Seòmar agus comataidhean

On the question of whether something is robust and proportionate, does the bill make it easier for the Government to justify disregarding concerns that are raised in the EIA? Even if, at the next step, a reporter agrees that the impact is unacceptable, does it allow the Government more flexibility to say that the development’s impact is proportionate? I hope that what I am trying to say makes sense. Should campaigners who are concerned about the impact of new energy infrastructure be worried that the legislation will make it easier for the Government to disregard EIAs?

I suppose that the big question requires a yes or a no. Does the bill address everything that needs to be addressed, or should we be looking at a consolidation bill that pulls everything together? That would be far easier to follow in order to understand where the obligations lie. Was this a missed opportunity? Should we have had a consolidation bill, or should we look for the Government delivering that over a certain timeframe?

This is a framework bill—we are not going to try to define what a framework bill is, but it is fairly obvious that this is one—and there are always concerns about how the secondary legislation that, in effect, puts the meat on the bones is developed and what scrutiny it comes under. Does the bill as it sits now give the Parliament enough scrutiny powers to deal with that, whether the measures are negative or affirmative? Could you deal with that, Jamie, as well as responding to Emma Harper’s question.

Our final question on part 1 is from Evelyn Tweed.

The UK Energy Act 2023 already allows Scottish ministers to amend certain parts of the habitats regulations. That is in recognition of the fact that we need to develop offshore wind farms at pace and at scale, but it also affects other activities that are associated with grid connections and so on. That sort of ties in with section 3(b) and section 3(c). It is about how we get the balance right.

To give a practical example, we have recently seen a major pylon upgrade from Glenlee to Kendoon—the Tongland upgrade. There were about 1,000 objections to that—nobody was in favour of the upgrade. It went to public inquiry, and the reporter suggested that the impact of the development on biodiversity and landscape was unacceptable. However, the Scottish ministers decided that the benefits of protecting the security of the electricity supply overrode all of that, much to the disappointment of campaigners. I believe that that development will potentially go to judicial review.

Will the new legislation—section 3(b) in particular—make it easier for the Government to do that and justify potentially damaging biodiversity and landscapes? Is it likely to make it easier for them to go—as we say in here—at pace and at the scale required? Again, the issue is about protections.

Is the general feeling at the moment that the scope of the powers that a future Government could bring in via secondary legislation has no limit and that the bill should expressly provide for safeguards to limit those powers or to protect certain core elements of what we have now?

Welcome back. We will now look at part 2 of the bill, “Power to modify or restate environmental impact assessment legislation and habitats regulations”. We will kick off with a question from Rhoda Grant.

Good morning, and welcome to the 15th meeting in 2025 of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee. Before we begin, please ensure that all electronic devices are switched to silent.

The first item on our agenda is consideration of the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill at stage 1. At today’s meeting, we will take evidence on parts 1 and 2 of the bill from a panel of academics and experts in biodiversity policy. I will invite you all to introduce yourselves in a minute.

We have allocated approximately two hours for the discussion, and we have quite a few questions to get through. Given that we have quite a few participants, I ask everyone to be succinct in their questions and answers. There will be some questions for which a straight “Yes” or “No” will suffice. At other times, you might want to agree with someone who has already given the same view as yours. However, do not feel that you need to participate at any great length on each question. There is no expectation that you will speak on every point. If part of the discussion does not relate to your area of expertise, do not feel that you need to participate.

I remind you that you do not have to operate your microphone. We have a gentleman here who will do that for you.

We will kick off, and I ask Jamie Whittle to introduce himself.

Rob Brooker, you talked about LIDAR. I know that the Government made a big announcement about that initiative a few months ago, saying that it was coming in on the back of a demand for those surveys, although I do not know where the demand came from. Will the LIDAR initiative be practically possible? Will it return results that will help farming in terms of biodiversity? Is it realistic? What sort of timescales are we looking at?

Thank you, all—you are most welcome. We have received apologies from Professor James Harrison, who intended to be here this morning but, unfortunately, has not been able to join us.

I will kick off by looking at part 1 of the bill and the targets for improving biodiversity. We are all aware that we are in a nature crisis, but what is the need for and value of statutory targets? In the past, the Scottish Government has consistently failed to meet non-statutory biodiversity targets. Why will it be any different this time round?