Hansard

Good morning. Amendment 15 will change the definition of the land rights and responsibilities statement so that, instead of being a statement of the Scottish ministers’ objectives for land reform, it is a statement of principles for land rights and responsibilities. As we know, the land rights and responsibilities statement will provide a context in which we as a nation can consider the development of rights and responsibilities around land. It will also be an important part of our on-going programme of work to ensure that the full public benefits of land are realised. The land rights and responsibilities statement will set out our vision for the relationship between the people of Scotland and the land of Scotland. It will provide a set of principles to guide the development of public policy on the nature and character of land rights and responsibilities. It will interrelate with other relevant policies, including the Scottish Government’s economic strategy, the land use strategy, the Scottish biodiversity strategy and the national planning framework. Collectively, those documents will set out a consistent and holistic approach to how the land of Scotland should be used, controlled and managed. Amendment 15 clarifies that the focus of the statement will be on providing a set of high-level principles on land rights and responsibilities, and it aligns the name of the statement more clearly with its purpose. Amendment 16 requires the Scottish ministers, in preparing the land rights and responsibilities statement, to have regard to the desirability of a range of factors, which are: “(a) promoting respect for, and observance of, relevant human rights, (b) encouraging equal opportunities ... (c) furthering the reduction of inequalities of outcome which result from socio-economic disadvantage, (d) increasing the diversity of land ownership, and (e) furthering the achievement of sustainable development in relation to land.” The Scottish Government has signalled its commitment to the encouragement and promotion of each of those factors throughout stage 1 and in the policy memorandum. Amendment 16 reiterates that commitment. The first part of the amendment requires the Scottish ministers to have regard to the desirability of “promoting respect for, and observance of, relevant human rights”. Relevant human rights are rights that the Scottish ministers consider to be “relevant to the preparation of the statement.” Ministers consider that the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations voluntary guidelines on the responsible governance of tenure are highly likely to be relevant to the preparation of the land rights and responsibilities statement and so would be “relevant human rights” for the purpose of amendment 16. The international covenant requires states to take appropriate steps towards achieving certain rights to adequate standards of living, which include adequate food and housing. Those rights are linked to the use, control and ownership of land. The voluntary guidelines set out principles and internationally accepted standards of responsible practices for the use and control of land, fisheries and forests, which are of relevance to land policies in Scotland. Amendment 16 means that ministers will have regard to the desirability of “promoting respect for, and observance of,” the human rights that are contained in those documents when preparing the statement. Other human rights instruments may also be considered to contain relevant human rights. They may include the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. By using the term “relevant human rights”, the amendment avoids the difficulties that could arise from using a definitive list of instruments that relate to human rights. It also allows for future developments in relation to human rights to be taken into account. The approach will allow ministers to take account of future discussions on how human rights obligations interact with land rights and responsibilities, which might take place as part of the consultation process that is required on the first and future land rights and responsibilities statements. The second part of amendment 16 requires the Scottish ministers to have regard to the desirability of “encouraging equal opportunities”. In this context, that means preventing or eliminating discrimination on various grounds, including the grounds of social or racial origin, as defined in section L2 of part II of schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998. That will involve consideration of how “encouraging equal opportunities” applies to how our land is owned, used and managed and who it is owned by. The third part of the amendment requires the Scottish ministers to have regard to the desirability of “furthering the reduction of inequalities of outcome which result from socio-economic disadvantage”. The potential impact on reducing inequalities is a central consideration for the decision making of the Scottish ministers across all policy areas. The amendment recognises the importance of land to people’s wellbeing, opportunities and identity and recognises that the land is key to the success and development of our people, communities and economy. Ministers will consider how the statement can best encourage, in relation to land rights and responsibilities, the reduction of inequalities that exist in our society in relation to access to social justice, health and welfare by individuals and communities. The fourth part of the amendment requires the Scottish ministers to have regard to the desirability of “increasing the diversity of land ownership”. The Scottish ministers consider that “increasing the diversity of land ownership” means encouraging diverse patterns of ownership with regard to who owns the land, how much land is owned and for what purposes that land is owned. In relation to part 5 of the bill, which is on sustainable development, the amendment requires the Scottish ministers to “have regard to ... furthering the achievement of sustainable development in relation to land.” One of the aims of the Scottish ministers in preparing a land rights and responsibilities statement is to ensure that its policies on the use, management and ownership of land are designed to promote the