Official Report 1214KB pdf
The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-19422, in the name of Gillian Martin, on the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill at stage 1. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now.
14:30
I am very pleased to open today’s debate on the general principles of the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill. This Parliament has a long and proud record of championing nature, biodiversity and wildlife. I thank the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee for its comprehensive scrutiny of the bill, and everyone who gave evidence at stage 1. I also acknowledge the stakeholders whom we met in Government during the development of the bill, whose contributions have helped to shape our approach.
I welcome the committee’s recommendation that Parliament supports the general principles of the bill. Although I look forward to hearing members’ views on how the bill can be improved and strengthened at stage 2, I hope that we can reaffirm that commitment today by supporting the general principles of the bill and recognising the urgency of the crisis that it seeks to address.
Let me begin with a stark statistic. I invite everyone to think about what this really means. Last year, PricewaterhouseCoopers estimated that more than 55 per cent of the world’s gross domestic product is dependent on nature—that means that more than half the world’s economic activity relies on healthy ecosystems.
People often talk about how lucky we are to live in Scotland, and of course they are absolutely right—just look at our magnificent landscapes and coastlines, our lochs, glens and forests, and our iconic species such as the golden eagle and the Scottish wildcat. Beneath that beauty, however, lies a troubling truth: biodiversity is in crisis, both globally and at home.
Across the world, 1 million species face extinction in the coming decades unless we act now. That is not just a distant issue happening elsewhere. It is happening on our doorstep, with one in nine species already threatened here in Scotland. Since 1994, monitored species have seen an average 15 per cent drop in numbers. There is no doubt that nature is at risk, and that threatens lives, habitats, the balance of our natural world and the sectors, communities and economies that rely on it.
The nature and climate emergencies are deeply intertwined. Nature regulates our climate, and the climate impacts on nature. The natural environment brings huge benefits to our human health and wellbeing—for example, cleaning our air and water, storing harmful carbon, and reducing flooding. The World Economic Forum recently ranked biodiversity loss as the second-highest global risk over the next decade, just behind extreme weather.
We cannot afford to treat nature as an optional extra. It is the foundation of our health, our economy and our life-support systems. Every part of our natural environment plays a role in supporting the systems that we depend on, from the tiniest microbes to apex predators. That intricate web of life underpins the industries that sustain us, providing food, clean water, energy, shelter and even medicines. Protecting and restoring nature is not just about conservation; it is about doing what is right for the good of us all.
Scotland’s natural environment is part of who we are. It sustains our communities, defines our place in the world and makes our communities resilient. By safeguarding it, we honour our responsibility to future generations and preserve the landscapes and the wildlife that make Scotland thrive. At the same time, we are securing the foundations of our economy and wellbeing, including sectors such as farming, fishing and forestry, which are deeply dependent on the health of our ecosystems. In Scotland, natural capital supports £40.1 billion in economic output and more than 260,000 jobs, from tourism and recreation to food and drink. We know that many sectors depend directly on nature.
Nature is not just an economic asset; it is a public health necessity, with access to nature improving mental and physical wellbeing. For example, studies show that children in deprived areas who spend just 60 minutes a day in nature have a 50 per cent lower risk of mental health issues than others. We now know just enough about biodiversity to understand that removing even small pieces of the puzzle can have unpredictable and cascading effects.
Turning to the legislation, I want to be clear that the bill is not a stand-alone measure. It builds on the biodiversity strategy that we published last year, which sets out a long-term vision to halt biodiversity loss by 2030 and restore nature by 2045.
That strategy is supported by six-yearly rolling delivery plans, including our commitment to protect 30 per cent of Scotland’s land and seas for nature by 2030, with the first suite of nature 30 sites already announced. It also includes expanding and enhancing nature networks, in partnership with local authorities and other stakeholders, to deliver ecological, social and economic benefits, and supporting restoration through our £65 million nature restoration fund, which has funded nearly 800 projects since 2021. Those are transformative actions, but we need the legislative tools to match our ambition.
The bill is the next critical step. It places a duty on ministers to set statutory nature restoration targets; it modernises the aims and powers of national park authorities; it reforms deer management; and it creates a bespoke power to update environmental impact assessments and habitats legislation, addressing a gap that was left by our exit from the European Union.
The cabinet secretary will be aware that, during the committee’s scrutiny of the bill, stakeholders expressed concern about part 4, which provides more powers to NatureScot, given the potential conflict of interest that might arise in that regard. Does she understand that there is growing concern that NatureScot is often subject to conflicts of interest, given its role as an authority that looks after species numbers and its role as one that gives out licences to control species numbers? Can we consider that as the bill develops?
The bill is not designed to define the role of NatureScot, but I am happy to take on any considerations or feedback from any member who has specific issues around conflicts of interest. If the member has specific examples of what he means by conflicts of interest, he is most welcome to write to me with them.
We will, no doubt, get into the detail of the committee’s report and its recommendations as we debate the bill today, but there is one part in particular that I would like to address now. Although it is generally supportive of the approach in parts 1, 3 and 4 of the bill, I recognise that the committee raised issues about the extent of the delegated power taken in part 2 and the concerns that were raised by environmental non-governmental organisations that the power could be used to dilute environmental protection.
Let me be absolutely clear that the Scottish Government is unequivocally committed to protecting our environment, and the bill has not been designed to dilute environmental protection.
Will the member take an intervention?
I will finish this point and then take the member’s intervention.
Part 2 is designed to address a legislative gap that was left by EU exit and to complement existing but limited powers. Without that bespoke power, vital regimes such as the habitats regulations risk becoming static and outdated. That said, I have heard the concerns and I am listening. My officials and I have been engaging with stakeholders, and I am committed to bringing forward stage 2 amendments to strengthen the safeguards around the future use of the power.
That is a very useful update from the cabinet secretary, because it concerns a key issue. Many organisations are deeply worried about the possibility that we could inadvertently reduce our environmental standards and impact on nature safety. We look forward to seeing those amendments, because we are all looking at potential amendments to address that problem.
The reason why I wanted to finish the point before I took Sarah Boyack’s intervention was because I wanted to stress that I am listening and am thinking of lodging my own amendments in relation to the issue. However, as Sarah Boyack knows, I am also keen to talk to members about how the bill can be strengthened.
The point was made that we cannot rely on the current Government or flavour of Administration. We need to make sure that, in the event of political decisions being made for this country by people in Government who do not share our views on nature protection, we protect nature against any future Government’s overturning of protection for nature.
I am keen to hear members’ views in this debate on how part 2 can be improved and ensure that the Parliament is sending a strong and united message to everyone that we are in support of the bill. It represents the next step in our journey to become nature positive by 2030 and to restore and regenerate biodiversity by 2045. It is ambitious and necessary, but it is only one part of the wider effort that we must make across Government, sectors and society.
I want to deliver an effective bill. I am listening to proposals that will strengthen it, and I am committed to working with stakeholders and members across the chamber to ensure that it delivers the change that our natural environment urgently needs.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill.
I remind members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons.
14:41
I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee to set out the findings of our stage 1 report. The committee began its scrutiny of the bill in March, when we issued a call for written evidence. We also held 12 evidence sessions between March and June, hearing from a range of stakeholders and three Scottish Government ministers.
We went on a fact-finding visit to Cairngorms national park, where we held a community engagement event and visited three estates that take different approaches to land management. The committee also held an online engagement event with deer practitioners to discuss part 4 of the bill.
On behalf of the committee, I thank all the stakeholders, some of whom are in the gallery today, who supported our considerations of the bill and the hard work of the clerks and the Scottish Parliament information centre.
Throughout our stage 1 scrutiny, the committee heard concerning evidence about the scale of biodiversity loss that has taken place in Scotland over recent decades. The “State of Nature” report has assessed that one in nine species in Scotland are at risk of national extinction.
We agree with the Scottish Government’s intention to introduce statutory nature targets in part 1 of the bill as a way of galvanising a national response to tackling this nature emergency. We were also clear that statutory targets are not a silver bullet to protect the natural environment, and the Scottish Government will not meet targets unless they are underpinned by meaningful action and resources that support their implementation.
The committee also scrutinised the processes for setting and monitoring statutory targets, and we made a number of recommendations on how those frameworks could be improved. I welcome the commitment that the cabinet secretary made, in her response to our report, to give those points further consideration ahead of stage 2.
The committee was also supportive of the decision to appoint Environmental Standards Scotland to independently review the Scottish Government’s progress towards delivering statutory targets, but we agreed with the ESS that its role should be clarified and strengthened as the bill progresses. We were also clear that the ESS must have the necessary powers and resources to carry out its new functions effectively.
Turning to part 2 of the bill, on powers to modify environmental impact assessment legislation and habitat regulations, the committee heard strong opposition to that provision from most stakeholders, with many arguing that the proposed powers in part 2 were excessively broad and lacked sufficient environmental safeguards.
