Chamber and committees

I have nothing further to add, convener, and I would like to withdraw amendment 368.

Amendment 368, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 369 and 370 not moved.

Amendment 466 moved—[Ross Greer].

Does the member agree that the legislation presents an opportunity to close any potential loopholes? I think that I heard from the cabinet secretary that she would be willing to have further conversations with Rhoda Grant about the potential loopholes that might exist, as raised by the amendments, which is welcome. We could then strengthen any legislation that is ultimately passed.

Thank you, convener. Yes, I will speak to and move amendments 356 to 358 in Rhoda Grant’s name. I place on the record the fact that Rhoda Grant and I are members of the Co-operative Party.

Amendment 356 would insert, after section 3, a power to modify crofting community right to buy provisions. It is a regret that the Scottish Government has not reviewed and consulted on right to buy provisions prior to taking forward the bill. It makes the bill incomplete and means that, although the Scottish Government can tick a box to say that it has delivered a land reform bill, it does so in the knowledge that the bill is incomplete.

If the current reviews indicate the need for further legislation to make the law workable and change land ownership patterns in Scotland, the Scottish Government will have to find time to legislate again. Amendment 356 would therefore grant the Scottish ministers powers to modify the crofting community right to buy legislation without bringing forward primary legislation. Changes, of course, would have to be consulted on prior to any regulations being laid and scrutinised by the Parliament.

Amendment 357 is similar and would grant the Scottish ministers powers to modify community right to buy provisions.

Amendment 358 would require Co-operative Development Scotland to support community benefit societies in exercising the community right to buy. Most community buyouts are co-ops of one kind or another, such as community groups, sheep stock clubs and the like. Co-operative Development Scotland exists as part of Scottish Enterprise, so we could use it as a vehicle to promote community co-operative ownership.

Good morning, cabinet secretary. I have three question areas, if that is okay. I will see how we do for time.

The first is about the purpose of the bill. The explanatory notes say:

“The primary duty is to set targets in connection with nature restoration for the purpose of supporting and measuring implementation of the biodiversity strategy”.

A concern has been raised with me that, by linking the purpose to the biodiversity strategy, we potentially create a loophole whereby a future Government could water down the biodiversity strategy. The purpose of the targets would then be to support something that has been watered down, instead of whatever the overall aim or goal is—restoring the natural environment or whatever form of words the Government chooses to use.

Is the cabinet secretary open to looking at that potential loophole and at a way of tightening up the language to make sure that the purpose of the targets is to support the goal, as you have referenced already, and not an external strategy that is not legally binding and which could be watered down by a future Government?

Thank you. My next question relates to invasive non-native species, which Rhoda Grant and Mark Ruskell have already picked up on. As Mark Ruskell said, we have relatively strong legislation on invasive non-native species—it is illegal to release any species outside its natural range—but there are two key areas in which blanket exemptions to that legislation risk undermining progress and damaging the natural environment. They are the lack of regulation on non-native game bird releases, which Mark Ruskell mentioned, and the exemption of non-native commercial conifers. Both of those are exempt from the polluter-pays principle.

Is the cabinet secretary open to revisiting those exemptions through the bill, so that we can help to drive effective action on invasive species in order to prevent further biodiversity loss?

I do not have any further questions.

My final question also relates to invasive non-native species. They are a principal driver of biodiversity loss globally, they are an intensifying issue in Scotland and they are having particularly serious impacts on islands. I am thinking specifically of projects involving highly mobile species, such as the Orkney Native Wildlife Project, that the Scottish Government funds.

Does the cabinet secretary believe that the current legal arrangements for tackling invasive non-native species are adequate? In particular, can operational staff access land with sufficient speed to eradicate highly mobile species? My point relates to Rhoda Grant’s earlier question about designating particular zones so that, where there are highly mobile species, operational staff can get access to land in order to carry out eradication.

Thank you. I would like to take you up on the offer to meet to discuss the matter ahead of stage 2.

It sounds as though you are saying that you support the intention behind amendment 109. I gather that the bill sets a particular direction of travel towards diversifying ownership, so it would make sense to prevent any further increases so that we do not go back on ourselves. Could an amendment be lodged to secure that direction of travel, which I think we agreed on, ahead of stage 3?

Does that mean that you are not ruling out a future reduction in the threshold to 500 hectares?