Official Report 946KB pdf
Before we move to the debate on the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill at stage 3, I call Gillian Martin to signify Crown consent to the bill.
For the purposes of rule 9.11 of standing orders, I advise the Parliament that His Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill, has consented to place his prerogative and interests, in so far as they are affected by the bill, at the disposal of the Parliament for the purposes of the bill.
We move on to the debate on motion S6M-20549, in the name of Gillian Martin, on the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill. I call the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy, Gillian Martin, to speak to and move the motion.
17:04
I open the debate by thanking members across the chamber and members of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee for the positive spirit in which they have engaged, over many weeks, with me and my Government colleagues during stages 1 and 2. I firmly believe that their detailed scrutiny, feedback and thoughtful challenge have shaped the bill for the better, from the inclusion of measures to help specific species such as the swift to measures that will protect our internationally important wetlands. I also thank all the stakeholders who gave evidence.
Mairi Gougeon, Jim Fairlie and I have spent much of the past few weeks meeting members, listening to and discussing their concerns and working through proposals. Indeed, that engagement led to many of the positive amendments to protect Scotland’s nature that were agreed to yesterday and on Tuesday. That is a timely reminder that constructive dialogue leads to better and more effective law.
I again thank our diverse stakeholders, including the environmental organisations, land managers, crofters, farmers, fishers, gamekeepers, community trusts and public bodies, such as NatureScot and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, for their input and expertise, which have been absolutely invaluable to all of us.
Today’s debate offers all of us the opportunity to send a clear and strong message that this Parliament stands on the side of nature, and I encourage all members to take that opportunity.
I appreciate that members may disagree on some of the mechanisms or on the pace of delivery, but I do not think that anyone disputes the urgency of the challenge that is in front of us or the responsibility that we all share. That shared understanding has been evident not only in the broad support for the bill’s aims, but in the number and breadth of amendments that have been lodged. Together, they reflect a collective determination to ensure that the legislation is as ambitious as possible and is genuinely responsive to the realities that our natural environment faces. That willingness to test, strengthen and stretch the bill demonstrates that the Parliament is determined to set a stronger, more far-reaching framework for environmental stewardship.
That framework is rooted not only in protecting what we have left, but—crucially—in restoring what we have lost. Scotland’s ambition must not simply be to conserve our natural environment but to lead globally in repairing it, restoring habitats, rebuilding resilience and renewing the ecosystem that sustains us.
I want to address directly the removal of part 2 of the bill, which contained powers to amend elements of the environmental impact assessment legislation and the habitats regulations. I understand the depth of feeling that was expressed at stages 1 and 2 on the issue. Many stakeholders and members made it clear that they wanted stronger safeguards, particularly in relation to non-regression amid concerns that future Governments might weaken standards. Those concerns were sincerely held, and they were heard. I hope that the removal of part 2 strengthens confidence in the bill as a whole.
However, I must make it clear that, as a result of the removal of part 2, we still face a legislative gap that was created by Brexit. In the short term, we can use the powers under the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Continuity) (Scotland) Act 2021, but, looking further ahead, we need to consider a long-term solution. We will now take time to carefully consider options, and I will continue to engage with stakeholders and members. However, I strongly believe that any future proposals must reflect our commitment to maintaining high environmental standards and must provide more than a temporary solution to fixing that gap.
The bill demonstrates the Scottish Government’s and the Parliament’s firm and shared commitment to protecting and restoring Scotland’s world-class natural environment. If it is passed today—I hope that it will be passed overwhelmingly—the next phase will be to bring forward statutory targets to give full effect to the framework that the bill establishes. Those targets, which will be developed through engagement with the Parliament and stakeholders, will provide clear direction, accountability and ambition for nature recovery. We are now entering the final phase of the four-step process to develop recommendations for statutory targets. In doing so, we are working in close collaboration with the independent experts of the programme advisory group. We look forward to bringing forward those recommendations and to continuing our constructive engagement with stakeholders as we consider the careful development and refinement of the targets.
However, today, our focus is on the amended bill before us, which creates the strongest statutory framework that Scotland has ever had for nature recovery. The bill is strengthened by cross-party work and reflects a shared commitment to protect and restore our precious natural environment.
The crisis that we face is urgent, but it is not hopeless. We know that biodiversity is in crisis, both globally and at home. However, with clarity, collaboration and long-term determination, Scotland can chart a different course—one where restored habitats, healthier ecosystems and thriving species are not exceptional but expected. This Parliament has an opportunity today to lay the foundations for that future, to send a clear signal across Scotland and beyond that we intend to leave our natural environment in better condition than we found it, and to ensure that future generations do not inherit the consequences of inaction but the legacy of commitment and hope. I look forward to listening to members’ contributions to the debate.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill be passed.
I call Tim Eagle to open the debate on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives.
17:10
I start by reminding members of my entry in the register of members’ interests.
At stage 3 of the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill, it is right that we step back and ask not only what this legislation seeks to do but whether it will genuinely deliver better outcomes for nature, communities and those who manage our land. There are parts of the bill on which there was once genuine consensus. The removal of part 2 on protected areas was a clear example of that. That section was taken out, because members across parties recognised that it was not ready, not workable and not supported by those who were expected to deliver it.
Scotland is not new to biodiversity plans. We have had strategies, frameworks and action plans stretching back decades. They have often been well intentioned and carefully drafted, yet too many have failed to halt decline. That failure has not been because of a lack of targets on paper but because of inconsistent political will, fragmented delivery and, in recent years, changes to budgets. Against that backdrop, the Scottish Conservatives do not believe that statutory targets, however well meaning, will succeed where previous approaches have struggled.
