Chamber and committees

Will the member give way?

I am sure that the member is about to explain this, but I am unclear as to why tenants would not have to live by all the same safety rules and expectations as their landlords.

Sporting tenants might have rights and exercise those rights rather than the landlord, and I accept that. However, I do not feel that it leaves anyone in the Government or elsewhere liable if tenants can ensure that their land and interests are not damaged by large numbers of deer. I have worked with the Government and managed to come up with an amendment that would ensure that tenants have those rights.

Mr Eagle makes an important point about communication, however, and I did not mean to be flippant in response. There is a need for communication, whether it is with the landlord or the sporting tenant, to make sure that this is all done responsibly.

We might return to some of those questions at stage 3. However, I am reluctant to pass an amendment that introduces another level of bureaucracy. I accept the point about safety, but that would introduce a level of bureaucracy around notifications that would essentially make it impossible for a tenant to act when his or her interests are threatened by the presence of deer. I would not like to go down that route.

That would be my hope, minister.

The Government would have to comment on whether it thinks that it would be liable, but I do not think that it would be.

A crofter pointed out to me that property rights operate in a slightly asymmetrical way as regards deer. If a crofter’s car is hit by a deer for example, the landlord does not claim any responsibility for that deer, as it is a wild animal. Without legislation of the kind I am proposing, at the moment, a crofter who takes action against deer that are damaging his interests could be said to be infringing on the rights of a landowner or a sporting tenant. As far as I am concerned, that is two contradictory definitions of a deer.

Amendments 37 and 38 would introduce straightforward consequential changes to ensure that the bill works properly, while amendment 39 proposes the new structure. Amendment 37 would ensure that regulations made under section 17A of the 1996 act could make appropriate provision in the light of the new sections 26 and 26ZA that would be inserted into that act by amendment 39. Amendment 38 would allow regulations made under section 17A of the 1996 act to make consequential modifications to proposed new section 26ZA. Those technical adjustments would maintain consistency and clarity in the legislation. There are lots of capital letters but nothing contentious.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I could not connect. I would have voted no.

The machair landscape, which is present in my constituency and in other places, has been mentioned. Through these measures, what is being done or what will be done to recognise existing practices that involve low-impact or low-intensity agriculture in such areas and in other parts of the country? How flexible is your proposal in recognising the good practice that already exists in that area?

I will move amendment 115, and I will also speak to the other amendments in the group. Forgive me if I do so a little comprehensively.

I believe that the power in part 2 of the bill is essential to ensure that Scotland can continue to meet its environmental obligations in a way that is fit for purpose, particularly in the context of our net zero and nature restoration ambitions. I am aware of the committee’s interest in those subjects, and I am particularly aware that Sarah Boyack has lodged a non-regression provision under amendments 5 and 6, while Beatrice Wishart has lodged a non-regression provision under amendment 196. Their amendments respond directly to the concerns, and they reflect the strong and consistent calls from stakeholders, particularly environmental non-governmental organisations, and from the committee itself, following the stage 1 debate, for a non-regression provision. I am keen to ensure that any non-regression provision offers a clear and practical safeguard that supports our shared ambitions of nature restoration and tackling climate change.

The use of a non-regression provision, if it is not appropriately drafted, might stifle the delivery of those ambitions, and I believe that my amendments achieve the right balance when compared with other non-regression provisions that have been proposed. A non-regression provision will introduce a legal obligation, and I know that the Government and others believe that there needs to be a proportionate and workable safeguard that strikes a balance between maintaining flexibility and ensuring accountability. I urge the committee to support my amendments in the group.

Amendments 115 to 117 all respond directly to concerns raised regarding the power in part 2 of the bill. The amendments would introduce a non-regression provision to ensure that, crucially, any future use of the power under part 2 would not reduce the overall standards of environmental protection while having explicit regard to the twin crises of climate change and biodiversity loss—recognising that progress in one of those areas cannot be achieved without progress in the other. I hope that we can all agree on those points.

In addition, the power proposed in part 2 is required to support broader aims and cross-cutting work, particularly in relation to net zero, energy security and climate change. In order to provide further reassurance, my amendment 117 would add a safeguard by requiring Scottish ministers to

“lay before the Scottish Parliament a statement confirming that they consider that the environmental protection requirement”—

under amendment 115—

“has been met.”

I respectfully ask the committee to oppose amendments 5, 6, 196 and 313, and I urge the committee to support my amendments 115 to 117. Those amendments are part of a suite of amendments with the collective purpose of enhancing safeguards around the exercise of the power in section 2(1), which directly responds to the committee’s concerns as outlined in the stage 1 debate. My environmental protection requirement should not be considered in isolation from Ms Harper’s amendment 57.

Part 2 of the bill contains a power that can be exercised only if any changes align with one or more of the purposes that are set out in sections 3(a) to 3(f). Amendment 120 specifies that, in that respect, other legal regimes must be pertinent to the effective operation of the relevant environmental impact assessment or habitats legislation, or must be otherwise desirable for such legislation to interact with. I believe that amendment 120 represents a proportionate and practical improvement to the bill, and I encourage members to support it.

Similarly, my amendment 121 refines the purpose in section 3(f) of the bill. As originally drafted, that purpose allows changes

“to improve or simplify the operation of the law.”

Amendment 121 makes that more precise by clarifying that the specified purpose is intended to enable administrative changes or adjustments to regulatory processes that

“reduce the administrative burden of complying with a condition, standard or requirement”.

That would ensure that the power is used solely for administrative and procedural improvements, such as streamlining processes—for example, updating the EIA regime to remove the need for paper copies of applications when electronic versions are already provided. I hope that members will agree that that is a sensible and reasonable approach.

I move amendment 115.