Chamber and committees

Dr Melo Araujo, do you have any comments on that?

In many of the answers, our witnesses have touched on some of the questions that I was going to ask about interparliamentary scrutiny. Is there anything that you would like to add on that? We have a written submission from the Institute for Government that suggests having policy-specific chairs forums to mirror interministerial groups. Could that work for the circular economy or other areas where there are frameworks? I do not know whether the panellists have any more thoughts on what that architecture of scrutiny might look like.

As it seems that Professor Hunt and Professor McEwen have nothing to add, I will move on.

Your written submissions make a strong point about the potential chilling effect on innovation in regulation and on new policies. Is there any evidence of that happening already? Some policies are in train. This week in the Scottish Parliament, we have dealt with single-use plastic regulations, which have come to a committee for the first time. Is there any sense of where policy development is being stifled?

My final question is about our move away from EU policy development processes. I was struck by how involved various stakeholders—including industry bodies, unions and non-governmental organisations—were in the development of the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals regulation. There has now been a shift; we are out of Europe, and there is perhaps a different policy development process. Which voices will be heard in that process? Where do those voices come in? How should Parliaments engage with those stakeholders?

Do you see political will to remove trade barriers?

I remember those eight sessions fondly, and I do not remember this issue coming up. It is interesting that it was identified through the extensive IT build as an issue of due diligence. It seems to be a logical loophole to close.

What is the timescale for the roll-out of the register, and where are we with building in seamlessness of use for the public and users of the multiple registers, such that they can come to a portal and find out—in a way that makes sense to ordinary people, who do not have the benefit of experience of conveyancing and trust law—who owns a piece of land and who is influencing the ownership and management of that land?

I think that it was Rhodri Morgan who said that devolution is a great laboratory, and there is definitely an opportunity to innovate. Will you comment on the fishing gear issue?

I want to go a bit deeper into the issue of rural communities. At the moment, there is a big cost differential between installing a low-carbon system and sticking with an oil-based system, but how can that differential be reduced over time?

Another issue that people have raised with me is the wider servicing infrastructure. If people are being asked to make the jump to a low-carbon system and the supply chain is not there, there will be no cost reduction in that respect, but what if there is no maintenance and servicing infrastructure either? That will be a concern for people and a barrier to making that jump. I am interested to hear about the thinking about that in the heat in buildings strategy and how it will merge with the targets that have been set.

In terms of work on that supply chain, how do you see the energy agency co-ordinating action? What will it do in practice? Will it rely more on local government delivery partners or voluntary sector agencies? I am looking for some clarity around what practical actions the agency will take on the ground to tackle some of these issues and to roll out programmes.

My final question is about an issue that Fife Council raised with me yesterday. It is now very difficult to get energy companies to become the default provider for council tenants. SSE is not interested in being the default provider for Fife Council. Are you aware of that issue? We are seeing more and more energy companies going to the wall, so fewer energy companies can provide a competitive offering for council tenants. There seems to be a lack of appetite for taking on council tenants, which is worrying.

First of all, we should congratulate the petitioners on managing to change Government policy. Translocations are now happening, which is great; indeed, I think that one happened yesterday in the Stirling area.

To be fair, I think that some follow-up work is needed on the back of this. Although it would probably be useful to write to the Scottish Government, I think that we should certainly write to NatureScot to ask for more detail on its view of the change in the beaver management framework, particularly with regard to existing licences for lethal control, the funding of translocations and how the process itself can be streamlined. I know that some of that will come through forthcoming guidance, but I would still be reluctant to close the petition. You could look at this and think that pretty much everything that the petitioners have asked for is now happening, but there are some issues for the future with regard to guidance and the management framework that will need to be followed up, to ensure that we get substantial change.