Targets alone do not restore habitats, support species or rebuild trust—practical, co-operative action on the ground does that. That is why co-operative deer management matters so much. For years, voluntary deer management groups have worked across boundaries, balancing environmental outcomes with animal welfare and the needs of rural economies.
Deer management is not just an environmental issue; it underpins jobs, sporting activity, tourism and fragile local supply chains. Changes proposed in the bill, when taken alongside the Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Act 2024 and the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Act 2024, have contributed to a growing sense in the rural sector that decisions are being done to them rather than with them and of a Government moving to make big changes in an area that needs time.
First, Tim Eagle talks about the fact that rural deer managers have managed deer effectively over a number of years, yet we have a crisis with the number of deer and the damage to the environment. Everyone in the debate has agreed that we need to bring down deer numbers.
Secondly, Mr Eagle talks about the support that we are giving to the agricultural community. We are the only part of the United Kingdom that continues direct support, upland sheep support—with the Scottish upland sheep support scheme—and the less favoured area support scheme. Those things are warmly welcomed by the agricultural community. Where does the member get the idea that this is a Government that is not working for the people of Scotland?
I could spend the next hour telling the minister the ways in which the Government does not support the people of Scotland, but I will not go into that. If the minister were to give me details of the rural support plan, perhaps we can have a further discussion.
The point on deer is slightly more valid. I am happy for organisations such as Scottish Land & Estates and the British Association for Shooting and Conservation to contribute, but I think that I am right in saying that the deer management sector was ready to work proactively with the minister, without needing a lot of the stuff in the bill. If more deer needed to be killed, we could have done it in a different way.
I cannot overstate how damaging I feel that the erosion of trust has been. Land managers, farmers and estates feel that the traditional rural economy is increasingly under threat and that they are not supported as a partner in environmental delivery. If we genuinely want to improve biodiversity outcomes, that is not a healthy place to be. I feel as if I have been saying for my whole career that my advice to the Government is to stop focusing on telling landowners, farmers and crofters to complete ever more complex paperwork, and to start having a positive relationship with them on the ground.
The bill also touches on national parks. During the amendment stage, Fergus Ewing and I picked up on a glaring missed opportunity in that area. Before embarking on discussions about new national parks, no formal comprehensive review was carried out on how existing parks have performed, what has worked well and what has not, and crucially, how local communities view that experience. Such a review could have been the golden ticket. It could have strengthened public confidence, addressed long-standing concerns and created a model for parks that genuinely thrive economically, socially and environmentally. By skipping that step, we missed the chance to learn lessons and to bring communities with us.
I imagine that the breadth of the bill is also striking to everyone. There is so much that could have been included, such as mechanisms to protect our natural environment against wildfires. That is a critical issue, and I am personally deeply worried about it.
I am sympathetic to members across the chamber who have sought to use the legislation to address other long-standing gaps where the Scottish Government has yet to act. That speaks to a wider frustration about delivery and follow-through.
Rural Scotland has a vital role in protecting and enhancing our natural environment, and in truth, much of the rural sector has been doing exactly that for years. What is needed now are practical, locally flexible schemes that recognise the differences between our rural communities, and not abstract, paper-based targets that risk hampering that work rather than heralding a new chapter.
Get this right and rural Scotland will thrive and deliver for nature and the economy together. Get it wrong and there is a real risk of destabilising the communities that we rely on to manage our land and that are vital in protecting our food security.
Having considered all of that, the Scottish Conservatives do not believe that statutory targets will achieve what voluntary, co-operative approaches have struggled to do. We do not believe the case for national parks has been properly made; it clearly required review. The proposed changes to deer management still do not sit comfortably or ensure a real, living, co-operative approach. For those reasons, the Scottish Conservative group has decided not to support the bill at stage 3.
17:16
I apologise to the cabinet secretary and colleagues for not being in the chamber at the start of the debate. I missed the entire opening speech because I was chairing a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association branch executive meeting. I will look it up in the Official Report after this meeting.
As we reach the end of stage 3 of the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill, it is clear that we have all been through an amazing process. The bill has generated an enormous level of engagement. I acknowledge the work of the committee, our clerks and our staff. The amount of support that we have received in the Parliament has been huge. We do not normally have late-night sittings. The effort made to get us to this point has been huge.
From Labour’s perspective, as regards the many amendments that were debated at stage 2, after the detailed scrutiny of our committee colleagues—and even at stage 3, when there were still huge numbers of amendments—the volume and quality of contributions from stakeholders, experts and communities have been remarkable. That engagement has shaped our approach throughout. I hope that, collectively, our efforts have strengthened the legislation and underlined how vital it is. The future of our biodiversity is uncertain in the age of the twin climate and nature emergencies, so having strong legislation and clear guidance will be critical if we are to secure a more sustainable future.
Scottish Labour has been consistent in its core aim of improving the legislation where possible and making it more ambitious, more accountable and more capable of delivering the nature recovery that Scotland urgently needs. We have lodged a series of amendments to part of the bill—not to obstruct it, but to enhance and strengthen it, and sometimes to get issues on the official record.
