Scottish Parliament, 27 January 2026

663 contributions from 54 members. The official report.

Time for Reflection

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Good afternoon. The first item of business is time for reflection, and our time for reflection leaders are Emily Stephen and Julian Staniszewski, who are Holocaust Educational Trust ambassadors.

Emily Stephen (Holocaust Educational Trust)

My name is Emily Stephen and this is Julian Staniszewski, and we are ambassadors for the Holocaust Educational Trust. Last November, we took part in the trust’s lessons from Auschwitz project as students from Alva academy in Clackmannanshire. As part of the project, we heard from Holocaust survivor Janine Webber BEM, took part in a one-day visit to former Nazi concentration and death camp Auschwitz-Birkenau, and, on our return, shared what we learned with our school and community.

Learning about the Holocaust is important to me, because it is a piece of history that should never be forgotten. I believe that lack of learning causes lack of understanding. Through the project, we were fortunate to learn from the individual stories of victims and survivors, and that is something that will always stay with me.

One such story is that of Holocaust survivor Janine Webber BEM. During her testimony, Janine shared that she had to live in a hole in the ground to ensure her safety. She was there for a year, with little to no room to move and no daylight. Janine’s story really resonated with me. I felt so emotional—I could not fathom the fear that she must have felt. Her bravery and determination were admirable, especially as she was only nine years old.

Julian Staniszewski (Holocaust Educational Trust)

By taking part in the project, we have had a different experience to most who learn about the Holocaust. We stood at a site of the Holocaust, saw victims’ personal belongings, baby items, clothes and human hair that was inhumanely taken, sparking a feeling that cannot be replicated in a classroom via a textbook.

That is why, on our return, it was important for us to share our project at our school’s remembrance evening, speaking in front of parents and senior students. It was important to us that we spoke about Jewish life before the war and specifically about the individuals behind the statistics, as that is what needs to be remembered.

Both Emily and I believe that it is our responsibility as ambassadors to support and guide younger pupils. We hope that the people who heard our speech on remembrance evening, and everyone here today, will play their part in educating future generations, to safeguard the memory of the Holocaust, prevent such actions from ever being repeated and stand up to antisemitism and hate wherever and whenever we see it.

Thank you so much to the Rt Hon Alison Johnstone MSP and the Scottish Parliament for inviting us here today to share our experience and reflections. [ Applause .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Thank you, Emily. Thank you, Julian.

Business Motion

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The next item of business is consideration of business motion S6M-20568, in the name of Graeme Dey, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, on changes to the business programme.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees to the following revisions to the programme of business for—

(a) Tuesday 27 January 2026—

delete

9.00 pm Decision Time

and insert

10.00 pm Decision Time

(b) Wednesday 28 January 2026—

after

followed by Motion on Legislative Consent: Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill – UK Legislation

insert

followed by Stage 3 Proceedings: Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill

delete

5.30 pm Decision Time

followed by Members’ Business

and insert

9.30 pm Decision Time

(c) Thursday 29 January 2026—

delete

2.00 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions

2.00 pm Portfolio Questions: Education and Skills

and insert

2.15 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions

2.15 pm Portfolio Questions: Education and Skills

after

followed by Stage 1 Debate: Greyhound Racing (Offences) (Scotland) Bill

insert

followed by Scottish Government Debate: Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products (Fruit and Vegetables) (Miscellaneous Amendment) (Scotland) Regulations 2026 [draft]

delete

5.00 pm Decision Time

and insert

5.25 pm Decision Time.—[Graeme Dey]

Motion agreed to.

Topical Question Time

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to reports that then health secretary, Shona Robison, U-turned on a promise to carry out an independent audit of the Queen Elizabeth university hospital before it opened to patients. (S6T-02862)

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Once again, I pay tribute to the patients and families at the heart of the inquiry, who have already faced immense pain and trauma. I also commend the work of the inquiry team and Lord Brodie. It is vital that we allow the inquiry to deliberate and consider its findings, which we will respond to in full.

The Scottish Government provided all relevant evidence to the inquiry, which is being considered by Lord Brodie in advance of his final report and recommendations later this year. It would be inappropriate to comment further at this stage.

However, I note that it is a matter of parliamentary record that Ms Robison responded on the matter via written correspondence to Jackie Baillie as a member of the Health and Sport Committee on 24 February 2015. I refer Ms Baillie to the parliamentary record.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

In the light of the Vale of Leven hospital inquiry, which was chaired by Lord MacLean, I asked Shona Robison at the Health and Sport Committee on 24 February 2015 whether an independent audit of the new hospital had, in fact, been carried out. After some pressing, she said:

“If it has not taken place, it will. We will check that.”—[Official Report, Health and Sport Committee, 24 February 2015; c 32.]

A week later, Shona Robison did a complete U-turn. The result? No independent audit of the hospital took place before it opened its doors to staff and patients. Does the cabinet secretary understand that the failure to carry out an expert, independent investigation cost lives?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I have set out that the matters that are before us are the subject of an independent, judge-led public inquiry. It is important that that inquiry is allowed to carry out its business without interference from any politician and that it does so with the full evidence before it. The Scottish Government has provided all relevant material that has been asked of us by Lord Brodie’s inquiry, and we intend to continue that co-operative approach. We resolve to respond to the recommendations when that inquiry concludes.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

The cabinet secretary did everything but answer my question. Frankly, I find the response extraordinary. The evidence is there in black and white: there is no getting away from the fact that people died as a result of this Government’s incompetence. Senior Government ministers chose not to have the new hospital inspected, which had deadly consequences.

Shona Robison told the committee:

“The new hospital’s facilities are second to none and state of the art, and all the processes and procedures will be tested before staff and patients migrate to the site from April onwards.”—[Official Report, Health and Sport Committee, 24 February 2015; c 30.]

Given what we know now, does the cabinet secretary agree that she did not tell the truth and that the Government now stands accused of criminal negligence?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Jackie Baillie knows full well that, while those live inquiries are on-going, it would be completely inappropriate for Scottish ministers to intervene or comment. She also knows that it is a matter of public record from evidence led at the inquiry that information was withheld from the Government by NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde. Given the evidence that is before the inquiry, it is important that it is allowed to pursue its deliberations free from political interference. That is the tenor of a public inquiry, as it should be, and we will obviously take the inquiry’s recommendations seriously.

At the centre of all this are the families, to whom my heart goes out and who should be, above all else, at the forefront of our considerations. We instigated this independent, judge-led public inquiry so that the families’ questions could be answered. I believe that, as a result of the evidence that is being led through the public inquiry, we are getting to the truth of the matter.

Rona Mackay (Scottish National Party, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

The cabinet secretary is absolutely right that patients and their families are at the heart of this inquiry. I pay tribute to him and to the whistleblowers who have campaigned tirelessly. The cabinet secretary will know that this Parliament enshrined in legislation the independence of inquiries through the Inquiries Act 2005, and it is vital that members in this chamber remember that.

For the benefit of the chamber, will the cabinet secretary again outline the importance of ensuring that Lord Brodie, as chair of the inquiry, has the space to consider all the evidence and get to the truth for families and patients?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Rona Mackay is absolutely right. Under the Inquiries Act 2005, this Parliament put in place a range of powers that are available to any established public inquiry. Those wide-ranging powers, which include powers to compel witnesses and the production of all relevant information, are extensive, and they enshrine the independence of the public inquiry. They ensure that any inquiry is protected from any undue influence. It is therefore right that we allow Lord Brodie the time and space to deliberate fully on the evidence before the inquiry, and we look forward to responding to its findings in due course.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

The continued obfuscation of the facts by this Government is leaving the confidence of patients, NHS staff and the public in the management of the NHS at an all-time low. Does the cabinet secretary not realise that, to rebuild trust, it is crucial that the Scottish Government and NHS boards are transparent and honest with the public?

Transparency has been an issue in this place since I first arrived here, and the Scottish Government needs to learn that lesson. When will the Scottish Government and the cabinet secretary stop hiding behind endless inquiries and face up to the fact that there is a real culture problem in NHS management?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I hope that we all agree that the independence of public inquiries must be protected from any influence by politicians. I respect that independence. This is not about hiding behind the inquiry; it is about allowing the inquiry to carry out its business free from political interference.

We established the public inquiry because we want to give the families at the centre of this answers to the legitimate questions that they have raised. Lord Brodie has the opportunity to call witnesses and garner evidence. We have fully co-operated with the inquiry and have been fully transparent in relation to all the requests for information to be supplied to the inquiry. It is important that Lord Brodie and the inquiry team are allowed the time and space to come to their conclusions, which we will respond to imminently.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the Scottish Government what action it will take in response to the finding from UKHospitality Scotland that licensed premises face, on average, an 86 per cent increase in non-domestic rates as a result of the current revaluation. (S6T-02861)

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

Although we appreciate the concerns that businesses have raised, particularly after the United Kingdom Government’s choice to increase employer national insurance contributions last year, we do not recognise the figure that Murdo Fraser has quoted.

For example, public houses are expected to see an average increase in their overall rateable value of 15 per cent over the three-year period following the 2026 revaluation, while hotels are expected to see a 29 per cent increase over that three-year period. Gross bills are set to increase by less than that, due to a decrease in the basic, intermediate and higher property rates in 2026-27. If we include properties that are eligible for 100 per cent relief, such as small business bonus scheme relief, we estimate that net bills in 2026-27 will rise by significantly less than has been claimed, once all reliefs are taken into account. In fact, total NDR revenue is now 6 per cent less in real terms, using the consumer prices index, than it was before Covid, despite the increase in the number of businesses.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I dare say that the minister can engage directly with UKHospitality Scotland in disputing its figures. It says that the average pub in Scotland will see an increase of £36,523 over three years and that the average hotel will see an increase of £68,007 over the same period. Whatever the detailed figures might be, the fact is that any increases will simply not be affordable. Such businesses are currently struggling with high costs and flat customer demand, so more businesses will simply close.

We expect the Labour Government in London to announce a U-turn today on rates relief for pubs in England. In the past, the Scottish National Party Government has not passed on Barnett consequentials from rates announcements down south. Will it do so this time so that pubs in Scotland do not lose out once more?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

An extensive amount of data regarding the revaluation was published at the time of the budget, so Murdo Fraser can and should look at that data, which is set out by sector, to understand what it tells him.

