amendment to part 5 rather than part 4. In terms of the future grants and awards, the criteria and the conditions for awards and grants can only take into account factors that are relevant and proportionate to that grant or contract. It attempts to link non-compliance with the part 4 guidance as a factor in assessing grants and awards. It can be expected to be at a high risk of a legal challenge where the link isn't relevant to the purpose of the grant or proportionate in impacting on a grant. In developing the detail of the guidance, we will be able to consider and begin identifying where it is appropriate to add the criteria relating to engagement and consideration of the guidance to future awards and grants controlled by the Scottish ministers and working with others in the public, private and third sectors to encourage similar considerations across all award and grant providers. At that point, it is not necessary to legislate to achieve that, but there are a range of tools that we can use to promote better engagement and ensure that there are clear expectations that guidance should be followed. A range of measures will be considered as part of the development of that policy. For example, the Scottish business pledge has been effective in building stakeholder alliance in support of a policy. Businesses are signing up to make a pledge about paying the living wage and a range of other actions that bring business benefits and inclusive growth. We will consider whether a similar model could be part of the development of the guidance and, obviously, we will be monitoring the implementation of the guidance against our policy intentions. We will return to the issue if we identify failures in the operation of the guidance, but it is important to ensure that we have all the necessary tools that are in place to support and promote consideration of the guidance. I appreciate that colleagues are seeking confirmation on the face of the bill that this will happen. To give the committee and Mr Russell the reassurance around this is it. We are keen and happy to have the opportunity to work further with Mr Russell ahead of stage 3 on a potential proposal to expand the purpose of the review and the report to be produced as a result of Sarah Boyack's amendment to include an assessment of whether there is a need for further action or tools to ensure that the guidance is considered and followed. As I said, I would be very happy if Mr Russell would be agreeable to my offer and therefore ask that he withdraws his amendment and consider the alternative options. I confirm that I would welcome the committee accepting amendment 14 today and would welcome Sarah Boyack's agreement to discuss with me and the committee further whether her amendment could be further amended at stage 3 in relation to the issue of timescales. Sarah Boyack will wind up and move for pressure withdrawal. As I understand it, the minister has agreed to discuss whether the committee is minded to pass my amendment today and whether it might be appropriate to tweak it at stage 3. If that is what she is saying, I very much welcome that. When I was reading it late last night thinking of my speech for this morning, I was thinking that the first part is absolutely crucial that we do have a report that goes to Parliament to assess the effectiveness of the guidance. I think that that is important in principle that it comes to the Parliament. I think that it is also important that the first report would be something off the order of three years after that guidance is laid, which is not going to be immediately when the minister, possibly in the next term, is able to put that into place. I think that the issue about whether it is three years is the appropriate timescale was the timescale that I felt most appropriate when putting this amendment together. If that is the key issue that the minister is thinking about coming back to stage 3, then I would be happy to meet with her and to discuss that. I very much welcome the fact that she thinks that colleagues should support the amendment as it is today. I welcome that. I also welcome the comments that Mike Russell made about cross-compliance and meaningful consultation. I agree with him that the issue is not most or all landowners. The issue is a small number of landowners who, to date, could have done a lot more to work constructively with communities. I hear what the minister has said. The objectives of Mike Russell's amendments are absolutely spot-on. As back-benchers, we always do the best we can to get the perfect amendment. The spirit of what Mike Russell had as an amendment was absolutely correct. I am very keen to see my amendment 14 be accepted today. I am always happy to talk about the detail of it thereafter. I would therefore formally move it and seek the support of the committee today. The question is that amendment 14 be agreed. Are we all agreed? The question is that section 37 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 82. The name of Mike Russell is already debated with amendment 14. I will not move. I am not fully satisfied, but I take the minister's commitment to discuss whether, but I reserve the right to bring back the amendment at stage 3. Move to the next group, ability to purchase shooting rights under part 5. Call an amendment 83 in the name of Claudia Beamish in a group of its own. Claudia Beamish to move and speak to amendment 83. Thank you, convener. In this amendment, which is a probing amendment, I am seeking clarification as to whether shooting rights are able to be sold as separate entities in the same way that mineral rights and fishing rights are. I would draw the attention of the committee and the minister to section 38, the meaning of land. I am not going to read out all the meanings of land, but you will be pleased to hear them. The roman numeral 5 refers to the salmon rights and the mineral rights. I seek clarification on that as I say that it is a probing amendment. Any other members who wish to speak on that? I thank Claudia Beamish for this amendment, which is well intentioned and seeks to give communities the opportunity to buy shooting rights. Section 38 of the bill defines what is included as land for the purposes of part 5. The definition of land does not include shooting rights that are owned separately from the land to which they relate. The reason is that those shooting rights may be leased. They cannot be conveyed separately from land, so to clarify shooting rights cannot be transferred separately from the land over which they can be exercised. Where salmon fishing and mineral rights are owned separately from the land in respect of which they are eligible, then those rights are included in the definition of land and an application under part 5 can be made to purchase those rights. However, such rights can only be purchased under part 5 if the community body has bought or is seeking to buy the land under part 5 in respect of which those rights are eligible. Shooting rights that are owned separately from the land to which they relate cannot be included in the definition of land in part 5 of the bill because they are not a right that can be conveyed without the land to which the rights relate. I appreciate the good intention behind Claudia Beamish's amendment. I would ask if she would be willing to withdraw that amendment. Claudia Beamish, to wind up the presser withdrawal. I think that I have the clarification that I need if I have understood the minister's answer about rights and rights and withdraw the amendment. Can I ask the committee if anyone objects to the amendment being withdrawn? Nobody objects. In that case, we move on to the question that section 38 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The question is that section 39 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We move on to periods in which the application to buy salmon fishing's mineral rights or tenants' interests may be made. I call amendments 40 in the name of the minister group of amendments 41, 42 and 43. The minister to move amendment 40 and speak to all the amendments in the group. Government amendments 40, 41, 42 and 43 are technical amendments that clarify the point of which the relevant period ends for the purposes of determining when an application can be made to buy land consisting only of salmon fishing and mineral rights under section 40 or to buy a tenants' interests under section 41. Sections 43A and 416A set out of the relevant period ends on the date for the part 5 community body or third party purchaser withdraws, if confirmation to purchase a land that salmon fishing's mineral rights or tenants' interests relates to. Amendments 40, 41, 42 and 43 make clear that where the part 5 community body or third party purchaser fails to complete the purchase of the related land for any other reason then the relevant period ends on the date that the related purchase failed. Therefore, I move amendment 40. Thank you. Does any member wish to comment on these? If not, minister to wind up, please. Nothing to wind up. The question is that amendment 40 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Call amendment 41. In the name of the minister. We are ready to debate amendment 40. Minister to move formally. Folly moved. Question is that amendment 41 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are. The question is that section 40 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. I call amendment 42 in the name of the minister. Already debated with amendment 40. Minister to move formally. Folly moved. Question is that amendment 42 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. I call amendment 43 in the name of the minister. Already debated with amendment 40. Minister to move formally. Folly moved. The question is that amendment 43 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes.aboutwg aeth yw'r ysgolau ar y cymhwyllfa iechyd aeth yw'r cyflawn yr adelec, gan'i ddaw ti'n mynd i'r peirio ar y cyflawnr hynny. Rymd yw'r gyff iddod hi yn yr adelec yn yllafodd Abertafnewid i Gwyrdd Llywodraethod dwyledd pan ddaw i'r cyflawnr hyn a dim ond. Rwy'n rhaid i'ch cyflawnr hyn yn mynd i'r cyflawnr hyn i'r cyflawnr hynny. 90 a 93. Claudia Beamish, to move amendment 84 and speak to all the amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. This is the issue around communities of interest, which also came up in the community empowerment bill. I want it to be quite clear in moving this amendment that I have the clear understanding that local communities are indeed at the heart of this part of the bill. Communities want to be in charge of their own future working together. I do, of course, respect this. However, communities of interest, in my view, may also have a small place within the aims of this bill. Communities can be more complex than geographically proximate groups, particularly in rural areas. An example of this came up in committee was the Mountain Bothy Association, where there is not a community because of the remoteness and it could be in the interests of communities more broadly to own land in order to have a mountain bothy for recreational and wildlife watching purposes. Also, the STFA have highlighted communities of interest such as tenant farmers in a somewhat wider geographical area may wish to purchase land in a particular local community working together. Some have also argued that communities of interest more generally, such as walkers belonging to a Scotland-wide organisation, might have an interest. I am simply saying that I am not necessarily in support of that aspect because I respect the local communities aspect, but that has been raised as well. In this amendment states, I quote, that ministers may diso-ply a new word for me, diso-ply the requirement in subsection 9 for a community to be defined with reference to postcode units or to a type of area. Of course, this would only be the case in my amendment if this amendment was in the public interest. There are also two consequential amendments, sorry, there is only one, which relate to communities of interest. That is 93, thank you. Is it both amendments, convener, in my name? No, just the one. Just the first one. Right, just the first one. Thank you, convener. Are there any other members who wish to speak at this point? Alex Ferguson. Thank you, convener. I understand and Claudia Beamish has been very persistent on this issue and I understand entirely where she is coming from, but I do have an issue in how this relates with the final outcome of the community empowerment bill. I know that the minister has previously said that changing the definition to include communities of interest could potentially create further problems for local communities by allowing particular interest groups to compete for ownership of land in the locality. I agree with that and I hope that the minister will stick to that. Where I think there is latitude in this is that it is not beyond the power of imagination or indeed possibility that the type of groups to whom Ms Beamish referred, because it seems to me