Skip to main content
Loading…

Seòmar agus comataidhean

Official Report: search what was said in Parliament

The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.  

Criathragan Hide all filters

Dates of parliamentary sessions
  1. Session 1: 12 May 1999 to 31 March 2003
  2. Session 2: 7 May 2003 to 2 April 2007
  3. Session 3: 9 May 2007 to 22 March 2011
  4. Session 4: 11 May 2011 to 23 March 2016
  5. Session 5: 12 May 2016 to 5 May 2021
  6. Current session: 12 May 2021 to 4 July 2025
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 5973 contributions

|

Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]

Land Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 24 June 2025

Edward Mountain

The result of the division is: For 5, Against 2, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 241 agreed to.

Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]

Land Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 24 June 2025

Edward Mountain

I call Tim Eagle to speak to amendment 240 and any other amendments in the group.

Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]

Land Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 24 June 2025

Edward Mountain

There will be a division.

For

Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)

Against

Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)

Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]

Land Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 24 June 2025

Edward Mountain

Some of the terminology in the bill—I am thinking of the references to terms such as warping or weiring and osier beds—takes me back to my planning days. I am not convinced that I understand that warping or weiring, although it might be an improvement, would be allowed under the law in relation to modifying watercourses without strict consent. I think that that would be covered under the Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2011. Perhaps you could cover that off in your summing up, cabinet secretary, to which we now come.

Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]

Land Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 24 June 2025

Edward Mountain

If no other member wishes to speak on this group, I will say a couple of things before I invite the cabinet secretary to come in. When we considered the bill at stage 1, the issue of game damage was discussed. There was some evidence of game damage being a problem, but the majority of people from whom we heard evidence suggested that it was not.

My problem, when we have considered the issue, has always been with the inclusion of fixed equipment, buildings and fences. I am not sure how one attributes damage to fences to game management. For example, if deer are crossing a boundary fence where there is a tenancy, it usually falls to the landlord to maintain it, so it is a responsibility of the landlord anyway. Under convention, there is a 50-50 split between the two landowners on either side of the fence. That is the way that things have always been done, to my knowledge.

Internal fences then become the issue. My struggle with the proposal is this: if deer are moving, for example, over a boundary fence from land owned by Forestry and Land Scotland and then trash an internal fence, I have a problem understanding why the landlord of the holding is responsible when there has clearly been a failure on the part of the neighbour to manage the deer within their holdings. I struggle with that.

I also struggle when it comes down to the definition of ditches. In my career I have seen very little damage to ditches due to game. I have seen more damage due to beavers, in the short time they have been moving all the way round Scotland, than due to pheasants or deer.

Turning to another issue, I am not sure that I fully understand the reasons for removing game management purely on the principle of it. Perhaps that proves that the committee does not necessarily divide along party lines, and that we are instead examining issues individually with regard to their importance, which I think that we have done throughout stage 2. I will leave that observation for those who have commented otherwise in the press.

Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]

Land Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 24 June 2025

Edward Mountain

There will be a division.

For

Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)

Against

Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)

Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]

Land Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 24 June 2025

Edward Mountain

The result of the division is: For 5, Against 2, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 275 agreed to.

Amendment 276 moved—[Mairi Gougeon].

Amendment 276A moved—[Tim Eagle].

Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]

Land Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 24 June 2025

Edward Mountain

The question is, that amendment 276A be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]

Land Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 24 June 2025

Edward Mountain

Sorry—I should say that we will come to you now, cabinet secretary. You are quick off the blocks.

10:15  

Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]

Land Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 24 June 2025

Edward Mountain

Yes. I was wondering if you were going to answer the question about compensation being sought from a landlord in relation to deer that are moving from somebody else’s holding in the middle of the night, say, and then moving back to that other person’s holding before daybreak. I do not understand how the landlord can be held responsible for that if they are not in a position to control the deer. I do not suppose that the cabinet secretary is expecting landlords to sit up all night waiting for deer to cross into their land and damage their crop, when it should be the person whose land the deer have come from who should be controlling them.