Chamber and committees

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.

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.

As the First Minister has outlined, for well over two weeks the Marinera and the vessel’s crew were in Scottish waters in Scottish legal jurisdiction. This week, the US Coast Guard has removed the tanker’s captain and first officer from UK waters. The Scottish Government claims to be committed to human rights at home and abroad, but legal experts have already questioned the legality of the Marinera’s seizure, to which the First Minister lent his support.

Given the length of time for which the crew of the Marinera were held in Scotland, did the First Minister make any effort to seek guarantees from the US Coast Guard that it would uphold the human rights of those sailors who were taken out of UK waters?

Amendment 40 would provide a new regulation-making power in the Forestry and Land Management (Scotland) Act 2018 in relation to sustainable forest management.

Members may remember that, at stage 2, I lodged a number of forestry amendments covering three key areas: deer overgrazing, urban afforestation and sustainable forestry. Those amendments were inspired by the Royal Society of Edinburgh’s inquiry into public financial support for tree planting and forestry.

Following an offer by the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands to discuss, ahead of stage 3, the principle behind that group of amendments and how we might address issues of shared concern, I did not press them to a vote. After constructive engagement with Ms Gougeon, her officials and representatives of Scottish Forestry, I am pleased to bring amendment 40 to the chamber today.

Amendment 40 would provide the Scottish ministers with the power to make regulations with a specific focus on sustainable forest management, grounded in the UK forestry standard. The aim is to ensure that good forestry practice such as native broadleaf planting and increased shrub cover becomes a statutory requirement. The amendment would be a step in the right direction, but I hope that, in the future, we can have further discussions around the need for environmental impact assessments to consider deep-peat soil and, in particular, its role in sequestering carbon.

The UK forestry standard currently has little statutory underpinning. This power would provide that underpinning, thereby allowing the Scottish ministers to better enforce the principles of sustainable forest management, which they are under a duty to promote. I hope that members see the value of that power and support it.

I thank Ms Gougeon for her support for the amendment, in particular on the issue of seed rain and sensitive habitats. Sustainable and responsible management is crucial in protecting Scotland’s forests and land for generations to come, and the power in the amendment would demonstrate our commitment to that ethos. I hope that members across the chamber will agree with me on that and will support my amendment.

I move amendment 40.

Again, I am grateful for the minister’s support and hope that members will be able to support amendment 40, which I will press.

I start by discussing some of the other amendments in this group that are of particular note.

Scottish Labour will support Mark Ruskell’s amendment 141. Swift nest boxes are vital in order to restore swift populations, so I thank Mark Ruskell for championing the issue and the very many constituents who have contacted us about the amendment.

I also want to highlight Scottish Labour’s support for Beatrice Wishart’s amendment 159. I raised similar amendments at stage 2 because urgent action is needed to tackle invasive non-native species, and I am pleased to see the matter brought back at stage 3.

My amendment 61 seeks to end exemptions granted by ministerial order to the introduction of invasive and non-native species in the Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Act 2011 when such exemptions are made solely for commercial or economic reasons. I have brought back the amendment, following my amendments 54, 55, 56 and 12 at stage 2, which sought to address and shine a light on the extent of environmental damage that is caused by invasive non-native species. In particular, my amendment 56 sought to address exemptions granted

“solely for economic or commercial purposes”.

I did not move that amendment at stage 2 because the cabinet secretary said that she was prepared to work with me on redrafting it for stage 3. Ms Martin said:

“If she considers not moving amendments 12, 54, 55 and 56, we can work on them ahead of stage 3.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, 19 November 2025; c 84.]

Unfortunately, despite meeting the cabinet secretary ahead of stage 3 and raising that specific issue with her, work in this particular area did not occur. I have therefore reworked amendment 56 and brought it back today through amendment 61.

