dangerous activities are carried out on land. Those activities could be anything from shooting to the use of explosives in civil engineering operations. It is clearly unwise to have people walking on the land during such operations and, as such, farmers should have the right to exclude access to land for the period during which such activities are undertaken.

Our other argument relates to the fact that businesses can be prejudiced by unrestricted access. We do not seek to introduce to the bill some blanket condition that would restrict access for lengthy parts of the year. The most typical example is perhaps Skibo Castle, which attracts celebrities to visit because of the privacy that it is able to afford. If that privacy is lost, celebrities such as Madonna will simply not go to Skibo Castle and income will be lost to a fairly fragile rural economy. That is surely a profound argument in favour of amendment 44.

I stress that amendment 44 is not a blocking amendment. The amendment states that any land manager would be able to suspend access rights for a maximum of four weeks only in any year. We are not being unfair.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Does Bill Aitken think that to be in the vicinity of explosions would constitute responsible access, which is the only kind of access that the bill provides for?

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

That would clearly not constitute responsible access, but the fact of the matter is that people sometimes do things that, although they are not blatantly irresponsible, show a degree of neglect in the circumstances.

I will discuss briefly the rest of the amendments in the group. I am grateful to the minister for the full explanation that he gave in amplification of the reasoning behind amendment 92, which will enable us to support that amendment. We do not find Pauline McNeill's arguments on amendments 92A and 92C to be unreasonable; we can, therefore, accept those amendments, just as we can accept Mr Canavan's amendment 92B, despite his unreasonably aggressive advocacy of it.

However, we feel that Roseanna Cunningham's amendments 92H and 92J on time limitations are unreasonable and we will not support them. I underline that my understanding of the SNP's position on amendment 92 would result in the National Trust for Scotland not being able to open any new properties for which it could charge admission. That would surely have a most adverse effect on Scotland's heritage and I cannot believe that my colleagues in the SNP would seriously wish that to happen.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

We have to get through this group and the next by 10.34—we are therefore going straight to Mr Finnie's wind-up speech.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

I will respond first to Pauline McNeill's points. The ministerial order-making power as drafted does not apply to the new section 11 that will be introduced by amendment 92. However, I draw Pauline McNeill's attention to the fact that, in revising and reintroducing section 11, we have included a requirement for ministerial confirmation. Therefore, the same consideration can be given to determining whether we will, when an application has gone all the way up, be required to provide an adequate check and to explain why the power to exempt land from access rights is or is not being granted. I suggest that the new provisions will provide a very different level of check than was previously the case, and that they will give protection against the potential abuse of local authority powers.

I am grateful for Dennis Canavan's understanding of our present position, so I now move on to address Roseanna Cunningham's general point about some members' opposition to amendment 92. Other members have recognised that there are activities that simply would not take place for the purposes of developing cultural interests or otherwise. I am bound to say that there are several championship golf courses in Scotland—one of which is, I think, in Roseanna Cunningham's constituency—that would be incapable of holding such events were amendment 92 not agreed to. We have to consider the practicality of the question.

On amendment 188, if local authorities are to be responsible in the way that we suggest for local management of access, they will require amended powers to exclude specific pieces of land. That is provided for under amendment 67.

Amendment 44 would give again powers that are already in the bill. As has been mentioned both at stage 2 and at this stage, many of us were influenced by what happened during the foot-and-mouth outbreak, so I resist amendment 44.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The minister has said that he will accept amendment 92A, so—to save time—I ask Pauline McNeill simply to confirm that she wishes to press the amendment.

Amendment 92A moved—[Pauline McNeill]—and agreed to.

Amendment 92B moved—[Dennis Canavan]—and agreed to.

Amendment 92C moved—[Roseanna Cunningham].

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The question is, that amendment 92C be agreed to. Are we agreed?

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

There will be a division.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The result of the division is: For 46, Against 64, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 92C disagreed to.

Amendment 92F not moved.

Amendment 92G moved—[Pauline McNeill].

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The question is, that amendment 92G be agreed to. Are we agreed?

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

There will be a division.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The result of the division is: For 92, Against 17, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 92G agreed to.

Amendment 92H not moved.

Amendment 92I moved—[Pauline McNeill].

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The question is, that amendment 92I be agreed to. Are we agreed?

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

There will be a division.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The result of the division is: For 93, Against 17, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 92I agreed to.

Amendment 92J not moved.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The question is, that amendment 92, as amended, be agreed to. Are we agreed?

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

There will be a division.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The result of the division is: For 83, Against 27, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 92, as amended, agreed to.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The question is, that amendment 186 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

There will be a division.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The result of the division is: For 29, Against 80, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 186 disagreed to.

Amendment 93 moved—[Ross Finnie]—and agreed to.

Amendment 187 moved—[Stewart Stevenson].

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The question is, that amendment 187 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

There will be a division.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The result of the division is: For 25, Against 80, Abstentions 1.

Amendment 187 disagreed to.

Amendment 94 moved—[Ross Finnie]—and agreed to.

Amendment 188 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham].