We will continue to engage with business organisations on any specific concerns that they want to raise. However, I again draw Murdo Fraser’s attention to the point that, despite the growing business base, total NDR take is now 6 per cent less in real terms, using CPI, than it was before Covid. We are taking less money in real terms from businesses through NDR than we were previously.

With regard to UK consequentials, we have already made a commitment that we will pass on in full any additional reliefs for businesses that the UK Government announces. We have already had discussions with the NDR consultation group and organisations that represent businesses about how that would take place.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Overall take might well be down, but it is undoubtedly the case that some sectors, including hospitality, are really suffering at present due to the increases.

At the root of this is the methodology that is being used for the current revaluation. The increases will come in from April and, unless something is done, more businesses will fold. What is the minister doing about engaging with the assessors on the methodology that is being used? If there are issues with the methodology, will he agree not to implement the increases that are coming as a result of the current revaluation until the methodology issue is resolved?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

The average increase for pubs over a three-year period is 15 per cent. The reliefs that are in place—there is £320 million over the three-year period for the transition reliefs, and next year’s estimated relief package is £864 million—will make a significant impact on the bills that businesses pay. We appreciate that some businesses are in a difficult position, but that is why those significant relief packages are in place to support them.

With regard to the valuation methodology, the member should know that, as requested by the business community, B J Gill has already started to conduct an independent review of the valuation methodology for licensed premises. That work is on-going, and we will review its findings when it reports later this year.

Jamie Greene (Liberal Democrat, West Scotland)

Tourism, hospitality and self-catering businesses in particular have been absolutely clear with us as MSPs that they believe that the methodology behind the revaluations has hit some sectors hard. They are looking not at averages but at the massive spikes that some sectors are facing. They have been clear that some businesses will go bust as a result. I do not think that any of us wants that, so surely the cost of doing something will far outweigh the cost of doing nothing.

The best course of action would be a complete postponement of the new rates, to give businesses some breathing space for a year. If that cannot happen, will the minister at least agree to continue to work with me as part of our budget negotiations to put as much support as possible back into these much-needed businesses? None of us wants any business to close as a result of business rates going up through revaluation.

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

The member makes a valid point. The self-catering sector has seen an average increase of 88 per cent, which is significant. Not all businesses will pay that—far from it—because of the relief package that is in place, but there has been a change in the methodology that assessors use in the sector.

I have met representatives of the sector and the assessors to discuss the issue. We will continue to engage with the sector to take into account the points that the member has raised.

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Anniesland)

The Scottish Government’s small business bonus scheme and the business growth accelerator reliefs are the most generous of their kind in the United Kingdom. Will the minister say any more about the total support that is available across revaluation to retail, hospitality and leisure businesses in Scotland?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

The Scottish budget for next year reduces the basic, intermediate and higher property rates, which will ensure the lowest basic property rate since 2018-19, and it supports a package of reliefs that will be worth an estimated £864 million in 2026-27. It offers more than £320 million of support through transitional relief schemes and retail, hospitality and leisure relief in the next three years.

We estimate that more than 100,000 properties will remain eligible for our small business bonus scheme, which will remain the most generous of its kind in the UK. We will continue to offer the most generous relief package for renewable energy generation in the UK, and unique reliefs such as day nursery relief, our business growth accelerator and fresh start reliefs will also remain the most generous in the UK.

Katy (Labour, West Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the Scottish Information Commissioner taking legal action against it in relation to its missing deadlines to produce documents regarding James Hamilton’s investigation into alleged breaches of the ministerial code. (S6T-02866)

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

The First Minister has made it clear that the Scottish Government will comply with the Information Commissioner’s decision on the case as soon as possible. Court orders make it clear that those who complain of sexual assault must have their identities protected. We cannot release information that would breach those court orders, as it would amount to contempt of court. Accelerated work—I stress that it is accelerated—is under way to consider each document for release. The assessment is complex, given the need to avoid jigsaw identification.

Katy (Labour, West Scotland)

The freedom of information request was made in October 2024. Following both a review and an investigation, the Information Commissioner ruled that the Scottish Government had wrongfully withheld information and that that information should be released by 15 January. Ministers failed to comply with the 15 January deadline and then failed to comply with another deadline on 22 January—only notifying the Information Commissioner of that decision just minutes before the deadline.

The Information Commissioner is clear that he is asking the Scottish Government not to break the law but to comply with it. Does the minister believe that the Scottish Government’s actions so far have been in compliance with freedom of information law?

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

The Scottish Government has a responsibility to act responsibly. I recognise the point that Katy Clark has made, but I draw her attention to the fact that Scottish Government officials wrote to the Information Commissioner on both 16 and 22 January to confirm that the Scottish Government will comply with the decision as soon as is practically possible. I am sure that Katy Clark would understand the need to look very carefully at the information that is released, for reasons of which she is well aware.

Katy (Labour, West Scotland)

The Information Commissioner has never before reported a public authority to the Court of Session for non-compliance, which means that the legal action that is now being taken against the Scottish Government is unprecedented. He is clear that, if there is a jigsaw identification issue, ministers have the opportunity to make that case. Has the Scottish Government made that case? Has it responded to the applicant to explain the position? Will the minister provide the Parliament with a timetable—a date when the information will be published?

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

I would be reluctant to provide a date, because I am sure that, if that date slipped by a day, we would be criticised for it. I genuinely offer Katy Clark the assurance that the matter is being worked on at pace. I hope that she would also accept that there is a real need to be extremely careful to ensure that the information—which will be released—does not inadvertently provide jigsaw identification of any of the individuals.

I am sure that, if the Government was to commit a contempt of court, it would be criticised by members for doing so. I hope that reasonable-minded members will recognise the need to exercise care in fulfilling the commitment that we have given to release the information.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Several members have pressed their request-to-speak buttons. Concise questions and responses would be appreciated.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The Scottish Government has previously acknowledged using artificial intelligence to answer FOI requests from the Scottish Conservatives. Did using AI filtering have any impact whatsoever on the Government’s assessment of and/or release of the documents in this case?

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

I have to be honest—I do not fully understand the question that the member is asking. This is a simple and straightforward case; we have committed to releasing the information, and we are undertaking a detailed process to ensure that we do not commit contempt of court.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Did AI have—

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

I hear the member speaking from a sedentary position, but I cannot make out what he is saying. I offer him the assurance—as I have done to Katy Clark—that the Government is working at pace to provide the release of the information while acting responsibly.

Fergus Ewing (Independent, Inverness and Nairn)

When Alex Salmond defeated the Scottish Government in his court case, the judge in the case, Lord Pentland, said that the Government’s actions were “tainted with apparent bias”. The dean of the Faculty of Advocates, Roddy Dunlop, in advice to the Government, said that, thankfully, an affidavit by a senior civil servant was not lodged. Leslie Evans, the then permanent secretary, said on the day after the verdict that the battle may be lost, but not the war.

The incontrovertible inference is surely, to paraphrase Shakespeare, that there is something rotten in the state of Scotland. Will the minister consult the permanent secretary to get fresh advice with a view to opening up the books and making public all the redacted and withheld documents from that period?

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

I do not in any way accept Fergus Ewing’s characterisation of the matter. We are content with the advice that we have received.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Civil servants are impartial of the Scottish Government. As has been said today, it is an unprecedented move for the Information Commissioner to make a referral to the Court of Session. Do apparently impartial civil servants support the Government delaying the release of the information? If not, why are Government ministers going against them? If they do support that, does the minister accept that that puts into question their impartiality?

If the minister will not provide a specific date, will he at least assure the Parliament that the information will be released ahead of the Scottish Parliament election purdah period, so that the Parliament can receive it before the election?

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

The intention is to release the information as soon as it is practical to do so.

In Douglas Ross’s central point, he appears to suggest—I absolutely refute this—that it is a deliberate act to delay the release of the information. I could not have been clearer that that is not what is happening here. Surely even Mr Ross would accept that we have a responsibility to the individuals who are captured by the contempt of court protections to act responsibly and carry out due diligence to ensure that, in complying with the commissioner’s instruction, we do not inadvertently create another problem, particularly for those individuals.

Martin Whitfield (Labour, South Scotland)

The minister has talked about this not being a deliberate act, but it must be, because the Government is withholding the information while it scrutinises it. The Government seems to be caught between the risk of a contempt of court and a statute. What advice was given as to which legal obligation it was not going to comply with?

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

This is not about not complying with a legal obligation. I do not expect to receive sympathy in the chamber, but the Government is between a rock and a hard place on the issue. On the one hand, the commissioner is threatening contempt of court because we are not complying with the timescale that he would like. On the other hand, if we rushed to do this and made an error, we would fall foul of contempt of court in another regard through the courts.

It is not a deliberate act to delay issuing the information, because we intend to issue it. We are simply taking the appropriate time to ensure that we comply with the ruling of the commissioner in a way that does not create difficulties for the individuals I have referenced.

Business Motion

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The next item of business is consideration of business motion S6M-20557, in the name of Graeme Dey, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a timetable for stage 3 consideration of the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill. Any member who wishes to speak should press their request-to-speak button now.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees that, during stage 3 of the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill, debate on groups of amendments shall, subject to Rule 9.8.4A, be brought to a conclusion by the time limits indicated, those time limits being calculated from when the stage begins and excluding any periods when other business is under consideration or when a meeting of the Parliament is suspended or otherwise not in progress:

Groups 1 to 3: 1 hour 25 minutes

Groups 4 to 5: 2 hours 55 minutes

Groups 6 to 8: 5 hours

Groups 9 to 11: 7 hours 15 minutes

Groups 12 to 15: 8 hours 50 minutes

Groups 16 to 19: 9 hours 50 minutes—[Graeme Dey]

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I rise to speak on the business motion. My issue with it is simple, and I will start with a quote from Winston Churchill, who said:

“democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time”.—[Official Report, House of Commons, 11 November 1947; Vol 444, c 207.]

What we are doing here is part of the democratic process. My concern with the business motion, which was agreed to by the Parliamentary Bureau yesterday—when I was in the process of my four-hour drive down to the Parliament, and therefore unable to feed in my concerns on the timetable—is that it is difficult to understand how each of the timings have been worked out.

In the stage 3 debate that we had on the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, I ended up with a considerable number of amendments in some groups. In one group, I had more than 30 amendments, yet I was given five minutes to speak to those 30 amendments.