that all they need is a postal address within the postcode or area being looked at to comply with the legislation. Given that, I hope that the minister will stick to a previous commitment. I would intend to vote against this amendment anyway. Thank you, convener. Mike Russell. Not persuaded by this idea when it was discussed as part of the community empowerment bill and although I do not think that the particular amendment from Claudia Beamish with respect is exactly the right one, I think that this is becoming a more grey area. It is quite conceivable that there are bodies that I know of several that do not have firm community backing or cannot get that as a result of either there being no community in place or community that is not necessarily aligned with the interests of that body. They are restricted from purchasing and taking advantage of this important legislation. I think that there is a need for the Government to look at this again and to find a way forward and perhaps discussion between now and stage 3 might do so. No minister to respond. I am grateful to Claudia Beamish for the group of amendments that has provided me with a further opportunity to reflect on the purpose of part 5 of the bill and the definition of communities within part 5. How land is used in a local area can have a significant and direct impact on people in local communities. Local communities often have very little opportunity to influence landowners' decisions. The bill proposes a right to buy land to further sustainable development specifically to support local communities. Those amendments seek to make provision to allow communities of interest to exercise the part 5 right to buy. The aim of part 5 of the bill is to support the sustainable development of land to benefit local communities and avoid harm to such communities and give them more of a say over what happens in their area. The Scottish Government would not therefore support the widening of the definition term community to include communities of interest. Changing the definition to include communities of interest could potentially create further problems for local communities by allowing particular interest groups to compete for ownership of land in the locality. It would be difficult to see how a community of interest could demonstrate that it met both the significant harm and significant benefit tests in the sustainable development conditions in section 47 of the bill. It may also be difficult for communities of interest to show how the transfer of the land to them is likely to further sustainable development in relation to the land when the community of interest itself may be geographically dispersed now. While I cannot support those amendments, I hope that the committee will recognise that there is nothing to prevent a local community from going into partnership with the community of interest as a third party purchaser, provided that they are satisfied that the community of interest could deliver the desired benefits to the local community and that all the sustainable development conditions were met. I think that the issues that those amendments have been raised by Claudia Beamish are serious ones that demand further consideration. I do not think that they fall within the focus of part 5 of the bill, which is on local communities, but what I can put on record for Claudia Beamish is to say that I will give further consideration to the issue outwith the land reform bill process. It is definitely an issue that we will want to return to in future in order to have a proper look at it and to find a way for it, because there are a lot of issues here along the different types of groups that Claudia Beamish has stated with Mountain Bothys, travelling people and hutters. I am happy to put it on the record that this is an issue that we are very happy to come back to to give it the proper and serious consideration that it deserves. Claudia Beamish, to wind up the presser withdrawal. Right, thank you convener. Is it possible for me to seek some clarification from the minister just before I wind up? It would be helpful to understand in what way it might be possible to look at the issue further if it was not in your view within the spirit and the aims of the land reform bill, just when I am considering whether to withdraw the amendment or not. In response to Claudia Beamish, I would certainly be very happy to have a further discussion with her about how we would do this as part of the next stage of the land reform process. I will be very keen to do that, because those are serious issues that I think deserve us giving it the proper consideration that it deserves. I will be very happy to work with Claudia Beamish around that. I hope that that would give Claudia Beamish the reassurance. In winding up, I completely respect and strongly support the spirit and aims of the bill in relation to local communities. In relation to Alex Ferguson's comment that there might well be competition between different groups within a community or nearby to land, it would not only be about communities of interest that might also have competition with the local community. I apologise. I want the amendment to be at the discretion of the minister. It would have been, in my view, the ability where there was an exceptional occurrence or circumstance for the minister to be able to have the power to make that decision. I tried to make it as narrow a definition as possible because of communities of interest being beyond local communities. To get to the point, having sought the reassurance from the minister and received that, I will withdraw that at the moment. I am not sure at this stage whether I will see it as appropriate to bring it back in a different form in stage 3, but that does depend on the comments of the minister in discussion with myself in the interim. Thank you. Claudia Beamish wishes to withdraw amendment 84. Do we have any other member who wishes to move that? If not, then the amendment is therefore withdrawn. The question is that section 42 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That section 43 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We move on to the creation of single register for the exercise of the rights to buy abandoned, neglected or detrimental land and to buy land to further sustainable development, et cetera. Amendment 44, in the name of the minister group with amendments 45, 47, 48, 50, 51, 52, 64, 67, 78 and 71. The minister to move amendment 44 and speak to all the amendments in the group. In section 44, the bill requires a keeper to set up and keep a register to be known as the register of land for sustainable development. That register has to contain information and documents about applications for the right to buy under part 5. In section 74 of the Community Empowerment Scotland Act 2015, in 30 section 97f into the Land Reform Scotland Act 2003, amendment 44 requires a keeper to set up and keep a separate register that contains information and documents about applications for the community right to buy abandoned, neglected or detrimental land. In stage 1 report, the Iraqi committee said that it would be sensible to ensure that one new register of community interest in land be created. In our response, we agreed that amalgamating the two registers might be more efficient and we said that we would give further consideration to that. Amendments 44, 45, 47, 48, 50, 52, 64 and 67 now make provision for this. Those amendments will create a new register of applications by community bodies to buy land. The duties on the keeper in respect of the register for the right to buy in part 3A of the Land Reform Scotland Act 2003 and the register created in part 5 of the bill are very similar. Having one register, it contains information and documents about applications for the community right to buy, abandoned, neglected or detrimental land and for applications under part 5 of the bill will be cheaper, simpler to administer and easier for community bodies to access. Registers of Scotland are content with and indeed want this approach to be taken. amendment 44 amends section 44 so that the keeper is required to set up and keep a register to be known as a register of applications by community bodies to buy land. The register will contain information and documents relating to applications for the right to buy under part 5 of the bill. Amendments 45, 47, 48, 50 and 51 make consequential amendments to section 44. Amendment 52 amends section 97F of the Land Reform Scotland Act 2003 to remove the requirement for it to be a register of community interests in abandoned, neglected or detrimental land. That amendment requires the keeper to include a part in the register of applications by community bodies to buy land that contains information and documents about the applications for the community right to buy, abandoned, neglected or detrimental land. The amendment also makes consequential amendments to section 97F to reflect this change in amendments to register. In addition, this group of amendments contains one minor amendment relating to the information to be included in the register created under part 5 of the bill. Scottish Government amendments 17 and 71 insert a new schedule into the bill to make minor and consequential amendments to the Land Reform Scotland Act 2003. Amendment 71 amends the date for the ballot return required for the community right to buy in part 2 of the Land Reform Scotland Act 2003. That amendment provides that, where the date for the valuation to be provided is extended for longer than 12 weeks for the date of appointment of the valuer, the ballot return must be sent to minister no later than the day after the date that notification of the valuation is given. Amendment 71 also makes consequential amendments to the right to buy in part 3A of the 2003 Land Reform Scotland Act to take account of the amendment 52. Amendment 52 removes the register of community rights in abandoned, neglected or detrimental land and provides the information that would have been included on the register if now included on the register of applications by community bodies to buy land created under part 5 of the bill. Therefore, I move amendment 44. I very much welcome the new register singular because I think one of the challenges is to enable communities to actually track through what's happening with this. If this makes it more straightforward and easier for communities, I think that that's all to the good. Obviously, you'd want to see how it works out in practice, but hopefully this is going to make it more straightforward all round. Any other member wishes to comment? No, if not, minister to wind up. Happy not to. Thank you. The question is that amendment 44 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 45. The new minister already debated with amendment 44. Minister to move formally. The question is that amendment 45 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Minor amendments. I call amendment 46 in the name of the minister. Group with amendments 49, 53, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 61 and 68. Minister to move amendment 46. I speak to all the amendments in the group. Now, convener, this is a group of minor government amendments. Amendment 46 provides that, with an application, has been made under part 5 by a part 5 community body that is a Scottish charitable incorporated organisation and scale. The name of the part 5 body, as well as its address, must be included on the register of applications by community bodies to buy land. Amendment 49 applies with a part 5 community body that is a body corporate with a written constitution, has made an application under part 5 and then changes its address. The amendment requires the part 5 community body to notify the keeper of this change of address as soon as it is reasonably practicable. Amendment 53, an application for a right to buy under part 5, the bill, must include or be accompanied by information about certain matters and details of that, which may be set out in regulations. One of those matters is the reasons why the part 5 community body considers that its proposals for the land satisfy the sustainable development conditions set out in section 47. Amendment 53 modifies section 456 to make clear that where the application is to buy a tenant's interest, the information to be provided is about how the proposals for the land satisfy the sustainable development conditions, as it modifies specifically by section 475A in relation to applications to buy a tenant's interest. That is a minor and technical amendment for clarity. Amendment 55 is a minor amendment to correct a cross-reference in section 46 in amendments section 466 so that it correctly refers to the views and responses received in response to an application under section 45 rather than under section 46. Amendment 56, the effect of section 473 F2 is that the procedure requirements are not met if the landowner is subject to an enforceable personal obligation to sell the land, except with the obligation to sell the land to the