Seòmar agus comataidhean

People who are “affected by” or “have an interest” in the matter is the wording, I believe. Alasdair Allan’s amendment allows for a range of different types of public consultations that would be proportionate to what we are doing here.

As I said, I have heard all the arguments on the issue, and they are well rehearsed. I have pretty much committed to further research on the issue, which I think is needed.

I appreciate that there are differences of opinion on land use. Lorna Slater has put on record her points about Rachael Hamilton’s amendments and contributions.

Amendments 54 and 56 would repeal the list of plant species made exempt under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 while simultaneously removing the ability to list species in future orders, where the reason for the order

“is solely for economic or commercial purposes.”

As I said, we can accept—I am very sympathetic to—the concern about the self-seeding of Sitka spruce, which has led to the amendments. However, amendment 54 as drafted could have a detrimental effect on our forestry sector and cause a potential shock to forestry nurseries. The forestry sector relies on long-term stability to reach its goals. Any uncertainty can have severe and long-lasting consequences, particularly on the confidence and viability of tree nurseries.

Non-native conifers are vital to the Scottish economy and help us to meet the Scottish Government’s climate change targets. Forests absorb 7.5 metric tonnes of CO₂ annually—that is around 14 per cent of Scotland’s greenhouse gas emissions—and provide low-carbon timber, a lot of which is used for construction, as using timber is a way of reducing emissions that are associated with construction. Any shock to supply chains could result in decreased investment, delays to replanting and reductions in new planting—and, therefore, in carbon sequestration. It could also mean more importing of timber, which we do not want to happen in the longer term, and which could cause significant disruption to supply chains and result in job losses in rural areas. The sector is worth £1.1 billion to the Scottish economy, and it supports more than 34,000 jobs, but I cannot stress enough the importance of the carbon sequestration aspect of timber production.

Earlier this year, Ms Villalba wrote to me, setting out her concerns about the impact of a number of non-native species, including Sitka spruce. I am very sympathetic to those concerns. As I set out in my response to her, the Government and Scottish Forestry have been in regular contact regarding concerns about the self-seeding of non-native trees, and Scottish Forestry is reviewing its guidance for applicants, its staff and the available evidence, to ensure that the guidance is fit for purpose. That includes an upcoming revision to the long-term forest plan guidance. That guidance will take full consideration of the issue. Work is also under way on how the forestry grant scheme could be updated with that very serious and real issue in mind. We need to remember that sustainable forest management, which we, as the Scottish ministers, have a duty to promote, has three pillars: social, environmental and economic.

Amendment 54 goes further, too. By seeking to stop the planting of the species that are listed in part 2 of the schedule to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (Exceptions to section 14) (Scotland) Order 2012—many of which are native to the UK and Scotland—outside of their native range, the amendment would also impact the sowing of wildflowers for biodiversity. I am sure that that is an unintended consequence, but I need to highlight it to the member.

Amendment 55 would remove the current exemption for common pheasant and red-legged partridges. The Scottish Government is aware of the concern about the potential impact of game bird releases. However, we are concerned that—as has been mentioned by members—we currently do not have a complete calculation of the number of game birds that are being released in Scotland. Without that information, it is very difficult to take an informed view on the potential impacts.

I am not going to commit to supporting any new funds that have just come up in conversation in stage 2.

A lot of this sits across my portfolio and the portfolios of Ms Gougeon and Mr Fairlie. However, those points are on the record, and I will put the points on the report and that particular evidence to the minister.

I was in the middle of talking about amendment 12, which says that, with any order specifying species for the purpose of listing or relisting them, there would be a requirement to publish a long-term management strategy. Although we can see merit in that approach for any new species that are being considered for the exemption, we do not think that it would be proportionate for that to be done for the 100-plus species that are currently exempt. As I said, that includes a number of commonly sown wild flowers.

If it is not intended that amendment 12 be applied retrospectively to existing orders made under section 14(2B) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, we would be prepared to work with Ms Villalba on redrafting the amendment for stage 3 to clarify some of the provisions. I have highlighted some unintended consequences of the amendment, so it is sensible that we have a conversation ahead of stage 3 about how we avoid that. I hope that Ms Villalba is amenable to that. If she considers not moving amendments 12, 54, 55 and 56, we can work on them ahead of stage 3.