There appears to be a repetition today. In group 5, I have 36 amendments. If I am given only five minutes to speak to those amendments, maths tells me that I have about eight seconds per amendment, during which I might just be able to read out what the amendment says. On group 8, in which I have 26 amendments, the time is a little bit more generous, because I will have 11 seconds per amendment, so I might be able to explain what the first line of each amendment is about.

Presiding Officer, I know that, when you and the bureau sit down to work out the timings, you do so with care, to ensure that you comply with rule 9.8 of standing orders and, specifically, paragraph 4A(a), which is on enabling members to be

“given a right to speak on an amendment”

in the debate.

My concern is that I will be in a position where I have considerable numbers of amendments in a small number of groups and will not be able to explain them as I would hope to, which will not allow me to have the democratic process that I expect to have in this Parliament and that I believe people in Scotland expect to see when members stand up to speak and to express their views.

Presiding Officer, I would be grateful if, when we consider the motion moved by Mr Dey—which I do not intend to object to—I could be given some reassurance that, in groups where members have a considerable number of amendments, they will not be limited to eight seconds to speak to each amendment.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

I call the minister to respond on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau.

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

The timings provided are the result of detailed work conducted by Parliament staff, and business managers were of the view that the timings strike the right balance between allowing the proper airing of amendments and going beyond that. It is, of course, for the chair—and we should all respect the authority of the chair—to determine how each group of amendments, and indeed the entire stage 3 process, is conducted.

On the accuracy of the predicted timings and of the time offered, I draw the member’s attention to last week’s stage 3 business, when the predicted timings were accurate almost to the minute and, indeed, also catered for one of his colleagues taking 17 minutes to make a single spoken contribution. I think I speak for the majority of those here when I express the view that I hope we will avoid any contributions of a similar length today or tomorrow, from either Mr Mountain or anyone else, but I have confidence that, in the chairing and handling of the stage 3 process, he, and all members, will be afforded the appropriate opportunity to have their say.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The question is, that motion S6M-20557, in the name of Graeme Dey, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a timetable for stage 3 consideration of the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill, be agreed to.

Motion agreed to,

That the Parliament agrees that, during stage 3 of the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill, debate on groups of amendments shall, subject to Rule 9.8.4A, be brought to a conclusion by the time limits indicated, those time limits being calculated from when the stage begins and excluding any periods when other business is under consideration or when a meeting of the Parliament is suspended or otherwise not in progress:

Groups 1 to 3: 1 hour 25 minutes

Groups 4 to 5: 2 hours 55 minutes

Groups 6 to 8: 5 hours

Groups 9 to 11: 7 hours 15 minutes

Groups 12 to 15: 8 hours 50 minutes

Groups 16 to 19: 9 hours 50 minutes

Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill. In dealing with the amendments, members should have the bill as amended at stage 2—that is, Scottish Parliament bill 59A—the marshalled list and the groupings of amendments. The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for around five minutes if there is a division. The period of voting for the division will be 30 seconds.

Members who wish to speak in the debate on an amendment should press their request-to-speak button or enter RTS in the chat function as soon as an amendment is called.

Members should now refer to the marshalled list of amendments.

Section 1—Targets for improving biodiversity

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Group 1 is on targets for improving biodiversity. Amendment 22, in the name of Beatrice Wishart, is grouped with amendments 23, 63, 46, 47, 24, 64 to 67, 25 to 27 and 68 to 70.

Beatrice Wishart (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Amendment 22 would place an obligation on our public bodies and officeholders to take the biodiversity targets into account when they are fulfilling their public sector biodiversity duty. By linking that biodiversity duty with the new statutory targets, amendment 22 would ensure that the whole public sector is aligned behind our biodiversity ambitions, something that we would all agree is essential. That would reduce the risk of having a top-down framework and would ensure that the delivery of those ambitions is considered across the public sector.

For those reasons, I urge members to support amendment 22 and will leave other members to speak to the other amendments in the group.

I move amendment 22.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

I call Lorna Slater to speak to amendment 23 and other amendments in the group.

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

Amendment 23 reflects the fact that Scotland has already signed up to a number of international commitments that aim to tackle the biodiversity crisis, including the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. It is therefore entirely appropriate that those commitments are referenced as key purposes for our domestic nature targets. Amendment 23 would add supporting and measuring progress on implementing the convention as a purpose of those targets, alongside our domestic biodiversity strategy and duty. The aim is to help to align our domestic priorities with our prior international commitments and to ensure that we are taking the right actions to halt biodiversity loss by 2030 and to substantially restore nature by 2045.

For those reasons, I urge members to support amendment 23.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

I call Tim Eagle to speak to amendment 63 and other amendments in the group.

Tim Eagle (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

In beginning what will be, I think, 10 hours or so in the chamber, I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests.

As I set out at stage 2, Scotland’s future food security relies on getting the right careful balance. We must ensure that domestic supply can meet demand and that we do not drift into an overreliance on imported food. The vulnerability of our current position was underlined last year by the Scottish Association of Meat Wholesalers, which warned that beef supplies had reached a critical point. Quality Meat Scotland has also been clear that meeting future demand will require more cows and not fewer, estimating that Scotland needs around 80,000 additional animals.

My amendment 63 would strengthen the bill by requiring ministers, when setting targets under section 1, to have proper regard to the importance of local food production and domestic food security. It would place a clear duty on ministers to support local food producers and to consider the impacts of targets on Scotland’s future ability to produce food. Importantly, the amendment would help to ensure that environmental targets do not result in a decline in beef and dairy herd numbers or create incentives that encourage a reduction in red meat and dairy consumption.

In an increasingly uncertain world, I cannot overstate the importance of protecting Scotland’s food producers. Ensuring that our country can feed itself is not optional—it is a core responsibility of any Government.

Mercedes Villalba (Labour, North East Scotland)

I have three amendments in the group. Amendments 46 and 47 seek to separate the target topic of habitat condition and habitat extent into two distinct topics. I am concerned that the bill allows for one or the other to be sufficient to meet a target, rather than requiring both to be so. That would mean that the condition of a habitat could decline while the extent grows or that the extent could shrink while the condition improves, and those situations would still satisfy the target.

I lodged similar amendments at stage 2, which the Government could not support due to the inclusion of the phrase “conservation importance”. The Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy stated:

“I understand why Ms Villalba lodged amendments 19 and 20, but I am concerned that they would have the effect of narrowing the target topic by restricting it to habitats of conservation importance ... The term “conservation importance”, which is used in the amendments, would limit the scope of habitats in that target topic and, in turn, the available set of indicators that could be used to set targets against. On that basis, I ask the committee not to agree to amendments 19 and 20.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, 19 November 2025; c 16.]

I therefore did not move those amendments at stage 2. Instead, I have worked on them to remove the phrasing that was highlighted and I have brought them back at stage 3, where I hope to receive Scottish Government support for them.

Amendment 70 addresses some of the concerns that I expressed at stage 2 about ensuring that, if there is a need for a new independent review body to be appointed to monitor the Scottish Government’s progress on targets, appropriate safeguards are in place. Accordingly, amendment 70 seeks to add some additional qualifications to the power in proposed new section 2G(4) of the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004, so that any new body must be an independent public body or office-holder.

Although I understand that there is no intention at this time for that function to be carried out by anyone other than Environmental Standards Scotland, it is important that we, as a responsible and forward-looking Parliament, future proof the power. The restrictions seek to place appropriate limits on the powers of any future Government by ensuring that the crucial independent review body function may be carried out only by an independent public body.

I put on the record my thanks to Scottish Government officials for working constructively with me on the wording of amendment 70, and my thanks to the legislation team for their support on amendments 46 and 47. I look forward to hearing the cabinet secretary’s response, particularly with regard to amendments 46 and 47, and I urge all members to support all my amendments in the group.

John Mason (Independent, Glasgow Shettleston)

I will focus on my amendments in the group. As members may be aware, their subject is the sheep on St Kilda and especially on the main island of Hirta. That subject landed on my desk recently out of pretty well nowhere.

I have visited St Kilda in the past and I consider the islands right up there with other amazing natural phenomena around the world, such as Everest and Victoria falls, which I have also seen. In recent months, however, both BBC Alba and The Herald have reported on the numbers of sheep that are starving to death on the islands each year, with no human intervention whatsoever. From reports that I hear, perhaps 600 sheep are starving to death each year, or 800 if lambs are included, and that has been the case every year for the past 20 years, on average. That is roughly one third of the population on the islands. I wonder whether the sheep farmers among us find that acceptable.

Tim Eagle (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

As a sheep farmer, I do not find that acceptable. I have discussed the topic at length with the National Trust for Scotland, and my understanding is that it is carrying out a full review and working with the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission, and that a press release will come out in the next few months, following that review. Does John Mason recognise that his amendments are a bit premature and that we should wait for that first?

John Mason (Independent, Glasgow Shettleston)

We did not even get that much assurance from the Government on 8 January, when I raised the issue, and it is because of the Government’s poor response on that date that I have lodged my amendments in this group, at the suggestion of one of my colleagues, who shall remain nameless.

I also spoke to the National Trust for Scotland. Its argument, and that of the Government, is that the sheep are wild, not feral, so are not covered by the Animal Health and Welfare Act (Scotland) Act 2006. However, one of the definitions of a protected animal in the 2006 act is that it is

“of a kind ... commonly domesticated in the British Islands”.

Sheep are definitely in that category, in my opinion and according to the legal advice that I and the Government have received. I have to say that I was disappointed in the Government’s previous response, which did virtually nothing in restating the Government’s position, which is why I lodged my amendments.

I confess that I do not generally agree with amendments appearing out of the blue at stage 3; However, given that I am retiring shortly, I might as well break that rule. [ Laughter .]

My key argument is twofold. First, public expectations about animal welfare have moved on since the 1930s, when people left St Kilda and its sheep were moved to Hirta and, effectively, abandoned there. It is my contention that, if those sheep were kept in a field in Angus or Perthshire by Jim Fairlie, Douglas Ross, Edward Mountain or Tim Eagle, that would not be acceptable.

