Official Report 566KB pdf
Our next agenda item is consideration of the Crofting and Scottish Land Court Bill at stage 2. I welcome Jim Fairlie, the Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity, who is supported by colleagues from the Scottish Government.
Today, we have three members who are participating remotely. I will briefly explain the procedure for hybrid stage 2 proceedings. If we lose connection at any time, I will suspend the meeting. Emma Roddick, Rhoda Grant and Alasdair Allan’s cameras should be kept on at all times and, when voting on amendments, they should raise their hands at the appropriate time.
Schedule 1—The Scottish Land Court
Amendment 156, in the name of Ariane Burgess, is grouped with amendments 102 to 105, 107 to 109, 112 to 114, 118, 119, 122 to 124 and 129.
Amendment 156 was drafted in collaboration with the Ramblers Association. It would require the Government to have regard to the knowledge and experience of members who it appoints to the newly merged Scottish Land Court. I appreciate the constructive discussions that the Government had with me ahead of stage 2. Specifically, amendment 156 proposes that consideration should be given to including as members of the court people who have experience and knowledge of land access matters in rural and urban settings. I believe that we can all agree that that would be in the interests of everyone who interacts with the court. We must ensure that everyone who brings or defends a land access case receives the best justice possible.
Amendment 156 would ensure that there is consistency, efficiency and specialist handling of access disputes, particularly when land management and public rights interact. Access cases often involve a nuanced interpretation of the Scottish outdoor access code and land use practices, and a dedicated forum that is overseen by people with the right expertise will offer better informed outcomes than a generalist sheriff court.
As I said, I have spoken to the minister about the amendment, and I understand that a less specific mechanism is in place that allows for the right expertise to be put in place. However, I want to ensure that there are routes that stakeholders and other interested parties can take to ensure that any knowledge gaps in the Land Court are addressed. If the minister can reassure me on that, I will be content not to press amendment 156.
I move amendment 156.
I invite the minister to speak to amendment 102 and other amendments in the group.
First, I will address Ariane Burgess’s amendment 156. As the bill transfers certain access rights matters to the Land Court, I recognise that such experience may be relevant to parts of its future work. However, the court’s jurisdiction is broad and covers crofting, land, valuation and agricultural holdings, and, under the bill, it will also cover the functions of the Lands Tribunal for Scotland.
To operate effectively, the court needs to have a balanced membership consisting of members who have been selected on merit from a wide range of backgrounds. The judicial appointments process is already designed to assess the full range of skills and experience that candidates bring and to ensure that they are capable of handling all the court’s work. If it is considered desirable to reflect particular experience, ministers will have the powers to do that by making eligibility regulations. That is the proper route for bringing in specific experience where it is needed.
Although I understand the member’s intention, for the reasons that I have set out, I invite Ms Burgess not to press amendment 156. If she does, I ask members not to support it.
I turn to the remaining amendments in the group. Amendments 102 to 105 will strengthen the provisions on eligibility for appointment as deputy chair of the court. They provide a clear and flexible approach that will allow the role to be filled whenever it is required, including when the chair of the court is unable to act and no eligible existing member can be designated to take on the role.
To maintain consistency with the rigorous appointments process, the amendments also provide that the Scottish ministers may appoint a non‑member as deputy chair only when no current member is eligible, and only when the individual has already been through the Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland’s recruitment process and has been appointed. The appointment is temporary and must be agreed to by the Lord President.
Minister, could you pause for a moment and adjust your microphone?
Apologies. Is that better?
That is fine.
Amendments 102 to 105 will allow the Scottish ministers to temporarily appoint a deputy chair from a broader group within the Scottish judiciary—namely, sheriffs and sheriff principals who have at least 10 years of experience.
I encourage members to support amendments 102 to 105.
11:15
I turn to amendments 107 to 109, 112 to 114 and 122 to 124. These amendments, which have been lodged following feedback, will improve the approach to reviews and appeals when the two bodies are merged, with the ability to update it in future when necessary. The Scottish Land Court and the Lands Tribunal for Scotland currently operate with different review and appeal structures. This package of amendments will also streamline how internal reviews will operate, ensuring that the right members deal with them and that the court is not drawn into unnecessary or duplicate stages.
