Seòmar agus comataidhean

What do you think that it means? Is the concern that people would spend a lot of time measuring things and not acting? I do not quite understand that.

I want to go back to the issue of the topic areas that were effectively dropped by the Government throughout the consultation on and development of the bill. I want to get your reflections on why those specific areas were dropped. I guess you can argue that you can approach mainstreaming in different ways, and Rob Brooker has already said that there is an element of incorporating that into the issue of environmental conditions as well. However, I am interested in some of the other areas, such as investment. There is no target for investment. Why do you think that the Government has decided to draw the line under the targets for areas in the bill?

I would like to go into a little bit more detail in this area. You will be aware that section 3 of the bill spells out the purposes for which ministers might use powers to amend both the EIA legislation and the habitats regulations. As you have already alluded to, the purposes, which are covered in sections 3(a) to 3(f), are pretty extensive, and I want to ask about a couple of them.

The purpose that is set out in section 3(b), which you have already touched on, is

“to facilitate progress toward any statutory target relating to the environment, climate or biodiversity that applies in Scotland ... including, in particular ... net zero”.

I am interested in getting some more thoughts on that, particularly in relation to the way that the habitats regulations currently operate, because I understand that a public interest test can be applied in that regard. I am interested in your thoughts generally on that purpose and on how the habitats regulations interpret other existential environmental concerns, such as climate change, and how that public interest test works. Does it work, or is there a case for reform? Is there an inherent conflict with what Governments are trying to do in relation to climate and nature?

On the back of that, I am interested in your thoughts on just transition. There are sectors of the economy that will have to change substantially, such as scallop dredging inshore and livestock production in areas where, if there was herbivore reduction, we could see large-scale nature restoration and woodland creation. There are difficult economic issues about how those sectors will transition away from what they are currently doing and take the jobs and skills with them—with people and with communities.

Is there enough of a focus? I think that one of the subject areas for targets that was dropped was citizen engagement, which, for me, is about just transition. There are some thorny issues in here around action and what prevents action. I am interested in your perspectives, looking at environmental change as academics, on where you see that societal change process and how you facilitate that—or is that more of a subject for colleagues in other departments?

Okay, but this is not a bill about environmental governance; it does not touch on environmental courts or other routes to justice. There is nothing in the bill on that subject—there are no powers in it around that.

So, you have not had anything back from the minister. It is probably a question that we need to ask him when he appears before us.

I want to ask about the targets that are there. With regard to the marine environment, it is quite easy to make designations, but it is a very different thing to put in place the action to enforce them and to change behaviour, particularly in relation to fishing and similar operations. I am interested in your thoughts on the mismatch between making designations over a lot of Scotland but then not following through with action. Do we have the right to enforce that action on the back of designation, or are we just going to sit there looking at a whole lot of lines on the map and think, “Great, we’ve done it”? Beth Scott, do you want to come in on this? It is a pertinent issue with regard to the marine environment.

To ask the Scottish Government what pathways are available to obtain a child ADHD assessment for those who do not have a co-existing mental health disorder that meets the child and adolescent mental health services mental health criteria and who cannot afford a private assessment. (S6O-04620)

I accept the importance of a route to support neurodivergent young people in school that is not dependent on a diagnosis. However, will the minister accept that there are young people who urgently need a diagnosis? I raise the case of Archie from Kinross, whose parents have been knocked back three times by NHS Tayside for a CAMHS referral. They have spent thousands of pounds on a private assessment, and he now has a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder. Archie’s medical professionals believe that he would benefit from trial medication that would come with an ADHD diagnosis, but he would have to wait 10 years to receive a diagnosis in Tayside and he would probably be an adult before getting through the waiting list.

Will the minister acknowledge that there is a need for an urgent diagnostic pathway, particularly to support young people such as Archie and the thousands of people across Scotland who do not have a route to getting a diagnosis?

Yes, thanks.

Does that concern you?