Chamber and committees

As the minister with responsibility for biodiversity, I am absolutely aware of the impact of squirrel pox and of the pressure caused by the grey squirrel, which is an invasive non-native species that was introduced to this country and is having an effect on red squirrels. I come from a rural area where a great deal of work has been done to reduce the grey squirrel population, and I pay particular tribute to the work done at Haddo house, where there is a fantastic programme. There are red squirrels in abundance in Aberdeen as a result of that work.

I do not need to be told that I have no awareness of the issue. I am not diminishing the concerns of the red squirrel group that Ms Hamilton refers to and would be happy to meet with it. I am not fixed in my views about what we can do to protect the red squirrel; I am merely pointing out that what Rachael Hamilton is proposing would take away funding that could otherwise be used for direct action that actually yields results.

Our current strategies are evidence based and adaptive. Locking the proposed duties into legislation would add a bureaucratic layer that does not have to be there, because we can, on an on-going basis, look at new strategies as science and techniques develop to protect our red squirrel species. As such, I firmly believe that our focus should remain on strengthening existing programmes that are proven to be effective—I mentioned one in my area—and will have a material effect on red squirrel conservation. For those reasons, I encourage members to oppose amendments 291 to 293.

I will speak first to my amendment 53 and then turn to other members’ amendments in the group.

Amendment 53 relates to the duty in part 1 of the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 that requires every public body in Scotland to prepare and publish a biodiversity report every three years. The amendment will allow us to make an important change that will simplify the approach to biodiversity reporting and make it more meaningful. The amendment will insert a power into part 1 of the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 to allow Scottish ministers to specify the relevant public bodies that the reporting duty applies to.??Those changes will be introduced by secondary legislation, and I confirm that the Government intends the changes to be subject to public consultation.

The amendment will align the biodiversity reporting requirements more closely to those in the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 by providing greater efficiency and a more streamlined process. It will also ensure that public bodies whose remit is largely unrelated to environmental matters or that do not manage land and therefore cannot contribute to the biodiversity duty in any substantive way, or can make only a minimal contribution, can be excluded from the duty to report. That could include some advisory non-departmental public bodies such as the national smart ticketing advisory board or parliamentary commissioners such as the Scottish Biometrics Commissioner.

The amendment will reduce unnecessary administrative burdens and, more importantly, will allow us to concentrate our efforts where they can have the greatest impact in the areas in which our biodiversity duty can truly make a difference. I therefore encourage members to support amendment 53.

Beatrice Wishart’s amendment 165 aims to connect the fulfilment of the public sector biodiversity duty with our biodiversity strategy and targets. I can see the merit in the approach that Ms Wishart proposes, but I have concerns about ensuring that there are no unintended consequences for the ability of public bodies or office-holders to carry out their core functions. I therefore ask Ms Wishart not to press amendment 165 at this stage and to work with me ahead of stage 3 on a revised version of her amendment. If Ms Wishart presses amendment 165, I ask members not to support it, but I am willing to work with her ahead of stage 3.

I will speak to amendments 12, 54, 55 and 56 collectively. I acknowledge the concerns that stakeholders and the committee have expressed about invasive non-native species. I am aware that INNS are one of the key drivers of biodiversity loss, as identified by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, and ambitious targets are set out in the global biodiversity framework to tackle that. I am also mindful of the concerns that have been expressed about the species that have been exempted from the provisions in section 14 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

Stakeholders have highlighted the potential impacts of the common pheasant and red-legged partridge on our native biodiversity, as well as the risks that those species pose in relation to the spread of avian influenza. Stakeholders have also spoken about the effects of the self-seeding of Sitka spruce on sensitive habitats such as peat bog.

Given those concerns, I absolutely understand why Mercedes Villalba has lodged her set of amendments. I agree entirely that having in place a robust process to manage the impacts of any non-native species that are exempted from section 14(1) and (2) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 makes sense. However, we must ensure that such a process is aligned fully with current legislation, is workable in practice and does not cause harm to Scotland’s rural economy.

I will.

Douglas Lumsden has lodged a number of amendments for the bill that relate to electricity infrastructure, as he did during stages 2 and 3 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, which was recently taken through the Parliament. Many of his amendments—if not all of them—have the same fundamental issues. Throughout them all, Douglas Lumsden is trying to shoehorn in a set of issues that are wholly outside the purpose of the bill. The Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill is about introducing a framework for biodiversity targets, together with other measures that will enable us to support the delivery of Scottish Government biodiversity goals. The amendments that Douglas Lumsden has lodged have not been raised with me in the context of this bill, nor have the issues been considered by the committee.

Many of the amendments also lack legislative competence. I must make the committee aware that a substantial number of the issues connected to energy infrastructure that the amendments cover are reserved to the UK Parliament. Alasdair Allan has just pointed to the Electricity Act 1989, which is one piece of legislation that the amendments would conflict with. The powers to do the things that Douglas Lumsden is asking for in a great deal of the amendments would lie in Scotland only if all energy powers were devolved to the Scottish Parliament and Government or if Scotland was a nation state with all the powers of one. There are further concerns as to whether the amendments conflict with existing statutory obligations under the Electricity Act 1989 and questions of consistency with UK and Scottish Government energy policies.

The legislative framework that covers energy infrastructure is complex and largely reserved to the UK Government. Stage 2 of the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill is designed to improve biodiversity, so it is simply not the right place to address energy infrastructure matters. I will go through each of the amendments in turn to address the issues.