I turn to amendments 31, 35 and 35A. I am speaking on behalf of Jim Fairlie in addressing amendment 35 today. The amendment will ensure that the Scottish Government achieves the original intention of the grouse licensing scheme that was introduced by the Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Act 2024. It will make sure that the relevant offences committed outside the licensed area can still lead to suspension or revocation of a licence, closing a loophole that undermines enforcement. Without the amendment, offences such as poisoning birds of prey on adjacent land could not result in a licence suspension.

Amendment 35 will ensure that the licensing scheme acts as a meaningful deterrent to wildlife crime. The grouse licensing provisions were fully scrutinised and consulted on during the development of the bill that became the Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Act 2024. I thank Mark Ruskell for his support of the amendment. I have a certain interest in it, having taken the bill halfway through the process before it was handed to Mr Fairlie. I agree with the reasoning of the amendment, and I ask the committee to support amendment 35.

I note that I am speaking to Mr Fairlie’s portfolio. When Mr Fairlie makes decisions on amendments that are lodged, he always has them checked by the Scottish Government legal department, so I will leave that one for him. One of the points that I will take away is for Mr Fairlie to get in touch with Rachael Hamilton to give her that detail—

It is for police officers to determine whether a mountain hare was taken intentionally, and they would need to demonstrate that that was the case. Mr Fraser is a lawyer, and he will know that such a case would be up to lawyers to prove.

That is the advice that I have been given on the issue. I remember when the provision was put in at stage 3 of the Animals and Wildlife (Penalties, Protections and Powers) (Scotland) Bill, when there was no scrutiny of it. I gently say to members that, since that happened, a great number of things have been brought into many bills at stage 3 where that has been the case.

On amendment 267, Tim Eagle mentioned that the Scottish Government has a robust mechanism for monitoring species introduction and managing impacts through existing legislation and policy frameworks. Creating a statutory review would add bureaucracy without delivering any new benefits. Ministers have powers to review and adapt species management policy as needed, so an additional, rigid statutory requirement is unnecessary. Further, as another member mentioned, deer and pheasants are excluded without explanation.

I appreciate Tim Eagle’s offer with regard to amendment 268. I do not know whether he was suggesting that he would not move amendments 267 and 268, but I appreciate that he wants to have more discussions going forward, and I am always willing to have such discussions.

On amendment 268, the Scottish Government provides targeted support for landowners who are impacted by species introduction through established schemes such as the sea eagle management scheme and the beaver mitigation scheme, which are delivered by NatureScot. Those programmes offer practical assistance and financial support where needed.

The current schemes address real impacts without creating a blanket entitlement. Crucially, they allow NatureScot to respond quickly and proportionately. I take Tim Eagle’s point that there might have been instances when that has not happened as quickly as some people would like. I am happy to engage with NatureScot—I have done so in previous ministerial roles in situations where that has been the case. For those reasons, I encourage Tim Eagle not to move amendment 269, and I encourage members to oppose it if it is moved.

I listened carefully to what was said about the proposal in amendment 269, which would allow ministers to take action in certain circumstances to prevent the release of pheasants or red-legged partridges. There are a number of existing powers under which ministers and NatureScot can take action to protect biodiversity from any negative impacts of game birds. If Beatrice Wishart thinks that there is a genuine gap in the current legislative protections, Mr Fairlie would be willing to discuss that further—he asked me to relay that if she does not move her amendment at this stage.

I am aware that Beatrice Wishart lodged amendment 270 and Ariane Burgess lodged amendment 302 due to difficulties that have arisen in accessing land to tackle invasive non-native species, particularly in Orkney, where the groundbreaking work at the Orkney Native Wildlife Project has been incredibly successful. However, we are unable to accept the amendments at this stage, as we need time to consider them carefully, given the implications of granting such additional power. We want to make sure that any additional power is proportionate and appropriate. It would be prudent to wait to hear further recommendations that Environmental Standards Scotland might make following its investigation into invasive non-native species. On that basis, I ask Beatrice Wishart not to move amendment 270 and Ariane Burgess not to move amendment 302. I am willing to engage with them ahead of stage 3 to see whether we can work together on amendments that we can all support.

