The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.
All Official Reports of meetings in the Debating Chamber of the Scottish Parliament.
All Official Reports of public meetings of committees.
Displaying 896 contributions
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee
Meeting date: 4 June 2025
Rhoda Grant
Okay. We have had evidence that we already have that flexibility in the existing regulations. Are you saying that there was that flexibility in the regulations but it is no longer available because of EU exit, or are we getting contradictory evidence on that point?
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee
Meeting date: 4 June 2025
Rhoda Grant
We heard mixed views on whether NatureScot should have a formal role on advisory panels, given that it is also the regulator. What are your reasons for proposing that change, and what safeguards will be in place to prevent any potential conflicts of interest?
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee
Meeting date: 4 June 2025
Rhoda Grant
But it will not come as a surprise.
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee
Meeting date: 4 June 2025
Rhoda Grant
Five days is not very long. If someone were away, would there be an opportunity to negotiate a change to that notice period?
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee
Meeting date: 4 June 2025
Rhoda Grant
Having a separation of powers is a well-known way of working—the person in charge of policing something does not make the regulation. If someone does not agree with what is being proposed in discussions that have been carried out in an open forum, how can people trust them to regulate the implementation of that in a transparent way? You say that the NatureScot members on the panels are public officials and they are bound not to work in a detrimental way, but they are still human beings. That is why we tend to have that separation of powers, whereas it feels like there is a real conflict in the proposal that is before us. It is fine if everything is working and everyone is in agreement, but you would not need those panels if everyone was in full agreement. How do you prevent the conflict?
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee
Meeting date: 4 June 2025
Rhoda Grant
This is off the top of my head—I know that we do not have a great deal of time, convener. Let us say that the advisory panel says that we need to get deer numbers down to five per hectare and NatureScot says that 10 per hectare would be fine. NatureScot would have to police getting that number down to five. What confidence could people have that NatureScot would police that when everyone knows that it thinks that 10 is the right number?
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee
Meeting date: 4 June 2025
Rhoda Grant
As part of the panel of advisers, NatureScot would obviously be giving advice, but anybody else on that panel would know that, at the end of the day, it is the regulator. That would create a bit of an imbalance on the panels, because the gamekeeper, who will be making sure that everybody else complies with whatever comes out of that panel’s advice, will also be sitting on the panel. It just seems that that would set an imbalance for people.
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee
Meeting date: 4 June 2025
Rhoda Grant
I guess that the conflict lies in the fact that an advisory panel gives advice and it is up to Government whether it takes that advice. If the advice was different from the decision that was made, NatureScot would still have to police compliance with that, even though the panel obviously did not agree with the decision or want it to be implemented.
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee
Meeting date: 4 June 2025
Rhoda Grant
Yes, but if its advice is different from the action that is taken, how can you then say that it is an impartial enforcer?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 3 June 2025
Rhoda Grant
Amendment 339 would make land management plans subject to a public interest test, requiring landowners to consider the public interest when pursuing such plans. Owning large areas of land is a privilege and therefore large landowners need to consider the impact of their activities on the wider public when drawing up their land management plans.
Amendment 342 seeks to expand the definition of land that is subject to obligations under proposed new section 44A of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2016 to include public interest determinations. It would also add public interest criteria for applying land management obligations and would allow the Government to impose public goods obligations on large landowners. Too often, we hear of communities that cannot access land for vital community interests such as housing and food production. The amendment would empower the Government to step in where community efforts have failed.
Amendment 348 is a technical amendment that is consequential to amendment 342 and would include proposed new section 44D to the 2016 act in the list of relevant sections.
I support other amendments in the group from Mercedes Villalba, Michael Matheson and Ariane Burgess. It is clear that we need a public interest test for many aspects of the bill for the reasons that Mark Ruskell has laid out, which I will not repeat. I look forward to hearing the cabinet secretary’s thoughts on which amendments would best do that.