The concerns are that part 2 goes far too far and is not proportionate. That is why quite a few of us have lodged amendments. It is about the issue of ministerial accountability and getting that balance right. The idea behind the affirmative procedure is about making sure that the Parliament gets to formally approve any regulations, so that they do not simply slide through. It is absolutely crucial that we do not weaken protections by accident. That is why we are all trying to test the purpose and impact in terms of future decisions.

The purpose of my amendments is to fix those problems in the legislation, and I engaged with stakeholders to see how we could do that. It is up to committee members to decide which options they want to support. I was trying to be constructive by increasing accountability and avoiding that non-regression challenge by preventing environmental regulations being inadvertently reduced. I was trying to come up with amendments that would help and strengthen the bill, because, as you suggested, the current wording significantly weakens environmental protections. It is about getting that joined-up thinking and accountability.

My amendment 10 would ensure that changes are substantive and accountable, that we debate such issues openly in the Parliament and that they do not just slip under people’s notice. Accountability cannot be left only to ministerial discretion through secondary legislation. I was trying to drive joined-up thinking and action on the climate and nature crises that we face and that will only get worse. What a minister sees as simplification might weaken environmental protections, so I wanted to include protections in the bill. It is up to the committee members to decide how to vote.

I have listened to Alasdair Allan’s suggestions about what his amendments would do, and I will listen to the rest of the debate.

One of the issues that I mentioned was new criminal offences or charges that could be created through secondary legislation. Can you confirm whether the affirmative procedure would be required for such a change? It is about being proportionate in using that opportunity.

Like the previous two speakers, I want to respond to the concerns that the committee raised at stage 1 but also those that were raised by a raft of stakeholders who got in touch because they were worried about unintended consequences from this section of the bill, which provides ministers with the wide-ranging power to modify key environmental protections. I want to try to reintroduce protections into the bill.

First, I thank the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management for its support in crafting the amendments, which have four clear aims for improving the bill: greater clarity and precision in drafting, ensuring that the legislation is easier to interpret and aligned with the structure elsewhere in the bill; a clear non-regression guarantee that requires ministers to confirm that any changes do not weaken existing environmental protections, a safeguard that is in line with Scottish environmental ambitions and international obligations; stronger alignment with our duties under the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c) Regulations 1994; and ensuring that modifications respect the management objectives of the UK site network and the conservation needs of environmentally important habitats.

The key issue of enhanced parliamentary oversight has already been mentioned this morning, and I noticed reference to a ministerial statement being required. My ambition is to strengthen the bill, and there are different ways of doing that.

My amendment 5 is about clarity and precision, strengthening accountability and improving the consistency of drafting across the bill.

My amendment 6 is a generic non-regression safeguard for any regulations that are made under part 2. As has already been said, we have nature and climate crises and we need to address them both, but we also need safeguarding standards, and amendment 6 seeks to close a loophole and reinforce public trust. Environmental law should be thinking ahead, not looking backwards. We need the bill to align with Scotland’s wider commitments on climate and environmental ambitions and not to erode them by making technical changes.

My amendment 7 would make sure that, when the Scottish ministers were considering regulations, they would think about how any modification or restatement conformed with their duties in relation to the UK site network, under the habitats regulations. Again, I want to make sure that there is consistent application in line with existing statutory duties when looking at the conservation of European sites in Scotland and no undermining of the management and protection of those critical habitats. Amendment 7 is therefore about protecting the integrity of the UK site network by not allowing minor technical changes to have a big impact, as well as about strengthening environmental leadership and embedding accountability in the bill.

It was interesting to hear Alasdair Allan’s speech in favour of his amendments. My version, which is set out in my amendment 8, is about limiting ministerial discretion, enhancing democratic oversight and preventing ministers from bypassing proper parliamentary scrutiny. As drafted, the bill definitely risks allowing significant changes to be made with only procedural approval. My amendment would ensure that powers could not be exercised without a full, proper legislative debate and would avoid authority being expanded without accountability. The list of provisions that my amendment 8 would remove includes serious matters such as arrest powers, search powers and fees, which should not slide through under secondary legislation. Again, it is a matter of power.

My amendment 9 would remove section 3(e)—stakeholders raised many concerns about it at stage 1—in order to tighten the scope of ministerial powers, prevent overreach, focus on genuine policy purposes and prevent technical tidying up being done by the back door to weaken or dilute environmental standards and safeguards.

My amendment 10 is, again, about narrowing ministerial powers. The phrase

“to improve or simplify the operation of the law”

is vague and could lead to wide-ranging changes.

On several occasions in the past few weeks, we have discussed the need for leadership and action to deliver a fair transition, with new jobs across the country, while supporting those in the oil and gas sector. Therefore, I welcome today’s announcement by the chancellor that she will tackle the cost of living for working families by cutting the cost of energy bills by, on average, £150 a year from April.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I tried to vote, and would have voted no, but, again, it did not register.

I am pleased to open the debate for Scottish Labour. Today’s debate should have been an opportunity for Parliament to come together and set out a clear, credible path for Scotland’s energy future. However, once again, we are confronted with a motion from the Conservatives that is more about political theatre than about serious long-term planning.

From the SNP, we see the same pattern.

No, thank you.

No, thank you. I had four minutes, and now I have less time than that.

There has been a complete absence of SNP strategic leadership. Let me be clear from the outset that Scotland’s oil and gas industry has made a profound contribution to our economy, to workers’ livelihoods and to energy security for decades. The people who built that industry—the engineers, the offshore workers and the supply chain businesses—deserve a future that is every bit as strong as its past. Instead, they have been given years of neglect. The Conservatives at Westminster and the SNP at Holyrood have both stood by without any plan for what comes next. Our amendment makes that point clearly. We regret that the SNP and the Tories have let Scotland’s oil and gas sector down, with no plan for the future.

Scotland should be a global leader in the energy transition. We have the engineering expertise, the offshore skills, the natural resources and the public support, but we have lacked leadership. That is why we welcome the UK Government’s plans, which are deeply rooted in energy security, fairness and a realistic path to net zero. Labour is clear that oil and gas will continue to be part of our energy mix for decades to come, because turning off the taps tomorrow is not an option. That would undermine energy security, push up bills and make us even more dependent on imports from other countries. We also need to make—

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I tried to vote yes, but the app shows that my vote has not been accounted for.