The committee made several recommendations about how those concerns could be addressed through strengthening environmental protections and enhanced parliamentary oversight. However, there remained in the committee significant mixed views about whether part 2 should be strengthened or simply removed altogether.
In her response to our report, the cabinet secretary indicated that the Scottish Government intends to introduce amendments that would tighten up part 2 and provide greater clarity on how those powers could be exercised. In her summing up, I ask the cabinet secretary to set out a bit more detail about what those amendments might look like.
Turning to part 3 of the bill on the management of national parks, the committee heard general support among most stakeholders for the bill’s proposals. However, there were some concerns about the revised aims for national parks and that they would not go far enough in addressing: some of the social and economic challenges that are faced by rural communities; the potential resource implications for public bodies in meeting their new requirements to “facilitate the implementation of” instead of “have regard to” national park plans; and how the use of fixed penalty notices would operate alongside the park rangers’ existing educational role, which is also vital.
On part 4 of the bill relating to deer management, much of the evidence that we received related to proposals to introduce new enforcement powers that would allow NatureScot to regulate deer management activities on a piece of land to support nature restoration. NatureScot told the committee about how new powers would enable it to mitigate the environmental impacts of wild deer more effectively. On the other hand, we heard strong concerns from the deer management sector about the lack of detail around how and when the new intervention powers would be used.
In weighing up both arguments, the committee considered that, although it would be helpful for NatureScot to have that proposed ground for intervention “in its toolkit”, those powers should be used to complement, not replace, the voluntary work of our deer management groups and stalkers, who already play a key role in controlling deer numbers in their local areas.
We were all clear that the Scottish Government must proceed with caution when rolling out new enforcement powers to avoid eroding the trust and collaboration that have been carefully built between NatureScot and deer managers in recent years.
The committee also agreed with expanding the role of the register of persons competent to shoot deer, but we want the Scottish Government to support non-certified stalkers with accessing the register through exploring the use of grandfather rights and referee schemes as a way of demonstrating baseline competence.
Finally, the committee heard mixed evidence on proposals in the bill to repeal the venison dealer licence. Although we support the Scottish Government’s ambitions to increase the supply of venison that enters the food chain, there were concerns about how the removal of the licence might impact on traceability. That information is crucial to consumer confidence in the venison industry and its produce. We recommended that the current licence scheme is maintained until the NatureScot deer app, which is currently in development, has been rolled out across Scotland and is able to offer a suitable replacement for the traceability that is currently provided by the licence.
The committee supports the general principles of the bill, but we also agree that improvements are needed if the bill is to be effective in achieving its core ambition of tackling the nature emergency in Scotland. We therefore hope that the Government engages constructively with our reports findings as the bill progresses to ensure that it is capable of delivering on that worthy aim.
14:47
I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests—I have a small farm up in Moray.
After an eventful week with the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, it is a welcome change to discuss the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill today. Before I set out my reservations about it, I emphasise that my concerns are not about the broad principle of enhancing and protecting our natural environment. I truly accept the importance of that, and I recognise and congratulate the many farmers, crofters and landowners who, through agri-environmental schemes, have been taking forward that approach for years. I am concerned about whether the bill is needed now, the way in which it is being introduced in respect of the rural sector, traditional values and food production, and its impact on local communities.
In an attempt to deal with the sections of the bill in order, I will start with biodiversity targets. By way of history, Scotland’s first biodiversity strategy—“Scotland’s Biodiversity: It’s In Your Hands”—was published by a Labour Government in 2004 and has been supplemented and revisited several times. Its original 2010 targets failed to be met. In 2013, the Scottish National Party Government produced the “2020 Challenge for Scotland’s Biodiversity”. The SNP managed to meet nine of the 20 targets in that but failed to meet the rest.
The SNP then produced the “Scottish Biodiversity Strategy Post-2020: A Statement of Intent”, which paved the way for the 2045 strategy, which was released in draft in 2022 and finally published in November 2024. To be honest, I had slightly lost the will to read any more about biodiversity strategies by that point.
Interestingly, the SNP website says that the SNP understands
“the need to take decisive action to conserve our precious and valuable marine environment and biodiversity.”
My word—if biodiversity is anything to go by, it is no wonder that independence is dead in the water.
Here in 2025—21 years of left-wing ideological Governments later—we are still debating the same old ground and are only now introducing statutory targets in a bill to hold ministers to account. That is not because farmers, landowners and NGOs, or anyone else, were not ready and willing; it is because the previous non-statutory approach undertaken by the Government has been a failure.
Targets will be only as good as the actions to deliver them, says one environmental non-governmental organisation. Where are the assurances that we need on that?
However, rural communities stand ready. For years, land managers, farmers, crofters, estate owners and local communities, in Scotland’s uplands and lowlands alike, have been willing to engage, support biodiversity objectives and integrate nature-friendly practices, while safeguarding food production, local economies and traditional rural values.
Part 2 of the bill was widely panned by those who came before the committee. The risk is that the extensive powers that are proposed in relation to environmental impact assessment regimes and habitat regulations, among other things, could lead to radical changes to protected sites. In their response to the stage 1 report, ministers say that they still wish to press ahead with part 2. I am not against that, but I fear that they may face an uphill battle in securing the trust of rural communities.
Part 3 of the bill looks to change the priorities for national parks and to impose a duty on public bodies
“to facilitate the implementation of National Park Plans”.
That is despite the fact that existing national parks in Scotland have never been comprehensively reviewed, and local people have raised various concerns regarding governance, economic impacts, land use and community rights.
I turn to part 4, on deer management. As drafted, it gives NatureScot extremely broad powers to intervene in how deer are managed, often on vague or undefined grounds. I believe that significant amendment will be needed to bring clarity and proportionality to those powers.
It is vital that NatureScot considers deer numbers and density in relation to their actual impact on the natural environment and avoids unnecessary interference with responsible land management. It will be vital to ensure that the grounds in the bill for any such intervention are tightened further.
The bill as drafted allows action wherever deer “prevent or reduce” environmental work. That strikes me as being too broad. The same applies to the broad scope that allows intervention based on Government targets, strategies and plans, when it should be clearly stated that intervention should relate to deer management.
The code of practice on deer management is a vital document for ensuring that ministers, NatureScot and land managers work together proactively. That should ideally have been produced and debated during stage 1, but I can at least recognise that allowing NatureScot to only have regard to the code is too weak. Surely, if a code aims to bring people together, NatureScot must have to comply with it, so far as is reasonably practicable, so that its decisions are transparent and consistent.
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 agree with that. There is a big difference between upland and lowland deer management, and it is essential that the code of practice recognises that and takes it forward. Ideally, though, we could have had that document earlier. It is a bit like what we had with the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Bill.
Several improvements could be made with regard to deer control schemes, amendments on which I will likely bring forward at stage 2.
I ask the member whether the urgency to have all that delivered before the stage 1 debate, when we still have stages 2 and 3 to go, is a bigger imperative for him than getting the bill right.
It is not—I accept that. It is not about not getting it right; it is about having all the information at hand early on, so that we can be sure that we are having the right debates and discussions as early in the bill process as possible. The same goes for the rural support plan, which—FYI—we are still waiting for.
The stage 1 report warned that the Government risks eroding trust in the deer management sector. I urge the Government to work to protect that.
I will quickly highlight the letter that the Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity sent this morning to the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, on grouse moor licensing schemes, which were agreed only recently under the Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Act 2024. The argument is that they are not working as intended. My understanding is that there is absolutely no evidence to support that at this point, and amendments such as those proposed risk potentially further broadening what is already a very broad bill and will require significant debate at stage 2. Although I recognise the minister’s right to do that, I hope that he is prepared to facilitate as much consultation and discussion as he can on that issue.
Although the Scottish Conservatives will support the principles of the bill today, we have some reservations about how it might progress. Our concern is that, without proper partnership, and respect for rural livelihoods and food security, the bill risks being a source of tension rather than collaboration.
14:54
I am pleased to open the debate for Scottish Labour and to give my support for the principles of the bill, but I also highlight that the gaps in the bill need to be understood and addressed. As we face the twin nature and climate crises, the bill represents an important step towards restoring Scotland’s natural environment and protecting it for generations to come. I thank the committee, the clerks, all those who gave evidence to the committee in advance of its making recommendations and the range of organisations that issued briefings on how we could strengthen the bill.
To start off, I think that the introduction of statutory nature recovery targets is a vital move, and it is one that I strongly support. That is because targets, when meaningful and properly implemented, can deliver action, focus investment and give clarity to communities. It is significant that three quarters of the Scottish public support legal targets for nature recovery. As RSPB Scotland said in its briefing,
“one in nine species ... are at risk of national extinction”
in Scotland, and we are
“one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world”.
