Seòmar agus comataidhean

We have been waiting a long time for that action plan, and I will be delighted to see the outcome of it.

I have a constituent who has been institutionalised in multiple hospitals for the past six years because there is no other option for him. That has resulted in direct harm to him and distress for his mum. We have recently had news that appropriate facilities for him might be opening up in the region, but they are still under development. Until they are opened, he is likely to remain stuck in hospital. Does the minister agree that more must be done now to support people such as my constituent and the many other institutionalised people across Scotland to exercise their basic human rights to independent living and to be included in their local communities?

To ask the Scottish Government, further to the assessment by the Scottish Human Rights Commission that disabled and autistic people are not being supported to exercise their right to independent living, as enshrined in article 19 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, what discussions the social justice secretary has had with ministerial colleagues regarding action that can be taken to address this. (S6O-05216)

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

I did not, and that is why I have lodged amendments 1 to 3, which would delete part 2. Putting that proposal on the table enables the Government to think again, between stage 2 and stage 3, about the purpose of the bill and about where we need flexibility.

I do not think that giving ministers an indefinite power effectively to rewrite environmental assessment and habitats regulations provisions is appropriate for a bill that is primarily about tackling the nature emergency. In theory, that could allow the watering down of 40 years’ worth of EU environmental legislation, and it would ignore the Parliament’s desire to keep pace with European Union legislation. Given the evidence, I am struggling to see what the case is for that flexibility. We are still struggling to understand how sites are already designated under the habitats regulations, what the process is for that and why there is no flexibility to make adjustments that could assist with nature restoration.

I will listen to the arguments. I have heard the arguments from Alasdair Allan, and later I would like to hear the cabinet secretary’s reflections on where she is in relation to part 2, but I think that it is important to have the option that I have presented on the table. I will push it to the vote, because we need to know where we stand, at least at stage 2. We will see which amendments get passed in this group, but I would like there to be further discussion between stage 2 and stage 3, because I do not feel that we will have concluded our thinking on the matter by the end of our consideration today.

Amendment 26 picks up on the committee’s recommendation at stage 1 to revisit the sunset clause on the keeping-pace power in the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Continuity) (Scotland) Act 2021. That power is due to expire in 2027, but the Parliament has the option to extend it to 2031. This is an area where the ability to adjust habitats regulations and environmental assessment will be needed in the future if we are to remain broadly in line with the European legislation framework that has protected the environment across Europe—nature knows no boundaries.

The committee’s stage 1 report said:

“the Committee does not expect these suggestions to have significant policy implications. They would also give the Scottish Government the opportunity to undertake a thorough review of the operation of the EIA legislation and Habitats Regulations, as suggested by some stakeholders”,

but not to break out of the European policy framework. That is the context for amendment 26. Obviously, we cannot fix environmental legislation in a moment in time, but the stakeholders who gave evidence seem to believe that the existing system provides flexibility, and we need flexibility in relation to alignment with future EU laws. Amendment 26 would give that flexibility.

That is my starting point for discussion. Let us see where we get to.

Do you see that there is already a balance in the habitats regulations? There is the overriding public interest test, and it is possible to make decisions that strike a balance between climate and nature—indeed, Governments do so all the time. What is wrong with our current system?

I appreciate the comments made by Alasdair Allan and the amendments in this group that have been lodged by others to make sense of part 2 of the bill. As a committee, we have struggled to understand what the purpose of part 2 is. We had evidence that flexibility is required to enable the submission of PDF copies of environmental assessments, and we had debates and discussion about the need for flexibility around environmental assessments and habitats regulations in relation to renewable energy. It has unfolded, in the course of the evidence, that we already have that flexibility in both the environmental assessment and the habitats regulations regimes. There are improvements in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill that can facilitate the development of renewable electricity, which the cabinet secretary has reflected on. At this point, I am still struggling to understand what the point of part 2 is.

I have listened carefully to what the cabinet secretary said, and the belief that your amendments would effectively make part 2 watertight. I have my doubts, and I believe that a number of stakeholders will have their doubts about that, too.

I guess that what I am asking is, would you be prepared to have further conversations between stage 2 and stage 3 if your amendments go through? I should say that I am going to move my amendment to delete the whole section, because I think that it would be very easy to rebuild it in a way that is proportionate. Nevertheless, would you be open to conversation around potential unintended consequences that may emerge, even though you have attempted to bring in some safeguards through working with the cabinet secretary around the non-regression provision?

I am sorry to have cut across you, cabinet secretary. I was listening to what you said about regulation 9D and the need for perhaps more flexibility around site designations. If that is the only purpose of part 2 of the bill, why was that not brought forward in it? Why is the purpose of this so narrowly defined that we are only really talking about site designations and flexibility rather than the raft of other ways in which that section of the bill could be used to amend both habitats regulations and environmental impact assessments?

I hear the member’s point, but I am struck by the number of farmers who want to reduce livestock numbers and perhaps invest in rewilding and woodland creation as part of a business. I am concerned that the member is in effect telling farmers and land managers what business decisions he would like them to take, rather than allowing land managers themselves to make balanced decisions about where their businesses go and about the role of biodiversity and nature recovery in those productive businesses.

I am thinking about the situation in Mull, where a number of farm businesses have benefited from the white-tailed eagle’s reintroduction. The island has had a huge amount of wildlife tourism, which has enabled some farmers to diversify and offer experiences on their farm, and more tourists have come in as a result. Economic impact studies have shown that millions of pounds have come into the Mull economy partly as a result of the white-tailed eagle’s reintroduction.

How would the compensation scheme deal with the benefit that the white-tailed eagle has brought to Mull? I declare an interest as species champion for the white-tailed eagle.