Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is about a very small area, but the provisions in part 2 of the bill are extremely wide and give ministers the power to gut the habitats regulations should they choose to do so. Nevertheless, I will focus on that very specific example. My understanding is—and the answers that we got from NatureScot the other week suggest—that it is possible to change the designation to effectively redesignate sites if that is required. Under regulation 9D of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c) (EU Exit) (Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations 2019, there is a duty on the Scottish ministers to “adapt” the site network.

I appreciate Stewart Cunningham’s comment that your interpretation is that you cannot legally do that. However, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has just published guidance to change regulations to enable site boundaries and features to be amended. Why is DEFRA wrong and why are you right?

I want to return to the subject of offshore wind. I think that the Government has said that its offshore wind ambitions are not achievable in the current system. I might have asked you a similar question when you gave evidence to the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee on the legislative consent memorandum for the United Kingdom Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which will give the Scottish ministers some flexibility in relation to powers under the Electricity Act 1989.

I have a similar question on the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill. How will you use the powers under part 2 of the bill to provide the flexibility that is needed, which is particularly important for offshore wind transmission infrastructure? I think that that is the point that was made in relation to the UK bill. When you spoke about the UK bill at the NZET Committee, I think that you said that the intention would not be to change the environmental assessment regime, although I might have picked that up wrongly.

I think that that has been stated by the Government, in the context of the current system.

It is a little bit concerning to hear at stage 1 that there is an on-going conversation with DEFRA about the application of the law, but we will have several months over the summer to see what situation emerges.

We took evidence from the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, which is responsible for nature conservation on a four-nations basis. Its view is that we should amend these powers “with very great caution” and that we would make wholesale changes “at our peril”. There is clearly concern among agencies and those who are monitoring the state of nature in this country about any powers in this section.

I will leave it there just now, but that is food for thought.

I was wondering whether there is precedent for having an environmental regulator as an adviser when it ultimately holds power over regulation. Is that something that NatureScot is already doing?

Ms Wilson described NatureScot as having a wider advisory role, but this is quite specific. It is about advising in a particular area on deer management plans, while also having a regulatory function. Is there precedent for how NatureScot and other environmental regulators have managed those two responsibilities? How have they dealt with the perception that there might be a conflict of interest?

It has been put to us that section 8 powers were not used in the past because using them would require a high burden of proof, which could be challenged through judicial review. For many years, there has been the suspicion that there has been an inability to issue a robust section 8 notice in a way that would not be legally challenged on the basis of the evidence. Do you think that the bill changes that, particularly with the new grounds for nature restoration? Does that provide more legal certainty now?

What we are now seeing on a daily and hourly basis coming from Gaza is evidence of war crimes being committed by members of the Israel Defense Forces. Given that the Metropolitan Police’s war crimes unit has received a dossier of evidence that accuses 10 British citizens of committing war crimes, including the targeted killing of civilians and aid workers, what action can the Scottish Government take to ensure that the provisions of the 2001 act are followed through and ensure the safety of our communities when we potentially face war criminals living among us?

To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on using the powers outlined in the International Criminal Court (Scotland) Act 2001 to prosecute nationals and residents of the United Kingdom residing in Scotland who have committed war crimes. (S6O-04749)

We will come on to Mr Lumsden’s amendments later in the meeting, when I know that his focus will be explicitly on electricity infrastructure. The point that he makes is why defining the public interest in the bill is important. There is a wider public interest in relation to national infrastructure and there is a community interest in that as well. However, it is a mistake to simply have no definition of “public interest” in the bill. The point that he makes about there being little legal precedent for community interest is perhaps well made, and I am sure that we will come on to his particular interest later in the meeting.

I briefly turn to other amendments in the group. Amendment 339 from Rhoda Grant and amendment 174 from Mercedes Villalba also seek to include public interest considerations in the bill, specifically for LMPs and the transfer of large landholdings. The Greens support those amendments in principle and do not have a problem with them, although we believe that amendment 310 provides a more holistic, joined-up approach to ensure that the public interest will underpin all obligations in the legislation.

Amendments 150 and 151 from Michael Matheson would also introduce a public interest consideration for lotting decisions—I will be happy to support those.

Tim Eagle’s amendments seem to work against the bill’s direction of travel, which is fundamentally about democratising Scotland’s land ownership. I am sure that we will have lots of conversations with Mr Eagle later on about his amendments. The direction of travel in those amendments is not one that the Greens will support.

Similarly, Mr Lumsden’s amendment 364 and his amendments in later groups would seem to set limitations on land being used for the purpose of upgrading our energy system and infrastructure. I do not know whether that is just about wind farms and one type of energy infrastructure, or whether there is also concern about small modular nuclear reactors, fracking infrastructure, carbon capture and storage facilities, Peterhead 2 or any other sorts of energy infrastructure. It is clearly in the national public interest to deliver the cheaper and cleaner energy that households need, so the Greens will not support those amendments.

I will close my opening comments there and wait to hear from other members who will move amendments and contribute to the debate.

I move amendment 310.

I am interested in the point about the case law that has come through the courts in relation to defining the public interest. Will you say more about what that case law has shown in relation to the legality of a public interest test?