Official Report 386KB pdf
Agenda item 8 is for the committee to consider the Scottish Government’s response to its stage 1 report on the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill. Do members have any comments?
It continues to be a matter of concern that significant powers will be given to the Government by subsequent secondary legislation. Clearly, we can make a judgment on the bill in relation to the European convention on human rights, but I think that we will continue to be exercised by what the process of scrutiny should be for Government powers that will be introduced by secondary legislation. The Government should take note of our desire to ensure that we have perhaps more opportunity than we would have in the standard process to consider the ECHR in relation to the secondary legislation. I think that that is the overarching point about the bill, as it stands.
Do members concur with that?
Yes. I agree with all that Stewart Stevenson has said, but would perhaps put it a little more strongly than he has. It is of great concern that a number of areas are still under policy development. It is also of great concern that instead of powers being included in the bill, they will be introduced subsequently in secondary legislation, which means that they will be subject to much less parliamentary scrutiny. That is a recurrent theme in the bill. However, I am particularly concerned about part 10, which I think has been poorly put together.
My particular concern is that the bill has the capacity to bring our Parliament into disrepute because it is not clear whether many aspects of the bill are compliant or non-compliant with ECHR. As Stewart Stevenson said, the committee does not have the ability to scrutinise that, which is a matter of great regret. Huge potential exists to bring Parliament into disrepute, which I would not wish to see. That is why I think that we have to make our views known in the strongest possible terms. I think that I am correct in saying that Parliament has been rebuked previously by the Court of Session with regard to this area of law for not making ECHR-compliant legislation. I would not wish for that to happen again.
I am concerned about both the tone and the content of the Government’s response to the committee’s stage 1 report; it seems to indicate a lack of willingness to address the points that we have raised, which is a matter of great regret. I have been a member of the committee for only five years or thereby, and I do not recall any previous instance of the Government taking such a cavalier view of suggestions that the committee has properly made to it. That, too, is a matter of great concern to me.
There is always a balance to be struck between what is on the face of a bill and what is in secondary legislation. However, I think that the committee is disappointed that, comparing the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill with other bills, there appears to be less on the face of the bill and more being left for secondary legislation. For me, that is the key point.
We have already written to the Government, but the suggestion is that we pursue the various issues that members have just commented on directly with the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Food and Environment, and the Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform. Are members happy for me to write in appropriate terms on their behalf?
Members indicated agreement.
That completes agenda item 8 and the public part of the meeting. We now move into private session.
11:07 Meeting continued in private until 11:40.