Official Report 297KB pdf
Item 5 is consideration of correspondence from the Scottish Government on expected amendments to part 3 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill.
The expected delegated power will enable the Scottish ministers to make provision for a public register that will contain information about persons who have a controlling interest in land. It is proposed that regulations should be subject to an enhanced affirmative procedure the first time the power is used, but the implication of the letter to the convener of the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee is that the enhanced procedure might be used only that first time.
Again, we have not seen the Government’s proposals yet, although the clerk is confirming that we will have seen them by Thursday. How do members want to proceed?
Until we have seen the Government’s proposals and concluded that we are satisfied with them, we should perhaps just put on record that our preliminary view is that subsequent operation of the powers should be subject to the same procedure as the initial operation would be.
I support Stewart Stevenson on that. We expect the Government to take very wide powers in the amendment that is yet to be revealed to us. We are content that the first exercise of the powers should be subject to the enhanced affirmative procedure, but from our understanding of what we are about to receive—so to speak—it seems reasonable that subsequent exercise of the powers should also be subject to the enhanced procedure.
I still have a general concern that so much is being left to regulation and is not in the bill. I accept that there are time pressures, but someone decided to run with the timetable that we have. That is my starting point.
On the proposed amendment, I agree with my colleagues. I think that the intention is that when the powers are used for the first time something major will happen but after that it will probably be a question of minor tweaking. My preference is for the Government to set out in the bill that after the initial steps have been taken only minor changes will be made, but if that is not made clear in the bill I quite agree that there will need to be greater scrutiny.
If I hear members correctly, I think that one option might be to have two amending powers, one of which would be used for things that were definably minor, given that it would be crazy to require enhanced scrutiny of such matters, with the recognition that changes that are not minor should be subject to some kind of enhanced scrutiny. It ought to be possible to have such a system.
If we have two processes, depending on whether a change is major or minor, we might conclude that there is a case for the Parliament being party to making the decision about whether a change is major or minor, rather than leaving that to ministers. We are talking about a major policy area.
A number of concerns have been expressed about the lack of policy development on the bill, and I think that we want clarity about the development of regulations. It would be good to have clarity about whether changes will be major or minor at subsequent iterations.
I echo what my colleagues said, and I will add a little to it. We also had concerns about this section of the bill, which relate to the European convention of human rights. At this very late stage, we are looking at the possibility of major policy being left to regulation. Given the Government’s track record in this area, that may or may not be compatible with the ECHR.
It seems to me that one of the important things about the ECHR is the balance between the rights of the individual and those of the state. That being the case, the amendment that is brought forward must at least offer the maximum level of scrutiny to avoid any mistakes that would bring the Parliament into disrepute.
I wonder how we should take this forward. The timetable is short. I wonder whether I should suggest to the committee that I write to the Government, pointing out the tenor of this discussion—thanking it, of course, for the letters to myself and Rob Gibson—and expressing concern that, whatever amendments or proposals it brings forward should be appropriate to whatever amendment they are trying to make to those regulations. If we assert that there should always be an extended enhanced procedure, there is a risk that, on some occasions, that approach would be totally over the top. Equally, to take the reverse view would be inappropriate on other occasions.
I suggest that I try to get the Government to establish whether it can get its mind around a way of doing something that is appropriate to the level of amendment at the time.
Given the very tight timescales, I think that that is a good step forward.
I endorse that. My preference is that the Government spells out, in the bill, that the first time would be major, and that other times might be different. However, if that is not the case, the scrutiny side needs to be changed.
Of course, we have an opportunity to look at this again on Thursday, by which time we will have the Government’s current proposals. Therefore, my letter needs to go off pretty promptly this afternoon, to make sure that the Government has something to work on. I propose copying the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee—or at least the convener of that committee—into the letter so that everybody is in the same place on this matter.
The committee members do not necessarily need to see that letter. We are happy to delegate that power to you.
Thank you. You will see a copy, but it may have been sent before you see it.
Absolutely.
If the committee is comfortable that it has made every decision that it needs to make, that completes item 5.