���˿���

I have nine amendments in the group, which cover three areas. I put on record my thanks to the organisations that have engaged with me in drafting my amendments: the Scottish Rewilding Alliance, Scottish Environment LINK, the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Royal Society of Edinburgh. I also thank the Scottish Parliament’s legislation team for its support in drafting the amendments at what must have been a very busy time.

The first set, amendments 19 and 20, relates to an area of concern raised in committee evidence at stage 1 and through the call for views. There is a crucial need to distinguish between habitat condition and habitat extent when discussing how best we can support habitats. Given that habitat condition and extent are distinct and are each in their own right significant areas of conservation importance, the reasoning is that they should be treated in the bill as separate targets. Amendments 19 and 20 seek to do that. The goal is to clarify and strengthen the bill’s focus on measurable outcomes. If the Scottish Government cannot support the amendments as drafted, it would be helpful to hear from the cabinet secretary how she will address that issue ahead of stage 3.

My next set contains four amendments. As my colleague Sarah Boyack mentioned, they seek to add additional target topics to the bill. Namely, amendment 42 would add

“the restoration of natural processes”;

amendment 43 would add

“the condition of marine and terrestrial ecosystems”;

amendment 44 would add

“the status of keystone species”;

and amendment 22 would add

“the ecological connectivity of natural habitats”.

Amendment 42 relates to the restoration of natural processes and, by introducing a target topic on that area, it recognises that the health of our ecosystems depends on the proper functioning of natural processes. It seeks to explicitly add natural processes to the list of targets topics, which would enable secondary legislation to be introduced to create targets on that topic. The term “natural processes” would refer to any ecological cycles or processes that are hydrological, geological, atmospheric or that otherwise relate to flora and fauna. For example, it would include seed and pollen dispersal via wind, wildlife or water.

Ecological change and decline in Scotland are often related to disrupted natural processes such as the seed rain from the invasive non-native Sitka spruce, which dries out peatlands and leads to the release of previously stored carbon. As it stands, large swathes of Scotland’s land are being managed under conservation efforts, yet biodiversity continues to decline. Amendment 42 is ambitious in that it would shift the conversation from merely protecting our natural environment towards restoring Scotland’s biodiversity.

Similarly, amendment 43 would ensure that marine and terrestrial ecosystems are included in nature recovery targets. As my Labour colleague Sarah Boyack has highlighted in her amendments, urgency is needed in our actions to protect the marine environment. The alarming fact that less than 1 per cent of Scotland’s inshore waters are in recovery further highlights the need for the inclusion in the legislation of marine and terrestrial ecosystems. As a result of amendment 43, secondary legislation would set targets for the recovery of Scotland’s seas as well as land.

Amendment 44 is closely related to the previous two amendments in that it provides the opportunity for the Scottish Government to be ambitious in upscaling its work on ecologically threatened species. Keystone species are species that have a disproportionately large effect on ecosystems compared to their relative abundance in nature. It follows that if restoration and conservation efforts are focused on only threatened species, there is a danger that approaches for species that are not critically threatened may be delayed.

Habitat fragmentation is one of the leading drivers of biodiversity loss; therefore, improving ecological connectivity is a vital step not only in improving the resilience of our natural environment but in being ambitious in our legislation by looking to restore our natural woodlands. Amendment 22 is intended to address that through the introduction of a dedicated target on connectivity. I know that Ariane Burgess has an amendment in a later group—amendment 47—which may seek to achieve something similar in that area, so I will listen to her contribution on that group with interest.

My final three amendments in this group seek to broaden the scope for species targets beyond those species that are classed as threatened. The goal is to promote conservation and restoration, thereby securing and safeguarding the recovery of Scotland’s natural environment in its entirety. Amendment 21 would amend the species target to refer to

“species including but not limited to threatened species”,

whereas amendment 105 would replace

“threatened species”

with

“species of conservation concern”,

and amendment 106 would provide a definition of

“species of conservation concern”.

Amendment 104, in the name of Evelyn Tweed, and amendment 23, in the name of Mark Ruskell, seek to achieve a similar aim. I will listen to their contributions and the minister’s response before deciding whether to move my amendments.

You say that it is obvious. It might be so, but my understanding is that legislation has to be taken as it is written. As drafted, would the amendment allow for anyone who has an interest, anywhere in the world, to be consulted?

Amendment 25 is my only amendment in the group. I lodged it following concerns that were raised at stage 1 by groups such as the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management and Scottish Environment LINK regarding the potential consequences of measures that could result in reduced transparency and uncertainty around statutory targets—namely, the provision in the bill that the

“Scottish Ministers may by regulations amend this section to specify a different person”

—other than ESS—

“to carry out the assessing, reviewing and reporting functions conferred.”

