³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Again, we are starting off with what the overall quantum of the funding would be for the immediate future; that is what we have announced. I do not anticipate making changes to that immediately.

Yes.

Absolutely. We have discussed the various iterations of the islands programme at length with the committee; we have had direct allocations, and we have run the competitive bid model before, too. Of course, there are pros and cons to each of the models, but we have genuinely taken on board the feedback that we have heard from committee members, as well as from people who are utilising the fund, and we have made changes and adapted the islands programme funding in response to some of that feedback.

Of course, if you or other committee members have been hearing other comments on the carbon-neutral islands programme and how it is operating, I am more than happy to listen to and take on board that feedback to see whether any improvements can be made for the future.

I have not had any submissions in front of me, so it is not possible for me to pull out that information. As I said, it will happen imminently if those decisions have been taken. However, as I have had no submission in that respect, I cannot set that out for you.

Thank you, convener and committee members, for the opportunity to speak to you on the delegated powers in the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill. I am committed to working with members to ensure that we deliver good law. I know that members will have a range of questions on the powers, but I want to make a couple of opening comments to give some background to the overall approach to the bill.

As set out in the delegated powers memorandum, the overarching policy objectives of the bill are to help to realise our vision for land reform and sustainable and regenerative agriculture. The bill covers the on-going management and transfer of large landholdings. It will also help to secure the viability of tenant farming and enable tenant farmers and small landholders to participate in delivering our vision for agriculture. Specifically, the bill covers four principal policy areas: land reform, a new land management tenancy, agricultural holdings legislation and small landholding legislation.

As I outlined in my response to the committee’s initial questions, I want to ensure that the bill provides the correct balance between primary and secondary legislation so that the key measures are in the bill and proper scrutiny of the measures that are made under the bill takes place. With that, I welcome the committee’s views, as well as those of stakeholders more widely, to ensure that the bill strikes the correct balance.

I took through the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Act 2024 earlier this year. It was more of a broad framework, which was an approach that the Parliament—and, I believe, the committee—had agreed with, because we are going through a period of agricultural transition, adapting and implementing our new framework over the next few years. That flexibility is needed not only to develop and design the future framework with our stakeholders, but because, as we know with agriculture, a variety of changes and crises that we need to be able to respond to can happen over time. Having the flexibility to do so and design that response through secondary legislation is hugely important.

This bill is completely different. Yes, we are proposing to take a number of powers as part of it, but I would not say that it is a framework bill. We have talked about the appropriate levels of scrutiny throughout this meeting; it is always important to remember that there will be parliamentary scrutiny through each of the instruments that we have introduced. We have only taken the powers that we believe are proportionate and appropriate.

I understand that work is under way in relation to the legislation that the Government introduces, but I need to be clear on this bill and how it differs from some other pieces of legislation.

Yes, I certainly hope so.

I do not agree with that assessment. It is entirely appropriate for the Parliament to have powers of scrutiny over the process, and the instruments would enable and allow for that to happen.

What we have set out and proposed in terms of the powers for secondary legislation are proportionate. I have already touched on some examples with regard to exemptions. If a certain route were being used to avoid specific measures, we would want to address that quickly instead of potentially having to wait for another opportunity to introduce primary legislation, which we know can take a long time to bring in and to effect any change.

Again, we believe that we have struck the right balance with regard to where we need flexibility in what we need to do, but the fact is that it is not always proportionate or appropriate to wait for primary legislation. The areas and instruments that we have proposed are where we need that flexibility and where we anticipate that we might have to make changes and be responsive in the future.

A number of the delegated powers that we are proposing involve affirmative instruments, which allows for the appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny. However, we will not be developing policy in a vacuum. Fiona Leslie touched on some of the extensive engagement that has taken place with some stakeholders so far. There is no doubt that, in some cases, we are dealing with really antiquated and complex pieces of legislation, as I think that we can gather just from the extent of the legislation that we are bringing forward and some of the areas that we are dealing with.

With regard to how we formulate policy, it is critical that we undertake wide engagement and consult the people who are going to be affected by the instruments that we will bring forward to ensure that we are making informed decisions. As we bring forward secondary legislation, how we have undertaken that work will be set out clearly in the various accompanying documents to the legislation, including the impact assessments that we have to produce. It is in our best interests to be working with a wide variety of stakeholders as we bring forward legislation, notwithstanding Fiona Leslie’s point that there are different views on some of the policy approaches that we are taking.

That is really important. The vast majority of the instruments that we have set out are affirmative measures, because we want to make sure that there is appropriate parliamentary scrutiny. I believe that we have got the balance right.

We want to make sure that people have their say as we develop the proposals, and I have already set out how we intend to do that in relation to the consultation, but parliamentary scrutiny is also important. Again, in terms of the instruments that we have set out and the powers that we propose, I believe that we have got the balance right.