Chamber and committees

I do not think that I have time.

Getting the balance between having a national or international focus and hearing the very real concerns of local communities is, at times, a thankless task. That is why I think that community ownership of wind power, and across all renewables, has to be a top priority.

I do not want people to feel that they have lost control of their land and their economic and sustainable development future to corporations from other places that are just greenwashing and providing less than a potential community benefit fund while extracting the maximum profit possible.

Community ownership means the full involvement of the entire community from the beginning of the process: from conception to planning to development. It means the full financial benefit of renewables development flowing to local communities, rather than just a small portion of the income.

Dumfries and Galloway has 47 community or locally owned projects funded under the community and renewable energy scheme. Those are not only wind farms but projects that are harnessing the potential technology of anaerobic digestion and biogas from the agricultural sector, creating the potential to hook up households off the gas grid or to create district heating systems. I am interested in how we can pursue anaerobic digestion to support our dairy farmers across the South Scotland region.

I hope that the £8 million fund established by the Government will grow over the years, empowering communities across the south and the whole of Scotland, and building a future that ensures that our communities and the people of Scotland have a direct stake in, and get a direct benefit from, the net zero society that we are bringing to fruition.

I will be really brief. I apologise, Presiding Officer, I pushed the wrong button.

Does Sarah Boyack think that anaerobic digestion of dairy farm by-products and co-products, which generate a lot of heat, could be part of what we need to look at to support agriculture in getting to net zero?

I thank Elena Whitham for securing the debate. She has outlined well how the Common Ground Forum was set up and how it is working. The debate is also very timely, given that the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, of which Ms Whitham and I are members, is scrutinising the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill, part of which focuses on updating the deer management legislation.

Deer are a keystone species and help shape our ecosystems. Light grazing can keep in check competitive plant species, allowing plant diversity to thrive. In addition, microhabitats are created when deer disturb ground with their hooves and fertilise the soil with their dung. However, a high density of deer causes problems; indeed, the Wildlife Scotland Trust has said that these “gentle gardeners” can become “metaphorical bulldozers”.

In my South Scotland region, as in other rural areas, we have a specific deer management group; in my case, it is the Galloway and Dumfriesshire deer group. I spoke to the chair of the group yesterday and will be meeting him and the vice-chair on Friday to discuss deer management issues, specifically lowland management needs and the differences with highland or upland needs.

I agree with the deer group chair that deer management is not just a rural issue. We have witnessed more deer in peri-urban and even urban areas, causing damage in residential areas and to gardens. Of course, there are issues on our local roads, too, with larger fallow deer colliding with vehicles, causing severe accidents and damage to those vehicles—or even writing them off.

The local deer group brings together a variety of stakeholders, with the aim of ensuring the safe and sustainable management of our different species of deer to help address overgrazing and to promote biodiversity and a healthy natural environment. People often cite conflict over how we best use and manage the finite resource of land, but when we think about the interests of conservationists, rewilders and the agricultural sector, the fact is that conflict is not always inevitable. We need to find a way of managing and resolving any conflicts that arise and bringing together everyone with an interest in this issue, and the work of local deer management groups and the national Common Ground Forum that Elena Whitham has praised in her motion and speech is crucial to that holistic approach.

One example of joined-up working is happening on Jura and Islay, in Jenni Minto’s constituency, where locally sourced venison is now on the dinner menu at six schools. It is an excellent way of reducing food miles and providing healthy, protein-rich meals, as has already been mentioned. Of course, school meals are free to all students in primary 1 to 5, thanks to the Scottish Government.

This is exactly why the Scottish Government is funding projects such as the larder and chill facility at Barwhillanty near Castle Douglas. The costs to the Government are relatively small—in this case, around £20,000—but the potential benefits to the local community can be huge, including reducing the dependence on meat from further afield, reducing waste and keeping spending power in local communities. It is yet another string to the south’s bow with regard to its reputation for world-leading food and drink, and I want such projects to be extended further across the south. I therefore urge estates and anyone else involved in deer management to get the ball rolling by getting in their applications, so that we can see the innovation deployed on Jura being rolled out to our school students in places such as Dumfries and Galloway.

Capital funding for most pilot projects is aimed at developing the infrastructure for venison processing, storage and support, which is what we need for our local communities to turn deer management from a challenge into an opportunity. That support is also part of the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill that I mentioned earlier and which, if passed, will modernise deer management by implementing many of the deer working group’s recommendations on deer culling at a local and national level. Again, getting the various stakeholders around the table to work together on the issue will be key to striking a balance and ensuring that we promote biodiversity and the natural environment to its fullest extent.

I again thank Elena Whitham for lodging her motion and I commend the work being done in this area by the Common Ground Forum.

My questions are about annual reporting and review. The minister stated that it might be unnecessary to place an annual reporting requirement on the Scottish Government for something that is considered to involve a low level of crime, and on which it can already obtain statistics from the Crown Office. Indeed, it seems like that can be done pretty easily. What do you think about that? Does reporting need to be carried out every two or three years? Does such a requirement need to be in primary legislation? Could it be considered further in regulations?

It has been interesting to hear everybody’s comments so far. There are issues with the proposed changes to the aims of national parks. Confor’s submission says that it supports

“the clear inclusion of sustainable economic development of communities”,

and Scottish Land & Estates said that the bill

“could more explicitly reference jobs, housing, and the support of rural businesses”.

We have challenges in rural areas and we want to focus on retention, home building and sustainable economic development. I am interested in any views on the proposed changes in the bill to the statutory purposes for national parks. What will be the practical impact of the changes on your sectors? As I named Confor, I will go to Stuart Goodall first.

I would like to ask Sarah Cowie a supplementary question on byelaws. For example, there could be a byelaw to ensure that people put their dog on a leash for six weeks during lambing season to reduce livestock being attacked by dogs that are off leash and out of control. That might be an example of a byelaw that could be implemented in one national park versus another. Might that be beneficial?

Good morning, and welcome. It is still morning.

My question is about deterrence. You say that the bill would act as a deterrent, although Police Scotland and the COPFS have disagreed with that, and the bill does not require the Scottish Government to publicise the new offence. Can you expand your thinking about how the bill should act as a deterrent to dog theft?

You are saying that all the items that the bill proposes to obtain in order to report on specific issues need to be in primary legislation. What if the required information were to change? That would require primary legislation to be changed again.

The Employment Rights Bill is speeding through the UK Parliament. There was not really any broad consultation on it by the Scottish Government, owing to when it was introduced by the UK Government. Is the fact that it wasnae really consulted on widely in Scotland going to be an issue? Does that impact on devolved social care infrastructure, for instance? We have already started to talk about that.