There is another aspect to this, which is about ascertaining the breadth of activities that might happen in this area. The consultation will also give both Governments an understanding of what is taking place beyond national jurisdictions. I have given the convener a few instances of things that we know with regard to marine research and whatever, but, through the consultation, we hope to have a better understanding of who is carrying out what activities, and what the connection is to both the UK and Scotland.

Yes. That is the issue: what could happen in the future and how might that have an impact? You have raised a good point. I will bring in Joanna Dingwall.

We are trying to negotiate. As I said, we want to be able to tell the committee that we have been successful in our negotiations and that we have come to conclusions with which we are satisfied, in the same way that we were with the amendment to clause 18 that was tabled at the House of Lords bill committee yesterday. We are happy with that amendment, which related to environmental impact assessment obligations. It can be done, therefore, and we are hopeful that it will be done.

That is why it is important that the Scottish Government has a presence at any conference of the parties, wherever that might be. Before the UK Government goes to negotiate at a COP—at COP30 last month, for example—it will give us an indication of how it is negotiating. When you are at COP, the hope is that you are at least able to find out from officials on the UK ministerial team how the negotiations are going.

It is not very official and not very concrete, unfortunately. We do not have a particular constitutional role in the UK negotiations. However, the Northern Ireland Executive and the Welsh and Scottish Governments usually attend the conference of the parties, and we all have meetings with the UK Government ahead of attendance. I would prefer it if those discussions with the UK Government were formalised.

As it stands, the UK Government makes decisions as to what it can sign up to on behalf of the whole UK. I would like the Welsh and Scottish Governments and the Northern Ireland Executive to be more involved in those agreements but, as it stands, they are not. How much the devolved nations are included also depends on the flavour of the UK Government. Ahead of COP30 in Brazil, we had a certain amount of sight on the UK’s negotiations, and we expect that respect between the devolved Governments and the UK Government to continue.

The fundamental problem with the BBNJ bill is that, when it was put together, there was a complicated mix. We heard about rocket launches, carbon capture and storage and all sorts of things that may or may not happen in those areas beyond jurisdiction. It is a complicated mix of devolved and reserved impacts. That is why it is important that, as we agree to the BBNJ bill and there is legislative consent, we are absolutely satisfied as a Parliament and as a Government that we will not have situations in which future secretaries of state could make decisions on what happens in the areas that affect devolved competence.

Thank you, convener, and good morning. I welcome the opportunity to discuss the Biodiversity Beyond Natural Jurisdiction Bill and legislative consent in relation to it. As you have just said, the bill will implement the BBNJ agreement, which is a significant United Nations landmark agreement to protect biodiversity. We support the aims and we are keen to ensure that, with the Parliament’s consent, the UK can ratify the agreement in time for it to take place at the first conference of the parties.

However, our support for the UK bill as introduced is, unfortunately, not straightforward, due to two significant challenges. First, it spans a complex mix of devolved and reserved competences covering a wide range of policy areas, which was not reflected in its initial drafting.

Secondly, the timeline has, from the off, been incredibly difficult. We were not afforded sufficient time prior to introduction to engage with the devolved aspects, which meant that, although we managed to secure rapid amendment to certain clauses for introduction, the remainder have had to be analysed and negotiated in parallel with the bill’s passage. Consequently, I have lodged an initial LCM for some clauses, but have reserved our position on the rest.

I must put on record my deep disappointment and frustration that the timeline has been so tight, and that I have not been able to provide a full LCM to the committee. The Scottish parliamentary scrutiny process—our democratic devolved legislative process—should not, I believe, be rushed, and I have highlighted my concerns in that respect to the UK Government. I had a meeting last week with the lead UK minister, Seema Malhotra, and prior to that I set out all our concerns in a letter.

I can speak to the initial LCM that has been lodged and the amendments to clause 18 that were tabled in the House of Lords yesterday, and where we are still engaged in intensive negotiation, I can speak to our general approach to robustly protecting devolution, despite the challenges presented by the timeline.

Negotiations are still on-going, and we want to keep the committee informed of their outcome as quickly as possible. You have my word that we will do so.

The sorts of activities that will be impacted are in the marine protection and marine research areas, including sea fisheries management, marine licensing and the implementation of international agreements with regard to Scotland. I cannot foresee where things might come into conflict, but it brings us back to the point that you have just made, convener. The bill covers issues of devolved competence in which the Secretary of State for Scotland would be the sole actor. That would go over the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament, and they would not be able to scrutinise the secretary of state’s decisions in those areas.

This is a fundamental issue that we have seen with other LCMs in the past—and believe me, I completely share your frustration about the timeline, convener. We have not been able to do our analysis as fast as that, and we need to be sure what we are signing up to. Moreover, as everyone in this place knows, we must ensure that the Sewel convention is adhered to.

Therefore, I cannot give you a list, as such, of all the potential issues—I think that you used the word “conflicts”, convener—that might arise, because I cannot foresee what might happen. However, the fundamental point is that we cannot have a situation in which a UK minister is making all the decisions on what is a devolved competence without the consent of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government.

I can understand why you are putting that question to me, but we have not been a signatory to the BBNJ agreement as a nation state—

Yes, I can explain it. I want to separate out the desire to give greater protection to SSSIs. Fundamentally, I agree that they should be protected. It is untrue to say that a Scottish Government minister has the ability to control what happens in energy developments because they have the final consent. The associated regulations and the consenting powers under sections 36 and 37 of the Electricity Act 1989 operate by executive devolution, to the final consent. They do not—[Interruption.] You have asked for an explanation, and I would like to give a full explanation.

