Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will press it, because there has been huge support for it, but I accept that not everyone will vote for it today. On that basis, if it is not agreed to, I will still be up for discussions.

I thank the cabinet secretary for her comments about citizens assemblies. Is there an issue with getting the timing right? Would she support amending not the ambition of having citizens assemblies but the timing of having them, so that we could make it work? After all, involving people in the process will be critical to ensure that they understand the targets and can see how they are being pulled together.

This has been a really good debate on a series of incredibly well-intentioned amendments. The ambition to strengthen the bill is important, and I thank all the stakeholders who have been in touch and those who helped us to craft our amendments for today’s proceedings. The question is what the bill will actually deliver once it is passed at stage 3. Therefore, the detail is important, and I will certainly reflect on some of the amendments in this group in advance of stage 3.

The aim of amendment 103, which was supported by the RSPB, Open Seas and the Scottish Rewilding Alliance, was to clarify matters and to enable future Governments by giving them a clear rationale for subsequent target setting. The ambition was to ensure that future Scottish Governments could not take a narrow interpretation without giving wider consideration to the true ecological impact. Like Lorna Slater, I am happy to work with colleagues in advance of stage 3, but I want to be clear that that is the ambition—to make the Scottish Government’s drafting of the bill more effective.

What we are trying to do here is to get moving on the issue, because a lot of work was done before the bill was introduced, so this is really about accelerating the process.

On my amendment 34, I have heard colleagues’ comments. Again, it is about timing, and, again, I want to thank the RSPB, Open Seas and Scottish Environment LINK for their support. The aim of amendment 34 is to have a dedicated target. The worry is that, without a target, protected areas could remain in poor ecological condition, even if overall biodiversity indicators show improvement elsewhere. The aim is to align Scotland’s statutory commitments under EU-derived and international frameworks and to ensure that such critical areas are central to the delivery of nature recovery, so it is an important amendment. I think that there is scope for discussions before stage 3, but I hope that the cabinet secretary accepts that we have lodged many of these amendments because people want to strengthen the bill.

On implementation, it will be critical that NatureScot is adequately funded so that it can lead on this work. There has been lots of talk about research and development and committees that will work together. Our statutory organisations will need to be properly invested in and supported, because there will be new ambitions in the bill that will require not only more work and more research but more implementation. That is critical.

I am prepared to discuss details of some of my amendments in advance of stage 3, but I hope that, given the discussion that was held at stage 1, committee members recognise that there is ambition to go further. That is absolutely critical for our biodiversity, onshore and offshore. Working together is critical. I take the points that Tim Eagle made; we also need to think about how we support the fishing industry. It is a case not simply of setting requirements but of working with those sectors that are keen to go further.

I will not attempt to comment on every amendment, but I think that there has been a positive debate on all the amendments. There is an ambition to go further, because, as Beatrice Wishart suggested, rather than long-term decline, we want to see a nature-based recovery. That is the ambition behind many of our amendments.

Will the cabinet secretary clarify the role of issues involving environmental impact assessments in relation to planning decisions that go to the Scottish Government? That is a key point when picking up some of the issues that are referenced in the amendment. I want there to be clarity on the record about the kind of issues that need to be looked at.

Thank you, convener—that is very much appreciated. It would be interesting to get a view from the minister on the issue of scrutiny. The Scottish Government has been working on that issue for several years now, and it proposed its own bill, which—as the minister said—is no longer progressing.

Given the range of options for implementation, minister, what are your views on the different options that have been set out by Carnegie UK? If we are not going to have a commissioner, what alternative measures would you put in place to deliver implementation? I am keen to get your views on the different options that Carnegie UK looked at.

That is a very good reflection because this is about how you take decisions now that have a long-term impact if you also face short-term challenges, such as Covid. You mentioned that you were concerned about investigations, but what thoughts do you have about giving organisations advice, guidance and support so that they can implement wellbeing and sustainable development principles?

You said that you were concerned about creating additional burdens on public bodies, but is there not an opportunity to consider shared best practice and how to support organisations, so that the investigations option comes only after those issues have been explored, having drawn on the experience of the Future Generations Commissioner for Wales? You do not start off by investigating; you start off by supporting the principles of the purpose of those ambitions and how you could align them with the national performance framework.

I could ask questions all day, deputy convener, but I suspect that it would be diplomatic for me to stop at this point and thank the minister for his answers.

Right. So, now that the Government has decided not to progress its own bill, which was similar in some ways to mine, it is about the national performance framework. What are your reflections on why implementation has not been undertaken thus far, with regard to the work that has been done to look at the implementation process across both Government and public sector bodies? What are your insights on why that has not happened?

Okay. It would be interesting to get your thoughts on the different oversight and accountability options. Earlier, you helpfully said to the convener that you would be happy to give more information. At this point, that would be helpful, because who will push the issue up the agenda? As you will observe, we have had the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015 for a decade and the national performance framework for a long period, but the issue is how you implement their principles.

I wonder about the potential alignment between the principles of wellbeing and sustainable development and the national performance framework, given your comment about the numerous pieces of legislation that refer to sustainable development but do not implement its principles. What are the triggers that will lead to the changes that you are looking at?