part 5 community body who made the application to buy the land. Amendment 56 provides that there is also an exception to the requirement where the obligation on the landowner is to sell the land to the third party purchaser nominated by the part 5 community body. Amendment 57, 58, 59 are all minor to comply with the procedure requirements under section 47. A community body must have submitted a written request to the landowner requesting that the transfer of land and the owner must not have responded or agreed to the request. With the community body wishing to buy a tenant's interest and the community body is required to submit a written request to the tenant to buy the interest, but unlike the request to the landowner, the tenant does not have to respond in order for an application to buy the tenant's interest to be made. Section 47, 8b and c allows ministers to make regulations about the responses to the requests and circumstances when owners and tenants are taken not to have responded or agreed to those requests. Amendment 57, 58 and 59 amend those provisions so that they only apply to responses by landowners. Amendment 61 corrects a minor error in section 47. Nine of the bill amends the reference to subsection 42 to refer to section 42. Amendment 68 moves section 65 interpretation of part 5, which is an interpretation provision for part 5 of the bill, to after section 43 where it sits better. Amendment 46, convener. Thank you. The question is that amendment 46 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Call amendments 47, 48, 49, 50 and 51, all in the name of the minister all previously debated. I invite the minister to move amendments 47 to 51 on bloc. Is there any member objecting to a single question that we put to amendments 47 to 51? No. Therefore, the question is that amendments 47 to 51 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The question is that section 44 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Call amendments 52 in the name of the minister all ready debated with amendment 44. The right to buy under part 5 exercisable by third party purchaser. I call amendment 85 in the name of Jim Hume in a group of its own. Jim Hume to move and speak to amendment 85. I move amendment 85 in my name. Amendment 85 seeks to delete section 45 one beef, but it is to say that part five community body can nominate in its application another person to exercise the right to buy that person a third party purchaser. I appreciate that obviously communities should be at the position that they are always in control, so my concern is that community might itself be put in a position where it finds that it's sacrificed truly long term sustainable benefits such as perhaps affordable housing in exchange for perhaps even a cash offer from a third party, which may be too good to refuse. That could have some unintended consequences. There's a danger that this part of the bill community projects could be driven by third party companies, obviously with their own agenda. I think that's contrary to and has a potential to dilute the central aim of the bill, which is of course for local communities to always be the drivers behind their own projects based on their own local aspirations. In moving this amendment, I reiterate the fact that this is to ensure that it's always communities that are driving forward their right to buy rather than third parties, which may of course be large businesses, so I'd be interested in hearing the minister's comments on that. Any other member wishes to comment just now? There's an issue—oh yes, Sarah Boyack, if I'll have you first and then me, why not? Just to say, I think that this section in the bill is actually quite a useful innovation and I think it'd be a great pity to remove it at this stage, so I hear what Jim Hume is saying, but I haven't been convinced that we should take this part of the bill out. Let me say that discussions in the Highlands about areas that were once previously occupied by people are perhaps a subject of this area here. It may be that a community wishes to try and either extend the land that it has or indeed in an area where there aren't houses at this time, so the question about potentially something like Community Land Scotland being that third party could begin to affect a debate about lands that were previously occupied by people and which could be occupied in future. I would agree with Sarah Boyack that this actually opens up an interesting area where we might find means to use this third party approach and I do not believe that the third party approach is one where a community can pass it to some sort of developer at all, so therefore I wouldn't be supporting this amendment. Any other members wish to speak? I am grateful to Mr Hume for raising the issue, which gives us the opportunity to further reflect on the role of third parties in the right to buy under part 5. I also welcome the comments from Sarah Boyack and the convener. The ability for a community body to nominate a third party purchaser to buy land under part 5, for example, a housing association or a local business parter that adds flexibility to the right to buy process. There has been strong support for those provisions from a number of stakeholders, for example Community Land Scotland. The community report at stage 1 acknowledges that it may be beneficial in certain circumstances for a community to be able to nominate a third party purchaser. Enabling communities to access resources and expertise of other parties could help to deliver real benefits to the community at the centre of the application. I understand that a small number of stakeholders have expressed concern that third party purchasers might exercise undue influence in response to the committee's request in its report over what safeguards were needed. We noted that considering a part 5 application, Scottish ministers will have to be satisfied that the sustainable development conditions are met and the procedural requirements are complied with. That will include consideration of the community body and third party purchasers' ability to deliver the proposals in their application. That might include scrutinising the arrangements between the community body and third party purchasers. For example, the legal agreement sitting out for example delivery timescales, rights, liabilities and maintenance arrangements, etc. Ministers would not be able to consent to an application if they were not satisfied that the transfer to the third party purchaser would be likely to deliver significant benefits to the community and that the other sustainable development tests were met. Any concerns that are raised by a landowner or any other person that a third party purchaser was wielding undue influence or any evidence that an arrangement between the community body and a third party purchaser would not deliver the significant benefits or even prevent harm to the community. Necessary to meet the sustainable development conditions would be considered very seriously by ministers when deciding whether to consent to an application. In addition, the Scottish Government already supports organisations such as the community ownership support service to provide support and advice to communities on the issues of asset transfer and land ownership. That means that communities will have access to advice and support from an independent party when they are deciding whether to work with a third party on a right to buy application. In addition, the Scottish Government, we are happy for the record to give a reassurance to Mr Hume that it will not allow part 5 to be used for reasons other than intended. For those reasons, I would ask Mr Hume if he would be willing to withdraw his amendment 85. Jim Hume, to wind up the presser withdrawal. Thank you very much for that. I think that it has been important to thrash this out a little bit and get this on the record, because there are concerns out there. As the minister correctly said, it may be used in certain circumstances, and of course the minister has stated that it would only be considered or given approval volume ministers if it passed the sustainable development condition test. Unfortunately, sustainability has not been fully explained or defined as it is currently in the bill. Obviously, I would encourage local communities to work with housing associations to provide for affordable housing in their communities, so we would not want to stop housing associations to be part of community development. With that in mind, I reserve the right to bring this back at the third stage, but at this stage I would seek to withdraw my amendment. Jim Hume seeks to withdraw amendment 85. Does any member object to the amendment being withdrawn? No member objects. The question is that amendment 53, in the name of the minister, is already debated with amendment 46. The question is that amendment 53 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The question is that section 45 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Consideration of the effect of exercise of the right to buy on owner or occupier of the land. Amendment 54, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 87, 88 and 60. Minister, to move amendment 54 and speak to all amendments in the group. When an application is made under part 5, ministers are required to invite the owner or, as the case may be, the tenant to give ministers information about certain matters. Amendment 54 requires ministers to invite the owner of the land or the tenant, as a case may be, to provide them with information on the likely impact of the proposals in the application on their interests. That includes information about the impact of the application on the current use of the land, the tenant's interests or any intended use. Amendment 54 works in tandem with the Government amendment 60, which will require ministers to take account of any such information provided by the land owner or the tenant in considering whether the transfer of land or the tenant's interests is in the public interest. With amendment 87, I very much appreciate the concerns behind Mr Russell's amendment 87. I think that there are some difficulties that I have with it that it could, in some instances, create a significant restriction to the right to buy that I do not consider appropriate, because any application to buy land under part 5, including an application to buy agricultural land, can only be consented to by ministers if all the sustainable development conditions are met and the procedure requirements complied with. That means that the transfer of land would have to satisfy the sustainable development conditions, including that the transfer is in the public interest and that the transfer of land will likely result in significant benefit to the community and that it is the only practicable way of achieving significant benefit for the community and that not granting the transfer will likely result in significant harm to the community. Those are strong tests and I believe that it is legitimate that agricultural land should not be excluded from a part 5 application where, for instance, a transfer is needed to prevent significant harm to the community, to provide significant benefits where there are no practical alternatives and where it is in the public interest. There may also be circumstances where, for example, buying a small piece of agricultural land could result in significant benefits to a community but have limited impact on the landowner. The test allows for all relevant factors to be considered. The Scottish Government amendment 60 requires that, in considering whether the transfer of land or the assignment of a tenant's interest is in the public interest, ministers must take into account any information that is provided by landowners or tenants on how a part 5 application would affect their interests. It also requires that Scottish ministers, in considering whether the transfer of land or the assignment of a tenant's interest is in the public interest, must consider the likely effect on land use in Scotland of granting or not granting consent to the transfer. The amendment 60 therefore addresses concerns about agricultural land that were raised by some of our stakeholders, and it also confirms Scottish ministers' commitment to flourishing and vibrant tenancy sector. Given the reassurances and the points that I have made about not unduly restricting communities' rights to buy for a sustainable development, Mr Russell would consider withdrawing his amendment in this case. I am happy to go on the record as saying that we will always take account of the effect on agriculture of any community buy-out when considering a part 5 application we are relevant. I appreciate the good intentions behind Mr Ferguson's amendment 88, although, with due respect, I am unable to support it. Ministers cannot consent to an application under part 5 of the bill unless they are satisfied that the transfer of land or assignment of the tenant's interest would be in the public interest. Again, I am happy to go on the