If we are serious about halting biodiversity loss and reversing the damage that is being done to our land, coast and seas, we need clear, ambitious and measurable goals, because the decline in nature is on-going. We have had voluntary targets since the 1990s, so we need change.
Although I support the bill’s overarching ambition and many of the measures that are proposed, there are areas that need to be strengthened if we are to see tangible progress. We cannot afford slow implementation. The urgency of the nature crisis demands evidence-based policy intervention and clarity from the Government for our communities now.
I am proud to have been the minister to introduce our first national parks, and I know at first hand the importance of strong frameworks that empower local leadership while maintaining national consistency. I saw the transformative potential of local engagement in managing and restoring wildlife.
Will the member take an intervention?
Yes, if it is brief.
Does Sarah Boyack agree that we need to define what a national park looks like so that we can have a meaningful consultation with communities?
Defining boundaries is important, but it is also about giving national parks support so that they can fulfil their full potential to lead on nature recovery, sustainable development and community empowerment. Work needs to be done. I believe that ministers should publish a national parks policy framework, setting out a clear vision for how Scotland’s national parks can contribute to nature recovery targets and climate commitments. That should also include guidance for public bodies and officials on how to fulfil the new duty in the bill to seek to further national park aims.
We should ensure that enforcement is not the first response to minor byelaw infringements. We should emphasise education, community engagement and practical support, because our national parks are hugely important to the public. With the right vision and accountability, they can become leading examples of nature restoration, climate resilience, sustainable tourism and food production in action.
I stress that our approach to the nature targets must not overlook species. Achieving the goal of protecting 30 per cent of our land for nature by 2030 will need meaningful dialogue with our rural and island communities, because there are residents in the Highlands and Islands specifically who feel both that their land should be protected and that it should be their land. We have been debating that issue this week.
Scottish Labour is keen to propose amendments at stage 2. I am keen to amend the provisions on marine and coastal habitats, because those ecosystems are critical for our biodiversity and climate mitigation, but their ability to sequester carbon and build resilience depends on reducing the pressures that are caused by our activities. Our legislative approach must reflect the need for adaptation as well as mitigation, recognising that nature and climate policies are deeply intertwined.
I thought that it was interesting that, in her opening comments, the cabinet secretary reflected on part 2 of the bill, because it grants ministers sweeping enabling powers to amend the two cornerstone pillars of environmental protection—the habitats regulations and the environmental impact assessment legislation. The EIA regime covers numerous sectors, including agriculture, forestry, marine licensing, planning and flood management. It is concerning that, if we do not maintain the same standards, we could see them undermined. Stakeholders across the environmental and planning sectors have expressed deep unease about the breadth of those powers. Without robust safeguards, there is a real risk of regression in environmental standards, which we cannot allow.
I have been looking at the issue of having a non-regression clause to guarantee that existing protections will not be weakened, because the urgency of our nature crisis leaves no room for going backwards. I welcome the fact that the cabinet secretary is reflecting on the risks that have been raised by stakeholders and the committee, but we must ensure that the powers in part 2 of the bill will build public trust and not undermine accountability and decision making.
Through the bill, Scotland has the opportunity to show leadership, not only in setting nature recovery targets but in delivering them and demonstrating how democratic, inclusive policy making can result in good outcomes for people and our planet. In the past decade alone, 43 per cent of Scotland’s species have declined. This is a now issue, and the bill must deliver on its promise to set us firmly on a path to restore Scotland’s natural environment, protect our iconic landscapes and species, and empower communities to be at the heart of nature recovery.
With the right amendments providing stronger powers, the bill can help us to move from ambition to action, and I look forward to working constructively to ensure that it does that.
15:01
At long last, the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill has been introduced in the Parliament, and not a moment too soon, because we are deeper than ever in the nature emergency. We all know that Scotland’s nature is in crisis and that one in nine of Scotland’s species is at risk of extinction. Conservation of what we have left is important, but we need to move beyond drawing lines on maps. Now is the time for the biggest restoration of our land and seas in our nation’s history.
I am excited about what restoration means for species and habitats that will be able to connect, expand and thrive. I am also excited for people—especially a generation of young people—who deserve the opportunity to make their mark on our nation’s story, to help to restore and revive our land and seas, to plant and nurture the future and to shift Scotland’s environmental baselines up instead of down.
This is the moment to ensure that action for nature is given parity with the drive to achieve net zero. They are two sides of the same coin. That need for action should be reflected in the bill’s title. Arguably, it should be a nature emergency bill that is rooted in action and restoration, not only in conservation.
Green members are glad to see legally binding targets for nature recovery being introduced, which is what the Greens pushed for when we were in government. At the committee, we heard many supportive arguments for targets from academics, NGOs and the land management and infrastructure sectors. It is clear that a rudderless, voluntary approach has not worked—it has not brought the focus that is needed in a nature emergency.
Will Mark Ruskell take an intervention?
If there is time in hand, I will.
There is a brief amount of time in hand.
I will make a point on the biodiversity targets. Do you agree with Open Seas when it said in its response to the bill that targets are worth while only if the actions behind them are truly achievable?
Always speak through the chair.
Absolutely. That is exactly what my colleague Lorna Slater, when she was in government, was working on through the biodiversity strategy and the delivery plans, which are still to come through.
Targets are not a silver bullet. Multiyear finance is critical, as are those delivery plans, which need to flow from the targets that are being set in the bill. Although Scottish Greens want the target provisions in the bill, we think that they can and should go further. The targets need to recommit to our international obligations to restore 30 per cent of our seas and land by 2030.
There could not be more of a contrast between what is in part 1 of the bill and what is in part 2. As currently drafted, part 2 is wholly inappropriate for legislation that aims to tackle the nature emergency. How can the Government give it and all future Governments the power to water down European laws that have protected our nature from destruction for more than 40 years? The Government has said that it is committed to not using the part 2 powers in the short term, so why introduce such wide-ranging powers in the first place?
We know that there are sectors—from fish farming to agriculture to property development—that would love to strip away nature protections and gut environmental assessments. That is exactly what the United Kingdom Labour Government has enthusiastically started to do in England through the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. It must not happen here.
Witness after witness who came to the committee talked about how such laws are fundamental and vital to nature protection. There were huge concerns about the use of such powers to rewrite laws, especially given that there is no non-regression clause to act as a backstop against environmental destruction.
It was hard to find any evidence on how a weakened environmental assessment regime would speed up climate action on renewable energy. The current regime is clear and well understood by the sector and, as the case of Berwick Bank offshore wind farm shows, the Government already has more than enough latitude through consenting regimes to make choices. The Government simply has not come to the Parliament with any convincing reasons for why the new powers are needed.
It is time to hold on to our foundational nature protection laws. That is why the Greens are minded to try to remove part 2 of the bill when it returns to the committee—although I would welcome discussion with the cabinet secretary about how part 2 could be amended.
On part 3, which is on national parks, we support the bill’s intentions, especially the clearer focus that is needed from all public agencies to deliver democratically agreed park plans. If Scottish Enterprise had respected the park plan of Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park early doors, we might not have had the debacle over Flamingo Land.
It is a massive missed opportunity that all the benefits of national parks will now not be felt in Galloway. We need a review of national parks, which should cover the designation process, what they have achieved in the past 20 years and their current boundaries. It is clear that the Parliament should have a key role in that review.
On part 4, which concerns deer management, we are supportive of the Government’s intentions to finally implement the conclusions of the deer management working group. However, there is more that can and should be done. Deer overgrazing puts a huge limit on nature recovery and climate action. If we want to see thriving Atlantic rainforests, restored peatlands and better deer welfare, we need a modern system of deer management. Enhancing NatureScot’s powers further, so that it can act quickly when deer numbers get out of control, is critical, and it needs to use its new powers. There also need to be options to consider the roles of other public bodies, such as Forestry and Land Scotland, that could step into that role, should NatureScot fail.
The Scottish Greens will support the bill at stage 1, but the legislation must be fit for tackling the nature emergency. We will be looking for a wide range of changes and additions at stage 2. I look forward to working with the Government to address concerns and to make the bill fit for purpose.
15:07
I thank the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee clerks and all the witnesses and stakeholders who contributed to the stage 1 process.
The Scottish Liberal Democrats believe that more needs to be done to halt and reverse the decline of many of Scotland’s important species. We recognise that the climate crisis and biodiversity loss are not separate issues but are deeply intertwined. The Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill presents an opportunity for action—a chance to create legally binding targets for nature recovery, to modernise the regulatory framework for deer management and to restore ecosystems. For those reasons, the Scottish Liberal Democrats will support the general principles of the bill at stage 1.
