Chamber and committees

You go first.

I have a follow-up question. I see that Glasgow City Council has 37 species action plans, and I know that it is trying to expand its nature networks, but I do not know whether anyone is measuring the impact of those on biodiversity. Clearly, you would expect the impact to be positive, but is anyone measuring the impact using an agreed methodology?

I am going to talk about some of the blobs in my local area. We know that local authorities are tasked with expanding and enhancing nature networks by 2030, and there is a specific commitment for urban areas, which is obviously of interest to me as the MSP for Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn. I note that Glasgow is seeking to designate a further 250 hectares of nature reserve within the city. I will talk about two areas in particular, because they are in my constituency. First, the project at Hamiltonhill clay pits has been transformational for the local area, but was also carried out in partnership with wider urban regeneration, which is something that I want to raise with you. Secondly, Cadder Woods, which is also on the Forth and Clyde canal, was a dumping ground for old cars and was used for fly-tipping, but it has real biodiversity merit, as well as potentially being an asset for the local community.

Bruce Wilson and Dr Brown might be best placed to respond to these issues. The nature network commitment can have a dual purpose by boosting biodiversity, in the way that Mr Wilson was talking about, and by enhancing the local environment for communities. It is not about nature being over there; it is about having corridors for communities to enable them to enjoy the environment. How do we achieve that dual purpose in the strategy? More importantly, how can we monitor to make sure that the strategy is delivered and is not just about the blobs on the map that Mr Wilson talked about?

After I have asked my questions, I might ask you, convener, to work out who will answer, because that is challenging when I am not in the room.

I have been listening carefully to the evidence that we have received. A lot of this is process driven, but the delivery plan needs to identify meaningful and appropriate actions across key sectors, groups and regulatory areas. I am keen to know where the witnesses believe that that is contained in the draft delivery plan or what more could be done to make sure that it exists in the plan.

The key areas that I am thinking of are fishing, aquaculture, plastics and chemicals, and regional and community coastal partnerships. I acknowledge that, according to the Scottish Parliament information centre, there appear to be no actions in the delivery plan on marine renewables.

What is in the plan that can deliver identifiable, meaningful and appropriate action across key sectors? I want to be clear about what could work well and where the gaps are.

No, convener. That was genuinely helpful. I am conscious that this is a draft delivery plan and that witnesses will want to shape what the final delivery plan looks like. We are therefore hearing about things that are not in the plan and about mapping exercises and other matters. However, it is important for the committee to hear about what in the draft plan is welcome and could make meaningful change. We have got some of that, so I will not come back in.

Before the next witness comes in, I will check something. I do not have in-depth experience on the subject. Your response was quite process driven and was about mapping what should be in the plan. My question was about what is identifiable in the plan and what might be beneficial and achievable. I get that witnesses think that some things should be removed from the plan and others put in and that things need to be pulled together. I am talking in general terms when I ask the question. Is there anything identifiable in the plan that is of value and would be beneficial?

That is helpful. The member has mentioned SCOSS a lot, and I understand why he would do that. SCOSS also considers itself to be fiercely independent of the Government.

In my earlier line of questioning, I tried to separate a non-statutory advisory group that would advise Government on what the new benefit should look like from a statutory body that would make recommendations to Government about which groups, individuals and conditions would qualify for the benefit. One suggestion that we heard was that, although SCOSS does not have the expertise to do that, a sub-group of SCOSS could have that expertise. That would have the advantage of not requiring that a new body be set up. That group would be statutory and independent, but it might be less costly. Did you consider that?

Mr Griffin, I know that there is frustration over the timing of when the Scottish Government will bring forward its detailed proposals. I understand and appreciate that. However, we need to get it right.

Last week, at committee, Dr Sally Witcher, the former head of the Scottish Commission on Social Security, said, in relation to going ahead now with proposals such as your own that

“we will not know what expertise we will need to scrutinise”

any new benefit that is put in place

“and ensure that it is designed and delivered as effectively as possible.”——[Official Report, Social Justice and Social Security Committee, 30 November 2023; c 32.]

I think that Dr Witcher was suggesting—I hope that I am not taking her comment out of context; I do not think that I am—that the timing was too early in relation to going now with such a proposal.

Secondly, I would like your reflections in order to help the committee’s deliberations in coming to its conclusions. The cabinet secretary indicated that there would be an advisory panel in place with experts on it to advise on what any new benefit entitlement would look like. As you will see, the committee is wrestling with whether or not that is needed at this time.

That was not the focus of my question. Other members will ask about whether we can address IIAC’s fundamental flaws without changing the eligibility criteria; that is for others to explore. I am interested in the preventative role. I am slightly conflicted, not in relation to the need for a preventative role, but about whether this is the right bill at the right time. However, the bill includes lots of really good things, which I do not think should be lost.

One issue that has come up is the gap that exists with regard to granular data at workplace level. I do not think that the work that the Health and Safety Executive does is sufficient in that regard. Reporting under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 2013 is not the only way in which such data can be gathered. There is a gap there, and it is an area where devolved and reserved responsibilities overlap. Of course, trade unions are important, as are occupational health and others.

The committee will have to make recommendations. The essence of my point is that I do not want those recommendations to be bound by constitutional debates. If the evidence suggested that the preventative role should be exercised in relation to aspects of employment law or health and safety law, would any expert body feel empowered to make recommendations on reserved matters? I would like to know your views on that. For completeness, I would also like to know whether you think that the committee should recommend that employment law and health and safety law should simply be devolved to this Parliament, because that would mean that all those powers would sit in one place.

It is good that you have agreed that it would be helpful for the bill if employment law were devolved to this Parliament. For completeness, can I check what your view is on the devolution of health and safety law?