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The question is, that amendment 188 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

There will be a division.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The result of the division is: For 28, Against 81, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 188 disagreed to.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The question is, that amendment 44 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

There will be a division.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The result of the division is: For 16, Against 93, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 44 disagreed to.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

We move to group 13, on the functions and powers of local authorities. We are very tight for time; the knife falls at 10.34.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

In the interest of brevity, I simply point out that the wording of amendment 45 is self-explanatory. If we are extending the rights of access, any consequence of that should not be borne by the landowner. That is a simple explanation.

I move amendment 45.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

Executive amendment 103 addresses the concerns that are expressed by amendment 45. Our amendment 103 has been lodged in response to representations from local authorities and landowners. It provides a power—

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

We have under 30 seconds.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

It provides a power to local authorities to do anything that they consider appropriate for the purposes of maintaining a core path, keeping that path free from obstruction and providing the public with directions to, and indications of the extent of, a core path.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I call Mr Canavan to speak to amendment 189.

Dennis Canavan (Independent, Falkirk West)

How long do I have?

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

You have 10 seconds.

Dennis Canavan (Independent, Falkirk West)

Amendments 189 and 190 would oblige a local authority to take action against an obstructive landowner, instead of just allowing the local authority to do so. I therefore ask the Parliament to agree to the amendments.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I very much regret the tightness of the debate, but that is what the Parliament has decided.

The question is, that amendment 45 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

There will be a division.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The result of the division is: For 18, Against 89, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 45 disagreed to.

Amendment 95 moved—[Allan Wilson]—and agreed to.

Amendment 96 moved—[Allan Wilson].

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The question is, that amendment 96 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

There will be a division.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The result of the division is: For 79, Against 24, Abstentions 1.

Amendment 96 agreed to.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The question is, that amendment 189 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

There will be a division.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The result of the division is: For 24, Against 79, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 189 disagreed to.

Dennis Canavan (Independent, Falkirk West)

In view of the time limitation, I will not move amendment 190.

Amendment 190 not moved.

Amendment 97 moved—[Allan Wilson].

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The question is, that amendment 97 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

There will be a division.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The result of the division is: For 87, Against 17, Abstentions 1.

Amendment 97 agreed to.

Amendment 191 moved—[Dennis Canavan].

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The question is, that amendment 191 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

There will be a division.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The result of the division is: For 24, Against 83, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 191 disagreed to.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Amendments 98 and 171 were debated previously. For time reasons, I intend to put a single question on the amendments. Do members agree?

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

In that case, the decisions on the amendments will have to be taken individually.

Amendment 98 moved—[Allan Wilson].

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The question is, that amendment 98 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

There will be a division.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The result of the division is: For 89, Against 18, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 98 agreed to.

Amendment 171 moved—[Allan Wilson]—and agreed to.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The question is, that amendment 172 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

There will be a division.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The result of the division is: For 80, Against 24, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 172 agreed to.

Amendment 173 moved—[Allan Wilson].

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The question is, that amendment 173 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

There will be a division.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The result of the division is: For 83, Against 25, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 173 agreed to.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The question is, that amendment 99 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

There will be a division.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The result of the division is: For 90, Against 18, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 99 agreed to.

Amendment 100 moved—[Allan Wilson]—and agreed to.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Group 14 is on core path plans. We are tight for time; the knife falls at 11.09. I ask the minister to keep his remarks tight.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

In undertaking the challenge of producing provisions to create core paths, we took account of many of the comments that were made at stage 2. The amendments will provide a means to establish readily a core paths system that meets the aspirations of people who exercise access rights and respects landowners' rights.

Amendment 104, which will insert a new section after section 18, provides for local authorities to review core path plans that they have adopted under section 18 at times that they consider appropriate and when ministers require them to do so. The amendment is designed to address COSLA's concern about the lack of provision for the diversion of core paths. Following our amendments to section 17, it is envisaged that the core paths system will comprise routes, some of which will follow the lines of physical paths or tracks on the ground. Where there is a requirement to divert a route, possibly away from the line of an existing path, I accept that there should be no requirement to consult again on the plan. Subsection (2) of the new section that is proposed by amendment 104 provides for that.

In our view, a proposal by the local authority to extend its system of core paths is a completely different situation. In those circumstances, it is only right that there should be full consultation and that is what is required under subsection (7) of the proposed new section.

I hope, therefore, that it would not be appropriate for a local authority to consult on its core paths plan every time that it proposed to divert a core path. The local authority should note such diversions and the identification of alternative routes as amendments to the plan. However, proposed extensions to the system of core routes should trigger the full consultation process that is set out in section 18. Amendment 101 is consequential on amendment 104.

The changes that I have outlined meet the concerns that were expressed at stage 2 and have been welcomed by COSLA. I hope that Dennis Canavan will agree that our amendments 101 and 104 address the concerns that lie behind his amendments 193 and 194 and that he will not press his amendments. In view of the time that is available to me, I will close on that point.

I move amendment 101.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I call Dennis Canavan to speak—briefly please—to amendment 193.

Dennis Canavan (Independent, Falkirk West)

My amendments 193 and 194 would require the implementation, and not simply the adoption, of the core paths plan. I will draw a comparison with the use of the words "implementation" and "adoption" in planning procedures. Adoption of a local plan means the approval of the words, maps and papers, whereas implementation of a local plan means the approval of the planning applications, funding and building of the roads, schools and so forth.