Together, amendments 107, 112 and 124 will create a coherent mechanism for updating the new court’s internal review and appeal arrangements. In particular, they provide a mechanism for dealing with the review and appeal of cases under the transferred Lands Tribunal jurisdiction, so that the wider set of reforms operates coherently and there is flexibility to ensure that bespoke arrangements can be made as required.
Amendment 112 will give the Scottish ministers a power—to be exercised by affirmative regulations—to specify which matters are not subject to internal review by the court and to adjust how cases are appealed to the Court of Session. Importantly, any such changes cannot be made unless ministers have formally consulted the Lord President and the chair of the court. Building in that requirement will provide judicial oversight and help to ensure that any future procedural reforms are proportionate, workable and consistent with the wider justice system, thereby strengthening the safeguards around the new flexibility.
For those reasons, I ask members to support all those amendments.
Amendments 118 and 119 will make a small but important adjustment to the rule-making process by requiring the Scottish Civil Justice Council and the Court of Session to consult the chair of the Scottish Land Court when preparing the procedural rules for that court. That will ensure that the specialist nature of the Land Court’s work is recognised and reflected in the development of those rules. For that reason, I ask members to support amendments 118 and 119.
Finally, amendment 129 concerns the appointment of members to the Scottish Land Court. The Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland—JABS—is responsible for recommending individuals for judicial office. Its role is to support an open and transparent judicial appointments process in Scotland. Amendment 129 will provide for the involvement of the Scottish Land Court in appointments made by JABS. It will mean that, when the board is considering an appointment to the court, at least one member of the Land Court will take part in those proceedings, with that member being selected by the chair of the court after the board’s chairing member has been consulted.
That mirrors the established Scottish tribunal appointments process, in which the relevant body’s specialist knowledge is built into the board’s consideration. That will ensure that the particular experience of the Land Court is available to the board when required. For that reason, I ask members to support amendment 129.
I invite Ariane Burgess to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 156.
I have nothing further to add. I wish to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 156, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendments 102 to 115 moved—[Jim Fairlie]—and agreed to.
Amendment 116, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 157, 117, 158, 159, 214 and 160 to 165.
Amendments 116 and 117 are technical amendments that follow the enactment of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2025. They will update the bill so that the Scottish Land Court’s jurisdiction correctly reflects the Small Landholders (Scotland) Acts 1886 to 1931 and the small landholdings provisions in schedule 2 to the 2025 act. I encourage members to support them.
Amendment 157, in the name of Ariane Burgess, seeks to expand the competence and jurisdiction of the Scottish Land Court to include a wide range of environmental matters. I acknowledge that the Scottish Government has indicated that consideration will be given to the expanded Land Court taking on new functions in relation to cases that arise under the Aarhus convention at a future point, but we have intentionally not sought to do so at this time. I will explain why.
First, the merger of the Scottish Land Court and the Lands Tribunal for Scotland will take time to complete. It will require the development of a new set of court rules, the introduction of a new case management system and the transfer of staff and members. Adding such a substantial new set of responsibilities at the same time could have a serious impact on the effectiveness of the new court. Such a significant change would merit a specific consultation process with all stakeholders before a decision is made.
Secondly, we do not consider it appropriate for the expanded Land Court to take on the functions of a criminal environmental court, given the distinct procedural and institutional requirements of criminal proceedings. Such cases are appropriately considered in the sheriff court or the High Court, where there is already considerable judicial knowledge and experience.
Thirdly, although we acknowledge the calls from a range of stakeholders for improvements to access to justice on environmental matters, we have already made progress in that regard through the abolition of court fees for Aarhus cases in the Court of Session and the introduction of protective expenses orders, or PEOs, to limit legal costs. I note that the Scottish Civil Justice Council has agreed to hold a wide-ranging consultation this year on extending the availability of environmental PEOs, including to all relevant cases in the sheriff court and the sheriff appeal court.
The Scottish Government’s present position is that most environmental law matters can be dealt with effectively by the current civil courts and processes.