Secondly, the island itself is suffering from too many sheep and serious overgrazing. Last summer, I visited Mingulay, which people left in around 1912 and from which all sheep and cattle have been removed. The difference is stark. Mingulay is covered in long grass and other plants, and it seems to be an environment that supports a wide range of flora and fauna. I argue, therefore, that not just the sheep on Hirta are suffering; the island itself is suffering from the sheep. Perhaps that is the most relevant point when it comes to the bill.

There are comparisons to other locations where sheep and goats are, largely, allowed to live in a wild state but are subject to some human intervention. One is the island of Lundy, off the north coast of Devon, which I have also visited and to which, I understand, some of the same Soay sheep were relocated in 1942. There, sheep continue to be feral but now live in a fairly wild state. However, there is a regular cull, in order to prevent the problems of overpopulation and starvation that are in St Kilda.

Another example of limited intervention is the feral goats that live in the Great Orme, a hill beside Llandudno in north Wales. I happen to be familiar with that, as my brother is one of the local vets. Members might have seen pictures of those goats in the town. Again, the goats are left largely to themselves. However, there is some human intervention: for example, one got stuck in a cave, was tranquilised and had its horns trimmed.

I have been contacted by a variety of people since my question was asked, including vets in the Western Isles, who have long sought to raise the issue, and the National Trust for Scotland, which arranged a call with me last week and confirmed that it is carrying out a review, as Tim Eagle said. I believe that the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission is also conducting a review, and that the National Trust for Scotland will liaise with it.

I am looking for the Government’s acknowledgement that those sheep are not wild animals; its acceptance that sheep are dying of starvation in unacceptable numbers; and its agreement that the status quo is not an option. If I get those assurances, I will probably not move amendment 24.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I will speak only to amendment 64, which relates to the impact of new energy infrastructure on our biodiversity. I have spoken many a time in the Parliament about the impact of monster pylons, substations and battery storage on our communities and on people’s lives, homes and health. All of that infrastructure has an impact on people; however, it also has an impact on our countryside and our tourism industry.

At present, the devolved Government is content to bury its head in the sand and ignore the damage that is caused by that energy infrastructure—to turn a blind eye and look the other way. However, damage is being caused. That infrastructure can have a huge impact on surrounding areas of distinct natural significance and plant life, as well as disrupting the local bird population. That needs to be fully understood and reported on. My amendment seeks to do just that.

The Government will probably bring out the tired lines that, “Energy infrastructure is reserved,” or, “There’s nothing we can do.” However, protecting our countryside is devolved, planning is devolved and protecting our communities is devolved. Let us start to understand better the damage that is being caused, so that we can make informed decisions.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

Like colleagues, I reflect that we will be here for some time. I have lodged my amendments 65, 67, 68 and 69, in this group, to ensure that the Scottish Government will follow through on the original aims of the bill and meet the targets that have been set out. I thank Scottish Environment LINK and the Marine Conservation Society for their continued support in crafting and engaging on those amendments.

Many of Scotland’s protected sites, particularly marine protected areas, remain in unfavourable condition. Without an explicit target in relation to them, there is a risk that their restoration will be overshadowed by broader or more achievable biodiversity gains elsewhere. I want to enable the Parliament to come back and focus on that issue again.

It has been argued that targets relating to protected sites could be set under the existing target topics of habitat condition or extent, but there is no requirement that protected areas will be prioritised, and no timescale is provided for setting such a target. That is why I lodged amendment 65.

My other amendments in the group would ensure that there are no delays in those targets being met. Scotland has committed to halting nature loss by 2030. Without a deadline, there is no guarantee that targets will be introduced in time to influence early delivery of that commitment. Without explicit timelines in legislation, we need to know what the Scottish Government will do to ensure timely implementation of the bill.

I argue that those are not huge asks of my colleagues. They will make improvement of protected sites a clear statutory priority, increase transparency and accountability, align the bill with Scotland’s European Union-derived and international nature commitments, and strengthen protection for MPAs across environmental legislation.

I say to the cabinet secretary and her colleagues that the engagement of stakeholders has been incredibly strong, even between stage 2 and today’s debate. I hope that the Scottish Government will reflect and act on this matter constructively, and that is why I ask my colleagues for their support on these amendments. This issue needs to be centre stage.

Ariane Burgess (Green, Highlands and Islands)

The Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill is absolutely essential for Scotland. Yesterday, I was talking to a climate scientist who told me that, when we consider the relative weighting of climate and nature, nature must be two thirds when it comes to action. He said that we know what we need to do on climate, so it is nature that we must prioritise.

I have brought back just two amendments at stage 3, knowing that this will be a busy debate. One is in this grouping, and I will take a little time to talk about it now. The other is in a much later grouping, and I am grateful for the Scottish Government’s work on it.

Amendment 66 is one of several that have been lodged by Opposition MSPs across the chamber that highlight the Government’s repeated delays and non-delivery of measures to improve our beleaguered inshore ecosystems and inshore economies alike. The Scottish Government’s track record on managing our inshore waters is close to non-existent, and both our marine environment and our fishing industry—especially the low-impact sector—are suffering as a result. The ink had barely dried on stage 2 when the cabinet secretary announced the cancellation of the long-delayed consultation on inshore MPAs and priority marine feature measures during this parliamentary session. That means that, realistically, a new consultation will not materialise any time before 2027, which adds another two years of further degradation to what is already a decade-long delay in implementation.

Those are delays that our inshore waters cannot afford and that break repeated promises by the Government. On 11 November 2020, cabinet secretary Mairi Gougeon stated:

“Over the next 18 months, we will take forward fisheries management measures for a number of inshore MPAs and for 11 priority marine features outside MPAs.”—[Official Report, 11 November 2020; c 14.]

On 22 December 2022, minister Màiri McAllan stated:

“By 2024, we will complete the management measures for those MPAs, and we will work on the priority marine features that are most at risk from bottom trawling.”—[Official Report, 22 December 2022; c 88.]

On 29 June 2023, cabinet secretary Màiri McAllan backtracked and stated:

“Inshore MPAs and priority marine features also require fisheries management measures. However, the complexity of the inshore area and the number of sites have meant that progress has been slower than was hoped—therefore, consultation on inshore measures will take place in 2024.”—[Official Report, 29 June 2023; c 32.]

Now, even that promise has been broken. The problem is broader than that cancelled consultation. Scotland currently has an array of environmental legislation, typically including duties on the Scottish ministers to produce strategies and plans that they could produce without the need for legislation.

In the marine space, it feels as though those strategies and plans are either at cross-purposes or siloed from one another, leading to each one being used as an excuse for inaction in the others. We might hear, for example, “Spatial management can’t be considered here; that’s for the inshore fisheries management improvement programme to look at,” even though the marine directorate has already told my committee that it would not consider it. We might hear, “That’s a matter for the national marine plan 2,” or, “That’s for the implementation of the future catching policy,” and so on.

A series of powerless and underfunded consultative bodies are being used as a smokescreen, from regional inshore fisheries groups to the inshore fisheries management and conservation groups. Those are all covers for the policy position, which is never said explicitly by ministers, that measures to protect our most precious marine environments or to support low-impact fishing will almost always be rejected if it means closing a square kilometre of sea to dredging and trawling.

The following illustrate this Government’s record: the inshore MPA and PMF consultation—delayed. The national marine plan 2—delayed. The inshore fisheries management improvement programme—delayed. The fisheries management plans—delayed. The biodiversity strategy—not delivered. The planned marine and coastal restoration plan—delayed. The Government cannot claim that the bill is a success story, given this backdrop of policy inaction and failures.

The bill makes no mention whatsoever of the marine environment. My impression is that, because 37 per cent of Scotland’s seas are designated for protection, the Government sees the job as done. No matter what proportion it is, that 37 per cent is protected only on paper. It is not good enough just to set targets; it is action that we desperately need for the inshore. So far, this Government is failing our seas, and the Parliament’s job now is to turn that around.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I thank Ariane Burgess for highlighting a major gap in the bill. I will speak to amendment 27. The intention of my stage 2 amendment on target-setting statements was to ensure that the Parliament was given reassurance about the approach that ministers would take to meet the targets. However, I have discussed with the cabinet secretary the challenges around providing exact costings for biodiversity action before plans to meet targets have been fully developed.

There are difficulties in setting out the full costs of the approach as my amendment detailed, so I am proposing to replace that with a requirement that ministers set out how the approach to meeting targets is to be funded. It is important to set out the broad investment opportunities for both public and private investment to deliver nature restoration. The wording in the amendment will ensure that there is scrutiny of the Government’s approach to funding the activities required to meet targets, but at an appropriate level of detail.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests—I own part of a family farm on Moray. I should also declare that I have been managing the environment on that farm and the local river that runs through it for 45 years. It was some 50 years ago that I first embarked on deer management, and I look forward to going back to that in April, when this session of Parliament is dissolved.

I will speak to amendments 24 to 26, which have been lodged by John Mason. They are interesting amendments, and I have some sympathy with amendment 24. It concerns the control of feral species, which are defined as animals

“in a wild state ... after escape from captivity or domestication.”

That is important, as it is something that, to my mind, we have not done properly in Scotland for some time. If we had done that, we would perhaps not now have the fallow deer and many of the other types of deer that are starting to move up from the Borders, nor would we have species such as the ruddy duck—or rather, we would have them, but we would be able to control them.

However, I am concerned about the amendment’s use of the term “feral species”, because the definition is quite wide ranging. Mr Mason may not have intended to bring in some of the animals that the term could cover. For example, it could be argued that “feral species” would include cats that have been released into the countryside, which could become feral and could therefore be part of a management plan. That might or might not be a good thing. In the case of the Scottish wildcats that are being reintroduced across the Cairngorms, the control of feral cats would be important, but in other areas it might not be.

Amendments 25 and 26 relate specifically to the sheep on St Kilda. I think that Mr Mason, by lodging the amendments, has done this country a service by making sure that the owners are aware that the Parliament is considering the problems with the sheep on St Kilda in a sensible way. They need to be controlled, as lack of control and management will result in all sorts of problems such as increased suffering, disease and starvation. That is completely unacceptable, and it would be unacceptable if they were on a farm on the mainland.

I personally would not seek to press amendments 25 and 26 to a vote, because I think that the point has already been made. Nonetheless, I will be interested to hear the Government’s response to amendment 24, because I think that the control of “feral species”, and preventing them from multiplying with or challenging our wild species, is important.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I will speak briefly on amendment 66. Scottish Labour supports the amendment’s aims, but we are concerned about setting an arbitrary target that would not take into account local circumstances. We have always argued for a local management approach, in which the seas are managed in the local interest, in the way that works best for the community.