I ask the minister to consider positively my amendment 193, as it would seem to accord with the Executive's policies. What is the point of adopting a core paths network unless it is going to be implemented?

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Members should remember that I have to get through five groups by 9 minutes past 11. I ask members to make very tight speeches, please.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I rise to support Mr Canavan, who has highlighted a weakness in the provisions of the bill and in the stage 3 amendments in this grouping. We know that the Executive's shelves are littered with action plans, but that does not mean that those plans will be implemented.

The minister said that the provisions of amendment 104 would not subject entire core paths plans to re-consultation if they are amended. I do not think that the wording of the bill, or of amendment 104, sets that out clearly. How frequently will the core paths plans be amended? Will the minister consider giving guidance to local authorities on how often they should review those plans?

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

Yesterday, I stated that the Conservatives see the core paths network as the main way forward in respect of access rights. On that basis, we find amendment 104 acceptable.

If the system is to work, however, it is imperative that we have the co-operation of local authorities. Dennis Canavan's amendments 193 and 194 would force councils to implement core paths plans and that would not achieve the degree of co-operation that is required. It is clear that his amendments would have significant revenue and capital costs, and local authorities are concerned about that.

I am uncertain about the wording of amendment 104. It would be helpful if the minister could give further amplification of the Executive's intentions in that respect. As it is presently constituted, the provisions of amendment 104 would detract from the powers of councils rather than leave those powers as was intended in the bill.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Will the minister give me an assurance that, when a local authority draws up a core paths plan, it will be required to take regard of the needs of people with disabilities?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

I will be brief. In response to the point that was made by Rhona Brankin, the answer is yes. The issue of implementation was discussed extensively at stage 2. I hear clearly what Dennis Canavan suggests, but we have to remember that the simple way in which Mr Canavan has provided for implementation in amendments 193 and 194 does not take account of the fact that much of the land in question is not in the ownership of the local authority. That is the fundamental problem in respect of his proposal. The other points that were raised have been answered.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The question is, that amendment 101 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

There will be a division.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The result of the division is: For 88, Against 15, Abstentions 1.

Amendment 101 agreed to.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The question is, that amendment 193 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

There will be a division.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The result of the division is: For 30, Against 77, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 193 disagreed to.

Amendment 194 not moved.

Amendment 102 moved—[Ross Finnie]—and agreed to.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Amendment 108 is grouped with amendments 109 to 118 inclusive and amendment 163.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

The amendments in this group provide for the widening and reinstating of paths. Although ploughing is the land-management activity that is most likely to disturb a core path, there are other such activities. Our amendments widen the provision in the bill to make it apply to any disturbance of a core path.

There is no reason why reinstatement should not take place relatively quickly, so we propose to reduce the relevant period from eight weeks to 14 days. As that could result in different requirements, our amendments seek to apply section 22 to all rights of way. We propose to repeal the existing provision in the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967. Amendment 163 seeks to achieve that.

I move amendment 108.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

We welcome amendments 112 and 113, which are very sensible. The period of eight weeks would have been onerous and could have removed many paths in Scotland for a large part of the summer season.

The removal of the necessity to give notice under those circumstances is a reasonable move, which would reduce bureaucracy. There is not much point in giving notice of something seven days after it has been done, when it is to be undone another seven days later.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

We have no difficulty with the bulk of the amendments in this group. Amendment 113 is the only one that concerns us. The period that is stipulated is not nearly sufficient to resolve the difficulty in question.

On the basis of what I have intimated, Presiding Officer, you may wish to take the amendments in this group, excluding amendment 113, en bloc.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

That is helpful.

John Home Robertson (Labour, East Lothian)

As I can imagine no circumstances in which good husbandry could justify the ploughing up of a core footpath, I am worried about the implications of the measure that is contained in section 22. Therefore, I urge the Executive to keep a close eye on whether some farmers or landowners try to take advantage of it.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

The time is sufficient and there is time for reinstatement.

Amendment 108 agreed to.

Amendments 109 to 112 moved—[Allan Wilson]—and agreed to.

Amendment 113 moved—[Allan Wilson].

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The question is, that amendment 113 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

There will be a division.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The result of the division is: For 93, Against 16, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 113 agreed to.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Does any member object to amendments 114 to 119 being moved en bloc?

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

Presiding Officer, I have possibly misled you. Will you ask the minister instead to move amendments 114 to 118 en bloc? That would be agreeable.

Amendments 114 to 118 moved—[Allan Wilson]—and agreed to.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The question is, that amendment 119 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

There will be a division.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The result of the division is: For 89, Against 17, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 119 agreed to.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Amendment 120 is in a group on its own.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

I move amendment 120, which is a technical amendment.

Amendment 120 agreed to.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Amendment 121 is grouped with amendments 122 to 125.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. We have no comments to make on this group of amendments. Perhaps the minister will bear that in mind in making his remarks.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Thank you. You are in a helpful mood this morning, Mr Aitken.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

We accept that there is a case for trying to make more straightforward the legal process of establishing rights of way. Amendments 121 to 125 will extend section 25 so that the same procedures will apply to the determination of rights of way. They also address complaints that the current legal processes in relation to the vindication of a right of way can be cumbersome and expensive.

