Hansard

::My remarks will focus not on any one provision in the bill but on its underlying principles. As my colleague Tim Eagle said, my colleagues and I will not be supporting the bill at decision time, and I will be clear about why. It is not because we lack ambition for Scotland’s natural environment—far from it—but because the bill takes a wrong approach that risks replacing delivery with paperwork, collaboration with uncertainty and practical restoration with legal process.

Scotland’s nature needs more than aspiration. We have bucketloads of aspiration in our rural communities, but we need workable policies that are grounded in evidence and shaped in partnership with the people who deliver on the ground, and those policies must be accountable to this Parliament through clear reporting, not courtroom targets.

Although it attracted little comment at stage 3, the most controversial element of the bill has been the removal of the broad enabling powers over environmental assessments, which originally sat in part 2 of the bill. The committee was right to insist at stage 2 that such sweeping and undefined powers should not sit on the statute book without full consultation or clarity. Sadly, as we see far too often, SNP members blindly supported the Government’s position, choosing not to heed the views of every single non-Government witness and stakeholder, all of whom were deeply concerned about that part of the bill.

Restoration does not start with targets; it starts with policy, funding and practical projects. It starts with guidance from practitioners and with guidance that practitioners can use. Targets may sound decisive, but they rarely plant a tree, restore peatland or bring a habitat back to life. Targets too often produce a one-size-fits-all timetable, defensive compliance exercises and a drift towards litigation that displaces genuine collaboration.

If ministers want accountability, there is a simpler and better route. They should bring to Parliament time-bound delivery plans that are costed and linked to budgets and milestones. MSPs should be able to scrutinise progress openly, with practitioners shaping the detail through guidance that is responsive rather than rigid. The Government should use primary legislation where there is a specific regulatory gap and not as a catch-all vehicle for unresolved policy questions.

That brings me to the wider way in which the bill approaches change. Practitioners, whether they are farmers, land managers, conservation organisations, fishers, foresters or volunteers, are not obstacles to environmental recovery; they are the people who make it happen. Any legislation that affects them must be designed with them, which means publishing criteria, thresholds, definitions and evidence in advance of commencement, and it means tailoring policy to local circumstances rather than imposing universal figures that ignore geography, habitat type and community context. That has never been more true than with deer management.

Trust should be treated as something to be earned and maintained through transparency, dialogue-first processes and proportionate enforcement. Nowhere is that more important than with the provisions that will impact on rural livelihoods. What is missing from so much of the SNP Government’s approach and its attraction to framework bills—including this one, the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Act 2024, and the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Act 2022—is clarity and direction. We need a transition that keeps supply chains running instead of suddenly putting barriers in front of them. We need clarity about fees, timelines and support long before new duties begin.

Good environmental legislation—indeed, any legislation—is not just about ambition; it is also about pragmatism and the capacity to deliver. If we lose belief or lose sight of outcomes, we lose buy-in from our bigger businesses. If volunteers, small landholdings, community groups and microbusinesses find the rules too confusing, costly or sudden, we will have weakened—not strengthened—our ability to restore nature.

I will also address the scope and conduct of stages 2 and 3. This bill is now much broader than the one that entered Parliament. It may be a bit hypocritical of me to say this, because I lodged one of the stage 3 amendments, but the lack of meaningful progress in many areas of rural policy inevitably leads to members trying to find other ways to address this Government’s shortcomings. Those shortcomings have meant that entirely new topics have appeared, such as marine matters, forestry matters, enforcement frameworks and funding mechanisms. Some have merit, but many lack adequate consultation or evidence. Substantive new policies, particularly in sectors as technical as marine management and forestry, should be brought forward through focused, stand-alone legislation with proper scrutiny and impact assessments. Late additions at stage 3 are not the way to make good law and risk creating confusion that will fall on regulators and practitioners alike. They also reveal a lack of pace and leadership from this Government in sectors such as sustainable fisheries, where action is overdue. We need a more urgent focus if we are to protect coastal communities and our fishing industry while creating a healthier marine environment. If the bill passes this evening, the process for setting headline targets must ensure robust, fit-for-purpose co-design with practitioners, and outcomes must be published well before commencement.

We cannot support a bill that does little to deliver nature restoration in practice, creates uncertainty and risks eroding trust. Scotland deserves better law making than that. We will vote against the bill tonight, but we stand ready to work constructively on tighter, clearer, better-scoped legislation and on the practical programmes that restore nature—project by project, place by place.