I will finish my point first. Having heard what has been said in today’s discussion, we will give careful consideration to whether further research is needed to address the evidence gaps. Although I cannot support the amendment at this stage, I am committed to exploring whether additional research needs to be undertaken—I suggest that it does—in order to strengthen our understanding and to support informed discussion on sustainable game bird management in Scotland in the future.

I have given the best answer that I possibly can. Rachael Hamilton will appreciate that, in order to keep the mechanics of the committee meeting going, I have opted to move amendment 35 on behalf of Mr Fairlie, so that I can get through all the amendments in the interests of time. Mr Fairlie will watch the meeting and read the Official Report, and he will note those points.

Before I address the group’s many amendments individually, it would be helpful to set out my general approach to targets and why the bill is drafted in the way that it is.

Proposed new section 2 of the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 sets out three target topics under which the Scottish ministers must set statutory targets. I want to make it clear that marine inshore waters—in fact, the marine environment in general—fall within the scope of the three target topics, as they are part of the natural environment. The marine environment has absolute parity with the terrestrial environment. The topics are deliberately broad and high level in order to provide the necessary flexibility to set out what will be robust targets and indicators in secondary legislation. In its stage 1 report, the committee said:

“the consensus amongst stakeholders that the proposed three topic areas in section 2C, alongside the flexibility to set targets in other areas relating to the restoration or regeneration of biodiversity, provides a robust framework for setting effective statutory targets.”

The setting of targets and indicators needs to be based on evidence and to take into account the advice of scientific and independent experts. As we made clear when we consulted on our proposals for statutory targets, the aim is to find a suite of targets that enables us to track the overall status of biodiversity. However, in doing so, we need to avoid the risk of setting statutory targets for everything. People have mentioned a range of species in the debate on this group. If we are specific, we end up having lists, but, as Mr Mountain pointed out, people will ask, “What about this species that isn’t included?” The way in which I have set out the targets in the bill means that everything is included under one umbrella.

Although amendments relating to targets might be comprehensive and might reflect the complexity and interconnectedness of biodiversity, implementing them would be disproportionately bureaucratic and burdensome. Putting an excessive number of targets into legislation risks diluting public and political focus and weakening accountability. Accordingly, the approach to the bill that we have taken is to be comprehensive but proportionate and effective.

I add that the practical effect of introducing new target topics at this stage is that significant lead time would be required to develop necessary additional scientific advice, which would almost certainly delay the implementation of the targets themselves. On that basis, I ask the committee not to agree to amendments 42 to 44, 22, 34, 166 to 171, 45, 46, 173, 107, 108 and 175.

I understand why Ms Villalba lodged amendments 19 and 20, but I am concerned that they would have the effect of narrowing the target topic by restricting it to habitats of conservation importance, which is not her intent. As it is currently drafted, the first target topic already encompasses habitat quality and extent, including that of protected areas, and, importantly, it takes into account habitats that are outside those protected areas. The term “conservation importance”, which is used in the amendments, would limit the scope of habitats in that target topic and, in turn, the available set of indicators that could be used to set targets against. On that basis, I ask the committee not to agree to amendments 19 and 20.

I am willing to work with anyone ahead of any stage of the bill. As they are drafted, the amendments would have the unintended consequences that I have set out.

I do not know whether I would be able to work on something that added in such a distinction when that is already covered by what is set out in the bill, but I am happy to have a meeting with Ms Villalba ahead of stage 3 on anything that we could work together on to strengthen the bill. The three specific targets that I have set encompass absolutely everything that Ms Villalba has raised with her amendments, but I would be happy to meet her ahead of stage 3.

I turn to Sarah Boyack’s amendment 103 and Lorna Slater’s amendment 36. The strategic framework for biodiversity in Scotland includes the Scottish biodiversity strategy, delivery plans and targets, which have been designed to work together to address the biodiversity crisis in Scotland. The removal of the reference to the biodiversity strategy and the biodiversity duty is unnecessary and would jeopardise that integrated approach. I reassure Ms Boyack that, through the strategic framework, the targets will align to drive?co-ordinated?action across Government to achieve the goal of halting and reversing biodiversity loss.

Ms Slater’s amendment 36 would add a specific reference to the restoration of degraded habitats. That is absolutely an important consideration, and it is a key target in the global biodiversity framework. I recognise the importance of restoring degraded habitats in a global context. However, our focus should be on?ensuring that we have an adequately broad framework that allows us to set targets for Scotland through secondary legislation,? which in turn will help us to meet our wider international commitments. Although the bill does not make specific reference to the restoration of degraded habitats, that is included in our broad target topics. Having such a level of specificity in the bill would risk undermining the comprehensive framework that has been established and would prejudge details that are intended for secondary legislation.

For those reasons, I ask the committee not to support amendments 103 and 36. Excuse me, convener—I have a dry throat.

As Mr Ruskell has pointed out, Ms Tweed’s amendment 104, Ms Villalba’s amendments 21, 105 and 106, and Mr Ruskell’s amendment 23 all essentially seek to do the same thing. I fully support the principle behind those amendments. However, of the three sets of amendments, I support Ms Tweed’s amendment 104. We worked together on it, and I think that it best reflects the wider definition of “threatened species” that was set out in the policy memorandum for the bill.

On that basis, I ask members to support Ms Tweed’s amendment 104, and I ask Ms Villalba and Mr Ruskell to not move their amendments. If Ms Tweed’s amendment is agreed to but they feel that tweaks need to be made, I will be happy to discuss that ahead of stage 3.

As usual, Christine Grahame gives members her experience and wisdom. She makes an extremely valid point.

I will now come on to—