record as saying that this will involve consideration of the impact of the transfer or assignment on the landowner or tenant. To make this clear on the face of the bill, my amendment 60 requires that in considering whether the transfer of land or assignment of a tenant's interest is in the public interest, ministers must take into account any information provided by landowners or tenants on how a part 5 application would affect those interests. It also obliges Scottish ministers when considering whether the transfer of land or the assignment of a tenant's interest is in the public interest to consider the likely effect of granting or not granting consent to the transfer of land or a tenant's interest or land use in Scotland. It is also useful to remember that Scottish ministers could not consent to an application under part 5 if, to do so, it would be incompatible with any person's rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. Amendment 60, which I have already discussed in relation to my amendment 54, and Mr Russell's amendment 87 and Mr Ferguson's amendment 88 requires that in considering whether the transfer of land or assignment of a tenant's interest is in the public interest, ministers must take into account any information provided by landowners or tenants on how a part 5 application would affect their interests. As I have said before, it also requires the Scottish ministers in considering whether the transfer of land or assignment of a tenant's interest is in the public interest must consider the likely effect on land use in Scotland of granting or not granting consent to the transfer. Amendment 60 addresses concerns about the agricultural land that were raised by some stakeholders and some members of the committee. I reiterate that amendment does confirm the Scottish ministers' commitment to having a flourishing and vibrant tenant's sector. I therefore move amendment 54. Michael Russell to speak to amendment 87 and other amendments in the group. I am reassured by the minister's amendment 60. I think that it has the same effect. I think that it would be useful to have a specific reference to agricultural land, but I can appreciate the difficulty of so doing. The issue is not just agricultural land, it is agricultural units. It is important that there is reassurance given to those people who fear that they will lose an essential part of a viable agricultural unit. I am not, in any way, trying to remove the purchase of agricultural land from the prospect of community purchase. That clearly is unreasonable and is not something that one would want to see. However, it is important to give not only reassurance to the agricultural sector but also to indicate its importance by saying that there is an understanding in this bill and in government that agricultural units need to be protected from unreasonable activity. I will address my later amendments in 86A, but they also raised some of the issues from the perspective of those people who are trying to earn a living in the countryside and who do not want that to be disrupted but yet have excellent relationships with the community and indeed are part of the community. That is not an amendment that addresses issues of large-scale estate management. It addresses issues of people who work in the countryside, in the long term, who have an interest in being there. We do not want them to be casualties, accidental casualties of the legislation. Amendment 60 is important. I think that it will have the effect. It will be useful to see what the agricultural sector thinks of amendment 60, but at the present moment I am quite willing to withdraw. However, the agriculture sector believes that there is further strengthening required, so I have no doubt that we can look at that as we approach stage 3. Thank you, convener. I would very much echo the comments that Mike Russell has just made in reference to my own amendment 88. I have no problems with amendments 54 and 60 in the name of the minister, but I do believe that this whole group would be greatly strengthened by the addition of both amendments 87 and 88. It does not seem to me to strike a reasonable balance when the transfer of land is considered in terms of significant benefit or harm to the community without giving equal consideration to any significant harm to the owner or previous owner or the likely previous owner of that land. My amendment 88 would make the consideration a key test. While I accept entirely that, it is partly recognised in amendment 87, which seeks to protect farmland, my amendment would give similar recognition to other rural land uses such as forestry, heritage, tourism, outdoor, recreation, etc. I want to reiterate the point that Mike Russell made that the minister has mentioned twice. She has mentioned the effect on land use in Scotland and she has also mentioned the use of agriculture in Scotland. However, it is not about Scotland-wide issues, it is about the impact on that particular unit, be it a farm or be it another form of rural business. It is important to recognise that. I am reminded of the committee's visit to an example of community ownership in Fife. I think that it was Kinghorn, thank you very much for reminding me of Kinghorn in Fife. It was a splendid example of community engagement, community empowerment and community benefit. The people involved were keen to purchase extra ground of a neighbouring farm and we were told that it was extremely difficult to engage with the farmer. It later transpired that that individual was more than happy to engage but was not happy to give up the land in question because it amounted to some 50 per cent of his farm. In Dumfries, I questioned the minister on what would happen in a 50-50 situation. I believe that the Kinghorn situation might well do that because I think that the community application, if they were to make an application under this legislation, might well fulfil the tests that have been laid down in front of them. However, the landowner or the farmer in that case would have a very strong case to make against it. In a 50-50 situation, it has become quite clear from the minister's answer in Dumfries that the community application would be favoured in that circumstance. I think that Mike Russell's amendment 87 and indeed mine 88 provide that additional protection that is required. I am disappointed that the minister cannot see a way to accept them or indeed have further discussions to see what extra protection to be given before stage 3. I will see what she says in winding up and decide whether to press or withdraw. Any other member wishes to comment just now? If not, minister, would you wind up please amendment 54? Thank you, convener. I begin by reassuring Mr Ferguson that the impact on the landowner will be relevant in the public interest test. Amendment 88 works differently from the test in section 472d, because it is not softened by reference to likelihood. Ministers would need to be satisfied that the transfer would not result in significant harm to the owner or tenant. To make this work, ministers would need to be able to require not just request information from landowners and others about the potential harm to the landowner or tenant. In terms of the points that were raised by Mr Russell, I can reassure that specifying consideration of the impact on the landowner and the tenant would include consideration of the impact on the agricultural unit where it is relevant. Just to reiterate, convener, amendment 60 ensures that where the landowner or tenant is an agricultural business or where the land is subject to the part 5 application is agricultural land and any potential impact on the landowner or tenant or the effect of any potential change in use of the land will be considered. Thank you. In that case, the question is that amendment 54 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I call amendment 55 in the name of the minister. Already debated with amendment 46. Minister, to move formally. Question is that amendment 55 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. Question is that section 46 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. Period in which a further application to buy the same land under part 5 may not be made. I call amendment 86 in the name of Michael Russell group with amendment 86A. Michael Russell, to move amendment 86 and speak to both amendments in the group. This is very much a probing amendment. At the start, it is intended to be so. There is a concern, and I know of a couple of cases, that applications could simply go into a rolling cycle of application. The failure of a community to succeed in an application, even under previous legislation, would simply mean that they would return to a later date. No harm in that. However, there are some people who would be significantly harmed by that, particularly those who have land that might be sterilised by this process for a long period of time. I am just interested in the views of the Government about this matter. There is precedent in the school closure legislation, in a rather different way, that local authority cannot return to the matter of a school closure within five years, if it fails to put forward an argument that is successful in closing a school. I would be interested to know what the Government's view is and what protection can be given in those unusual circumstances. It will very much be a matter of ministerial judgment, but unusual circumstances where there appears to be potential harm done by a repeated application. The Serobiox amendment certainly improves the wording of my amendment. I have no doubt about that, but I do not think that I will be pressing this amendment as long as I know that there is an issue within the Government that will require some consideration. Serobiox is right to say that the issue is probably refused consent rather than application. Serobiox act to move amendment 86A and speak to both amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. I very much understand why Mike Russell would want to test this issue, but having read his amendment, I wanted to make sure that it did not create an additional problem. My amendment aims to make sure that we do not get the unintended consequence of preventing submission from community groups. For example, if an application had been withdrawn at the early stage in the process, potentially for a very legitimate and technical reason, the reason that I wanted to move the amendment to Mike's amendment was that there is experience of such circumstances with his previous right to buy legislation. It is making sure that we get the nuts and bolts right. Had Mike wanted to move the amendment today, I could see why he was wanting to do that, but I did not want it to create a new problem. I will be interested in the minister's response. I appreciate the intentions of Mike Russell's amendment 86A and Serobiox's amendment 86A to amend Mr Russell's amendment. I absolutely accept that the idea of repeated right to buy applications could be a matter of concern to some people. I can reassure the committee that the Scottish Government will certainly be closely monitoring part 5 applications to make sure that the system is not being abused in any way. I would like to point out that there does not seem to be any evidence that existing right to buy powers is giving rise to fixatious applications or that the system is being abused. We cannot foresee what circumstances might arise in the future. There may be occasions where it would be useful to be able to consider an application in the five-year timeframe that was suggested by Mike Russell and Serobiox. In fact, having to wait a further five years could lead to significant harm to communities under some situations. It could also be abused as a way of preventing communities from applying within the five-year period. In the rare instance in which a landlord might encourage a poor buy-out application with a view to preventing further applications, in addition, for some communities, a first application may well prove to be a learning experience and it would be wrong to bar them from a further opportunity within a five-year period. Given the points that I have made and my reassurance that the Government will monitor part five applications, I would ask Mike Russell and Serobiox not to move the amendments. We have to hear wind-up first of all from Mike Russell and then Serobiox will wind up and will deal with her amendment 86A first. Mike Russell to wind up. I am constantly in awe of the reasons that can be given to refuse amendments, but I do think that the idea that a landowner would be encouraging a poor buy-out in the hope that that would sterilise the issue forever perhaps is on the far end of that spectrum. That having been said, I do understand that the issue has been tested. I do think that there are, I can certainly think of one circumstances in which this is an issue, but the minister's assurance on the record that the applications will be scrutinised and studied in that way and that that is a commitment that is now entered into on the record is helpful, and I hope that, if there was any evidence of malpractice of any sort, including the manufacturing of poor applications in order to prevent good ones, that would be a matter for action. Serobiox act to wind up on amendment 86A and press or withdraw. On the basis that Mike Russell is not moving his amendment, I will not move mine. I do not think that I have actually moved it, but if I think that I need to withdraw it, I will. Serobiox act wishes to withdraw amendment 86A. Is any other member object to this amendment being withdrawn? No, nobody does. Thankfully we have not moved into that. We move on to amendment Michael Russell to press or withdraw amendment 86A. Not moved. Amendment 86 has been withdrawn by Mike Russell. Does any member object to that? No member does object to that. We call amendment 87. The name of Mike Russell already debated with amendment 54. Michael Russell to move or not moved? Not moved. Question is that amendment 1 is sustainable development conditions, etc., including factors to be taken into account in determining significant benefit or harm.  