Seòmar agus comataidhean

That can be done by all the individual component parts of the UK working in concert with one another and having shared ambition. That is my answer to that. When we do not have shared ambition, that jeopardises the devolved Governments reaching their targets. For example, one of the biggest inhibitors to us meeting our net zero targets is the fact that the electricity that Scotland generates is too expensive for our citizens to use, so they cannot decarbonise. That is simply the nature of the situation that we are in as part of the UK.

However, we have regular interministerial meetings on all of that. I have regular meetings with my counterparts in Northern Ireland, Wales and the UK to discuss all those issues. If we take net zero as an example, the fundamental point is that the UK will not be able to meet its net zero target of 2050 without Scotland meeting its net zero target of 2045, and vice versa. Therefore, the four Governments must work in concert with one another.

This is where I need some legal advice. If it is okay, I will hand over to Stewart Cunningham, who has the detail on that.

Let me take that away.

I do not think that they need to be. The goals are already in the biodiversity strategy and they are stated intentions in all the policy documents. They are part of the ambition that we are working towards. My initial reaction is that I do not think that goals and ambitions fit well in legislation, which is the place to put the actions that are associated with those goals.

I am open to suggestions that references to the global biodiversity framework could be part of the criteria for target setting and to suggestions about adhering to standards, but I am not sure how appropriate or meaningful the idea of ambition is.

On the basis of one or more of them, yes. However, the Parliament needs to scrutinise that and decide whether it can be done. I am open to having a conversation about whether those processes can be strengthened, but that is where we have put the safeguards for the use of that power.

Could a future Government that does not believe in climate change and that does not think that biodiversity losses are a threat to the very existence of human beings come in and be full of people who are climate change deniers? That is a possibility that we always need to take into account in a democracy. They could do anything—they could rip up any legislation that they wanted to. However, I do not believe that the Scottish Parliament will be like that and I do not believe that the Scottish Parliament is like that now.

Yes, and it is about being responsive to changes in nature and better data collection, better evidence gathering and improvements in some of the technology that is associated with that.

There are already criteria associated with target setting. I will take you through that. The 2023 consultation was used throughout the development of targets. The criteria to be taken into account in the selection of targets are alignment with the Scottish biodiversity strategy high-level goals; alignment with the global biodiversity framework; alignment with European Union environmental standards, including those on nature restoration; and synergy with existing and forthcoming Scottish legislative frameworks and strategies.

I refer back to my point that targets do not exist in isolation but follow a lot of other policy development. We want to align with the global biodiversity framework and with European Union environmental standards. We are mindful that our targets have to galvanise cross-portfolio work across Government and cross-sectoral work across Scottish society, and they have to be measurable, achievable and realistic.

Those are the target-setting criteria that we have been using. Will we continue to develop the criteria? Yes. I come back to the words “agile” and “responsive”. I am not quite sure what Open Seas was thinking, but perhaps it has particular things in mind that it wishes to see as the criteria. I am, of course, happy to meet its representatives and those of any ENGOs about what those could be.

The bill does not say that reviews must be carried out every 10 years; it says that they must be carried out “not less than” every 10 years, so there is flexibility.

Environmental Standards Scotland is already the body that can advise us on bringing forward any review of targets. We set ESS up to be an independent advisor to us on whether we are meeting certain Government objectives and whether our legislation and policy direction in the area are working. I would have thought that ESS has the ability to advise that we review our targets anyway, but I can take the question away and bottom out with my officials whether it actually has that capacity or power, if you like.

It comes back to the whole responsiveness thing—if it looks as if targets are perhaps not as robust as they could be or they need looking at again, should it be our independent body, ESS, that is allowed to say to the Government, “We want to see a review of that target”? However, nothing in the bill says that there has to be a review every 10 years. That is a minimum. The targets have to be reviewed “not less than”—that is legal-speak—every 10 years. I will take the question away and look at whether Environmental Standards Scotland has the ability to hold us to account in that way, but it seems reasonable to me.

Yes. You are also welcome to come and speak to me if you want to raise anything before stage 2 to bottom out that particular issue.

It is not just nice to have; it is important to work towards it, but it is in setting the topic targets that the action actually happens. Let me take that idea away. As I said, Environmental Standards Scotland can already advise us on bringing forward any review of targets.