Chamber and committees

But are you listening?

In fairness to NFUS, it is generally farmers, crofters and smallholders who are delivering on the ground, and there is a risk to the viability of their farms in relation to how the requirements fit in with livestock production and so on.

Nobody is questioning the need for environmental benefits from farming—we all get that. In fact, I agree with you on the point about having fields of red and white clover that have butterflies in the summer. However, we need to make sure that we do this in a way that does not risk farms. If NFUS is saying, “Pause this for a year, maybe do a review, double-check that it is actually proportionate and it works, and then we can come back to that figure,” why would you not take that option?

My amendment 177 touches on a point that was discussed in the previous group. As drafted, the bill allows ministers, by regulation, to set targets that relate to the natural environment. It currently requires a number of Scottish statutory instruments containing regulations for setting such targets to be laid before the Parliament within 12 months of section 1 of the bill coming into force. Amendment 177 removes that requirement, because I do not believe that time should be the driving force here. Instead, we need to ensure that the targets that are set are well considered and are not driven by an arbitrary deadline. I am not trying to stop what we are trying to do; I am trying to ensure that, as I said was important earlier, we are taking communities with us. I completely agree with Mark Ruskell’s point that targets are only as good as the plans to deliver them. That is the critical point that we need to get right, not a timeframe, which is why I have suggested that that be removed.

My amendment 183 is a drafting amendment relating to my amendment 184, which relates to the review that the bill requires ministers to carry out of how the targets that they create by regulations are operating. When carrying out a review, ministers must seek and have regard to views on the targets set under, and topics set out in, new section 2C(1) of the 2004 act, introduced by section 1(3) of the bill. Amendment 184 would mean that the people giving those views would have to include those who can represent the views of land managers. That would ensure that biodiversity targets are informed by practical, on-the-ground knowledge from land managers and community bodies, as well as scientific experts. I believe that that would make targets more deliverable, regionally relevant and supported by those responsible for implementation.

My amendment 187 relates to the process described in the bill for setting or amending targets or adjusting topics. Before making regulations, ministers must carry out some tasks, and my amendment adds to that list of tasks. Ministers will need to both seek and have regard to views from someone who ministers consider to be representative of the interests of land managers, to ensure input from those delivering the targets.

Through both amendments 184 and 187 I am trying to ensure that the people on the ground who will ultimately implement the targets are involved in the decisions on what goes on higher up and form part of that target-setting process.

My amendment 189 also relates to the process for setting targets. Although the bill requires ministers to carry out a number of tasks, it allows ministers not to seek advice if the regulations they are making relate to a review of existing regulations. My amendment deletes that provision, because I believe that it is important that a consultation be conducted with affected parties if changes are being proposed.

My amendments 190, 191 and 192 are drafting amendments relating to amendment 187.

My amendment 312 requires that, when setting targets under section 1, ministers must have regard to the importance of local food production and domestic food security, support local food producers and consider the impact on future food security. It also makes sure that targets will not result in a decline in the beef and dairy herd numbers or encourage a reduction in red meat and dairy consumption.

Scotland’s future food security faces a delicate balance. It is a case of ensuring that we have enough supply to match demand and avoid reliance on foreign imports. The fragility of the supply was emphasised by the Scottish Association of Meat Wholesalers earlier this year, which warned that beef supplies had reached a critical point. To ensure that we meet future food supply needs in Scotland, we need more cows, not fewer—around 80,000 more, according to Quality Meat Scotland. However, this year, farmers were faced with a worrying prospect when the Scottish Government’s climate change adviser recommended a 30 per cent drop in meat consumption and a 30 per cent cut in sheep and cattle numbers in order to hit climate change targets by 2045.

Will you look into it?

Gosh—it is all about eagles this morning.

I have been on Mull a few times and the matter has not come up, but I recognise that there might be some tourism benefits from the reintroduction of such species. That is why I have said clearly that I am not opposing species reintroduction. I was in the Western Isles over the summer and, as I went down through the Uists, I had pretty much the same conversation with crofters over and over again about how traditional agricultural practices were being hurt by white-tailed eagles. Interestingly, however, very few crofters said, “I just want to kill them all.” They all said, “We just need help and support where our businesses are being damaged.”

This is the point that I was about to come on to. Scotland currently operates a limited support scheme for losses to sea eagles and for certain beaver-related impacts. I mention those because I think that they are relevant—and we could expand the scheme to other species. Farmers and crofters repeatedly report that the scheme is slow and bureaucratic and does not come close to covering the real costs of long-term disruption. My amendment 268 would take the matter further by ensuring that, where reintroduced or recovering species create genuine, evidenced losses, those who steward the land are properly supported.

In both amendments 267 and 268 I am trying to strike the balance that I think rural Scotland needs between meeting the ambitions in the bill and ensuring that small, rural and, often, family businesses are not harmed to the extent that we exacerbate rural depopulation. If the cabinet secretary is minded to discuss that with me in more depth prior to stage 3, I would be happy not to press the amendments today.

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

I cannot remember when it was, but the Cairngorms national park did a study that found that the numbers of pheasants were actually pretty low. The number has significantly dropped off from where it was. Does the member recognise that some studies have been done on the issue, which show that what she is saying is not entirely accurate—sorry, I need to change my words there. Does she recognise that some studies show that the number of pheasants is not as big a problem as it could be?

I will come back to that point in a second because I want to address the cabinet secretary about it.

A proper review would not oppose reintroductions but ensure that they are managed responsibly through clear assessments of local impact, meaningful consultations with those who live and work on the land and workable mitigations and compensation schemes that would be put in place. Without that balance, reintroduction risks undermining rural livelihoods rather than supporting the thriving, sustainable countryside that Scotland wants to achieve.

Building on the findings of recent reviews, amendment 268 would create a clear and reliable compensation scheme for rural businesses impacted by—

Obviously, everyone is allowed their point of view, but I have a concern about the suggestion that pheasants are the problem when it comes to avian flu, given that thousands of geese come to Scotland every winter. Avian flu is being spread through huge amounts of wild bird populations. Pheasants in themselves are not the cause of the spread of avian flu. I want to be clear on that point.

Excellent—although I would like to get away at some point.

If I could corroborate what Rachael Hamilton has just said, there is a serious level of concern here. The minister made some claims in a letter to the committee about some of the landholdings not following the guidance or the letter of the law, which I think is an unsubstantiated claim. My understanding from NatureScot is that there has been no breaking of the rules at all.

Given the significant level of concern—I know that the issue sits with Jim Fairlie more than with you, cabinet secretary—could you at least agree not to push the matter forward today and work with stakeholders and MSPs who have concern about it before stage 3? That would allow us to debate the issue more fully in the background and have an opportunity to discuss it more fully with Jim Fairlie before proceeding with the amendment,