���˿���

Like the previous two speakers, I want to respond to the concerns that the committee raised at stage 1 but also those that were raised by a raft of stakeholders who got in touch because they were worried about unintended consequences from this section of the bill, which provides ministers with the wide-ranging power to modify key environmental protections. I want to try to reintroduce protections into the bill.

First, I thank the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management for its support in crafting the amendments, which have four clear aims for improving the bill: greater clarity and precision in drafting, ensuring that the legislation is easier to interpret and aligned with the structure elsewhere in the bill; a clear non-regression guarantee that requires ministers to confirm that any changes do not weaken existing environmental protections, a safeguard that is in line with Scottish environmental ambitions and international obligations; stronger alignment with our duties under the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c) Regulations 1994; and ensuring that modifications respect the management objectives of the UK site network and the conservation needs of environmentally important habitats.

The key issue of enhanced parliamentary oversight has already been mentioned this morning, and I noticed reference to a ministerial statement being required. My ambition is to strengthen the bill, and there are different ways of doing that.

My amendment 5 is about clarity and precision, strengthening accountability and improving the consistency of drafting across the bill.

My amendment 6 is a generic non-regression safeguard for any regulations that are made under part 2. As has already been said, we have nature and climate crises and we need to address them both, but we also need safeguarding standards, and amendment 6 seeks to close a loophole and reinforce public trust. Environmental law should be thinking ahead, not looking backwards. We need the bill to align with Scotland’s wider commitments on climate and environmental ambitions and not to erode them by making technical changes.

My amendment 7 would make sure that, when the Scottish ministers were considering regulations, they would think about how any modification or restatement conformed with their duties in relation to the UK site network, under the habitats regulations. Again, I want to make sure that there is consistent application in line with existing statutory duties when looking at the conservation of European sites in Scotland and no undermining of the management and protection of those critical habitats. Amendment 7 is therefore about protecting the integrity of the UK site network by not allowing minor technical changes to have a big impact, as well as about strengthening environmental leadership and embedding accountability in the bill.

It was interesting to hear Alasdair Allan’s speech in favour of his amendments. My version, which is set out in my amendment 8, is about limiting ministerial discretion, enhancing democratic oversight and preventing ministers from bypassing proper parliamentary scrutiny. As drafted, the bill definitely risks allowing significant changes to be made with only procedural approval. My amendment would ensure that powers could not be exercised without a full, proper legislative debate and would avoid authority being expanded without accountability. The list of provisions that my amendment 8 would remove includes serious matters such as arrest powers, search powers and fees, which should not slide through under secondary legislation. Again, it is a matter of power.

My amendment 9 would remove section 3(e)—stakeholders raised many concerns about it at stage 1—in order to tighten the scope of ministerial powers, prevent overreach, focus on genuine policy purposes and prevent technical tidying up being done by the back door to weaken or dilute environmental standards and safeguards.

My amendment 10 is, again, about narrowing ministerial powers. The phrase

“to improve or simplify the operation of the law”

is vague and could lead to wide-ranging changes.

The concerns are that part 2 goes far too far and is not proportionate. That is why quite a few of us have lodged amendments. It is about the issue of ministerial accountability and getting that balance right. The idea behind the affirmative procedure is about making sure that the Parliament gets to formally approve any regulations, so that they do not simply slide through. It is absolutely crucial that we do not weaken protections by accident. That is why we are all trying to test the purpose and impact in terms of future decisions.

Like the previous two speakers, I want to respond to the concerns that the committee raised at stage 1 but also those that were raised by a raft of stakeholders who got in touch because they were worried about unintended consequences from this section of the bill, which provides ministers with the wide-ranging power to modify key environmental protections. I want to try to reintroduce protections into the bill.

First, I thank the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management for its support in crafting the amendments, which have four clear aims for improving the bill: greater clarity and precision in drafting, ensuring that the legislation is easier to interpret and aligned with the structure elsewhere in the bill; a clear non-regression guarantee that requires ministers to confirm that any changes do not weaken existing environmental protections, a safeguard that is in line with Scottish environmental ambitions and international obligations; stronger alignment with our duties under the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c) Regulations 1994; and ensuring that modifications respect the management objectives of the UK site network and the conservation needs of environmentally important habitats.

The key issue of enhanced parliamentary oversight has already been mentioned this morning, and I noticed reference to a ministerial statement being required. My ambition is to strengthen the bill, and there are different ways of doing that.

