Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

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.