Meeting of the Parliament 13 June 2018
Regulations 3 to 5 of the draft regulations set out matters to which ministers must have regard in relation to the physical condition, designation or classification and use or management of the land. However, it is regulation 6 that Scottish Labour has concerns about. Alex Rowley and I raised those concerns in the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee.
Regulation 6 sets out the matters to which ministers must have regard in relation to harm to environmental wellbeing, which include whether the use of the land has caused a statutory nuisance or whether the land has been subject to a closure order or an antisocial behaviour notice. Regulation 6 considers—and this is the rub for us—whether harm is being caused to environmental wellbeing. Regulation 6, as drafted, is the key to our opposition to the regulations.
Having listened to the cabinet secretary with care when the matter came before us in committee, and having been involved in the taking of evidence on the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill in the previous session of Parliament, I still have concerns. At stage 3 of that bill, Dr Aileen McLeod made a commitment, saying:
“I reassure members that the definition of environmental wellbeing has a wide meaning and encompasses some social considerations.”—[Official Report, 17 June 2015; c 118.]
It would have been helpful if the cabinet secretary could have clarified in committee the definition in law of “harm to environmental wellbeing”, which I understand made the Scottish Government decide to back away from the wide meaning in the draft regulations that were under discussion, which have now been withdrawn. They mentioned
“the amenity and prospects of the relevant community”,
“the preservation of the relevant community or its development”
and
“the social development of the relevant community”.
Those are important issues for the future of our communities in Scotland. I absolutely take the point that effective regulation is important, but so is regulation that reflects commitments that were made by a minister at stage 3 of a bill. That is why I have concerns that those three aspects now rest only on possibilities.
The cabinet secretary indicated to our committee that her officials are looking at the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 and part 5 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2016 in relation to sustainable development. These are complex issues and I am concerned that, if the investigations do not come up with an answer that protects communities that are in such circumstances, the regulations will not be the effective legislation that Dr McLeod and those of us who were involved in the legislative process, including several stakeholders, expected. That would be to the detriment of community empowerment and it would risk curtailing the opportunities for communities—both rural and urban—to own more land for their future sustainable development.
We need to get the regulation right, and a broader definition of environmental harm is needed. Therefore, with regret, and although I understand that we risk delaying the regulations, Labour members will vote against them tonight.