Official Report 508KB pdf
Agenda item 9 is consideration of correspondence from the Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform in response to the committee’s concerns on the delegated powers provisions in the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill. Do members wish to make any comments?
I welcome the fact that, with regard to sections 36, 79, 82 and 83, the Government is moving more towards the position that we asked it to move to. However, I am still concerned that the committee does not seem to be making much progress on section 35, with regard to which the Government still has real questions to address. We would also like the Government to do more work on proposed new section 38M to the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 2003, as inserted by section 81 of the bill, and I hope that it will still have a change of heart in that regard.
I note that we have the stage 1 debate on the bill later this week, and I wonder whether the committee agrees that I do what I can to speak in that debate as the convener of this committee and express those concerns in terms that I am sure will be well put together by our advisers. Of course, whether or not I speak is in the gift of the Presiding Officer.
I would very much welcome it if you were able to address Parliament as convener of this committee, given that so much of the work that the Government needs to do relates to detail on which it is entirely appropriate for this committee not just to form a view but to express that view in the public forum of a stage 1 debate. As we know, there is still too much uncertainty about the development of policy in the bill and about policy essentially being replaced by regulation that will be introduced subsequently. I hope—indeed, I am certain—that you will manage to encapsulate those views and the other views that the committee has expressed.
As we said this morning when we were questioning the minister, we do not want this to become a trend in Government legislation, but it appears that it is becoming a trend by default. Having a lack of policy development in a bill and leaving things to subsequent regulation are not good ways of creating legislation, because, as we all know, such an approach is not subject to the same level of scrutiny as provisions that are on the face of a bill. It is vital that we have that in a bill such as this and, indeed, in other pieces of legislation that have very far-reaching consequences.
Thank you for that.
Clearly we are not touching on the policy areas, but I should say that there is quite a lot of public interest in the bill. Some people feel that the bill is too strong, while constituents have been in touch with me to say that it is too weak in its approach to land reform. The reality is that when we look at some of the bill we just do not know what impact it will have, because so much has been left to secondary legislation. I very much support the idea that as much as possible should be on the face of the bill, and I would be very glad if you could say so in the stage 1 debate.
Indeed. That seems to be the committee’s view, and I will endeavour to do that.
I should add, convener, that there are also concerns about the bill’s compatibility with the ECHR. We can accept in good faith the Government’s assurances that it will subsequently do everything it can to make the bill ECHR-compatible, but as it stands, it is far from certain that the bill is, and we will very much want to hear in the stage 1 debate the Government’s views on how the proposals, which, as I have said, are welcome, are going to deliver that compatibility.
Indeed.
That concludes agenda item 9, and we now move into private session.
11:55 Meeting continued in private until 12:37.