I will press it, because there has been huge support for it, but I accept that not everyone will vote for it today. On that basis, if it is not agreed to, I will still be up for discussions.

Amendment 103 is important, because it would strengthen the bill. The bill states that the targets are

“to provide a means of supporting and measuring the progress being made in respect of the implementation”

of the Scottish biodiversity strategy and the biodiversity duty. However, amendment 103 would sharpen the ambition in the bill. Instead of simply supporting biodiversity, it would commit us to a clear goal of halting and reversing biodiversity loss in Scotland.

Amendment 103 seeks to ensure that the purpose of setting targets must be a stand-alone purpose—to halt and reverse biodiversity loss in Scotland—rather than being tied to the implementation of Scotland’s non-statutory biodiversity strategy, which could be subject to change because the term “supporting” is vague and the term “halting and reversing biodiversity loss” is precise and outcome focused. By adopting amendment 103, the bill will send a strong message that Scotland is committed not just to supporting biodiversity but to halting and reversing the on-going biodiversity loss. I will move amendment 103.

Amendment 34 is about protected areas. It seeks to ensure that management measures are in place and are demonstrably effective in maintaining and restoring protected sites, and specifically marine protected sites and ecosystems. Protected areas, including marine protected sites, are the cornerstone of Scotland’s nature recovery framework and represent some of our most important habitats. The bill focuses on broad ecosystem or species targets, but it does not explicitly track the condition of those sites.

Without a dedicated target, there is a risk that protected areas will remain in poor ecological condition even if overall biodiversity indicators elsewhere show improvement. Amendment 34 would ensure that the ecological quality and health of terrestrial and marine protected sites are directly measured and monitored. It would align the bill with Scotland’s statutory commitment under European Union-derived international law frameworks and ensure that those critical areas are central to the delivery of nature recovery.

Many of those sites are in poor condition. Amendment 34 would make their restoration a statutory priority. Marine protected sites are especially vulnerable and need clear legislative backing. For MPAs to work as they were intended to, they need to be a strong, continuous priority throughout all environmental legislation. Adopting amendment 34 will make the bill stronger, more credible and more effective at safeguarding Scotland’s most important natural features, whether on land or at sea.

Amendment 107 would require Scottish ministers to include within the bill’s biodiversity targets framework a nature recovery target that is focused on fishing pressures. That would ensure that fishing impacts are explicitly treated as a key driver of marine biodiversity change. Ministers would need to report on progress toward the target, thereby linking fisheries management with the nature-duty cycle that is established in the bill. That approach is consistent with the duty in section 25 of the Fisheries Act 2020 to incentivise fishing methods that have a lower impact on the marine environment. It gives power to individuals who rely on inshore fishing to make a living and to do so in a way that creates a sustainable future for the area. I thank the Scottish Creel Fishermen’s Federation for its suggestions on both amendments 107 and 108.

Amendment 108 would also require Scottish ministers to include within the bill’s biodiversity targets framework a nature recovery target that is focused on fishing pressures. It would ensure that fishing impacts are explicitly treated as a key driver of marine biodiversity change. Ministers would need to report on progress, thereby linking fisheries management with the nature-duty cycle that is established in the bill. That approach is consistent with the duty in section 25 of the 2020 act to incentivise fishing methods that have a lower impact on the marine environment. Such an approach also sheds light on inshore fishing methods that employ lower-impact gear, helping to ensure that inshore waters are being sustained and that gear does not surpass any safety limits. It is also a way of monitoring progress toward marine restoration targets. It is a win-win—it supports local fishing communities while supporting nature restoration.

Like Maurice Golden, I will not comment on every amendment in the group, as there are quite a few; however, I want to say that amendments 42 to 44 from my colleague Mercedes Villalba are very important. Between them, they would add “restoration of natural processes” to the list of topics for targets and would improve and help maintain the health of our ecosystems. Her other amendments in the group are also about habitats of conservation importance and about supporting action to prevent species extinction and halt species decline.

