You say that the amendment would, in effect, result in overlap and repetition, but, with regard to its purpose, do you not accept that all of the issues that I have been talking about, and some of the other issues that colleagues have mentioned this morning, need to be brought into the previous marine plan that you say exists but that lots of stakeholders are not satisfied with?

This has been quite a constructive debate, because there is ambition to make things happen. The cabinet secretary said a few times that an amendment would involve duplicating powers that ministers already have. That illustrates that people want to see action. It is not enough just to have a power; it is about how it is used, monitored and reflected on. There has been a constructive discussion, but there is a need for more action.

It is critical to link the national marine plan and regional marine plans and to give them a local focus that involves communities, not only to bring people around the table but to lead to action that will improve their lives and our environment.

The fact that we are in a nature and climate emergency means that things are changing. I get that research is being done and that things do not change immediately, but we need to start doing survey work and planning ahead now. There will be tipping points involving things such as the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation that we need to start reflecting on now. We need joined-up thinking and action—there are opportunities as well as challenges.

The responses from both cabinet secretaries have been relatively constructive and positive. If members do not move amendments today because of what we have been told by the cabinet secretaries, that means that there is a clear appetite for further discussion before stage 3, so that we do not accidentally miss out on addressing the very good points that stakeholders have made to us. If our amendments, as currently crafted, do not take the ideal approach—if, for example, they introduce inadvertent duplication or are not perfect—I would like us to get them right before stage 3.

If there are not to be further amendments on an issue, there needs to be an explanation—now or very soon—from the Scottish Government about what is happening. These matters cannot be kicked into touch. It is not just about the pressure from stakeholders; there is a real need to see practical action, so that we deliver where there is a degree of agreement around the table. That is critical. If there is a consultation on the way, we need to know what that means. That is key.

Some of the amendments will be moved today, but others will not be. There is an appetite for change and for more action. Change is under way, but we need to ensure that it is communicated effectively to our communities and to key stakeholders, so that we do not just kick all this into touch and say that the most recent marine legislation sorted everything so we do not need to do anything. The fact that we have amendments shows that people feel that we need action.

There are a lot of amendments in the group, and colleagues will be relieved to know that I am not going to refer to them all.

I think that everyone here is trying to strengthen to the bill and respond to the various stakeholders who have spoken to us about the improvements that they think need to be made. I thank the Marine Conservation Society, the Scottish Creel Fishermen’s Federation, Scottish Environment LINK and the Sustainable Inshore Fisheries Trust for helping me to craft my amendments in the group.

Given that a huge portion of our environmental sector is focused on our marine, coastal and fishing environments, the amendments are incredibly important not just for our seas and our marine ecosystem but for the people who rely on those for their livelihoods.

My amendment 17 would provide that

“The Scottish Ministers must, within 12 months of Royal Assent, publish a national marine strategy”.

Many stakeholders in the marine sector have been asking for that. The strategy would need to set out clear indicators or methods for measuring progress. My amendment would ensure that ministers, in preparing or reviewing the strategy, were obliged to consult relevant stakeholders and take account of “new environmental challenges”; that is something that Scottish Environment LINK mentioned.

Amendments 93, 328 and 95 would all strengthen our focus on adaptation as well as mitigation. Amendment 93 would update section 68(3) of the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 so that ministers must state the ecosystem recovery objectives for any new nature conservation marine protected area. That would ensure that designation criteria are properly aligned with future nature recovery targets under part 1 of the bill.

Amendment 95 would require ministers to review the guidance annually so that it could be updated in line with new scientific evidence and best practice, which is vital to raising awareness and delivering best practice whereby lessons can be learned, shared and implemented.

I thank the Scottish Creel Fishermen’s Federation and SIFT for helping to craft my amendments 156 and 265 on inshore fishing. Amendment 156 would give ministers the power to bring in low-impact fishing priority areas, in line with their commitments to support a just transition to a more sustainable industry, and I have worked closely with the Scottish Creel Fishermen’s Federation on it. It is a modest proposal that would require any such areas to be subject to extensive consultation; it could be done only to help meet any targets that are set under the bill, to fulfil the national marine plan or to help achieve ministers’ legal duty to deliver good environmental status.

Having said that—and, again, this has the support of the Scottish Creel Fishermen’s Federation—I encourage members to also support amendments 96 to 101, in the name of Maurice Golden, which are systemic and in the same space. Those amendments draw on the positive experience with the inshore fisheries and conservation authorities that operate successfully in English waters. What is proposed would fit within a potential hierarchy in the 2010 act of 11 regional marine plans sitting below one national marine plan.

My amendment 265 would give ministers the powers to protect the parts of our sea lochs that are most important as marine carbon stores. Those make a significant contribution to Scotland’s climate mitigation efforts, burying more carbon than the whole North Sea and storing more per hectare than peatland. However, there is significant concern that carbon that is sequestered in those sediments would, if it was disturbed, re-enter the water column, and would then be at risk of returning to the atmosphere.

