One of the more radical aspects of the proposed legislation lies in the ability to buy abandoned or neglected land. We are giving some thought to whether there is a need for additional clarity. The views of the committee are most helpful, and Michael Russell has just made a couple of good points.
We have to balance the interpretation of “abandoned or neglected” with the need to make the definition relatively wide. If we are too specific, some circumstances that we do not wish to be excluded might be excluded. We have to be reasonably wide ranging in our definition, which is why the bill sticks to the simple dictionary definitions of “abandoned” and “neglected”, which everyone understands, and which we believe will give good grounds for communities to purchase land.
Some issues have been raised, including the definition of land that is
“wholly or mainly abandoned or neglected”.
Ministers will have the ability to interpret what that means. We do not want to dwell too much on definitions, because we are just dancing on the head of a pin, but, ultimately, ministers will recognise—as will the communities making the applications—what is “abandoned or neglected”.
You are right to point out that there are other facts that must be taken into account, including environmental considerations. If land appeared to be abandoned but that was because of environmental designations, for example, it would clearly be exempt and the ministers would take that into account.
We will give some more thought to the arguments that have been made to the committee and to the potential need for more clarity. However, we do not want to narrow things down to definitions too much.