Those reflect proposals and detailed evidence from: Scottish Environment LINK, which has done superb work in pulling stakeholders together; the Marine Conservation Society; the Sustainable Inshore Fisheries Trust; and the Scottish Creel Fishermen’s Federation. A huge amount of work has been done by them and other organisations, such as the Woodlands Trust and RSPB Scotland. I cannot list all the organisations concerned in the way that I normally would, as there are so many, but the engagement process to strengthen transparency, improve reporting and ensure that commitments are backed by clear mechanisms for delivery has been important.
I welcome the fact that some of our proposals were accepted and received cross-party support—indeed, colleagues even assisted us in drafting them. That shows that constructive engagement can lead to better lawmaking.
Not all our amendments were successful, and we are disappointed about that. However, as I said, we have put lots of issues on the record, and I hope that in the next session new ministers will provide the leadership and action that will be urgently needed right across those issues.
Our commitment will not stop today. We will continue to work with all the stakeholders, environmental organisations, business organisations and community groups to ensure that the issues that they raised do not fall away simply because the bill has been passed. Many of the decisions involved debates about how different pieces of legislation would impact different communities. Monitoring and reporting on the bill will be critical. Delivery will matter.
I thank the committee for its consideration, and I thank the clerks. Honestly, a huge amount of work was involved. The pre-stage 1 work, moving all the way through stage 2 and having a good level of engagement at stage 3 have all been critical. It has also been vital to hear directly from people who work in our landscapes and on our rivers, our lochs and our seas.
I will reflect briefly on the marine sector in particular. Throughout the process, the passion, expertise and urgency expressed by those who work in our marine and fishing environment stood out to me. We need to do more to ensure that our seas are restored and resilient.
I will focus on that. We heard repeatedly that the Scottish Government will continue to work through all the options. I would like more clarity on what that will mean in practice. We heard concerns that the UK marine strategy requires Scotland only to contribute to UK-wide reporting on progress towards good environmental status in regional sea areas. It does not require the Scottish Government to show that progress for Scotland or to give the Scottish Parliament scrutiny powers for Scotland-specific progress. It is vital that the Parliament examines that issue in the next session, because we cannot just rely on the UK marine strategy. We have devolved powers that can and should be used to set out how we will meet nature restoration targets in our own waters.
I mentioned that I was grateful to the cabinet secretary for engaging constructively on those points, but work needs to continue. The sector is ready to contribute to the solutions that we need. I know that some work is under way, and I welcome that assurance, but delivery, transparency and accountability will determine whether the bill succeeds.
The values that underpin the bill—collaboration, ambition and a willingness to listen—must continue long after today’s vote, because nature recovery is not a short-term, tick-the-box process but a long-term exercise. It has impacts for all of us, for our health and wellbeing and for future generations, so we need sustained political support from members across the chamber.
Scottish Labour will support efforts to strengthen our natural environment and will keep pushing for the action, ambition and accountability that Scotland’s biodiversity crisis demands. That is why we will support the bill.
17:22
The purpose of the bill is to tackle the nature emergency. We should be in no doubt that, sadly, Scotland is a nature-depleted country. However, the green shoots of recovery are everywhere—from beaver-built wetlands to urban meadows that are teeming with pollinators and people. I pay tribute to the communities, conservationists and land managers who have made so much progress over the years. I hope that the bill will turbocharge their future efforts.
Before returning to Holyrood, I sat on the Scottish biodiversity forum as a representative of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. At that time—more than a decade ago—I saw inertia and inaction. There were no targets. There were no action plans. I am proud that, in this session of Parliament, my colleague Lorna Slater, as a minister, rebooted the biodiversity strategy and set the wheels in motion for the bill. It is right that the international commitments that she signed us up to at the biodiversity conference of the parties are now enshrined in the bill, and I am delighted that her amendment to achieve that has passed into the bill.
Tonight, we will agree on the requirement for action-focused targets to get on to a faster track to restoring nature. That will need a degree of flexibility in how sites are designated if we are to realise the much bolder ambition of landscape-scale restoration. However, a case for the wholesale reform of regulations at the backbone of nature protection was not made by either the Government or stakeholders. It is right that the ministerial powers to amend those laws in part 2 of the bill were removed. We have seen at Westminster the threat to the environment from the watering down of nature law. That must not happen here, either now or in the future.
However, if there is a case for more precise surgery on the habitats and environmental assessment regulations, it will be for a future Government to bring those proposals back to the chamber. In the meantime, the cabinet secretary’s commitments to update the guidance are welcome. That will provide the clarity that will be needed if we are to get on with the job of nature restoration at scale.
It is clear that we cannot deliver a full-scale restoration of our woodlands and peatlands without properly managing deer to finally bring their numbers down permanently. In part 4 of the bill we now have reforms that give NatureScot and land managers the best chance of delivering the action that is needed for us, at last, to get to sustainable deer numbers. However, there is still more work to be done to roll out the recommendations of the independent deer working group. We must continue to work hard to realise the legacy of Simon Pepper and his colleagues. The group did incredible work back in 2017, and I say to the minister that there is still work to be done on that aspect.
I hope that, in time, parts 1 and 4 of the bill will prove to be transformational. Thankfully, part 2 is gone. For me, part 3, on national parks, represents unfinished business. It feels as though the Government wants to keep the lid on national parks at a time when we need them more than ever if we are to deliver the right opportunities for people and nature in some of the most sensitive landscapes that we have in Scotland.
I am proud to have delivered for our national parks. It is key that we learn lessons from the good that has been done there and about what more needs to be done. We need more such parks in Scotland, and there will be big lessons to learn from this parliamentary session. Does Mark Ruskell agree?
