I will speak to my amendments 68, 69, 136, 137, 140, 141, 147 and 70.

Amendment 69 seeks to provide for the creation of a lowland deer management plan. The species in lowland Scotland and the way in which deer are managed there are very different from the situation in highland Scotland, and land ownership patterns are different, too. Responsibility for deer is therefore different. Stakeholders have told me that they are concerned that the bill appears to be focused on highland deer management and that it will do little to control increasing numbers of lowland deer. We need to have a lowland deer management plan to keep deer numbers in check.

Amendments 136, 137, 140 and 141 seek to introduce clear timescales for different stages of the processes under sections 7 and 8 of the 1996 act to add transparency in that regard. Currently, NatureScot’s use of the statutory intervention powers in sections 7 and 8 lacks transparency and is, therefore, not in line with its own shared principles for wildlife management.

The section 7 voluntary control intervention by NatureScot at Caenlochan in the Cairngorms national park has lasted for more than 25 years, and it has not delivered the required reduction in deer densities on the ground. Only one out of 11 section 7 agreements has concluded successfully.

This set of amendments would set clear timescales for NatureScot to consider use of its statutory intervention powers around deer management and to publish its views, which would encourage swifter decision making and would enable interested parties and the public to keep better track of progress with action by NatureScot.

Amendment 147 would create a new section in the bill that would allow any concerned person to ask SNH or NatureScot to intervene or reduce deer numbers. High levels of deer browsing and trampling can cause significant damage to gardens, crops, woodlands and land management for nature restoration, because deer—as we know—do not respect property boundaries. The amendment would give those who are impacted by deer a formal process for asking NatureScot to help to resolve concerns by using its statutory powers to reduce deer numbers. NatureScot would not necessarily have to intervene; however, it must give a good reason for not doing so.

The confidentiality that is specified in subsection (3) of the proposed new section has been included to cover circumstances that involve a community or estate whistleblower. It would not normally apply to a local authority, community council, non-governmental organisation or other formal body, should they make such a request. The amendment would allow an appeal to the Scottish Land Court if action was not taken.

Amendments 68 and 76 seek to do something similar but specifically for farmers and crofters, by extending their current powers to allow them to take problem deer on land other than their cultivated land. If they are not able, or do not wish, to do that, they can ask SNH to take action to prevent damage to their crops and livelihood.

Alasdair Allan’s amendment 39 would do something similar. I will listen to the debate, but I think that there are two things missing from his amendment. First, not everybody who is concerned or impacted might be able to take action themselves, and they would need a route for asking NatureScot to intervene. It is not always crofters and farmers who are impacted by problem deer—for example, someone who has a market garden might need to take steps to intervene and take deer but might not be confident about doing so themselves.

Not all of them are working well; some of them are not working. Some of them have been in place for many years and have still not concluded agreements.

I apologise, because I do not want to get into a conversation about this, but it feels to me that, if something has been on-going for years, it has not really achieved its goal.

Thank you for your economic, social and cultural rights report on the Highlands and Islands. That really helpful research has highlighted gaps with regard to housing, fuel poverty, healthcare, access to justice and lots of other things. I think that we already understood what the issues were, but it is good to have them written down, because it gives strength and courage to people who have been fighting against those things for a long time. It has also been helpful to parliamentarians, as we have been able to have discussions in the Parliament on it.

How have the Scottish Government and other public authorities reacted to the report? Are there any commitments that you are aware of to address some of the issues that have been highlighted?

Will you be measuring that? I know that other duty bearers—local authorities, health boards and the like—have welcomed the report in so far as it gives them something to go to the Scottish Government with. However, I am not that convinced that they are using it as a barometer for their own work. Will you be monitoring that situation to ensure that changes are made?

I would like to make an intervention before you do, because we all have real concerns about part 2.

We are trying to amend part 2 in order to strengthen it and make it less open to abuse, but we will need to take stock between stages 2 and 3. If we do not amend that part at stage 2, there will be the option to remove it at stage 3. Would the cabinet secretary be open to having discussions about concerns that might arise if we do not think that the amendments made at stage 2 actually work?

We can all agree that part 2 of the bill causes most concern, and my amendments 118 and 119 are designed to improve it.

My amendment 118 aims to ensure that there is a balance between climate and nature targets. My amendment would delete the words

“(including, in particular, the net zero emissions target set by section A1 of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009)”.

Those words are unnecessary, because part 2 of the bill gives ministers wide powers to amend environmental law to facilitate progress towards any statutory target. As drafted, the bill would allow changes in support of unrelated targets—such as those related to energy, waste and transport—that risk weakening nature protection.

Specifically referring to climate targets risks creating a hierarchy in which nature protections are weakened in order to facilitate energy infrastructure and other decarbonisation efforts. Powers under part 2 should support nature recovery as well as climate targets and ensure that one is not pursued at the other’s expense. My amendment would remove the implication that climate targets have priority over nature recovery targets.

My amendment 119 would delete section 3(c), which provides a purpose that is intended to ensure consistency and compatibility with other domestic and international legal regimes. That purpose is too broad, it is unclear under which circumstances such a power would be necessary, and it has the potential to be misused.

I am sorry, but I am getting a wee bit concerned now. I thought that there would still be a derogation if something went wrong—for example, if there was an issue with a ferry for a larger herd—simply because that was the explanation that we were given when this provision first came out. I understood that people could apply for a derogation if their bull was sterile or the ferry did not run at the right time, for example. Are you saying that, for people who find themselves in a situation in which something totally unplanned happens, the only provision for them is a claim for only 10 calves?

We welcome the derogations with the calving interval conditionality, but did you consider further derogations for herds with just one bull, those that are dependent on the crofting cattle improvement scheme, or those on islands that are dependent on weather and ferries to get bulls across?

That is reassuring.