My amendment 5 is about clarity and precision, strengthening accountability and improving the consistency of drafting across the bill.

My amendment 6 is a generic non-regression safeguard for any regulations that are made under part 2. As has already been said, we have nature and climate crises and we need to address them both, but we also need safeguarding standards, and amendment 6 seeks to close a loophole and reinforce public trust. Environmental law should be thinking ahead, not looking backwards. We need the bill to align with Scotland’s wider commitments on climate and environmental ambitions and not to erode them by making technical changes.

My amendment 7 would make sure that, when the Scottish ministers were considering regulations, they would think about how any modification or restatement conformed with their duties in relation to the UK site network, under the habitats regulations. Again, I want to make sure that there is consistent application in line with existing statutory duties when looking at the conservation of European sites in Scotland and no undermining of the management and protection of those critical habitats. Amendment 7 is therefore about protecting the integrity of the UK site network by not allowing minor technical changes to have a big impact, as well as about strengthening environmental leadership and embedding accountability in the bill.

It was interesting to hear Alasdair Allan’s speech in favour of his amendments. My version, which is set out in my amendment 8, is about limiting ministerial discretion, enhancing democratic oversight and preventing ministers from bypassing proper parliamentary scrutiny. As drafted, the bill definitely risks allowing significant changes to be made with only procedural approval. My amendment would ensure that powers could not be exercised without a full, proper legislative debate and would avoid authority being expanded without accountability. The list of provisions that my amendment 8 would remove includes serious matters such as arrest powers, search powers and fees, which should not slide through under secondary legislation. Again, it is a matter of power.

My amendment 9 would remove section 3(e)—stakeholders raised many concerns about it at stage 1—in order to tighten the scope of ministerial powers, prevent overreach, focus on genuine policy purposes and prevent technical tidying up being done by the back door to weaken or dilute environmental standards and safeguards.

My amendment 10 is, again, about narrowing ministerial powers. The phrase

“to improve or simplify the operation of the law”

is vague and could lead to wide-ranging changes.

No, actually—I am hoping that it would be the opposite, because it would involve both support and guidance. Rather than repeating what is being done, this is about looking at what is not being done at the moment. I think that it would support organisations, and it would lead to a constructive relationship. That is certainly the experience in Wales—and I have already mentioned the culture change that has taken place in the decade since the commissioner there was appointed.

There would have to be respect between public authorities and a new commissioner, if they were to be established, just as there is respect when the Parliament holds public bodies to account. Of course, that does not mean that you do not ask difficult questions. I think that the combination of advice and guidance will support the proposed approach, with that backstop of the knowledge that an inquiry could be carried out. This is absolutely about empowering and supporting organisations to do what we would like them to do and what we have talked about as the ambition.

I just want to double-check whether any of my team wants to come in and add to that or say anything else. Have I said enough on that or is there anything helpful that I could say? Sean, do you want to come in?

It comes back to sharing best practice, and to guidance. Having effective guidance is important, because we cannot put it all in legislation, and things change over time. It is about making sure that functions are actually implemented; it is also about what more public bodies could do.

One or two of the organisations that submitted evidence to me when I was looking at introducing the bill and which have given evidence to the committee talked about examples such as how procurement decisions are taken, which could potentially ignore sustainable development principles. The bill pushes that further up the agenda, so that it becomes about what public sector organisations do and how they invest their money—for example, if they are contracting functions out to somebody else to do that work for them.

Some people have suggested that I should amend the bill. However, I have kept it tight; we cannot have a member’s bill that is extensive and goes on forever, so I focused on three elements. If the committee feels that the aspect that you mention is important, I could certainly look at that before stage 2, if the bill was to get to that point.

Part of the guidance could be to get people to think about how they frame the procurement process—what their ambitions are and what criteria lead them to award contracts. Guidance could be useful for that kind of thing. That function and the decision making by public bodies are part of the duty. Good guidance, collective and shared knowledge, and good practice could start to change views. You are right that stage 1 of the Community Wealth Building (Scotland) Bill is coming up this afternoon and that we have the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015. We need to think about pulling together best practice and pushing that further up the agenda. Just the guidance and wider support could help local authorities or public sector organisations. As I mentioned, if they are under pressure, practical support could be critical.

Can you speak up slightly, convener? I do not know whether it is just because I have a bad cold or whether it is to do with the sound levels in the room, but I am struggling to hear.

Is that a legal question that you would like to come in on, Caroline?

The number that I gave was 130. I will check with the team that I am correct—it is 131.