I am pleased that the amendments I moved on protecting species which are not specifically endangered, but are in danger, and those on strengthening parliamentary scrutiny on environmental standards all passed.  I continue to work to find support for triggers for intervention from Nature Scot on deer numbers, and powers for local authorities to prevent wildfires through issuing Fixed Penalty Notices via their by-laws.

I have included information below on all the most asked-about amendments and aspects of the bill.

Amendment 165 was withdrawn by Beatrice Wishart on the basis that the Cabinet Secretary agreed to further discussion to allow a revised amendment to be submitted at Stage 3, with the government’s agreement.

Amendments 22, 42, 166, and any others that sought to add new targets:

The Scottish Government has been clear that significant lead time would be required to develop necessary scientific advice for these targets, which would delay the implementation of all targets.  The minister was clear that, while comprehensive targets might help reflect the complexity of nature itself, it would not be helpful to delay everything else that has been done up to this point to develop other targets.  There were also good points made in debate about diluting focus and therefore accountability.   The Government is satisfied that the targets in there now are comprehensive and capture enough about biodiversity to allow overall progress to be monitored, without becoming overly bureaucratic.

Amendment 166 was not moved on that basis, and the other two were voted down for these reasons.

Amendment 41 on “swift bricks”:

I have received reassurance from the Scottish Government that this does not require legislation to change.  It is going to look at this at the next review of building regulations.

Part 2:

Part 2 of the bill was removed by amendment at the 26^th November meeting of the Rural Affairs Committee.  I know that the government is committed to finding a way forward for Stage 3, and I’m grateful to all those who engaged ahead of this debate.

Significant stakeholder concerns have been raised about Part 2 throughout the process of this bill, and I am keen that whatever the bill looks like at the end of Stage 3, it is as strong as possible.  I completely understand the need for flexibility in government to react to unexpected changes in habitats and allow the best possible protections.  However, I agree we also have to legislate with the assumption that not all governments will have nature restoration and protection as a priority, ensuring protections are meaningful regardless of who is in power.

I will take part in discussions ahead of Stage 3 to make sure that is the case.