Here we go. The point about much of the strength of the argument for communities and tenants to be able to buy is underlined by our increasing reliance on having a greater involvement of human rights in that process. As we have gone through this bill, we have cited many useful aspects of human rights, which we hope that the Government will make use of. In the debate that we had at stage 1, it seemed to us that there were areas where the present criteria for community right to buy as set out in the section is so demanding that it could be making communities unsuccessful for applicants and, consequently, provision may not achieve the desired diversification of land. There are a number of areas in here that are being suggested by people to try and tackle that. I am merely tackling one small part, which, in section 47, 2C2, suggests that the only practicable way to be approached for the benefit of the transfer of land is to be changed to only or most practicable way. That allows the ministers to underline the fact that the human rights behind the issue are ones that will not be impeded and that the potential community rights will not be impeded by the first phrase, only practicable way. I prefer that the minister would accept only or most practicable way, and I urge her to do so, and I leave other members to speak to different bits of the group. I move amendment 6 in my name. I call on Dave Thompson to speak to amendment 109 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. The amendment is to provide marginal additional flexibility to the community and, indeed, to the minister in relation to the right to buy issue. The amendment still leaves considerable protection for the owner of the land and retains a high challenge for the community to demonstrate that, without transfer, it would likely be harmed to their sustainable development objectives. Those objectives would, of course, have to be regarded as bringing such significant benefits as to overtake the interests of the owner and his retaining ownership. I look forward to hearing the minister's comments in relation to this matter. Mike Russell to speak to amendment 89 and other amendments in the group. The two amendments that I have in this group address the question of human rights and definitions. Amendment 89 mentions international covenant of economic, social and cultural rights, and I make sure that it is applied within the issue. The further amendment is one of the list amendments. We seem to have had several of them in this bill in which a list of issues is presented within the bill. I have taught all those lists to insert the two issues—the realisation of human rights and the furthering and giving effect equal opportunities. To be fair, they occur in some lists but not in others, so a bit of consistency within the list would be helpful. The overall view, and I think that it has been supported by the committee and the minister previously, and I hope that she will support it on this occasion, is to insert in this bill wherever possible the concept of human rights and equal opportunities and to make sure that the understanding of human rights is well defined, not exclusively defined in a way that would stop other things coming into it, but to be defined according to what the key documents are. That is an obligation on this Parliament, because there is an obligation on this Parliament to look widely and to look at what the international agreements are and the international best practices, and that would allow us to observe international best practice. We will see an effect of that, an accumulative effect of that over the years in which we see human rights being integrated into everything that we do, and that can only be beneficial. Thank you. I call on Claudia Beamish to speak to amendment 63 in other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. I am very keen that we look in relation to what ministers have to consider the likely effect of granting or not granting the transfer of land, that we look at some health inequalities, and that is what my amendment refers to at this point. I refer to the written submission to the committee of NHS Health Scotland, whose role is, I quote, to work with others to put into action knowledge about what works and what does not work to reduce health inequalities and improve health. The inequalities may be created and or maintained within a community if the proposed development of the land benefits and or excludes a particular population group. On that basis, I would like to ask the minister and the committee to consider health inequalities as one of the issues that should be taken into account when determining significant benefit or harm. In relation to amendment 62, that relates in a similar vein to an addition to the list to be considered. That is to refer to, to include in the list, the Equality Act 2010. That would take account of the nine protected characteristics and look at gender and age and a range of the range of other ones that I will not list at this stage, but those two are particularly important. That could also relate to socioeconomic issues and socioeconomic disadvantage. I would also like to speak to my amendment 91. I should declare an interest in relation to that as a member of the co-operative parliamentary group and the Scottish unco-operative party. I would like to see in the same list that I have already referred to co-operative development added as a consideration. Co-operatives, as we know without going into a lot of detail, rely on the same principles as are at the heart of the bill—solidarity, mutuality and transparency—and benefit to communities and local economies. They are owned by members, and I believe that it is a strong model for community engagement and chimes with community empowerment envisaged in the bill. I would like to see that included in the list as well. In the same group, I would also like to speak in support of Mike Russell's amendment 89. Sarah Boyack has already put the case as has Mike Russell for having regard to the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights. I am not going to cover those points again, but Sarah Boyack and I both think that it is essential that the amendment recognises the need for Scottish ministers to, and I quote from the amendment, have regard to the covenant. I quote when considering an application to by-land under section 45. I would also like to speak in support of Rob Gibson's amendment as well. I would like to support of Dave Thompson's amendment, but I have not put a note on that, so I apologise. Any other members who wish to speak at the moment? No, if not, minister, please respond. I am content to support your amendment. If the committee is minded to approve it, I would like to point out that its effect in practice is minimal. However, when deciding whether to consent to an application under part 5, the ministers must act in a way that is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. Even if the sustainable development conditions are met and the procedure requirements complied with respect to an application, the ministers cannot consent to the application if to do so would be incompatible with any person's rights under article 1 of protocol 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights. One of the tests of compatibility with article 1, protocol 1, is whether the transfer of land is the least intrusive way of achieving the benefits to the community as you guard the landowners. If amendment 6 is agreed to, it means that the ministers will be able to consent to an application on the basis that it is the most practicable way of achieving the desired benefits rather than the only practical way of achieving those benefits only if they are satisfied that the transfer of land is the least intrusive means of achieving those benefits as you guard to the landowners article 1, protocol 1 rights. There may, in theory, be circumstances convener when ministers can consent an application for transfer of land where that transfer is the most practical way of achieving the desired benefits but not the only practical way of achieving those benefits. However, I have not yet identified any such circumstances but we are happy to support amendment 6. In terms of amendments 109, 111 and 112, convener, although amendment 112 is not immediately next to amendment 109 and 1111 on the list, 112 is consequential on amendment 109, so I propose to speak to all three together now. I very much welcome Dave Thomson's amendments, which seek to ensure that the tests and processes for an application for the right to by-land to further sustainable development are as effective as possible. I also appreciate that there may be some concern that the sustainable development conditions and in particular the requirement under section 472d to show that not granting consent to the transfer of land is likely to result in significant harm to the community may be difficult to meet. However, where provisions provide for land to be transferred against the landowners wishes then it is fair that there are high thresholds to ensure that this is the right thing to do. What Dave Thomson's amendments will mean is that ministers may be able to consent to an application in circumstances where the conditions in 472a to c were met as present, but we are not transferring the land. It would not be likely to result in significant harm to the community but instead resulted in significant harm to the community's sustainable development objectives. The amendment does not define what is meant by the community's sustainable development objectives and so it is not certain how to assess whether or not transferring the land would be likely to result in significant harm to those objectives. In addition, any such objectives may not be publicly available, which would mean that a landowner may not even be aware of them. One aspect of the test for a provision being compatible with article 1 protocol 1 is that it is sufficiently clear and certain in its effect. Given the lack of clarity or certainty as to the meaning of the amendment, the Government is concerned that accepting the amendment would mean that the sustainable development conditions would become too uncertain to meet the requirements of article 1 protocol 1. I am not persuaded that the amendment 109, as it is currently drafted, would be within legislative competence of the Parliament and so I cannot support it. However, I recognise Dave Thomson and stakeholders' concerns over whether the element of the test sets too high a hurdle for communities, while at the same time wanting to provide appropriate clarity for communities about the tests that need to be satisfied before ministers can consent to an application under part 5. Should Dave Thomson be willing to withdraw the amendments 109, 111 and 112, I certainly would be very much welcome the opportunity to meet Mr Thomson and discuss the issue further with a view to returning with the Government amendment stage 3 after considering it. I think that we need to look at it quite carefully. If there are other potential ways that this part of the test can be adjusted in order to ensure that it is fit for purpose and that it respects the needs and rights of both communities and landowners, I would therefore ask Dave Thomson if he would consider withdrawing amendments 109, 111 and 112 in this instance. As a Government, we are community giving effect to international human rights treaties in a way that works for Scotland. The international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights is an international human rights treaty that sets out certain rights that state parties agree to recognise as well as aspirations to work towards. The creation of the part 5 right to buy to allow communities to buy land to create significant benefits to their community and to avoid significant harm to their community can be regarded as a step that will assist with ministers' obligations