Seòmar agus comataidhean

Yes, but I will finish my comments on Ross Greer’s amendments.

One thing that we have been talking about with the Ecocide (Scotland) Bill is the polluter pays principle. Substantial or significant damage could cost an awful lot of money to repair, and we would not want that to fall solely on the public purse. That is all in consideration.

I can offer you an opportunity to chat the issue over with me and my officials, given the context that you have just provided. The Parliament might not support Ms Lennon’s bill, but there is still a situation that needs to be addressed, which could be done through the 2014 act. As I said, initially, I offered reform of the 2014 act as a solution, because it could be amended to include ecocide penalties. We are where we are, but I get your point, so I am happy to meet to talk that through further with my officials.

At the moment, there is not a directly comparable offence in the directive that Ross Greer is talking about that works with the 2014 act. The best thing that I can offer is a discussion with Ross, in the context of where we are with the Ecocide (Scotland) Bill and this bill. Maybe we can bottom it out through conversation with my officials, so we can see how we could address potential gaps. The timing is difficult, given where we are with Ms Lennon’s bill as we do not know when stage 2 will happen or whether the NZET Committee will agree to the bill.

On amendment 307, in the name of Douglas Lumsden, the Government is committed to ensuring that there is effective access to justice on any matters—not just environmental matters. In November 2024, the Government made a statement on the effectiveness of environmental governance arrangements, following a consultation and a report on those matters, as required by section 41 of the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Continuity) (Scotland) Act 2021. As well as the effectiveness of governance arrangements, the 2021 act required the report to cover whether the law in Scotland on access to justice and environmental matters is effective and sufficient.

The report considered various issues that have been identified in evidence gathering about access to justice in environmental matters, particularly with respect to the cost of access to court. The report also discussed the concerns that have been raised by the Aarhus convention compliance committee with respect to the cost of access to justice in environmental matters. It set out a number of measures that had been taken with respect to those costs and further steps that were under consideration.

Having fully considered the views that were raised in the consultation, the Government’s statement was clear that we could continue to work to improve access to justice in environmental matters and that we would carry out further engagement with stakeholders on our approach to environmental rights. We have also taken meaningful steps to address concerns about the cost to communities’ access to justice in environmental matters. For example, court fees for Aarhus cases in the Court of Session have been removed, the Scottish Civil Justice Council has strengthened protective expenses orders to improve confidentiality, and it is consulting on expanding those protections to the sheriff court and private nuisance claims.

It should also be remembered that environmental governance arrangements established by the 2021 act, along with the creation of the independent body, Environmental Standards in Scotland, provide the opportunity to individuals and communities to raise concerns about the effective implementation of environmental law. ESS has a simple online form for raising environmental concerns, and it is an alternative route—rather than a complex legal challenge—to resolving a concern. In addition, it enables communities to participate effectively in environmental decision making and enforcement, as a key part of the licensing and consenting systems. It is always preferable for community concerns to be taken account of in the design of proposed development or activity.

Therefore, although we support the principle of seeking to address the cost of access to justice in instances when a community has exhausted other means and regards it as necessary, practical considerations with regard to funding and interaction with existing legal aid provisions must be addressed. I assure the committee that those issues form part of the Government’s long-term, on-going work on legal aid reform. That is not in my portfolio, but the Government’s position is set out in the legal aid reform discussion paper that was published in February this year, and in our response to the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee’s recommendation to consider regulation 15 of the Civil Legal Aid (Scotland) Regulations 2002, which was published on 24 November 2025.

On the basis that the Scottish Government is committed to ensuring that there is effective access to justice on environmental matters in Scotland, and of the work that has been done as a result of the recommendations of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee in relation to legal aid, I ask Mr Lumsden not to move amendment 307. If he does, I encourage members to vote against it.

Actually, I had finished—but it is up to you, convener.

Is that in relation to legal aid?

I am very sympathetic to any means of replacing commercial fertiliser, which has emissions associated with it and is very expensive, with organic materials that can be put straight on the soil. I absolutely understand that point. With Mr Carson and SEPA colleagues, I need to bottom out the reporting and monitoring requirements. We need to ensure that what we put on our soil is right, because it might end up in our rivers and other watercourses, so we need to have a mechanism for recording that. My door is open to the convener to talk about that particular issue because, if there are blocks to that being done, I would like to know about them.

I agree with your first point; in fact, I was ready to say that I totally agree with you, convener. It is important that we take evidence on all aspects of a bill throughout its passage, but we have seen, many times, amendments being lodged to various bills—not just this one—that would effectively add arms and legs to them. Nevertheless, I do respect members’ right to put forward the issues that have been raised with them by stakeholders.

I do not accept, however, that no progress has been made in protecting the marine environment. In fact, when I speak to many of the amendments in this group, I will explain what is taking place and where there is duplication. The point that I was making is that people might think that things are not happening fast enough, but adding reporting requirements and duplicating administrative burdens will not accelerate action; it will, in fact, do the opposite—that is the point that I was making.

Amendment 17, in the name of Sarah Boyack, would require Scottish ministers to publish a national marine strategy for protecting and restoring Scotland’s marine environment. Although I understand the intent behind the amendment, I am afraid that it is unnecessary, as it would lead to duplication and would risk undermining our existing legal framework. The Marine Strategy Regulations 2010 already require the development and implementation of a marine strategy to achieve and maintain good environmental status in marine waters. Scottish ministers are already subject to statutory obligations under those regulations, which are complemented by the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003 to provide integrated management of estuarine and coastal waters, including environmental objectives, pollution control and monitoring.

