Chamber and committees

Amendment 288 requires Scottish ministers to produce a report on moorland, which must include specifying what proportion of land in Scotland is moorland, the rate of moorland habitat loss broken down by region, the land uses that are replacing moorland and the consequences of that. This amendment was previously lodged to the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill but fell, and, to address the criticism of that specific amendment, amendment 288 includes a definition of moorland.

The amendment is drawn from a study that was produced by the Heather Trust, which I hope the minister has been able to look at. It found that, overall, heather moorland the size of Birmingham is lost every year in the UK. The research shows that nearly 6,700km² of moorland in Scotland was lost between 1990 and 2023, compared to just over 600km² in the same period in England, which is quite a stark comparison.

The study also highlights that moorland is being replaced by grassland and woodland, particularly woodland in Scotland, or tree planting—however you want to describe it—and that there is likely to be an additional pressure on moorland habitats from further expansion of woodland in the future. Crucially, the report found that there is a lack of data about what is replacing moorland, which is what amendment 288 is all about.

Amendment 334 would amend the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 to prohibit energy developments in sites of special scientific interest. NatureScot says that SSIs are

“those areas of land and water that we consider best represent our natural heritage”

and they include flora, fauna, geology and geomorphology. There are more than 1,422 SSIs covering around 1 million hectares of land in Scotland.

Rural areas such as my constituency in the Scottish Borders are facing the brunt of energy developments, including battery energy, energy storage systems, wind farms and, most recently, proposals for 75km of megapylons. Those proposed developments can be huge and they include some that would be as big as villages or even towns. Their impact is equally large, as they risk harming the countryside in the Borders and other areas of Scotland and causing natural habitats to be lost for good. Local communities already understand those risks and have been working hard to highlight them to Government ministers, planning officials, and energy companies.

Groups such as Action Against Pylons: Scottish Borders Alliance, which is formed of nine local community action groups, have done brilliant work to highlight the impact that the proposals for pylons would have on the environment, including concerns about landscape integrity, wildlife disturbance and the cumulative impact of energy developments. Sadly, however, the groups and residents in the Borders feel as though their concerns are being ignored by the Scottish Government. Amendment 334 would ensure that Scotland’s much-loved natural heritage remains protected against the out-of-control energy development proposals in the Borders and across Scotland.

I want to make a couple of comments about Ariane Burgess’s amendments. I am not clear about the definition of rewilding in amendment 67. Land is managed for more reasons than just rewilding, and designating land as being for rewilding would preclude multipurpose management of that land.

I am sympathetic to amendment 303, because it is important that we tackle non-native species. However, allowing NatureScot to have access to the land would be fraught with operational challenges and difficulties, and it might erode the collaborative approach to land management. In the past, when I was on this committee and working on land use legislation, that was a huge concern.

Will the cabinet secretary work with me to make the amendment competent?

I tried to work in a way that would—I will not say “please” the Government—attract the Government to the amendment. As I said in my opening remarks, it was noted that there was no definition of moorland. Moorland is a hugely significant land type in Scotland. At the moment, I am being told by people who do not own land and who live in villages that enjoy moorland that there is no management of moorland. The Government owns lots of moorland. It is specific and unique. Gillian Martin, the minister, will know that, because she will have enjoyed walking over moorland. The definition provided in my amendment sets out why such moorland habitats should have a specific strategy. The Government could benefit from the amendment in a way, because it would allow the Government to set out its intention for a land type that is hugely important to environmental benefits in Scotland.

Will Mark Ruskell take an intervention?

Ash Regan, you must have been pleased that the minister supported the general principles of the bill on the criminalisation of purchasing sex. However, when I read the Official Report of last week’s meeting, I saw that the minister also went on to make significant excuses, let us call them, about why she would not go on with the bill, which were about time, and how the police would deal with the offence operationally. She brought up the introduction of operation begonia, the violence against women strategy and the equally safe strategy. She brought up the fact that the Government is tackling societal issues such as poverty and addiction.

As you have said, the minister had a bill ready on paper and you had it ready on paper when you were a minister, so why did the Government not really commit to making women safe and work with you on the bill within the timeframe that you have?

Would the member licence feral pigeons?

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

I get that, and obviously “game” has a wide definition. However, specifically with regard to common pheasants or red-legged partridge, game shooting is part of that, and it is worth a huge amount—£760 million—even if we break that down and look at the amount that relates to pheasant shooting in comparison with other game-shooting activities. To be honest, most of the red deer are controlled by Forestry and Land Scotland, which is not part of the shooting aspect.

It is not non-native species in all game shooting.

As I said to the member, it is irrelevant whether we break that impact down; the member should have done that in the first place in order to prove that her amendments would have less of an impact than the loss of £760 million to the Scottish economy. Game shooting is important to rural tourism and rural jobs, and the member has set out an ideological position—I am really surprised that Labour and the Greens are coming from that point of view. Those amendments would, in effect, ban pheasant shooting.

The major pylon infrastructure project across the Borders, which Christine Grahame cited, is causing much angst among residents of the area. One of the key concerns that they have is that the Scottish Government overturned planning application decisions in 99.9 per cent of situations. If that continues and the amendment is not accepted, what other measures or means are there for constituents to have their concerns heard in this place?