That is in new section 2G(4) of the 2004 act, introduced by section 1(3) of the bill. Amendment 25 seeks to remove that wording; it is intended to underscore the vital role of Environmental Standards Scotland and the crucial role that it plays in independent oversight and enforcement of environmental law.

The targets that the bill creates will be meaningful only if there is an independent body through which the Government and relevant public authorities can be held accountable for meeting them. There is concern, therefore, regarding the provisions on the reassignment of functions that are currently granted to ESS.

It will be helpful to hear from the minister on that today in order to ensure that there will be no weakening of oversight, nor any reduction in transparency. There can be no question as to the fact that the bill should strengthen, not weaken, the scrutiny of Government and how it achieves its targets. As it stands, however, I am not persuaded that allowing the reassignment of those functions achieves that.

I am sympathetic to a number of other amendments in the group, which have already been discussed, in particular Emma Roddick’s amendments 50, 51 and 52 and Mark Ruskell’s amendments 24 and 49. I believe that those amendments share the underlying principle of my amendment, in that we must have a serious conversation about transparency and accountability in relation to our environmental targets.

My concern is that, under the bill’s provisions, there seem to be no restrictions on who the person or body could be. At the moment there is ESS, which is clearly defined and independent. It seems that, under the bill, anyone could be appointed as an alternative, according to the preferences of Scottish ministers at the time. That provision therefore does not seem to be quite strong enough.

I am happy not to move amendment 25 today, but we could have a conversation ahead of stage 3 about strengthening the provisions in this area, to ensure that the body will always be independent and will always have its important scrutiny function.

I thank the cabinet secretary for her response, which Rhoda Grant will respond to. I am sure that she will be in touch to discuss the issue further, and she is aware that there are later amendments that seek to address some of the issues that she was looking at. On that basis, I withdraw amendment 381.

Amendment 381, by agreement, withdrawn.

Section 8 agreed to.

Schedule

Thank you very much, convener. Good evening to the committee and the cabinet secretary.

Amendment 381 would ensure that land transfers in key rural areas contribute to small-scale farming opportunities, which supports the bill’s overall objectives and rural sustainability goals. It would insert more equitable and productive land use in crofting and smallholding regions; introduce new obligations for landowners in certain areas of Scotland to create crofts or small landholdings when land is transferred to a new owner; and modify both the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993 and the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act 1911.

For crofts, when land in crofting areas such as the Highlands and Islands or other designated regions is sold or transferred, the new owner must apply to the Crofting Commission to convert part of the land into a new croft. That would ensure that land sales in crofting regions actively contribute to croft creation.

For smallholdings, the amendment would require the Scottish ministers to create regulations providing that, when new landowners acquire land, they must seek to constitute part of the land as small landholdings. The regulations would follow the affirmative procedure, which means that they would require parliamentary approval.

I move amendment 381.

I thank the cabinet secretary for her response, which Rhoda Grant will respond to. I am sure that she will be in touch to discuss the issue further, and she is aware that there are later amendments that seek to address some of the issues that she was looking at. On that basis, I withdraw amendment 381.

Amendment 381, by agreement, withdrawn.

Section 8 agreed to.

Schedule

I will start the sentence again.

By removing the requirement for landholdings to border each other, that would ensure that large landowners of multiple estates across the country would be in the scope of the bill. That would ensure that the bill fulfils its goal of disrupting concentrated, national-level patterns of land ownership by the few. Taken with amendments 43, 47, 122 and 125, amendments 140 and 145 would therefore remove loopholes on contiguous landholdings and would include aggregated landholdings.

The intention is for the thresholds to be adjusted only downwards. Therefore, my amendment 171, in the same manner as amendments 109 and 133, would amend the bill to specify that the regulations

“must not increase the number of hectares ... that land must exceed”

in order for the obligations or prohibitions to be imposed on the land. Therefore, amendment 171, taken together with amendments 109 and 133, would ensure that thresholds cannot be revised upwards.

I will speak to amendments 6 to 9 in the name of Ariane Burgess. I have long campaigned for more democratic land ownership and a practical 500-hectare threshold. That was central to the consultation on my proposed land ownership and public interest (Scotland) bill. Amendments 6 to 8 seek to reduce the threshold definition of large landholdings, and the purpose of amendment 9 is to insert an islands criterion. The amendments would reduce the lotting limits from 1,000 hectares to 500 hectares, which would make the powers apply to land that exceeds 500 hectares and land that exceeds 50 hectares as part of a large landholding exceeding 500 hectares. I am fully supportive of those amendments, as is my colleague Monica Lennon.

Yes, I will leave it there.

Does the member agree that the legislation presents an opportunity to close any potential loopholes? I think that I heard from the cabinet secretary that she would be willing to have further conversations with Rhoda Grant about the potential loopholes that might exist, as raised by the amendments, which is welcome. We could then strengthen any legislation that is ultimately passed.