Chamber and committees

On two occasions now, Rachael Hamilton has referred to me doing my job as “reading out notes”, which I think is disrespectful.

As I highlighted in relation to the previous group of amendments, our approach to developing targets has been science led, taking into account the best available evidence to develop a set of targets that are capable of adapting to ecological and climate uncertainties. Robust scientific advice and adequate consultation are essential if we are to develop a suite of ambitious but deliverable targets. Flexibility is key, given that targets must evolve as evidence and technology advance, and as such, the bill must enable an agile approach while ensuring parliamentary scrutiny.

I do not consider amendment 18, in the name of Mark Ruskell, to be necessary. Proposed new section 2C(2) of the 2004 act, as inserted by section 1 of the bill, provides that

“Scottish Ministers must exercise the power under”

proposed new section 2C(1)

“so as to ... set at least one target in respect of each of the topics described in paragraph (a) of that subsection”.

That must be done within 12 months of section 1 of the bill being commenced.

As currently drafted, the bill already requires ministers to lay draft regulations setting out at least one target for each of the target topics included in the bill. As ministers already have a duty to set targets in relation to specified topics, I ask Mark Ruskell not to press amendment 18.

Amendments 176 and 179 to 181 all seek to require additional criteria to be taken into account when setting targets. The bill already makes it clear that targets are a means of supporting our biodiversity ambitions, as clearly articulated in our biodiversity strategy. They are also to be developed through seeking appropriate scientific advice, and, as amendment 113 proposes, there will be consultation before any targets are set.

I think that that, collectively, provides an appropriate framework for ensuring that targets are ambitious but achievable, and that such an approach takes the right considerations into account. What I want to avoid, at all costs, is the imposition of additional requirements that would make it harder to introduce targets in a timely fashion. We heard during stage 1 that we are in a nature emergency, and it is crucial that we progress the targets as quickly as reasonably possible.

Biodiversity is complex, and the committee will be aware that there is no single global metric for nature restoration as there is for climate mitigation. Measuring biodiversity is complex, and it is essential that we take a science-led approach to setting and developing those targets.

On Maurice Golden’s comments and the comparison that he made with the 2009 act, I appreciate that there is climate change legislation with a set of target-setting criteria, but that is entirely appropriate for that type of legislation, which is very prescriptive in setting out the approach that must be taken to achieving those targets. A more flexible approach is needed in respect of biodiversity targets, because there is no one apex measurement of diversity, and it is much more difficult to measure the outcome of nature restoration activities in the same linear fashion that emissions reductions are measured.

Amendment 174 would remove the requirement for Scottish ministers to specify indicators for measuring targets. Indicators are essential for transparency and accountability and for showing how progress will be assessed. That approach was consulted on, and it was widely supported both by stakeholders, and at stage 1. The committee, in its stage 1 report, stated that:

“stakeholders emphasised the importance of indicators and data collection to ensure statutory targets were robust.”

Removing that requirement would weaken the framework and make it harder for the Parliament and stakeholders to scrutinise delivery. That is not what any of us wants, so I urge members not to support amendment 174.

Amendment 177 removes the requirement for ministers to lay draft regulations for setting targets within 12 months of commencement. That provision was in the bill from the outset to ensure urgency and accountability. I understand Mr Eagle’s argument with regard to rushing things, but we have to set deadlines; after all, we are in a climate emergency, and we must be robust in setting those targets, which must be timeous, too.

Amendment 189 removes a provision aimed at reducing administrative complexity and avoiding ministers having to seek expert advice on matters that they have already sought advice on. That is a sensible approach, and there is no merit in including a requirement for duplication and the delay that would come with that. I hope that the committee agrees that the amendment is not necessary or reasonable, and I ask the member not to move it.

Amendments 24, 47 and 48 are in a similar vein to amendments in the previous group and all place additional requirements on ministers in relation to either the considerations that must be made or the evidence that must be sought when setting targets. The framework that we have established, in which targets have a clear and unambiguous purpose, and need to be set with appropriate scientific advice taken into account, is appropriate and proportionate. I do not recall concerns in that respect being expressed in the stage 1 evidence. I cannot support amendments 24, 47 and 48, because I do not think that they will help us achieve more effective targets, and I ask the members in question not to move them.

Amendment 47, specifically, seeks to introduce a further set of requirements in respect of targets, which risks confusing and diluting the existing provisions. Ecological coherence and a landscape-based approach will be front and centre of the actions needed to deliver on targets, but such considerations are properly dealt with in secondary legislation, in which we will set out the detail of targets. Again, I ask the member not to move amendment 47.

On amendments 109 and 178, lodged by Sarah Boyack, and amendment 309, lodged by Beatrice Wishart, I said at stage 1 that consultation will be a key part of developing our targets. Having reflected on what I heard during the committee’s evidence-taking sessions, I am content that that requirement has been specifically included, and I support amendment 113 in achieving it.

