Chamber and committees

Recent wildfires have spread far and fast. Will the minister set out what action the Government can take to support small and large landowners to manage their land to mitigate wildfire risk?

Do you agree that a spotlight needs to be shone in scrutiny of organisations such as the Scottish Housing Regulator, to make sure that they are performing well and in a transparent way?

I thank the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee for bringing this important debate to the chamber, and I thank Jackson Carlaw for highlighting my previous role on the committee, which I enjoyed.

Our committees are a vital part of the parliamentary system. The report makes excellent recommendations on how to improve committee effectiveness, but they generally focus on what happens during parliamentary sessions. Some issues, however, will require on-going scrutiny beyond the next election. There are many public bodies and non-ministerial offices in Scotland that are ultimately accountable to the Parliament and our committees. The scrutiny that is undertaken by committees is key to ensuring the proper and efficient running of those bodies, but the current model prevents strategic, long-term oversight.

The Scottish Housing Regulator is a useful example. The regulator is a non-ministerial office that is directly accountable to the Scottish Parliament for the discharge of its statutory functions. Scrutiny currently takes the form of an annual report that is compiled by the regulator, followed by one committee meeting per year during which the chief executive and the chair are questioned by members of the relevant committee.

Concerns about the regulator have circulated almost since it assumed its full functions in 2012, and they have been raised consistently in the Parliament. At the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee in November 2014, representatives from the housing sector highlighted the regulator’s use of informal interventions to pressure housing associations into commissioning consultants that it favoured, at costs exceeding £1,000 per day. Witnesses also raised concerns about the heavy-handed and disproportionate use of the regulator’s powers. Nothing changed.

In 2020, following press reports of a culture of fear within the housing sector, members of the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee raised concerns with the regulator during the annual scrutiny session. Again, nothing changed.

In 2024, a decade after the first complaints were made, the committee heard similar allegations regarding bullying and inappropriate interventions by the regulator. On that occasion, other stakeholders from the sector were invited to give evidence and the concerns were not so easily dismissed. Although more headway was made then, my concern is that, following the next election and the subsequent changes in committee membership, the issue will again lose momentum. In the past decade, at least 16 smaller housing associations have merged with others, largely as a result of regulator intervention, which seems a disproportionate loss to the sector. I do not believe that the Parliament has sufficient oversight to be satisfied that that loss of community-based organisations was justified.

My wider point is that I do not believe that the current committee system provides sufficient scrutiny of the bodies that report to the Parliament. There are two parts to that. First, a report and oral evidence at one meeting per year are not sufficient to explore complex concerns. I know that members have various concerns about the amount of time—

Yes.

I entirely agree with Liz Smith on that point. We have many pressures on us as members, but we need to get people in here so that we can scrutinise those bodies and commissioners appropriately. I absolutely agree.

As members, we often deal with highly paid professional representatives of the very bodies that we are charged with scrutinising. Sometimes, we need more time and more independent expert support. We get a lot of support in Parliament, but sometimes, on very niche issues, we need more.

Secondly, there is a real danger that transitions between elections and changes in committee membership lead to important issues being forgotten or momentum in inquiries lost. As I see it, there is at present no mechanism for passing on work in stronger terms than a recommendation in a legacy report. Even locating minutes from previous sessions, which I have tried to do, is really difficult.

Although we must allow flexibility, effective scrutiny of public bodies is too important to be lost or delayed during those changeovers. At present, standing orders and framework agreements with non-ministerial offices are not at all prescriptive. I know that there are good reasons for that—flexibility is important—but I would be interested in exploring the introduction of good practice guidance or a similar mechanism.

I also echo the concerns that were expressed by the Greens about post-legislative scrutiny. They made some really good points. In written evidence, they said to the committee:

“Many laws are passed, targets set and then forgotten, resulting in a failure to assess their effectiveness.”

The same applies to newly formed public bodies and non-ministerial offices, for which there is limited follow-up, which allows problems to go unchecked.

We are stewards for a brief time, but we must think longer term. Proper scrutiny protects our communities. We must develop an approach that is both robust and adaptable to ensure that organisations work in a transparent and effective manner.

Across Stirling, initiatives such as the Killin and district volunteer car scheme and the Strathard volunteer driver service are lifelines, as demand-responsive services that get people from door to door. Will the minister outline how the Government can work with local authorities and communities to support the development of such services?

No, that is absolutely not the case, but I thank Tim Eagle for his intervention.

Although the proposals have been welcomed, several stakeholders have expressed the need for caution. Scottish Environment LINK noted the risk of stricter enforcement within national parks displacing problem behaviour beyond the parks’ boundaries and creating a two-tier system. Many popular locations and important habitats lie beyond our national parks, so that is a concern. I am keen to hear how the Government will mitigate and monitor any unintended consequences that may arise.

I was pleased to hear the cabinet secretary describe the fixed-penalty regime as “supplementary” to the rangers’ role of engagement and education, but several organisations asked for guidance and monitoring to ensure that that remains the case. The committee seeks details on what guidance the Scottish Government intends to provide to NPAs as they formulate their approach. The maximum penalty is set at £500, and I note that the financial memorandum states that Loch Lomond and the Trossachs NPA proposed fines of around £80 and deemed that as an “appropriate” level for byelaw fines. However, the Law Society highlighted the need to ensure that there is consistency with other fixed-penalty schemes to ensure that the landscape is simple and does not lead to confusion among the public.

There has been a suggestion that a fixed-penalty regime could cover parking infractions, and I am keen to explore that further. Irresponsible parking in visitor hotspots is a huge issue in my area, and this summer saw serious overcrowding and reckless parking on verges at Loch Lubnaig and other areas. NPAs did not think that they had the key legal rights at present to make byelaws bite. I know that my constituents would welcome more enforcement powers in that area, and I ask the Government to work with the national park authorities on that ahead of stage 2 and to consider the role that local authorities and the police might have in the area.

On the whole, the committee heard support for that change, and I look forward to hearing how issues will be addressed at stage 2.

I support the general principles of the bill. For the record, I am also the nature champion for the rare azure hawker dragonfly.

To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to support community transport initiatives in rural areas. (S6O-05084)

I thank everyone who took the time to give the committee evidence on the bill.

The bill is wide ranging, but I will focus on proposals for a fixed-penalty regime for national park byelaws, which comes under part 3. Many of my constituents live and work in Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park. It is a marvellous place, which provides many opportunities to engage with the natural world. If any member has not been there, please come. The park has more than 4 million visitors a year, so it is important to consider and manage the impact on those who live locally, as well as on the environment. Byelaws play an important role in that.

The Law Society of Scotland explains that byelaws can be used by national parks

“to protect their natural and cultural heritage, prevent damage to the land and secure public enjoyment and safety.”

Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Authority has had byelaws restricting camping on the banks of many of its lochs since 2017, and safety regulations for water activities at Loch Lomond since 2023.

The Cairngorms national park has introduced byelaws on fire management with a view to reducing the risk of wildfires. Education and engagement are at the fore of byelaw enforcement. Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Association explained to the committee that, when its rangers have conversations with visitors who are breaking byelaws, many are happy to adjust their behaviour and do the right thing. However, in 12 out of nearly 900 cases last year, that conversation did not work. Those cases were referred to the procurator fiscal, which is causing a huge administrative burden for the national park. Section 9 addresses that with an enabling power to introduce fixed-penalty notices for the enforcement of national park byelaws, which is considered to be a more efficient, effective and proportionate means of enforcement.

The transition from child to adult mental health services can be a worrying time for both young people and their parents or carers. What assessment has been made of the support that is required for those who are transitioning from youth mental health services to adult mental health services?