Seòmar agus comataidhean

I want to finish my point first.

Specifically in recognition of those concerns, I have worked with Dr Allan on amendments that will strengthen the provisions. We have tested some of those amendments with ENGOs. That is why I mentioned Scottish Environment LINK’s comments in that regard.

At stage 1, I set out why we included part 2, which was to address some of the gaps that had been left in the legislation as a result of EU exit. We need to fill in those gaps as much as possible, because they leave us with an inability to adapt to any impacts or changes to particular areas as a result of climate change—or anything—in a fleet-of-foot manner. There might be times when ministers have to act very quickly to align with evolving global climate and biodiversity standards.

There are various examples. On the biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction agreement, we have to rely on the UK Government to provide a power for Scottish ministers to amend our EIA regulations. I would much rather that that was already within the Scottish Government’s competence than our having to wait on another Government to give us the powers.

The loophole has been created as a result of EU exit. That was the main reason for part 2 of the bill, and the main concerns about part 2 were about non-regression rather than the existence of that part. I certainly did not hear anything compelling, outwith what politicians were saying, to suggest that it should be removed wholesale. The concerns that I heard—my adviser and I had discussions with Scottish Environment LINK—were about non-regression and the potential for the lack of parliamentary scrutiny if the affirmative procedure was not required for substantive changes.

I do not agree with the phraseology of sledgehammers and nuts. I have explained the reasoning behind the provisions in part 2, which was to do with closing the gap that was caused by EU exit and giving Scottish ministers the power to act in an adaptive and swift way, should they have to, without waiting for an agreement with the UK Government. It has not, and has never been, the policy of this Government to dismantle Scotland’s environmental protections, but one area on which I agree with members is that, if we did not include safeguards, we would leave that possibility open to future Governments. Convener, you and I are not going to agree on this, because, as you made very clear at stage 1, you have already made up your mind that you want part 2 to be removed—the same goes for Mark Ruskell.

I have worked with Alasdair Allan and Emma Harper to allay stakeholders’ concerns so that, we hope, people will be able to support part 2 in its entirety, as amended. Part 2 introduces the bespoke power to modify the 1994 habitats regulations and legislation on the environmental impact assessment regime. It plugs the legislative gap that exists as a result of EU exit. The power is essential to ensure that we continue to meet our environmental obligations in a way that is fit for purpose, particularly in the context of net zero and nature restoration ambitions.

I understand that, as drafted, part 2 does not include safeguards. Having worked with Dr Allan and Emma Harper, I am confident that we have allayed those concerns and that, if their amendments are agreed to, we will have a much stronger part 2 that will protect against future Governments being able to abuse the provisions. If the amendments are agreed to, future Governments will simply not be able to do that.

I recognise that amendment 7 was lodged due to the concerns that we have heard from other committee members, and from stakeholders in their evidence, about the scope of the proposed powers to modify the environmental impact assessment legislation and habitats regulations. I recognise the concerns, but I cannot support amendment 7, because there is already a duty on Scottish ministers to manage and, where necessary, adapt the UK site network, as is specified in regulation 9D of the habitats regulations. That is where regulation 9D is strong. Therefore, when considering the use of the power to amend the habitats regulations, ministers must already have regard to regulation 9D and any potential implications for the UK site network. I ask the member not to move amendment 7, failing which, I ask the committee to reject it.

Amendment 8 would introduce the affirmative procedure to cover the power provided in part 2. I absolutely recognise the concerns that were raised in the stage 1 debate about the lack of clarity as to when the affirmative procedure should apply. I have always been clear that, if the power were to be used to make significant changes, the affirmative procedure should apply. Ms Boyack’s amendment 8 reflects the desire for stronger safeguards, but I would argue that a blanket requirement for the affirmative procedure is not proportionate and would not be an efficient use of the public resource of the Parliament’s time, as that would also cover all the minor and technical changes that might be made over time.

There is a judgment call to be made. Emma Harper’s amendment 57 offers a more balanced approach, but both amendments have the affirmative procedure in their sights; it is just a case of whether the committee wants to have the affirmative procedure for every minor and technical amendment that we might make. It is the committee’s judgment call.

Sarah Boyack has set out why the affirmative procedure is extremely important for the parliamentary scrutiny of anything that future ministers might want to do that entails substantive changes. That is proportionate.

Of course, if we were to have affirmative procedures for all the minor and technical things that might be put through, which do not entail particular policy or material changes, that would be disproportionate. That is why I am supportive of what Emma Harper came to discuss with me.