However, there are several areas that could benefit from changes. My party and I are in broad agreement with the use of legally binding targets for improving biodiversity, although we should be wary of any unintended consequences. As the stage 1 report highlights, targets must be evidence based with robust data, and, as stakeholders have highlighted, the lack of explicit links to the marine environment is noticeable.
Although the bill requires the Scottish ministers to specify how progress towards targets is to be measured, further detail is needed on how they will ensure that targets are robust and that there is sufficient resource available. Targets are useful only when meaningful action is taken to deliver them.
Almost half of Scotland’s species have decreased in number since the 1970s. One in nine species in Scotland is at risk of national extinction—that is a sobering statistic. Invasive non-native species are one of the biggest drivers of biodiversity loss in Scotland, and the bill provides a chance to legislate for action to address that issue.
Non-native game birds, bred in captivity and released in large numbers, can cause damage to sensitive habitats and have been subject to several mass-mortality events that have been caused by highly pathogenic avian influenza—HPAI—in recent years. That poses serious risks to native wildlife. There has been an increase in releases of novel non-native species to sensitive island ecosystems, including in Shetland, where the impact of HPAI on wild birds is more serious than it is almost anywhere else in Europe. I understand that game birds released in Shetland might not even have been registered on the Scottish kept bird register, despite that being a legal requirement. Given that situation, I ask the cabinet secretary to consider the call for the Scottish ministers to have stronger powers to regulate the release of game birds. In addition, those who plant or manage woodland should take steps to reduce and mitigate the spread of non-native tree species.
The committee heard strong concerns from many stakeholders about part 2 of the bill. Stakeholders emphasised the importance of the environmental impact assessment legislation and the habitats regulations in protecting Scotland’s natural environment and biodiversity. I share their concern that the bill would provide very wide scope for those regimes to be amended by the Scottish ministers. Although our current Government may state that it has no intention of diluting or weakening environmental standards and protections, it cannot speak for future Governments. The law needs better safeguards, such as a non-regression provision, and there should be stronger parliamentary scrutiny. I note the call that some stakeholders made for part 2 to be removed entirely from the bill, and I look forward to seeing what the cabinet secretary brings forward at stage 2 to address those concerns.
I turn to the section on deer management. The intention to modernise the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996 is welcome. In some areas, increasing deer numbers and damaged habitats prevent nature restoration. The bill’s success will depend on working with those who undertake deer management, which is largely a voluntary process. Voluntary deer management is vital, and it is important that, when changes are introduced, the trust and consensus that have been built up in the sector are not affected.
To that end, it is important that we consider the concerns that the sector has raised. Deer management organisations have highlighted the lack of detail on how the new nature restoration grounds for intervention will be used in practice. The criteria are to be detailed in the deer code, but that is not due to happen until after the bill completes the parliamentary process. I echo the calls for the draft revised deer code to be ready for consultation as soon as possible, to enable stakeholders and parliamentarians to have sight of the proposals during the bill process.
Mandatory training requirements will have an impact on deer management practitioners and training providers. The Scottish Government must ensure that the training requirements are proportionate and that support is put in place for transition. That should include consideration of grandfather rights and other mechanisms, to avoid a loss of specialist skills and expertise in the sector.
On the repeal of the venison dealer licence, I reiterate the committee’s call for the current system to be maintained until the NatureScot app has been fully tested and rolled out, and for opportunities for expanding the wild venison sector to be explored.
Although the bill presents opportunities for action on climate and nature, improvements are needed, and I look forward to working constructively with the Scottish Government to that end.
We move to the open debate.
15:12
We should recognise at the outset that the bill before us today is the product of extensive and patient engagement by the cabinet secretary and her bill team, as well as work by the committee and its clerks.
The bill will support the on-going work of the Scottish Government and many other stakeholders across Scotland in tackling the twin crises of climate change and nature loss, which are issues that I am acutely aware of, as the nature champion for the great yellow bumblebee, and for many other reasons. Provisions in the bill aim to support the work that is already being undertaken by land managers, farmers, crofters, nature agencies, charities and the other stewards of our land to restore and protect the natural environment on which everyone in Scotland depends.
Other members have spoken, and will speak, about the first three parts of the bill, which cover targets for improving biodiversity, the environmental impact assessment legislation and the habitat regulations, and national parks. The provisions on those matters are all very positive measures, but I intend to concentrate my remarks on part 4 of the bill.
Part 4 is of particular interest to many of my constituents, as it relates to deer management. It includes provisions for controlling deer populations and addressing deer-related damage, along with measures to prevent harm and to enforce existing regulations. Specifically, the bill allows NatureScot to intervene in situations in which insufficient deer management is impeding projects or natural processes that serve to improve or restore the natural environment.
Another change to deer legislation is the removal of the need for a licence to deal in venison to stimulate the small-scale local venison market and make local venison more affordable and accessible. Scotland should certainly be promoting the wider sale of venison, given its quality and availability.
Excessive deer numbers often represent a significant threat to the livelihoods of tenant farmers and crofters through damage to crops, grazings, woodlands and habitats. Deer can also host ticks, which can carry a range of diseases that can infect humans and livestock.
Between them, tenant farmers and crofters manage about 35 per cent of Scotland’s agricultural land, including common grazings. Crofters and tenant farmers often live and work in areas of concentrated land ownership and, in some cases, have landlords with sporting interests. There can be tension between estates that want to keep shooting rights and tenants who have to deal with the damage that deer can cause if they are not controlled. I suspect that that will be a live issue as the bill progresses through the Parliament.
Under current legislation, occupiers of land, including tenant farmers and tenant crofters, have the right to cull deer only on improved land where deer damage occurs—not on unimproved land such as moorland, sea cliffs and hill grazings, which is the primary natural habitat for deer. In its final report, the deer working group therefore recommended that the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996 should be amended so that the statutory rights of occupiers to prevent damage by wild deer apply to any type of land.
Although I suspect that we will return to discuss that specific issue, I believe that the bill is a positive step for Scotland’s biodiversity, environment and rural communities, and I commend all sections of the bill to the Parliament.
15:16
The bill that is before us today is essentially the four-in-one result of several consultations that have been held from 2023 onwards. The broader issue of protecting and enhancing our natural environment finds some agreement around the Parliament, but it is clear that, since its initial publication, the bill has raised serious questions among stakeholders.
To turn to part 1, we welcome the focus on biodiversity, but, as the Scottish Government alludes to in its policy memorandum, we have had 21 years of strategy but little general improvement in Scotland’s biodiversity. Scotland’s capacity for action on restoring and improving biodiversity is perhaps greater than that of any other part of the United Kingdom, yet, in many ways, we have been left behind on the issue. However, we are not simply calling for pushing on. An effective and sustainable approach on biodiversity will need a Government that is realistic about the balance to be struck on its many competing objectives.
To take one example, the Scottish Government has recognised that Scotland is in a housing crisis. In my region, many people, particularly young people, find themselves priced out of housing. Despite that, the Government seems to be unable to do anything meaningful to put house building on track to address the shortage of supply. Regulation and additional costs have strangled a great deal of potential development that is not only positive but necessary. We do not want biodiversity requirements to become a hurdle or barrier to delivering desperately needed homes, and we cannot load yet more regulation on top of those objectives. We have seen how many metrics of biodiversity net gain have been utilised elsewhere, and the prospect of off-site delivery for developers can help to balance the competing needs of development and of enhancing the natural environment.
Equally, we must consider the balance with food production and agriculture. I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests as a partner in a farming business. As Tim Eagle hinted at, many farms have made great strides with biodiversity in recent years, but we have too often been left to proceed alone because of a lack of advice or co-operation from the Scottish Government. I recognise that significant biodiversity gains can be found in agriculture, but the approach simply cannot be another Government-directed mandate against struggling farmers.
Part 3 of the bill, which is about the management of national parks, gives a significant amount of focus to the use of fixed-penalty notices in order to enforce national park byelaws. Byelaws have not been used extensively by the national park authorities in the past, but they can be a useful tool in ensuring that those areas are used responsibly. We should perhaps not go too far in seeing that as a solution. The powers are already there to refer offences to the procurator fiscal and for fiscal fines to be issued to offenders after the event, alongside other potential disposals.
Although park rangers can issue FPNs under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, those powers are not regularly used, but, given those established powers and park rangers’ experience of issuing FPNs for other matters, mainly fly tipping and littering, the ability to enforce byelaws in that way would remove an anomaly in enforcement powers. That should lead to a wider question about enforcement and about what more could be done to ensure that those who use national parks do so in a way that is appropriate. We should be asking what resources are required to police those parks, protect their natural heritage and ensure that antisocial behaviour is constrained.
We are all aware that offences in national parks and other rural areas are going unpunished. Too often, a minority of people are causing significant problems, including starting dangerous fires that threaten to cause wildfires, undertaking damaging camping practices and causing issues with camper vans, particularly with waste disposal. I hear directly how those issues can have a huge impact in communities across the Highlands and Islands, so national park authorities, local authorities and the police will have to work closely to combat those.
