Seòmar agus comataidhean

The issue is not at the top of my agenda. Joint working and collaboration are the way to move forward. If people think that I can strengthen the definition in some way, I am happy to look at that, but it was not the overarching issue that was raised in the evidence or stakeholder feedback when I introduced my bill.

It considered the definition to overlap with existing human rights protections. I go back to the point that I made earlier. It does not duplicate existing rights or enforcement mechanisms, and it does not go into the specific human rights of key groups in society. It is about a general wellbeing approach, which affects us all. That is the distinction.

The key issue is having work done jointly by different commissioners, so that they do not try to do the same thing. The work that is being done by the children’s commissioner is fantastic, but it does not think about 2050, because that is for future generations. A huge amount of work needs to be done in this area, and that is not currently happening. I have absolutely no worry about overlap, because the experience in Wales is that joint work is really good.

I do not know whether you are suggesting that we should strengthen the definition of wellbeing in the bill.

No, my point is that we have to spend this resource if we are going to implement the bill’s ambitions. The SPCB-supported bodies landscape review very helpfully looked at, for example, the sharing of back-office resources, the location of commissioners and so on, and you could look at sharing back-office capacity for, say, human resources or finance. My point, though, is that we need new resource, and a focus on this issue.

My preference would be for there to be a new commissioner, with the title of future generations commissioner, to raise the issue up the agenda, provide the capacity to implement the legislation and make the change that we have all talked about for years but which has not happened. That would align with what is being done by the Scottish Government through the national performance framework, and it would help in terms of outcomes.

As I said, my strong preference is for there to be a commissioner, but the lesson of the work that has been done is that you can share resources. Experience in Wales shows that you can share back-office resources as well. However, we must invest in the area now, because, if we do not have that officer capacity and the powers of investigation, following on from the work on sharing best practice, advice and guidance and a consideration of the themes that are key priorities across the public sector, the ambitions of this legislation will not be fulfilled.

Absolutely. The point of the bill—the point of having the combination of the duty, the definition and the commissioner—is to get on with delivering that systemic change. The support, oversight and scrutiny functions are critically important. You can see that if you look at the experience of the Future Generations Commissioner for Wales, which has carried out two major reviews: one into how the Welsh Government has implemented the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, and one into how that act has informed public bodies’ procurement decisions. We can learn lessons from what has been done in Wales.

Having a commissioner in Scotland with teeth is critically important, because that is how we would bring about that systemic change. You need the oversight to be in place, you need the work that is done by public bodies to be supported and you need to have that scrutiny function.

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.

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?

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.