under the international covenant. Amendment 89 would place a responsibility for testing and directing Scotland's approach to the international covenant at the door of the courts, even though the international covenant's wording does not easily translate into clear, enforceable rights. The terms of that international covenant have not been drafted in a way that lends itself to interpretation by the courts. Nevertheless, I very much agree with the sentiments behind Michael Russell's amendment. I am very happy to accept the amendment on the grounds that the Government will consider further ahead of stage 3 to ensure that the best possible wording is used to give effect to the intentions behind the proposed amendment. Amendment 92 would appreciate the sentiment again behind Mr Russell's amendment. I am uncertain whether the wording of the amendment provides the sufficient clarity and would have the desired effect. I am not convinced that section 47.10 of the bill is the right place to insert the reference to equal opportunities and the realisation of human rights, especially in light of the acceptance of amendment 89 to make reference to human rights elsewhere in the section 47 test. Obviously, Ministers cannot consent to an application under part 5 unless they are satisfied that that transfer of land would be likely to result in significant benefit to the community and that failure to transfer the land would be likely to result in significant harm to the community. The creation of part 5 right to allow communities to buy land to create significant benefits to the community and to avoid significant harm to the community could be considered evidence of Scotland's commitment to taking into consideration economic, social and cultural rights. Just to reiterate, Scottish ministers, unlike their UK counterparts, already have explicit duties to comply with international law, including international treaties under the Scottish Ministerial Code, which includes the human rights instruments such as the international covenant. Obviously, human rights are inevitably intertwined with the factors already listed in section 47.10, such as social wellbeing and public health. I am happy to support Michael Russell's amendment in principle and I hope that in doing so, it would also satisfy part of Claudia Beamish's concerns around equal opportunities. However, the Scottish Government will have to consider the issue further to ensure that that amendment still provides the test set out in section 47, with its sufficient clear meaning required to ensure that the test is effective and within competence. It may be necessary to return with a further amendment at stage 3, with a view to altering the wording of the amendment to provide any additional clarity that is necessary or to remove the wording altogether if an effective solution cannot be found. In that instance, I would be happy to meet Michael Russell and Claudia Beamish to discuss the issue of human rights and equalities in part 5 of the bill. We also need to try to get some clarity around an overview of what has been agreed on in the human rights provisions in the bill. In terms of amendments 62 and 63, I really appreciate the tension behind those amendments, which are similar to Mr Russell's amendments 92. I expanded on the consideration of human rights in relation to Mr Russell's amendment and would offer some further thoughts on the issue of equal opportunities. Health inequalities are inevitably intertwined with the factors already listed in section 4710, such as social wellbeing and public health. In addition, ministers cannot consent to an application under part 5 unless they are satisfied that the transfer of land is in the public interest. If the transfer of land would be detrimental to the furtherance of equal opportunities, including the protected characteristics under section 4 of the Equality Act 2010, that would be a relevant factor for ministers to consider, and ministers already have important statutory duties under the 2010 Equality Act to advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a protected characteristic and persons who do not and also to reduce socioeconomic inequalities of outcome. Scottish ministers are already required under section 4710 to consider the impact of the application on the lives of people in the community by reference to economic development, regeneration, public health, social wellbeing and environmental wellbeing when considering what constitutes harm or benefit to the community that is seeking to buy land. For example, in the case of a community that is based in an economically deprived area with poor health outcomes, an application from that community that showed how a part 5 buy-out would significantly improve its economic position or its health outcomes would be considered under the economic development and public health considerations in section 4710. Given the commitment to accept amendment 92 in principle and to consider the issue further, I would like to ask Clary Mhenish if amendment 62 and 63 would be withdrawn. Finally, convener, in this group, I would again thank Clary Mhenish for this amendment. I think that similar considerations apply to this amendment as for amendment 92, 62 and 63. I know that any inclusion of the term co-operative development for the purposes of subsection 4710 would need the term to be defined in the bill as it applies in this context. I think that its inclusion is unnecessary to the extent that, if it can be shown that co-operative development can positively and significantly improve the outcomes for the people in a community with reference to economic development, regeneration, public health, social wellbeing and environmental wellbeing, it could certainly be a consideration for ministers. Therefore, while I agree with the sentiment behind the amendment, I think that it is unnecessary and the effect is unclear, so I cannot support amendment 91. I am going to wind up on behalf of amendment 6 and intend to press it. I am glad that we have the Government to think more about the fairness of the tests with regard to the right to buy for communities and so on. I recognise the proportional nature of the need to act so that A1P1 is met, but I also recognise that there is a strong public interest in diversifying land in Scotland, and I would ask the ministers to make sure that, in all their dealings, they bear that in mind as the reason why we are trying to evoke the human rights clauses that we have been debating in this section. So I wish to press amendment 6. The question is that amendment 6 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. I call amendment 109 in the name of Dave Thompson, already debated by the amendment 6. Dave Thompson, to move or not move? Not move, in light of the minister's assurances, and I look forward to meeting with her, convener. I call amendment 88 in the name of Alec Ferguson, already debated with amendment 54. Alec Ferguson, to move or not move. Given the minister's comments, I will seek not to move that, convener, with the provision that I might bring back at stage 3. Actions by the owner to prevent sale of land. That would call amendment 110 in the name of Dave Thompson and a group of its own Dave Thompson to move and speak to amendment 110. Thank you, convener. The amendment is designed to try and close a potential loophole that an owner could use to seek to circumvent the community right to buy provisions. The amendment seeks to clarify that the provision would apply unless it could be shown that the owner is only prevented from selling by virtue of something done deliberately by the owner with the aim of defeating the application. That would be difficult to show, but at least the amendment provides for a case to be made about this if the circumstances warranted it. I think that it is important to close this loophole, and if the amendment is not of itself sufficient, I would encourage the minister to come back at stage 3 with a better option. Otherwise, I would hope that the minister might be able to accept this amendment, so I look forward to the minister's comments in relation to this. Thank you. Any other member who wishes to speak? No, minister to respond. Community rights to buy and especially the right to buy land to further sustainable development under part 5 of this bill are novel ground-breaking provisions. It is, of course, possible that, as those provisions begin to be used in practice, there may be issues that arise as we learn from experience. I greatly welcome the proposed amendment from Dave Thompson. I thank him for bringing this important loophole to our attention. I acknowledge that there is need to further consider whether the current provisions in section 472f could be used by an owner to deliberately try and avoid an application under part 5. While I am very sympathetic to the aim of the proposed amendment, as is currently drafted, there are, however, a number of potential flaws. For example, the amendment only considers efforts to use 47f1 to avoid consent being given to a part 5 application. It does not address the potential use of personal obligations under f2 to achieve the same aim. It understands that stakeholders have indicated that they also have a concern over the potential use and impact of options agreements, which would potentially fall under f2 rather than f1. Secondly, it is difficult to see how a community body could prove that something had been done by the land owner with the deliberate aim of defeating an application. There are, obviously, potentially significant legal issues that we need to work through. Removing the application of section 473f would mean that a person who is prevented from transferring land is forced to do so or forced to act in breach of an enforceable personal obligation to sell the land. Whether an appropriate mechanism that was compatible with a person's ECHR rights could be developed to deal with this would need to have very careful consideration. We would also want to consider further whether that is an issue for other rights to buy. I would ask if Dave Thompson would be willing to withdraw amendment 1110 at this time. Instead, I would very much welcome the opportunity to work with Dave Thompson, the committee and stakeholders, further on its issue to see if it is possible to identify the problem and whether an effective solution to the loophole that has been quite well identified by Dave Thompson can be found ahead of stage 3. Dave Thompson to wind up, press or withdraw. Thank you very much, convener. Again, in light of the minister's comments, I would be happy to not to move the motion or withdraw the motion. Dave Thompson wishes to withdraw amendment 1110. Does any member object to it being withdrawn? No objection, so therefore the amendment is withdrawn. Therefore, I call amendment 56 in the name of the minister who is already debated with amendment 46. The question is that amendment 56 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 89 in the name of Michael Russell who is already debated with amendment 6. Michael Russell to move or not to move. The question is that amendment 89 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. I am intended to take the very shortest of comfort breaks just now and try and move on to half-pass 1 with as much as we can fit into that. So if anyone requires a comfort break, this is a four-minute warning. We will start again now. I call amendments 57, 58, 59, 60 and 61, all in the name of the minister and all previously debated. I invite the minister to move amendments 57 to 61 on block. I ask whether any member objects to a single question for 57 to 61. No one does, so therefore no member objects. The question is that amendments 57 to 61 are agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 90 in the name of Claudia Beamish who is already debated with amendment 84. I will call amendment 90 in the name of Claudia Beamish who is already debated with amendment 84. Claudia Beamish to move or not to move. The question is that amendment 111 in the name of Dave Thompson are already debated with amendment 6. Are Dave Thompson to move or not to move? I call amendment 112. Is Dave Thompson to move or not to move? I call amendment 63 in the name of Claudia Beamish who was already debated with amendment 6. Claudia Beamish to move or not to move. I don't intend to move, convener, in view of the minister's comments about the possibility of discussion alongside Mike Russell. So, not moved. Call amendment 62, in the name of Claudia Beamish, already debated with amendment 6. Claudia Beamish to move or not move. The same. I'm not moving for the same reason. For the same reason. Yes. Thank you. Call amendment 91, in the name of Claudia Beamish, already debated with amendment 6. Claudia Beamish to move or not move. I don't intend to move, convener, for a different reason because of the assurance given to me by the minister about how co-operative development is an important part of the way forward for Scotland. Thank you. Not moved. So, amendment 92, in the name