The Electricity Act 1989 is UK Government legislation that sets the regulations that are associated with electricity infrastructure. As I pointed out in the opening part of my response, many of the issues that Mr Lumsden intends to raise with the amendments relate to UK legislation, and I am happy to go through every amendment and point out which parts. The regulations are set in the UK, and we must follow them in Scotland. While Mr Lumsden’s party was in power, the UK Government had ample opportunity to address those issues.

I agree with Douglas Lumsden that communities should have more say about what happens in their area. Since I entered the Government, I have appealed over many years to the previous and the current UK Government to make it mandatory to consult on community benefits and how those benefits could be put into communities. The previous Government was not interested in doing that. I have managed to make some headway with the current Government, and it has been consulting on that. Therefore, we have to work with the UK Government to do a lot of the things that Douglas Lumsden wants to do.

I will not get into individual planning decisions, but it is important to remember that the UK Planning and Infrastructure Bill is relevant to Scotland. My general point is that what happens in relation to consenting and the Scottish Government is all intertwined with reserved legislation, including the Planning and Infrastructure Bill and the Electricity Act 1989.

What Sarah Boyack has put forward is a bit too prescriptive. Alasdair Allan’s amendment 113 allows for a range of public consultations—basically, we can do anything that we want under that umbrella. If we were to prescribe a citizens assembly, it would be disproportionate to what should be put in statute here. That said, I am happy to have that discussion.

People who are “affected by” or “have an interest” in the matter is the wording, I believe. Alasdair Allan’s amendment allows for a range of different types of public consultations that would be proportionate to what we are doing here.

As I said, I have heard all the arguments on the issue, and they are well rehearsed. I have pretty much committed to further research on the issue, which I think is needed.

I appreciate that there are differences of opinion on land use. Lorna Slater has put on record her points about Rachael Hamilton’s amendments and contributions.

Amendments 54 and 56 would repeal the list of plant species made exempt under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 while simultaneously removing the ability to list species in future orders, where the reason for the order

“is solely for economic or commercial purposes.”

As I said, we can accept—I am very sympathetic to—the concern about the self-seeding of Sitka spruce, which has led to the amendments. However, amendment 54 as drafted could have a detrimental effect on our forestry sector and cause a potential shock to forestry nurseries. The forestry sector relies on long-term stability to reach its goals. Any uncertainty can have severe and long-lasting consequences, particularly on the confidence and viability of tree nurseries.

Non-native conifers are vital to the Scottish economy and help us to meet the Scottish Government’s climate change targets. Forests absorb 7.5 metric tonnes of CO₂ annually—that is around 14 per cent of Scotland’s greenhouse gas emissions—and provide low-carbon timber, a lot of which is used for construction, as using timber is a way of reducing emissions that are associated with construction. Any shock to supply chains could result in decreased investment, delays to replanting and reductions in new planting—and, therefore, in carbon sequestration. It could also mean more importing of timber, which we do not want to happen in the longer term, and which could cause significant disruption to supply chains and result in job losses in rural areas. The sector is worth £1.1 billion to the Scottish economy, and it supports more than 34,000 jobs, but I cannot stress enough the importance of the carbon sequestration aspect of timber production.

Earlier this year, Ms Villalba wrote to me, setting out her concerns about the impact of a number of non-native species, including Sitka spruce. I am very sympathetic to those concerns. As I set out in my response to her, the Government and Scottish Forestry have been in regular contact regarding concerns about the self-seeding of non-native trees, and Scottish Forestry is reviewing its guidance for applicants, its staff and the available evidence, to ensure that the guidance is fit for purpose. That includes an upcoming revision to the long-term forest plan guidance. That guidance will take full consideration of the issue. Work is also under way on how the forestry grant scheme could be updated with that very serious and real issue in mind. We need to remember that sustainable forest management, which we, as the Scottish ministers, have a duty to promote, has three pillars: social, environmental and economic.

Amendment 54 goes further, too. By seeking to stop the planting of the species that are listed in part 2 of the schedule to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (Exceptions to section 14) (Scotland) Order 2012—many of which are native to the UK and Scotland—outside of their native range, the amendment would also impact the sowing of wildflowers for biodiversity. I am sure that that is an unintended consequence, but I need to highlight it to the member.

Amendment 55 would remove the current exemption for common pheasant and red-legged partridges. The Scottish Government is aware of the concern about the potential impact of game bird releases. However, we are concerned that—as has been mentioned by members—we currently do not have a complete calculation of the number of game birds that are being released in Scotland. Without that information, it is very difficult to take an informed view on the potential impacts.

I am not going to commit to supporting any new funds that have just come up in conversation in stage 2.

A lot of this sits across my portfolio and the portfolios of Ms Gougeon and Mr Fairlie. However, those points are on the record, and I will put the points on the report and that particular evidence to the minister.

I was in the middle of talking about amendment 12, which says that, with any order specifying species for the purpose of listing or relisting them, there would be a requirement to publish a long-term management strategy. Although we can see merit in that approach for any new species that are being considered for the exemption, we do not think that it would be proportionate for that to be done for the 100-plus species that are currently exempt. As I said, that includes a number of commonly sown wild flowers.

