Chamber and committees

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—

Yes—although it is up to the convener. I can stay here all day.

Mr Fairlie engages with all stakeholders in his portfolio, and I have absolutely no doubt that he does so rigorously and thoroughly. I am going to move his amendment 35; I have been asked to do so, and I—

Convener, can I make a point of order?

I am content with the scope of Alasdair Allan’s amendment. What we do in Scotland is of interest to people overseas, so if anyone in the world wants to talk about our biodiversity targets, I do not see amendment 113 precluding them from doing so. However, we will prioritise the citizens of Scotland in taking forward any of the results of consultation.

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.