Rural Affairs and Islands Committee 26 November 2025
I did not, and that is why I have lodged amendments 1 to 3, which would delete part 2. Putting that proposal on the table enables the Government to think again, between stage 2 and stage 3, about the purpose of the bill and about where we need flexibility.
I do not think that giving ministers an indefinite power effectively to rewrite environmental assessment and habitats regulations provisions is appropriate for a bill that is primarily about tackling the nature emergency. In theory, that could allow the watering down of 40 years’ worth of European Union environmental legislation, and it would ignore the Parliament’s desire to keep pace with EU legislation. Given the evidence, I am struggling to see what the case is for that flexibility. We are still struggling to understand how sites are already designated under the habitats regulations, what the process is for that and why there is no flexibility to make adjustments that could assist with nature restoration.
I will listen to the arguments. I have heard the arguments from Alasdair Allan, and later I would like to hear the cabinet secretary’s reflections on where she is in relation to part 2, but I think that it is important to have the option that I have presented on the table. I will push it to the vote, because we need to know where we stand, at least at stage 2. We will see which amendments get passed in this group, but I would like there to be further discussion between stage 2 and stage 3, because I do not feel that we will have concluded our thinking on the matter by the end of our consideration today.
Amendment 26 picks up on the committee’s recommendation at stage 1 to revisit the sunset clause on the keeping-pace power in the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Continuity) (Scotland) Act 2021. That power is due to expire in 2027, but the Parliament has the option to extend it to 2031. This is an area where the ability to adjust habitats regulations and environmental assessment will be needed in the future if we are to remain broadly in line with the European legislation framework that has protected the environment across Europe—nature knows no boundaries.
11:00The committee’s stage 1 report said:
“the Committee does not expect these suggestions to have significant policy implications. They would also give the Scottish Government the opportunity to undertake a thorough review of the operation of the EIA legislation and Habitats Regulations, as suggested by some stakeholders”,
but not to break out of the European policy framework. That is the context for amendment 26. Obviously, we cannot fix environmental legislation in a moment in time, but the stakeholders who gave evidence seem to believe that the existing system provides flexibility, and we need flexibility in relation to alignment with future EU laws. Amendment 26 would give that flexibility.
That is my starting point for discussion. Let us see where we get to.