Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

Thank you, convener and committee members, for the opportunity to speak to you on the delegated powers in the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill. I am committed to working with members to ensure that we deliver good law. I know that members will have a range of questions on the powers, but I want to make a couple of opening comments to give some background to the overall approach to the bill.

As set out in the delegated powers memorandum, the overarching policy objectives of the bill are to help to realise our vision for land reform and sustainable and regenerative agriculture. The bill covers the on-going management and transfer of large landholdings. It will also help to secure the viability of tenant farming and enable tenant farmers and small landholders to participate in delivering our vision for agriculture. Specifically, the bill covers four principal policy areas: land reform, a new land management tenancy, agricultural holdings legislation and small landholding legislation.

As I outlined in my response to the committee’s initial questions, I want to ensure that the bill provides the correct balance between primary and secondary legislation so that the key measures are in the bill and proper scrutiny of the measures that are made under the bill takes place. With that, I welcome the committee’s views, as well as those of stakeholders more widely, to ensure that the bill strikes the correct balance.

I believe that what we have set out here strikes the appropriate balance with the powers that we are proposing to take, but I am happy to consider any recommendations that the committee might make in relation to the instruments that we have introduced as part of the bill. I touched on some of the legislation that I have previously taken through the Parliament, for which the feedback of the committee was very much considered and taken on board. I am more than happy to hear the recommendations.

I do not necessarily agree with that, because of the thresholds and the transfer test that we are introducing. Of course, that would not fundamentally alter what land could form part of that or change how breaches are reported in various other areas that we have talked about.

No, it is not a change. It has been the case previously.

In relation to a number of the measures that you mentioned, we have set out our overall approach and rationale in the policy memorandum. However, we recognise that work needs to be on-going in a number of areas in which we have picked up particular issues. There are areas that we are hearing about in evidence, which we still want to work through with our stakeholders.

I do not know whether it would be valuable to touch on some of the work that has been undertaken so far. I will pass to Fiona Leslie, who has been working on the small landholdings proposals and agricultural tenancies in particular.

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.