Seòmar agus comataidhean

Good morning. That is the first time that I have ever heard a bill described as elegant. At the beginning of the process, if you had asked us to describe the bill, the word “elegant” might not have come to mind first. Also, I have never seen so many professors give testimony on a bill—it has been interesting.

I will keep my questions simple. Once again, we have learned a lot this morning—Stephen Kerr said that at points he has felt like he is facing a conundrum, and I think that we have all felt that to a degree. Basically, you have said that we have the opportunity to ensure that we get the bill right, although, beyond that, we recognise that there is still more to do. There has been talk of specificity, but there has also been talk of uncertainty. To overcome that, it sounds as if we need to continue to monitor and scrutinise the effects of the bill as we move forward.

Gordon MacDonald asked about the advisory board or panel and whether we should rely on the UK Government. As I have sat here listening this morning, I have been wondering whether it is enough to have one advisory board or panel, considering all the areas of business that we are looking at. My simple question is this: is one advisory panel enough? Do we need to do more than that and make every Government portfolio look at the issue and see what is required in its area of business?

It has been trying to do so basically since the Parliament was created.

I am interested in your thoughts on whether carbon units should be property.

That is really interesting. I will not ask any further questions, because we could probably spend hours on the subject, but it might be worth while for Professor Robbie’s work to be circulated among committee members.

Maybe an advisory panel is not the way forward. Professor Schafer talked about individual expertise. Maybe, as I think Greg McLardie has suggested, the oversight needs to be built into Government at various points, with a recognition that a new breed of expert will be required on how we move forward on many of the issues. As a Parliament, we have built in various rules around ministers having to look at issues such as climate change or equalities—the list goes on. Is this one of those areas where we need to build in an overview as we move forward in day-to-day business? Alternatively, would that be too complex?

Professor Schafer, you made a comment about a tick-box exercise. Sometimes, when we do certain things and tell people that they have to comply, that can become a tick-box exercise, but that is the last thing that we want to see happening here.

Can I be a little bit cheeky, convener?

Professor Robbie, I am interested in what you said about whether carbon units should be property. Can you expand on that? You also said that you tried to get some of that into the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill. If the convener will allow me to ask you to, can you give us an insight into what you were trying to do?

The SFF has suggested that the bill as drafted creates a huge amount of legal uncertainty. Are you willing, at a future stage, to accept amendments that will provide a defence for operators of permitted, licensed or consented activities?

You mentioned the RRA. It provides for certain defences. Do you not think that your bill should act in a similar manner in that regard?

The fear and legal uncertainty that some organisations express is not necessarily because they think that they are doing anything wrong at the moment that would lead to ecocide but because some future scientific discovery might show that something that they did over a long period might have caused difficulties. Those folks are quite worried about the unknowns. That is a genuine worry; it is not a blockage for the sake of blockage.

We will come to consenting bodies, including planning authorities, in a little while, but first I am asking about the operator viewpoints. We heard from the likes of NFU Scotland, the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation and others that they have concerns about the fact that the bill could cover activities that have been consented to, permitted or licensed. Perhaps we could deal with the operators first, if you do not mind, and then we can come to the individual consenting bodies.

I welcome what Ms Lennon has said about her door being open to those who are likely to lodge amendments. My problem is that, as we have gone on with our consideration of the bill, other cans of worms have been opened. We have heard from the planning authorities, and, of late, I have been listening to elected members in councils who have just cottoned on to the bill. It is fine for us to be able to lodge amendments, but it is simply not possible to listen to all the concerns in the time available, and that causes me a huge degree of concern.

Some members were doubtful about how planners would see the bill, and those doubts have been shown to be justified. Now, I am hearing from elected members, who are saying, “I don’t know whether I would vote for that.” That must all be taken into consideration if we are to get the legislation absolutely right. I come back to my point about the level of unintended consequences that the bill might have, which we need to explore further.