Chamber and committees

Minister, that is—

Shall I wind up?

It is all very well talking about strategic reviews and all the other work that will be done in relation to the land use strategy, but we are in a storm at the moment. A lot of MSPs have lodged amendments to try to reflect the importance of land use through the lens of the natural environment. As the convener said, the bill is called the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill, so we have lodged amendments on issues that are affecting the natural environment. I do not buy the idea that the Government will produce strategies that will have an impact in protecting food-producing land or land of significance within the expected timeframe.

This week, NESO has made its views known on major pylon infrastructure. Battery storage facilities, solar farms, wind farms are all ready to be connected, and there has been a proliferation of speculative planning applications. That is all going on at the moment. There does not seem to be any structure to the energy strategy with regard to protecting land for food production.

My amendment 287 calls for a review of the impact of wildfires on biodiversity and a review of the provision of fire services in rural areas. It also requires the Scottish Government to publish data on the volume of greenhouse gases that are released as a result of wildfires.

Scotland has experienced 250 wildfires this year, which is a sharp increase from previous years. Earlier this year, 90 wildfires burned across one weekend alone. Not only are wildfires dangerous and destructive; they are also a major contributor to greenhouse gases. The Fire Brigades Union has previously warned that the service is struggling to cope with wildfires, and has said:

“They’re very, very resource-intensive incidents—which with climate change will only get worse.”

It is important to recognise the role that the private sector plays in wildfire management. During the devastating Carrbridge and Dava wildfire, rural businesses, working alongside the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, provided nearly £4 million-worth of equipment and 110 volunteers, 83 of whom had direct experience in land management and fire control. That expertise is invaluable, and I welcome recent engagement from the Scottish Government on the issue with industry members and elected representatives. I attended a meeting, alongside the minister.

However, there is still a long way to go. My amendment 287 also introduces an assessment of fire provision in rural areas, which reflects the concerns of my constituents in Hawick, who are potentially facing a partial closure of their fire station. If the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service’s proposals go ahead, they will have a clear impact on people’s safety in the Borders. Amendment 287 looks to ensure that rural Scotland has the resources and understanding to tackle wildfires and rural fires.

If the control scheme is, as you say, voluntary and somebody is being asked to carry out control because of a land management plan to protect the environment or biodiversity, does the minister not believe that that will lead to conflict, rather than the current way of working, which is collaborative?

Will the minister give way?

Okay.

Amendment 233 would introduce a requirement for local authorities to manage deer on their land, as part of which they would have to consult Transport Scotland and BEAR Scotland regarding safety on roads. They would also have to publish a report on the number of road traffic accidents involving deer, which would, I believe, answer the question as to whether the current interventions—for example, warning signs—work, and how effective such interventions are in reducing collisions.

An estimated 1,850 collisions involving traffic and deer have occurred every year in Scotland since 2016, and NatureScot highlights that May and June are the highest-risk months for collisions. I declare an interest in respect of this amendment, because, in October 2021, my daughter had a very bad car accident involving a deer. The car was a write-off and she had significant injuries. NatureScot admits that recorded deer-vehicle collisions are likely to be underestimated, as they are underreported. I know that, too, because a friend of mine had a collision that was equally distressing but he did not report it, because there were no significant injuries.

It has been estimated that more than £17 million is spent in the UK every year on vehicle repairs because of deer collisions. My amendment would improve road safety and save money for the national health service, but it would also improve workforce productivity because it would ensure that people did not take time off work. As I said, it would help local authorities to respond with appropriate measures.

But that is voluntary at the moment.

Has the Scottish Government conducted any research into the impact of mandatory training on lowland deer management?