Amendment 124 seeks to widen the scope of the rules of court applying to applications under this section to ensure that they can address all aspects of the procedure.

I move amendment 121.

Amendment 121 agreed to.

Amendments 122 to 125 moved—[Allan Wilson]—and agreed to.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Amendment 195 is grouped with amendments 130 to 132. I ask Stewart Stevenson to move amendment 195.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Can I speak? [MEMBERS: "No."] I was not seeking an opinion from the chamber.

Amendment 195 simply and clearly reflects the practical difficulties that there can be in Scotland when landowners are resident abroad. The amendment would include the land manager as the person to whom section 9 can refer, in addition to the owner. We will support the other amendments in the group.

I move amendment 195.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. In the interests of expedition, we have no objections to raise to any of the amendments in the group, despite Mr Stevenson's advocacy.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

We have made up some time. The knife falls on this group at 11.09, so I will take brief contributions if members wish.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

Amendments 130, 131 and 132 are technical changes to definitions as a consequence of previous amendments and other regulatory changes. They seek to transfer powers to Scottish Water. Amendment 131 expands the definition of a statutory undertaker. I hope that the amendments are not controversial.

Amendment 195 seeks to amend the definition of "owner of land" to include, where the owner is resident abroad

"a person appointed by the owner to act as manager of the land."

I accept the general thrust of the amendment. As Mr Stevenson said, the amendment is fairly simple and, with all due respect, I think that that is where the difficulty lies. The wording would create difficulties. The definition already provides that where the owner is not in actual occupation, the person entitled to occupy the land shall be regarded as the owner. That might include a tenant or a land manager. I consider that to be adequate provision for the purposes of the bill.

Moreover, it is not clear exactly what is meant by "resident abroad". The concept of residency is complex and difficult, as those who are familiar with taxation law will know. I take it that "abroad" means outwith the UK. More important, the amendment could give rise to an ambiguity where the owner is abroad and another person is entitled to natural possession. In view of that, I invite Stewart Stevenson to withdraw amendment 195.

Amendment 195, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 130 to 132 moved—[Ross Finnie]—and agreed to.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I call Roseanna Cunningham to speak to and move amendment 196.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

Amendment 196 would remove the word "Ministers" from line 23, page 18 and insert

"the local authority in whose area the land lies".

The amendment would pass to the local authority the power to define rural land, and so to define land that is registrable. That is a substantial power, because it means, in effect, deciding which land is registrable. The decision about which land is registrable is analogous to a planning decision. Local authorities handle planning issues, and are likely to know their local areas rather better than Scottish ministers and their civil servants are. If land reform is about anything, it should be about empowering local communities. Therefore, it seems more appropriate to give the power to define which land is registrable to local authorities, which are directly answerable to local communities.

As far as I am aware, ministers have not produced plans showing which land is rural and which is urban, or defined the factors that they will use, other than population, to define which is which. I ask the chamber to agree to the amendment to allow local authorities to make such decisions. Amendments 197 and 198 are consequential on amendment 196.

I move amendment 196.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The knife on this grouping falls at 11.39, so we have some time in hand.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

I confess that we are attracted to the ideas advanced by Roseanna Cunningham. She may find an uncharacteristic degree of consensus on the bill in general.

Roseanna Cunningham's comments make infinite common sense. If devolution is to work, we must believe in true devolution by passing particular powers to local authorities. Local people know their local conditions, and they know what is right for their area. Amendment 196 and the two consequential amendments make reasonable sense. I would have thought that the deputy minister in particular—bearing in mind his background—would have considerable sympathy with the amendments, and I am sure that they will be agreed to.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I support the amendment.

I should like to reflect on comments made by Andy Kerr, the Minister for Finance and Public Services, about the fact that empowering local authorities is part of the Local Government in Scotland Bill. The provisions in that bill on community planning and passing powers of general competence to local authorities strengthen the role of local authorities; amendment 196 would be a natural extension of that.

We are talking about finding the appropriate level at which decisions should be made. If we want to carry through subsidiarity properly, here is a fine place in which to apply the principle. The issue is also about trust, empowerment and getting closer to communities. If we can achieve those aims through the bill, it would be a job well done, and I commend amendment 196 to the chamber.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

As Bill Aitken pointed out, there are arguments on both sides of the issue. The principal argument against is that the provision in amendment 196 would remove consistency and clarity in determining what constitutes "excluded land". The bill's current provisions give ministers that responsibility.

As a result of the consultation that was carried out, the population threshold to which Roseanna Cunningham referred was left at 3,000 people. I wholly accept that the definition might not be as properly defined or as final as we would wish, but the proposal in amendment 196 would not assist matters, in that factors in connection with population and rurality are at least applied consistently at the moment. I believe that giving each local authority in Scotland the possibility to apply its own criteria for excluded land would introduce inconsistency, lack of clarity and possible inequality into the equation.

The other principal argument against amendment 196 is that the provision in section 30(2) requires an affirmative order. As a result, we will have to consult on the draft order before it comes before Parliament, which means that everyone—including local authorities—will have an opportunity to comment on its content. Allowing local authorities to decide what constitutes "excluded land" would not involve any parliamentary scrutiny, whereas I am giving Parliament the opportunity to come back to us on definitions and to take a further part in the consultation to ensure that consistent measures apply throughout Scotland. Amendment 196 does not have that merit and would lead to a lack of clarity and uniformity.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

That still does not answer the point about local knowledge. Ministers will not be in the same position as local authorities are to make reasonable decisions about what can and cannot be defined as rural and urban in a specific area. I have listened to the minister's comments and there is some merit in what he says, but local authorities know far better than anybody else what the situation is in their area.

