Meeting of the Parliament 20 March 2018
Like members across the Parliament, I support the bill’s ambition to promote the sustainable management of forestry and the management of land for sustainable development. Amendment 29 is intended to ensure that the individual provisions of the bill are underpinned by a clear statement of those ambitions.
There is always a risk that ambiguous wording or narrow analysis of passages in a bill will result in unintended or distorted interpretations. Amendment 29 would help to protect against that risk, by ensuring that elements of the bill could not be taken out of context or wilfully misunderstood. A purpose section is not unique; such sections exist in other Government legislation.
During stage 2, my colleague Rhoda Grant lodged an amendment that would have inserted a purpose section. The amendment was supported by the Greens at that stage. John Finnie said that the proposed new section was
“a worthwhile addition to the legislation that is in front of us.”—[Official Report, Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, 6 December 2017; c 3.]
Conservative member of the Scottish Parliament Jamie Greene said:
“in principle, we agree with Rhoda Grant’s suggestion that there should be an overarching purpose to the bill.”—[Official Report, Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, 6 December 2017; c 2.]
However, the Conservatives had concerns about the wording of the amendment, which they thought was “not sufficiently encompassing.”
Scottish National Party MSP John Mason said:
“A purpose section for a bill is an extremely good thing ... Such a section clarifies things and helps the courts to look at the spirit, rather than just the letter, of the law.”
He went on to say:
“However, like Jamie Greene, I have reservations about the wording of this particular purpose section.”—[Official Report, Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, 6 December 2017; c 2-3.]
The cabinet secretary said that he shared and applauded the sentiments of Rhoda Grant and John Finnie in proposing a purpose section, but he, too, expressed concern about the wording. I have therefore looked carefully at the wording of Rhoda Grant’s amendment, and I have amended it considerably to take account of members’ concerns.
I have no objection to amendment 31, in Fergus Ewing’s name, but it will not add a great deal to the bill, if anything—certainly it will not add an overarching purpose. Labour will support amendment 31, but I urge members to strengthen the bill by supporting amendment 29.
I move amendment 29.