The big lesson is that we need political leadership, and I am not just talking about from whoever happens to be the minister at the time. We need leadership on the ground, and we need people who back national parks in their communities to stick their heads above the parapet and say, “This is going to be good for our communities.” I live in a national park area, and I see its advantages every day.
There was clearly an appetite from communities across Scotland for more parks, and there was a quiet confidence that we were going to get them. That is not going to go away, despite NFU Scotland’s campaigning. All politicians need to recognise that.
In my closing remarks I will turn to some of the amendments that have strengthened the bill. For now, though, I say that Scottish Greens will be very happy to vote for the bill at stage 3.
17:27
I am pleased to speak this evening for the Scottish Liberal Democrats. Throughout the bill’s process, it has been encouraging to see the passion and care for the environment that is evident among members of the Parliament.
I place on record my thanks to the convener, members and clerks of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee and to the legislation team. I also thank the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy, the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands, the Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity and Scottish Government officials for their constructive engagement with me. I also thank all the stakeholders who gave evidence at stage 1, sent briefings and met me to discuss the bill and to share their expertise. In particular, I thank Scottish Environment LINK, RSPB Scotland and Scottish Land & Estates for working with me on amendments.
Scottish Liberal Democrats recognise that the climate crisis and biodiversity loss are not separate issues but are deeply intertwined. Scotland is on the front line of biodiversity loss, with one in nine species at risk of national extinction. Scotland ranks 212th out of 240 countries for biodiversity intactness. Part 1 of the bill enables the Scottish ministers to set targets for improving biodiversity. Targets have the potential to focus efforts to address the biodiversity crisis.
I was pleased that my amendment at stage 3 was agreed to. It explicitly links the new statutory targets to the existing biodiversity duty, so Scotland’s public bodies and office holders will have to take the biodiversity targets into account when fulfilling their public sector biodiversity duty. That will align the whole public sector behind the implementation of the targets, removing the risk of a top-down approach and improving the consistency of approach to biodiversity ambitions across the public sector. Invasive non-native species, or INNS, are a key driver of biodiversity loss in Scotland. Although in the end, I did not move my amendment that would have given legal underpinning to the forthcoming national INNS action plan, the debates that we have had on the issue have underscored the need for action, and I note that the cabinet secretary has put on record the Scottish Government’s commitment to doing so.
I look forward to the outcomes of the Environmental Standards Scotland INNS investigation, and I trust that the recommendations resulting from that work will feed into the INNS plan in collaboration with stakeholders. Although I will not be here then, I will be watching.
Several marine issues were raised in the debates on amendments. Although, according to the bill, targets may be created for both terrestrial and marine environments, it is not the appropriate vehicle for other marine matters that require appropriate evidence bases, consultation and co-design with stakeholders. Amendments were proposed that would have cut across existing and on-going marine work including the inshore fisheries management improvement programme and the new national marine plan, where nature recovery will be a key objective alongside addressing climate change and supporting a sustainable marine economy. However, I hope that the Scottish Government takes note of the strength of the frustration that has been expressed about the length of time that those things are taking and the concerns about the resourcing of the marine directorate. My comments on those matters are well documented.
Part 2 of the bill was removed by the committee at stage 2 due to concerns that its provisions could weaken nature protections in Scotland. I appreciate that the Scottish Government listened to those concerns and did not attempt to re-insert those provisions.
Part 4 of the bill modernises the provisions of the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996. As I underscored at stage 1, it is important that the changes do not impact the trust in the sector that underpins voluntary deer management, which is vital for controlling deer numbers in Scotland. Consultation and co-design with stakeholders will be vital to ensuring that we get the code of practice right.
I was pleased to lodge amendments to ensure that local communities and neighbouring land managers will be properly considered when deer control schemes are proposed, giving them greater involvement in processes that might affect them. I am also pleased that my amendments on the muirburn licensing scheme, which was created by the Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Act 2024, were supported. The changes will enable high-quality muirburn training to take place under licence and improve regulatory clarity for the making of muirburn on peatland while retaining strong environmental oversight.
At stage 1, I stated that we had an opportunity to take action on the environment. By passing the bill this evening, we will take an important step towards realising that opportunity. Scottish Liberal Democrats will support the bill at decision time.
We move to the open debate.
17:32
The 26th President of the United States, Theodore Roosevelt, noted:
“Conservation means development as much as it does protection. I recognize the right and duty of this generation to develop and use the natural resources of our land; but I do not recognize the right to waste them, or to rob, by wasteful use, the generations that come after us.”
The Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill seeks to ensure that the people of Scotland do not waste our natural resources or rob future generations.
The twin crises of climate change and nature loss are interdependent risks and they need to be tackled together, which the bill seeks to do. The bill will establish the framework for targets, including high-level topics against which specific targets will be set, while the actual targets, such as the detail of the figures, will be provided in secondary legislation. That approach will allow targets to be adapted in the light of circumstances and will ensure that parliamentary scrutiny is maintained throughout.
The bill also brings together other measures that will enable us to restore and protect nature and support delivery of the Scottish Government’s net zero and biodiversity goals. Those measures include provisions to modernise the aims and powers of national parks by amending the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000 and provisions to reform the way in which deer are managed by amending the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996, through implementation of many of the recommendations that were made by the deer working group.