It is interesting that the minister raises the issue of consistency, because the result of some of the debates that we have had about handing local authorities powers is to introduce some of the inconsistencies that he now thinks are not appropriate. In a sense, everybody, including the minister, is trying to have it every which way. I press amendment 196.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The question is, that amendment 196 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

There will be a division.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The result of the division is: For 44, Against 63, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 196 disagreed to.

Amendments 197 and 198 not moved.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Amendment 133 is grouped with amendments 199, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 201, 154, 155, 156, 157 and 158.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

The main thrust of the Executive amendments in the group is, with one or two additions, to ensure that the bill will no longer preclude a community body from achieving charitable status. The matter was, properly, rehearsed at stage 2 and we agreed to introduce amendments.

Amendments 133, 134 and 136, for part 2, and amendments 154, 155 and 157, for part 3, modify the definition of a community body to provide that it will be such a body only if ministers have confirmed that its main purpose is consistent with

"furthering the achievement of sustainable development."

That is the same form of words as was introduced at stage 2. It emphasises the fact that the community body should focus its activities on the long-term benefits that acquiring the land will bring.

Executive amendments 134 and 155 respectively remove the current requirement in the bill and will permit the memorandum and articles of association to specify purposes that are consistent with the current definitions used by the Inland Revenue charities division, which determines whether a community body can become a charity.

Executive amendments 135 and 136, together with amendments 138 and 158, will ensure that any surplus assets following the winding-up of a community body or crofting community body with charitable status will pass to a charity, if no similar community body or crofting community body with charitable status is available. That will allow the community body's company memorandum and articles of association to be compatible with the requirements of the Inland Revenue charities division.

Amendment 137 will remove from section 31(4A) the reference to the Registrar General for Scotland as the sole determining body for postcode units. That will provide more flexibility should the responsibility be transferred from the General Register Office for Scotland in the future.

That flexibility is entirely consistent with that provided for the keeper of the register of community interests in land in section 33(9).

I turn to Roseanna Cunningham's amendments 199 and 201. When the matter was discussed in the Justice 2 Committee at stage 2, there was some support for an alternative means of setting up community bodies and an amendment to that effect was lodged. The issue was discussed at some length, but the amendment was not moved.

Amendments 199 and 201 would restrict that alternative to community councils, which already exist and are democratically accountable. However, there are still good reasons why it is better to set up community bodies as companies limited by guarantee, as section 31 sets out. The memorandum and articles of association of the company must comply with the requirements of section 31, which include having a minimum number of members and a main purpose that is compatible with sustainable development. Those requirements would be lost if community councils were able to act as community bodies.

Furthermore, under amendment 201, there would be no requirement for community bodies to demonstrate that a significant number of their members have a substantial connection with the land, that the land is sufficiently near to land with which the members have a connection, or that the land's acquisition is compatible with furthering sustainable development. All those safeguards would be removed. I ask members to resist amendments 199 and 201.

I move amendment 133.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I call Roseanna Cunningham to speak to amendments 199 and 201.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

Stewart Stevenson will speak to the amendments.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

We welcome the Executive amendments in group 20. When the Justice 2 Committee visited Stornoway and Lewis, it emerged that the Gigha buyout was greatly facilitated financially because the buyout company had charitable status. That status immediately saved the company many hundreds of thousands of pounds in taxation at the point of purchase. Given that the purpose of the companies that will be created under the bill is to support sustainable development in their communities, the advantage of having charitable status is immediately obvious. It is welcome that the minister and the Executive listened to the discussions in the committee on the issue.

I turn to amendments 199 and 201. The minister will no doubt recall that the Justice 2 Committee had a number of discussions about the nature of community bodies. A number of fairly onerous conditions are placed on limited companies and it seemed to many committee members that the condition that the body must be a limited company during the period of registration of an interest, prior to the acquisition of land, is particularly onerous. At that stage in the buyout process, there is little liability against which the members of the community body require to be protected through its being a limited company.

Amendments 199 and 201 would provide an alternative, in that community councils could be community bodies. The reason why community councils would be a good alternative at that stage in the process is that they already operate within the legislative framework and so exist in law—we would not have to define something new. Furthermore, community councils are supervised—the membership is known and the numbers that are required and the areas from which the members are drawn are established. We lodged amendments 199 and 201 to provide greater flexibility, particularly during the period of registration. Given the restrictive nature of land owning in Scotland, registration will often not lead to a purchase, but the amendments would make the process much easier for communities.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

We are attracted by the Executive's amendments and we see the sense in them. The requirements of charitable status will ensure that the appropriate checks and balances are in force and that the appropriate audit requirements are in place, as would be required by the charities division. It is also true, as Stewart Stevenson said, that charitable status is a tax-efficient way for a community body to deal with matters.

