Chamber and committees

I often have discussions with the Welsh Government on a range of subjects in the portfolio. I am interested in your suggestions. The beauty of the relationship between the Welsh and Scottish Governments is that we often learn from each other and take on each other’s good ideas.

I am alive to Tim Eagle’s point that local authorities may be delivering on reporting but might not be taking the associated actions that are identified in those reports. Having 32 local authorities across Scotland means that there will be different ways in which each local authority can contribute or not—we want to get rid of the “or not”. There will obviously be different actions for Highland Council, the islands councils and Glasgow City Council, but we want to make sure that their actions are proportionate and relate to areas in which they have identified that they need to go further.

The Welsh idea is interesting. Their bill will create a duty for the Welsh ministers to give guidance and direction to particular local authorities. We need to make sure that Verity house is always taken into account—local authorities are in charge of their own destinies and we do not want to dictate what actions they have to take on the ground. However, there is already a statutory duty on them to report and to put their action plans in place. I will take away what you have mooted. I was in a meeting with the Welsh Government just yesterday. I imagine that, in the next couple of weeks, I will have the opportunity to speak to it again, and I will certainly look at some of the provisions in its bill.

I do not see why not—I am just looking at my officials. The advice that PAG gave us is very robust. I am getting the nod from Lisa, so we will of course pass it on.

Of course.

Yes. As I said, the legislation has been drafted in a way that allows us to modify the topics and add other topics. It is important to recognise—I am not telling the committee anything that it does not realise—that threats can come to species and changes can happen very quickly. Climate change can have an effect on a particular species very quickly, and the displacement or removal of a species’ feedstock into other waters can have an effect. There may be an explosion in the population of a particular predator, and that could have an impact on a species very quickly. That part of the bill allows for agility—I will keep on saying that word—to be able to respond to things and to look at the evidence and the trends, and the pressures that particular species are facing.

I am open to exploring that if you want to take it forward. I think that you are right. The nature of climate change means that species are arriving in Scotland that we have never seen before. The danger is that some of them might be causing a threat to biodiversity; some of them—some insects, for example—might even cause a threat to human beings. There are also pathogens associated with some of the smaller species that arrive; for example, there are the various strains of bird flu that have been adapting and changing. If you want to speak to me about something like that, I would be open to exploring it with you, and my officials can take it away and look at it.

The UK marine strategy brings it all together.

That can be done by all the individual component parts of the UK working in concert with one another and having shared ambition. That is my answer to that. When we do not have shared ambition, that jeopardises the devolved Governments reaching their targets. For example, one of the biggest inhibitors to us meeting our net zero targets is the fact that the electricity that Scotland generates is too expensive for our citizens to use, so they cannot decarbonise. That is simply the nature of the situation that we are in as part of the UK.

However, we have regular interministerial meetings on all of that. I have regular meetings with my counterparts in Northern Ireland, Wales and the UK to discuss all those issues. If we take net zero as an example, the fundamental point is that the UK will not be able to meet its net zero target of 2050 without Scotland meeting its net zero target of 2045, and vice versa. Therefore, the four Governments must work in concert with one another.

This is where I need some legal advice. If it is okay, I will hand over to Stewart Cunningham, who has the detail on that.

Let me take that away.

I do not think that they need to be. The goals are already in the biodiversity strategy and they are stated intentions in all the policy documents. They are part of the ambition that we are working towards. My initial reaction is that I do not think that goals and ambitions fit well in legislation, which is the place to put the actions that are associated with those goals.

I am open to suggestions that references to the global biodiversity framework could be part of the criteria for target setting and to suggestions about adhering to standards, but I am not sure how appropriate or meaningful the idea of ambition is.