Seòmar agus comataidhean

Clauses 2 to 10 are the ones with which we have issues.

I am just double checking that I have got that right. It is part 2, clauses 2 to 10.

A general point is that, because we cannot foresee what might happen if we did not have consent, or if we were not even merely consulted—again, I think that “consult” is a very woolly term, and we not should sign up to being consulted; we should have consent—we could not, case by case, figure out the consequences that might arise in whatever scenario there was. Without having consent, Parliament would not have the ability to scrutinise the consequences of a decision that was being made in which we were not included.

At present, clause 9 provides the power for the secretary of state to make regulations in relation to genetic resources, including benefit sharing, enforcement and conflict avoidance. That may apply to devolved matters, and there is currently no requirement in the bill to secure the consent of Scottish ministers for the secretary of state to act in those areas that are within devolved competence.

The fix would be to put in the bill a provision that the secretary of state would seek the consent of the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament. I have had a meeting with the UK minister to outline why that is so important.

Will that impact on a lot of our activities? No, but the fundamental bedrock is to ensure that the UK Government does not act in a way that overrides devolved competence, so that is what we are seeking.

My Scottish Government legal colleague has asked to come in.

That is true. We are not a signatory because we are not a nation state. We support the aims of the BBNJ agreement and are working hard with the UK Government to support ratification, but your fundamental point is absolutely correct. I was not at the negotiations on the BBNJ. We do not have a seat at the table of the conference of the parties. We rely on the UK Government to give us information about how it is negotiating and what is it is negotiating about.

We have no issues with the BBNJ agreement, but we have to make sure that, when it is enacted by the UK Government, we have consent in relation to the devolved areas in which we have an interest. That is the least that we should expect.

That is why it is important that the Scottish Government has a presence at any conference of the parties, wherever that might be. Before the UK Government goes to negotiate at a COP—at COP30 last month, for example—it will give us an indication of how it is negotiating. When you are at COP, the hope is that you are at least able to find out from officials on the UK ministerial team how the negotiations are going.

It is not very official and not very concrete, unfortunately. We do not have a particular constitutional role in the UK negotiations. However, the Northern Ireland Executive and the Welsh and Scottish Governments usually attend the conference of the parties, and we all have meetings with the UK Government ahead of attendance. I would prefer it if those discussions with the UK Government were formalised.

As it stands, the UK Government makes decisions as to what it can sign up to on behalf of the whole UK. I would like the Welsh and Scottish Governments and the Northern Ireland Executive to be more involved in those agreements but, as it stands, they are not. How much the devolved nations are included also depends on the flavour of the UK Government. Ahead of COP30 in Brazil, we had a certain amount of sight on the UK’s negotiations, and we expect that respect between the devolved Governments and the UK Government to continue.

The fundamental problem with the BBNJ bill is that, when it was put together, there was a complicated mix. We heard about rocket launches, carbon capture and storage and all sorts of things that may or may not happen in those areas beyond jurisdiction. It is a complicated mix of devolved and reserved impacts. That is why it is important that, as we agree to the BBNJ bill and there is legislative consent, we are absolutely satisfied as a Parliament and as a Government that we will not have situations in which future secretaries of state could make decisions on what happens in the areas that affect devolved competence.

I suppose that the provision of area-based management tools, such as MPAs, would be a component of that. That is why it is so important that we have consent.

I do not know whether I can answer the question about HPMAs, but, as Douglas Lumsden has pointed out, fisheries management tools are the domain of the Scottish Government and it is for the Scottish Parliament to scrutinise what is happening in that area. I do not think that that potential scenario is likely to happen.

In effect, marine protection is a power that sits with the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government, so we would not want to see a UK Government minister having powers over marine protection.

That is why it is important that the Scottish Government has a presence at any conference of the parties, wherever that might be. Before the UK Government goes to negotiate at a COP—at COP30 last month, for example—it will give us an indication of how it is negotiating. When you are at COP, the hope is that you are at least able to find out from officials on the UK ministerial team how the negotiations are going.

It is not very official and not very concrete, unfortunately. We do not have a particular constitutional role in the UK negotiations. However, the Northern Ireland Executive and the Welsh and Scottish Governments usually attend the conference of the parties, and we all have meetings with the UK Government ahead of attendance. I would prefer it if those discussions with the UK Government were formalised.