Although the bill would enhance the legal powers that are available, it will be for the Scottish Government to ensure that those new powers are part of a package of measures that recognise the scale and extent of crime in national park settings and that appropriately resource efforts to tackle that.
Will the member take an intervention?
I will not, I am afraid.
Turning to part 4 of the bill, I am pleased that the Scottish Government has recognised that the current approach to deer management is not working, although the same could be said of the management of many other species that will not be given the same focus. There are continuing issues with greylag geese, hooded crows, great black-backed gulls and a range of damaging species for which management has visibly failed, meaning that livestock, crops and farmers pay the price.
Culling at scale is a necessary step and the bill recognises and addresses issues of biodiversity, but serious inroads on deer management are needed as part of that process. NatureScot believes that at least another 50,000 deer must be culled annually to meet biodiversity targets and, although that figure is widely disputed by many, achieving one is entirely unrealistic without the other. More than that, the impact of poor deer management is greater than the impact on biodiversity and on habitats. The effects on agriculture and the rising number of ticks that spread disease to animals and humans should concern us all.
I appreciate that a great deal of the impact will go beyond legislation, but landowners and those who are involved in land management are already pointing out that there is little clarity in the bill about how the new system will operate. Not least among those concerns are the calls for openness about the proposed new code of practice, in order to enable effective scrutiny. The Scottish Government should be worried when organisations such as the British Association for Shooting and Conservation are highlighting the potential for measures in the bill to reduce by half the number of deer stalkers as a result of more regulatory burdens being placed on their activities. Despite discussions held by the deer working group, it seems clear that there is a real need to build more effective relationships between the Scottish Government, NatureScot and stakeholders on the ground.
There are reasonable intentions behind bringing together several areas in one bill, but this bill fails to live up to what it suggests or to make a real impact on preserving and enhancing our natural environment. Some of its provisions are welcome, but it is clear that, should it pass stage 1 today, it will be up to the Scottish Government to ensure that those are successfully implemented. There is a risk that the bill will create biodiversity targets that do not work and that, instead, harm the Government’s other objectives. There could be new enforcement powers for national parks without offences being enforced and a new approach to deer management that leads to, or risks leading to, chaos in the sector. It is possible to avoid those outcomes, but that will require a level of commitment and engagement that the Scottish Government has, I am sad to say, not demonstrated so far.
I advise members that we have a bit of time in hand and that time taken by any interventions will be given back.
I call Emma Harper to speak for a generous six minutes.
15:23
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.
Emma Harper may have heard my intervention on the cabinet secretary regarding the concerns that were raised with the committee about the extension of the role of NatureScot under part 4 of the bill. In response, the cabinet secretary rightly said that the bill is not about NatureScot. However, does the member accept that this is perhaps our final legislative opportunity in the current session of Parliament to make some changes to NatureScot, for those of us who have concerns about its conflicted duties whereby it is in charge of preserving bird, deer and animal numbers and also in charge of the licences to control them?
I can give you the time back for the intervention, Ms Harper.
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.
Will the member take an intervention?
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.
15:31
I add my thanks to those who provided evidence to the committee on the bill and to the committee’s support staff, who helped us in our deliberations. Others have been mentioning that they are nature champions, so I need to name-check the wildcat, for which I am the nature champion. I also pay tribute to the work of the Highland wildlife park and the Royal Zoological Society of Scotland, which have done a huge amount of work on breeding wildcats in captivity and on reintroducing wildcats that have continued to breed in the wild. That is a good-news story, and I hope that we can continue to build on it.
As others have said, the bill has four distinct parts. Part 1—on targets—appears largely uncontroversial, albeit that it will need strengthening at stage 2. However, as others have said, part 2 has caused much greater concern to those who gave evidence. It gives the Scottish ministers unprecedented powers to modify environmental impact assessment legislation and habitats regulations.
Many of those who gave evidence were concerned that the powers were far too broad. Stakeholders argued that ministers already had powers to amend those regimes and that the existing powers work well and give enough flexibility for different features to be protected. They also said that existing powers allow for the alteration of designations for features that can no longer be protected or are no longer there, which is often due to issues outwith our control, such as climate change.
Those who gave evidence believe that the powers create the right balance and provide enough flexibility in any circumstance. The Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management told the committee that habitat regulations were more flexible than indicated by the Government, albeit that that flexibility was often underused. It gave an example from my constituency of the Mallaig to Fort William road upgrade, where there was a loss of oak wood in a special area of conservation. However, that was allowed because of the public interest in upgrading the road.
Others cited the flexibility that is contained in the Energy Act 2023, which has the power to make changes for renewables and electricity infrastructure. The keeping pace power that this part of the bill seeks to replace is due to expire and could be extended or replaced in a much more constrained fashion.
I am glad that the Scottish Government and the cabinet secretary, in her speech today, have acknowledged that there are issues with that, and that the cabinet secretary said that she will look at lodging amendments at stage 2. We look forward to seeing those amendments. As others have said, if amendments are not made, we might need to look to remove part 2 of the bill.
The issue about keeping pace is important. Does the member agree that one way to tackle that would be to ensure that the sunset clause in the continuity bill is removed, so that we in this place can continue to update European legislation that protects the environment?
That was one of a number of suggestions given to the committee, which will need to scrutinise the evidence. However, it is clear that something in the bill will have to change to provide that protection. We have an open mind as to how that happens. Our legislation needs to be future proofed and it is right for checks and balances to be in place.
Part 3 of the bill updates the aims of national parks. When Sarah Boyack was Minister for Transport and the Environment, I was on the committee that scrutinised the original national park legislation and, like her, I remember many difficult debates and negotiations that were needed to get the balance right for the aims of national parks. No one has given a substantial reason for the changes in the bill. I feel that, if legislation does not need to be changed for any particular reason, we should leave it as it is, because those aims have borne the test of time. I fear that any change may rebalance the aims and lead to conflict.
When we first introduced national parks, there was a clamour to have them in other areas, but that clamour seems to have disappeared. Indeed, the Government’s attempt to create another national park has failed. Instead of changing the aims, perhaps we should help our national parks to flourish, and look at whether our national parks are meeting our aspirations, with post-legislative scrutiny for example. Perhaps we should look at community aspirations for our existing national parks, which might encourage others to consider developing national parks in their areas.
Part 4 of the bill concerns deer management. If we manage deer properly, the investment that we put into natural forest regeneration may not be required because, if we remove deer pressure, forests will regenerate themselves naturally. However, we must reduce deer numbers. When we do that, animal welfare must be at the heart of it, because it is important that we do it properly and do not waste the venison that is created from the cull of deer. We have heard about initiatives in Jura and other places where venison is making its way into school meals and providing nutrition to our young people. We need to learn from that.
Scottish Labour very much welcomes the bill and will support it. However, we want to work with the Government on lodging amendments that will improve it in future, which I hope we can do at stage 2.
15:38
I thank everyone who took the time to give the committee evidence on the bill.
The bill is wide ranging, but I will focus on proposals for a fixed-penalty regime for national park byelaws, which comes under part 3. Many of my constituents live and work in Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park. It is a marvellous place, which provides many opportunities to engage with the natural world. If any member has not been there, please come. The park has more than 4 million visitors a year, so it is important to consider and manage the impact on those who live locally, as well as on the environment. Byelaws play an important role in that.
The Law Society of Scotland explains that byelaws can be used by national parks
“to protect their natural and cultural heritage, prevent damage to the land and secure public enjoyment and safety.”
Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Authority has had byelaws restricting camping on the banks of many of its lochs since 2017, and safety regulations for water activities at Loch Lomond since 2023.
The Cairngorms national park has introduced byelaws on fire management with a view to reducing the risk of wildfires. Education and engagement are at the fore of byelaw enforcement. Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Association explained to the committee that, when its rangers have conversations with visitors who are breaking byelaws, many are happy to adjust their behaviour and do the right thing. However, in 12 out of nearly 900 cases last year, that conversation did not work. Those cases were referred to the procurator fiscal, which is causing a huge administrative burden for the national park. Section 9 addresses that with an enabling power to introduce fixed-penalty notices for the enforcement of national park byelaws, which is considered to be a more efficient, effective and proportionate means of enforcement.
National park fixed penalties were quite uncontentious at committee, but the changes to habitat regulations in part 2 of the bill were very contentious. Does Evelyn Tweed think that it is telling that neither she nor Emma Harper nor Alasdair Allan mentioned that in the debate? Is that because there is nothing that can come forward that protects the habitat regulations?
No, that is absolutely not the case, but I thank Tim Eagle for his intervention.
