Seòmar agus comataidhean

You are going to have to explain that to me—I have not seen that.

I am not telling you anything that you do not know, but the Scottish Government’s £25 million just transition fund for Grangemouth is in place to support the progression of those projects, as well as ancillary work around the just transition and skills interventions in the area. As part of the Falkirk and Grangemouth growth deal, £50 million has been given for work in the wider area. Jan Robertson will be able to give the specifics of the detail on private finance.

We have an offer, because we have a fund that is in place to support some of the development that is needed to make such proposals commercial. That bridging funding is needed for the projects to get to the commerciality point.

It depends on which waters we are talking about.

We have responsibilities for inshore waters.

Yes, but, again, the issue is to do with the interoperability of the two regimes. At the moment, we are in a bit of a sweet spot with regard to alignment, because of the UK Government’s ambitions in that area. In addition, both Parliaments have net zero targets—ours is 2045 and the UK’s is 2050—so there has to be interoperability when it comes to how we achieve those.

Certain elements of what Mercedes Villalba talks about, such as the release of non-native game birds, are not covered in the bill. We wanted to keep the targets and the habitats regulations as the main part of the bill, and we do not have any plans to do anything on the release of non-native game birds. However, the target topics allow us the capacity to deal with invasive non-native species more generally, both at the moment and in the future, as the targets are set.

The bill is not prescriptive to that level of detail on actions. It provides the ability to set targets, which can be quite broad in nature and under which actions can sit. Invasive non-native species will have an impact on the health of a habitat or an ecosystem. That is why the PAG advised us to have those broad target topics. What you ask about is not ruled out; it is just not specified in the legislation.

The Orkney situation concerns the stoat population. Let me take that away and look at it.

The “Scottish Biodiversity Strategy Delivery Plan 2024-2030” includes a duty to

“implement the Scottish Plan for Invasive Non-Native Species ... Surveillance, Prevention and Control, and secure wider support measures to enable ... removal at scale.”

Therefore, that duty already exists. I am aware of the Orkney issue, but I need to take that away and look at whether it needs to be addressed in the bill or whether we already have the legal mechanisms to do that.

First, biodiversity loss and climate change are inextricably linked and we must have protections and mitigations for them both. In every situation, decisions have to be made that take into account various pieces of evidence on environmental impact. The consent application processes are robust for offshore and onshore wind, but I think that we will be making them even more robust, particularly when there are consultations about things such as community engagement and the benefits that are associated with developments. Those consultations will become stronger as time goes on, because we need to be able to see that developments of any sort will not damage the environment and also that they put things back into the environment. For example, developers have taken action to restore peatland, and offshore wind developers are helping us with data collection on seabirds and fish species. Much of that is voluntary at the moment, but much more will become mandatory in that space—that is the trajectory.

One of the interesting things in relation to my portfolio is the restriction on how money that is associated with developments can be used for nature restoration. As a hypothetical example, let us say that funding has come from a wind farm as a result of its impact on the seabed. I cannot necessarily use that money for other mitigations in nature that would have a material impact on sea health, so it is very restrictive. However, things are adapting and changing, and I think that they are getting stronger.

You mentioned energy, so I will talk about what is happening in that space. The Scottish ministers have the power to amend the Habitats (Scotland) Regulations 1994 within the parameters that are set out in the UK Energy Act 2003 in respect of offshore wind activities only. However, that power does not allow for amendments to the regulations in respect of emerging technologies. A number of colleagues who represent the islands are at the committee today, including those who represent the Orkney Islands. The UK legislation does not allow for any flexibility with respect to the roll-out of our nascent wind and tidal energy technologies. That is because those technologies are not yet on the horizon for the UK Government—they are being developed in Orkney and in the waters off the Highlands of Scotland. We are aiming to plug a gap and give parity to other nascent technologies so that we can have flexibility. Rather than having flexibility in respect of one power generation sector, it is agnostic in respect of the means of power generation.

As a particular example, let us take wave technology. Scotland could lead on that once it becomes commercially viable, so I would not want to stymie it at all. At the same time, the protections in the bill, which are robust, will ensure that flexibility is not given for anyone to do anything that they want in our marine environment. We have to do something to reduce our impact on climate change, which is the biggest impact to our biodiversity.

NatureScot said:

“We support changes. It does not make a lot of sense to us to have legislation that we cannot easily amend. Giving the power to change legislation in response to changing technologies, climate change and so on seems sensible to us.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, 28 May 2025; c 38.]

NatureScot is supportive of the power.

Our legal assessment is that we do not have the flexibility to be responsive enough to the changes that climate change, in particular, will cause to happen in our natural environment. We would not be putting the provision in—I would not be putting it in—if we had the ability through guidance to meet those objectives. This change and this part of the bill are there to allow us the flexibility to be adaptive and agile in a dynamic situation.

Unless there is any other legal advice that I can get from Stewart Cunningham on this, I am convinced that the power needs to be included in order to enhance biodiversity and allow us to be responsive to what is a literally changeable environment, particularly as a result of climate change. Having this bespoke provision for Scotland in the bill will give us that ability, which we do not currently have.

Are you suggesting that Scotland should have responsibility for offshore as well as inshore waters?