Chamber and committees

I will speak to my amendments 12 and 41. Amendment 41 would enable the Land Court to

“sist proceedings in respect of an application”

by a crofter to buy a croft, when the commission has issued the croft with a notice of suspected breach of duty. It would suspend the crofter’s right to buy in cases in which the commission was satisfied that the crofter was not complying with their duties. That would be achieved by providing that the Land Court

“must not make an order”

to authorise the acquisition under section 13(1) of the 1993 act in such circumstances.

Amendment 12 supports that approach by providing that, when the commission issues a notice of suspected breach of duty to a crofter, it must send a copy to the Land Court.

Those changes would prevent a crofter from profiting from their croft while they are in breach of their duties. There is no possible case for continuing to allow that possibility. The amendments ensure that duties cannot be sidestepped through a right-to-buy application. I ask the committee to vote for both amendments.

I move amendment 12.

I will merely press amendment 12, convener.

Amendment 12 agreed to.

I will speak to amendments 25 and 26.

Amendment 25 requires the Crofting Commission to check whether a croft has been let by the commission and is subject to the 10-year restriction on assignation before consenting to a family assignation application. That restriction will ensure that someone does not transfer their croft or sell up early in order to make a profit from a free let by the commission. That control already applies to general assignations, and my amendment would apply it also to fast-track family assignations.

Amendment 26 changes the sequence of the application for a family assignation and would require the crofter to serve a copy of the family assignation application to the landlord at the same time as they submit their application to the commission and to indicate to their landlord that they have 28 days to make any representations directly to the commission. That is a more natural and familiar approach for handling any representations than requiring the applicant to find out the landlord’s views in advance and to then tell the commission what the landlord’s views are. It also means that the commission will be informed that the landlord has been notified at the time when that happens, so that, if the landlord objects, the commission will already be aware of the application to connect the objection to. I encourage members to support my amendments in the group.

I move amendment 25.

I press amendment 25.

Amendment 25 agreed to.

Amendment 176 not moved.

Amendment 26 moved—[Alasdair Allan]—and agreed to.

Section 8, as amended, agreed to.

After section 8

Amendment 177 not moved.

Before section 9

Will Michelle Thomson give way?

Will Michelle Thomson give way?

The recent figures that the cabinet secretary mentioned show that there has been an increase in the number of Scotland’s teachers. How will investment in the 2026-27 budget support furthering that progress?

I understand the member’s points and the strong views on the subject, but the committee looked at that. Neither the committee nor the Parliament can be expected to legislate for what happens in England.

The 26th President of the United States, Theodore Roosevelt, noted:

“Conservation means development as much as it does protection. I recognize the right and duty of this generation to develop and use the natural resources of our land; but I do not recognize the right to waste them, or to rob, by wasteful use, the generations that come after us.”

The Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill seeks to ensure that the people of Scotland do not waste our natural resources or rob future generations.

The twin crises of climate change and nature loss are interdependent risks and they need to be tackled together, which the bill seeks to do. The bill will establish the framework for targets, including high-level topics against which specific targets will be set, while the actual targets, such as the detail of the figures, will be provided in secondary legislation. That approach will allow targets to be adapted in the light of circumstances and will ensure that parliamentary scrutiny is maintained throughout.

The bill also brings together other measures that will enable us to restore and protect nature and support delivery of the Scottish Government’s net zero and biodiversity goals. Those measures include provisions to modernise the aims and powers of national parks by amending the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000 and provisions to reform the way in which deer are managed by amending the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996, through implementation of many of the recommendations that were made by the deer working group.

As members have said, there is an urgent need for effective deer management across much of rural Scotland, and that is regularly raised with me by my constituents. I am pleased that an amendment that I lodged at stage 2, which built on existing legislation to widen the legal right of occupiers of land to cull deer to prevent damage to unimproved land as well as improved land, was successful. Although I appreciate that some estates have raised concerns about that part of the bill, I believe that the Government’s stage 3 amendments on notification requirements, along with the guidance that will be set out in secondary legislation, will provide reassurance on animal welfare, food safety and income from deer stalking.

The proposal was initially recommended and supported by the deer working group, which the Scottish Government established in 2017 as a result of its concern about continuing issues to do with the standards of deer management in Scotland and the levels of damage to public interests caused by deer. It is clearly essential for stakeholders to continue working together, as they already have been doing, to help to reduce deer numbers and support biodiversity recovery across Scotland. Improving our biodiversity is one of our best opportunities to adapt to, and to prevent, climate change and to ensure that we can continue to enjoy nature’s benefits, on which we all depend.

As other members have pointed out, this has been a long but, I think, successful parliamentary process. There has been a lot of engagement with the public, and, like other members, I convey my thanks to committee members and staff for doing that work.

As someone who represents an island constituency, I believe that the provisions in the bill before us are necessary to support communities as they respond to our biodiversity crisis and that the bill therefore deserves our support.

17:35

I understand the member’s points and the strong views on the subject, but the committee looked at that. Neither the committee nor the Parliament can be expected to legislate for what happens in England.