Hansard

I listened with great interest to the minister’s opening statement. There was a huge amount of information in it, but I will try to pick up a couple of her points as I speak to my amendment 16A and others in the group. One of the key debates that we had during evidence taking at stage 1 was about the importance of being clear about the objectives of the bill. We are conscious that the bill will become an act and that, when it is implemented, what is in the act and, maybe, what was said in committee or the chamber will be interpreted. Future decisions will be affected by what we say and what is in the bill. It is therefore important that we get real clarity. I very much welcome the minister’s amendment 16, which will put a range of objectives in the bill. That is helpful. I want to add “fostering community resilience” because it is important to emphasise individual human rights and collective human rights. Including the term “community resilience” would be very much in line with our other most recent land reform legislation, the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015. I am glad that the minister is happy to accept amendment 16A. Our job is to test the words that ministers use in the bill process. I want to do that in relation to human rights because, as I said, the implementation of the bill will stand or fall by the strength of the intentions, the clarity of definitions and the political will that follows from the bill. Although I welcome much of what is in the minister’s amendment 16, I think that amendment 97 by Mike Russell is absolutely crucial in relation to providing the wider framework. One measure in the minister’s amendment that I hesitated over is proposed new section 1(2B), which is right at the end of the amendment and which suggests that the term “human rights” means what the ministers think is relevant in preparation of the statement. Yesterday, we all received a letter from the Scottish Human Rights Commission, which is not happy with the Scottish Government’s response to our stage 1 report in relation to human rights. The commission makes the point that “the Scotland Act 1998 ... specifically calls on the Scottish Ministers to observe and implement international obligations, which includes the rights found in” the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The minister needs to address the commission’s views. The commission also makes the point that our Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015 refers in schedule 4 to the ICESCR. It is important that we ensure that human rights are fully expressed, because the bill will become new and, potentially, radical legislation. The strength of Mike Russell’s amendment 97 is that it uses an adopted statement that we all hope will be applied: indeed, it is used in the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003, so I cannot see why we should not have it in the bill. I support Mike Russell’s amendment 97, but I want to add reference to the “Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food Security”. I am keen to have that up front and in the bill. We know that, as a country, we are increasingly importing food and that food security is hugely important not just for our nation, but for individual communities. I am keen for that to be taken on board. There are other amendments about agriculture that we might debate today, but I feel that it is important to ensure that the human rights of communities and people who depend on land, fisheries and forestry are part of the decision-making process. The minister is asking for flexibility, but I think that amendments 97 and 97A are consistent with what the minister says are her objectives. 10:30 At one point, the Scottish Human Rights Commission’s letter criticises a reference in the stage 1 response from the Scottish ministers that suggests that the rights in ICESCR are “aspirational and not matters which can be enforced by individuals.” The SCHR disputes that point and comments that the First Minister has been very strongly in support of human rights in the bill. Therefore I cannot see why amendment 97A is not acceptable. Major evidence was led during stage 1, in particular by Megan MacInnes of Community Land Scotland. I hope that the minister will accept the amendment, after reflection. Amendment 117, on sustainable development, is a probing amendment. I was only partly reassured by what the minister said, and I accept that we do not define “sustainable development” in every bill where it is relevant. The point that I want to put to the minister is the concern that has been raised by Scottish Environment LINK about the definition in the policy memorandum that is attached to the bill. That organisation believes that that definition does not equally apply the three pillars of sustainable development—the social, the economic and the environmental—and that its wording in the policy memorandum suggests that more weight is to be given to the economic and social aspects of sustainable development. I hope that the minister will put on the record that that is not her intention and that it is not how the bill is intended to be implemented. It is very important that the three pillars are equal, so that the environment is part of the consideration process and is not seen as something to be thought about afterwards. I could have picked the Brundtland definition, but I picked one from the UK Government that all the Governments of the UK have signed up to. That is the particular point that I would like the minister to address in her summing up. I support Graeme Dey’s amendment 17, which is also on an issue that we discussed in our stage 1 report. I do not see that it contradicts what the minister says she is trying to achieve; rather, it suggests that particular statutory Government documents must be considered in the context of the bill. I think that the economic strategy, the land use strategy that is provided for in the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, our biodiversity strategy and the national planning framework are documents that will greatly strengthen future work on land reform. Graeme Dey’s amendment would certainly add something that would help in that regard.