Therefore, the regulations are set at UK level and must be acted under in giving that consent.

Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 334 seeks to change what is in reserved law, fundamentally. That means that it is not legislatively competent. That was the case with previous amendments from Douglas Lumsden, where I was able to set out the same argument.

If Conservative members want me to have the powers that are associated with energy infrastructure, there is a simple answer to that: you devolve the powers to the Scottish Parliament and Government. They are not devolved, and, therefore, I cannot act in that way. That would be an infringement of the law and not legally competent.

Good morning. It is not entirely clear to me what Ariane Burgess is seeking to achieve with amendments 67 and 67A. The scope of the review that is being proposed is unclear. There is no agreed or statutory definition of nature restoration or rewilding, which makes it difficult to understand how such a review would align with our existing suite of protected areas legislation.

In addition, a wide range of land types and activities could fall within the scope of any such review, as the amendments do not set any limits on the extent of areas to be restored or rewilded to improve biodiversity. It could capture everything from creating a native wildlife area in an urban garden to landscape-scale nature restoration projects such as Cairngorms Connect.

I am not certain that such a review would necessarily help us to improve or drive forward our biodiversity ambitions. It is better to focus on delivering for nature restoration and taking the action that we know will achieve the outcomes that we need to see. A plethora of additional reviews, reports and additional labour-intensive requirements of that type will stretch the capacity that we want to use for targeted action.

Reviews have their place in some circumstances, but we need to ensure that they are targeted, focused and necessary or they risk diverting resources from taking action that helps us to tackle the nature crisis and reduce biodiversity loss.

For those reasons, I encourage members not to support amendments 67 and 67A.

I now turn to Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 288. As she mentioned, it is similar to an amendment that she lodged during stage 3 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill last month—an amendment that the Parliament did not support. I have no doubt that all committee members appreciate, as I do, the importance of moorland habitats. However, I agree with what the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands said when speaking to that amendment, which was that it is

“not helpful for moorlands to be considered in isolation from other ecosystems”.—[Official Report, 4 November 2025; c 246.]

It is clear to me that the restoration and regeneration of Scotland’s ecosystems, including but not limited to moorlands, are at the heart of the Scottish biodiversity strategy, given that that is one of the six key objectives within the strategy and a number of the actions within it are targeted at ensuring that the management of moorland helps to sustain healthy biodiversity. Therefore, I do not believe that the amendment is necessary. It calls for another review, and I, again, question whether resources should be diverted for that purpose. Instead, we should be focusing on strategic actions for all ecosystems that will help to secure the biggest biodiversity benefits and help us to tackle the nature crisis.

I do not see the rationale for singling out that particular type of land as opposed to other types of land, given that it is already included in the biodiversity strategy. From a policy perspective, I do not think that there is a clear rationale for undertaking a review that solely concentrates on moorland. It goes back to what I said about Ariane Burgess’s amendments and the many other amendments that ask for reviews and reports. The resources that would be associated with all that would take resources away from action.

Rachael Hamilton says that she wants to help the Government, but we could have had a conversation about the amendment before stage 2, instead of its being played out here. I could then have explained all my rationale in relation to it, and we could have saved ourselves from this. I am someone who has to make sure that all the Government bodies under my remit, which have to manage their resources and capacity to do things, are not overstretched by onerous reports and reviews being added to their remit when such work would take away from the action that we all want. So many pieces of legislation are inserting reviews and reports that it is genuinely getting to the point of becoming an encumbrance. On many occasions, I question whether such work adds to the action that we all want. For those reasons, I encourage members not to support amendment 288.

Turning to Ariane Burgess’s amendment 303, although I recognise that effective management of protected areas is essential in tackling the biodiversity crisis, I am not persuaded that nature conservation orders and land management orders are the best way to tackle long-term deterioration of sites that is caused by under or overgrazing or the spread of invasive non-native species. I am conscious of the complexity of the current legal framework that governs protected areas and nature conservation in general.

I would be wary of adding additional complexity, given the considerable risk of unintended consequences that that could bring. For example, amendment 303 inserts a definition of damage into section 23 of the 2004 act, which deals with nature conservation orders. It is unclear what the purpose of that definition is, as the term is not otherwise reflected in section 23 of the act.

The purpose of nature conservation orders is to prohibit operations on land, to ensure the conservation of any natural feature of the land that ministers consider to be of special interest. Changing that purpose so that orders could require active management of the land is not what the orders were intended or designed to do.

Land management orders can be applied to land that forms part of an SSSI or is contiguous to that land. Orders are already able to set out operations that should be carried out on the land for the purposes of conserving, restoring or otherwise enhancing the natural features of the land. Amendment 303 is unnecessary, because there is already provision in place. Land management orders can already be made to tackle issues such as undergrazing or overgrazing, or invasive non-native species. For those reasons I encourage members not to support amendment 303.

Amendment 334, in the name of Rachael Hamilton, seeks to amend the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 by inserting a new section 11A that would create an absolute prohibition on energy developments within sites of special scientific interest. The amendment appears to have the intention of providing enhanced protection for SSSIs by preventing any energy infrastructure, including renewable energy installations, from being constructed within their boundaries. That is not legally competent, and it therefore would not achieve its express purposes. The generation, transmission, distribution and supply of electricity are reserved to the UK Government under the Scotland Act 1998. The 1998 act is the very foundation of the Parliament, and I would expect everyone to have a working knowledge of it.