Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

As I highlighted in relation to the previous group of amendments, our approach to developing targets has been science led, taking into account the best available evidence to develop a set of targets that are capable of adapting to ecological and climate uncertainties. Robust scientific advice and adequate consultation are essential if we are to develop a suite of ambitious but deliverable targets. Flexibility is key, given that targets must evolve as evidence and technology advance, and as such, the bill must enable an agile approach while ensuring parliamentary scrutiny.

I do not consider amendment 18, in the name of Mark Ruskell, to be necessary. Proposed new section 2C(2) of the 2004 act, as inserted by section 1 of the bill, provides that

“Scottish Ministers must exercise the power under”

proposed new section 2C(1)

“so as to ... set at least one target in respect of each of the topics described in paragraph (a) of that subsection”.

That must be done within 12 months of section 1 of the bill being commenced.

As currently drafted, the bill already requires ministers to lay draft regulations setting out at least one target for each of the target topics included in the bill. As ministers already have a duty to set targets in relation to specified topics, I ask Mark Ruskell not to press amendment 18.

Amendments 176 and 179 to 181 all seek to require additional criteria to be taken into account when setting targets. The bill already makes it clear that targets are a means of supporting our biodiversity ambitions, as clearly articulated in our biodiversity strategy. They are also to be developed through seeking appropriate scientific advice, and, as amendment 113 proposes, there will be consultation before any targets are set.

I think that that, collectively, provides an appropriate framework for ensuring that targets are ambitious but achievable, and that such an approach takes the right considerations into account. What I want to avoid, at all costs, is the imposition of additional requirements that would make it harder to introduce targets in a timely fashion. We heard during stage 1 that we are in a nature emergency, and it is crucial that we progress the targets as quickly as reasonably possible.

Biodiversity is complex, and the committee will be aware that there is no single global metric for nature restoration as there is for climate mitigation. Measuring biodiversity is complex, and it is essential that we take a science-led approach to setting and developing those targets.

On Maurice Golden’s comments and the comparison that he made with the 2009 act, I appreciate that there is climate change legislation with a set of target-setting criteria, but that is entirely appropriate for that type of legislation, which is very prescriptive in setting out the approach that must be taken to achieving those targets. A more flexible approach is needed in respect of biodiversity targets, because there is no one apex measurement of diversity, and it is much more difficult to measure the outcome of nature restoration activities in the same linear fashion that emissions reductions are measured.

Amendment 174 would remove the requirement for Scottish ministers to specify indicators for measuring targets. Indicators are essential for transparency and accountability and for showing how progress will be assessed. That approach was consulted on, and it was widely supported both by stakeholders, and at stage 1. The committee, in its stage 1 report, stated that:

“stakeholders emphasised the importance of indicators and data collection to ensure statutory targets were robust.”

Removing that requirement would weaken the framework and make it harder for the Parliament and stakeholders to scrutinise delivery. That is not what any of us wants, so I urge members not to support amendment 174.

Amendment 177 removes the requirement for ministers to lay draft regulations for setting targets within 12 months of commencement. That provision was in the bill from the outset to ensure urgency and accountability. I understand Mr Eagle’s argument with regard to rushing things, but we have to set deadlines; after all, we are in a climate emergency, and we must be robust in setting those targets, which must be timeous, too.

Amendment 189 removes a provision aimed at reducing administrative complexity and avoiding ministers having to seek expert advice on matters that they have already sought advice on. That is a sensible approach, and there is no merit in including a requirement for duplication and the delay that would come with that. I hope that the committee agrees that the amendment is not necessary or reasonable, and I ask the member not to move it.

Amendments 24, 47 and 48 are in a similar vein to amendments in the previous group and all place additional requirements on ministers in relation to either the considerations that must be made or the evidence that must be sought when setting targets. The framework that we have established, in which targets have a clear and unambiguous purpose, and need to be set with appropriate scientific advice taken into account, is appropriate and proportionate. I do not recall concerns in that respect being expressed in the stage 1 evidence. I cannot support amendments 24, 47 and 48, because I do not think that they will help us achieve more effective targets, and I ask the members in question not to move them.

Amendment 47, specifically, seeks to introduce a further set of requirements in respect of targets, which risks confusing and diluting the existing provisions. Ecological coherence and a landscape-based approach will be front and centre of the actions needed to deliver on targets, but such considerations are properly dealt with in secondary legislation, in which we will set out the detail of targets. Again, I ask the member not to move amendment 47.

On amendments 109 and 178, lodged by Sarah Boyack, and amendment 309, lodged by Beatrice Wishart, I said at stage 1 that consultation will be a key part of developing our targets. Having reflected on what I heard during the committee’s evidence-taking sessions, I am content that that requirement has been specifically included, and I support amendment 113 in achieving it.