As members have said, there is an urgent need for effective deer management across much of rural Scotland, and that is regularly raised with me by my constituents. I am pleased that an amendment that I lodged at stage 2, which built on existing legislation to widen the legal right of occupiers of land to cull deer to prevent damage to unimproved land as well as improved land, was successful. Although I appreciate that some estates have raised concerns about that part of the bill, I believe that the Government’s stage 3 amendments on notification requirements, along with the guidance that will be set out in secondary legislation, will provide reassurance on animal welfare, food safety and income from deer stalking.
The proposal was initially recommended and supported by the deer working group, which the Scottish Government established in 2017 as a result of its concern about continuing issues to do with the standards of deer management in Scotland and the levels of damage to public interests caused by deer. It is clearly essential for stakeholders to continue working together, as they already have been doing, to help to reduce deer numbers and support biodiversity recovery across Scotland. Improving our biodiversity is one of our best opportunities to adapt to, and to prevent, climate change and to ensure that we can continue to enjoy nature’s benefits, on which we all depend.
As other members have pointed out, this has been a long but, I think, successful parliamentary process. There has been a lot of engagement with the public, and, like other members, I convey my thanks to committee members and staff for doing that work.
As someone who represents an island constituency, I believe that the provisions in the bill before us are necessary to support communities as they respond to our biodiversity crisis and that the bill therefore deserves our support.
17:35
My remarks will focus not on any one provision in the bill but on its underlying principles. As my colleague Tim Eagle said, my colleagues and I will not be supporting the bill at decision time, and I will be clear about why. It is not because we lack ambition for Scotland’s natural environment—far from it—but because the bill takes a wrong approach that risks replacing delivery with paperwork, collaboration with uncertainty and practical restoration with legal process.
Scotland’s nature needs more than aspiration. We have bucketloads of aspiration in our rural communities, but we need workable policies that are grounded in evidence and shaped in partnership with the people who deliver on the ground, and those policies must be accountable to this Parliament through clear reporting, not courtroom targets.
Although it attracted little comment at stage 3, the most controversial element of the bill has been the removal of the broad enabling powers over environmental assessments, which originally sat in part 2 of the bill. The committee was right to insist at stage 2 that such sweeping and undefined powers should not sit on the statute book without full consultation or clarity. Sadly, as we see far too often, SNP members blindly supported the Government’s position, choosing not to heed the views of every single non-Government witness and stakeholder, all of whom were deeply concerned about that part of the bill.
Restoration does not start with targets; it starts with policy, funding and practical projects. It starts with guidance from practitioners and with guidance that practitioners can use. Targets may sound decisive, but they rarely plant a tree, restore peatland or bring a habitat back to life. Targets too often produce a one-size-fits-all timetable, defensive compliance exercises and a drift towards litigation that displaces genuine collaboration.
If ministers want accountability, there is a simpler and better route. They should bring to Parliament time-bound delivery plans that are costed and linked to budgets and milestones. MSPs should be able to scrutinise progress openly, with practitioners shaping the detail through guidance that is responsive rather than rigid. The Government should use primary legislation where there is a specific regulatory gap and not as a catch-all vehicle for unresolved policy questions.
That brings me to the wider way in which the bill approaches change. Practitioners, whether they are farmers, land managers, conservation organisations, fishers, foresters or volunteers, are not obstacles to environmental recovery; they are the people who make it happen. Any legislation that affects them must be designed with them, which means publishing criteria, thresholds, definitions and evidence in advance of commencement, and it means tailoring policy to local circumstances rather than imposing universal figures that ignore geography, habitat type and community context. That has never been more true than with deer management.
Trust should be treated as something to be earned and maintained through transparency, dialogue-first processes and proportionate enforcement. Nowhere is that more important than with the provisions that will impact on rural livelihoods. What is missing from so much of the SNP Government’s approach and its attraction to framework bills—including this one, the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Act 2024, and the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Act 2022—is clarity and direction. We need a transition that keeps supply chains running instead of suddenly putting barriers in front of them. We need clarity about fees, timelines and support long before new duties begin.
Good environmental legislation—indeed, any legislation—is not just about ambition; it is also about pragmatism and the capacity to deliver. If we lose belief or lose sight of outcomes, we lose buy-in from our bigger businesses. If volunteers, small landholdings, community groups and microbusinesses find the rules too confusing, costly or sudden, we will have weakened—not strengthened—our ability to restore nature.
I will also address the scope and conduct of stages 2 and 3. This bill is now much broader than the one that entered Parliament. It may be a bit hypocritical of me to say this, because I lodged one of the stage 3 amendments, but the lack of meaningful progress in many areas of rural policy inevitably leads to members trying to find other ways to address this Government’s shortcomings. Those shortcomings have meant that entirely new topics have appeared, such as marine matters, forestry matters, enforcement frameworks and funding mechanisms. Some have merit, but many lack adequate consultation or evidence. Substantive new policies, particularly in sectors as technical as marine management and forestry, should be brought forward through focused, stand-alone legislation with proper scrutiny and impact assessments. Late additions at stage 3 are not the way to make good law and risk creating confusion that will fall on regulators and practitioners alike. They also reveal a lack of pace and leadership from this Government in sectors such as sustainable fisheries, where action is overdue. We need a more urgent focus if we are to protect coastal communities and our fishing industry while creating a healthier marine environment. If the bill passes this evening, the process for setting headline targets must ensure robust, fit-for-purpose co-design with practitioners, and outcomes must be published well before commencement.
