Chamber and committees

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I will finish my final sentence. Does the minister agree that the lack of a fair multi-annual funding settlement from the UK Government represents the biggest impediment to our ability to increase our support for and investment in Scottish agriculture?

Amendment 347, in my name, relates to the role of the tenant farming commissioner in preparing codes of practice to encourage and promote good practice in the sector. I thank the Scottish Tenant Farmers Association for all the support and advice that I have been given in relation to the bill ahead of stage 2 and stage 3.

The Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2016 currently includes an illustrative list of topics that the tenant farming commissioner may make provision for in the code of practice. My amendment seeks to add two topics to that list. The first relates to the resumption process, which is relevant to both agricultural holdings and small holdings. In the context of the resumption process, a landlord may seek to resume land for specific purposes, such as building houses, roads or infrastructure, or for environmental or conservation projects. I highlight that so that folks are clear about what “resumption” means and how it relates to my amendment.

The second part of my amendment relates to the process whereby a landlord of a 1991 act tenancy terminates a tenancy through what is known as an incontestable notice to quit, which is the formal notice that is served by a landlord to terminate an agricultural tenancy. Unlike a general, or unqualified, notice to quit, an incontestable notice is based on specific legal grounds and does not allow the tenant to automatically challenge it by serving a counter-notice. As the discussions on the amendments in this group demonstrate, such notices can be contentious.

There is widespread anecdotal evidence that codes of practice are not being followed. Currently, however, the tenant farming commissioner can investigate only if a formal complaint is made by a landlord or a tenant. The STFA has asked me to raise the issue and to ask whether the cabinet secretary would respond to the STFA’s request to keep under review the ability of the tenant farming commissioner to investigate breaches of the code of practice in a self-appointed way if the commissioner has reason to believe that codes of practice are not being followed. It would be appreciated if the cabinet secretary would comment on that in her closing remarks.

Again, the purpose of the amendment is to modify the illustrative list of matters in section 27 of the 2016 act that the tenant farming commissioner may make a provision about in a code of practice. Codes of practice play an important role in this area, and would be of great assistance to tenants and landlords alike. I ask members to support amendment 347.

Thanks, Presiding Officer.

I thank Douglas Ross for his intervention. If we are looking at potential stage 2 amendments, that might be something that the member can address, in order to clarify what the concerns about NatureScot are. Any member could take that forward if they so choose.

Stakeholders expressed concern about the powers that would be applied. The committee recommends that the criteria for intervention under proposed new section 6ZB of the 1996 act should be clearly set out in the revised deer code, which should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Transparency and collaboration are key. Deer managers have built trust through voluntary efforts, and we must preserve that relationship. Clear guidance, robust data collection, especially in lowland areas, and inclusive decision making will be essential.

We have heard about the promotion and consumption of venison and combined venison and pork products, which is already under way in some areas, and about good examples of that taking place in primary schools on Jura. I believe that NHS Dumfries and Galloway is also adding venison products to its menus.

I will quickly address the process for establishing new national parks. The bill proposes reforms to the aims and governance of national parks. Although I support those changes, in my South Scotland region, the experience from the Galloway national park proposals, which did not proceed, highlights the need for a more inclusive and transparent process. Strong local feelings for and against the proposal were expressed, and concerns were raised about land use restrictions and governance, and the fact that Dumfries and Galloway is a high food-producing and economically important area in the south-west Scotland region.

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government has had any initial response from the United Kingdom Government in relation to the letter sent to the Minister of State for Food Security and Rural Affairs on 22 October regarding the fishing and coastal growth fund. (S6F-04404)

Some of the challenge in deer management comes from the differences between Highland and lowland deer management. My understanding is that the code of practice could be developed only if it allowed flexibility for different practices to be enabled in Highland and lowland deer management processes.

I do not think that I have time.

The committee rightly called for clearer guidance on how national park plans will be implemented and how competing aims such as conservation, recreation and economic development will be balanced.

The bill is a turning point. It gives us the tools to restore nature, manage our landscapes responsibly and engage communities in shaping their futures, but we need more than legislation; we also need collaboration, clarity and commitment. I support the principles of the bill, because Scotland’s nature deserves nothing less.

Thank you for being generous, Presiding Officer.