However, it is important to be clear about timescales. In order to carry out appropriate consultation, we need to engage with a wide range of stakeholders and those who are interested in the targets. It takes time to do that properly, and we then need to ensure that we adequately reflect on the outcomes of the consultation and consider how what we have been told should shape our approach. It is not feasible to do that properly and to have regulations ready for the Parliament within 12 months of royal assent. As the committee is well aware, there is also the small matter of an election in between, which will take time out of that process.

I assure the committee and stakeholders that it remains this Government’s intention to introduce nature targets as soon as practicably possible, but the amendments are inappropriate as they might result in rushed targets rather than targets that have been carefully considered and are informed by the meaningful public consultation that members have all said they want. This is too important to get it wrong.

Amendment 182, in the name of Maurice Golden, would impose an additional requirement on Environmental Standards Scotland. However, no consultation has been carried out with ESS on this proposal. Given the practical impact that it would have on its resourcing and finances, I ask the member to consider not moving the amendment, so that I can consult ESS and keep the member updated on that. It is important that ESS is involved in discussions on whether it wants such an additional requirement.

I am supportive of amendments 111 and 112 in principle, but I think that they require some modification to ensure that they fit with our proposed approach to monitoring target outcomes, so, if she is amenable, I would like to work with Ms Boyack ahead of stage 3 to ensure that the provisions operate as she intends.

Amendments 14 to 16 propose that a citizens assembly be established prior to setting targets. I recognise the important role that citizens assemblies can play in our policy development, but I would prefer our focus to remain on the development of an ambitious suite of targets, taking into account appropriate expert advice. I am concerned that allowing the citizens assembly to be established first would just delay the introduction of targets.

I do understand why the member has lodged the amendment—it is right that the people of Scotland have a say in the development of the targets. However, Alasdair Allan’s amendments 113 and 114 require that, before laying the regulations to create biodiversity targets, Scottish ministers consult anyone who might be impacted or interested. His amendments allow for public participation in the setting of targets, but in a proportionate and straightforward way.

On amendments 183, 184, 187, 188 and 190 to 192, provisions in proposed new sections 2E and 2F of the 2004 act, as inserted by section 1 of the bill, require ministers

“to seek and have regard to”

independent

“scientific advice”

when carrying out a review of targets and before making regulations to amend targets or target topics. The amendments would add requirements to take into account the views of land managers or their representatives and parliamentary committees in the review of targets. I have noted the views expressed during stage 1 on the need for greater consultation, which is why I am happy to support Alasdair Allan’s amendments. I appreciate the comments that Tim Eagle has made in that regard.

On amendments 49 and 52, I ?heard the concerns that were raised during stage 1 and, for?the reasons that Emma Roddick has set out, I?urge the committee to?support amendment 52.? It will ensure that Parliament is provided with important information on how ministers propose to act in response to the Environmental Standards Scotland report to be laid under proposed new section 2G(2) of the 2004 act, as inserted by section 1 of the bill. I urge Mark Ruskell to consider not moving amendment 49, as I think that the issues that he wishes to cover in that amendment are adequately dealt with in amendment 52.

Amendment 186 seeks to remove ministers’ ability to remove a target topic from proposed new section 2C of the 2004 act. For targets to be effective, they must be able to adapt as the evidence base changes and as overall knowledge and the technology develop; indeed, that principle was clearly supported by the committee and stakeholders in relation to the framework of the bill.

Targets and topics must be underpinned by relevant and current scientific evidence and independent advice.??It might be that a particular topic is no longer relevant, in which case it would be inappropriate to have a duty to set a target for it—and, of course, biodiversity itself is moveable and evolving. Moreover, any proposal to remove a target topic would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny under the affirmative procedure. I just do not think that it is appropriate to restrict the power of ministers to amend target topics in that way; I know that that is not Beatrice Wishart’s intention, but we need to reflect on the flexibility that will be required, and so I cannot support her amendment 186.

I am pleased to support amendments 113 and 114. I have listened to the concerns expressed by the committee and stakeholders about the lack of mandatory consultation, and I have made my points on that matter.

Amendments 50 and 51 are small but important amendments. Environmental Standards Scotland suggests that, as an independent body that is directly accountable to Parliament, it would be more appropriate for it to lay any reports made under proposed new section 2G of the 2004 act, as inserted by section 1 of the bill, and I agree with that.

On amendment 25, proposed new section 2G(4) of the 2004 act is a precautionary measure designed to future proof the legislation, should ESS’s structure or functions change, or should another body be established that would more appropriately perform the role. If that provision were removed from the bill, it would potentially make it difficult to remove ESS as a designated review body in future circumstances without primary legislation, which would mean that we would be back here again.

I am trying to avoid doing things in primary legislation, which would be onerous for the Parliament, that could be done using secondary legislation. If ESS’s structure or functions were to change—I am not saying that it would not exist—or if another body were to be established in future that could more appropriately fulfil its role, we would not be required to introduce primary legislation to give that body that responsibility.

Anyone in the world?