We are not convinced by amendments 199 and 201. We feel that what they propose would not be a suitable way in which to operate. Amendment 213 also strikes us as interfering unnecessarily in the right of an individual, and we will oppose that amendment.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I support the Executive's amendments and speak against Roseanna Cunningham's amendment 199. I disagree with her view that community councils should be allowed to register. I have experience of the Gigha buyout, and it is clear to me that taking on and owning land is not something that any community body will do lightly. It is a huge responsibility, and it requires those who wish to do so to demonstrate that they are clearly focused on the objective of buying the property. It requires them to be properly representative of the community and to demonstrate that they are willing to take on that responsibility. In view of all those objectives, community councils would not fit the bill. I therefore encourage the minister to resist amendments 199 and 201.

Amendment 133 agreed to.

Amendment 199 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham].

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The question is, that amendment 199 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

There will be a division.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The result of the division is: For 41, Against 65, Abstentions 1.

Amendment 199 disagreed to.

Amendments 134 to 138 moved—[Ross Finnie]—and agreed to.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Amendment 139 is grouped with amendments 148, 149 and 161.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

These are technical amendments that seek to clarify the text. I move amendment 139.

Amendment 139 agreed to.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Amendment 200 is grouped with amendments 174, 143, 150 and 175.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Amendment 200 is intended to allow the registration of a single interest in several land holdings—for example, when a parcel of land is owned by different people. Why would we want to do that? Well, it also the intent of amendment 200 to ensure that we reduce burdensome administrative hurdles. We want to ensure that such burdens are reduced for those who are entirely within the voluntary field.

At present, the bill states that a community interest must be registered in each different parcel of land that is owned by each different owner. That means that a community body must go through the rigmarole of registering its interest, showing the support of 10 per cent of the community, providing a description of the boundaries of the land, assuring ministers of the community's connection with the land, advertising for absentee landowners and so on, for each separate land holding. That will make registering a community interest in land that is held by several owners administratively tiresome, expensive and burdensome. It would be far better if a community had to describe one set of boundaries and the Keeper of the Registers of Scotland, who is the expert in such matters, were left to work out the land holdings that are affected.

I suggest that the bill as constructed is a potential invitation to landowners to subvert the purpose and spirit of the bill. For example, if a landowner was concerned that a community buyout might be on the horizon, they could sell off a small parcel of land in the middle of an estate to a relative. Landowners could subvert the bill's intention and we need to close that loophole for potential mischief.

I move amendment 200.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

I will deal first with amendment 200 and Bruce Crawford's arguments. I share his intention, but I do not agree with amendment 200. It is important to ensure that interest is registered in the correct piece of land and in single parcels of land, because once registration is made in respect of land, in effect an inhibition is put on the ability of the owner of the land to dispose of it, because the title will indicate that an inhibition exists. Therefore, it is important to ensure that registration is dealt with on an individual basis.

I agree that that might seem more cumbersome, but I disagree with the amendment. The effect of single registrations will be better. If one thinks it through, what amendment 200 proposes could be seriously disadvantageous to the ability of anyone to sell land without having such registration noted. To pass the responsibility on to the keeper of the register of community interests in land, which has been set up to be compatible with the system of land registration that now operates in most of Scotland, would give them a power that they should not have. The register's purpose is to register interests that are noted to it. Also, if there are multiple owners, we get into difficulties in ensuring effective registration. With respect to Bruce Crawford, I believe that amendment 200 could defeat the genuine purpose that it sets out to achieve.

Executive amendments 174, 143, 150 and 175 are corrective amendments that seek to remove references to section 34(7)(c), which was removed by Executive amendment 335 at stage 2.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I intend to press amendment 200, because I do not accept the minister's argument. Nothing that he said would prevent the amendment from being successful. I am concerned that a landowner could choose to sell off small chunks of land all over the place in an effort to obfuscate and delay the process. The intent of the bill is to allow communities to gain ownership. I would suggest that we want to move in that direction across as much of Scotland as we can achieve. Amendment 200 seeks to deal with a particular area that opens up the potential for burdensome hurdles and which creates areas for mischief by landowners.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

The question is, that amendment 200 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

There will be a division.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

The result of the division is: For 27, Against 80, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 200 disagreed to.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Amendment 213 is grouped with amendments 140 and 141.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Amendment 213 would prevent a transfer of shares in a company that owns the land unless the land is offered to a community body that has registered an interest in the land.

The triggers for the right to buy, as the bill is currently drafted, are limited, given the exceptions in section 37(4), the fact that a third of Scottish land is now owned by trusts and the fact that inheritance does not trigger the right to buy. A right to buy will arise for a community only if the land in which the interest is registered comes on the market. In addition, much land in Scotland is owned by companies, the sole purpose of many of which is to own the land concerned, such as the South Uist Estates Ltd. Where a community body has registered an interest in such a piece of land, the right to buy is not triggered if, as is commonly the case, the company is sold rather than the land. The purpose of parts 2 and 3 should be to end the situation in which land ownership is concentrated in so few hands in Scotland. The amendment is aimed at making the transfer of ownership much easier.

At stage 2, in response to a similar amendment, the minister said that such a change would involve the Executive "in the reserved area of company law, which is outwith the competence of the legislation."—[Official Report, Justice 2 Committee, 30 October 2002; c 2006.].