Although the proposals have been welcomed, several stakeholders have expressed the need for caution. Scottish Environment LINK noted the risk of stricter enforcement within national parks displacing problem behaviour beyond the parks’ boundaries and creating a two-tier system. Many popular locations and important habitats lie beyond our national parks, so that is a concern. I am keen to hear how the Government will mitigate and monitor any unintended consequences that may arise.
I was pleased to hear the cabinet secretary describe the fixed-penalty regime as “supplementary” to the rangers’ role of engagement and education, but several organisations asked for guidance and monitoring to ensure that that remains the case. The committee seeks details on what guidance the Scottish Government intends to provide to NPAs as they formulate their approach. The maximum penalty is set at £500, and I note that the financial memorandum states that Loch Lomond and the Trossachs NPA proposed fines of around £80 and deemed that as an “appropriate” level for byelaw fines. However, the Law Society highlighted the need to ensure that there is consistency with other fixed-penalty schemes to ensure that the landscape is simple and does not lead to confusion among the public.
There has been a suggestion that a fixed-penalty regime could cover parking infractions, and I am keen to explore that further. Irresponsible parking in visitor hotspots is a huge issue in my area, and this summer saw serious overcrowding and reckless parking on verges at Loch Lubnaig and other areas. NPAs did not think that they had the key legal rights at present to make byelaws bite. I know that my constituents would welcome more enforcement powers in that area, and I ask the Government to work with the national park authorities on that ahead of stage 2 and to consider the role that local authorities and the police might have in the area.
On the whole, the committee heard support for that change, and I look forward to hearing how issues will be addressed at stage 2.
I support the general principles of the bill. For the record, I am also the nature champion for the rare azure hawker dragonfly.
We come to the final speaker in the open debate. Jackie Dunbar, you have a generous six minutes.
15:44
I am afraid that I am not going to need a generous six minutes, Presiding Officer.
I declare that I am the species champion for the sea trout.
One of my party’s favourite phrases is “Stop the world—Scotland wants to get on.” Fifty-eight years after that phrase was first spoken, although support for independence shows a healthy 10-point lead in the polls, the world is not in quite such a great place and is facing both climate and biodiversity crises. The bill is part of how Scotland will respond to those crises and how we will play our part in tackling global challenges across Scotland and in the communities that we represent. Basically, it is about how we think global and act local. Tackling the climate emergency is already a priority of our Scottish Government, but, increasingly, extreme weather is not just about sad polar bears up at the north pole; it is impacting on Scotland. We are seeing it in the likes of storm Arwen and “Hurricane Bawbag”, and we are also seeing it in floods and, for the first time in a very long time, water shortages in our country, where it often feels as though it just never stops raining.
Obviously, all of that is going to have an impact on our natural environment and, in turn, affect biodiversity across Scotland, even before we factor in the impact of what is happening in Scotland itself. Over time, agricultural activity, forestry, grazing—by farm animals and wild animals—peatland degradation, overfishing, invasive species and new building developments, whether for housing or for commercial uses, have all added to the strain that is being placed on our biodiversity. Scotland now ranks 212th out of 240 countries in the biodiversity intactness index, and 11 per cent of species in Scotland are at risk of extinction. That needs to change.
Today, I am pleased that it appears that we are going to come together as a Parliament and unite behind the principles that will enable us to improve the situation, so that we can have an ecosystem that is strong and stable. I am sure that, once we all agree that there should be targets for improving biodiversity, we can go back to fiercely debating exactly what those targets should be and how they should be measured and met.
There is consensus about the reason for having the bill. However, as my colleague Tim Eagle noted, every stakeholder, without exception, has suggested that part 2 would put nature at risk, yet we have not heard that from any of the Scottish National Party speakers. Can you set out why you think part 2 is needed and whether the safeguards that would be required are in place?
Through the chair.
I am sure that many amendments will be lodged at stage 2, Mr Carson, and I leave it to your committee—
Through the chair, please.
Sorry, Presiding Officer—I am just following what was said to me.
I am equally sure that, should any of those targets be missed, whoever is in government will have their feet held firmly to the fire by whoever is in the chamber between now and 2045. The bill contains headline targets to halt biodiversity loss by 2030 and to achieve restoration and regeneration by 2045, and we need to ensure that we hit them.
I will not touch on the issues of environmental assessments, national parks and deer numbers too much, because they have already been addressed somewhat. All of that is in the bill, and those issues play a part in the wider picture. Instead, I will talk about Aberdeen, the future net zero capital of the world—I will say that in every debate in which I get a chance to.
A few folk are probably wondering how much biodiversity Aberdeen, as a city, has apart from what we, in Aberdeen, call scurries—that is, seagulls, which I fear some folk want to see added to the extinct species list. If we are going to make a case to the world that Aberdeen is the best place for net zero expertise and that our city is a leader in the fight against climate change, we need to show that theme running through the north-east. We should demonstrate the benefits of tackling the climate and biodiversity crises. Net zero is not just about how we generate energy; it is about warm homes, clean air and protecting our natural environment.
Some folk see Aberdeen as an industrial city—a city of granite, concrete and tarmac—but our city is now changing. We no longer have diesel fumes lingering over Union Street, and we now have wildflowers growing in Union Terrace Gardens. Those are small changes, but they are changes that people can see, and I hope that they will encourage others to follow suit. If enough small changes are made, they can—and will—add up to something pretty big.
The biodiversity crisis affects all of us, and we all, including those of us with more urban seats, have to play a part in tackling it. The best thing that we can do just now is get the bill moving forward. I look forward to seeing the bill move forward, pass and make a difference by improving our nation’s biodiversity. I look forward to seeing Scotland play its part in tackling the global challenges of climate change and biodiversity loss. If everyone, everywhere, plays their part, we will have a better world. Save the world—Scotland still wants to get on.
We move to closing speeches. Lorna Slater has a generous six minutes.
15:50
It was an enormous privilege to be involved, as minister for biodiversity, in the early drafting of this bill, and I am glad to see it finally come to the chamber. There is so much potential here. Scotland has the aim of stopping nature loss by 2030 and of being on a path to nature recovery in the decades after that.
We have made a start in some areas, through the reintroduction of beavers, which are a keystone species; legislation to reduce herbivore numbers; the nature restoration fund; national planning framework 4, which considers biodiversity; and reforms to support farmers to improve soil health and adopt nature-friendly practices.
We are now only five years away from the point at which the Scottish Government has committed to stewarding Scotland towards a future of nature abundance and diversity instead of decline and extinction. Scotland will become a more wooded country, with bare hills populated by native trees. Scotland can become a country where endangered species can live safely and extinct animals can be reintroduced. Scotland can become a country where the sea is seen as not just a resource to exploit, but a vital and valuable ecosystem in its own right.
This bill is our opportunity to set the stage for that change of direction, and that starts with setting targets for nature recovery. The Scottish Government has signed up to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity—which is where the 30 by 30 target comes from—to protect Scotland’s land, water and seas for nature by 2030. I hope to see that made into Scottish law and supported by parties across the chamber, but there are other targets in the same UN convention that Scotland has already signed up to—for example, a commitment to ensure that, by 2030, at least 30 per cent of areas of degraded terrestrial, inland water and marine and coastal ecosystems are under effective restoration, in order to enhance biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services, ecological integrity and connectivity. Given how degraded Scotland is, it would make a difference if 30 per cent of it was under active restoration. Capturing that in statute and putting in place the actions to accomplish it would make a difference.
At the conference of the parties—COP—in Montreal, the Scottish Government members were all happy to say that they supported that UN convention. I challenge the Scottish Government to make the legislation now to carry out that intention.
I am supportive of the bill’s intentions around deer management, but I am concerned that they do not go far enough. Reducing Scotland’s deer population is an urgent matter, and previous interventions have been wildly insufficient. The first measures to reduce deer numbers were taken in the 1950s and failed utterly. Deer numbers have doubled twice since that time. We cannot be serious about recovering Scotland’s lost biodiversity until deer numbers are brought low enough to allow nature to recover. Deer constantly nibbling away prevents Scots pine, rowan, oak and other beautiful and iconic native trees from growing. With sufficiently low deer numbers, native forests have a chance to recover on their own, without the need for expensive fencing and planting. We need to modernise the system of deer management and must give NatureScot enhanced powers to intervene when deer are out of control in ecologically sensitive areas.
I am also supportive of the bill’s intentions on national parks, as gutted as I am that Galloway will not benefit from the estimated £10 million a year that would have come its way with a new national park, along with all the jobs, tourism and support for local businesses and communities. What a missed opportunity that was.
However, the bill leaves a glaring gap: Scotland’s seas. At the time of the previous election, political parties across the chamber were signed up to enhanced marine protection. Aside from new powers for ministers to actually weaken environmental impact assessment, our waters and the species that depend on them barely feature. Lines on a map are not enough, and even where the most destructive fishing is banned, enforcement is weak.
