Seòmar agus comataidhean

The future of Grangemouth has always been linked to Mossmorran, and for decades they have shared a common workforce. A few weeks ago, the Deputy First Minister came to the chamber and talked about expanding the Grangemouth investment task force to include Mossmorran as a potential location for projects. Can the cabinet secretary give members an update on that?

In addition, given that it seems that a number of projects have now been selected, is it too late—I hope not—to incorporate Mossmorran into the thinking around the work of that task force and could consideration be given to successful projects that can include both sites?

I know that this might be a sensitive area, given history, but have there been any interministerial discussions about securing an exemption to the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020? That has been done successfully before, particularly with single-use vapes, and the provision under section 140 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 is available, if everybody is happy with that. Obviously, getting everybody happy in the UK is the challenge.

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

I am trying to understand that argument. You are, in effect, saying that we should have a national marine plan with no reference to fisheries in it. I do not quite understand that. Surely fisheries management is, by its very nature, spatial, and therefore a spatial interpretation of fisheries management and a relationship to a plan alongside other activities, including activities that use the seabed, such as renewables and fish farming, would be quite a rational approach. I appreciate the distinction between onshore and offshore, but surely a marine plan needs to include marine activities, among which fisheries are an important spatial form of management.

In the words of Douglas Lumsden, it has been a monster mega stage 2—[Laughter.]—so I will keep my comments short.

I am seeking to amend the title of the bill to reflect the urgency of the nature crisis and the collective will of the Parliament to act to address it. Amendment 33 would rename the bill to the “Nature Emergency (Scotland) Bill”. I draw the committee’s attention to the fact that the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee scrutinised the Scottish biodiversity strategy and made the recommendation to the Government—I do not know whether the recommendation was picked up—that the strategy should be renamed “Scotland’s Nature Emergency Strategy” to underline the seriousness of the issue, and the intent for what the strategy should be achieving and the action that it should be driving.

The vision and purpose of the bill is important. As we have explored in earlier debates about part 2, the focus must be on moving forward on restoring nature. We are in a nature emergency, and we should reflect that in the title of the bill.

I move amendment 33.

I ask Sarah Boyack to reflect on the fact that, in the previous session of Parliament, a proposed fisheries management bill was in the programme for government but it was never delivered. We have been waiting a very long time to unpack the issues, and trying to unpack an entire reform of fisheries management in 45 minutes or an hour is very challenging work for everybody.

I will not press amendment 33, and I will reflect on the cabinet secretary’s comments. As we move to the debates at stage 3, it would be good to hear “nature emergency” reflected in the Government’s intent.

Amendment 33, by agreement, withdrawn.

Section 38 agreed to.

Long title agreed to.

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

Northern Ireland is one of the four nations. It has clearly set the tone.

I will not press amendment 32 today, but I think that consideration needs to be given to how an appropriate consensus position could be reached ahead of stage 3.

I will press amendment 76. The Scottish Wildlife Trust has been doing a huge amount of work over many years on nature networks. Its concern, and the concern of many stakeholders, is that, although nature networks are referred to in the Scottish biodiversity strategy and are part of the workstream, they are not central to it. There would be benefit in drawing out the work that is being done to support nature networks across Scotland by having specific reporting on that.

I do not see nature networks as being in competition with other land uses; I see them as being integral to all land uses, because every type of land use will have corridors through which nature can pass. Land that is used for agriculture has hedgerows and other networks within it. The same is true of the urban landscape. Our parks and cycle lanes all form part of nature networks, so it is not something that can be considered to one side—it should be integral to all land uses.

In some parts of Government, to an extent, I think that there is perhaps a little bit of a misunderstanding about the central importance of nature networks and the need to integrate them into all forms of land use.

For those reasons, I will press amendment 76. I accept the cabinet secretary’s point that nature networks are being considered, but I do not think that they are a central consideration, as needs to be the case.