As a member of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, I welcome the opportunity to speak on our stage 1 report on the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill. I thank the committee clerks, all the witnesses who contributed by giving us evidence and, of course, the bill team and Government ministers. This legislation presents a vital opportunity to address the nature emergency and biodiversity loss in Scotland through statutory targets, improved deer management and the reform of our national park system.

I will begin with the issue of biodiversity and habitat targets. Scotland’s biodiversity is in decline, as we have already heard this afternoon, and wading birds such as curlews, lapwings and oystercatchers are emblematic of that crisis. Their wetland, moorland and grassland habitats are under huge pressure from land use change, climate impacts and predation. That is why many species are already red listed.

Since February, I have worked with a local farmer in the Glenkens area, and with other concerned stakeholders, to seek and to deliver ways of addressing the reduction in those iconic birds, and we now have a good network of people who wish to be included in action that is taken forward.

I have been the nature champion for the natterjack toad for almost 10 years now, and I am the small ponds and lochs champion, too. As part of being a nature champion, I have witnessed for myself the vulnerabilities of our habitats in my South Scotland region.

The committee’s report is clear that voluntary approaches have not delivered. Our report states:

“The Committee agrees that the rate of nature loss in Scotland over recent decades ... is deeply concerning. The voluntary approach to biodiversity targets taken to date has not managed to halt or reverse biodiversity declines.”

I therefore support the introduction of statutory targets, but they must be more than aspirational. They must be actionable, measurable and backed by resources. Our committee report notes that

“targets in themselves are not a ‘silver bullet’”—

the convener mentioned that, too—and it adds that,

“whether statutory or not ... they must be accompanied by meaningful actions, and reinforced by sufficient public resources, in order to ensure they are achievable.”

The bill sets out three mandatory target areas under proposed new section 2C of the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004. They are

“the condition or extent of any habitat ... the status of threatened species”—

there has already been discussion about that language this afternoon—and

“the environmental conditions for nature regeneration”.

That is a strong foundation.

Our report highlights that

“Scottish Ministers may also set targets in relation to ‘any other matter relating to the restoration or regeneration of biodiversity as they consider appropriate’.”

It may be an action for the Scottish Government to include species-specific indicators, which could include breeding success rates for wading birds. That could ensure that our targets reflect ecological realities and guide effective interventions, although any action must not be applied in a siloed way.

My next point is about part 4 of the bill, on deer management. Others have mentioned that already, but I believe that it is an important topic to highlight, particularly in relation to lowland areas. Scotland’s deer population, although iconic, is increasingly problematic. In lowland and peri-urban areas, deer are contributing to habitat degradation and agricultural damage; they are even a cause for road safety concerns. Alasdair Allan mentioned Scotland’s tenant farmers, and I have been working alongside them to highlight the impacts of deer encroaching into their unimproved land and their property.

The committee heard that the current powers are insufficient to address those challenges. The bill seeks to introduce a new nature restoration criterion under proposed new section 6ZB of the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996, which would allow NatureScot to intervene where deer are impeding biodiversity recovery. That is a welcome step.

The recent funding announcement is yet another example of a UK Government that does not understand or care about our fishing and coastal communities.

Fishing is a hugely important contributor to the local economy in south-west Scotland, including in Kirkcudbright, where landing and processing take place. Given that, and given the pressures that the sector faces, which range from proposed cuts to quotas to dealing with the on-going impacts of Brexit, does the First Minister agree that the deal, which is an insult to and betrayal of Scotland and our fishing sector, cannot stand and must be reconsidered? What further steps will the Scottish Government take to protect and support the Scottish fishing sector?

It is on the back of Beatrice Wishart’s question and is on ownership of owner-occupied crofts. Currently, there is no explicit restriction on who may own an owner-occupied croft, so it includes natural persons, which are people, and non-natural persons, which might be companies, trusts or partnerships. Section 10 introduces a new legal restriction that is aimed at limiting ownership of owner-occupied crofts to individuals only. The intention is to ensure that owner-occupied crofts continue to be held by individuals, who can then fulfil the aims of cultivation, agriculture, food production and so on. I would be interested to hear your thoughts on that section.

I am thinking about the openness and transparency around who owns the croft and who owns the land in Scotland. Transparency International has done some work on the step-by-step process of finding out who own a piece of land. I am thinking that the intention is that it is a person, not an entity in the Cayman Islands. That is a statement, not a question.