We cannot support a bill that does little to deliver nature restoration in practice, creates uncertainty and risks eroding trust. Scotland deserves better law making than that. We will vote against the bill tonight, but we stand ready to work constructively on tighter, clearer, better-scoped legislation and on the practical programmes that restore nature—project by project, place by place.
Mercedes Villalba is the final speaker in the open debate.
17:41
Throughout the passage of the bill, I have consistently made the case that it should seek not simply to prevent further degradation of the natural environment but to restore and regenerate it, because Governments have repeatedly failed to meet their environmental targets, failing us and our shared moral obligation to the world. We have seen centuries of habitat destruction due to overexploitation, the release of invasive non-native species and pollution, meaning that Scotland is now one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world.
Our peatlands, which are vital in sequestering carbon, are damaged. The Caledonian forest, which once covered around 1.5 million hectares, is now reduced to just 1 to 3 per cent of its original size. A number of our iconic native species, such as the red squirrel, have been driven to near extinction. Although the bill represents a positive step forward, it will not be enough alone to outpace the rate at which biodiversity is declining. Our Parliament and our Governments must go further and faster than ever before.
Although I am delighted to see strong steps forward in the bill, I had understood that the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy would work with me on some areas of amendment, and I am disappointed that that did not come to fruition. Even though we were not able to make headway in the bill on a polluter-pays principle, ecological connectivity, the invasive non-native species action plan or exemptions under the Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Act 2011, progress has been made.
We have worked constructively to agree to an amendment to ensure that the vital role that Environmental Standards Scotland currently plays in upholding environmental law remains independent from Government and business. I welcome that, but it is not enough.
A polluter-pays principle would put the ethical and financial responsibility on to the developers and private companies that are causing harm to the environment. In doing so, it would relieve the pressure on NatureScot, which uses its stretched budget to mitigate the damage caused by private companies.
I am pleased that more progress has been made on forestry, and I thank Ms Gougeon for working with me on amendment 40. Agreeing to it and giving the UK forestry standard a statutory footing is a huge step in the right direction. It outlines responsible forestry standards to help forests become resilient to environmental degradation. However, simply creating the power is not enough, and it is incumbent on this Parliament to ensure that the next Scottish Government uses it.
It is my hope that the next Parliament will address some of the issues that I have outlined today, because they are not going to go away. The longer that we wait to take decisive and ambitious action, the more costly and complex the necessary action will be. However, action we must take. We, on the Labour benches, will vote for the bill tonight, and we look forward to seeing it become an act.
I am deeply disappointed that we do not have further protections relating to invasive non-native species, particularly Sitka spruce, because the issue of seed rain is far more relevant in Scotland than it is across the rest of the UK. Future legislation on that topic must address the issue head on.
It is my hope that some of the issues that I have outlined today will be addressed in the next parliamentary session, as they are not going to go away. The longer we wait to take decisive and ambitious action, the more costly and complex the necessary action will be. But action we must take, so we, on these benches, will vote for the bill tonight and look forward to seeing it become an act.
We move to winding-up speeches.
17:45
I take the opportunity to thank the clerks of the committee, my fellow committee members, the Scottish Parliament information centre and all the witnesses who gave evidence. In particular, I thank members of Scottish Environment LINK and RSPB Scotland, which organisations bring considerable expertise and wisdom as conservationist land managers and policy specialists.
The bill has been a single opportunity to make progress in this parliamentary session to tackle the nature emergency, but we need another bill in the next session. It is clear in areas such as clean water that we are falling out of alignment with the European Union—we are way behind on that. It is also clear that in how we reform the management of our seas, coastal waters and fisheries, we are slipping behind the rest of Europe and, sadly, we are slipping behind England as well. We have seen frustrations from coastal communities being reflected in many of the amendments to the bill that have been lodged at stage 2 and stage 3.
I point to amendments from Ariane Burgess and Sarah Boyack that tried to fill a huge gap in the bill, but there was not time to unpack all that. Finlay Carson made a good point—although he perhaps did not make a good point about greyhounds earlier on—about the gap in marine management that will have to be filled in the next session if we are to have a hope of moving forward.
On deer management, at this point I am not entirely sure what the minister’s national venison food supply chain management plan will look like. There are still questions in my mind about who will be setting the ambition. Will it be NatureScot or Sainsbury’s? I am watching to see whether the plan will align with the recommendation of the independent deer working group.
On national parks, as I said earlier, the Government needs to be in a position to feel confident in leading a debate on national parks, and to feel confident in celebrating national parks, in expanding them and in designating new parks. A good basis for doing that in the next session of Parliament will be for the Parliament to review what has happened with national parks and the benefits that have been delivered over the 20 years since their establishment, and to explore some of the misinformation in the public narrative around national parks.
We should value national parks and empower them to protect our environment more and to support the communities that live in them. Earlier, we talked about lessons. There are certainly lessons from the Flamingo Land debacle, which I do not think have been fully reflected into the bill; however, those lessons will need to be learned.
We have seen progress on many individual issues in the bill. I appreciate that that was a challenge, because many of those issues were not part of the original bill, and it has been a challenge for committees to scrutinise them. On swift bricks, Holyrood showed how it can be fleet of foot. It has taken four years of trying at Westminster to get action on the issue, and it has still not achieved it. We have managed to do it in a matter of weeks through having a consensual conversation. It shows how devolution can work well to make progress on these islands.
I am pleased that my colleague Ariane Burgess got through the amendment to incorporate Ramsar sites in the bill. That will certainly be welcomed by her constituents at Coul links.
