���˿���

Part 2 of the bill introduces a new regulatory power relating to nature restoration. Without a non-regression clause, there is a risk that regulations could be weakened by future Governments, standards could be lowered through secondary legislation and the overall environmental protection regime could become less robust over time. That is particularly important because, although nature targets are long term, regulations might change more frequently.

My amendment 196 seeks to address that by ensuring that any regulations that are made under part 2 can only maintain or improve existing environmental standards. That non-regression safeguard ensures continuity and prevents backsliding at the implementation stage.

I note that other members have also lodged non-regression amendments. That reflects the concerns that others have alluded to and the need for such amendments. My amendment uses the phrase “maintain or improve”, which reflects the standard that is used in other major environmental statutes and provides a clear, legally recognisable threshold.

Did the impact assessment come out with that information?

You mentioned Orkney. Could you expand on what arrangements you have come to with people on the islands?

The SRUC pointed out that the changes will be felt differently in different parts of Scotland. Orkney and Shetland are two separate groups of islands. I notice that Shetland Islands Council raised concerns about a lack of regard for the Islands (Scotland) Act 2018. Could you address those points?

Thank you.

Part 2 of the bill introduces a new regulatory power relating to nature restoration. Without a non-regression clause, there is a risk that regulations could be weakened by future Governments, standards could be lowered through secondary legislation and the overall environmental protection regime could become less robust over time. That is particularly important because, although nature targets are long term, regulations might change more frequently.

My amendment 196 seeks to address that by ensuring that any regulations that are made under part 2 can only maintain or improve existing environmental standards. That non-regression safeguard ensures continuity and prevents backsliding at the implementation stage.

I note that other members have also lodged non-regression amendments. That reflects the concerns that others have alluded to and the need for such amendments. My amendment uses the phrase “maintain or improve”, which reflects the standard that is used in other major environmental statutes and provides a clear, legally recognisable threshold.

Good morning. Due to time constraints, I will generally speak only to my own amendments in each group.

The bill places new obligations on Scottish ministers. However, without a strengthened biodiversity duty, there is a risk of the delivery burden falling disproportionately on a small number of national bodies. My amendment 165 would amend the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 to require public bodies to facilitate the delivery of the biodiversity strategy and statutory targets. By explicitly linking the biodiversity duty to the new statutory targets relating to nature and the Scottish biodiversity strategy, the amendment would ensure that the whole public sector is aligned behind the bill’s implementation. That would reduce the risk of the bill becoming a top-down framework with no delivery mechanism, which would undermine the credibility of Scotland’s targets and the ability to meet global commitments.

I move amendment 165.

Having heard the cabinet secretary’s response, I am happy to withdraw amendment 165 and engage in further discussions before stage 3.

Amendment 165, by agreement, withdrawn.

The purpose of amendment 269 is to give Scottish ministers the power to restrict releases of non-native game birds where those releases risk damaging flora, fauna or the wider environment. It would enable ministers to specify where and when such restrictions apply, based on evidence of environmental harm.

Releases of non-native game birds can cause significant impacts on habitats, species and ecosystem function, particularly in sensitive areas, including island ecosystems. The birds also carry disease, including highly pathogenic avian influenza and they can transmit the pathogens to native wildlife. Several mass mortality events in Scotland in recent years that were caused by HPAI involved game birds being reared and released into the natural environment. That is a serious threat to native wildlife.

Current legislation does not provide sufficient regulatory tools to address situations where such releases are causing, or are at risk of causing, environmental damage or require disease control. Amendment 269 would provide a proportionate, evidence-based mechanism that would allow ministers to intervene only where necessary and only in defined areas and time periods. It would ensure that Scotland’s invasive non-native species framework is able to respond to recognised ecological and disease pressures while maintaining clarity for land managers and the shooting sector.

The aim of amendment 270 is to amend section 44 of the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 to give NatureScot explicit powers of entry to land for the purpose of monitoring or assessing species that are considered to be outside their native range.

The amendment would add a new entry power to section 44 of the 2004 act, in proposed new subsection (1)(ka), that would allow NatureScot to confirm the presence or absence of highly mobile invasive non-native species. Highly mobile INNS such as certain mammal or bird species can spread rapidly and can cause significant ecological harm if they are not detected.

The aim is not to prevent country sports. I became aware of the introduction to Shetland of red-legged partridges, which is a non-native species. That is why I have lodged the amendments.

NatureScot’s ability to monitor these species is constrained where access permissions are refused or delayed, which slows response times and increases management costs. Amendment 270 would provide the practical access that is needed for early detection, accurate assessment and timely intervention—key principles of effective non-native species management. Strengthening monitoring powers supports Scotland’s obligations under the non-native species code of practice and the precautionary approach that is embedded in biodiversity law.