Finally, the bill allows for future extension of the competence and jurisdiction of the Land Court if and when such an extension is the right thing to do. That will ensure that a controlled and proportionate approach is taken that avoids overwhelming the newly merged court. In line with the committee’s recommendation in its stage 1 report, the Parliament will be able to give careful scrutiny to any such proposal, because regulations to make any change will be subject to the affirmative procedure.
Amendments 164 and 165, in the name of Ariane Burgess, are consequential to amendment 157, which would expand the competence and jurisdiction of the Scottish Land Court to include a wide range of environmental matters.
Amendment 164 concerns certain provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Statutory nuisance cases are heard in sheriff courts because they need to be dealt with quickly, locally and by courts that have long-established expertise in that type of work. Moving them into the national court could significantly weaken accessibility and, in practice, would require the Land Court to acquire physical court spaces and facilities right across Scotland, potentially driving up capital expenditure at a time when we are focused on controlling public spending.
Amendment 165 would expand the competence and jurisdiction of the court to include all matters under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. The Court of Session exercises Scotland’s supervisory jurisdiction, and it is the established forum for questioning the legality of planning decisions. I want to be absolutely clear that the Court of Session is where such a statutory planning challenge properly belongs. That function does not sit naturally with the history, expertise or purpose of the Scottish Land Court, which has always been a specialist forum for crofting, agricultural holdings and rural land matters. Diverting planning challenges would fundamentally change the nature and character of the Land Court, which I have committed to preserving through the bill.
Although the likely increase in case volume arising from amendments 164, 165 and 157 is unknown, the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service considers that the expansion of the court’s jurisdiction would have significant operational and financial impacts, and any such change would benefit from proper consultation before a decision was taken.
The Scottish Government’s position is that it does not see a compelling argument at this time for the creation of a special environmental court in Scotland or for expanding the competence and jurisdiction of the Scottish Land Court in the way that amendments 164 and 165 propose. I acknowledge Ariane Burgess’s reasons for lodging the amendments, but, for the reasons that I have just explained, I ask her not to move them.
Amendment 158, in the name of Ariane Burgess, seeks to prevent the award of expenses against a person who raises any “environmental rights action” or any subsequent appeal. I understand that the intention is to seek to protect someone who raises an action from having to pay the legal expenses of the other party, which could be substantial if the action was unsuccessful. However, it is not clear from the amendment what constitutes an “environmental rights action”, as no definition is proposed. As a consequence, it is a very expansive provision, which, when read in conjunction with amendment 157, may be liable to have unintended consequences. Environmental cases cover a very wide range—everything from lower-value nuisance disputes in the sheriff court through to complex judicial reviews in the Court of Session. Applying automatic cost protection across that whole spectrum would carry major risks.
Separately from that, it is important to recognise that the Scottish Government has already taken meaningful steps to address concerns about the costs to individuals who seek access to justice on environmental matters. As with amendment 157, I note that the Scottish Civil Justice Council intends to consult this year on extending the availability of environmental protective expenses orders to a significantly wider range of environmental cases. That includes the proposal that, if a PEO is granted, the maximum cap will be £5,000, although the court would retain judicial discretion to lower that figure. The Scottish Government is keen to allow the SCJC to complete its work in that area before considering whether any other reform is required. On that basis, I ask Ariane Burgess not to move amendment 158.
Amendment 159 seeks to include a definition of the Aarhus convention in the bill. I have argued against Ariane Burgess’s amendments 157 and 158, which would give rise to the need for a definition, so I ask her not to move amendment 159.
On amendment 214, in the name of Tim Eagle, I am not opposed in principle to holding a review of the effectiveness of the merger of the Scottish Land Court and the Lands Tribunal for Scotland. However, I need to be clear about two fundamental principles, on which we must not compromise, before we go any further.
The first of those principles is that of judicial independence. Ministers cannot and must not be drawn into commenting on judicial deployment, expertise or decision making. The second principle is that of the independence of the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service. The Scottish ministers do not oversee the performance of the SCTS, which is accountable directly to the Parliament.