I am also pleased that the minister, Jim Fairlie, managed to finally close the loophole on grouse moor licensing. It is important that the licensed area moves beyond the narrow area where shooting takes place to where raptor species nest. I have been working on and highlighting that campaign since the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill. It is great that the minister has found a robust solution to that in this bill.
Many more issues have been dealt with and many more issues have been raised, which I hope will be dealt with in the future.
The Greens absolutely support the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill at stage 3. It is an important foundation for further action to tackle the nature emergency, but there is so much more that needs to come.
17:49
I thank all those who assisted with the scrutiny of the bill, including Parliament staff who support the committee. I offer a very special thank you to the legislation team, which helped members frame amendments to the bill. I was reminded of the work that that team does when I received emails from them late yesterday evening while we were debating amendments. I also thank all the stakeholders who engaged on it. The bill is wide ranging, so there were many stakeholders involved. It was very hard to keep on top of the correspondence as we neared stage 3, and I apologise to all those to whom I have not responded. Their input was very much appreciated—in fact, not only was it appreciated, it was essential, because MSPs are not specialists on all the issues. We build up our knowledge over time, but we depend on specialists allowing us to use their knowledge and experience in order to do our job well.
As Sarah Boyack said, we face the twin challenges of the climate change and nature emergencies, and we need legislation to help us meet those challenges. She was also clear that the bill is not a quick fix but legislation that needs to be built on for the wellbeing of not only our generation but future generations.
One of the real challenges for the Rural and Islands Committee in scrutinising the bill was that we had a steep learning curve when it came to parts 1 and 2. I remember chatting with the committee after the bill team had given its briefing but before we started our scrutiny, and our surmising that parts 1 and 2 would be straightforward to deal with, but the other parts, with which we were much more familiar, would require amending. That was before we took evidence, and how wrong we were. I guess that the lesson to be learned for the next Parliament is to put proposed legislation to the appropriate committee and not be swayed from doing that.
I also want to thank the minister and the bill team for their constructive assistance with amendments on deer control. As Sarah Boyack said, we have sought to work constructively with stakeholders and with Government to improve the bill.
Mercedes Villalba laid bare the challenges that we face. She spoke about her own work on non-native species, clearly underlining that this bill is not job done but a framework for redoubling our efforts. Those sentiments were echoed by Mark Ruskell.
Beatrice Wishart spoke about her amendments that were aimed at dovetailing this legislation with targets in other legislation. It is incredibly important that all legislation and strategies to protect our environment, nature and the planet work together simultaneously.
Scottish Labour has been constructive. We have worked hard to improve the legislation wherever possible, to try to give voice to the concerns of stakeholders as they brought those to us, and using their knowledge and expertise to frame amendments to the bill. We believe that that inclusive approach leads to better legislation. It garners wider support for the bill and the aims that it seeks to pursue. I am pleased that we will support the bill when it is voted on tonight.
17:53
I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests. I am a partner in a farming business and a member of NFU Scotland, SLE and the Royal Highland and Agricultural Society of Scotland.
I start on a positive note. Despite differences over the content of the bill, the aspirations to protect and enhance Scotland’s natural environment are shared around the chamber. Scotland has, by some metrics, suffered some significant nature depletion, and we are slowly coming to terms with that legacy. At various stages of the bill, members have spoken about the impact of changes to the environment within their lifetimes, including in their personal experiences. We can point to the fact that there has been a 15 per cent decline in average species abundance since the mid-1990s, but it is direct experience that often gives this issue its urgency.
It is welcome that we have reached a time of broad acceptance of the human role as custodian of our environment and of an appreciation of what we can do to reverse some of the losses. The need for nature restoration and positive stewardship is, however, something that many farmers, crofters and land managers have recognised for many years, long before a Government strategy was put in place. Private initiatives have often led the way in improving biodiversity. Where flexibility is available and innovation allowed, outcomes are often better.
Despite the shared aspirations, we have ended up with almost 200 amendments at stage 3 and plenty of points of contention. Stage 2 was far from straightforward and I commend the work of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee on that. Part 1 of the bill was improved considerably at stage 2 by a spirit of holding the Scottish Government to account on targets and a recognition that ministers have—to be charitable—struggled with such targets in the past. We now have a range of provisions in the bill providing for the setting of targets in more detail and, just as importantly, for reporting and reviewing progress against them.
At stage 1, I pointed out that action to promote biodiversity and meet the targets that will be required by the bill must be a twin test of effectiveness and sustainability. These amendments move us closer to a position that can be achieved. Part 2 of the bill has been removed, while part 3 has received a number of purposeful amendments, including those of my colleague Tim Eagle, to require national parks policy statements to be made on a 10-year basis, clarifying the purpose and approach to the park authorities.
Part 4 could fill a lengthy speech in itself, and I recognise the extensive work that my colleague Edward Mountain has done with the deer management elements of the bill in the hope of improving the Scottish Government’s approach.
I have pushed my own proposals around goose management. My native Orkney, for example, has no deer but it has suffered considerable ecological damage from visiting geese populations. We must recognise the shared principles of population management and, while taking species-specific approaches, acknowledge that there can be similar challenges across species and in different parts of the country. That is a short way of saying that a one-size-fits-all approach to Scotland’s natural environment will not work, nor will an approach that simply prioritises rewilding at the expense of our rural economy.
Rural Scotland is a daily workplace for hundreds of thousands of people. It provides the food that we eat, as well as being home to thousands of businesses that support our communities. It is nothing new to say that a balance must be struck between competing interests in the countryside. When the bill addresses detail and often leaves those questions for the future, it too often seems to get that balance wrong.
