Seòmar agus comataidhean

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?

I will come back to that point in a second because I want to address the cabinet secretary about it.

A proper review would not oppose reintroductions but ensure that they are managed responsibly through clear assessments of local impact, meaningful consultations with those who live and work on the land and workable mitigations and compensation schemes that would be put in place. Without that balance, reintroduction risks undermining rural livelihoods rather than supporting the thriving, sustainable countryside that Scotland wants to achieve.

Building on the findings of recent reviews, amendment 268 would create a clear and reliable compensation scheme for rural businesses impacted by—

Obviously, everyone is allowed their point of view, but I have a concern about the suggestion that pheasants are the problem when it comes to avian flu, given that thousands of geese come to Scotland every winter. Avian flu is being spread through huge amounts of wild bird populations. Pheasants in themselves are not the cause of the spread of avian flu. I want to be clear on that point.

Excellent—although I would like to get away at some point.

If I could corroborate what Rachael Hamilton has just said, there is a serious level of concern here. The minister made some claims in a letter to the committee about some of the landholdings not following the guidance or the letter of the law, which I think is an unsubstantiated claim. My understanding from NatureScot is that there has been no breaking of the rules at all.

Given the significant level of concern—I know that the issue sits with Jim Fairlie more than with you, cabinet secretary—could you at least agree not to push the matter forward today and work with stakeholders and MSPs who have concern about it before stage 3? That would allow us to debate the issue more fully in the background and have an opportunity to discuss it more fully with Jim Fairlie before proceeding with the amendment,

That is a fair point, but that is not what I am trying to do. I am trying to make sure that the Government is not forcing land managers or farmers to have to do those things. If an individual business chooses to cut its cattle numbers, that is for the individual business. What I am saying is that such targets should not be set. I acknowledge that the climate change adviser’s suggestions have not been taken forward by the Scottish Government at this point, but I certainly do not think that we should be setting targets that force the decline in cattle or sheep numbers and then require us to import a huge amount of meat from abroad when we have high welfare standards in this country. Although I am pleased that the Scottish Government did not accept the proposal, I must still note that it had the potential to devastate hard-pressed rural businesses and threaten Scotland’s food security. My amendment would require that, when setting the targets relating to the natural environment that are allowed by the bill, ministers must give consideration to the views of local food producers, our meat and dairy sector and the need to ensure that our future food security is protected.

I am happy to be Tim the sad eagle if members back my amendments.

Amendment 267 would introduce a review of the introduction of species. It would require ministers to establish a review to consider the impact of rewilding, species introduction and non-native species introduction. It would require ministers to consult those who have been affected by such activities and prepare and publish a report.

A species reintroduction review is urgently needed because the experience of farmers, including those on the west coast of Scotland, shows how imbalanced current approaches have become. The return of beavers has brought well-known ecological benefits, but in many areas it has also created flooding, blocked drains and destroyed productive farmland, which has left farmers to absorb the cost with limited support. Likewise, the expanding population of white-tailed sea eagles has had a severe impact on livestock, with lambs being taken every year and crofters facing emotional and financial strain.

Those issues are real, documented and growing. We are seeing heartbreak for farmers every year and little to no action being taken.

I note my entry in the register of members’ interests. I have a small farm in Moray, and I have been involved in environmental schemes and suchlike before.

I have a couple of points to make on some of Ariane Burgess’s and Mercedes Villalba’s amendments. It is important that we take communities with us when we talk about things such as species reintroduction. We are already seeing that they are coming into conflict, for example in parts of the Highlands and Islands in relation to sea eagles and beavers. I have lodged amendments, which I will speak to later, on how we review impacts where we have reintroduced species and how we compensate fairly for them to make sure that rural populations are taken on that journey. In the Scottish Parliament, we constantly talk about rural depopulation, and, although I do not wish to take away at all from the need to restore biodiversity—I do not want to put such a message across—we absolutely need to take our rural communities with us on that journey and not leave them behind.

My second point is about inshore fisheries. Unless I am wrong, the Scottish Parliament is already doing a huge amount of work and consulting groups across Scotland on inshore fisheries. We will pre-empt all of that if we start putting massive changes into the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill without taking those people on that journey with us. With regard to bottom trawling, which is already highly regulated, we need to allow that consultation to continue and work with those communities. I am sure that, at some point in the near future, the Government—whatever it might look like—will bring that issue back to us.

I have two quick questions. First, is there a concern that, when you talk about what things were like in the past, it is not always possible to go back to what we had, as time has moved on and the climate has changed? Secondly, what evidence do you have on what the impact of the reintroduction of lynx would be on agricultural and crofting communities in Scotland?

Alasdair Allan’s amendment 113 is very similar to my amendments 184 and 187 and what I am trying to do with them. I narrow the scope to landowners, whereas the scope of Alasdair Allan’s amendment 113 is wider. For the record, however, would it include landowners, too? I think that it tries to include everybody who might come into that sphere of—

I have two quick questions. First, you seem to doubt whether Douglas Lumsden’s amendments should be here, but my understanding is that they have every right to be debated and discussed. What he has proposed is perfectly legal and permissible in the bill.

Secondly, and more importantly, do you at least recognise that one of Douglas Lumsden’s points is that the targets that are set in the bill, particularly on bird life, might be impacted by, for example, wind turbines? Some of the evidence that we have seen and heard has suggested that there might be quite a significant number of bird strikes on wind turbines.