Therefore, it is essential that any review that we put into statute respects those boundaries. It is also worth noting that some of the information that the amendment seeks is already available through existing SCTS and judicial reporting, including annual accounts, operational costs, case-load data, waiting times and annual judicial business reports.
I am pretty easy about what is proposed in amendment 214. I have asked for reviews of primary legislation before. I know that it is not always helpful or necessary to provide for such reviews, and I am not necessarily sure that it is in this case. With amendment 214, I was simply seeking to highlight concerns that were raised when we discussed the issue during the evidence taking at stage 1, so I will be happy not to move it. However, I would like the minister to recognise that there could be difficulties and to guarantee that the effectiveness of the merger will be monitored.
I would be happy to speak to Tim Eagle ahead of stage 3, because there is the potential to lodge an amendment that would do the very thing that he seeks to do.
I will speak to Ariane Burgess’s amendment 160, which has similarities with amendment 214. I will get through my notes and we can take it from there.
Amendment 160, in the name of Ariane Burgess, would require the Scottish ministers to update the existing statutory guidance
“given under section 27 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003”,
following the transfer of the matters of jurisdiction outlined in paragraph 16 of schedule 1, which relates to access rights, from the sheriff court to the Scottish Land Court.
The Scottish Government recognises that, following the commencement of part 2 of the bill, there will be a requirement to update the guidance in order to inform local authorities about the extended competence and jurisdiction of the Land Court with regard to access rights. We would undertake that work as a matter of course and as part of the routine practice of revising guidance whenever relevant statutory changes arise. However, there might be merit in explicitly setting that out in the bill in order to clarify the Scottish Government’s intention to revise the guidance following commencement and to reassure stakeholders—especially local authorities—that updated information will be provided to reflect the extended competence and jurisdiction of the Land Court in relation to access rights.
That said, we do not consider that amendment 160 would have the effect that Ariane Burgess intends, given the link to the coming into force of section 35. It is possible that paragraph 16 of schedule 1 will not be commenced—or not commenced in full—at the same time as section 35. However, we are willing to support the amendment at stage 3 if the member works with us to amend the drafting errors.
Amendment 161, in the name of Ariane Burgess, would require that a review be undertaken, after a three-year period, of the impact on the Land Court of the extension of its competence and jurisdiction to matters relating to access rights. Having undertaken such a review, the Scottish ministers would need to
“publish and lay a report before the Scottish Parliament”.
As with amendment 160, we do not consider that amendment 161 would have the effect that Ariane Burgess intends, given the link to the coming into force of section 35. Again, we are willing to work with her to bring forward a workable alternative for a review at stage 3, so I invite her not to move amendment 161.
11:30
Amendment 162, in the name of Ariane Burgess, would require the Scottish ministers to establish an expert working group to review the environmental jurisdiction of the court no later than six months after royal assent. That amendment could be considered to be in conflict with amendment 157, also from Ariane Burgess, which would expand the competence and jurisdiction of the Scottish Land Court to include a wide range of environmental matters from the date of commencement of section 75. I presume that the amendments present alternative approaches. I look forward to hearing what Ariane Burgess says about that in her remarks.
As I have already explained, there is some interaction between amendment 162 and Tim Eagle’s amendment 214, which seeks a review of the effectiveness of the merger of the court and the tribunal at defined intervals. The proposal to review the jurisdiction of the court with particular reference to environmental matters is, in principle, something that the Government is willing to consider. However, we consider that the way in which the amendment is framed raises a number of significant practical and legal issues. First, we consider that the commencement of a review within six months of royal assent is too soon. The merger of the Scottish Land Court and the Lands Tribunal for Scotland will not have taken place at that point, and no experience will have been gained from the operation of the new court.
From a legal perspective, we are not aware of any legislation that has previously required ministers to establish an expert working group such as that, and the state of such a group in law would therefore be unclear. That might be particularly significant if the group did not deliver on its objectives. The new court’s environmental jurisdiction is not defined, and if amendment 157, in the name of Ariane Burgess, is not agreed to, the meaning of the amendment would be uncertain.
