Seòmar agus comataidhean

It is partly about having the commissioner there to hold those organisations to account. The commissioner will have powers of investigation, so if somebody thinks that they can just tick a box and say, “We’re doing this”, and that was a significant issue and the particular public sector organisation could be doing significantly more, the commissioner could hold an investigation and hold that organisation to account.

There is a combination of the duty to “have regard to” guidance, advice and support and a backstop in the form of the commissioner, who could say, “I am looking into your organisation—at the moment, you’re just ticking the box. Where is the significant change that your organisation could deliver in terms of the sustainable development principles to which you are supposed to have due regard?” That combination is important.

From looking at the experience in Wales, we can see that there have not been dozens of investigations, because no public sector authority wants to be investigated. We can also look at the experience with Audit Scotland, which looks at decisions after they have been made. That is another way of holding public bodies to account, and it has a big impact on organisations. It creates public awareness, and it makes the Government aware of issues with a public sector organisation. There is a whole raft of ways in which to hold people to account.

The duty would also empower those staff members, in public sector bodies that are signed up to the principles, who know that more can be done. It would also assist organisations in which—as Elena Whitham mentioned—there are people leading the way. More people would feel comfortable with that, because that would be what was expected under the legislation.

The other aspect is the guidance on how to implement sustainable development and the investigatory power. Yes, I have been looking at public sector authorities and thinking about how they might improve and about the lobbying that I might do in my region with my health board and my local authority to push sustainable development further up the agenda. Should the bill be passed, those organisations will have a public duty to implement sustainable development, as defined in the bill. That might help when, for example, the health board is thinking about planning a new hospital, because I will be able to lobby the board on that. If the bill is passed, it will have a public duty in that regard, rather than it being something that is nice to have.

There is an issue to do with changing the way in which public sector organisations invest now so that it will deliver savings. I gave you the example of the hospital in Swansea that built a solar farm that makes £1 million a year. That is the kind of different thinking that I am seeking to encourage. Think about the challenges that the public sector is facing. Getting to the point of embedding sustainable development is difficult, but introducing a legal obligation will push the issue up the agenda. Sustainable development is an opportunity that is not being seized currently.

We were thinking about implementation. This is about real people and the fact that we need to think through what the impact of legislation will be. That is why we went for it. I looked at Scotland’s national outcomes and the national performance framework, and I thought about the opportunities for people’s lives from implementing wellbeing goals. I mentioned earlier that we have both sustainable development goals and wellbeing outcomes; the bill joins the two together. It is about the impact on real people of the decisions that we make.

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.

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?