Seòmar agus comataidhean

Yes. The fact that the SPCB-supported bodies landscape review was being carried out at the same time meant that I had to focus quite carefully on the issue. I believe that it is important that we have a commissioner with this title, supported by staff with experience and knowledge.

In your previous question, convener, you referred to the fact that there are more than 130 public authorities in Scotland, so what is proposed will mean adding a lot of work on to that of another commissioner. You would still have to resource that commissioner or some other public sector body to do the work that needs to be done if we are going to implement sustainable development goals and deliver the wellbeing aspects. Therefore, this approach is critical. If we are to deliver policy coherence and accountability, that will need investment and, as I have said, this is work that needs to be done.

There is one thing that I thought you might ask me about. You mentioned the Carnegie UK report and best practice from other countries. I have been quite focused on that so that we can learn from other countries. Scotland has led on things such as the climate emergency and legislation, but, with this bill, we are following other states. I went to a conference two and a half years ago at which there was a link to the Carnegie UK report about what the other opportunities are. I hope that the committee will look at what the choices are if we want to do what the bill proposes. Although I looked at the Future Generations Commissioner for Wales, I have also engaged with and looked at other experiences globally. I have been very conscious of the fact that I do not want us to be left behind on sustainable development and wellbeing ambitions.

We all know about the challenge of implementing the climate legislation. These are not simple things; they require advice, guidance and support. Australia and Norway are looking at what they can do on sustainable development and increasing accountability on wellbeing issues. The Italian Parliament is looking at embedding action. The Kenyan Senate is looking at a committee of the future. Norway, Denmark, Spain, Portugal and Ireland are all looking at joining up investment now to deliver for future generations. Cameroon has just appointed its first future generations commissioner, and the European Union has created its first intergenerational fairness commissioner. This is a live issue in other countries.

We have capacity issues in the Parliament, and there is an issue with investment—I totally get that in terms of the SPCB-supported bodies landscape review. I am looking forward to having discussions with the Scottish Government over the next few weeks. However, I am concerned that we are now towards the end of this parliamentary session, and I do not want us to kick this into touch. There will be a huge change in who is elected to the Parliament next time, and in future elections. I do not want the Parliament in the next session to have to start again on looking at what will happen next. This is an opportunity for us to legislate now and make the change that our constituents need.

I will end on that point, convener, because you are looking at me. I do not want to go beyond the time that you have allocated and cut across the opportunities to be constructive and positive.

I appreciate that, convener. The Welsh commissioner has been in place since the legislation there came into force. It is a seven-year term—the postholder does not change every time that there is an election.

I have had very constructive discussions with a variety of ministers in the Scottish Government. I think that we need somebody who is there full time, who is appointed and who is held to public account, because ministers and Governments come and go. We can have ambitions, but the key thing is to implement them, whether we agree with them or not, and to support the public sector to deliver on ambitions that are not nice to have but are absolutely critical for the wellbeing of our constituents now and that of future generations. That is tough, but the bill provides a solution that would help us, whichever party we represent, to implement ambitions that can transform people’s lives now and in the future.

I appreciate being invited to speak to the committee. I thank the non-Government bills unit, because, as an individual member of Parliament, you cannot do this without its support. It has been fantastic.

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.

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.

Amendment 103 is important, because it would strengthen the bill. The bill states that the targets are

“to provide a means of supporting and measuring the progress being made in respect of the implementation”

of the Scottish biodiversity strategy and the biodiversity duty. However, amendment 103 would sharpen the ambition in the bill. Instead of simply supporting biodiversity, it would commit us to a clear goal of halting and reversing biodiversity loss in Scotland.

Amendment 103 seeks to ensure that the purpose of setting targets must be a stand-alone purpose—to halt and reverse biodiversity loss in Scotland—rather than being tied to the implementation of Scotland’s non-statutory biodiversity strategy, which could be subject to change because the term “supporting” is vague and the term “halting and reversing biodiversity loss” is precise and outcome focused. By adopting amendment 103, the bill will send a strong message that Scotland is committed not just to supporting biodiversity but to halting and reversing the on-going biodiversity loss. I will move amendment 103.

Amendment 34 is about protected areas. It seeks to ensure that management measures are in place and are demonstrably effective in maintaining and restoring protected sites, and specifically marine protected sites and ecosystems. Protected areas, including marine protected sites, are the cornerstone of Scotland’s nature recovery framework and represent some of our most important habitats. The bill focuses on broad ecosystem or species targets, but it does not explicitly track the condition of those sites.

Without a dedicated target, there is a risk that protected areas will remain in poor ecological condition even if overall biodiversity indicators elsewhere show improvement. Amendment 34 would ensure that the ecological quality and health of terrestrial and marine protected sites are directly measured and monitored. It would align the bill with Scotland’s statutory commitment under European Union-derived international law frameworks and ensure that those critical areas are central to the delivery of nature recovery.

Many of those sites are in poor condition. Amendment 34 would make their restoration a statutory priority. Marine protected sites are especially vulnerable and need clear legislative backing. For MPAs to work as they were intended to, they need to be a strong, continuous priority throughout all environmental legislation. Adopting amendment 34 will make the bill stronger, more credible and more effective at safeguarding Scotland’s most important natural features, whether on land or at sea.

Amendment 107 would require Scottish ministers to include within the bill’s biodiversity targets framework a nature recovery target that is focused on fishing pressures. That would ensure that fishing impacts are explicitly treated as a key driver of marine biodiversity change. Ministers would need to report on progress toward the target, thereby linking fisheries management with the nature-duty cycle that is established in the bill. That approach is consistent with the duty in section 25 of the Fisheries Act 2020 to incentivise fishing methods that have a lower impact on the marine environment. It gives power to individuals who rely on inshore fishing to make a living and to do so in a way that creates a sustainable future for the area. I thank the Scottish Creel Fishermen’s Federation for its suggestions on both amendments 107 and 108.

