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

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

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

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

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

I move amendment 196.

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

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

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

I support the amendment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Members:

No.

There will be a division.

Division number 27

For: Adam, Brian, Aitken, Bill, Canavan, Dennis, Crawford, Bruce, Cunningham, Roseanna, Davidson, Mr David, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Ewing, Fergus, Fabiani, Linda, Fergusson, Alex, Fraser, Murdo, Gallie, Phil, Gibson, Mr Kenneth, Goldie, Miss Annabel, Grahame, Christine, Hamilton, Mr Duncan, Harding, Mr Keith, Harper, Robin, Hyslop, Fiona, Johnstone, Alex, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, MacDonald, Ms Margo, Marwick, Tricia, Matheson, Michael, McGrigor, Mr Jamie, McGugan, Irene, McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay, McLeod, Fiona, Monteith, Mr Brian, Morgan, Alasdair, Mundell, David, Neil, Alex, Paterson, Mr Gil, Scanlon, Mary, Scott, John, Sheridan, Tommy, Stevenson, Stewart, Tosh, Mr Murray, Ullrich, Kay, Wallace, Ben, Welsh, Mr Andrew, White, Ms Sandra, Wilson, Andrew, Young, John
Against: Alexander, Ms Wendy, Barrie, Scott, Boyack, Sarah, Brankin, Rhona, Brown, Robert, Butler, Bill, Craigie, Cathie, Deacon, Susan, Eadie, Helen, Ferguson, Patricia, Finnie, Ross, Fitzpatrick, Brian, Gillon, Karen, Godman, Trish, Grant, Rhoda, Gray, Iain, Henry, Hugh, Home Robertson, Mr John, Hughes, Janis, Jackson, Dr Sylvia, Jackson, Gordon, Jamieson, Cathy, Jamieson, Margaret, Jenkins, Ian, Kerr, Mr Andy, Lamont, Johann, Livingstone, Marilyn, Lyon, George, Macdonald, Lewis, Macintosh, Mr Kenneth, MacKay, Angus, Maclean, Kate, Macmillan, Maureen, Martin, Paul, McAllion, Mr John, McAveety, Mr Frank, McCabe, Mr Tom, McLeish, Henry, McMahon, Mr Michael, McNeil, Mr Duncan, McNeill, Pauline, Morrison, Mr Alasdair, Muldoon, Bristow, Mulligan, Mrs Mary, Munro, John Farquhar, Murray, Dr Elaine, Oldfather, Irene, Peacock, Peter, Peattie, Cathy, Radcliffe, Nora, Raffan, Mr Keith, Robson, Euan, Rumbles, Mr Mike, Scott, Tavish, Simpson, Dr Richard, Smith, Elaine, Smith, Iain, Stephen, Nicol, Stone, Mr Jamie, Thomson, Elaine, Watson, Mike, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan

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

Amendment 196 disagreed to.

Amendments 197 and 198 not moved.