If the right to buy cannot be triggered by the transfer of shares in landowning companies because that would involve the Scottish Parliament in legislating in a reserved area, there is an obvious solution—one that the Executive has not been shy of applying in other areas. If the Scottish Executive were to request that Westminster pass legislation with regard to this matter by means of a Sewel motion, then—who knows?—perhaps even the SNP would be tempted to support it.

I move amendment 213.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

I might even be tempted by Alasdair Morgan's suggestion.

Nobody is more interested than I am in extending the range of triggers. Ways of doing so were discussed at length at stage 2. We extended the range of triggers to include transfers for value between family members, but the committee—including Stewart Stevenson, I think—generally agreed, after explanation, that the area on which we are now treading was too complex to proceed with.

The complexities include additional difficulties relating to company share transfers. It is too simplistic to assume that control is determined by simple majority share ownership. There are obvious difficulties arising from the fact that a lot of the land to which Alasdair Morgan refers is usually held by subsidiaries of larger groups. It is not true to say that there are no circumstances in which transfers of shares would not entail the application of the trigger—if evidence were provided to us that land owned by a company was being transferred outwith that group by means of a conventional land transfer, the legislation would apply.

Monitoring trading in the market second by second, given that the information is not held centrally by Companies House, would be particularly difficult where individual or small numbers of shares were transferred over a number of years to various individuals or companies, which shareholders can do independently. There are no proposals and certainly no resources to track or investigate such share transfers. We are talking about a community body tracking the market second by second to determine movements in share capital between and across companies and within groups. Neither the community body nor the Executive would be able to police changes to ascertain when or whether the right to buy had been triggered.

My main point is that amendment 213 is simply unenforceable. That is not to say that there is no longer-term merit in examining with colleagues how to proceed to close whatever loophole Alasdair Morgan argues exists.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Does the minister accept that, as a matter of law, the register of limited companies is available for public inspection?

Brian Fitzpatrick (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

It is always out of date.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

Yes, of course I accept what Stewart Stevenson says. However, as I explained, second-by-second monitoring of share transfers on the market is not within the Scottish Executive's resources, still less those of the average community body, even if the will to do that existed.

On Executive amendments 140 and 141, the bill could cause hardship following the breakdown of a marriage if a wife wished to remain in the family home with her children and therefore wanted to sell land to buy out her husband, or vice versa. Such a transfer could in some circumstances trigger the right to buy.

Section 37(4) refers to transfers in pursuance of an order of court, which would cover the situation in which a property settlement was incorporated in a divorce decree. However, we also wish to create an exemption for property transfers that arise from a minute of agreement or separation agreement where a marriage has broken up. Amendment 140 allows for a transfer of property to be excluded from triggering the right to buy under part 2 of the bill where a separation agreement exists between spouses.

Amendment 141 clarifies that the community body's registered interest continues in place when the land is transferred to a new owner under an exemption in section 37(4). The community would not need to reregister its interest and the new owner would be bound by the same prohibitions as the previous owner was. That is another important provision.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

Amendment 213 takes a rather cynical view of land managers, but the basic point is that it is utterly unworkable. We could not have a situation in which share movements are tracked to find out whether someone's land was likely to be up for grabs. That would simply not work. Mr Morgan must appreciate that.

Executive amendment 140 is common sense. The matter was raised at stage 2 and not agreeing to the amendment could cause real hardship in certain instances.

The Conservatives are not attracted by Executive amendment 141. The community body must demonstrate that it is committed to the purchase and what would inevitably follow it. It is not too much to ask that the appropriate registration be done timeously and efficiently, thus demonstrating that commitment. We shall not support that amendment for those reasons.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

Like many members, I believe in wider land ownership in Scotland. At stage 2, the Justice 2 Committee was very particular to press ministers on various ways in which land could become available for purchase. That can happen in a limited number of ways only, such as land coming on the market, land being held in trust, land being passed on by succession or between families and, of course, through the method with which amendment 213 is concerned, which is ownership changing through share transfer.

I am sympathetic to the aims of amendment 213 and have been since the beginning of the debate on the bill. At stage 2, the Justice 2 Committee asked ministers to draw up an amendment to incorporate the intentions behind amendment 213. Reluctantly, I had to accept that, for the reasons that Allan Wilson outlined, the method of tracking the transfer of shares is complex and that we do not have the full powers to take responsibility for that. I feel sad that we cannot do so and I would have supported such a measure if I felt that it offered a practical way of bringing more land on to the market.

I hope that, in a future session, Parliament will review the success of the provisions on the community right to buy. The Executive's position is that we should bring around 3 per cent of land on to the market, which is not an insignificant amount. There should be a review in the future to ascertain whether that has occurred. Sadly, I cannot support amendment 213, although I support the intentions behind it.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Mr Aitken and Mr Fitzpatrick—the latter from a sedentary position—suggested that the problem lay in the vast number of transfers of shares and in the fact that the share register is never up to date. It does not matter whether the share register is up to date; all that matters is whether the transfer of one share has taken place that would trigger the mechanism that amendment 213 would introduce. I do not think, therefore, that Mr Aitken's argument is a valid objection to the amendment.

