Chamber and committees

Good morning. Due to time constraints, I will generally speak only to my own amendments in each group.

The bill places new obligations on Scottish ministers. However, without a strengthened biodiversity duty, there is a risk of the delivery burden falling disproportionately on a small number of national bodies. My amendment 165 would amend the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 to require public bodies to facilitate the delivery of the biodiversity strategy and statutory targets. By explicitly linking the biodiversity duty to the new statutory targets relating to nature and the Scottish biodiversity strategy, the amendment would ensure that the whole public sector is aligned behind the bill’s implementation. That would reduce the risk of the bill becoming a top-down framework with no delivery mechanism, which would undermine the credibility of Scotland’s targets and the ability to meet global commitments.

I move amendment 165.

Having heard the cabinet secretary’s response, I am happy to withdraw amendment 165 and engage in further discussions before stage 3.

Amendment 165, by agreement, withdrawn.

The purpose of amendment 269 is to give Scottish ministers the power to restrict releases of non-native game birds where those releases risk damaging flora, fauna or the wider environment. It would enable ministers to specify where and when such restrictions apply, based on evidence of environmental harm.

Releases of non-native game birds can cause significant impacts on habitats, species and ecosystem function, particularly in sensitive areas, including island ecosystems. The birds also carry disease, including highly pathogenic avian influenza and they can transmit the pathogens to native wildlife. Several mass mortality events in Scotland in recent years that were caused by HPAI involved game birds being reared and released into the natural environment. That is a serious threat to native wildlife.

Current legislation does not provide sufficient regulatory tools to address situations where such releases are causing, or are at risk of causing, environmental damage or require disease control. Amendment 269 would provide a proportionate, evidence-based mechanism that would allow ministers to intervene only where necessary and only in defined areas and time periods. It would ensure that Scotland’s invasive non-native species framework is able to respond to recognised ecological and disease pressures while maintaining clarity for land managers and the shooting sector.

The aim of amendment 270 is to amend section 44 of the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 to give NatureScot explicit powers of entry to land for the purpose of monitoring or assessing species that are considered to be outside their native range.

The amendment would add a new entry power to section 44 of the 2004 act, in proposed new subsection (1)(ka), that would allow NatureScot to confirm the presence or absence of highly mobile invasive non-native species. Highly mobile INNS such as certain mammal or bird species can spread rapidly and can cause significant ecological harm if they are not detected.

The aim is not to prevent country sports. I became aware of the introduction to Shetland of red-legged partridges, which is a non-native species. That is why I have lodged the amendments.

NatureScot’s ability to monitor these species is constrained where access permissions are refused or delayed, which slows response times and increases management costs. Amendment 270 would provide the practical access that is needed for early detection, accurate assessment and timely intervention—key principles of effective non-native species management. Strengthening monitoring powers supports Scotland’s obligations under the non-native species code of practice and the precautionary approach that is embedded in biodiversity law.

Amendment 166 would add a target topic of biodiversity restoration against a historic baseline. In Scotland, species abundance and habitat extent have declined over multiple decades. If targets are set relative only to current levels, which are already depleted, there is a risk of masking long-term declines and focusing on slowing loss rather than delivering recovery. Targets should build on a long-term sense of the scale of ecological loss. The biodiversity intactness index is an existing metric for that approach. Requiring a target for restoration against a historic baseline would reflect the scale of the recovery that is required.

My amendment 186 states that the Scottish ministers cannot remove any target topics. It would ensure that no future Scottish Government could weaken the legislation by removing topics that have been decided on and which require addressing through the targets.

My amendment 309 would bring section 1 into force on the day after royal assent, rather than leaving the date of its coming into force to the discretion of the Scottish ministers. Leaving the decision on when to bring it into force to the political preferences of the day could risk delays to measures to improve Scotland’s biodiversity. Mandating action by bringing the section into force on the day after royal assent reflects the need for action in the context of the climate and biodiversity emergency, as targets are only as good as the actions that are taken to deliver on them.

My question is about section 8 and the three-croft limit. We have already heard about the streamlining of the family assignation process. We heard evidence from NFU Scotland that the three-croft limit could stifle active crofters in areas such as Shetland because of different patterns of land ownership. NFUS suggested a flexible and regionally sensitive approach, or applying the limit only to family assignations. How will the Scottish Government ensure that the fast-track process balances the need for administrative efficiency with the flexibility to account for regional differences in croft sizes and ownership patterns?

Are you saying that there is some flexibility?

Good morning. The Thornton greyhound track is thought to have ceased racing activity around the time that the bill was introduced. How do you think that that impacts on the need for the proposed legislation?

The policy memorandum does not explain the Scottish Government’s reasons for the proposed merger of the Scottish Land Court and the Lands Tribunal for Scotland, and the Law Society of Scotland has expressed concern that the main driver could be to cut costs and reduce capacity. I note that you said that the proposal will create a “one-stop shop” and that there will be “no ... diminution of expertise”, but could you explain what the policy objective is for the merger? What reassurances can you give that resources and capacity will be maintained?