Chamber and committees

On the basis of one or more of them, yes. However, the Parliament needs to scrutinise that and decide whether it can be done. I am open to having a conversation about whether those processes can be strengthened, but that is where we have put the safeguards for the use of that power.

Could a future Government that does not believe in climate change and that does not think that biodiversity losses are a threat to the very existence of human beings come in and be full of people who are climate change deniers? That is a possibility that we always need to take into account in a democracy. They could do anything—they could rip up any legislation that they wanted to. However, I do not believe that the Scottish Parliament will be like that and I do not believe that the Scottish Parliament is like that now.

Yes, and it is about being responsive to changes in nature and better data collection, better evidence gathering and improvements in some of the technology that is associated with that.

There are already criteria associated with target setting. I will take you through that. The 2023 consultation was used throughout the development of targets. The criteria to be taken into account in the selection of targets are alignment with the Scottish biodiversity strategy high-level goals; alignment with the global biodiversity framework; alignment with European Union environmental standards, including those on nature restoration; and synergy with existing and forthcoming Scottish legislative frameworks and strategies.

I refer back to my point that targets do not exist in isolation but follow a lot of other policy development. We want to align with the global biodiversity framework and with European Union environmental standards. We are mindful that our targets have to galvanise cross-portfolio work across Government and cross-sectoral work across Scottish society, and they have to be measurable, achievable and realistic.

Those are the target-setting criteria that we have been using. Will we continue to develop the criteria? Yes. I come back to the words “agile” and “responsive”. I am not quite sure what Open Seas was thinking, but perhaps it has particular things in mind that it wishes to see as the criteria. I am, of course, happy to meet its representatives and those of any ENGOs about what those could be.

The bill does not say that reviews must be carried out every 10 years; it says that they must be carried out “not less than” every 10 years, so there is flexibility.

Environmental Standards Scotland is already the body that can advise us on bringing forward any review of targets. We set ESS up to be an independent advisor to us on whether we are meeting certain Government objectives and whether our legislation and policy direction in the area are working. I would have thought that ESS has the ability to advise that we review our targets anyway, but I can take the question away and bottom out with my officials whether it actually has that capacity or power, if you like.

It comes back to the whole responsiveness thing—if it looks as if targets are perhaps not as robust as they could be or they need looking at again, should it be our independent body, ESS, that is allowed to say to the Government, “We want to see a review of that target”? However, nothing in the bill says that there has to be a review every 10 years. That is a minimum. The targets have to be reviewed “not less than”—that is legal-speak—every 10 years. I will take the question away and look at whether Environmental Standards Scotland has the ability to hold us to account in that way, but it seems reasonable to me.

Yes. You are also welcome to come and speak to me if you want to raise anything before stage 2 to bottom out that particular issue.

It is not just nice to have; it is important to work towards it, but it is in setting the topic targets that the action actually happens. Let me take that idea away. As I said, Environmental Standards Scotland can already advise us on bringing forward any review of targets.

I do not want to be prescriptive about particular actions. I want the bill to give us agility in the way in which we address issues, and I am absolutely open to scrutinising how the bill, as it is, could allow more targeted action. However, there are a number of provisions in the bill, particularly in part 2, that will allow us to be more fleet of foot in how we deal with emerging and changing issues. I can come on to this when we talk about part 2, but I included part 2 to give us that responsiveness and agility in a number of areas. That will mean that we do not need to wait for primary legislation to be able to deal with an emerging situation or a trend that we have identified and which needs attention quickly.

A lot of the provisions in part 2 will allow us to do that. I am open to that because it is a real concern. We depend on quite a lot of volunteers to manage some areas, particularly our river banks. It may be that, in the associated action plans, local authorities need to pay more attention to things that are happening in the invasive species realm. However, I will not commit myself to anything. We can have a chat about that.

We can have a look at that.

I will say a couple of things on that. The targets themselves are very robust—there will be legally binding targets associated with the goals that feed into the biodiversity strategy. The high-level purpose is to align with the biodiversity strategy, but that informs the secondary legislation and the targets, so they would be binding.

None of us has control over who forms the next Government; the people of Scotland do. You would hope that biodiversity is so important to the people of Scotland that they would not elect anyone for whom biodiversity was not a consideration. We cannot future proof any legislation against future Governments coming in and overturning it or bringing in new legislation that rescinds some of the goals of the previous legislation.

I think that we are going about this in a robust way. The biodiversity strategy has been laid out. It informs the target setting, as does the advice that we have from the PAG, and the targets are set in secondary legislation. It is up to the Parliament to decide what goes through. A future Government that wants to rip up this bill or the biodiversity strategy would be scrutinised and held to account in doing that. That is parliamentary democracy—that would be my answer to that.

If there are suggestions on strengthening the language, that is what stages 2 and 3 are for, and I am happy to consider anything. However, I do not think that there is a particular risk with this bill in comparison with any other piece of legislation that we have ever passed in the Parliament. Legislation is always subject to change based on who is next in government.