We recognise that there are fishing boats that work further from home and that we need to enable them to fish in order to have fish for our markets, but we need to ensure that the seas are managed properly. Fishers already face challenges from other marine uses such as renewable energy, interconnectors and the like, so I do not think that setting an arbitrary target would work. We need to ensure that we manage the seas properly and that we do not leave that to happenstance, which is not helpful, but instead set a plan that would mean that everyone knows where they can fish and that works best for the environment.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale)

I rise to speak on amendments 24 to 26, in the name of John Mason, who made a persuasive argument regarding the St Kilda sheep in particular. However, I also note Edward Mountain’s comments, which are significant.

John Mason and I would argue that the St Kilda sheep should be considered not as wild but as feral, given that their ancestors were a domestic flock. However, I note that the National Trust for Scotland, which is the responsible body and owns the animals, has noted that there is an issue with their welfare. I also note that the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission is now paying attention to that particular issue. In those circumstances—and there may be other failings in the amendments—it might be premature to import them into this particular bill. I note that John Mason may, subject to what is said in reply, consider them to be probing amendments, but I thank him for bringing the issue to the attention of the chamber, and I hope that we make progress on it.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I will speak to amendment 22, in the name of Beatrice Wishart, and amendment 23, in the name of Lorna Slater. I listened to members’ views at stage 2, and I am pleased that we have been able to work together to make these changes to our public sector biodiversity duty and the purpose of the targets. I am grateful to Beatrice Wishart and Lorna Slater for their constructive engagement on those matters. For that reason, I am happy to support amendments 22 and 23 as a means of strengthening the provisions in the bill.

Amendment 22 seeks to place an obligation on our public bodies to take into account the biodiversity targets when they are fulfilling their public sector biodiversity duty. I again make it clear that it is the responsibility of the Scottish ministers to ensure that the targets are met. Amendment 23 seeks to make it clear that a purpose of the targets must be to provide a means of supporting and measuring progress on implementing the Convention on Biological Diversity. For those reasons, I encourage members to support amendments 22 and 23.

On amendments 24 to 26, 46, 47 and 63 to 66, proposed new section 2C of the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 sets out three target topics under which the Scottish ministers must set statutory targets. Those topics have been recommended by our expert programme advisory group on the basis of careful scientific consideration, which I believe is of the utmost importance on such matters.

I again reassure members that, when we set the biodiversity targets by regulations, they will be specific, measurable targets. The appropriate place for that level of detail is in secondary legislation that is properly informed by expert scientific advice.

I also point out that, if any of the proposals for additional target topics or targets were to be included in the bill, not only would that mean deviating from the science; careful consideration would need to be given to how they fitted in with the existing proposed suite of targets and how they could be appropriately measured. That would take a significant period of time, which would mean that ministers would be delayed in their ability to set targets, given the requirement in proposed new section 2C(2)(a) of the 2004 act, under which ministers must set at least one target in respect of each topic. That is not a position that we want to be in, and I know that stakeholders are rightly concerned about that. Given that we are in a nature emergency, none of us wants there to be any delays in taking forward this important work.

John Mason’s amendments 24 to 26 deal with a very specific matter in relation to the management of feral species—specifically, St Kilda sheep. I understand Mr Mason’s concerns about that matter, and I assure him that the Scottish Government is taking the issue very seriously. I understand that Mr Fairlie, in his capacity as agriculture minister, has been engaging directly on the matter. It is not appropriate for Scotland-wide biodiversity targets to be used as a vehicle for tackling such a specific matter; that is not the way to deal with the issue. The National Trust for Scotland, which is the owner of St Kilda, is undertaking a full review of concerns that there is suffering among the sheep on St Kilda. The NTS is hoping to inspect the sheep in the next few weeks as part of that review.

John Mason (Independent, Glasgow Shettleston)

The cabinet secretary says that the Scottish Government is taking the matter seriously. Could she not go a little further than that and say that the status quo is not acceptable?

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

The National Trust for Scotland is the owner of St Kilda, so it is reviewing the issue. I said that the NTS is hoping to inspect the sheep in the next few weeks as part of the review. I imagine that that review will come up with an analysis of the condition of the sheep. I am not going to speak on behalf of the National Trust for Scotland. Indeed, the Government is not carrying out a review, so I cannot give any assessment of the condition of the sheep. As Tim Eagle pointed out, it is right that we wait for the outcome of that review. The NTS will be inspecting the sheep over the next few weeks.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I will take Mr Mountain’s intervention in a second.

In addition, the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission, which is an independent panel of experts that provides advice to the Scottish Government, is convening a short-life working group to consider the issue of the sheep, and we will carefully consider any recommendations that it makes in the next three to four months.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

In the hope of helping the cabinet secretary, if the sheep were on a farm such as mine and they were inspected and found to be in poor health, dying of starvation or suffering illness, the first thing that would happen is that there would be an inspection by the department, which would raise action against me. In order to allow Mr Mason not to move his amendments, could the cabinet secretary indicate to him that she will ensure that the department takes an interest in the issue and ensures that there is no suffering?

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I believe that I have already said that. The Scottish Animal Welfare Commission, which I mentioned, is convening a short-life working group, and the Government will carefully consider any recommendations that it makes in the next three to four months. I do not know whether Mr Mountain heard me say that just before I invited him to intervene.

On that basis, I believe that it would be better to wait until the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission has reported before deciding what steps to take. I know that Mr Fairlie will take its recommendations seriously.

Therefore, I ask Mr Mason not to move amendments 24 to 26, as I assure him that the Scottish Government will give full consideration to any recommendations that the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission makes.

I come to amendments 46 and 47, which were lodged by Ms Villalba. Those amendments are unnecessary. As I have previously set out, and as is detailed in the policy memorandum,

“Habitat condition and extent includes the quality and/or extent of habitat types of importance to Scotland, including protected habitats.”

I reiterate that the target topics in the bill have been carefully selected through a robust science-led approach and on the basis of advice from the biodiversity programme advisory group and NatureScot. The target topics that are included in the bill are wide and overarching enough to allow a variety of targets to be set under each topic. Therefore, there is no need to add specific habitat types, because they are already covered in the legislation.

Mercedes Villalba (Labour, North East Scotland)

The cabinet secretary said that the amendments are not necessary because their provisions are already covered in the bill. Condition and extent are covered as a target topic, but they are covered together. The bill refers to “condition or extent”, not condition and extent. That suggests that, when targets are set for a habitat, it will be either the condition or the extent that will be assessed. With my amendments, I aim to separate out those two distinct features of a habitat.

I think that it is the cabinet secretary’s intention to have targets for a habitat’s condition and its extent. That would ensure that we would avoid the example that I outlined when I spoke to my amendments, whereby there could be a habitat that improves in condition and declines in extent but still technically meets the target.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I apologise if my quote from the policy memorandum was not clear. I will say it again:

“Habitat condition and extent includes the quality and/or extent of habitat types”.

That is fairly encompassing.

Tim Eagle’s amendment 63 on targets for food production—

Mercedes Villalba (Labour, North East Scotland)

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I have moved on to amendment 63.

As I stated clearly during stage 2 when we considered an almost identical amendment, which was not agreed to by the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, food production and nature restoration

“are inextricably linked and co-exist.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, 19 November 2025; c 37.]

I was crystal clear that the Scottish Government has no policy of reducing livestock numbers. In stark contrast to other parts of the United Kingdom, we provide a range of support to our livestock producers.

In relation to amendment 64, the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee debated and rejected that exact amendment wording at stage 2, so I am not convinced that repeating the amendment today is the best use of anyone’s time. I reiterate the statement that I made at stage 2, which was that Mr Lumsden’s amendment

“falls outside the scope of statutory biodiversity targets for the purposes of conservation.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, 19 November 2025; c 48.]

I hope that members will reject the amendment, as they did at stage 2.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

If the cabinet secretary feels that amendments should be rejected at stage 3 when they were rejected at stage 2, could the same argument not apply when the Government is defeated at stage 2 and then lodges amendments at stage 3 to overrule the committee’s decision?

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

My comments are not about the process; they are to remind members that Mr Lumsden’s amendment falls outside the scope of statutory biodiversity targets and was defeated at stage 2. I recommend that it be defeated again at stage 3.

Amendment 65, in the name of Sarah Boyack, seeks to add something to the bill that is already there, so it is not necessary. The first target topic is

“the condition or extent of any habitat”.

That topic already encompasses the condition, extent and quality of any habitat, including in protected areas. More importantly, the topic takes into account habitats outside of those protected areas.

I come to amendment 66, in the name of Ariane Burgess. I am unclear why Ms Burgess lodged amendment 66, given that it is essentially a repeat of amendments that were not agreed to at stage 2. I have already noted the impracticalities of including niche and highly specific targets in the bill. I do not believe that the addition of yet further detail is appropriate. I also note the significant economic disruption that such an amendment would cause to Scotland’s fishing fleet without proper analysis and an evidence base. I cannot support the inclusion of such a sweeping requirement that singles out one sector in this way.

I urge members not to move amendments 24, 25, 26, 46, 47, 63, 64, 65 and 66.

Ariane Burgess (Green, Highlands and Islands)

I hear the cabinet secretary’s point that similar forms of my amendment 66 were lodged at stage 2. However, I lodged amendment 66 because I believe that we in this Parliament must take on board the urgent and desperate situation in our inshore waters. There is nothing about that in a piece of legislation that is called the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill. We have signed up to restoring and protecting 30 per cent of Scotland’s land and seas by 2030, yet we are not doing anything in the marine space.

I take the cabinet secretary’s point that many other measures are in place, but the Parliament needs a serious commitment on what we are doing to protect our inshore waters, to manage them on an ecosystem basis, to safeguard the good environmental status of our seabeds and to ensure that small-scale artisanal fishers, such as creelers and scallop hand divers, are protected. It is well known that, in small spaces such as Lamlash Bay, the spillover effect is incredible.

