Seòmar agus comataidhean

As you rightly say, it comes back to partnership working and the co-ordination of data. We have identified that there are a few streams of work in some of the bodies that already exist in Scotland, such as NatureScot, which is supporting local environment record centres, for example. It has a budget associated with that of just over £220,000. We engage with and collect and use data from our academic institutions, which are already funded by the public purse. Data also comes in from various third sector organisations, which might involve citizen science as well. We can look at impact assessments, particularly for the target setting, and whether any additional funding is needed once we have set the targets.

It is important to mention that it is not just the bill or my portfolio that have actions to improve data. I am particularly pleased that, recently, the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands and I have jointly budgeted for light detection and ranging data to be collected across Scotland. I am very excited about what the surveys that have been done as part of that will yield. I believe that the planes have already been out to record data on what is actually happening in Scotland’s landscape. That will inform a lot of the work that we do on biodiversity, peatland restoration, the health of some areas and the forestry that is associated with some areas.

It is not just in the bill that there is spend. Data is associated with the actions that the nature restoration fund generates, too. If anything specific arises as a result of the target setting that happens under secondary legislation, we would, of course, have to look at how we would fund it.

That is something that I want to discuss with them. I will work with stakeholders on their understanding of what we are trying to do.

I have laid out the protections that exist in relation to how the power could be used. The intention behind the power is in no way to dilute environmental protections; it is to enable us to adapt and improve environmental protections in a changing landscape and environment, and to ensure that we are not frozen in time.

I set out the restrictions that exist in relation to the 1994 habitats regulations. We need to be responsive and adaptive to new data, new evidence and changed circumstances—for example, by modifying the boundaries of protected sites or taking away protected site status where it is no longer needed and applying it to another area where it is needed. We need to be able to be fleet of foot in that respect. I think that I have perhaps not communicated the importance of that well enough to the environmental NGOs, and I want to have those conversations with them and give them assurances.

In response to your point about future Governments, I go back to what I said to Mercedes Villalba: Parliament holds Governments to account. The areas in which a Government would be allowed to use the power in question are quite limited. The power is binding in that regard. It would not allow future Governments to dilute anything.

The purpose of the provisions in part 2 is to get us to our goal of halting biodiversity loss as soon as possible and regenerating nature by 2045. I would not put anything in the bill that does not help us to do that.

Can I give you an example? I am in the same position—I am starting to get to grips with what is in the bill and what it does. I have been thinking about real-world examples of what the power would allow us to do and how nature restoration would be inhibited if it were not there.

Let me give you a hypothetical example of an area that had been designated as a special area of conservation, because it included a Caledonian pinewood forest. Over time, because of climate change and changes in nature, oak trees begin to sprout at the warmer end of that forest. Despite the climatic conditions favouring oak rather than pine, we would have to strip out that oak if we did not have the power to amend the habitats regulations; we would have to do so even though the oak was naturally occurring, was sequestering carbon and was part of the changing nature of that site. We would have to get rid of trees because the area had been designated primarily for its Caledonian pine habitat.

I will speak to that fundamental point. As you have rightly said, there are already habitats regulations that contain minor amending powers, but they are very limited. They allow Scottish ministers to amend only the list of protected species, the additional list of wild animals that cannot be lawfully taken or killed and the prohibited methods of taking or killing animals. Beyond that, they do not have the flexibility that is needed to adapt to future circumstances of the sort that we mentioned in relation to part 1.

The bill provides a bespoke power that is tailored for Scotland to modify the habitats regulations and the legislation that forms the EIA regime, and, critically, it plugs a legislative gap that exists as a result of EU exit. The bill will allow the Scottish Government to respond to evolving circumstances; to be dynamic and agile in response to particular changes, needs, trends and impacts; and to maintain and advance environmental standards, responding to decisions that have been made in the past that are no longer relevant.

It is really important to note that the bill also provides protections. The power may be used only when Scottish ministers consider that doing so would be in accordance with certain purposes, which I will set out for the committee.

First, the power may be used

“to maintain or advance standards in relation to—

(i) restoring, enhancing or managing the natural environment,

(ii) preserving, protecting or restoring biodiversity,

(iii) environmental assessments”.

It may also be used

“to facilitate progress toward any statutory target relating to the environment, climate or biodiversity that applies in Scotland”,

“to ensure consistency or compatibility with other ... Regimes”

or

“to take account of changes in technology or developments in scientific understanding”.

That brings me back to the point about data and evidence as well as the point about the technology associated with assessing impacts on the environment.

The power may be used

“to resolve ambiguity, remove doubt or anomaly, facilitate improvement in the clarity or accessibility of the law”.

That goes back to Mercedes Villalba’s earlier point about the ability to resolve things that are not ambiguous in the law but which are not actually working. Finally, the power may be used

“to improve or simplify the operation of the law.”

The existing powers do not allow us to do any of that. I am proposing the power, because we need that agility, particularly to respond to the impacts of climate change. If we consider habitats in general, is primary legislation required to put in place special protection areas? I look to my officials for an answer.

Right. However, if we can use the proposed power, we will be able to be agile. We could have a situation in which a particular designation is out of date, because the circumstances on the ground have—literally—changed. Maybe the designation was there to protect a particular species or ecosystem where there was a threat to the environment, but that has changed. Maybe the species that were associated with the designation have moved further north or to another area as a result of climate change. The power will give us the agility to act in those areas, too.

The purposes that I mentioned are important safeguards, because we could not use the power willy-nilly. The reason will have to accord with one of those purposes.

You and I have worked closely together on other bills and we have been able to discuss amendments that you might want to lodge. My overall point is that the bill allows future flexibility by providing a power to add to the list of target topics. What is in the bill is what we were advised by the PAG to include. However, once the bill is passed, the door is not closed; there is the ability to add other topics. Indeed, there were some topics about which the PAG said that it did not have the necessary evidence base or information, so it asked for those not to be put in until it had more information. Maybe Lisa McCann can flesh out a little of the detail of that.

Do you mean the trigger of a certain date or a certain circumstance? The bill’s proposed new section 2E(5) of the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 already allows ministers to add to the target topics. A time trigger, for example, would not be the right way to do it, because, as Lisa McCann has just said, the addition will be based on the development of the indicators. The advice that the PAG has given us is to develop those indicators. Then, at a point at which it is satisfied, the target can be added. There is not much point in having a target on which we cannot measure progress. There is no resistance to putting more targets in. It is just a case of wanting to put in targets for which we have the evidence base, the indicators and the prospect of being able to measure our success or otherwise.

Can I take that away? I do not want an arbitrary trigger that would leave us in the same situation of having a target that is not measurable. Maybe we can bottom that out. I will speak to my officials, and we can speak about whether that is doable.

No. The target-setting criteria are as I laid them out. We want alignment with the biodiversity strategy and the global biodiversity framework. The target-setting criteria were set out for the bill, with all the alignments. There had to be criteria for setting the targets. It is not a case of not bringing anything new; it is about the target-setting criteria being interwoven into all the other biodiversity goals, outcomes and frameworks to ensure that the targets are robust, measurable, realistic and achievable.

Yes—exactly. I come back to the point that we cannot just set arbitrary targets; there have to be criteria behind the targets, and they have to be grounded in all the other strategies that have been followed to get us to 2030, to halt biodiversity decline, to become nature positive and to have species restoration by 2045.