As it stands, the UK Government makes decisions as to what it can sign up to on behalf of the whole UK. I would like the Welsh and Scottish Governments and the Northern Ireland Executive to be more involved in those agreements but, as it stands, they are not. How much the devolved nations are included also depends on the flavour of the UK Government. Ahead of COP30 in Brazil, we had a certain amount of sight on the UK’s negotiations, and we expect that respect between the devolved Governments and the UK Government to continue.

The fundamental problem with the BBNJ bill is that, when it was put together, there was a complicated mix. We heard about rocket launches, carbon capture and storage and all sorts of things that may or may not happen in those areas beyond jurisdiction. It is a complicated mix of devolved and reserved impacts. That is why it is important that, as we agree to the BBNJ bill and there is legislative consent, we are absolutely satisfied as a Parliament and as a Government that we will not have situations in which future secretaries of state could make decisions on what happens in the areas that affect devolved competence.

I suppose that the provision of area-based management tools, such as MPAs, would be a component of that. That is why it is so important that we have consent.

I do not know whether I can answer the question about HPMAs, but, as Douglas Lumsden has pointed out, fisheries management tools are the domain of the Scottish Government and it is for the Scottish Parliament to scrutinise what is happening in that area. I do not think that that potential scenario is likely to happen.

In effect, marine protection is a power that sits with the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government, so we would not want to see a UK Government minister having powers over marine protection.

I do not see the rationale for singling out that particular type of land as opposed to other types of land, given that it is already included in the biodiversity strategy. From a policy perspective, I do not think that there is a clear rationale for undertaking a review that solely concentrates on moorland. It goes back to what I said about Ariane Burgess’s amendments and the many other amendments that ask for reviews and reports. The resources that would be associated with all that would take resources away from action.

Rachael Hamilton says that she wants to help the Government, but we could have had a conversation about the amendment before stage 2, instead of its being played out here. I could then have explained all my rationale in relation to it, and we could have saved ourselves from this. I am someone who has to make sure that all the Government bodies under my remit, which have to manage their resources and capacity to do things, are not overstretched by onerous reports and reviews being added to their remit when such work would take away from the action that we all want. So many pieces of legislation are inserting reviews and reports that it is genuinely getting to the point of becoming an encumbrance. On many occasions, I question whether such work adds to the action that we all want. For those reasons, I encourage members not to support amendment 288.

Turning to Ariane Burgess’s amendment 303, although I recognise that effective management of protected areas is essential in tackling the biodiversity crisis, I am not persuaded that nature conservation orders and land management orders are the best way to tackle long-term deterioration of sites that is caused by under or overgrazing or the spread of invasive non-native species. I am conscious of the complexity of the current legal framework that governs protected areas and nature conservation in general.

I would be wary of adding additional complexity, given the considerable risk of unintended consequences that that could bring. For example, amendment 303 inserts a definition of damage into section 23 of the 2004 act, which deals with nature conservation orders. It is unclear what the purpose of that definition is, as the term is not otherwise reflected in section 23 of the act.

The purpose of nature conservation orders is to prohibit operations on land, to ensure the conservation of any natural feature of the land that ministers consider to be of special interest. Changing that purpose so that orders could require active management of the land is not what the orders were intended or designed to do.

Land management orders can be applied to land that forms part of an SSSI or is contiguous to that land. Orders are already able to set out operations that should be carried out on the land for the purposes of conserving, restoring or otherwise enhancing the natural features of the land. Amendment 303 is unnecessary, because there is already provision in place. Land management orders can already be made to tackle issues such as undergrazing or overgrazing, or invasive non-native species. For those reasons I encourage members not to support amendment 303.

Amendment 334, in the name of Rachael Hamilton, seeks to amend the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 by inserting a new section 11A that would create an absolute prohibition on energy developments within sites of special scientific interest. The amendment appears to have the intention of providing enhanced protection for SSSIs by preventing any energy infrastructure, including renewable energy installations, from being constructed within their boundaries. That is not legally competent, and it therefore would not achieve its express purposes. The generation, transmission, distribution and supply of electricity are reserved to the UK Government under the Scotland Act 1998. The 1998 act is the very foundation of the Parliament, and I would expect everyone to have a working knowledge of it.