I will.

Yes.

Yes—but I will make one further point, and the member may want to address this as well.

We are exploring how the national marine plan could respond to consultation feedback, including stakeholder requests for marine spatial planning and implications for existing users. That is the vehicle by which a lot of these issues will be addressed.

I have sympathy with the intent behind the amendment, but I point to the fact that any amendment that altered regional requirements without regard for the national framework could actually prove impractical without further legislative reform, and it might be associated with actions that are the opposite of what Maurice Golden is looking for. I am happy to have further conversations with him about it, but, fundamentally, it would not work with the existing law.

I am happy to take a comment from Maurice Golden.

Yes, sure.

When I first saw the amendment, convener, I was immediately supportive of the idea of using products such as the shells that have been mentioned as part of a circular economy. I am very sympathetic to that aim. Ahead of stage 3, I want to have a conversation with you to bottom out the concerns of the stakeholders to whom you have spoken about red tape.

However, I will explain why I cannot support the amendment at this point. Presently, there is a regulatory framework with SEPA that already allows a waste item to be moved out of the waste stream and used for other purposes. Although I sympathise with the amendment’s aims, I do not think that creating a new duty on ministers to make regulations is necessary to achieve the intended outcome.

The amendment would cut across existing regulations on waste, which are currently aligned with EU law in that area. The existing framework already provides a workable route to enable beneficial uses of scallop shells when they are properly treated and used to replace other materials. For example, SEPA has an agreed position on clean pulverised shells being used as an agricultural liming agent. It has also worked with the Galloway Fisheries Trust and others in industry to facilitate the River Bladnoch trial this year to improve water quality for wild salmon. In addition, under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, we have powers to provide that certain descriptions of waste are not household, industrial or commercial waste.

Convener, in asking members to support your amendment, you talked about red tape being associated with the process. I need to better understand what the issue is, because we might not have to go down the route of amending the bill. I make the offer that, if you do not press the amendment, my officials and I can have a discussion with you to bottom out the real issues and see whether they can be addressed by working with SEPA rather than by amending any legislation, because my officials and I believe that there are already things in place that should allow for exactly what you want to happen.

Sarah Boyack’s general point is relevant, and it is why we have gone out to consultation on all the national marine plans and strategies that we have put in place. It is why we have consistently spoken to stakeholders and given them the opportunity to put forward the fundamental issues that Sarah Boyack and a lot of other members have highlighted today.

As for whether this is the best place to accelerate action, though, I come back to the fundamental point that I made at the beginning. Just because people do not see things happening fast enough for them in those areas, that does not mean that we should add more administrative burdens or strategies that duplicate the work. None of the action that people want will be accelerated by that approach; in fact, it will be stifled by the red tape and the reporting requirements that people are asking for.

For those reasons, I ask Ms Boyack not to press amendment 17. If it is pressed, I urge members not to support it, given the comments that I have made.

Amendment 90, in the name of Ariane Burgess, seeks to establish a role for Environmental Standards Scotland in assessing and reporting on nature conservation MPA status and the achievement of conservation objectives, while amendment 91 would require that an additional layer of detail be included in Scottish ministers’ reports under section 103 of the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010. The amendments would place near-identical reporting requirements on two organisations with regard to nature conservation MPAs. Again, that would duplicate effort and come with significant costs.

Moreover, the requirements would apply only to nature conservation MPAs designated under the 2010 act when the fact is that Scottish ministers report more widely to produce a holistic view across our entire MPA network. Given the resource constraints that the committee has highlighted regarding marine science, I cannot support such a duplication of effort or the significant costs involved for the little benefit that either amendment would bring.

Furthermore, ESS currently does not have the capacity or capability to carry out that work, and agreeing to amendment 90 would create significant further financial and capacity implications for it. For those reasons, I ask the member not to move amendments 90 and 91. If she does, I urge the committee not to agree to them.

Sarah Boyack’s amendment 93 would require ecosystem recovery objectives to be stated when designating nature conservation MPAs. However, those sites are designed to conserve specific features, and wider ecosystem recovery is delivered through a three-pillar approach of species protection, site-based measures and wider seas policies. I also make it clear that amendment 93 effectively aims to pursue similar ecosystem policy outcomes that Parliament rejected in relation to highly protected marine areas, and it would create differences between future designations under the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 for inshore waters and the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 for offshore waters.

Sarah Boyack’s amendment 95 seeks to place a duty on ministers to review the scientific basis of the MPA selection guidelines every 12 months. That would involve a significant waste of resources, as the underlying science evolves very slowly—and not within a 12-month period, that is for sure. However, regardless of that, we have, in any event, already committed to reviewing those guidelines for carbon considerations under Scotland’s draft climate change plan, so the amendment is not necessary.

For those reasons, I ask the member not to move her amendments. If she does, I urge the committee not to vote for them.

Amendment 328, in the name of Sarah Boyack, makes it a requirement rather than an option for ministers, when considering whether to designate a nature conservation MPA, to have regard to how designation might contribute to climate mitigation. It also adds climate adaptation to that requirement. Giving equal weight to adaptation is a sensible approach that is in line with Scottish Government policy when protecting biodiversity, and both mitigation and adaptation are absolutely critical to our efforts to tackle the twin crises. Therefore, I am happy to agree with what I think is a sensible approach, and I urge the committee to support Ms Boyack when she moves amendment 328.