The broadness of the terms of Alasdair Allan’s amendment is obvious, but he might want to speak to that himself.

When it comes to any infrastructure, there is a potential impact on biodiversity and the environment. That is why we have rigorous environmental impact assessments, whether they be for energy infrastructure, house building, road building or any infrastructure that requires planning permission. I do not doubt Douglas Lumsden’s right to lodge amendments, but I merely point out that energy infrastructure is not a part of the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill. I also point out that the powers to do anything on electricity infrastructure, which is the purpose of the amendments, lie with the UK Government. It is legitimate for me to make that point.

As I set out earlier, we have followed a robust, science-led approach to developing statutory nature targets. Amendments 172, 185, 193 and 194 all appear to try to insert requirements that relate to energy infrastructure into the biodiversity targets framework, which risks confusing and diluting the important provisions that are aimed at tackling the nature crisis.

Amendment 172 seeks to add an additional topic to section 2C(1). The three target topics that are already included have been recommended by the experts in the programme advisory group based on careful scientific consideration. The amendment, which addresses the impact of electricity infrastructure on biodiversity, falls outside the scope of statutory biodiversity targets for the purposes of conservation. The target topic—enhancing environmental conditions for nature—will look at the pressures that inhibit thriving biodiversity so that nature has the best conditions to recover.

You are bringing up a letter that I have not written—that Mr Fairlie has written. He will be looking at the meeting, and we will pass back to him your wish for him to engage with the committee on the substance of that letter.

I was talking about Mr Fairlie’s amendment 35. Mr Ruskell’s amendment 31 seeks to achieve a similar outcome, so I appreciate that he will probably not move it. He seems satisfied with Mr Fairlie’s amendment closing the loophole, as it has been put.

Amendment 35A, which seeks to amend Mr Fairlie’s amendment, removing the express power for NatureScot to propose an alternative licence area, would lead to confusion. Section 16AA of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 will still require applicants to “describe”, as opposed to “identify”, the proposed area of land to which the licence is to relate and thereafter to set out that, if it is unable to reach agreement with the applicant as to what is an appropriate area of land, NatureScot can refuse the application. Therefore, there may still be some back and forth between the applicant and NatureScot to seek to agree the area. Not having express provisions setting that out could lead to confusion as to the process.

I will need to come back to the member on that, as it will depend on what is in the final bill. I will be able to give her an answer after the bill has been passed, once I have the timescales.

I turn to amendment 168, which seeks to recognise the role that the reintroduction of native species can play in nature restoration. As some members have indicated, there must be significant consultation on any proposed reintroduction to ensure that the views of those who would be most affected by any species reintroduction are fully taken into account. The Scottish Government does not intend to reintroduce lynx or any other large carnivorous species in Scotland because of the potential for negative impacts on agriculture and rural communities. We support the targeted reintroduction of other native species where appropriate, but we always consult on that.

In response to amendments 45 and 46, I reassure Ms Burgess that targets relating to marine habitats can be set under the current target topics. As I said, the biodiversity programme advisory group will explore that as part of the process for setting quantifiable targets. Amendments 45 and 46 duplicate what is already in the bill. Splitting targets by creating separate targets for offshore and inshore habitats fails to recognise the distribution of those habitats. Our aim is to manage our marine environment in a holistic manner, which is reflected in our current approach under the United Kingdom marine strategy.

Anything that is within the legal competence of the Scottish Parliament can be considered for the development of targets and indicators. For the marine environment, there is a complex mix of legislatively devolved, executively devolved and reserved powers across our inshore and offshore waters, which must be considered and taken into account when developing specific targets.

Amendments 107, 108, 173 and 175 deal with assessing or protecting inshore habitats from fishing pressures, and they include a proposed blanket ban on mobile gear in 30 per cent of the inshore areas.

Special protection from pressures is already provided by the marine protected areas network. Some members have alluded to the fact that there is already a great deal of work going on in that area. Each site is assessed individually, based on its protected features. Appropriate measures are supported by evidence, including from our statutory advisers. Therefore, I urge the committee to resist amendments 107, 108, 173 and 175. Any proposal that singles out mobile trawl gear over static gear is not evidence based and could lead to significant socioeconomic impacts on large parts of the Scottish fishing fleet. All fishing gear has an impact on the marine environment, but we must take an evidenced-based approach to fisheries management.

The proposal to introduce a target of banning bottom trawling in 30 per cent of inshore waters pays no regard to the work that is under way to introduce proportionate fisheries management measures in inshore MPAs. I appreciate that some members have already alluded to the fact that measures must be evidence based and that there is a great deal of work going on in that area.

I thank the member for allowing me to intervene to provide clarification. A draft statutory instrument containing regulations setting a target for a matter relating to each of the topics must be laid before the Scottish Parliament within 12 months of section 1 coming into force. I just wanted to clarify that, because I did not have the detail in front of me earlier. That must be done within 12 months, but, obviously, I could not give the member a definitive time within that 12-month period.