I appreciate the sentiment around the Langholm-Newcastleton goats. However, amendments 284 to 286 would give statutory protection to a non-native species. Mercedes Villalba made that point quite succinctly a number of times: it is a fact that the goats are a non-native species.

Can I finish my point?

Providing the goats with the increased protections that are set out in the amendments would conflict with Scotland’s biodiversity strategy, and legal protection could prevent the necessary population management, leading to overgrazing and to damage to sensitive upland ecosystems.

I will take Rachael Hamilton’s intervention.

ESS was established during the previous parliamentary session, I think, and the provisions that Ms Villalba mentions with regard to its independence are already in statute. I am happy to write to her about those provisions, which ensure the body’s independence. It was set up through work done in the previous session and through primary legislation, but I can certainly meet Ms Villalba to talk it through further.

On amendment 312, I would just say that there is no choice between sustainable food production and nature restoration—they are inextricably linked and co-exist. Livestock have a key role to play in delivering for biodiversity and the climate. We recognise the importance of the livestock sector, and, in stark contrast to policy in the rest of the UK, we continue to provide it with a broad range of support schemes and to demonstrate our support for a thriving livestock farming sector. I make it crystal clear that the Scottish Government has no policy of reducing livestock numbers. As Tim Eagle correctly pointed out, we did not take that advice from the Climate Change Committee with regard to our climate change plan, and we will not be actively reducing livestock numbers.

Thank you. I am pleased to speak in support of two draft instruments that were laid before the Parliament last month. The instruments are technical in nature but are nonetheless important measures that reinforce our commitment to equality and inclusion across Scotland’s public sector. They will ensure that Zero Waste Scotland, following its transition to a non-departmental public body in October last year, will be subject to the same statutory equality obligations as other public authorities.

The schedule to the Circular Economy (Scotland) Act 2024 applied the majority of public sector duties to Zero Waste Scotland, such as those in the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 and the Public Appointments and Public Bodies etc (Scotland) Act 2003. However, making Zero Waste Scotland subject to the public sector equality duty under the Equality Act 2010, and the related duties under the 2025 regulations, must be done separately by way of an SSI, given the terms of the 2010 act.

The draft Equality Act 2010 (Specification of Public Authorities) (Scotland) Order 2025 formally designates Zero Waste Scotland as a listed authority under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. That means that the organisation must now comply with the public sector equality duty, which requires public bodies to consider how their policies and practices affect people with protected characteristics. The duty is central to promoting fairness, dignity and inclusion in the delivery of public services.

The draft Equality Act 2010 (Specific Duties) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2025 apply to Zero Waste Scotland the specific duties that are set out in the Equality Act 2010 (Specific Duties) (Scotland) Regulations 2012 (SSI 2012/162). The duties are designed to support public authorities in meeting the public sector equality duty in a transparent and accountable way. That includes the collection and publication of workforce diversity data; the setting of equality outcomes; and regular reporting on progress against those outcomes.

The measures are not only about compliance; they are about embedding equality into the culture and operations of public bodies. They help to ensure that decisions are informed by evidence, that services are responsive to the needs of all communities and that public bodies are held to account for their performance on equality.

Zero Waste Scotland, which employs around 160 staff, plays a central role in delivering Scotland’s circular economy strategy. In doing so, it is helping to reduce waste, promote resource efficiency and drive sustainable economic growth by keeping materials in use for as long as possible. It will be an integral part of the Scottish Government’s aim to reach net zero by 2045. It is right, therefore, that we extend the duties to the organisation, which will strengthen our objective to ensure that our public services are representative of the people of Scotland.

I recommend the two instruments to the committee and to the Parliament as necessary and proportionate steps to uphold equality standards across Scotland’s public sector.