Seòmar agus comataidhean

Eighteen months ago, Parliament passed the Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Act 2024, which introduced a licensing scheme for shooting red grouse in Scotland. The policy intent of that legislation was for the whole area of an estate to be included in the licence, given that gamekeepers are normally employed to undertake predator control over the entire estate.

A loophole in the legislation is allowing grouse moor managers to specify a specific part of an estate to which the licence is to apply—essentially, the grouse moor itself rather than the surrounding land of the estate. That is concerning, given that incidents of raptor persecution often occur outside of the grouse moor.

I simply reflect on the fact that, since the bill was passed, we have seen continued raptor persecution happening across Scotland. That is deeply concerning, and we need to get to grips with it. For example, the nest sites of some birds, such as buzzards and goshawks, are usually found off the grouse moor area, and those nests can be a target for those who want to persecute the birds. Amendment 317 seeks to close that unintended loophole, clarifying that a grouse moor licence would cover an entire landholding, thus keeping the licensing scheme in line with the intention of Parliament.

Because of those concerns, NatureScot has attempted to plug the loophole with a new licence condition, but it is considered by many to be unworkable. That condition requires that, where a raptor persecution offence occurs away from the specified licensed grouse moor area, there needs to be evidence to link it to the management of the grouse moor for any consideration of a sanction to take place. The bodies that are experienced in the investigation of such offences agree that obtaining evidence of a link, even with a civil burden of proof, will be virtually impossible in most cases. The new condition also does not allow consideration of other “relevant offences”, such as those relating to badgers or animal welfare.

Nevertheless, the fact that NatureScot sought to plug the loophole with a condition confirms the original intention of the Scottish Government to include the whole estate in the grouse shooting licence and to apply the full agreed list of offences.

I lodged a similar amendment at stage 2. I have reflected on the comments that were made then, as well as on the points that were raised by a range of stakeholders. I have made technical changes to the drafting to take account of those cases where a grouse moor is managed by a sporting agent and of the definition of “contiguous land”.

I note that the minister has recently written to the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee to confirm that the Government’s intention is to fix that issue, not in the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, but in the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill, which we will be considering in just a few weeks’ time—lucky us. On the basis of that, and of what I hope will be an explicit commitment by the Government tonight to address the issues that amendment 317 raises and take that forward in stage 2 consideration of the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill, I will not press amendment 317. However, I consider this to be a campaign and a mission in parts, and I look forward to these issues being brought back to the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee in a few weeks’ time.

I move amendment 317.

I do not have anything to add. I look forward to the debate to come. I will not press the amendment.

Amendment 317 withdrawn.

Amendment 318 moved—[Douglas Lumsden].

Amendment 89E will require the land commissioners’ review to consider the land subject to part 1 of the bill and to have particular regard to what land is to be treated as contiguous—after stage 2, it is land within 250m—and what land forms a composite holding.

Earlier in the proceedings, I was disappointed that my amendments on contiguous holdings did not pass, but I believe that amendment 89E will keep the issues that were raised under consideration for the future as part of a comprehensive review.

I simply point out to Tim Eagle that we have seen continued raptor persecution. Landowners who are law abiding have absolutely nothing to fear from a licensing scheme—nothing at all.

However, I point out to Tim Eagle that we have already seen a peregrine and an osprey found shot in the Angus glens last autumn and a red kite in Strathdon earlier this year. Open your eyes, Mr Eagle, to what is actually happening.

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.

If there is time in hand, I will.

Will the member take an intervention?

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?

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.

Okay. I go back to my question about alignment between ETS policy development and the measures that are in the bill. What does that conversation look like for you as an operator on one side of the table? Do the calculations on economic impacts or other particular choices get discussed, or are they developed in isolation?