The delivery plan and all the other policy strategies around it have been set out with the bill in mind. This part of the bill covers the statutory target-setting aspect, which reflects the work that we have done on strategy and policy. The biodiversity delivery plan is a living document. Everything to do with biodiversity, by its very nature, has to be iterative, because it responds to evidence and data, as I mentioned in my previous answer, and to changing circumstances. We have to consistently monitor issues that affect particular species and habitats or which result from climate change and other impacts. If some areas of the plan are not strong enough to address the evidence that comes through, of course they will be changed.

Once the targets have been set, we will look to see whether the actions in the delivery plan and the policies in the biodiversity strategy will be sufficient to enable us to deliver on them.

I think that I am saying yes, but in a very roundabout way. I am giving you an idea of how agile we are in this area.

They have to. It goes back to my point that the Government cannot do this alone. The reach of public bodies and local authorities extends throughout Scotland, and their actions affect the whole of the country. They make decisions that affect biodiversity. References to councils’ duties on biodiversity and emissions reduction are woven throughout the national planning framework. In planning cases, councils are not allowed to make decisions that would threaten the climate change objectives or the biodiversity objectives. In fact, they actively have to build in action to improve resilience in relation to biodiversity and to reduce their carbon footprint.

We are keen to continue to review that. As I said to Beatrice Wishart, the biodiversity delivery plan is an iterative piece of work. Everything to do with nature, climate change and the environment cannot be set in stone and put on a shelf for ever, because things change. The nature of those issues is such that we must be adaptive.

I am always looking to ensure that the duty that we have placed on public bodies is as effective as possible. We did not think that legislative changes to that duty were needed, because it already exists, but we must scrutinise the effectiveness of the action plans associated with the reports on compliance with the biodiversity duty. That is work that we need to do.

It goes back to the convener’s central point that we have not been able to halt biodiversity loss through other methods. The biodiversity strategy has been in place since 2011, and we need to ensure that it is strong and robust, and that it focuses on delivery.

Absolutely. I will also be in front of you at stage 2. Members who know me and who have been through other bills with me will know that my door is open to any members who have suggestions on how bills can be strengthened. If there is anything in the Welsh bill that you think the Scottish Government should put in this bill, by all means come and speak to me about it, because we can maybe work together on something. It does not have to be just the Government that lodges amendments; it can be members as well. I enjoy working cross-party with members to make bills stronger.

What Tim Eagle has just suggested makes sense on the surface, because delivery has to happen at a local level and in a pan-Scotland way. It cannot be about a centralised document that sits in the Scottish Parliament. Delivery on these very ambitious objectives rests on all the public bodies and on our citizens as well.

The Orkney situation concerns the stoat population. Let me take that away and look at it.

The “Scottish Biodiversity Strategy Delivery Plan 2024-2030” includes a duty to

“implement the Scottish Plan for Invasive Non-Native Species ... Surveillance, Prevention and Control, and secure wider support measures to enable ... removal at scale.”

Therefore, that duty already exists. I am aware of the Orkney issue, but I need to take that away and look at whether it needs to be addressed in the bill or whether we already have the legal mechanisms to do that.

NatureScot said:

“We support changes. It does not make a lot of sense to us to have legislation that we cannot easily amend. Giving the power to change legislation in response to changing technologies, climate change and so on seems sensible to us.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, 28 May 2025; c 38.]

NatureScot is supportive of the power.

Our legal assessment is that we do not have the flexibility to be responsive enough to the changes that climate change, in particular, will cause to happen in our natural environment. We would not be putting the provision in—I would not be putting it in—if we had the ability through guidance to meet those objectives. This change and this part of the bill are there to allow us the flexibility to be adaptive and agile in a dynamic situation.

Unless there is any other legal advice that I can get from Stewart Cunningham on this, I am convinced that the power needs to be included in order to enhance biodiversity and allow us to be responsive to what is a literally changeable environment, particularly as a result of climate change. Having this bespoke provision for Scotland in the bill will give us that ability, which we do not currently have.

We acknowledge that the bill’s provisions are not a replacement for the power in the European Communities Act 1972. The EIA and habitats legislation originated in EU law, which means that, as a result of our having exited the EU, we have lost that power. That has created a legislative gap that we think needs to be filled, and we do not believe that regulation 9D does that. As I said, using it would mean that we would end up with legislation that was frozen in time from the date of our EU exit.

If we required primary legislation every time that an amendment to EIA or habitats legislation was needed, however minor that change might be, that would be disproportionate and unworkable, and it is not an agile or responsive way to respond to critical and dynamically changing situations. That is why we want to be able to fill that legislative gap. We do not think that regulation 9D does that, and we think that the provision in part 2 of the bill does.

The team is working on secondary legislation on targets; that work will not wait for royal assent and is already in train—we are looking at it. The words “agile” and “iterative” seem to be my catchphrases. That work is happening because we want—at the start of the next parliamentary session, I imagine—to be able to put the targets out for scrutiny.

We do the consents aspect of that, but the regulation associated with it is reserved to the UK.

It depends on which waters we are talking about.

We have responsibilities for inshore waters.