Hansard

The purpose of amendment 18 is to require the Scottish ministers to “consult such persons as they consider appropriate” on a draft of the first land rights and responsibilities statement. The amendment also requires the Scottish ministers, when laying the statement before Parliament, to lay a report that will set out the consultation process that was undertaken and the ways in which the views expressed in the consultation have been taken into account in preparing the statement. Alternatively, if no account has been taken of such views, that, too, will have to be stated in the report. Amendment 18 is linked with amendment 21, which requires ministers to consult as part of the review of the statement and imposes a similar reporting requirement following that review. As I have said, amendment 18 requires ministers to “consult such persons as they consider appropriate.” It is intended that the Scottish ministers will publicly consult on the first land rights and responsibilities statement, given the wide range of parties interested in such rights and responsibilities. Public consultation will be necessary to ensure that the statement is credible and effective, and that consultation will assist ministers in drafting and finalising the statement, which will then be laid before Parliament. If ministers decide not to take account of views that are given in the consultation, the amendment requires that to be set out in the accompanying report. We envisage that the provision might apply, for example, when views are received that are not relevant to land rights and responsibilities. The Parliament will then have the opportunity to take evidence on and debate the first statement, which might include consideration of the consultation process that was undertaken and the views that were received. Amendment 18 will ensure that the statement is subject to an appropriate level of public scrutiny, through consultation. The information that is provided will aid parliamentary scrutiny of the statement. Amendments 19 and 20, together with amendment 21, set out the process for reviewing the land rights and responsibilities statement. Amendments 19 and 20 provide that section 1(4) will set out the timing only of the first review of the statement, which must take place within five years of the first statement being published. The duty to review the statement after the first review, and the timing of subsequent reviews, will be set out in section 1 as amended by amendment 21. I understand the spirit and intention behind Mr Russell’s amendment 73. However, as I said, the land rights and responsibilities statement is intended to set out a vision for the relationship between the people of Scotland and the land of Scotland. It is not the type of document in relation to which it would be easy or even possible to assess achievement. As we clarified to the committee in our response to its stage 1 report and by lodging amendment 15, it is not intended that the statement will contain objectives for land reform; rather, it will set out principles of land rights and responsibilities in Scotland, which will guide the development of public policy on the nature and character of land rights and responsibilities. The principles are high level and their purpose is to guide other relevant policies. As a result, I do not think that it will be possible to assess the extent to which the principles in the statement have been achieved. Amendment 21 will require ministers, following review of the statement, to lay before the Scottish Parliament a report on the consultation process, which sets out why ministers consider that it is or is not appropriate to prepare a revised statement. The reporting requirement in amendment 21 is a more realistic and accurate representation of what reports about the statement can assess. Therefore, I ask Mr Russell not to move amendment 73. Amendment 21 will replace section 1(5) with new provisions that set out the process for the review of the land rights and responsibilities statement. It provides that: “In carrying out the review of the statement, the Scottish Ministers must consult such persons as they consider appropriate.” The consultation will ensure that there is appropriate public engagement in the review of the statement. In the proposed review process, there will be no requirement for the Scottish ministers to publish a draft statement prior to consultation. It is intended that the consultation on review will ask for opinions on the principles in the statement and whether changes are required. That is different from the position in relation to the first statement, when it will likely be useful for the public to see a draft prior to giving their views, so that they can see the statement’s intended format and structure. In the review process, the publication of a draft in advance of the consultation would not be appropriate, as the consultation itself will help ministers to decide whether a revised statement is necessary. Amendment 21 provides that, following a review of the statement, the Scottish ministers are not required to publish a revised statement, but if they choose to do so they must lay the revised statement before the Scottish Parliament. If they decide not to revise the statement, they must lay before the Scottish Parliament a report that sets out the consultation process that was undertaken and the reasons why they thought that it was not appropriate to prepare a revised statement. Ministers may decide not to revise the statement, for example, where the responses to the consultation have indicated that the statement remains an up-to-date presentation of the appropriate principles for land rights and responsibilities. If the Scottish ministers consider that it is appropriate to prepare a revised statement, when that revised statement