Finally, although the proposed membership of the expert working group appears to be broad in representation, it omits representation from the court itself. Furthermore, there may be other stakeholder groups that are not specified, such as local authorities and trade unions, that would have important contributions to make to any review of the court’s competence and jurisdiction. It would also likely cut across the work of the Scottish Civil Justice Council, which has the statutory function of keeping the civil justice system under review and is in the process of reviewing access to justice for environmental actions.
In conclusion, the Scottish Government’s position is that amendment 162 would not deliver the outcomes that I think Ariane Burgess is looking for. For that reason, I invite her not to move amendment 162 and instead to engage further to consider an alternative approach in advance of stage 3.
I move amendment 116.
I call Ariane Burgess to speak to amendment 157 and other amendments in the group.
I will begin by saying that we should all be concerned that Scotland is not meeting its international obligations when it comes to people’s access to environmental justice. We are currently in breach of the Aarhus convention, which was signed more than 25 years ago, especially article 9, which requires access to environmental justice to be
“fair, equitable, timely and not prohibitively expensive.”
I have a sense that we are all believers in fair access to justice, so we need to ensure that we provide such a system for the people of Scotland.
There is a wider point to make about meeting our international obligations, which is about being taken seriously and being trusted on the world stage. We must abide by treaties and other agreements that we have signed up to. Aarhus is an example of such an agreement, which is part of the reason why I view this amendment and the consequential amendments as being of such urgent importance. I appreciate the conversations and discussions that I have had with the minister and officials on the matter ahead of this stage 2 debate.
In the policy memorandum that accompanies the bill, the Scottish Government states that it wants there to be consideration around providing the Scottish Land Court with jurisdiction over environmental cases at some point in the future. I heard the minister say again in his remarks that now is not the time for that, and that it would happen at some point in the future. Although I welcome the fact that the Government did not shy away from the matter in the memorandum, it is beyond time for us to stop taking baby steps on the issue and start taking big strides instead.
Amendment 157, which I have worked on with the Environmental Rights Centre for Scotland, would give the newly merged body jurisdiction over environmental cases. In practice, that would mean that communities would have a clear, low-cost route to bringing cases against a nearby factory that was spewing out nasty emissions, for example. Likewise, a charity could bring an environmental case against the Government without having to find thousands of pounds to fund it. Amendment 157 would bring Scotland into line with many other nations around the world, where land and environmental courts are the norm.
Examples of this combination can be seen in Sweden, Kenya, New South Wales and Australia. The latter is the oldest specialist environmental court in the world, and it has operated successfully since 1980. Providing environmental jurisdiction would also be a big step towards meeting our Aarhus obligations by creating a one-stop shop for such cases.
As we heard during our evidence sessions on the bill, especially the one with Alison Irving, the principal clerk of the Scottish Land Court, from an administrative point of view, nothing prevents us from giving the Land Court that jurisdiction. The only question would be about resourcing. She stated that
“the Land Court already has a number of niche jurisdictions, so it is used to dealing with a range of different pieces of legislation.”
Ms Irving added:
“We already deal with appeals against some Scottish Environmental Protection Agency decisions.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, 5 November 2025; c 6-7.]
It is therefore not a great leap for us to agree today to give the Land Court environmental jurisdiction. I will say, however, that I take on board yesterday’s discussions about the complexity of that.
Another key thing to say about amendment 157 is that I can see a time coming when the number of environmental cases going through the courts will begin to rise. Issues caused by climate and biodiversity are set to become more acute in the near term, and it is highly likely that the demands on our justice system will go up in tandem with that. It is therefore imperative that we begin to develop the relevant expertise in our legal system now, so that we can avoid the public expense and resource that would be required to play catch-up in the future. I appreciated hearing the minister’s thoughts in this space.
Amendments 158, 159, 164 and 165 are consequential to amendment 157. Amendment 158 would enable us to meet our Aarhus article 9 obligations in a Land Court that is reformed by amendment 157. It would protect individuals or groups from having to pay the other side’s costs in unsuccessful environmental actions. That would create a much more level playing field between those bringing cases, more of whom tend to be charities or communities, and those defending them, who tend to have deep pockets. I take on board the minister’s comments about the amendment lacking clarity about what is meant by “environmental rights action” and that the Scottish Government is already taking steps through a consultation or work being done by the Scottish Civil Justice Council on a maximum fine and the ability to lower the fee via judicial discretion. That is welcome.