We absolutely need to get on board with the need for action. I lodged amendment 66 because we are in a state of emergency. As a Parliament, we must get into the ambulance and do something about it.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I encourage members to make their interventions a wee bit briefer than that, otherwise we will be here until the early hours of the morning.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I understand Ms Burgess’s passion on the issue and her view that there is a need for action. However, not every inshore fisheries area is the same as Lamlash Bay. That is a great example of a no-take zone, and it would be nice to see other areas opt to do that, too, but introducing fisheries management measures in MPAs and PMFs is still a Government priority.

Amendment 67, in the name of Sarah Boyack, would require target regulations to be laid within 12 months of royal assent. It would not be practicably possible to carry out meaningful consultation and adequately reflect on the outcomes of that consultation and draft regulations within that timescale, especially considering the upcoming election period.

I assure members of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, the chamber and stakeholders that it remains the Government’s intention to introduce nature targets as soon as practicably possible. However, amendment 67 would result in the creation of rushed targets rather than carefully considered targets that are informed by meaningful consultation. For that reason, I encourage members not to support amendment 67.

I appreciate the intentions behind amendments 68 and 69, which were also lodged by Sarah Boyack, which attempt to mirror the approach that is taken in the climate change legislation. They are intended to create a mechanism similar to climate change catch-up reports. I must be clear that, as drafted, the amendments would not achieve the intended effect.

We have deliberately taken a different approach to biodiversity targets, because of the inherent differences between the two subjects. There is no single apex target for biodiversity. The actions that are required to achieve biodiversity targets will often be cumulative and complex. It is not feasible to think that, if we identify a target that will not be met, we could take action within 12 months that would have the effect of changing our biodiversity to such an extent that the target would be back on track—in most cases, it would take an awful lot longer than that. As I said, biodiversity is complex and multifaceted and recovery takes time. It also takes a lot more time to measure outcomes than is possible with emissions reduction.

The same approach that is set out in the climate change legislation simply will not work. However, that does not mean that there is no accountability under the target provisions, which will achieve the same effect as is intended through amendments 68 and 69. There are sufficient safeguards and comprehensive accountability mechanisms in the target provisions in proposed new sections 2CA, 2D(4) and 2E of the 2004 act, which are intended to hold ministers to account by requiring them to report on progress in meeting targets that will not be improved or strengthened by amendments 68 and 69. Therefore, I ask members to oppose them.

I am grateful to Mark Ruskell for his willingness to work with me on amendment 27, which I encourage members to support.

I support amendment 70, and I am grateful for Mercedes Villalba’s engagement on the issue. I reiterate that I do not envisage that any changes will be required when it comes to nominating ESS to undertake the role of the independent review body, but I appreciate the concerns that were raised with me. As such, the amendment is intended to act as a safeguard to ensure that the crucial independent review body function can be carried out only by an independent public body.

Mercedes Villalba (Labour, North East Scotland)

I am grateful for the cabinet secretary’s support for my amendment 70.

To take her back to amendments 46 and 47, she referred to the policy memorandum as a basis for rejecting those amendments. However, the bill clearly says that one of the topics is

“the condition or extent of any habitat”,

not the condition and extent, as the cabinet secretary said. On that basis, will she reconsider her position on my amendments 46 and 47?

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I will not reconsider it, because I believe that the stated intention of the wording in the bill is already comprehensive, so it is not an issue that needs to be resolved.

That is me finished.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I call Beatrice Wishart to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 22.

Beatrice Wishart (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I have nothing further to say. I press amendment 22.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The question is, that amendment 22 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

There will be a division.

As this is the first division of stage 3, I suspend the meeting for around five minutes to allow members to access the digital voting system.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

We will proceed with the division on amendment 22. Members should cast their votes now.

The vote is closed.

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I was unable to connect to the voting system. I would have voted yes.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Thank you, Ms Todd. Your vote will be recorded.

Jeremy Balfour (Independent, Lothian)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I was not able to connect to the voting system. I would have voted yes.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Thank you, Mr Balfour. Your vote will be recorded.

Sharon Dowey (Conservative, South Scotland)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would have voted no.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Thank you, Ms Dowey. Your vote will be recorded.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The result of the division is: For 69, Against 43, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 22 agreed to.

Amendment 23 moved—[Lorna Slater].

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The question is, that amendment 23 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

There will be a division.

The vote is closed.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My device would not connect. I would have voted no.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Thank you, Mr Mountain. Your vote will be recorded.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I have just checked and it did work, but it asked me twice to vote.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I believe that your vote was recorded, Ms Boyack.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The result of the division is: For 85, Against 27, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 23 agreed to.

Amendment 63 moved—[Tim Eagle].

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The question is, that amendment 63 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

There will be a division.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The result of the division is: For 44, Against 68, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 63 disagreed to.

Amendment 46 moved—[Mercedes Villalba].

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The question is, that amendment 46 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

There will be a division.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The result of the division is: For 24, Against 86, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 46 disagreed to.

Amendment 47 moved—[Mercedes Villalba].

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The question is, that amendment 47 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

There will be a division.

The vote is closed.

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app froze. I would have voted no.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Thank you, Ms Gilruth. Your vote will be recorded.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The result of the division is: For 24, Against 87, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 47 disagreed to.

Amendment 24 not moved.

Amendment 64 moved—[Douglas Lumsden].

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The question is, that amendment 64 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

There will be a division.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The result of the division is: For 25, Against 86, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 64 disagreed to.

Amendment 65 moved—[Sarah Boyack].

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The question is, that amendment 65 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

There will be a division.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The result of the division is: For 26, Against 86, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 65 disagreed to.

Amendment 66 moved—[Ariane Burgess].

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The question is, that amendment 66 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

There will be a division.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The result of the division is: For 7, Against 92, Abstentions 13.

Amendment 66 disagreed to.

Amendment 67 moved—[Sarah Boyack].

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The question is, that amendment 67 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

There will be a division. Members should cast their vote now.

The vote is closed

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app would not connect. I would have voted no.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Thank you, Ms Gilruth. Your vote will be recorded.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The result of the division is: For 24, Against 86, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 67 disagreed to.

Amendments 25 and 26 not moved.

Amendment 27 moved—[Mark Ruskell]—and agreed to.

Amendment 68 moved—[Sarah Boyack].

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The question is, that amendment 68 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

There will be a division.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The result of the division is: For 48, Against 61, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 68 disagreed to.

Amendment 69 moved—[Sarah Boyack].

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The question is, that amendment 69 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

There will be a division.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The result of the division is: For 50, Against 62, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 69 disagreed to.

Amendment 70 moved—[Mercedes Villalba].

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The question is, that amendment 70 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

There will be a division.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The result of the division is: For 85, Against 27, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 70 agreed to.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

We come to group 2, on the meaning of public authority et cetera in the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004.

Amendment 29, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendments 35 to 39.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

The amendments in this group are technical amendments, the purpose of which is to provide additional clarification to a provision in section 34 of the bill as introduced. Section 34 replaced the definition of a

“public body or office holder”

in section 58 of the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 with a provision to the effect that the 2004 act does not apply to the exercise of functions by public bodies and office holders other than in areas of devolved competence and

“in or as regards Scotland”.

The purpose of section 34 was to be clear about the extent of the definition, because the definition of a

“public body or office holder”

in the 2004 act was non-exhaustive and we were concerned that that could lead to possible confusion as to who has duties under that act.

My amendments 29, 35 and 39 further refine that definition to provide greater clarity as to what constitutes a

“public body or office holder”

by clarifying the extent of the functions of such bodies or office holders under the 2004 act. That has been done in response to feedback about the potential unintended consequences of how the provisions would interact with part 2 of the 2004 act and with the protection of sites of special scientific interest. My intention is for the level of protection currently afforded to SSSIs to be unchanged by this bill, and my amendments will ensure that that is achieved. Section 34, as amended by the amendments in group 2, simply sets that out explicitly, for the purpose of making the 2004 act easier to read by laypeople and by the bodies and office holders upon whom functions are imposed under the terms of the 2004 act.

I move amendment 29.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

No other members have pressed their request-to-speak buttons.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I have nothing further to add.

Amendment 29 agreed to.

Section 1B—Environmental protection requirement

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Group 3 is on habitats regulations and the environmental protection requirement. Amendment 30, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendments 31, 31A, 31B and 44.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I will speak to my amendments 30 and 44, which are minor technical amendments, before turning to the rest of the amendments in the group.

Amendment 30 will remove a redundant provision from the bill. Part 1B of the bill was agreed to at stage 2, and the intention was for the provision in that part to apply to part 2. However, as the entirety of part 2 was removed at stage 2, that provision now has no practical effect and is therefore unnecessary.

Amendment 44 will update the bill’s long title by omitting the reference to a power to modify environmental impact assessments and habitats regulations, as that power was removed from the bill by amendment at stage 2. For those reasons, I ask members to support amendments 30 and 44.

I understand and appreciate the intentions behind Mark Ruskell’s amendment 31 and Rhoda Grant’s amendments 31A and 31B. I know that they are well meaning and that the intention is simply to seek to ensure that our protected areas are delivering for biodiversity. Regrettably, however, the obligation that the amendments would impose on policy officials in the Scottish Government would be significant and administratively burdensome.

Amendment 31 would require guidance to be published on both the interpretation and implementation of the habitats regulations. Those regulations are far reaching as they cover a wide range of subject matters over and above our protected sites, and a large volume of guidance has already been produced by a range of bodies. Amendment 31 would require the Government to produce new guidance on every aspect of the habitats regulations and, in doing so, to review all the existing guidance. My concern is that that significant undertaking would risk diverting resources away from tackling the things that we know will deliver the biggest benefits for nature in order to produce guidance in areas where it was not needed. I am sure that that is not the intention behind the amendments, but I have said many times during the passage of the bill that I want the Government to focus on delivery and not to needlessly divert resources from that.

Amendment 31B would require the establishment of an independent working group to provide advice to ministers on guidance. Although I cannot support amendments 31, 31A and 31B, given their very wide scope, I welcome the suggestion that a working group be established to provide ministers with advice on how we can make our protected sites more effective. I also agree that it would be helpful to consult on any new guidance, to ensure that we obtain the views of a wide range of organisations and individuals who are involved with our protected sites.