sustainable development of Scotland’s land. The amendment therefore ensures that the Scottish ministers consider the desirability of that aim when they prepare the statement. I thank Sarah Boyack for lodging amendment 16A, which seeks to include the concept of “fostering community resilience” as something that ministers should have regard to. It is a helpful addition to amendment 16, which requires ministers to “have regard to ... furthering the reduction of inequalities of outcome which result from socio-economic disadvantage” when preparing the land rights and responsibilities statement, and I am happy to support it. Amendment 72, in the name of Michael Russell, is similar to the Government’s amendment 16 and seeks to achieve the same purpose, albeit with slightly different wording. Under amendment 16, the Scottish ministers must, in preparing the land rights and responsibilities statement, “have regard to the desirability of— (a) promoting respect for, and observance of, relevant human rights, (b) encouraging equal opportunities ... (c) furthering the reduction of inequalities of outcome which result from socio-economic disadvantage, (d) increasing the diversity of land ownership, and (e) furthering the achievement of sustainable development in relation to land.” Our amendment goes further than amendment 72, because it also requires ministers to “have regard to the desirability of ... furthering the reduction of inequalities of outcome which result from socio-economic disadvantage”. As a result, ministers will consider how, in relation to land rights and responsibilities, the statement can best encourage the reduction of inequalities in our society with regard to access to social justice, health and welfare by individuals and communities. In amendment 16, the Government uses different language from that used by Mr Russell in amendment 72. For example, our amendment talks about “encouraging equal opportunities” instead of “the achievement of equal opportunities”. The definition of equal opportunities that is used by our amendment and by Mr Russell can be found in section L2 of part II of schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998. Given the reference in that definition to “the prevention, elimination or regulation of discrimination between persons” on various grounds, I think that using the term “encouraging” rather than “achievement” is perhaps more helpful in acknowledging that the statement can be only one part of reaching the aim. I certainly understand the sentiments that are behind Mr Russell’s amendment, and I hope that, as our amendments seek to achieve the same purpose, he will not move his amendment and will support amendment 16. Amendment 17 would require the Scottish ministers to ensure that the land rights and responsibilities statement took account of and was integrated with the Scottish ministers’ other strategies, including the Scottish Government’s economic strategy, the land use strategy, the Scottish biodiversity strategy and the national planning framework. The Government considers the amendment not to be necessary, given our statements throughout stage 1 that the Scottish ministers intend to ensure that the land rights and responsibilities statement is consistent with and takes account of existing policies and strategies. We intend the statement to interrelate with existing policies, including the Scottish Government’s economic strategy, the land use strategy, the Scottish biodiversity strategy and the national planning framework. Taken as a whole, they will set out a consistent and holistic approach to how the land of Scotland should be owned, used and managed. It is important to recognise that there will be a wealth of ideas and views to be considered in detail when we take the statement forward. The consultation process will ensure that all options and interests can be considered, including the strategies and policies that are set out in amendment 17. 10:15 If we highlighted a list of strategies that the land rights and responsibilities statement must take account of and be integrated with, we would run the risk of other relevant strategies receiving less attention or being considered less important. For example, housing policy, our national performance framework, the historic environment strategy for Scotland and other policies might be just as interrelated with land rights and responsibilities as are the strategies and policies that are listed in Graeme Dey’s amendment 17. Amendment 17 would require the Scottish ministers to ensure that the land rights and responsibilities statement took account of and was integrated with all their other strategies, regardless of whether those strategies were relevant to the statement. That would be unworkable. The Scottish ministers always consider other relevant policies when they develop a new policy or strategy; for that to happen, we do not require the imposition of a duty in every piece of legislation that provides for a new Government policy or strategy. Given the Scottish ministers’ commitment to taking account of the policies and strategies that are listed in amendment 17—and more policies and strategies, which are not listed in the amendment—when they prepare the land rights and responsibilities statement, I ask Graeme Dey not to move amendment 17. Amendment 75 would require the Scottish ministers to “further the objectives set out in the land rights and responsibilities statement.” As members know, we are changing the description of the land rights and responsibilities statement from a statement of objectives to a statement of principles. We accept amendment 75 in principle and will consider whether further changes in wording need to be made at stage 3. Amendment 78 would delete from section 9 the definitions of equal opportunities and equal opportunity requirements, which amendment 96 would insert into part 11. The amendments are consequential on Mr Russell’s amendments 72, 77, 81 and 92. I have no objection to the definitions, but I think that the amendments are unnecessary. Our preferred approach is to define the terms “equal opportunities” and “equal opportunity requirements” in each section in which they are used, given the infrequency with which they appear. It is therefore unnecessary to