of Michael Russell, already debated with amendment 6. Michael Russell to move or not move. Move. Move. The question is that amendment 92 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. The question is that section 47 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Good. Call amendment 93, in the name of Claudia Beamish, already debated with amendment 84. Claudia Beamish to move or not move. Sorry. There's types of community body permitted. Right. Not moved. Not moved. The question is that section 48 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The question is that sections 49 to 51 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Good. We call amendment 64, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 44. Minister to move formally. Folly moved. The question is that amendment 64 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The question is that section 52 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. The question is that sections 53 to 57 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. The exercise of the right to buy under part 5, compensation. I call amendment 65, in the name of the minister, group with amendment 66 and 113. Minister to move amendment 65 and speak to all amendments in the group. Can we now these amendments modify section 58? That's amendment 65 and 66 concerning compensation where an application has been made under part 5 of the bill in order to create a fairer balance in the payment of compensation. Where an application nominates a third-party purchaser and the application is approved by ministers, then those amendments ensure that it is a third-party purchaser rather than the community body who is liable to pay compensation for losses or expenses incurred by a person in complying with the requirements of part 5. With amendment 113, the compensation provisions set out in section 58 of the bill as currently drafted match the compensation provisions for the right to buy abandoned, neglected and detrimental land in section 9070 of part 3A of the Land Reform Scotland Act 2003. Compensation in cases where a part 5 application has not been refused by the Scottish ministers can be claimed by any person in circumstances set out in subsections 1 and 2. Compensation in cases where a part 5 application has been refused by the Scottish ministers is only payable to owners or tenants of the land subject to the part 5 application. Mr Ferguson's proposed amendment would not change that. At present, the obligation under subsection 4 is only to the owners or tenants of land subject to the part 5 application. In the recognition that such persons would likely have incurred loss or expenses in the application process up to the date of the minister's decision to refuse the application, it is not considered that other persons will have incurred significant loss or expenses in those circumstances should they have chosen to engage in the application process. I am happy to confirm, given it on the record, that the entitlement to compensation under section 58 1 and 2, where the Scottish ministers have not refused a part 5 application, would extend to owners or former owners of land adjacent to the land subject to the part 5 application, with the other conditions for entitlement to compensation are met. However, as subsections 1 and 2 clearly state that any person can be entitled to compensation with the conditions set out are met, there is no need for any further clarification. Mr Ferguson's amendment has no practical effect. Given that, I would therefore like to ask if Mr Ferguson would be willing to withdraw amendment 113. I move amendment 65. Thank you, Alex Ferguson, to speak to amendment 113 and other amendments in the group. I will be very brief. The amendment I have tabled simply seeks to ensure that any financial impact of a failed part 5 application on the owner of land that is adjacent to the land in question is brought into consideration where compensation is applicable. It seeks to provide, I feel, a degree of fairness in a possible situation. I entirely agree that it is only a possible one and would be very few. I think whereby a part 5 application of founders, the owner of land subject to the application is compensated for associated case costs, but the owner of adjacent land, who may also have incurred such costs, is not. It is to quote the minister on perhaps another part of this bill, I think, a question of fairness. However, I accept that the purpose of tabling the amendment was purely on a probing basis. If I pick the minister up rightly, which I think I have, the issue that I've tried to raise is largely covered by the bill as I think she's laid out, so I will probably not seek to push that amendment. Thank you, minister, to wind up. I'm just to thank Mr Ferguson for not pressing his amendment. In that case, the question is that amendment 65 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Call amendment 66 in the name of the minister. Are we already debated with amendment 65, minister, to move formally? Farley moved. The question is that amendment 66 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Call amendment 113 in the name of Alex Ferguson. Are we already debated with amendment 65, Alex Ferguson to move or not move? I'll withdraw in the hope that I did understand the minister correctly. Thank you. I'm not moved, in other words. I'm not moved, sorry. So the question is that section 58 be agreed to, are we all agreed? And the question is that section 59 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. Call amendment 67 in the name of the minister. We're already debated with amendment 44. Minister to move formally. Follie moved. The question is that amendment 67 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. Yes. The question is that section 60 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We are. The question is that section 61 to 64 are agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. We are. We move to reversion of land bought under section 5. Call amendment 114 in the name of Alec Ferguson group with amendment 118. Alec Ferguson to move amendment 114 and speak to both amendments in the group. Other members may wish to come in after that. Thank you, convener. Amendment 114, along with 118, is intended to address a recommendation of this committee's stage 1 report, which was to amend the bill to require applications to be reconsidered post-approval where the original purpose is not being fulfilled or is departed radically from that original purpose. It would only be applicable, I believe, in a very few cases and I would ask members to note in particular that the amendment does not simply suggest that the ownership should revert to the previous owner. It is specifically worded to ensure that following any such reversion, the stated objectives that were approved in the application as being in the public interest are actually delivered. It surely makes sense that if land is acquired to further sustainable development but which, after a suitable period of time, is not deemed to be doing so, steps should be taken to ensure that that sustainable development is put back on track. Amendment 114 simply sets out that a former owner can apply for the resumption of land and that Scottish ministers can only consent if certain strict conditions are met, one of which is that at least three years should have elapsed since consent was given to the application during which time, no work towards the stated aims has taken place. Community Land Scotland seems to have taken particular umbridge to this particular amendment, which it claims and I quote, seeks to establish within a bill designed to extend community rights to buy land, a private interest right to buy community-owned land with the presumption in favour of a particular party. I would contend that it does no such thing. It simply seeks to ensure that the original objectives of the transfer are delivered and it seems strange to me that Community Land Scotland would object to the being some form of accountability in a transaction that ministers have previously concluded is very much in the public interest. Community Land Scotland then goes on to suggest that ECHR implications could come into play as the community would be, and I quote again, deprived of its right to enjoy its property and that the proposal would be neither justified nor proportionate as a response to any concerns of a single private party. To that criticism, I would simply say that it is not the concerns of any private party that are being engaged here. The provision would kick in only, and I stress only, when the community had failed to deliver the sustainable development, which three years previously had been deemed to be in the community's interests. In the interests of time, convener, I will not say any more at this stage, but, other than, in short, to say that paraphraser previously often used a phrase in this whole debate, good community landowners need to have absolutely nothing to fear from this particular amendment, which I am pleased to move. Then any other member who wishes to comment at this stage, but I think they have commented, minister to respond. Convener, while I welcome Mr Ferguson's engagement on part 5 and his efforts to help to ensure a fair and effective process, I cannot agree with the intentions behind this proposed amendment. There are strong reasons for giving community bodies who are accountable to their local community powers to by-land in specific circumstances, and there is no precedent for giving unaccountable private persons a right to by-land, which is what the provisions amount to. When a right to by-application under part 5 has been approved and the land has been transferred, the former landowner no longer has any right to land and will have been compensated for the loss of the land. To make provision for the reversion of this land to the former owner without making provision for the repayment of any of the value received at the time of the transfer or to compensate the community body for the loss of ownership of land would potentially amount to a significant win-fall for the landowner. Evidence to date suggests that community ownership in general tends to be successful in delivering better outcomes for communities, and there does not appear to be a body of evidence to support the need for provisions to take land back from communities. Finally, in addition to my concerns, convener, over the objectives of the proposal, there are a number of practical issues that are not addressed by the amendment. The amendment also relies on a very broad regulation making power. If this amendment is to be voted upon, I would urge the committee to reject this amendment. To apply a standard to community ownership, which requires them to demonstrate within a very short period of time that everything that their other ambitions have been fulfilled and that the whole issue is going splendidly well, I think is a little unfortunate. If you were to apply that to private estates in Scotland, you would be taking huge swathes of them into public ownership or removing them from their owners. I do think that this is not an amendment that can be supported. I would agree. I think that this takes us backwards rather than forward. It undermines the implementation of the bill, because communities are already going to be working really hard to make the best use of land if they have been successful in going through the process and to constantly be looking over their backs as to whether there is going to be a challenge to them. I do not think that that is going to help community relationships in those areas where communities are pursuing right to buy. I think that the intentions of the amendments are being misread by colleagues on the committee, because there is no intention within the amendment that this should apply where not all of the sustainable development aims have been achieved over that period of three years. It would only apply where no action has been taken whatsoever and the application is effectively founded, as I said in my opening statement. I find it extraordinary or sad that we could be encouraging a situation where a community puts in a perfectly good application, which is agreed, and for reasons outwith their control, the thing found us. It goes wrong, nothing happens, and we end up with an area of land that is being used for no useful purpose whatsoever. I think that needs to be corrected. It was a recommendation of the committee that it should be considered, and I would intend to push my amendment when asked to do so. Okay. The question is that amendment 114 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. Therefore, there will be a vote. Those in favour of amendment 114, please show. The question is that section 65 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Call of amendment 68, the name of the minister, is already debated with amendment 46, minister, to move formally. Okay. The question is that amendment 68 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Now, if we can keep this next section short, then in the next four or five minutes we could deal with this. That would be very helpful because people have commitments after that, but, since he has been very patient, I would call protection of commonities and common land, call amendment 115, the name of Patrick Harvie group with amendment 127, Patrick Harvie to move amendment 115 and speak to both amendments in the group. Thank you very much, convener, and nice to be back with you again. I move amendment 115 now and I'll speak to both. Those two amendments are attempts to increase the protection of common land in Scotland and are both in keeping with recommendations from the land reform review group. 