Seòmar agus comataidhean

I get your point. I think, and past ARIOB minutes show, that stakeholders expected an expanded list of options under tier 2. Apart from the additional four, we have not got that.

Okay. It is not in your thinking just now.

What do you mean by that statement? Let us talk about the list of options that were going to be available, which would have been a bit like the old LMOs—the land management options. There was an understanding among various stakeholders, both within and outwith ARIOB, that, under tier 2, there would be a much greater list of options that would allow Scotland to become, as you said, “a world leader in sustainable and regenerative agriculture”. What we have is 11 to 12 options, which does not seem very many. Are you giving me an absolute guarantee that it was not the IT system that limited your ability to provide a greater list of options at this point?

I have not been here that long, and you can correct me if I am wrong, but I have a final question about respecting Parliament. You set out these proposals to farmers months ago. I know that because a letter came through my door—which reminds me that I should declare a registered interest as a small farmer. However, we are only debating this now and the implementation for fallow, for example, comes in on 1 January, as it does for all EFAs. Is that fair? Is it right that the committee and the Parliament should get to discuss the regulations only one month before they are implemented, although you told everybody else months ago? Do you think that that shows Parliament respect?

But are you listening?

In fairness to NFUS, it is generally farmers, crofters and smallholders who are delivering on the ground, and there is a risk to the viability of their farms in relation to how the requirements fit in with livestock production and so on.

Nobody is questioning the need for environmental benefits from farming—we all get that. In fact, I agree with you on the point about having fields of red and white clover that have butterflies in the summer. However, we need to make sure that we do this in a way that does not risk farms. If NFUS is saying, “Pause this for a year, maybe do a review, double-check that it is actually proportionate and it works, and then we can come back to that figure,” why would you not take that option?

My amendment 177 touches on a point that was discussed in the previous group. As drafted, the bill allows ministers, by regulation, to set targets that relate to the natural environment. It currently requires a number of Scottish statutory instruments containing regulations for setting such targets to be laid before the Parliament within 12 months of section 1 of the bill coming into force. Amendment 177 removes that requirement, because I do not believe that time should be the driving force here. Instead, we need to ensure that the targets that are set are well considered and are not driven by an arbitrary deadline. I am not trying to stop what we are trying to do; I am trying to ensure that, as I said was important earlier, we are taking communities with us. I completely agree with Mark Ruskell’s point that targets are only as good as the plans to deliver them. That is the critical point that we need to get right, not a timeframe, which is why I have suggested that that be removed.

My amendment 183 is a drafting amendment relating to my amendment 184, which relates to the review that the bill requires ministers to carry out of how the targets that they create by regulations are operating. When carrying out a review, ministers must seek and have regard to views on the targets set under, and topics set out in, new section 2C(1) of the 2004 act, introduced by section 1(3) of the bill. Amendment 184 would mean that the people giving those views would have to include those who can represent the views of land managers. That would ensure that biodiversity targets are informed by practical, on-the-ground knowledge from land managers and community bodies, as well as scientific experts. I believe that that would make targets more deliverable, regionally relevant and supported by those responsible for implementation.

My amendment 187 relates to the process described in the bill for setting or amending targets or adjusting topics. Before making regulations, ministers must carry out some tasks, and my amendment adds to that list of tasks. Ministers will need to both seek and have regard to views from someone who ministers consider to be representative of the interests of land managers, to ensure input from those delivering the targets.

Through both amendments 184 and 187 I am trying to ensure that the people on the ground who will ultimately implement the targets are involved in the decisions on what goes on higher up and form part of that target-setting process.

My amendment 189 also relates to the process for setting targets. Although the bill requires ministers to carry out a number of tasks, it allows ministers not to seek advice if the regulations they are making relate to a review of existing regulations. My amendment deletes that provision, because I believe that it is important that a consultation be conducted with affected parties if changes are being proposed.

My amendments 190, 191 and 192 are drafting amendments relating to amendment 187.

My amendment 312 requires that, when setting targets under section 1, ministers must have regard to the importance of local food production and domestic food security, support local food producers and consider the impact on future food security. It also makes sure that targets will not result in a decline in the beef and dairy herd numbers or encourage a reduction in red meat and dairy consumption.

Scotland’s future food security faces a delicate balance. It is a case of ensuring that we have enough supply to match demand and avoid reliance on foreign imports. The fragility of the supply was emphasised by the Scottish Association of Meat Wholesalers earlier this year, which warned that beef supplies had reached a critical point. To ensure that we meet future food supply needs in Scotland, we need more cows, not fewer—around 80,000 more, according to Quality Meat Scotland. However, this year, farmers were faced with a worrying prospect when the Scottish Government’s climate change adviser recommended a 30 per cent drop in meat consumption and a 30 per cent cut in sheep and cattle numbers in order to hit climate change targets by 2045.

Will you look into it?

Gosh—it is all about eagles this morning.

I have been on Mull a few times and the matter has not come up, but I recognise that there might be some tourism benefits from the reintroduction of such species. That is why I have said clearly that I am not opposing species reintroduction. I was in the Western Isles over the summer and, as I went down through the Uists, I had pretty much the same conversation with crofters over and over again about how traditional agricultural practices were being hurt by white-tailed eagles. Interestingly, however, very few crofters said, “I just want to kill them all.” They all said, “We just need help and support where our businesses are being damaged.”

This is the point that I was about to come on to. Scotland currently operates a limited support scheme for losses to sea eagles and for certain beaver-related impacts. I mention those because I think that they are relevant—and we could expand the scheme to other species. Farmers and crofters repeatedly report that the scheme is slow and bureaucratic and does not come close to covering the real costs of long-term disruption. My amendment 268 would take the matter further by ensuring that, where reintroduced or recovering species create genuine, evidenced losses, those who steward the land are properly supported.

In both amendments 267 and 268 I am trying to strike the balance that I think rural Scotland needs between meeting the ambitions in the bill and ensuring that small, rural and, often, family businesses are not harmed to the extent that we exacerbate rural depopulation. If the cabinet secretary is minded to discuss that with me in more depth prior to stage 3, I would be happy not to press the amendments today.

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

I cannot remember when it was, but the Cairngorms national park did a study that found that the numbers of pheasants were actually pretty low. The number has significantly dropped off from where it was. Does the member recognise that some studies have been done on the issue, which show that what she is saying is not entirely accurate—sorry, I need to change my words there. Does she recognise that some studies show that the number of pheasants is not as big a problem as it could be?