At stage 2, the cabinet secretary raised concerns about the impact that the amendment could have on plantations of Sitka spruce. However, let us be clear: that would be the case only if the plantations provided no environmental value whatsoever, which is something that we simply cannot afford. We need the plantations to have a net positive impact by, for example, sequestering more carbon than is released from peatlands damaged by conifer seed rain. That would be a reasonable intervention for the Government to make. It is reasonable to require those in our forestry sector to do more than just make money. They are custodians of our land and must justify the use of invasive and non-native species beyond profit margins, because if they do not, it is our land, our air, our water, our environment and our health that will pay the price.

If the cabinet secretary cannot support amendment 61, it suggests that the Scottish Government is prepared to put private commercial profit above everything else—including our natural environment—rather than at least attempt to balance it against our other concerns. I ask her to consider the amendment carefully and to be clear that the bill cannot be used to greenwash destructive business practices.

I am grateful for the cabinet secretary’s support for my amendment 70.

To take her back to amendments 46 and 47, she referred to the policy memorandum as a basis for rejecting those amendments. However, the bill clearly says that one of the topics is

“the condition or extent of any habitat”,

not the condition and extent, as the cabinet secretary said. On that basis, will she reconsider her position on my amendments 46 and 47?

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

The cabinet secretary seems to be mixing herself up with her colleague. She is absolutely right to say that I met Ms Gougeon to discuss amendments to part 4 that I lodged at stage 2. I worked with her on them, and I have brought my proposal back at stage 3 in the form of amendment 40. However, Ms Martin is a completely distinct individual—[Laughter]—who, as I said, made it clear that she would be willing to meet me specifically on my stage 2 amendment 56, which I have brought back at stage 3 in the form of amendment 61.

I take on board what Ms Martin says about disputing a claim, but the amendment is not about a claim. Its aim is to ensure exactly what she said—that exemptions for invasive non-native species will not be made solely for economic or commercial reasons. That is what the amendment is about. It does not say that that is happening; it is about making sure that it does not happen. If the minister supports that principle, and given what she said at stage 2, I do not understand why she avoided meeting me on that issue with a view to lodging an amendment at stage 3.

I have three amendments in the group. Amendments 46 and 47 seek to separate the target topic of habitat condition and habitat extent into two distinct topics. I am concerned that the bill allows for one or the other to be sufficient to meet a target, rather than requiring both to be so. That would mean that the condition of a habitat could decline while the extent grows or that the extent could shrink while the condition improves, and those situations would still satisfy the target.

I lodged similar amendments at stage 2, which the Government could not support due to the inclusion of the phrase “conservation importance”. The Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy stated:

“I understand why Ms Villalba lodged amendments 19 and 20, but I am concerned that they would have the effect of narrowing the target topic by restricting it to habitats of conservation importance ... The term “conservation importance”, which is used in the amendments, would limit the scope of habitats in that target topic and, in turn, the available set of indicators that could be used to set targets against. On that basis, I ask the committee not to agree to amendments 19 and 20.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, 19 November 2025; c 16.]

I therefore did not move those amendments at stage 2. Instead, I have worked on them to remove the phrasing that was highlighted and I have brought them back at stage 3, where I hope to receive Scottish Government support for them.

Amendment 70 addresses some of the concerns that I expressed at stage 2 about ensuring that, if there is a need for a new independent review body to be appointed to monitor the Scottish Government’s progress on targets, appropriate safeguards are in place. Accordingly, amendment 70 seeks to add some additional qualifications to the power in proposed new section 2G(4) of the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004, so that any new body must be an independent public body or office-holder.

Although I understand that there is no intention at this time for that function to be carried out by anyone other than Environmental Standards Scotland, it is important that we, as a responsible and forward-looking Parliament, future proof the power. The restrictions seek to place appropriate limits on the powers of any future Government by ensuring that the crucial independent review body function may be carried out only by an independent public body.

I put on the record my thanks to Scottish Government officials for working constructively with me on the wording of amendment 70, and my thanks to the legislation team for their support on amendments 46 and 47. I look forward to hearing the cabinet secretary’s response, particularly with regard to amendments 46 and 47, and I urge all members to support all my amendments in the group.