Seòmar agus comataidhean

I just have one question for the minister. One local issue that has been raised with me and on which I have corresponded with the minister is the loophole with regard to premises licensed to sell alcohol not requiring a short-term let licence. I highlighted the fact that a number of premises in my region are now licensed to sell alcohol but have no intention of serving it, just to get around the order. I appreciate that he is seeking to strike a balance between the needs of business and the needs of communities, but why has the order, which addresses industry asks, been introduced before any tightening of the clear issues that communities, which are unable to comment on these practices, have raised?

Okay. Thanks, minister.

Picking up on the point about local authorities and the process, I note that councils have raised concerns about the complexity of the different kinds of licence, as well as about inconsistency in comparison with other licensing schemes. Other licences administered by local authorities cannot be transferred from person to person in the same way. What is it that makes short-term let businesses different?

I want to pick up on the earlier comments that, for many pet owners, when it comes to considering staying in secure housing and giving up their pet or staying with their pet, they prefer the latter. My question is for Becky Thwaites first, but anyone else can come in. Could preventing tenants from having a pet in a property be considered to be a homelessness trigger?

Are there any other aspects of the bill that you feel are not as relevant as they could be to the Gypsy Traveller community and that could be expanded? If so, how could they be?

Okay.

I want to pick up on Rachael Hamilton’s line of questioning. I recognise that there is a gap between statements that compliance and environmental impact are improving and that environmental issues have been addressed. If we take the 2018 committee’s statement that environmental challenges must be addressed as a priority before expansion can continue, are you comfortable that that is true and has happened, given that expansion has taken place?

Okay. You said that you would consider biomass reductions or rescinding licences in particular situations. In the past year, or prior to that, have there been times at which wider powers might have been useful, or used?

The committee has heard concerns about the timescales for implementing the new sea lice framework. How long will it take SEPA to determine whether action is required on farms that pose a high risk to wild salmon? Is there sufficient urgency, given that Scottish wild Atlantic salmon is now considered to be endangered?

I appreciate that. The committee has already heard during the inquiry that the data is open to interpretation, which has led to various witnesses taking different views on the conclusions that can be drawn from the data that is available. We have had opinions from each end of the spectrum. What is your take on that? How can the data best be interpreted, given that it is possible for the information that is out there already to be interpreted in such wildly different ways?