is laid before the Scottish Parliament it must be accompanied by a report that sets out the consultation process that has been undertaken and why ministers considered that it was appropriate to prepare a revised statement. The first review of the statement must take place within five years of the first statement being published. The amendment requires subsequent reviews of the statement to take place within five years of the date on which ministers last laid before the Scottish Parliament either a revised statement or—where the statement has remained unchanged—a report. As a report will always be laid before Parliament following a review, it is considered that that is a clear and certain point from which the review period should run. Finally, amendment 21 states that the consultation and reporting requirements detailed in the amendment apply to each subsequent review of the statement. I thank Sarah Boyack for lodging amendment 7, the purpose of which is to require the Scottish ministers, “In preparing or reviewing a land rights and responsibilities statement,” to “consult such persons as they consider appropriate.” However, we have lodged similar amendments to hers—amendments 18 and 21—which collectively impose statutory duties on the Scottish ministers to consult on the first statement and as part of the review process for the statement and report on the results of those consultations. Amendments 18 and 21 are more extensive than Sarah Boyack’s amendment 7, because they impose further requirements on the Scottish ministers to lay a report on the consultation process before the Scottish Parliament. Our amendments are also very detailed because they replace and clarify the whole review process of the land rights and responsibilities statement. I very much welcome the intention of Sarah Boyack’s amendment. I hope that Sarah Boyack agrees that our amendments capture the purpose of her amendment more fully as part of comprehensive provisions on the process of the review of the land rights and responsibilities statement and also go further by imposing a reporting requirement, so she may wish not to move amendment 7. Mr Russell’s amendment 74 is similar to my amendment 21. Amendment 21 provides that both where ministers decide it is appropriate to revise a statement and where they consider that it is not appropriate to revise a statement, ministers must lay a report on the consultation process and the reasons for their decision to revise or not to revise that statement. As a result, our amendment goes further than Mr Russell’s, which imposes a requirement to lay a report only when a revised statement is laid before Parliament, even though that may not always be the result of the review. I hope that Mr Russell would agree that amendment 21 captures the purpose and spirit behind his amendment and I suggest that it would enable Parliament to undertake greater scrutiny of the review process, as it affords Parliament information to enable it to scrutinise both the consultation process undertaken as part of the review and the ministers’ reasoning as to why they have decided to revise or not to revise the statement. In light of that, I ask Mr Russell not to move amendment 74 and to support amendment 21 in its place. I greatly appreciate the sentiment behind Claudia Beamish’s amendment 100 and the desire for there to be greater parliamentary scrutiny of the land rights and responsibilities statement. However, I suggest that there is already appropriate wording in part 1 to allow for parliamentary scrutiny of the statement without the need for further amendment. 11:00 The spirit of Claudia Beamish’s amendment is also largely captured in our amendments 18 to 21. One of the differences between my amendments and amendment 100 is that amendment 100 requires that ministers publish a draft statement as part of the review process, while amendments 18 to 21 require only that a draft is consulted on for the preparation of the first statement. The intention is that the consultation on the review will ask for opinions on the principles contained in the statement and whether any changes are required. Publishing a draft in advance of the consultation in the review process would not be appropriate as it is the consultation that will help ministers to consider whether publishing a revised statement is appropriate. For similar reasons, it would be inappropriate to require that ministers lay a draft statement before Parliament as part of the review process. As I have said, the review process will inform whether that statement is to be revised. Parliament will have adequate opportunity to scrutinise the first statement and any revised statement when they are laid before Parliament. In the event that ministers decide that it is not appropriate to revise the statement, they will lay a report that includes their reasoning for not revising the statement. That will afford Parliament effective and appropriate levels of scrutiny of the decision. Another difference is that amendment 100 would restrict ministers from completing their preparation or review of the statement for a set period of 60 days, which does not include days when Parliament is in recess or dissolved. That requirement would risk undue delay to the creation and review of the statement. Ministers would wish to see those statements drafted as soon as possible to ensure continuing consideration of land rights and responsibilities in the creation of public policy. I appreciate the sentiment behind Claudia Beamish’s amendment 100, but I submit that amendments 18 to 21 strike the right balance to enable appropriate levels of both public and parliamentary engagement with, and scrutiny of, the statement. With that in mind, I ask Claudia Beamish not to move her amendment and to support amendments 18 to 21. I move amendment 18.