I will move on and talk about the other amendments.

There is a risk that that might create pressure to protect other introduced species. The key point that Rachael Hamilton is missing is that that could weaken Scotland’s invasive species management framework, when we are all aware of the impact that non-native invasive species can have on our indigenous and native wildlife. It could also complicate future decisions on species control and erode consistency in biodiversity policy, which could have a really serious effect. I believe that local management agreements are a far better and more flexible alternative to rigid statutory protection in the particular case that Rachael Hamilton raises.

Finally—as everyone will be pleased to hear—on amendments 291 to 293, Scotland already invests heavily in red squirrel conservation through the Scottish squirrel group. That programme delivers grey squirrel control, squirrel pox monitoring, habitat restoration and community engagement, and is supported by more than £1 million from the nature restoration fund. There is a risk that additional statutory reviews and awareness campaigns would duplicate that work, create unnecessary costs and divert resources away from practical action that I think we all agree is absolutely necessary.

I do not think that any of us wants to see any reduction in funding for that practical action in order to pay for bureaucratic exercises when measures are already available.

I will take Rachael Hamilton’s intervention now.

I do not think that you are.

Mr Fairlie’s amendment speaks for itself and members can judge whether to support it. I have laid out the reasoning for the amendment. As all ministers do when we are making legislation, Mr Fairlie consulted Scottish Government legal advisers. He lodged the amendment. I stand by that; there is collective responsibility.

My fellow bill ministers and I are aware of the concerns that have been raised about the release of non-native game birds, and we understand the intention behind amendment 40. However, I must be clear that, as drafted, the amendment will have no effect. It will not revive the provisions that were removed by the Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Act 2011. I therefore encourage the committee to reject amendment 40.

Amendment 41, in the name of Mark Ruskell, recognises the desire to promote biodiversity to new development across Scotland. I am sympathetic to that, as somebody who cares very much about the migrant population of swifts that comes to Aberdeenshire every year. I encourage members to visit Portsoy, which has a cliff face with a number of holes that the swifts can be seen going into and out of, feeding their young. It is a natural wonder.

However, amendment 41 is not necessary. Scottish ministers already have powers to introduce regulation to effect such change. Securing positive effects for biodiversity is already one of the six statutory outcomes in national planning framework 4, which was published in 2023. Relevant policies are underpinned by NatureScot guidance, which include recommended measures that new development can take to enhance biodiversity, such as by providing homes for small birds.

We must, however, take into account the primary aims of building regulations, which focus on health and safety and building performance. The proposed change could affect factors that need detailed consideration. Officials have indicated that the matter could be considered as part of a future review of standard 7.1 of the building regulations. Given the importance of following due process on matters that concern the design and fabric of new buildings, it is only right that such matters be considered in a comprehensive and meaningful way and in collaboration with key stakeholders involved in the delivery of our built environment. For those reasons, I ask Mark Ruskell not to move amendment 41. He might want to investigate what I have just put to him with regard to the advice that we have been given on the issue.

With all due respect, Mr Carson, I do not think that you can relate what Mark Ruskell is trying to do to another amendment. I am saying that securing positive effects for biodiversity is already one of the six statutory outcomes in NPF4. Officials have advised me to pass on to the committee and to Mr Ruskell the information that what he wishes to do with amendment 41 can be achieved through building regulations. Further, they have advised the matter could be reviewed, allowing the proposal to come into effect if the right consultation with stakeholders, due diligence and evidence gathering were undertaken.

On amendment 157, the legislation is clear that birds of prey can still be used to take mountain hares for other purposes when that is carried out under a licence granted by NatureScot. I will give Murdo Fraser a bit of detail on that. Licences have been issued as recently as this year. Mountain hares are a protected species in Scotland because of concerns about their population. We appreciate that there are many occasions when falconers and birds might take non-target species, such as mountain hares, when they have been legitimately hunting other species such as red grouse. Provided that that was not done intentionally or recklessly, it would be unlikely to be considered an offence.

Furthermore, as drafted, the amendment goes much further than allowing the taking of mountain hares for the purpose of falconry. It would permit any species listed in schedules 5, 5A or 6A to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to be taken for the purposes of falconry, which could include grass snakes and water voles. I stress, however, that if mountain hares are taken unintentionally, it is unlikely to be considered an offence.

On two occasions now, Rachael Hamilton has referred to me doing my job as “reading out notes”, which I think is disrespectful.