However, it is important to be clear about timescales. In order to carry out appropriate consultation, we need to engage with a wide range of stakeholders and those who are interested in the targets. It takes time to do that properly, and we then need to ensure that we adequately reflect on the outcomes of the consultation and consider how what we have been told should shape our approach. It is not feasible to do that properly and to have regulations ready for the Parliament within 12 months of royal assent. As the committee is well aware, there is also the small matter of an election in between, which will take time out of that process.

I assure the committee and stakeholders that it remains this Government’s intention to introduce nature targets as soon as practicably possible, but the amendments are inappropriate as they might result in rushed targets rather than targets that have been carefully considered and are informed by the meaningful public consultation that members have all said they want. This is too important to get it wrong.

Amendment 182, in the name of Maurice Golden, would impose an additional requirement on Environmental Standards Scotland. However, no consultation has been carried out with ESS on this proposal. Given the practical impact that it would have on its resourcing and finances, I ask the member to consider not moving the amendment, so that I can consult ESS and keep the member updated on that. It is important that ESS is involved in discussions on whether it wants such an additional requirement.

I am supportive of amendments 111 and 112 in principle, but I think that they require some modification to ensure that they fit with our proposed approach to monitoring target outcomes, so, if she is amenable, I would like to work with Ms Boyack ahead of stage 3 to ensure that the provisions operate as she intends.

Amendments 14 to 16 propose that a citizens assembly be established prior to setting targets. I recognise the important role that citizens assemblies can play in our policy development, but I would prefer our focus to remain on the development of an ambitious suite of targets, taking into account appropriate expert advice. I am concerned that allowing the citizens assembly to be established first would just delay the introduction of targets.

I do understand why the member has lodged the amendment—it is right that the people of Scotland have a say in the development of the targets. However, Alasdair Allan’s amendments 113 and 114 require that, before laying the regulations to create biodiversity targets, Scottish ministers consult anyone who might be impacted or interested. His amendments allow for public participation in the setting of targets, but in a proportionate and straightforward way.

On amendments 183, 184, 187, 188 and 190 to 192, provisions in proposed new sections 2E and 2F of the 2004 act, as inserted by section 1 of the bill, require ministers

“to seek and have regard to”

independent

“scientific advice”

when carrying out a review of targets and before making regulations to amend targets or target topics. The amendments would add requirements to take into account the views of land managers or their representatives and parliamentary committees in the review of targets. I have noted the views expressed during stage 1 on the need for greater consultation, which is why I am happy to support Alasdair Allan’s amendments. I appreciate the comments that Tim Eagle has made in that regard.

On amendments 49 and 52, I ?heard the concerns that were raised during stage 1 and, for?the reasons that Emma Roddick has set out, I?urge the committee to?support amendment 52.? It will ensure that Parliament is provided with important information on how ministers propose to act in response to the Environmental Standards Scotland report to be laid under proposed new section 2G(2) of the 2004 act, as inserted by section 1 of the bill. I urge Mark Ruskell to consider not moving amendment 49, as I think that the issues that he wishes to cover in that amendment are adequately dealt with in amendment 52.

Amendment 186 seeks to remove ministers’ ability to remove a target topic from proposed new section 2C of the 2004 act. For targets to be effective, they must be able to adapt as the evidence base changes and as overall knowledge and the technology develop; indeed, that principle was clearly supported by the committee and stakeholders in relation to the framework of the bill.

Targets and topics must be underpinned by relevant and current scientific evidence and independent advice.??It might be that a particular topic is no longer relevant, in which case it would be inappropriate to have a duty to set a target for it—and, of course, biodiversity itself is moveable and evolving. Moreover, any proposal to remove a target topic would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny under the affirmative procedure. I just do not think that it is appropriate to restrict the power of ministers to amend target topics in that way; I know that that is not Beatrice Wishart’s intention, but we need to reflect on the flexibility that will be required, and so I cannot support her amendment 186.

I am pleased to support amendments 113 and 114. I have listened to the concerns expressed by the committee and stakeholders about the lack of mandatory consultation, and I have made my points on that matter.

Amendments 50 and 51 are small but important amendments. Environmental Standards Scotland suggests that, as an independent body that is directly accountable to Parliament, it would be more appropriate for it to lay any reports made under proposed new section 2G of the 2004 act, as inserted by section 1 of the bill, and I agree with that.

On amendment 25, proposed new section 2G(4) of the 2004 act is a precautionary measure designed to future proof the legislation, should ESS’s structure or functions change, or should another body be established that would more appropriately perform the role. If that provision were removed from the bill, it would potentially make it difficult to remove ESS as a designated review body in future circumstances without primary legislation, which would mean that we would be back here again.

I am trying to avoid doing things in primary legislation, which would be onerous for the Parliament, that could be done using secondary legislation. If ESS’s structure or functions were to change—I am not saying that it would not exist—or if another body were to be established in future that could more appropriately fulfil its role, we would not be required to introduce primary legislation to give that body that responsibility.

Anyone in the world?