Amendment 162 is a fallback for amendment 157. It would require ministers to set up a working group consisting of all key stakeholders in the environmental justice space. That working group would look at the feasibility of setting up an environmental court and handing environmental cases to the Scottish Land Court. The Government would then be required to review and release a statement on the group’s findings. Such a measure would at least move us away from the Government saying good things about environmental rights but not taking action. It would give the Government the opportunity to communicate what it is already doing.
It would also require the Government do this in a transparent way, which is what the committee has called for—clarity on scope, resourcing and access to justice impacts, as we set out in our report. I recognise from what the minister said in his contribution that there are drafting issues, and I would appreciate working with him and officials on that ahead of stage 3.
Amendments 160 and 161 relate to land access elements in schedule 1. I appreciate the constructive conversation and discussion ahead of this stage. One of the welcome elements of the Scottish Land Court’s part of the bill is that its jurisdiction would include land access cases. In recent years, we have seen several high-profile land access disputes, but translating those disputes from wars of words to the courts system has proven to be a challenge. I believe that the change that the bill will make will go some way towards improving the situation.
I would, however, like to make a few tweaks to ensure that we get the best possible hub for land access justice. Amendment 161, which I worked on with Ramblers, would require the Government to produce a report on the nature and number of land access cases being brought to the Land Court after a period of three years. That is crucial, because it would enable us to identify and rectify any issues that prevent people from bringing those cases and, in turn, build confidence in the newly emerged court’s ability to handle land access cases.
Amendment 160 would require ministers to update the access rights guidance that is required under the 2003 act, to ensure that the route that land access disputes should take is clear to all. The amendment would require the updating of guidance that is now more than 20 years old and is not in line with the changes in practice and the law that have occurred in that time. I believe that that measure would have a positive impact on the running of the Land Court when it handles cases. Again, I appreciate what the minister said about working with him and officials ahead of stage 2 on those two amendments.
I call Tim Eagle to speak to amendment 214 and other amendments in the group.
I have very little to say on amendment 214. I lodged it on the basis of some concerns that were raised during the committee’s evidence sessions, but I heard what the minister said this morning and I will work with him on the matter before stage 3.
I call the minister to wind up.
On the points that Ariane Burgess has made, we are committed to compliance with the Aarhus convention and we are already taking forward the range of measures that I set out previously. Further work is under way on the reform of legal aid and the consideration of issues raised by the Aarhus convention compliance committee. Environmental Standards Scotland, which was established under the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Continuity) (Scotland) Act 2021, provides an accessible alternative route for individuals and organisations to raise concerns about the effective implementation of environmental law, offering a means of resolving issues without the cost and complexity associated with court proceedings.
I fully take on board the concerns that Ariane Burgess has raised, but a lot of work is on-going and I ask her to bear that in mind as we go through the amendments that we have in front of us.
Amendment 116 agreed to.
Amendment 157 not moved.
Amendments 117 to 124 moved—[Jim Fairlie]—and agreed to.
Amendments 158 and 159 not moved.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 36 to 39 agreed to.
After section 39
Amendments 214 and 160 to 162 not moved.
Section 40 agreed to.
Schedule 2—Minor and consequential amendments
Amendments 125 and 126 moved—[Jim Fairlie]—and agreed to.
Amendment 163 moved—[Ariane Burgess].
The question is, that amendment 163 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Against
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 7, Against 2, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 163 agreed to.
Amendment 127 moved—[Jim Fairlie]—and agreed to.
Amendments 164 and 165 not moved.
Amendments 128 to 131 moved—[Jim Fairlie]—and agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 41 and 42 agreed to.
Section 43—Commencement
Amendment 215 not moved.
Sections 43 and 44 agreed to.
Long title agreed to.
That ends stage 2 consideration of the bill.
I thank everyone for their attendance. That concludes our business in public and we will now move into private session.
11:47
Meeting continued in private until 12:11.
Air ais
Subordinate Legislation