A national marine strategy under amendment 17 would be limited to the extent of the Scottish Parliament’s legislative competence, unlike the marine strategy under the 2010 regulations, which is not limited in that way. As a result, amendment 17 would complicate rather than enhance marine governance, diverting resources from delivery into administration through overlapping systems and additional and unnecessary reporting requirements. For those reasons, I ask Sarah Boyack—

I thank Maurice Golden for trying to help my party to deliver its objectives, not for the first time—wry smile.

The national marine plan will consider and react to consultation and feedback. It goes back to my point that I sense that quite a lot of the amendments are intended to prompt action because people do not see things happening fast enough. However, the vehicles required to take those actions already exist. I point to the fundamental issue that, if the amendment were to be agreed to, it would cause serious problems with the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010, because it would not dovetail with it.

I get the general point. I understand that people want action to be accelerated. I do, too, but difficult amendments will have the unintended consequence of taking away from that action. Data collection in the marine space takes time, which is probably more the reason for things not happening fast enough for people. It is not about a lack of relevant regulation or legislation; rather, it is about getting the data collection in place, getting many stakeholder views, and ensuring that we collectively move forward.

The debates on the amendments can draw out the point that people want to see faster action. My point is that quite a lot of the amendments would slow down progress, because they would add administrative burdens. We must ensure that we have robust vehicles in place, but not a crowded situation that has unintended consequences.

I understand the general point about people wanting to see accelerated action.

Sarah Boyack’s general point is relevant, and it is why we have gone out to consultation on all the national marine plans and strategies that we have put in place. It is why we have consistently spoken to stakeholders and given them the opportunity to put forward the fundamental issues that Sarah Boyack and a lot of other members have highlighted today.

As for whether this is the best place to accelerate action, though, I come back to the fundamental point that I made at the beginning. Just because people do not see things happening fast enough for them in those areas, that does not mean that we should add more administrative burdens or strategies that duplicate the work. None of the action that people want will be accelerated by that approach; in fact, it will be stifled by the red tape and the reporting requirements that people are asking for.

For those reasons, I ask Ms Boyack not to press amendment 17. If it is pressed, I urge members not to support it, given the comments that I have made.

Amendment 90, in the name of Ariane Burgess, seeks to establish a role for Environmental Standards Scotland in assessing and reporting on nature conservation MPA status and the achievement of conservation objectives, while amendment 91 would require that an additional layer of detail be included in Scottish ministers’ reports under section 103 of the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010. The amendments would place near-identical reporting requirements on two organisations with regard to nature conservation MPAs. Again, that would duplicate effort and come with significant costs.

Moreover, the requirements would apply only to nature conservation MPAs designated under the 2010 act when the fact is that Scottish ministers report more widely to produce a holistic view across our entire MPA network. Given the resource constraints that the committee has highlighted regarding marine science, I cannot support such a duplication of effort or the significant costs involved for the little benefit that either amendment would bring.

Furthermore, ESS currently does not have the capacity or capability to carry out that work, and agreeing to amendment 90 would create significant further financial and capacity implications for it. For those reasons, I ask the member not to move amendments 90 and 91. If she does, I urge the committee not to agree to them.

Sarah Boyack’s amendment 93 would require ecosystem recovery objectives to be stated when designating nature conservation MPAs. However, those sites are designed to conserve specific features, and wider ecosystem recovery is delivered through a three-pillar approach of species protection, site-based measures and wider seas policies. I also make it clear that amendment 93 effectively aims to pursue similar ecosystem policy outcomes that Parliament rejected in relation to highly protected marine areas, and it would create differences between future designations under the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 for inshore waters and the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 for offshore waters.

Sarah Boyack’s amendment 95 seeks to place a duty on ministers to review the scientific basis of the MPA selection guidelines every 12 months. That would involve a significant waste of resources, as the underlying science evolves very slowly—and not within a 12-month period, that is for sure. However, regardless of that, we have, in any event, already committed to reviewing those guidelines for carbon considerations under Scotland’s draft climate change plan, so the amendment is not necessary.

For those reasons, I ask the member not to move her amendments. If she does, I urge the committee not to vote for them.

Amendment 328, in the name of Sarah Boyack, makes it a requirement rather than an option for ministers, when considering whether to designate a nature conservation MPA, to have regard to how designation might contribute to climate mitigation. It also adds climate adaptation to that requirement. Giving equal weight to adaptation is a sensible approach that is in line with Scottish Government policy when protecting biodiversity, and both mitigation and adaptation are absolutely critical to our efforts to tackle the twin crises. Therefore, I am happy to agree with what I think is a sensible approach, and I urge the committee to support Ms Boyack when she moves amendment 328.

Amendment 92, in the name of Ariane Burgess, would require national and regional marine plans to contain fisheries management objectives and policies and would require fishing impacts to be considered in the preparation of those plans. Again, the amendment would create significant misalignment between terrestrial and marine planning, and it would fundamentally alter the core purpose of marine planning to cover the management of fisheries. Marine plans, like terrestrial planning, support sustainable development and not activity regulation, which is covered by sector-specific legislation that sits outside planning.

In practice, therefore, the amendment would not achieve effective management of fisheries. Indeed, it might disadvantage the domestic fleet, as any fisheries management policies introduced through Scottish marine plans would be limited in scope to inshore waters only and could be applied by Scottish ministers only to Scottish vessels, not the whole fleet. In addition, those objectives can already be achieved under—