Hansard

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, 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 the following issues: 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, which relates 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 report’s findings as the bill progresses to ensure that it is capable of delivering on that worthy aim.