I am grateful to Mark Ruskell and Rhoda Grant, as well as stakeholders such as Scottish Environment LINK and the Woodland Trust, for their constructive engagement on those issues in advance of today’s stage 3 proceedings and for their willingness to work with the Government on a solution in the light of the concerns that were raised. If Mark Ruskell and Rhoda Grant are willing to not move their amendments, I will commit to establishing a short-life working group in 2026, which will be formed of independent experts with appropriate ecological expertise. The group will consider where we need new guidance on the habitats regulations and will provide advice to ministers on where that guidance will help us to achieve our biodiversity ambitions. Once that advice is received, I will consult on it to ensure that everyone with an interest has the opportunity to comment.

I move amendment 30.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

A majority of the committee agreed that there were problems with part 2 of the bill as introduced. It would have given ministers extensive powers to rewrite environmental protections, including the habitats regulations, and there was a lack of clarity from the Government about why such extensive powers were needed. The committee was given few clear examples of how the new powers would be used or what problems they would solve. Members were asked to put a lot of trust not only in this Government but in all future Governments that the powers would be used wisely. As a result, a majority of members voted to remove part 2 from the bill, and I think that that was the right outcome.

However, it is clear from the months of evidence that the committee heard and from discussions with environmental stakeholders before and after stage 2 that there is a lack of clarity on some of the guidance on the implementation of the habitats regulations. The first guidance came into effect in the 1990s. Times have changed and environmental priorities have evolved, and the Government, its agencies and the huge range of land managers increasingly want to take forward broader nature restoration projects. With the existing habs regs being based on the protection of specific species, there have been some instances where those different aims have conflicted. Questions have been raised about how much flexibility exists under the current habitats regulations to allow for restoration, such as tree planting on river banks, to take place on sites that might be protected for species such as the wild salmon.

The intention behind amendment 31 was to require the Government to review the existing regulations guidance with the new environmental goals in mind, to establish what degree of flexibility exists within the guidance without taking the original approach of opening up the entire habitats regulations to broad changes at ministerial discretion. It would be a nutcracker to crack a nut, rather than a sledgehammer. I welcome the comments from the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy, particularly on the setting up of a working group to look in detail at that issue specifically. That is very welcome, as is the timeframe that she has just outlined for that work. On that basis, I am content to not move amendment 31.

Amendment 31A would extend the timescale for review from one year to two years. On amendment 31B, I would not be opposed to the creation of an independent working group, but I would be concerned if there was not a more wide-ranging public consultation, which I think is needed. There was not a full consensus on part 2, particularly among environmental non-governmental organisations, and we would want there to be much more unity on what would be appropriate to change the guidance on the habs regs as we go forward. However, I do not intend to move amendment 31, and I am content with the commitments that the cabinet secretary has made with regard to moving the issue on.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Rhoda Grant joins us remotely.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I will speak to my amendments 31A and 31B. As we have heard, some NGOs—such as the Woodland Trust Scotland—were concerned at the loss of part 2 of the bill. Although we realise that that part was not perfect, there was an intention to provide much-needed flexibility in protected site designation to enable nature recovery. When part 2 was removed, because other NGOs were concerned about its being far too broad, the Woodland Trust sought to work with MSPs to develop a much more targeted set of powers to enable nature recovery or habitat restoration. However, we could not reach agreement with the NGOs, so I looked at strengthening Mark Ruskell’s amendment instead.

We would want guidance to be comprehensive, detailed and impartial and to be based on the findings of an independent working group of experts. I think that that is what the cabinet secretary has agreed to do. We very much welcome that and hope to work with the cabinet secretary to make sure that that happens and that it fulfils the desires of all the NGOs, because flexibility is provided in some areas but not in others, so it would be good to have renewed guidance that provides the comfort that everybody needs but also makes restoring nature the priority.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I welcome the comments that have been made by the cabinet secretary and the work that has been put in by Mark Ruskell and Rhoda Grant.

The cabinet secretary has said that she will reconvene a group later in 2026. Amendment 31B includes the wording

“Ministers may appoint such persons as they consider to have an interest in the habitats regulations”.

I think that most people would prefer it if the minister would agree to appoint people who do have an interest in the habitats regulations, not just the ones whom ministers choose. I would be grateful if the cabinet secretary could say that that is what will happen.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I call the cabinet secretary to wind up.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I really do not have any comments to make.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The question is, that amendment 30 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

There will be a division. Members should cast their vote now.

The vote is closed.

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app froze. I would have voted no.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Thank you, Mr Hoy. Your vote will be recorded.

Davy Russell (Labour, Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I could not connect. I would have voted yes.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Thank you, Mr Russell. Your vote will be recorded.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The result of the division on amendment 30, in the name of Gillian Martin, is: For 86, Against 21, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 30 agreed to.

After section 1B

Amendment 31 not moved.

Section 5—Aims of National Parks

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Group 4 is on national parks. Amendment 48, in the name of Emma Harper, is grouped with amendments 71 to 73, 32 and 74 to 77.

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

I will speak just to my amendment 48 in this group, because I do not want to delay proceedings by addressing other amendments.

Amendment 48 will amend the national park aims by introducing

“encouraging sustainable and regenerative agriculture”

to those aims. I believe that it is vital that we do everything that we can to promote and support sustainable and regenerative practices in our national parks. In particular, I recognise the important role that traditional farming systems have played in shaping and maintaining our landscapes. They are essential for managing those special places sustainably while supporting food production and enabling rural communities and businesses to thrive.

During the consultation on establishing a national park in Galloway, concerns were raised by some farmers, including dairy farmers, about how a national park would impact their businesses. Amendment 48 will demonstrate that we understand that sustainable and regenerative agriculture is really important to have among our aims and that farming is an integral part of our national parks. The amendment is about recognising those facts and signalling that integrated land use in national parks needs farming and farmers. We have already seen good examples of that understanding in the establishment of the Cairngorms future farming initiative and the resilient farm network initiative in Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park. For those reasons, I ask members to support amendment 48.

I move amendment 48.

Tim Eagle (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I have just one amendment—amendment 71—in this group.

An immediate concern of mine at stage 2 was that we were looking to change the aims of national parks, but we had never really done a formal review of them, which I felt we were lacking. Having said that, I thank the cabinet secretary for working with me on amendment 71, which will add “economic growth” to the aims for national parks. It was vital for me that the importance of economic growth to local populations was stated clearly in the bill. National parks are not only places of outstanding national beauty and heritage; they are also home to communities and businesses that rely on them for their livelihoods. I am keen to show that we support those communities. For that reason, I encourage members to support amendment 71.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

I have five amendments in the group. I feel strongly that they should be agreed to, because they will give us our chance to improve and strengthen our national parks for the long term.

It is appropriate that we are debating amendments in this group today. I am proud to have been the cabinet secretary to introduce the legislation on the establishment of our first two national parks, in the first session of the Parliament. Things have moved on since then, and it is important that we take the opportunities presented by the bill to bring legislation on the parks up to speed. My amendment 72 would amend the national park aims to ensure that sustainable development, community prosperity, health and wellbeing, and the provision of housing for people who live and work in our national parks are all recognised as being part of those aims.

It is essential that national park authorities and other public bodies support the vibrant communities at the heart of our national parks, because the parks are not only areas of outstanding beauty but areas where people work and build their lives. At present, the national parks legislation does not specifically require ministers to seek expert advice on the rationale for national park designations before formally proposing a new national park. Many of us would have loved to see a third national park being introduced in Scotland, but lessons need to be learned.

I thank the cabinet secretary and her staff for their support in drafting my proposed amendments 73, 74 and 75, which I think will strengthen the legislation. Amendment 73 attempts to introduce a new requirement for ministers to seek advice from those whom they consider to have expertise relevant to the national park aims before making a national park proposal.

That would be good, because it would strengthen the proposals that a future Government could make. It would ensure that expert advice on the management needs of an area and how national park designation could help to address those needs was provided to ministers and would have to be considered before deciding whether to propose a new national park. It would also ensure that people had clear information about the rationale for establishing a national park, and it would help to inform people about what designation would mean in practice for local communities, businesses and the natural environment.

Currently, there is no definition of “cultural development” in the national parks legislation, so it is important that we address that, given that cultural development is now referenced in the national park aims. My amendments 74 and 75 attempt to do that by giving us a clear definition of cultural development, ensuring that

“the arts, tangible and intangible cultural heritage, creative industries, and activities which reflect”

the fantastic diversity and distinctiveness of an area that is being designated, and its communities, are all encompassed in the definition. The definition that is proposed in my amendment also takes into account Scotland’s culture strategy and related policy statements.

Lastly, I am pushing the provisions of amendment 77 again. I raised them at stage 2. I think that clearer and simpler language about the duty to implement the park plans would underline the primacy of those park plans, which are developed through engagement with the public and with ministerial sign-off. That strengthened duty would help to ensure that the work of the public sector is more strategically aligned.

Taken together, the changes that I am proposing will embed sustainability, community benefit, cultural recognition and accountability at the heart of Scotland’s national parks, creating a more robust, transparent and socially grounded framework for their future management and designation, learning lessons from the two decades since we started discussing national parks and actually having them in Scotland.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Section 3 of the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000 currently sets out that ministers may require NatureScot or any other public body with relevant expertise to consider and report on a national park proposal. I believe, however, that ministers should have the flexibility to be able to appoint either an independent person or organisation or a public body as the reporter in that process, depending on what is considered most appropriate in the circumstances. My amendment 32 modifies the national parks legislation to provide that flexibility.

I will briefly address Sarah Boyack’s amendment 77. I believe that it is right that public bodies actively implement those national park plans. The amendment that she has lodged is very similar to amendments that I lodged at stage 2, and I hope that it can be reflected in the legislation.

Ross Greer (Green, West Scotland)

My amendment 76, supported by Jackie Baillie, comes out of the experience of the save Loch Lomond campaign. Given the length of time of today’s proceedings, I am not going to recount the whole decade-long saga that has led us to this point, but I want to talk about what happened in September 2024, because that is when the board of Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Authority made its decision on the Flamingo Land application. It made the decision at the end of a very long day, which had included a site visit in which local residents and any other interested parties were welcome to take part, and at the end of a public hearing in which not only residents and elected representatives such as ourselves but experts such as the Woodland Trust were able to make representations to the national park board so that it could make a decision in full possession of the facts.

