Chamber and committees

We were told in evidence that designations under the habitats regulations, in particular, often homed in on one species rather than the area as a whole and that that could have unintended consequences for other species and different things living in that area. It was felt that it should be a wider process. If a species is under threat, it should be protected, but the impact should be measured of those management techniques on other species in the area and on wider environmental and biodiversity issues.

You have a puzzled look, which suggests that you do not quite understand me.

Would that be the case even if one species was not protected and one was?

I want to ask about the role that the EIA legislation and the habitats regulations play in protecting the environment and biodiversity in Scotland. To what extent can they present barriers to tackling the twin crises of biodiversity loss and climate change?

I will turn the question on its head slightly. Might you have to do other things—for instance, in relation to another species—that might not necessarily protect the species around which the designation sits? I am trying to remember the case that we were given. Would you have to stop implementing those other policies because they might not sit comfortably in relation to the species that was designated?

When discussing food security with the UK Government, did the Scottish Government share its proposals for the human rights bill, specifically in relation to how it would implement a right to food? If so, were those proposals within the competence of this Parliament, and what response was received?

The programme for government is an attempt at damage limitation by the Scottish Government. There is the reinstatement of plans for the cancelled Barra hospital, which were delayed for years but are now being brought back the year before an election. There is the scrapping of peak-time rail fares, which were so recently put in place. There is the pledge to end the 8 am lottery for general practitioner appointments—a lottery that was created by the same Government. There is the commitment to continue to try to find a solution for the Rest and Be Thankful, which was first promised in 2012 and became a manifesto pledge at subsequent Scottish Parliament elections. The Government made those promises while, at the same time, presiding over a worsening situation. In reality, the programme for government is a long letter of apology and a promise to try harder.

One apology that is especially galling for me relates to the addition of women, four years too late, to those who receive protection under the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021. I lodged amendments that would have done that when the bill was going through the Parliament, as did Johann Lamont, but we were told, “No—misogyny is different. The Government will legislate within a year and women will be protected.” That has not happened.

We suggested that women be covered by the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Bill and that that protection could be removed when the misogyny bill was introduced. However, that common-sense approach was dismissed. We were told that the Scottish Government would make misogyny a specific crime within a year. Now—four years later—it is taking the approach that we suggested. In those four years, incel culture has been on the rise, and rape and all forms of violence against women have increased. That protection is coming four years too late.

There is so much of this programme for government that is doing what we urged the Scottish Government to do years ago. They say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery but, sadly, it is not flattering—only frustrating that we have a Government that delays and prevaricates and has simply run out of ideas.

I turn to the rural and islands part of the programme for government, which is a rehash of broken promises, too—those things should have been delivered years ago. A crofting bill was promised not only last year but in the previous session of Parliament. The Government shelved it in the previous session, saying that it would bring it back early in this one—yet here we are, rushing complex legislation through at the last gasp. Moreover, we expect to see a timid bill that will not meet the aspirations of the crofting counties, which means that Parliament in the next session will have to wrestle with the issue again.

The Land Reform (Scotland) Bill does not include communities’ and crofting communities’ right to buy land. We were told that that was because the Scottish Government was holding a review of the legislation, but we later discovered that that was an internal review of its own legislation. We now learn in the programme for government that there will be a consultation on the matter. Why did that not happen before the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill was introduced? The bill that is going through Parliament is half-baked and, in its current form, will make no change to land ownership patterns in Scotland. Will the Government be responsible for even more depopulation by doing nothing to help our next generations to remain on the land of their forefathers?

Years ago, we passed temporary legislation to allow farmers to be paid following Brexit. We were told that new legislation and a reformed scheme would be introduced at speed. We have had the enabling legislation, but no new scheme. We all know that the delay is because the £200 million computer system says no—another example of incompetence. However, in the programme for government—without apology for the delays—the Scottish Government boasts that it will publish a rural development programme. Although it must introduce a rural development programme, real change is impossible to achieve without the tools to do so.

As members can imagine, I continued to read the document with increasing trepidation. Then my eyes fell on the words:

“Building on having met all milestones set out in the delivery plan to dual the A9”.

The key delivery milestone was to complete the dualling of the A9 by this year. However, the Government sells that as an achievement, albeit 10 years late. If the situation were not so serious, it would make for a comedy sketch. I say to George Adam that these are the same old attack lines because they are the same old failures.

What are your views on the strengthened enforcement powers granted to NatureScot under the bill, including the ability to enter land if it has requested information that has not been provided within 10 working days, and the proposed reduction in the standard notice period for entry from 14 to five working days?

Yes, but it does not answer my final question, which was about whether we should set out in the bill examples of when you need to act. Should the bill say that, if, for example, one landowner complains that their efforts in nature restoration are being hampered by another landowner, or if you feel that a river is not being maintained properly with regard to wild salmon, you must take action?

Is there a way of fitting venison into the current meat hygiene system and using abattoirs and the like? In rural areas, we need micro abattoirs in particular. Is there a way of putting venison in with other local produce in a way that would make abattoirs more sustainable and enable more of them to be created? Is that a possible solution?

Section 13 will add nature restoration as a reason for intervention in deer management. However, control schemes under section 8 powers of the 1996 act have not been used until quite recently. How would new powers in the bill change NatureScot’s approach to intervention, and should we include in the bill things that you must intervene on?