Scottish ministers have drafted the “Scottish Blue Carbon Action Plan”, which rightly supports more research, and there are indeed many areas where that research is needed. The areas referred to are only rarely fished, so their closure would have a minimal impact on the trawl sector, which is the primary cause of disturbance to our inshore marine muddy sediments. However, their protection would have a significant impact on the amount of carbon that Scotland can sequester.

I also support amendment 294, in the name of Ross Greer, on enforcement, because taking stronger action is important.

In conclusion, the amendments in the group are important because they would improve our environment for coastal communities as well as for those who are working in the fishing industry, which would, in turn, enable us to create a more sustainable future for Scotland.

I have spoken to Government ministers, and I am conscious that they have a variety of views on these issues. I am trying to get positive results here, so I am keen to listen to what ministers have to say. Like other colleagues, I want to be constructive and ensure that we get the best possible legislation in order to have the best possible impact.

I move amendment 17.

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

This debate provides an opportunity to focus on the lack of progress that the SNP Government has delivered in improving and maintaining transport infrastructure across Scotland. The cabinet secretary was keen to talk about progress on the A9. I have to say that, for those who travel on it, it does not feel as though progress has been made.

Transport is vital—members from across the chamber agree on that—and we need a joined-up approach, with better infrastructure, investment, repairs and maintenance.

I will not, because I am now nearly a third of the way through my time. [Interruption.] I have said no twice.

Without reliable roads and better connectivity, businesses cannot compete and communities cannot thrive. When transport networks fail, supply chains break, and the first to suffer are our local shops, our rural communities and the most vulnerable households.

We will see more and more challenges as a result of infrastructure being impacted by the climate and nature emergency, so we need better logistics and transport planning to protect our economy and our environment.

Every road, rail link, port and ferry link must be linked together as part of a logistics chain. Finlay Carson’s points about Cairnryan were absolutely right, and he highlighted the failure to make joined-up connections. Having a stronger logistics network means that farmers can get food to market, businesses can reach customers and Scotland can compete globally.

Several colleagues have mentioned safety issues. The quality and safety of our roads and pavements is crucial. Having safer roads and infrastructure is not optional; it is vital to people’s health, as has been highlighted. Without better and safer roads, we risk discouraging people—people will not be able to choose active travel, and cycling is not appealing, if there are potholes, poor surfaces and unsafe junctions.

There is also an impact on our bus routes. We do not have opportunities as a result of huge numbers of bus routes being axed and train services being plagued by cancellations. In relation to communities in the Highlands and other rural areas, as well as investing in the A9, we need to ensure that there are better railway services.

We need a joined-up set of approaches nationally and across every region. We have regularly highlighted the SNP Government’s brutal cuts to our council budgets, which have hit people’s roads and pavements. We need to look at buses, because too many people have a bus pass but cannot use it. Lothian Buses shows what can be done, but Glasgow has waited six years for bus franchising, and far too many rural communities have lost services.

We must invest in transport, and we need joined-up thinking, because transport is essential infrastructure. Given that, a decade on, only 13 per cent of the A9 dualling is complete, the SNP Government has no ground to stand on.

No—I do not have time.

Scottish Labour’s focus is on upgrading our creaking transport infrastructure. It is vital that our roads—our national and our local road networks—are maintained. We must also factor in connectivity between our rail infrastructure and bus services, because action is needed in that regard, too. Far too many communities simply do not have the access that they need.

As we say in our amendment, we need a national industrial strategy that aligns transport, energy and skills with long-term economic growth, as well as a strategic spatial plan. We need investment across the regions and, as members have said, we must strengthen logistics and our rail links to deliver our climate and nature emergency commitments. Our transport sector is vital. If we lag behind because we do not invest in roads, rail and logistics, there will be an impact on sustainable growth and the transport of goods.

No. It was just that one of the witnesses said that it is a curiosity that it is not specifically included in the bill. The issue is about explaining the options that come from the current legal provisions that are referred to in the bill.

What was appropriate at the time would depend on different cases in which legal proceedings were brought, but remediation is not excluded from the bill even though it is not explicitly referenced in it. Is that a correct interpretation?

I want to follow up on EU alignment and discuss the issue of penalties. We took quite a lot of evidence from witnesses who had a range of different views about the exact detail of potential penalties. Some witnesses said in response to the call for views that the bill should go further in some areas, including in relation to penalties, by looking at what has been discussed in the environmental crime directive and looking beyond traditional types of penalties. Some issues that were considered included restricting a company’s operations, turnover-based fines and remediation orders.

I am keen to get your views on remediation orders, which is one issue that was discussed by witnesses. Having listened to, or seen in writing, the evidence that different witnesses gave, do you think that there is a case for expanding any of the penalty provisions in the bill?