I will stop at that point, convener.

I move amendment 103.

What will the timescale be for a decision on setting the target that you have just mentioned?

My amendments 109 and 178 are related, with amendment 178 being consequential to amendment 109. The two amendments work together to ensure that the monitoring and reviewing of biodiversity targets are addressed not simply under section 1 of the bill but throughout the entire bill and all the legislation that it entails. For the bill to work to address the nature and climate emergencies, it has to work in a joined-up way. My amendments would ensure that the laying of draft SSIs applies to the whole bill, not just to section 1.

My amendment 178 would require targets to be introduced within 12 months of royal assent, rather than waiting for the whole act to come into force. The aim is to push the Government, so that we get prompt movement to establish the framework that is necessary for delivery. If that does not happen and commencement decisions are staggered or deferred, the whole process could be delayed by months or even years. My amendment aims to close a loophole that could allow for delay.

We need prompt introduction of targets if the bill is to deliver timely action for Scotland’s natural environment, because any delay could slow momentum in addressing biodiversity loss and reduce clarity for public bodies that are responsible for implementing the first cycle of targets. My amendment 178 would give legal certainty about what must be done and ensure that action can begin without unnecessary delay. The Scottish Government has said that the bill will support Scotland’s ambition to halt nature loss by 2030. That is now not far away and any unnecessary delay in the introduction of targets would undermine that ambition.

My amendment 111 is linked to my amendment 112 and creates a catch-up mechanism for missed targets. Nature and biodiversity restoration require a catch-up mechanism to ensure urgent action and avoid targets being missed. We know that we have missed biodiversity targets and we have seen climate targets being missed. The amendment would ensure that, when targets are missed, there is a mechanism that means that they are not forgotten. It would implement a catch-up mechanism that would require the Scottish ministers to put in place extra measures to meet a target before setting a new one. That could be a one-year period before a target is replaced, during which additional steps are taken to meet the target. Funding, enhanced use of existing powers and addressing bureaucratic challenges could be options for steps that could be taken. Introducing that catch-up mechanism would encourage urgent action to address targets that might otherwise be missed by a Government.

My amendment 112 is consequential to amendment 111 and is in place to hold ministers to account. There would have to be a meeting within a year focusing on when the target was expected to be met and why it was not.

My amendment 14 is linked to my amendments 15 and 16. If we reflect on the current discussions about the importance of meeting our environmental and nature conservation objectives, it is really important that people are involved in that process and that they are consulted. Citizens assemblies link incredibly well to deliberative democracy models. They give time for and legitimacy to informed debate and participation and I hope that they help policymakers and Government understand public preferences on complex issues. You can see the impact that citizens assemblies had in Ireland with the debates on LGBT marriage and on abortion—they brought people together and led to subsequent referendums.

As Mark Ruskell commented, since section 32A of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, there has been an argument that citizens assemblies should become more of a statutory requirement. Scottish Environment LINK’s recent work demonstrates the importance of the environment to voters. It is about how we encourage people and enable them to get involved in that debate, beyond just the vote. It is about involving people over time, and that is what citizens assemblies are about.

My amendment 15, on having regard to the citizens assembly, is really important. It is important that we involve people in the process and that they have the opportunity to be consulted.

My amendment 16 is quite lengthy, but it sets out the process of establishing a citizens assembly that would enable us to ensure that people were involved. A citizens assembly would help to create legitimacy, resolve conflicts and drive action for restoring ecosystems right across Scotland.

We know that we need radical action. Giving people a structured platform to learn about ecological science, to debate competing perspectives and to produce informed recommendations, would enable the Government to be supported with fair but fast action for nature. Even in today’s discussion, we have heard of different interests in rural Scotland to support marine action. Again, it is about accountability and holding power to account; having things passed by a citizens assembly ensures action.

I thank the organisations that have supported and worked with me on the amendments, which are absolutely critical—Scottish Environment LINK, Open Seas, the Scottish Rewilding Alliance and RSPB Scotland. There is support among key stakeholders. The amendments would ensure that the ambitions in the bill are implemented, which is why I have lodged them and why I have worked with organisations to get them drafted. They are really important.