The board, with those facts, unanimously rejected Flamingo Land’s mega resort application. Flamingo Land appealed the decision, which it had every right to do. However, a Scottish Government official then made the decision to grant that appeal—that decision has since been reversed—having heard from absolutely no one in the local community; having spoken to none of the expert stakeholders; and, so far as I am aware, having not even engaged with the national park’s own planning officers. That resulted in what I believe was a fundamental misunderstanding of the expert conclusions that the park itself had come to.

That is what has brought me to lodge my amendment 76. It is a simple amendment: it requires only that any major or national development within a national park’s boundaries that goes to an appeal must be subject to a public hearing. It would not require a full public inquiry, although the option is there if necessary, but it would, at a minimum, require that any major or national development should be subject to a public hearing at the appeal stage before a decision is made.

It relates only to large significant developments. A public hearing would not be needed every time that someone in Luss wants a conservatory and the national park knocks them back—it is just for developments on the scale of Flamingo Land. Communities deserve the opportunity to have their say, and officials and ministers should have the opportunity to hear from experts, whether they are experts on the basis of living locally or experts on the subject matter under discussion.

The amendment would make a simple change and would not tie anyone’s hands in relation to the outcome: an appeal could be rejected or granted. It would simply ensure that the voices of key stakeholders are heard, because officials are not infallible and it is important to hear from those who have direct knowledge of the application at hand. It also recognises that our national parks are special and we should apply slightly higher standards for major national developments in the parks in comparison with the standards that we would apply elsewhere.

I do not need to tell members of the scale of the national campaign to save Loch Lomond, which is now far beyond just a community campaign. However, one of the effects of the decade during which we have had to endure that particular application is that it has brought much more scrutiny to the level of protection that our national parks are afforded—or, to be more accurate, very often not afforded.

This is not just a movement to stop Flamingo Land—we need to prevent that kind of saga from ever happening again. Amendment 76 alone would not do that, but it is an important measure to ensure that communities and experts are never again completely shut out of appeal processes on developments of such significance.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I will speak specifically to amendment 76, in the name of Ross Greer, on planning in national parks. I completely agree with the amendment and commend it to members in the chamber.

Members will be aware of the significant planning application for Flamingo Land in Balloch, which is the gateway to Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park. Ross Greer started a petition—I commend him for doing so—that attracted thousands of signatures opposing the application. I did a local door-to-door survey of some 6,000 households and more than 60 per cent opposed the development, but all, whether they agreed or disagreed, wanted to see improvements to roads and the quality of jobs and the economic impact being maximised.

In considering the application from Flamingo Land, the national park paid due regard to planning policy, to the views of statutory consultees such as the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and to the concerns of the local community. In contrast to what we are seeing now, the national park board held public hearings and made a site visit; it considered expert planning advice from its own staff, many of whom live in the national park; and it decided unanimously to reject Flamingo Land.

Given that background, it is astonishing that a single reporter decided that we should support the proposal. Ministers, under pressure in advance of a vote in the Parliament, called it in, and I welcome that. However, the application went back in front of the same reporter, and my understanding is that the report is now with the Minister for Public Finance. At no stage, from when the reporter first considered the appeal to now, has a public hearing been held—not one. Yet there are lots of public hearings about all manner of planning appeals on proposals of far less strategic significance. To be frank, I find that appalling and a denial of democracy.

It is important that community concerns are heard and considered. We created national parks to protect and conserve some of our most beautiful scenery and environment. It is right, therefore, that when significant application decisions are appealed, there is a public hearing as part of the determination process.

I urge members to support amendment 76.

Fergus Ewing (Independent, Inverness and Nairn)

I will speak briefly to advise caution in respect of Emma Harper’s amendment 48, although it is very well intentioned. I do so on the basis of having, since the inception of national parks, lived in and represented people who live in a national park area.

Mr Eagle is entirely right that there should be—and should have been—an independent review of how the existing parks work before any movement to establish new ones. The whole process to find a new park was a complete waste of money and an utter shambles, and I predicted from the outset that the people of Galloway would wisely reject it.

People talk about the national parks as though they are an untrammelled good—like motherhood and apple pie. That is not how many people in, for example, Strathspey consider their relations with national park authorities. Although regenerative farming sounds like a good idea, if the national parks are given powers to control farming, people who work for them—who are unfamiliar with farming and may not have expertise or even experience of it—will be placed in a position of power over farmers. We have already seen the establishment of Cairngorms Crofters and Farmers Community as a result of the conflict about the way in which the reintroduction of beavers was phased in. Members might be interested to know that, in an opinion survey in an Aviemore community forum, when asked, “Do you think the national park is performing well?”, 444 people said no and 10 people—3 per cent—said yes.

Members who might be disinclined to believe everything that I say—for reasons that have always escaped me, of course—should tak tent. If someone proposes a national park for their area, they should be afraid—very afraid.

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

All the elements that are outlined in Emma Harper’s amendment 48, Tim Eagle’s amendment 71 and Sarah Boyack’s amendment 72 are important to ensure that we have thriving communities in our national parks, so I am happy to support them and I encourage all members to do the same.

Sarah Boyack’s amendment 73 would introduce a requirement for ministers to seek expert advice before making a proposal for a new national park. For the reasons that the member set out, I am happy to support that amendment.

Mark Ruskell’s amendment 32 would modify the national parks legislation by allowing ministers to appoint either a public body or an independent person or organisation with expertise

“relevant to the National Park aims ... to consider and report on a National Park proposal.”

I was pleased to have further discussions on this amendment with Mark Ruskell after stage 2, and I am happy to support it.

I am also happy to support Sarah Boyack’s amendments 74 and 75, which would insert a clear definition of “cultural development” into the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000.

I am delighted to support the vast majority of Sarah Boyack’s amendments in this group, especially since views on this grouping and the legislation seem to be coming full circle for her.

However, on amendment 77, which we discussed further after stage 2, I recognise that the position is the same as for the previous amendment. As I said at committee, I believe that the language that we have used in the bill provides the right balance between the requirement to implement actions within national park plans and other duties and considerations that public bodies may have. Unfortunately, I cannot accept that amendment and I ask members not to support it.

Ross Greer’s amendment 76 would, ultimately, undermine the established principle of taking a proportionate approach to the appeals process and would, effectively, create a two-tier system whereby the procedural requirements for planning appeals in national parks are different to those for appeals elsewhere in Scotland.

Some parts of the process have already been outlined. It is currently for the reporter to determine the most appropriate approach to obtaining the evidence that they need and who they need it from. A hearing is used to take evidence from specified interested parties rather than being open to all.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

I welcome the cabinet secretary’s constructive approach. I take it that she does not want to accept the actual wording of my amendment 77. However, is there a way in which the Scottish Government could support our park authorities to try to ensure that we get strategic alignment and a stronger focus on implementing the park plans? Even if you do not want that principle in the bill, would you accept the background principles?

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Always speak through the chair.

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

Absolutely. When it comes to amendment 77, it is ultimately about trying to get the balance of language right. That was part of the discussion that we had prior to introducing the measure in the bill, as well as during stage 2. I know that, as things stand, there is an awful lot of engagement between the national park and other public authorities, particularly in developing the park plans. I would expect them to work together to further the objectives that they have, collectively as bodies, agreed to. That point also came through in the evidence that the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee heard.

I appreciate where Sarah Boyack is coming from with the principles of amendment 77, and I think that Mark Ruskell lodged similar amendments at stage 2. However, the balance that we have achieved regarding the language that is used in the bill is right.

I am sorry for that interruption; I will try to jump back into discussing amendment 76. That amendment would mean that a public hearing would be required for all appeals that relate to major or national planning applications, including those that might have limited bearing on the overall aims of the national park. That would ultimately increase the timescales and costs that are associated with the planning appeal process for all parties involved, regardless of the specific circumstances of a case. Given that a reporter’s decision is based on submitted evidence, it is not clear how holding a public hearing for every planning appeal would assist the objectives of a proportionate and efficient planning process.

Ross Greer (Green, West Scotland)

The cabinet secretary says that the Government’s objections are primarily based on an understanding that comes from two points. First, the Government understands the amendment to be disproportionate. However, its provisions would apply only to major national developments in the national parks, of which there are only a handful. Secondly, the Government understands that the amendment would create a two-tier system. However, what is the point of designating an area as a national park if we do not hold that area to a slightly higher standard when it comes to development decisions that are made within its boundaries?

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

In such cases, we should deal with planning appeals in a similar way across the piece. Rather than inserting an amendment to this section of the bill, we should deal with planning appeals through planning legislation and ensure that we have a consistent approach.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

The problem is that there is not a consistent approach, because there are planning applications on appeal with lesser strategic significance that have public hearings.

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

If amendment 76 were to be agreed to today, we would treat all planning appeals in the same way when they should depend on the specific circumstances of each case. That is why the reporting process is so important. The amendment could have a disproportionate impact on the whole process. Because of what I have outlined—the risk of a two-tier system, the potential for delays, the bureaucracy and the increased costs that would come as a result, all without necessarily improving any of the decision-making processes—I cannot support the amendment. If it is moved, I ask members not to support it.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I call Emma Harper to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 48.

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

It is clear that colleagues have worked with the cabinet secretary, as did I, to lodge amendments—that is, my amendment 48 and amendments 71 to 74—to the aims of national parks and to the advice before making proposals for a national park.

The original legislation on national parks is two decades old. I acknowledge Mr Ewing’s views, and I witnessed concerns and questions during the consultation process on the potential new national park in Galloway. I support the aim of helping our food producers, because food production is the primary reason for farming. However, we need to recognise that “sustainable and regenerative” requirements should be added to the aims of national parks in this part of the bill.

Do I need to move my amendment, Presiding Officer?

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

You need to press it.

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

I press amendment 48.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The question is, that amendment 48 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

There will be a division.

The vote is closed.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I could not connect. I would have voted yes.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Thank you, Mr Gibson. I will make sure that that is recorded.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The result of the division is: For 84, Against 25, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 48 agreed to.

Amendment 71 moved—[Tim Eagle].

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The question is, that amendment 71 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

There will be a division.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The result of the division is: For 86, Against 23 , Abstentions 0.

Amendment 71 agreed to.

Amendment 72 moved—[Sarah Boyack]—and agreed to.

After section 5A

Amendment 73 moved—[Sarah Boyack]—and agreed to.

Amendment 32 moved—[Mark Ruskell].

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The question is, that amendment 32 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.