If it is not intended that amendment 12 be applied retrospectively to existing orders made under section 14(2B) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, we would be prepared to work with Ms Villalba on redrafting the amendment for stage 3 to clarify some of the provisions. I have highlighted some unintended consequences of the amendment, so it is sensible that we have a conversation ahead of stage 3 about how we avoid that. I hope that Ms Villalba is amenable to that. If she considers not moving amendments 12, 54, 55 and 56, we can work on them ahead of stage 3.

I turn to amendments 31, 35 and 35A. I am speaking on behalf of Jim Fairlie in addressing amendment 35 today. The amendment will ensure that the Scottish Government achieves the original intention of the grouse licensing scheme that was introduced by the Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Act 2024. It will make sure that the relevant offences committed outside the licensed area can still lead to suspension or revocation of a licence, closing a loophole that undermines enforcement. Without the amendment, offences such as poisoning birds of prey on adjacent land could not result in a licence suspension.

Amendment 35 will ensure that the licensing scheme acts as a meaningful deterrent to wildlife crime. The grouse licensing provisions were fully scrutinised and consulted on during the development of the bill that became the Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Act 2024. I thank Mark Ruskell for his support of the amendment. I have a certain interest in it, having taken the bill halfway through the process before it was handed to Mr Fairlie. I agree with the reasoning of the amendment, and I ask the committee to support amendment 35.

I note that I am speaking to Mr Fairlie’s portfolio. When Mr Fairlie makes decisions on amendments that are lodged, he always has them checked by the Scottish Government legal department, so I will leave that one for him. One of the points that I will take away is for Mr Fairlie to get in touch with Rachael Hamilton to give her that detail—

It is for police officers to determine whether a mountain hare was taken intentionally, and they would need to demonstrate that that was the case. Mr Fraser is a lawyer, and he will know that such a case would be up to lawyers to prove.

That is the advice that I have been given on the issue. I remember when the provision was put in at stage 3 of the Animals and Wildlife (Penalties, Protections and Powers) (Scotland) Bill, when there was no scrutiny of it. I gently say to members that, since that happened, a great number of things have been brought into many bills at stage 3 where that has been the case.

On amendment 267, Tim Eagle mentioned that the Scottish Government has a robust mechanism for monitoring species introduction and managing impacts through existing legislation and policy frameworks. Creating a statutory review would add bureaucracy without delivering any new benefits. Ministers have powers to review and adapt species management policy as needed, so an additional, rigid statutory requirement is unnecessary. Further, as another member mentioned, deer and pheasants are excluded without explanation.

I appreciate Tim Eagle’s offer with regard to amendment 268. I do not know whether he was suggesting that he would not move amendments 267 and 268, but I appreciate that he wants to have more discussions going forward, and I am always willing to have such discussions.

On amendment 268, the Scottish Government provides targeted support for landowners who are impacted by species introduction through established schemes such as the sea eagle management scheme and the beaver mitigation scheme, which are delivered by NatureScot. Those programmes offer practical assistance and financial support where needed.

The current schemes address real impacts without creating a blanket entitlement. Crucially, they allow NatureScot to respond quickly and proportionately. I take Tim Eagle’s point that there might have been instances when that has not happened as quickly as some people would like. I am happy to engage with NatureScot—I have done so in previous ministerial roles in situations where that has been the case. For those reasons, I encourage Tim Eagle not to move amendment 269, and I encourage members to oppose it if it is moved.

I listened carefully to what was said about the proposal in amendment 269, which would allow ministers to take action in certain circumstances to prevent the release of pheasants or red-legged partridges. There are a number of existing powers under which ministers and NatureScot can take action to protect biodiversity from any negative impacts of game birds. If Beatrice Wishart thinks that there is a genuine gap in the current legislative protections, Mr Fairlie would be willing to discuss that further—he asked me to relay that if she does not move her amendment at this stage.

I am aware that Beatrice Wishart lodged amendment 270 and Ariane Burgess lodged amendment 302 due to difficulties that have arisen in accessing land to tackle invasive non-native species, particularly in Orkney, where the groundbreaking work at the Orkney Native Wildlife Project has been incredibly successful. However, we are unable to accept the amendments at this stage, as we need time to consider them carefully, given the implications of granting such additional power. We want to make sure that any additional power is proportionate and appropriate. It would be prudent to wait to hear further recommendations that Environmental Standards Scotland might make following its investigation into invasive non-native species. On that basis, I ask Beatrice Wishart not to move amendment 270 and Ariane Burgess not to move amendment 302. I am willing to engage with them ahead of stage 3 to see whether we can work together on amendments that we can all support.

I appreciate the sentiment around the Langholm-Newcastleton goats. However, amendments 284 to 286 would give statutory protection to a non-native species. Mercedes Villalba made that point quite succinctly a number of times: it is a fact that the goats are a non-native species.