Seòmar agus comataidhean

First, I disagree with your assessment that this is a framework bill; I certainly would not—

I would disagree with some elements of that, because it is important, as I have just outlined, to be able to monitor and respond to changes. We intend to bring forward instruments that can help us to move with agricultural policy as it develops, by looking to add measures at various points in the future. We need to be able to react and respond to the monitoring as it goes forward. I understand the concerns that have been raised by SLE, but we have tried to set out as much detail as we can in the bill.

Of course, it is also important, just as I have outlined, that we need to be able to be flexible and respond to any potential changes in the future. That is why the powers that we have are so important.

I touched earlier on the steps that we must follow. We have guidance that sets out the consultation and the steps that we should take.

I believe that the balance that we have is correct. I understand that some stakeholders disagree, as I have seen in the correspondence that the committee has received. I hope that I have been able to outline the rationale for the approach that we have taken. We have set out some of it in the policy memorandum and the delegated powers memorandum, which cover how we have come to our conclusion: the various other options that we considered and the reasons why we have taken the approach that we have.

I hope that, when you consider all that information in the round, you can see why we have taken forward the position that we have with the overall policy as well as the specific instruments.

You have outlined a number of instruments that will do various things to various degrees. I hope that I have been able to outline in some of my previous responses why the powers are proposed in the way that they are, and potentially why some of them cannot really be drafted more narrowly; it is because of their possible impacts on other parts of the bill and the potential unintended consequences. Some of the powers that you have listed are about looking at the land threshold and reporting breaches—and, in relation to that, who can report those breaches. We need to be able to monitor and update all of those as we progress.

There would be parliamentary scrutiny of the use of the powers that could modify the land threshold, but again—touching on my previous response—we need the ability to be flexible in the future in order to monitor that. Some of these areas are new areas of policy, and we need to look at how they are working and how they are being embedded.

There could be possible issues with some areas further down the line, such as routes being used for avoidance, which we would want to address later. In relation to some of the exemptions that apply, it would be beneficial to be able to consider whether we need to add to the exemptions or whether we need to limit them through secondary legislation. The power to consider and respond to that is hugely important. That is why we have set out and proposed the powers in the way that we have.

You raise an important point, because that is the thing with the powers that we propose through legislation: it is about how not just this Government but Governments in years to come intend to use them.

Again, though, I come back to the point that we need to be able to respond to changes in the future and to tackle some issues that might arise but which we have perhaps not foreseen at the moment. We need to ensure that we have that flexibility. Alongside that, though, we must ensure that the Parliament has the appropriate scrutiny powers.

I believe that we have struck the right balance in what we are proposing. As you have said, what might be our policy intentions at the moment could change with any potential future Government. I come back to my view that I think that we have struck the right balance, but I am keen to hear the views of committee members on that.

We cannot take a one-size-fits-all approach to consultation. Some of our proposals could be technical in nature, and we could be talking about certain administrative changes, too, and it would not be proportionate to carry out a full statutory public consultation on some of those measures. That is why there is variety with regard to the different instruments that we are using in the bill.

In some areas, we have set out whom specifically we would be intending to consult. For example, in section 10, we have included a duty to consult the keeper of the registers of Scotland and those

“likely to have an interest in”

registration, and, under section 23, we would consult such persons as considered “appropriate”. There is a variety of other instruments in the bill, too.

I want to set out and make it clear to the committee more broadly that we have a general duty to consult. I might have set this out in my letter already, but we have published “Right First Time: A practical guide for public authorities in Scotland to decision-making and the law”, step 2 of which sets out the process that we have to undertake. It also sets out that a decision might be unlawful if failure to consult means that we are not in possession of the information that we need to make a rational decision. Therefore, it could be unlawful for us not to have consulted throughout the process.

As I have said, when we introduce secondary legislation, we will set out in the various impact assessments whom we have engaged with and what the outcome was, as well as look at the various impacts. It is hugely important that we undertake that engagement with stakeholders—after all, it is key to any policy that we bring forward—but I think that our tailored approach, with the variety of instruments that we have introduced, is quite important, too. We need to ensure that our approach is proportionate to each instrument that is introduced.

Again, I am more than happy to consider that. When I have taken other pieces of legislation through the Scottish Parliament, that issue has been part of the discussion that we have had, as has been the appropriate level of consultation for each of the powers. Again, I am more than happy to consider the committee’s views on the instruments that we have set out and what we have set out in relation to consultation. However, I think it important to highlight to you—and to other stakeholders, too—that we have a general duty to consult, whether or not it is specified in the legislation.

Obviously, there is a variety of powers in the bill as introduced. I hope that I have been clear in setting out, in the delegated powers memorandum and in my response to the committee, why we have proposed taking the powers that we have, the extent to which they will apply and the rationale for that.

Some of the powers that we have introduced in the bill mirror other powers that exist in previous pieces of legislation. In some cases, it is a read-across to make sure that we have the same powers in place and that we have the same rules applying, for example, to smallholders as to some other tenancies. It is important that those powers are in the bill.

Some of those powers could have unintended or knock-on consequences elsewhere. I believe that we have drafted the bill in the correct way to have the powers that we seek to have. I am happy to look at any concerns that the committee might have about particular powers having such consequences.

Obviously, there are differences between primary and secondary legislation, but it does not necessarily mean that committees cannot take evidence. Indeed, I have appeared before committees and given evidence on negative instruments, and I know that committees can invite people to give evidence, too. They have those scrutiny powers, and it is important to emphasise those points.

I will provide a further update on that. Once I have confirmed what that is going to look like, I will write to the committee and provide that information.