I accept that the proposal might be difficult, but the minister went out of his way to make it sound even more so. He must remember that most of the companies concerned are single-purpose, private companies, which have been set up simply to own the pieces of land. As Pauline McNeill said, we should consider the matter more seriously in future or, if it is a reserved matter, ask Westminster to consider it more seriously. I am sure that some of the Scottish MPs down there will have plenty of time to investigate the matter.

The current situation is unsatisfactory. Indeed, owners will now be busy investigating how they can set up private companies in order to get round the objectives of the bill before it comes into force. However, as things stand, I seek the Parliament's agreement to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 213, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 140 moved—[Allan Wilson]—and agreed to.

Amendment 174 moved—[Ross Finnie]—and agreed to.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Amendment 203 is in a group on its own.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

At present, registration of an interest in land has effect for five years and thereafter lapses if the community does not reapply to register its interests by the same procedure as obtained for the original application. Amendment 203 would simplify the procedure by which reregistration may be made.

Where a community body has registered an interest in land, that interest must be renewed every five years. Given that much land in rural Scotland rarely comes up for sale, it will frequently be necessary for a community body to reregister a number of times.

It is in the nature of rural communities that community bodies will be fragile entities that are dependent on the hard work of perhaps one or two individuals for their continuing operation. If just one or two people die, take on other commitments, move on or lose enthusiasm, that could cause the community body to cease effective operation. If that happens, the community interest could be allowed to lapse after five years. The reregistration process should therefore be made as simple as possible in order to relieve the burden of administration on volunteers.

In the bill as it stands now, a community body will have to complete and submit a full application form every five years, including a full specification of the land on which it is registering an interest. It will also have to advertise in local newspapers if the landowner cannot be found, respond to comments made to it and carry out a further test of community opinion. That is very onerous for a community body and could deter the necessary renewal of the registration from taking place.

A stage 2 amendment sought to simplify registration procedure by requiring reregistration by ministers if they received notification that circumstances had not materially changed. The amendment was rejected on the ground that the community body must show serious intent in seeking to purchase the land.

Amendment 203 seeks at least to lighten the load, in the following ways. First, the community body would not be required to specify the land to which its interest related when that had already been specified in a previous application for registration of an interest. Secondly, the community would not be required to advertise for an owner who could not be found the first time the community interest had been registered, unless ministers had received a representation that the owner could be found.

Thirdly, if ministers were satisfied at the first application that members of the community had sufficient connection with the land, they would not need to have that confirmed every five years, unless they had received an indication that members of the community did not have sufficient connection with the land. Finally, if ministers were satisfied at the first application that there was sufficient support in the community for registration of an interest, they would not need to have that confirmed every five years, unless they had received an indication that there was not sufficient support for registration of an interest.

The amendment seeks to reduce the continual and cyclical burden that the bill would place on community bodies, which will consist almost entirely of volunteers. It seeks to simplify the procedure for reregistration, to make things easier and, in the longer term, perhaps, to ensure that the land-ownership pattern that we are trying to shift through the bill is in fact shifted.

I move amendment 203.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

We are not attracted by amendment 203, but at the same time we do not wish to do anything that would add to the administrative burden on volunteers who are active in their community.

There is a great inconsistency in the argument that Roseanna Cunningham set out. She defined some community bodies as fragile entities and correctly noted that there are frequent changes in the personnel, attitudes and enthusiasm of such bodies. If, as Roseanna Cunningham wishes—and as we wish—many of the organisations are successful, enthusiasm and commitment must be present. I made the same point in respect of a previous SNP amendment.

Bearing in mind the frequent changes that may arise in bodies, as Roseanna Cunningham described, we do not think that it is unreasonable that the reregistration process should be amended—

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I do not know whether Mr Aitken intends to say that he supports the amendment, but I urge him to recollect that the Conservative party is allegedly opposed to bureaucracy and red tape. Surely amendment 203 is seeking to reduce that.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

I prefaced my remarks by stating clearly that we do not want to add to the administrative burden on voluntary organisations. However, we cannot support the amendment—for the reasons that Roseanna Cunningham articulated. Inevitably, the nature of community bodies changes frequently. There is a turnover of personnel in such organisations and some of the new personnel will have different views from those of the people who supported the project originally.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

The requirement that there should be support for registration of an interest is not intended to add to bureaucracy. I was taken by George Lyon's remarks about the serious need for people to indicate the nature of their interest. He provided a practical example of the importance of doing so—that of Gigha.

Roseanna Cunningham alluded to the fact that various people may have moved on in various ways. If a community buyout is to be successful, it is important that a deep level of interest in that option should be demonstrable at the point when it becomes available. The danger of amendment 203 is that its supporters assume that they are removing a burden but fail to take cognisance of the fact that, in such an important process, it is proper every five years to ensure that there is absolute support for a buyout from the community that has registered an interest. I invite members to reject the amendment.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

I have listened with interest to members' comments. We do not object to reregistration, which is essential for the reasons that we have outlined. However, are we saying that every five years community bodies must reinvent the wheel? That will be costly and time consuming. The process will act as a disincentive to reregistration. Instead, we should try to ensure that, once the original, detailed, costly work has been done, the work involved in reregistration is minimised. We are not saying that reregistration is unnecessary.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

The question is, that amendment 203 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

There will be a division.