Seòmar agus comataidhean

I certainly believe that the balance that we have at the moment is correct, as I set out in my response to the committee. However, I am more than happy to hear the committee’s views in relation to different instruments, and I am open to considering members’ feedback.

A lot of that work is going on at the moment. We have already set out to the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee that we are working on the small landholding provisions and intend to lodge amendments in that respect. Of course, if there are going to be any impacts on this committee and its scrutiny work, we will keep members informed of that.

It is important that we learn the lessons of pieces of legislation that have come before the bill. I think that it is absolutely correct to say that land reform is a journey, and there will, no doubt, be further land reform bills after this one. We are looking at a number of areas for new policy that have been informed by previous pieces of legislation and by engagement with stakeholders, as I have already outlined.

However, with the powers that we are introducing in the bill, we want to deliver on our vision for land reform in Scotland by trying to tackle some of the issues with the scale and concentration of land ownership. The proposals that we have introduced are based on the work of the Scottish Land Commission, and it is important that we deliver on those ambitions and take that other step forward.

There are new areas of policy in the bill. The monitoring work in it that we have proposed to undertake will, if it is agreed to by the Parliament, be critical. It will help to inform any proposed regulations that stem from the bill and any future legislation.

I do not think that we can hold off on introducing new policy or new legislation. Introducing the bill is a really important step forward, and it is vital that some of the changes in it happen now. I mentioned earlier how antiquated some of the small landholding legislation is, and we really need to update some of the areas around agricultural tenancies, as well, so that we can deliver on our agriculture ambitions, as I outlined in my opening comments. We can do that only through the introduction of the measures that we have in the bill.

You have outlined quite a number of powers that do various things to various degrees.

You are absolutely right. We have to consider each one on its merits; it has not just been a case of transfer for transfer’s sake.

One area in which it is important to highlight those measures is in relation to the small landholdings legislation, which we discussed previously. Our approach mirrors some of the legislation that we have in place for agricultural holdings, which will ensure that people in different tenancies are treated in the same way. That reflects why it is important to mirror some of the approaches already in legislation.

I do not know whether officials could touch on other specific examples that would help to illustrate the point.

I took through the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Act 2024 earlier this year. It was more of a broad framework, which was an approach that the Parliament—and, I believe, the committee—had agreed with, because we are going through a period of agricultural transition, adapting and implementing our new framework over the next few years. That flexibility is needed not only to develop and design the future framework with our stakeholders, but because, as we know with agriculture, a variety of changes and crises that we need to be able to respond to can happen over time. Having the flexibility to do so and design that response through secondary legislation is hugely important.

This bill is completely different. Yes, we are proposing to take a number of powers as part of it, but I would not say that it is a framework bill. We have talked about the appropriate levels of scrutiny throughout this meeting; it is always important to remember that there will be parliamentary scrutiny through each of the instruments that we have introduced. We have only taken the powers that we believe are proportionate and appropriate.

I understand that work is under way in relation to the legislation that the Government introduces, but I need to be clear on this bill and how it differs from some other pieces of legislation.

Yes, I certainly hope so.

I do not agree with that assessment. It is entirely appropriate for the Parliament to have powers of scrutiny over the process, and the instruments would enable and allow for that to happen.

What we have set out and proposed in terms of the powers for secondary legislation are proportionate. I have already touched on some examples with regard to exemptions. If a certain route were being used to avoid specific measures, we would want to address that quickly instead of potentially having to wait for another opportunity to introduce primary legislation, which we know can take a long time to bring in and to effect any change.

Again, we believe that we have struck the right balance with regard to where we need flexibility in what we need to do, but the fact is that it is not always proportionate or appropriate to wait for primary legislation. The areas and instruments that we have proposed are where we need that flexibility and where we anticipate that we might have to make changes and be responsive in the future.

A number of the delegated powers that we are proposing involve affirmative instruments, which allows for the appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny. However, we will not be developing policy in a vacuum. Fiona Leslie touched on some of the extensive engagement that has taken place with some stakeholders so far. There is no doubt that, in some cases, we are dealing with really antiquated and complex pieces of legislation, as I think that we can gather just from the extent of the legislation that we are bringing forward and some of the areas that we are dealing with.

With regard to how we formulate policy, it is critical that we undertake wide engagement and consult the people who are going to be affected by the instruments that we will bring forward to ensure that we are making informed decisions. As we bring forward secondary legislation, how we have undertaken that work will be set out clearly in the various accompanying documents to the legislation, including the impact assessments that we have to produce. It is in our best interests to be working with a wide variety of stakeholders as we bring forward legislation, notwithstanding Fiona Leslie’s point that there are different views on some of the policy approaches that we are taking.

That is really important. The vast majority of the instruments that we have set out are affirmative measures, because we want to make sure that there is appropriate parliamentary scrutiny. I believe that we have got the balance right.

We want to make sure that people have their say as we develop the proposals, and I have already set out how we intend to do that in relation to the consultation, but parliamentary scrutiny is also important. Again, in terms of the instruments that we have set out and the powers that we propose, I believe that we have got the balance right.