Hansard

I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests—I have a small farm up in Moray.

After an eventful week with the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, it is a welcome change to discuss the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill today. Before I set out my reservations about it, I emphasise that my concerns are not about the broad principle of enhancing and protecting our natural environment. I truly accept the importance of that, and I recognise and congratulate the many farmers, crofters and landowners who, through agri-environmental schemes, have been taking forward that approach for years. I am concerned about whether the bill is needed now, the way in which it is being introduced in respect of the rural sector, traditional values and food production, and its impact on local communities.

In an attempt to deal with the sections of the bill in order, I will start with biodiversity targets. By way of history, Scotland’s first biodiversity strategy—“Scotland’s Biodiversity: It’s In Your Hands”—was published by a Labour Government in 2004 and has been supplemented and revisited several times. Its original 2010 targets failed to be met. In 2013, the Scottish National Party Government produced the “2020 Challenge for Scotland’s Biodiversity”. The SNP managed to meet nine of the 20 targets in that but failed to meet the rest.

The SNP then produced the “Scottish Biodiversity Strategy Post-2020: A Statement of Intent”, which paved the way for the 2045 strategy, which was released in draft in 2022 and finally published in November 2024. To be honest, I had slightly lost the will to read any more about biodiversity strategies by that point.

Interestingly, the SNP website says that the SNP understands

“the need to take decisive action to conserve our precious and valuable marine environment and biodiversity.”

My word—if biodiversity is anything to go by, it is no wonder that independence is dead in the water.

Here in 2025—21 years of left-wing ideological Governments later—we are still debating the same old ground and are only now introducing statutory targets in a bill to hold ministers to account. That is not because farmers, landowners and NGOs, or anyone else, were not ready and willing; it is because the previous non-statutory approach undertaken by the Government has been a failure.

Targets will be only as good as the actions to deliver them, says one environmental non-governmental organisation. Where are the assurances that we need on that?

However, rural communities stand ready. For years, land managers, farmers, crofters, estate owners and local communities, in Scotland’s uplands and lowlands alike, have been willing to engage, support biodiversity objectives and integrate nature-friendly practices, while safeguarding food production, local economies and traditional rural values.

Part 2 of the bill was widely panned by those who came before the committee. The risk is that the extensive powers that are proposed in relation to environmental impact assessment regimes and habitat regulations, among other things, could lead to radical changes to protected sites. In their response to the stage 1 report, ministers say that they still wish to press ahead with part 2. I am not against that, but I fear that they may face an uphill battle in securing the trust of rural communities.

Part 3 of the bill looks to change the priorities for national parks and to impose a duty on public bodies

“to facilitate the implementation of National Park Plans”.

That is despite the fact that existing national parks in Scotland have never been comprehensively reviewed, and local people have raised various concerns regarding governance, economic impacts, land use and community rights.

I turn to part 4, on deer management. As drafted, it gives NatureScot extremely broad powers to intervene in how deer are managed, often on vague or undefined grounds. I believe that significant amendment will be needed to bring clarity and proportionality to those powers.

It is vital that NatureScot considers deer numbers and density in relation to their actual impact on the natural environment and avoids unnecessary interference with responsible land management. It will be vital to ensure that the grounds in the bill for any such intervention are tightened further.

The bill as drafted allows action wherever deer “prevent or reduce” environmental work. That strikes me as being too broad. The same applies to the broad scope that allows intervention based on Government targets, strategies and plans, when it should be clearly stated that intervention should relate to deer management.

The code of practice on deer management is a vital document for ensuring that ministers, NatureScot and land managers work together proactively. That should ideally have been produced and debated during stage 1, but I can at least recognise that allowing NatureScot to only have regard to the code is too weak. Surely, if a code aims to bring people together, NatureScot must have to comply with it, so far as is reasonably practicable, so that its decisions are transparent and consistent.