Amendment 108 would also require Scottish ministers to include within the bill’s biodiversity targets framework a nature recovery target that is focused on fishing pressures. It would ensure that fishing impacts are explicitly treated as a key driver of marine biodiversity change. Ministers would need to report on progress, thereby linking fisheries management with the nature-duty cycle that is established in the bill. That approach is consistent with the duty in section 25 of the 2020 act to incentivise fishing methods that have a lower impact on the marine environment. Such an approach also sheds light on inshore fishing methods that employ lower-impact gear, helping to ensure that inshore waters are being sustained and that gear does not surpass any safety limits. It is also a way of monitoring progress toward marine restoration targets. It is a win-win—it supports local fishing communities while supporting nature restoration.

Like Maurice Golden, I will not comment on every amendment in the group, as there are quite a few; however, I want to say that amendments 42 to 44 from my colleague Mercedes Villalba are very important. Between them, they would add “restoration of natural processes” to the list of topics for targets and would improve and help maintain the health of our ecosystems. Her other amendments in the group are also about habitats of conservation importance and about supporting action to prevent species extinction and halt species decline.

I will stop at that point, convener.

I move amendment 103.

What will the timescale be for a decision on setting the target that you have just mentioned?

My amendments 109 and 178 are related, with amendment 178 being consequential to amendment 109. The two amendments work together to ensure that the monitoring and reviewing of biodiversity targets are addressed not simply under section 1 of the bill but throughout the entire bill and all the legislation that it entails. For the bill to work to address the nature and climate emergencies, it has to work in a joined-up way. My amendments would ensure that the laying of draft SSIs applies to the whole bill, not just to section 1.

My amendment 178 would require targets to be introduced within 12 months of royal assent, rather than waiting for the whole act to come into force. The aim is to push the Government, so that we get prompt movement to establish the framework that is necessary for delivery. If that does not happen and commencement decisions are staggered or deferred, the whole process could be delayed by months or even years. My amendment aims to close a loophole that could allow for delay.

We need prompt introduction of targets if the bill is to deliver timely action for Scotland’s natural environment, because any delay could slow momentum in addressing biodiversity loss and reduce clarity for public bodies that are responsible for implementing the first cycle of targets. My amendment 178 would give legal certainty about what must be done and ensure that action can begin without unnecessary delay. The Scottish Government has said that the bill will support Scotland’s ambition to halt nature loss by 2030. That is now not far away and any unnecessary delay in the introduction of targets would undermine that ambition.

My amendment 111 is linked to my amendment 112 and creates a catch-up mechanism for missed targets. Nature and biodiversity restoration require a catch-up mechanism to ensure urgent action and avoid targets being missed. We know that we have missed biodiversity targets and we have seen climate targets being missed. The amendment would ensure that, when targets are missed, there is a mechanism that means that they are not forgotten. It would implement a catch-up mechanism that would require the Scottish ministers to put in place extra measures to meet a target before setting a new one. That could be a one-year period before a target is replaced, during which additional steps are taken to meet the target. Funding, enhanced use of existing powers and addressing bureaucratic challenges could be options for steps that could be taken. Introducing that catch-up mechanism would encourage urgent action to address targets that might otherwise be missed by a Government.

My amendment 112 is consequential to amendment 111 and is in place to hold ministers to account. There would have to be a meeting within a year focusing on when the target was expected to be met and why it was not.

My amendment 14 is linked to my amendments 15 and 16. If we reflect on the current discussions about the importance of meeting our environmental and nature conservation objectives, it is really important that people are involved in that process and that they are consulted. Citizens assemblies link incredibly well to deliberative democracy models. They give time for and legitimacy to informed debate and participation and I hope that they help policymakers and Government understand public preferences on complex issues. You can see the impact that citizens assemblies had in Ireland with the debates on LGBT marriage and on abortion—they brought people together and led to subsequent referendums.

As Mark Ruskell commented, since section 32A of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, there has been an argument that citizens assemblies should become more of a statutory requirement. Scottish Environment LINK’s recent work demonstrates the importance of the environment to voters. It is about how we encourage people and enable them to get involved in that debate, beyond just the vote. It is about involving people over time, and that is what citizens assemblies are about.

My amendment 15, on having regard to the citizens assembly, is really important. It is important that we involve people in the process and that they have the opportunity to be consulted.

My amendment 16 is quite lengthy, but it sets out the process of establishing a citizens assembly that would enable us to ensure that people were involved. A citizens assembly would help to create legitimacy, resolve conflicts and drive action for restoring ecosystems right across Scotland.

We know that we need radical action. Giving people a structured platform to learn about ecological science, to debate competing perspectives and to produce informed recommendations, would enable the Government to be supported with fair but fast action for nature. Even in today’s discussion, we have heard of different interests in rural Scotland to support marine action. Again, it is about accountability and holding power to account; having things passed by a citizens assembly ensures action.

I thank the organisations that have supported and worked with me on the amendments, which are absolutely critical—Scottish Environment LINK, Open Seas, the Scottish Rewilding Alliance and RSPB Scotland. There is support among key stakeholders. The amendments would ensure that the ambitions in the bill are implemented, which is why I have lodged them and why I have worked with organisations to get them drafted. They are really important.

I will listen to comments from other colleagues and the cabinet secretary but I hope that people understand that the ambition behind my amendments is to bring people together—not just to pass a piece of legislation but to make it transformative and inclusive, and to use that democratic platform.

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.