Seòmar agus comataidhean

My amendment 256 would allow ministers to introduce, by regulation, the ability for local authorities to issue fixed-penalty notices in relation to any byelaws that they introduce to prevent wildfires. The amendment came about through conversations with the Highland Council. As members will know, the byelaws that were recently introduced by the Cairngorms National Park Authority in order to prevent wildfires were met with a great reaction locally. Many constituents, including some who were impacted by the Dava moor fire this year, have written to me asking for similar legislation to be brought in outwith the park area. I have made that case on their behalf to multiple councils, and I believe that that case is very strong.

However, council officers have shared with me that an inability to issue fixed-penalty notices is preventing them from introducing their own byelaws, because they need to have confidence that such byelaws would be enforceable and that the penalties would be known and clear and could act as a deterrent. Council officers cannot be sure that they will be able to resource that process if there is no ability to fine. I would like local authorities to be given the opportunity to manage their byelaws in the same way that we are allowing national parks to manage their byelaws through the bill. The issue was mentioned in some responses to the committee’s call for views at stage 1. Multiple respondents suggested, in response to the question on the new national park powers—which were overwhelmingly supported—that those powers could be extended to other authorities as well.

I would be interested to hear from the minister about what is under consideration, what the Government’s position is on local authorities being able to issue fixed-penalty notices, and whether the Government will support that ask from those councils that are most at risk of wildfire.

I move amendment 256.

Recognising that my group does not support amendment 256, and on the basis that the minister has agreed to meet me ahead of stage 3 to discuss the best way of progressing it—which I understand might not be through the bill—I will withdraw it. However, I want to indicate that there is strong support for a move in this direction among the worst-affected councils as well as colleagues on the committee and other parties. I look forward to that discussion taking place.

Amendment 256, by agreement, withdrawn.

I do not.

I want to ask about future edits of the SSI. What triggers will the Government keep an eye on to decide whether to produce any revisions or additions to the regulations?

I will speak to Evelyn Tweed’s amendment 104. The committee is aware that part 1 of the bill sets out the three target topics under which Scottish ministers must set statutory targets. As highlighted in the stage 1 report, it has become apparent that the second target topic—the status of threatened species—is being interpreted by some stakeholders to mean only species that are currently listed as endangered, which is a narrower interpretation than was intended.

As is noted in the policy memorandum for the bill, the intention is that

“The term ‘threatened species’ comprises species that are under threat now, species that have populations that are declining and species that may potentially be under threat in the future. The target topic intended to incorporate species at threat of extinction, species abundance and distribution, population size of exploited species, as well as genetic diversity.”

Amendment 104 therefore seeks to update the wording in new section 2C(1)(a) of the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 to more accurately capture that wider definition of “threatened species” and provide reassurance. I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for working with Evelyn Tweed on the issue.

For those reasons, I encourage members to support amendment 104.

My amendments are small but important. The bill as it is drafted places a duty on Environmental Standards Scotland to submit to the Scottish ministers a report on the outcome of reviews and assessments that are carried out under new section 2G(1)(a) and (b) of the 2004 act, inserted by section 1(3) of the bill.

During the stage 1 evidence session, Environmental Standards Scotland suggested that, as an independent body that is directly accountable to the Parliament, it would be more appropriate for it to lay any reports that it made under new section 2G directly in the Parliament, rather than before the Scottish ministers. The committee, in its stage 1 report on the bill, recommended that the Scottish Government should enable ESS

“to lay its reports under section 2G directly in the Scottish Parliament”.

My amendments 50 and 51 reflect the committee’s recommendations to amend the bill to that effect, so I encourage the committee to support them.

Yes—that is really helpful. Thinking of instances where the situation is not quite as clear cut and where people may struggle to get information that they are looking for, Unison and others have suggested in evidence to the committee that FOI rights should follow the public pound. Would a criteria or funding-based approach to designation of public bodies be more desirable for information requesters than the current organisation-by-organisation model?

More generally, the bill would give the Scottish Parliament the power to designate organisations that deliver public functions or services as public authorities. Do you have a view on that approach?

Good morning. Do you support the proposal for the Parliament to have a more active role in reviewing section 5 reports? In your view, would that parliamentary scrutiny lead to more timely and transparent designation of bodies?

I have a couple of questions for the Law Society. Do you support the proposal for Parliament to have a more active role in reviewing section 5 reports? Would that parliamentary scrutiny lead to the more timely and transparent designation of bodies?