I will listen to comments from other colleagues and the cabinet secretary but I hope that people understand that the ambition behind my amendments is to bring people together—not just to pass a piece of legislation but to make it transformative and inclusive, and to use that democratic platform.

What we are trying to do here is to get moving on the issue, because a lot of work was done before the bill was introduced, so this is really about accelerating the process.

On my amendment 34, I have heard colleagues’ comments. Again, it is about timing, and, again, I want to thank the RSPB, Open Seas and Scottish Environment LINK for their support. The aim of amendment 34 is to have a dedicated target. The worry is that, without a target, protected areas could remain in poor ecological condition, even if overall biodiversity indicators show improvement elsewhere. The aim is to align Scotland’s statutory commitments under EU-derived and international frameworks and to ensure that such critical areas are central to the delivery of nature recovery, so it is an important amendment. I think that there is scope for discussions before stage 3, but I hope that the cabinet secretary accepts that we have lodged many of these amendments because people want to strengthen the bill.

On implementation, it will be critical that NatureScot is adequately funded so that it can lead on this work. There has been lots of talk about research and development and committees that will work together. Our statutory organisations will need to be properly invested in and supported, because there will be new ambitions in the bill that will require not only more work and more research but more implementation. That is critical.

I am prepared to discuss details of some of my amendments in advance of stage 3, but I hope that, given the discussion that was held at stage 1, committee members recognise that there is ambition to go further. That is absolutely critical for our biodiversity, onshore and offshore. Working together is critical. I take the points that Tim Eagle made; we also need to think about how we support the fishing industry. It is a case not simply of setting requirements but of working with those sectors that are keen to go further.

I will not attempt to comment on every amendment, but I think that there has been a positive debate on all the amendments. There is an ambition to go further, because, as Beatrice Wishart suggested, rather than long-term decline, we want to see a nature-based recovery. That is the ambition behind many of our amendments.

Will the cabinet secretary clarify the role of issues involving environmental impact assessments in relation to planning decisions that go to the Scottish Government? That is a key point when picking up some of the issues that are referenced in the amendment. I want there to be clarity on the record about the kind of issues that need to be looked at.

The cabinet secretary mentioned that more than a third of our households live in fuel poverty and that one in five is in extreme fuel poverty. What is the Scottish Government going to do now to accelerate investment in making people’s homes energy efficient, so that their heat is not wasted? What is the cabinet secretary doing to support every local authority in Scotland to implement their local heat and energy efficiency strategy plans so that our constituents have heat networks that they can link to and can qualify for the grant that was mentioned?

I am thinking about delivery of the ambition, which is central to this. Earlier, you referenced the fact that there are different options when it comes to delivering on sustainable development principles; you mentioned Audit Scotland’s role and the Future Generations Commissioner for Wales. I spoke to Audit Scotland because I was looking at what it could do to implement those principles, but it became clear that its issue was with not that requirement but the resources needed.

In Wales, one thing that has been done to avoid overlap between commissioners is to have memoranda of understanding. What are your reflections on the practical experiences in different countries that we could learn from?

That said, if you want to up the implementation, you need to do something different. It feels as if the Government’s work has been put on hold, whereas my proposals would give you an opportunity to progress what we have both worked on for several years.

Okay. It would be interesting to get your thoughts on the different oversight and accountability options. Earlier, you helpfully said to the convener that you would be happy to give more information. At this point, that would be helpful, because who will push the issue up the agenda? As you will observe, we have had the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015 for a decade and the national performance framework for a long period, but the issue is how you implement their principles.

I wonder about the potential alignment between the principles of wellbeing and sustainable development and the national performance framework, given your comment about the numerous pieces of legislation that refer to sustainable development but do not implement its principles. What are the triggers that will lead to the changes that you are looking at?

Am I allowed to ask another question?