At stage 2, the Greens will seek practical improvements: stronger enforcement to protect marine habitats and the fishers who follow the rules; protection for wrasse, which are still taken in the spawning season and inside protected areas; and steps towards a transition to a sustainable fishing fleet.
The bill is an excellent opportunity to make progress on two concerns that I know are shared by many stakeholders and are close to me personally. The first is the matter of Sitka seeding from commercial plantations into ecologically sensitive areas. For the past two summers, my husband and I have volunteered on Tombane farm, which is the home of a site of special scientific interest for damselfly habitat. Now is the moment to declare to the chamber that I am the species champion for the northern damselfly. My husband and I use hand tools to cut down as many of the invading Sitka as we can. Similar cases are occurring all over Scotland, where Sitka seeding from commercial plantations is causing damage to nearby habitat and to restored peatland and is costing land managers money to address the problem. The people who profit from planting Sitka, not the landowners who are being harmed by it, should pay for the damage.
My second concern, which energises me enormously, is the matter of pheasant releases. It blows my mind that, in Scotland, a licence and 40 pages of paperwork are needed to relocate a single native red squirrel from one part of Scotland to another yet anyone, anywhere, can release any number of tropical birds as long as they are pheasants. Pheasants might be carrying bird flu, they are probably eating the eggs of native reptiles and they are almost certainly feeding our fox population, with its attendant management issues. No consideration is given to the welfare of the birds or the livelihoods of the poultry farmers whose birds might be infected by the diseases that the pheasants are carrying. We do not know who does this, where they are releasing them or how many are being released. It is extraordinary that the release of these tropical birds into Scotland is not licensed.
Scottish youngsters are unlikely to have ever seen a red kite, a puffin or a sea eagle, but everybody has seen a pheasant, and that must change.
15:58
I thank all members who have taken part in today’s debate. As my Labour colleagues Sarah Boyack and Rhoda Grant have already made clear, we will support the bill at stage 1 today, because we recognise the issue at the heart of the bill, which is how we protect Scotland’s 90,000 species, 11 per cent of which, as we have heard from Jackie Dunbar, are threatened with extinction.
Scotland’s level of biodiversity intactness is in the lowest 15 per cent in the world, and the Scottish Government has failed to meet its environmental targets. In the past decade alone, 43 per cent of Scotland’s species have seen a decline. Biodiversity loss is, of course, a global issue, but I think that we would all agree that Scotland has a moral and ecological duty to be a world leader in reversing that decline.
For the bill to meet its goal of reversing biodiversity loss and restoring a healthy, stable ecosystem, it must be amended in several key areas, not least in relation to the issues with part 2 that have been highlighted by Labour members and others today. From what we have heard, if the Government does not lodge serious considered amendments to part 2, there will be proposals to remove that part altogether. Therefore, I hope that the cabinet secretary takes heed.
Although we have heard from Tim Eagle and some of his Conservative colleagues their concerns about whether there is a need for the bill, his citing of the failure of previous non-statutory approaches has, I think, made a strong case for bringing forward statutory targets and for part 1 of the bill.
Particularly important to the debate is how we protect and restore our natural environment and native flora and fauna. The latter are threatened by the devastating impact of invasive non-native species, as Beatrice Wishart highlighted very aptly today. In its 2025 “Inquiry into public financial support for tree planting and forestry”, the Royal Society of Edinburgh highlighted that Scottish Government policy and practice does not go far enough in recognising long-standing problems caused by invasive non-native species.
For example, as we have just heard, Sitka spruce, which accounts for 43 per cent of Scotland’s woodlands, is a major threat, because it dries out the peatland ecosystem and outcompetes native species such as—I will probably say this wrong—sphagnum moss, and no, I am not its nature champion. Additionally, when Sitka is planted on peatlands, there is a risk that carbon sequestered by the land can be released. Yet that ecologically destructive species is currently exempt from the provisions of the Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Act 2011—an exemption that is not based on environmental science but is driven by the profit motive in the commercial forestry industry.
If I or one of my constituents released Japanese knotweed into the wild, even accidentally, that would be illegal, but private companies are, in effect, allowed to commit widespread acts of ecological vandalism that degrade vast swathes of Scotland’s environment without fear of being so much as fined, all in the name of profit. That fact demonstrates the need for Scotland to tighten its legislation around the 2011 act and to look at reworking exemptions for invasive non-native species.
We also need to look at the cost to the public purse of Government subsidies for invasive non-native species such as Sitka spruce, which accounts for 50 per cent of commercial planting in the UK. The destruction of our natural environment to line the pockets of shareholders cannot be allowed to continue. Instead, Scottish Forestry could require that planting schemes include native planting and regeneration and consider the spread of tree seed from non-native invasive species. Actions to consider could include continued monitoring of how seed spread can be reduced and, where necessary, removal of non-native invasive species seedlings. Providing public subsidies to damaging commercial conifer forests completely contradicts Scotland’s biodiversity and environment restoration targets. The Scottish Government should reassess subsidies for coniferous commercial tree planting.
The ethical and financial responsibility for rectifying harm to the environment should rest on the developers and private companies that cause that harm, through the use of a polluter-pays principle, as touched on by Lorna Slater. It is not just we on the Labour benches who are saying that; groups such as Scottish Environment LINK and the RSPB agree. Current environmental restoration efforts, including ones by NatureScot, are using their already overstretched budgets to mitigate the damage to our natural environment that negligent private companies cause. According to RSPB research, the financial cost of removal of conifer seedlings and seed rain in flow country peatlands is already in the millions of pounds. A polluter-pays principle would address that directly through the creation of statutory requirements for the proper management of invasive non-native species. Successful implementation would create a robust framework for liability for environmental damage.
I want to be clear that Scottish Labour, like others, supports the general principles of the bill. However, if Parliament is serious about reversing the trend of biodiversity loss, we must be clear that the current iteration of the bill needs significant amending. In that way, Scotland can become a true world leader in combating the nature crisis.
16:04
In recent months, we have seen an alarming retreat from climate action. That is deeply concerning, because the threats that are posed by climate change and biodiversity loss have not diminished. Those twin crises will not pass Scotland by, as Sarah Boyack highlighted.
The cabinet secretary said that Parliament has
“a long and proud tradition of supporting our natural environment”
and that that
“defines our place in the world”.
That is true, but the reality is that we are already one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world, with a 15 per cent decline in average species abundance since the mid-1990s, according to the “State of Nature” report. Without action, we face further damage, whether it be the degradation of our iconic landscape, the rising flood risks for our communities or new pressures on businesses. The Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill is an opportunity not just to halt that environmental decline but to actively restore our natural heritage and reverse biodiversity loss, as Mark Ruskell highlighted.
I will focus my comments on Scotland’s seas. However, as we have heard throughout the debate, the bill touches on every corner of Scotland’s natural environment. In relation to part 1, on biodiversity targets, it is clear that statutory biodiversity targets should be ambitious, practical and achievable. Tim Eagle pointed out the serial failures of successive Scottish Governments to meet the targets that they outlined in their strategies, dating back to 2004. Jamie Halcro Johnston pointed out that we must have an “effective and sustainable approach” to biodiversity. Lots of concerns were raised around part 2, which I believe were partially addressed by the cabinet secretary. Sarah Boyack pointed to the “sweeping” regulatory powers and concerns that standards could, in fact, be undermined and to the requirement to build public trust.
I listened to what the cabinet secretary said, just before Sarah Boyack intervened on her, in outlining the amendments that she will look to lodge. Does Maurice Golden agree that, if the Government had done its work in advance of lodging the bill, it would have seen the potential problems? We would then not be looking to amend the bill at stage 2, as the Government would have got it right at stage 1.
I agree. There is no reason why, at this point in the session, after almost two decades in government, we would not have the full information at stage 1.
On national parks, I firmly believe that the Scottish ministers should announce a formal, independent and objective review of our existing national parks before any new national parks are designated, so that we properly assess what has been achieved. It is also key to define what a national park is or, at the very least, to define its particular geographical area for local communities to avoid the farce that we saw in Dumfries and Galloway, where there were so many factors to consider that no one knew what the national park meant and whether they could support it. Those factors include biodiversity, tourism, economic development, hospitality, retail and farming. There was no blueprint there, which meant that there were increasing difficulties for the communities in that part of Scotland.
On deer management, Tim Eagle pointed out the requirement for clarity and proportionality with respect to NatureScot’s expanded powers, and Beatrice Wishart said that we must avoid unintended consequences and ensure that any training is proportionate.
