Chamber and committees

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.

The cabinet secretary will be aware of the issues that local people, and we as local MSPs, have raised in Wigtownshire regarding the provision of rural maternity services.

Safety has always been my primary concern when addressing these matters. What assurances can the cabinet secretary give to our constituents in rural and more remote areas, such as the south-west region, regarding the provision of safe maternity services, and can he provide some feedback on the Government’s recent meeting with the local Galloway community hospital action group?

Good morning. Sandesh Gulhane touched on the issues involving criminal justice, health and assessment, and you spoke in your opening statement about the collaboration that is required between health, education and social care. We have had members’ business debates about eating disorders, which are also linked with neurodevelopmental conditions. I recently met the Dumfries and Galloway Ehlers-Danlos group, which identified the issue of co-existing and co-occurring conditions such as dyslexia and ADHD. I am thinking about eating disorders such as avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder. It is all very complex, which is why, I assume, there needs to be collaboration, co-working and all that engagement. I just want to highlight the complexity of everything.

I have a quick question that will pick up on your comments on stigma and helping to support people in the work environment. When I was an NHS educator, we used Turas, which is a digital training platform from NHS Education for Scotland. NES created and delivered a foundations of neurodiversity-affirming practice webinar in 2023. That is recommended for all health and social care staff, but the organisation does not seem to be tracking whether that has been delivered or what numbers have received the training. It is fair enough to recommend that as a starting point for all staff, but does that mean that it is being delivered to all staff?

The training is a great way of creating a neuro-affirming work environment so that people who are clinical educators—as I was—can understand what works best for people who might be autistic or might have ADHD. Is there a way of finding out how that training is being delivered by health boards?

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. It looks as though my app did not connect for that vote. I would have voted no.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I couldnae connect, and I would have voted no.