Amendment 92, in the name of Ariane Burgess, would require national and regional marine plans to contain fisheries management objectives and policies and would require fishing impacts to be considered in the preparation of those plans. Again, the amendment would create significant misalignment between terrestrial and marine planning, and it would fundamentally alter the core purpose of marine planning to cover the management of fisheries. Marine plans, like terrestrial planning, support sustainable development and not activity regulation, which is covered by sector-specific legislation that sits outside planning.

In practice, therefore, the amendment would not achieve effective management of fisheries. Indeed, it might disadvantage the domestic fleet, as any fisheries management policies introduced through Scottish marine plans would be limited in scope to inshore waters only and could be applied by Scottish ministers only to Scottish vessels, not the whole fleet. In addition, those objectives can already be achieved under—

I absolutely understand and sympathise with the intent of amendment 299. It is imperative that we see justice in relation to environmental harms, but I will set out why the amendment is unnecessary and some of the ways in which sufficient fines are already associated with tackling environmental harms.

The offence of causing significant environmental harm is an either-way offence, meaning that it can be tried by summary conviction or on an indictment. The maximum possible fine for a summary conviction is already set at quite a high level—£40,000—which is, in my view, sufficient. However, if the offence is for significant environmental harm, it is tried on indictment and the maximum fine that is available is unlimited. That is appropriate for the serious offences of the nature that Ross Greer alluded to.

The current level of fines that is available to the courts is sufficient for such offences. On that basis, notwithstanding my sympathy for what he outlined, I ask Mr Greer not to press amendment 299.

I think that Mark Ruskell makes my point there. We have national marine plans that will be consulted on; my issue is with this specific amendment, which would disadvantage the domestic fleet. The situation for the domestic fleet would be different from that for a fleet that was coming in from elsewhere, and that is fundamentally problematic. The objectives can already be achieved under the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010, so, again, the amendment would duplicate effort and would be unnecessary.

Mark Ruskell mentioned national marine plans, which are the vehicle for what happens in those areas. The amendment would not only duplicate effort in that regard; it would have unintended consequences in placing burdens on the domestic fleet that would not apply to vessels in any other fleet.

Amendments 96 and 97, from Ariane Burgess, on regional marine plans, would attempt to impose directives on local stakeholders without prior consultation or consent. On that basis, I strongly oppose them. It is essential that we listen to community views and work with local people to determine appropriate solutions that work at a local level; a number of members have made points on that today. That is why we are committed to regional marine planning’s intent of enabling community-led approaches and local decision making. These amendments would undermine that way of working and impose a top-down approach for all regions, and neither I nor the Scottish Government can support that. I therefore ask the committee not to agree to amendments 96 and 97.

I turn to amendment 101, from Maurice Golden. Spatial planning is under way and is still evolving, so implementing it through primary legislation now, before addressing critical considerations, including evidence-based robustness, would, in my view, be premature. I thank Tim Eagle for his comments in that regard, because I believe that he is absolutely right that we need to allow these processes to take place, the evidence to be gathered and the consultation to happen.

Section 38 of the bill sets out that, if it is passed, it will be known as the Natural Environment (Scotland) Act, and in practice that has been its working title since we first committed to introducing it in the 2021-22 programme for government. The Scottish Government has been clear that we are facing a nature emergency and that the provisions in the bill are necessary to help us to address that crisis.

I understand why Mark Ruskell has lodged amendment 33 to change the short title of the bill—we are in a nature emergency. However, the Presiding Officer’s guidance on the content of bills is clear:

“The text of a Bill—including both the short and long titles—should be in neutral terms and should not contain material intended to promote or justify the policy behind the Bill”.

That guidance is not mandatory, but it reflects a long-standing practice to avoid giving political or emotional titles to our legislation. I would say that “nature emergency” is an emotive term, and I do not think that it is sufficiently neutral to meet the standards set by the Presiding Officer. It could set a precedent for naming future legislation, so I do not support the amendment.

Amendment 102 is a minor, technical amendment that aims to clarify existing provision in response to a concern that was raised by parliamentary officials. The amendment relates to the parliamentary procedure for approving improvement plans submitted under section 30 of the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Continuity) (Scotland) Act 2021. Those plans outline how ministers intend to address concerns raised about the effectiveness of environmental law and its implementation.

Amendment 102 addresses ambiguities in the current legislation regarding whether the approval process should follow a negative or an affirmative procedure. It is right that the Parliament should have the chance to scrutinise improvement plans, so the amendment will ensure that improvement plans for Environmental Standards Scotland are subject to the affirmative procedure and require the Parliament to actively approve the plan. That will ensure clarity about the application of the Parliament’s standing orders and will provide a clear, practical process for approving improvement plans. For those reasons, I encourage members to support the amendment.

I move amendment 102.

Amendment 102 agreed to.

Section 35 agreed to.

Section 36—Ancillary provision

Amendment 308 moved—[Tim Eagle].