115 calls for the repeal of the division of commonities act, which, as members will be aware, dates from the pre-democratic age and was used depressingly successfully to enclose and privatise a great deal of common land in Scotland, but not entirely to do so. There are still pockets of land that are commonities in Scotland, and although that legislation has not been used for many years, it does seem odd that it remains on the statute book. The land reform bill appears to me a very successful and appropriate way of addressing that in the immediate instance. Amendment 127 addresses the wider protection of common land and introduces the idea of a protective order for common land. Again, common land is not as widespread as once it was, sadly, in my view, but there are many surviving parcels of common land, and there is a continued threat to their existence, principally through and on domino dispositions and the recording of the title. In common sense, I think that most people would recognise that no legitimate basis exists for granting that title. In addition, the fact of the Scottish Government's very welcome intentions to complete the land register over a relatively reasonable timeframe, which I think most of us and myself included very much welcome, could potentially increase the risk of such dispositions being used to gain title unreasonably to existing common land. There is an additional incentive given that intention to complete the land register that we include some kind of protective order. That amendment is an intention to do that. I see that there is a press release that has come out last night, just after midnight, from the Scottish Government addressing both of those issues and signaling an intention to ask the Land Commission and the Law Commission to look at those issues. Given that that has been put out, I would like to ask the minister to address a couple of specific questions. First, is it the explicit intention of the Government to legislate to achieve the effects that my amendments here are intended to achieve? If so, on what timescale does the minister think that that can be achieved, given that the Land Commission and the Law Commission will have to undertake their work, the Land Commission, in the context of having to set itself up and begin a great deal of other work that the committee agrees is necessary, and then a suitable legislative vehicle would have to be found in the next session of Parliament? I would also like to ask why we are in the position of proposals that are not new and have not come out of a clear blue sky, but are included in the land reform review group, which the Scottish Government established to consider those and many other issues. That report has been with the Scottish Government for well over a year and a half. Now, hours before today's meeting, a press release has put out signaling an intention to address those matters. It seems to me that the Scottish Government has had a long time to consider those matters. What view was taken as to the Government's intention when that report was published and why we are now not using this bill as the appropriate vehicle to address those two matters? I do hope that the minister will be clear on the answers to those questions. The committee will be in a position to know what is going to happen when about those outstanding matters. I thank Patrick Harvie for explaining his amendment 115 and his other amendment. We do not think that there is merit in removing the right from the owners of commentaries through amendment to the current bill. It is also worth highlighting that there has not been any consultation on or consideration of the issue during the development of the bill, and there has been no opportunity for the Government or the committee to take or consider evidence on the potential impacts of such a repeal. However, as Patrick Harvie has said, the Government will ask the Scottish Law Commission to look at the act as part of its next tranche of work on statutory repeals, where the commission makes recommendations for the repeal of obsolete legislation. In line with the usual practice, the commission would carry out research on the 1695 act and on other legislation that is proposed for repeal. There would then be a consultation with interested bodies, and if there are no objections, the repeal of the 1695 act could then be included in the next statute law reform bill that is setting out what the actual process would entail. As Patrick Harvie has said quite rightly, the 1695 act is clearly antiquated. For example, there is a specific provision on the division of mosses and aconti, and what happens when the said mosses cannot be conveniently divided? Asking the Scottish Law Commission to consider the repeal of the 1695 act ensures that the purpose of the act will be fully analysed and views from key bodies are sought before the act is repealed. I have obviously set out what the Scottish Government is doing. I invite Patrick Harvie to consider withdrawing his amendment. On amendment 127, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the establishment of a common land protection order. I understand where Patrick Harvie is coming from this amendment. There can be concerns where land used by a local community, perhaps generations, where ownership may be common or is unclear or is undisputed, is subject to a non-dominal disposition by private individuals. In many cases, it may be appropriate for the land still to be used by the community for the benefit of all. The Scottish Government does, however, have considerable concerns about the detail of that amendment. The only condition for applications is that land is not registered in either of the property it registers. However, there may still be an owner, because some property in Scotland may have been acquired before the General Register of Saisons was established in 1617. In addition, land that is not claimed generally falls to the crown. Another concern is that the amendment does not provide a definition of common land. Therefore, an order under this amendment could be applied for in relation to any land that was ownerless. The provision also appears to exclude land that is owned in common, which might be the type of scenario that the amendment is designed to cover. That amendment might cut across a non-dominal disposition aimed at completing title to a property. Often, those kind of dispositions are used when, for example, it is clear that a house is owned, but there is some uncertainty about the associated garage or outhouses or the precise extent of the garden. Those are not areas of common land, but it seems that the amendment would be wide enough to cover them. Furthermore, there would continue to be uncertainty about the ownership of the land. If there should be any concerns about the land, there would continue to be a lack of clarity on who would take any responsibility. That might cause problems if any statutory bodies, for example the local authority or CEPA, needed to take any action in relation to hazards. As long as the order remained in force, it would be impossible to register title and, consequently, to complete the land register. It might also not assist issues with abandoned or neglected land to have that type of additional obstacle to registering the owner. When I stress the previous amendment, there has been no full consideration and consultation on the detail of Patrick Harvie's amendment. The committee has not taken any evidence on the amendment, but having outlined our concerns about the specifics of the amendment, I acknowledge the fundamental point that has been made by Patrick Harvie. I agree that, as a general rule, the land that is used and enjoyed by the local community should remain available to them, unless there is a very good reason to take a different approach. The Scottish Government recognises the need to ensure that common land remains available to local communities. That is why, in light of the amendment, the Scottish Government is proposing to ask the new Scottish Land Commission when it is established to review the issue of common land generally. The bill section 22 enables Scottish ministers to refer matters to the commission. Although it will be for the land commissioners to determine their own programme of work, it is considered that this is an area in which the land commissioners will be keen to consider in exercising their functions. That reflects our concern, which is shared by Patrick Harvie, that there may be insufficient protection for common land in Scotland. That is why we propose that the bill could also cover the issue of common good land that is held by local authorities. The Scottish Land Commission would also give an opportunity for wider consultation to take place. In response to Patrick Harvie's direct questions, it is our intention to ask the Law Commission and the Land Commission to consider the issues to determine whether it is necessary to legislate and how best to do that. If legislation is necessary, we would look to take that forward at the earliest opportunity. In terms of the recommendations, we bring them to consider all recommendations. We have a wide long-term programme for land reform, and it is reasonable that we consider certain recommendations before others. Given the commitment that I am giving to Patrick Harvie this afternoon, I would ask the member not to press amendment 127. I have to admit that we are a bit disappointed by the response there. Not only is there still quite a lot of ambiguity about the time that this would take, which raises the possibility that we could be looking at legislation not coming into force for another two or three years, perhaps, given the length of time that we know that things often take. That is a substantial chunk of the period of time that is available for the completion of the land register. The additional risk that common land could be subjected to attempts to use and on domino dispositions, given that ambiguity. The minister's comment that there has been no time to consult on that. I say again that both of those amendments relate to measures that the land reform review group proposed at part 2, section 7, paragraph 8. The group considers that the register of Scotland should ensure that the land registration process protects what might be considered genuine commons. A few paragraphs later, the question is the continuing appropriateness of the 1695 act, allowing the division of a committee at the instigation of one party. The minister seemed to echo the position that the Government took during the discussion of the land registration bill, in which the EET committee at the time was told that it is not desirable to remove that right division of committees from the owners of the committee. The minister today seemed to imply that that remains the position of the Scottish Government and that we need to look at what the original purpose of the division of committees act was. I think that it is fairly clear that the purpose of that act was to legitimise theft of land. The committee should not accept that we need to ask ourselves what the original purpose was, we should simply sweep it away. I would like to press amendment 115, although if the committee decides not to agree that, I will continue to engage with the Scottish Government on its process, hopefully swiftly, to move to implementing what I am trying to do at a later time. The question is that amendment 115 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. Is there any votes for? There are no votes for. The amendment 115 was rejected by seven votes with two abstentions and none for. I now call amendment 127 in the name of Patrick Harvie, who has already debated before. The question is that amendment 127 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. There will be a vote. Those in favour? No. Those against? Seven. Those abstaining? Two. So the amendment is not carried. We will end the discussion of the bill at this stage and pick up on group 17 next week. I would like to thank the minister and our officials for their fortitude and to members of the committee the same. Future meeting of the committee at the next one, we will continue our stage two consideration of the land reform bill and consider draft correspondence to the Scottish Government on the wildlife trimaneal report 2014 in private. I now close this meeting.