Chamber and committees

The minister and I are not going to agree. After NatureScot took legal advice, it identified that, according to the legislation as it was introduced, it was up to the applicant to specify the area to which the licence should relate:

“Acting on our legal advice we took the decision to change the way we described the area of land covered by the licence to ensure our licensing approach was legally robust. ”

As much as we have criticised NatureScot today, I think that it would have had pretty decent legal advice. Now we are changing the 2024 act, which I find to be totally and utterly extraordinary, and I find that the minister’s reaction to my perfectly reasonable amendments is that the procedural step will have no positive gain.

Other than the 94 changed licence applications, the minister has not been able to evidence that any of the licences have been revoked. We have questioned the trust that we put in our land managers, and I feel that there is an accusatory undertone, even if the minister does not think that he is—

Yes—sure.

I had a copy of the letter that gave the explanation of the denial of a licence that had been applied for by a business on the harbour at Eyemouth. It stated that the individual was being denied a licence and could use dogs to deter gulls. If NatureScot had looked at the licence application properly, it would have understood that, at that point, there were no ground-nesting gulls in Eyemouth. The problem was happening on roofs, and the applicant, who was denied the licence, has looked at the reasons for NatureScot denying the licence and, understandably, connected the two—dogs on roofs, spaniels on scaffolding and all the rest of it—because there were no ground-nesting birds at the time. The whole reason why we have lodged these amendments is that NatureScot does not understand the situation.

Will the member take an intervention?

It is quite short.

The Tweed has been mentioned a number of times. Now that the cabinet secretary has raised the issue, I am concerned that it seems that only one group of people would be consulted and worked with. Could you expand on that? Would they be people who are relevant to the Tweed?

When I spoke to businesses that had applied for licences and subsequently been refused, they said that NatureScot had asked them for clear evidence that there was a safety issue because of gulls. I ask the minister to put himself in the shoes of people who are applying for licences. They do not have evidence other than from the previous year, because the gulls are not demonstrating that. However, they still have to get their ducks in a row—I was going to say “seagulls”—and prepare for the season ahead. It is not fair on businesses and visitors for them to be put in a position where they have to compromise their safety and where evidence of the damage or attacks cannot be provided after the licence application. It is putting the cart before the horse; it is not doing things in the right order.

You said that the licence conditions are not legally binding, but I want to press you on that, because a licence can be suspended or revoked if a licence condition is not met. How is that not legally binding?

I lodged my amendments out of fear that a ban could be brought in too early if the UK Government moved at a certain point. I was responding to Mark Ruskell’s amendment 32.

We now have a good opportunity to debate the issue. I do not know whether the bill is the right place to address it, but I could not let amendment 32 be agreed to unamended. I think that Mark Ruskell and I agree that we must reach a certain point—obviously, we agree with the minister on that. I cannot speak on behalf of Mark, but I would really like the issue to be followed up. It seems that the minister is not going to support any of the amendment in the group, but I strongly believe that it is important that the issue is followed up, so I would like to have an opportunity to meet the minister to discuss it further.

I thank Tim Eagle for his support for both of my amendments in this group. Clearly, his amendment 324 is very similar in intention in that it seeks to protect prime agricultural land. If I were a member of the committee, I would support it, too.

Amendment 289 would require the Scottish ministers to review the impacts of rural crime on food production and the natural environment. Estimates from NFU Mutual show that rural crime has cost nearly £5 million since 2022. Rural crime not only has a financial impact; the theft of vehicles, machinery and tools has an impact on land management and food production. I have campaigned to introduce a rural theft bill in Scotland, but the Scottish Government recently admitted to missing a legislative consent motion that would have provided Scottish farmers and rural businesses with the same protections given to those in the rest of the United Kingdom. My amendment 289 aims to highlight the impact of rural crime on agricultural businesses, productivity and environmental management. It also seeks to improve our understanding of Scotland’s food security.

Amendment 290 would require the Scottish ministers to review the impact of renewables and energy infrastructure on food production and the natural environment. Energy infrastructure such as battery energy storage systems, onshore and offshore wind turbines, solar developments and data centres has a significant impact on Scotland’s ability to produce food and ensure the nation’s food security.

In the Borders, local residents and communities regularly raise concerns about developments on prime agricultural land. For example, residents living in Birgham, Eccles and Leitholm are feeling overwhelmed by the number of battery energy storage system applications. Since 2022, four developments have been approved, one is the subject of a public inquiry, and another is going through the planning process. That does not include the numerous ghost applications. Such a concentration of large-scale projects not only burdens one community and risks impacts on house prices but compromises the high-quality agricultural land in the area.

Amendment 254 would require ministers to introduce a venison action plan that sets out what action Scottish ministers will take to ensure that public bodies regularly offer venison as a meal. Through several freedom of information requests, the Scottish Conservatives looked at the number of universities and public institutions that were serving venison, and they were few and far between. The amendment also puts the onus on ministers to take action to remove barriers to demand and supply. Currently, there is no requirement for public bodies to use venison, and uptake across local authorities and health boards is minimal. Only one local authority serves venison in schools and no health board offers it to patients. That is despite venison being a good source of micronutrients, high in protein and locally sourced, and its increased use being helpful in managing Scotland’s growing deer population. The action plan would help introduce measures to support suppliers, grow the rural economy and improve distribution so that venison can be served in hospitals, schools and other public sector catering establishments.

Likewise, amendment 255 would require ministers to introduce a venison action plan that sets out how deer larders, butchery facilities and distributors can be best utilised to maximise the amount of venison available for human consumption. It is very similar to Rhoda Grant’s amendment 75, but my amendment 255 introduces a requirement for ministers to review the current processing capacity and to outline action that will be taken to increase that capacity in order to strengthen the industry and promote Scotland’s venison supply, which I know is something that the Scottish Government supports.

Last month, at an agritourism roundtable, I met Lauren Houston of Glenkilrie Larder, which has a cook school. With funding from the Cairngorms 2030 programme and support from the National Lottery Heritage Fund, Lauren and her husband Andrew have donated more than 775kg of venison to 26 schools, nurseries and children’s events from their family farm near Blairgowrie. Lauren believes, rightly, that our young people deserve good food on the table and that venison is an option that should be on the school menu. Grass-roots enterprises such as Lauren’s are leading the way in putting venison on plates across Scotland, but they should not have to do it alone.

Together, amendments 254 and 255 would ensure that we have both the supply of venison, through improved processing capacity, and demand for it, through the encouragement of public procurement, which accounts for more than £130 million of food spend in Scotland annually.

To close my remarks for this group, I would like to read part of a poem written by Lauren, called “Care of Glenshee”:

I come from rolling hills and arable land.
I’d never seen anything so vast, so grand.
Glen of fairies a magical sight
Heather hill and rocky face
Grouse nesting and hares who race.
Stags roaring and lapwing overhead.
Oyster catchers in the brush,
Roe deer in a speedy rush.
Kites and buzzards fly above
In a landscape that they love.

Glenshee may look wild and free.
This is untrue I hope you can see.
The balance here not by chance,
It is work of hand not happenstance
Protection that often goes unseen
Keepers brave the dark of night
While you lie in your bed cosy and tight.
The farmer who works all hours of the day
For satisfaction, tradition but little pay.
Constantly told they harm not care
But in the same breath, people shout of the beauty everywhere.
Managed well and land will thrive.
It’s farmers and keepers who keep this glen alive.