Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am trying to understand that argument. You are, in effect, saying that we should have a national marine plan with no reference to fisheries in it. I do not quite understand that. Surely fisheries management is, by its very nature, spatial, and therefore a spatial interpretation of fisheries management and a relationship to a plan alongside other activities, including activities that use the seabed, such as renewables and fish farming, would be quite a rational approach. I appreciate the distinction between onshore and offshore, but surely a marine plan needs to include marine activities, among which fisheries are an important spatial form of management.

In the words of Douglas Lumsden, it has been a monster mega stage 2—[Laughter.]—so I will keep my comments short.

I am seeking to amend the title of the bill to reflect the urgency of the nature crisis and the collective will of the Parliament to act to address it. Amendment 33 would rename the bill to the “Nature Emergency (Scotland) Bill”. I draw the committee’s attention to the fact that the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee scrutinised the Scottish biodiversity strategy and made the recommendation to the Government—I do not know whether the recommendation was picked up—that the strategy should be renamed “Scotland’s Nature Emergency Strategy” to underline the seriousness of the issue, and the intent for what the strategy should be achieving and the action that it should be driving.

The vision and purpose of the bill is important. As we have explored in earlier debates about part 2, the focus must be on moving forward on restoring nature. We are in a nature emergency, and we should reflect that in the title of the bill.

I move amendment 33.

I ask Sarah Boyack to reflect on the fact that, in the previous session of Parliament, a proposed fisheries management bill was in the programme for government but it was never delivered. We have been waiting a very long time to unpack the issues, and trying to unpack an entire reform of fisheries management in 45 minutes or an hour is very challenging work for everybody.

I will not press amendment 33, and I will reflect on the cabinet secretary’s comments. As we move to the debates at stage 3, it would be good to hear “nature emergency” reflected in the Government’s intent.

Amendment 33, by agreement, withdrawn.

Section 38 agreed to.

Long title agreed to.

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

Northern Ireland is one of the four nations. It has clearly set the tone.

I will not press amendment 32 today, but I think that consideration needs to be given to how an appropriate consensus position could be reached ahead of stage 3.

I will press amendment 76. The Scottish Wildlife Trust has been doing a huge amount of work over many years on nature networks. Its concern, and the concern of many stakeholders, is that, although nature networks are referred to in the Scottish biodiversity strategy and are part of the workstream, they are not central to it. There would be benefit in drawing out the work that is being done to support nature networks across Scotland by having specific reporting on that.

I do not see nature networks as being in competition with other land uses; I see them as being integral to all land uses, because every type of land use will have corridors through which nature can pass. Land that is used for agriculture has hedgerows and other networks within it. The same is true of the urban landscape. Our parks and cycle lanes all form part of nature networks, so it is not something that can be considered to one side—it should be integral to all land uses.

In some parts of Government, to an extent, I think that there is perhaps a little bit of a misunderstanding about the central importance of nature networks and the need to integrate them into all forms of land use.

For those reasons, I will press amendment 76. I accept the cabinet secretary’s point that nature networks are being considered, but I do not think that they are a central consideration, as needs to be the case.

I am recalling the committee sessions that we had earlier this week on the Ecocide (Scotland) Bill. I believe that you committed to lodging an amendment that would help to make more explicit the options available to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service in pursuing a prosecution under ecocide law or under section 40 of the Regulatory Reform (Scotland) Act 2014. Can you say more about what that amendment might look like? Would it have any bearing on Ross Greer’s amendment 300, which is focused on ensuring that the 2014 act is in line with the environmental crime directive?

I am going to continue in the same vein as earlier this morning, because it is important that we take the opportunity that is offered by the bill to take action to improve biodiversity. That is why we are seeing so many amendments at this point that are rooted in a lot of the frustration of members that practical action has not been taken to protect biodiversity and restore the environment in Scotland.

I will try to be brief in my comments. Four years ago, in its programme for government, the Scottish Government pledged to

“phase out the use of peat in horticulture.”

That included a ban in order to protect peatlands and

“to restore the health and vitality of the natural systems that sustain us.”

That pledge remains unfulfilled, and about 1,000 hectares of our peatlands are actively dug up every year. That is enough peat to fill 68 Olympic-sized swimming pools. As we know, peat forms at the very slow rate of about 1mm per year, so it takes 1,000 years to form to a depth of 1m, but diggers can strip out the same amount of peat from the ground in just a couple of weeks. Peat is not therefore a resource that can be renewed within a human lifetime. Once it is gone, it is gone.

Amendment 32 is therefore about giving us the chance to change the fate of Scotland’s peatlands and to save the peat and carbon that they hold for future generations. I do not think that there is anything new in the amendments, and everybody in the room is probably in agreement with the policy intention, but there is a concern that it has not happened yet despite years of commitments.

Amendment 32 would insert a requirement for the Scottish Government to use powers that it already has via secondary legislation under section 140 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which is a part of the 1990 act that has already been used. The ban on single-use vapes follows those powers, and amendment 32 would follow a similar model. We have done this before. We have innovated in the Scottish Parliament to achieve things on a four-nations basis across the UK.

Scotland is not alone in its impatience about the lack of direction from the UK Government on this. The chair of the Climate Change, Environment, and Infrastructure Committee at the Welsh Senedd recently wrote to urge the UK Parliament to increase pressure to get progress across the UK, and I understand that Northern Ireland has now committed to a firm date for the phasing out of the use of peat in horticulture. Within the devolved constitutional settlement, including Northern Ireland, nations are moving forward, setting dates and delivering action in this area. Why can we not do that in Scotland? I am sure that the minister will tell me why in a minute.

One of the stated objectives of the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill is to cover key actions to deliver biodiversity targets, and this is a key action that is long overdue.

I note that Rachael Hamilton has lodged a number of detailed amendments to amendment 32, and I will listen carefully to her unpack those in a minute. I respect her work as chair of the cross-party group on horticulture. We will see where we get to, but I am looking for an acknowledgement that action is long overdue, that there is a pathway to banning peat extraction and that the Government is prepared to take that action and we can move forward in the months to come.

I will leave my comments there.

I move amendment 32.

I will speak to amendments 78 and 79 on behalf of Ariane Burgess.

Amendment 78 would establish a requirement to consult with communities in relation to new forestry. It is very similar to an amendment that Ariane Burgess lodged at stage 2 of the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Act 2024. It is informed, as are Mercedes Villalba’s amendments, by the recommendations from the RSE, which has called for forestry applications to be subject to more EIAs, including the important public consultation element. The amendment would increase the consultation requirements without requiring a full EIA to be conducted.

Amendment 79 would bar Scottish ministers from providing and approving public funding for deer fencing, including any on-going maintenance of existing fencing. That draws on the report from the John Muir Trust, which raised concerns about the proportion of forestry payments that support deer fencing as opposed to other deer population control measures. Its argument is that the current funding model is an inefficient use of taxpayers’ money and is not a long-term strategy for increasing nature restoration. The funding for deer fencing concentrates deer density on unfenced land. Moving to a natural regeneration approach would focus on controlling deer populations to lower densities and allow for more natural and effective woodland restoration.

It is argued that that approach would also create healthier environments at a landscape scale by allowing the free movement of other wildlife.