For example, my amendment on ecological focus areas and their application in the islands sought to recognise the distinct position and challenges of farming on Scotland’s island communities. The balance is different there from farms in the central belt—the margins are lower and greening more difficult to achieve. As an islander, I know all too well the problems that ill-considered legislation can cause in places when Edinburgh is so distant. This legislative process has been a chance for the Scottish Government to recognise Scotland’s diversity and acknowledge that there is not one natural environment but many, but too often it has failed to do so.
This bill is one best framed in terms of missed opportunities from the bill’s introduction to today’s proceedings. There has been as much commentary on what the bill has not done as what it will do. That is disappointing and, once again, rural Scotland is left looking for more answers than the Scottish Government is willing to provide. The bill was a long time in the making and subject to extensive pre-legislative consultation. We might therefore have expected a package of measures that was a little more complete, but this is the bill that we have. It is better for having gone through the parliamentary process, but few will be satisfied with the outcome.
17:58
I want to take a moment to thank, from the bottom of our hearts, on behalf of Gillian Martin and Mairi Gougeon, our bill teams, our legislation teams, our policy development teams, our officials, our private office and the parliamentary staff. They have put in a hell of a lot of work to get the bill to where it is today, and we owe them an enormous debt of gratitude. I thank them very much from all of us.
I also want to say, as this is Mairi Gougeon’s final bill, that she will be an enormous loss to the Parliament. She has been an amazing person to work with, and rural Scotland has been bettered by the work that she has put in.
At its heart, the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill is about respect for nature, for our land and for the people who steward it and care for it. It is a bill with both people and nature at its heart, and that is something that I care deeply about. It will deliver for nature and people with ambition and balance at its core. That is why, for the first time, we are putting in place statutory nature restoration targets, which will drive positive on-the-ground actions that will keep us on the trajectory to restore and regenerate nature by 2045.
If future Governments are found to be wanting in that ambition for nature, the bill contains the mechanisms to ensure that the Scottish Parliament can hold them to account. However, it does much more than that. It strengthens the legislation underpinning our two fantastic national parks, and it provides us with additional tools to manage our deer in a way that will be positive for the environment while creating entrepreneurial opportunities as we develop our world-class venison product, delivering new jobs and healthy food for the Scottish nation.
Through the amendments that members have championed, the bill will, if passed, deliver in a range of areas. It will give the Scottish ministers new powers to develop legislation relating to wildfire management and forestry management and new rights to enable crofters and tenants to control deer. That is to name but a few of the progressive amendments that have been added to the bill.
The twin crises of climate change and biodiversity loss represent the existential threat of our times. Scotland’s natural environment underpins our economy, our agriculture, our wellbeing, our quality of life, and the pride that we all feel in this land. We all know that not doing anything now is absolutely not an option—it is not an option for any responsible Government. If we want the Scotland of tomorrow to be one in which we have healthy communities, sustainable and quality food production, food security and vibrant rural industries, we need to ensure that our ecosystems thrive.
The bill is not about environment over economy; it is about both. They are two sides of the same coin, and we cannot have one without the other. The bill matters, not because of what it symbolises but because of what it will enable us to deliver. It will create a practical delivery chain and ambitious targets, which will drive real action on the ground—action that will be delivered not just by Government but by the people who know the land best.
The Scottish Government is determined to ensure that its key stakeholders have the tools and support that they need to protect and restore nature in a way that works for rural land managers and communities while building on their stewardship and recognising and respecting their role as the custodians—which we all are—of our iconic land and the species that coexist with us. We will continue to work in partnership with our farmers, crofters, keepers, stalkers, land managers, environmental non-governmental organisations and community organisations to ensure that the measures that we put in place are proportionate, workable and successful and that they deliver benefits not just for nature but for the people of Scotland.
Of course, one bill cannot do everything, although we have certainly packed plenty into this one. Members and stakeholders have raised important points and demanded more action in areas such as marine protection, non-native species, guidance, monitoring and delivery frameworks. We are making headway in those areas, but some issues, particularly those requiring specific technical detail, are better delivered through secondary legislation, strategies or implementation programmes. It is crucial that we focus resources on delivery rather than introduce greater complexity and duplication of effort.
As we draw the debate to a close, it is worth reflecting on the shared effort that has brought us here today. The bill reflects the Parliament at its best. It has been shaped by members across the chamber. We have improved it through engagement, and we are building consensus, including through today’s debate. I hope that the unity of purpose shown by members to tackle the biodiversity crisis and to push the Government to go faster and further to deliver the nature-positive outcomes that we all want will now be reflected in members’ support for the bill.
However, I have to say that I am disappointed in the Tories, because we have made significant efforts to find solutions to the many issues that were raised. We brought them in and asked for their input so that they could contribute to making the bill the success that it is. I can only imagine that it is politics that is getting in the way of passing good legislation.
I welcome the great co-operation from the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats and all the other—
Will the member take an intervention?
No. The debate is finished, Mr Halcro Johnston.
No, you have just raised a point.
We have had these discussions, and I really am disappointed—[Interruption.]
Let us not shout at one another.
I am disappointed that the Conservatives will not vote for a bill that has had so much work put into it by everybody. I welcome the support that we are getting from the other parties in the chamber, but I am disappointed in the Tories. I commend the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill to the Parliament.
That concludes the debate on the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill.
Next
Point of Order