I turn to Scotland’s seas. The current state of our marine environment demands meaningful action, and the bill is an opportunity to deliver it. I welcome the Scottish Government’s recognition in its policy memorandum of the 30 by 30 target, which is to ensure that 30 per cent of our land and seas are in areas of protection or conservation by 2030. However, aspiration alone is not enough. As drafted, the bill does not give us the tools that are required to turn ambition into reality. Groups such as RSPB Scotland and the Sustainable Inshore Fisheries Trust have raised similar concerns, and they are right to do so. For one thing, there are no specific biodiversity targets for our marine environment in the bill.
That is obviously concerning, but anyone who is involved in the marine sector will know that there has been a long-running pattern of inaction. We passed the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 to designate marine protected areas. The act was pioneering, as one of the first comprehensive marine management frameworks in the world, setting a precedent for integrated marine planning and conservation. However, it took until this year—some 15 years later—to get offshore management measures finalised. Indeed, a full suite of offshore management measures will still not be in place by the end of this parliamentary session.
Although 30 per cent of Scotland’s inshore waters might be marked on a map as being protected, less than 1 per cent are currently protected from all commercial fishing activity. Let us be honest—a protected area in name is not protected at all. We were supposed to see an inshore fisheries act in 2016 but, after multiple consultations, it still has not materialised. Meanwhile, the national marine plan is now a decade out of date, which is obviously doing neither the environment nor the fishing industry any favours.
There does not have to be a choice between protecting nature and supporting fishing communities. Too often, those priorities have been pitted against each other, but they should be mutually reinforcing. For England’s inshore waters, there is a different approach, whereby local communities, fishermen and councils collaborate to strengthen marine ecosystems and the fishing industries that depend on them. That is the direction in which Scotland should be going. However, earlier this year, when my colleague Tim Eagle raised that at committee, a marine directorate official responded that that was “not currently realistic”. What is not realistic is believing that we should continue down the path that we are on.
If the Scottish Government and the Parliament work together at stages 2 and 3, we can strengthen the bill and begin the shift away from marine decline towards marine recovery. I urge all members to take that opportunity.
16:12
I thank colleagues from across the chamber for their engagement in and contributions to today’s debate. We realise that there is work to do, and we are committed to doing it. As members will know, there are three Government ministers working on the bill, which I hope demonstrates the importance that the Government attaches to protecting and restoring our natural environment.
Cross-portfolio working is necessary to achieve effective legislation that works for nature and, importantly, that is developed in partnership with key stakeholders—our rural land managers, our ENGOs, our farmers and our crofters. I hope that we can build consensus right across the chamber in recognition of the fact that nature is all of our responsibility and that our natural environment is for all of us to protect.
I have spent many hours carefully considering what we are trying to do with the bill. What are we trying to achieve? The reality is that this is a hugely complex subject, and it requires careful consideration, working in partnership, to ensure that we avoid any unintended consequences.
As a youngster, I lived on a housing estate and I had a loft full of pigeons in the back garden. I had a dog in the house and a rabbit hutch in the back, too. I have been immersed in nature and living things for as long as I can remember.
I remember the days in the garden after the old bird racing season was over in June and before the young bird season began later in the year. I would sit in the sun, watching my birds in the silence, taking in the hum and buzz of nature all around me. There was the high-pitched darting of the hoverflies, the lazy drone of bumblebees, the industrious buzz of honey bees and the incessant annoyance of flies and bluebottles. There were greenfinches, sparrows, blackbirds and starlings coming in to mooch around the garden and to rake about in the seed that I would leave out for my pigeons. There were swallows, house martins and swifts screeching overhead and blue tits flitting around, feeding their chicks in the nest box that I had pegged on the outside of my pigeon loft. There was an abundance of grass, flowers and gardens with clover, and there were so many honey bees buzzing around, gathering pollen.
All that was in a 10m by 15m square of grass in a housing estate back garden. It was a microcosm of a nature sanctuary in Letham, where I was brought up. It was great to grow up there.
As I reminisce, I ask myself the question: would that same garden, with that 150 square metres of grass, be able to hold such an abundance of life today? “Abundance” is the word that springs to mind. How many gardens have got that abundance now?
I have been blessed in my life to have spent so much of it living and working with nature. The rhythm of so much of my life when I was a farmer has been in sync with the ebb and flow of the seasons. I have had immense joy living in places where curlews, peewits, oystercatchers and snipe were my alarm call, where the hum and buzz of nature was my backdrop, where I grabbed a catnap in the fields—
Will the minister take an intervention?
—and where my office was a tapestry of beauty that is the envy of the world.
I will come back to Mr Carson.
I hope that everyone in the chamber agrees that we want to ensure that we can pass that and so much more on to the next generation and the generation after that.
I appreciate the minister giving way. While it is very nice that the first three and a half minutes of your debate contribution have focused on—
Speak through the chair, please.
The minister has taken three and a half minutes of his speaking time to set out his involvement in the natural environment. However, some serious issues have been raised as part of the stage 1 debate, including concerns about part 2 of the bill. If the Government has engaged with stakeholders, why does part 2 need significant amendment or to be removed to keep stakeholders happy? The Rural Affairs and Islands Committee did not hear one voice that supported part 2.
Minister, I can give you the time back.
My initial response to that is that whatever I say in this chamber is my choice. It has absolutely nothing to do with the member, who is trying to criticise me or tell me what I should or should not be saying.
What I will say is that climate change is a reality. There are more extreme weather events, with seasonal temperatures and species all impacted by climate change. For that reason, there is an imperative on us all to work together, to be cohesive and to build consensus. We may not agree about the details of the journey that we are on but, undoubtedly, we are on that journey together. I am pleased with the way in which some members have approached the bill today so that we can get that kind of consensus.
Given the raft of comments from third sector organisations, experts and the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, it would be useful for members to hear what actual changes the Government is committed to making at stage 2, in addition to what the cabinet secretary said, and for us to get copies of those changes as soon as possible so that there can be proper parliamentary scrutiny.
I take the point on board. We have listened carefully to what members and stakeholders have said. The cabinet secretary has already agreed to meet members about those issues. I hope that that gives Ms Boyack confidence that we are trying to engage with members. As I said, there is an imperative on all of us to make the bill work.
Our politics is polarised right now and the bill represents a test of whether we can find consensus, to ensure that our nation thrives with nature at its heart. The Government is committed to working in partnership with our key stakeholders so that the bill ensures that those stakeholders have the tools and support that they need to protect and restore nature in a way that works for our rural land managers and communities; that builds on their stewardship; and that recognises their role as custodians of our iconic landscapes and species. To do nothing is not an option. The challenge is one on which we must take affirmative action. We must secure our natural environment. I urge members to support the bill.
We already have an ambitious biodiversity strategy and delivery plan, and more than 100 actions are under way. [Interruption.] Those include £250 million of funding for peatland restoration, which, for 10 years, has helped to lock in carbon and restore vital habitats. That restoration has increasingly been integrated with established land management practices, supporting organisations such as Scottish Water and helping to create a safer, more productive landscape for livestock, which, in turn, strengthens farm businesses. Woodland creation grants are supporting landowners to expand native forests and improve biodiversity, integrating trees into working farm practices.
The pilot deer management incentive schemes in central Scotland and south Loch Ness are helping to reduce grazing pressure and support habitat recovery. The better biodiversity data project is strengthening our natural environment monitoring infrastructure and supporting evidence-led decision making. Support for wild venison processing, including grants for chillers and larders, is helping communities to benefit from sustainable deer management. Deer management should not be seen as the removal of a pest species; rather, it should be seen as the harnessing of a resource that is iconic to Scotland and that has multiple health, environmental and economic benefits to Scotland plc.
In closing the debate, I stress again that the Government cannot solve the nature crisis on its own. We need collective action. We should all recognise the vital role that is played by our land managers, our farmers, our foresters and our landowners across Scotland. Many are already doing fantastic work. While still producing food, they are restoring habitats, reducing emissions and supporting biodiversity. From integrating peatland restoration into farming operations to managing deer sustainably, their leadership is making a real difference on the ground. I believe that, with the continuation of that positive dialogue, we can help them to go further and faster—and with the confidence of knowing that this SNP Government is behind them.
Should members agree to support the general principles of the bill today—as I think they should—we will work with them, stakeholders and communities to deliver a landmark natural environment bill that builds on the vision that is set out in our biodiversity strategy; that gives us the tools to act, the targets to aim for and the accountability to stay on course; and that says clearly that we will not stand by while nature declines but will act together to restore it. I think that we should make that commitment today.
That concludes the debate on the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill at stage 1.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I apologise to you and to members in the chamber, especially Mr Fairlie, for interrupting him with the noise of my telephone ringing. It was accidental—I thought that I had turned it off, but I had turned it off only on my hearing aids. I feel embarrassed enough to apologise, and I hope that you will accept my apology.
That was not a point of order, but thank you for putting that on the record.
Air ais
Portfolio Question Time