restate the definitions at the end of the bill. I ask Mr Russell not to move those amendments. Mr Russell’s definition of human rights in amendment 97 includes “economic, social and cultural rights as are referred to in— (a) the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights ... or (b) such other international covenants, conventions, agreements or EU documents as the Scottish Ministers ... consider to be relevant.” Amendment 97A would extend that definition to include economic, social and cultural rights that are in “the Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests”. Although the proposed new definition is wide, it is still in list form and is therefore problematic. It would be impossible and impractical to list all the relevant obligations, and listing some international obligations, such as those in the international covenant and the voluntary guidelines, would probably raise questions about why others are not named. The proposed approach would give the Scottish ministers fairly wide discretion to consider other instruments, but it highlights “economic, social and cultural rights”. Other rights, such as civil rights and political rights, might be equally relevant. For example, the voluntary guidelines seek to improve the governance of land tenure in the context of food security, because land is central to realising human rights and eradicating hunger and poverty. The rights that the guidelines drive at are wider than “economic, social and cultural rights” because they are the fundamental rights of everyone to survive. Amendment 97’s definition would not preclude considering such fundamental rights, but it does not include them, which gives them less prominence and might suggest that they are less important. Amendment 97 would impose an unnecessary duty on the Scottish ministers to consult the Scottish Human Rights Commission when considering what other instruments are relevant. The Scottish ministers can consult any bodies or persons they consider appropriate without being required to do so by legislation. Indeed, it is the Scottish ministers’ policy always to consult on matters of importance to the people of Scotland. Further, the Scottish Human Rights Commission already has the power to provide advice in connection with the promotion of human rights and the encouragement of best practice, and it could certainly seek to do so when the Scottish ministers are considering human rights in the context of land issues. Amendments 18 and 21, which we have lodged, require the Scottish ministers to consult on the first land rights and responsibilities statement and to do so as part of the review process for the statement. There is already a similar requirement on the Scottish ministers under section 37(4) to consult before issuing the guidance that is to be created under part 4. The requirements on the Scottish ministers under parts 1 and 4 of the bill are to consult such persons as ministers consider appropriate, and I confirm that that will include the Scottish Human Rights Commission. The Scottish ministers will seek the commission’s expertise and knowledge when considering what rights are relevant to the preparation of the land rights and responsibilities statement and to the part 4 guidance. The Government’s amendments 16 and 38 set out the Scottish ministers’ definition of relevant human rights. Those provisions avoid the difficulties that arise from using a list of instruments that relate to human rights and allow the Scottish ministers the discretion to consider other relevant rights as appropriate. That approach also enables the possibility of future debate on what is relevant and how human rights obligations interact with land issues. For all the reasons that I have just set out, I ask Mr Russell and Sarah Boyack not to move amendments 97 and 97A and to support the approach to human rights that is set out in amendments 16 and 38. Amendment 117, from Sarah Boyack, seeks to insert a definition of sustainable development. I understand where she is coming from, but I think that the amendment is unnecessary and potentially harmful, because it has an exhaustive definition. It would mean that sustainable development could be only development that was consistent with the principles in the amendment, not all of which might be relevant to how the term “sustainable development” is used in the bill. For example, it is unclear how using sound science responsibly is relevant to the Scottish ministers’ decision making under section 47(2)(a). As I said throughout stage 1 and as I think the committee acknowledged in its stage 1 report, the term “sustainable development” in relation to land is widely understood and widely used in other legislation—particularly other right-to-buy legislation—and the courts have been able to interpret the term in relation to other legislation. In the policy memorandum, we are clear that sustainable development is “development that is planned with appropriate regard for its longer term consequences, and is geared towards assisting social and economic advancement that can lead to further opportunities and a higher quality of life for people whilst protecting the environment.” It is an advantage for the term “sustainable development” not to be defined in the bill, because not defining it means that the term is left deliberately broad. The Scottish ministers and, where necessary, the courts are able to determine what sustainable development means in a particular case, as they have done in relation to other legislation. Defining sustainable development by reference to principles in a framework document is not appropriate. Although the document that is named is vital and demonstrates the commitment of the UK Government and the other devolved Administrations to working together to meet our shared goals on sustainable development, it has no legal effect or standing. The principles that are in that framework were drafted with a view to forming the basis of sustainable development policy and not with a view to being used in legislation or interpretation by the courts. In addition, the document might change in the future, which could render the reference to it in the bill obsolete. I therefore ask Sarah Boyack not to move amendment 117. I move amendment 15.