Meeting of the Parliament 29 January 2026 [Draft]
::I could spend the next hour telling the minister the ways in which the Government does not support the people of Scotland, but I will not go into that. If the minister were to give me details of the rural support plan, perhaps we can have a further discussion.
The point on deer is slightly more valid. I am happy for organisations such as Scottish Land & Estates and the British Association for Shooting and Conservation to contribute, but I think that I am right in saying that the deer management sector was ready to work proactively with the minister, without needing a lot of the stuff in the bill. If more deer needed to be killed, we could have done it in a different way.
I cannot overstate how damaging I feel that the erosion of trust has been. Land managers, farmers and estates feel that the traditional rural economy is increasingly under threat and that they are not supported as a partner in environmental delivery. If we genuinely want to improve biodiversity outcomes, that is not a healthy place to be. I feel as if I have been saying for my whole career that my advice to the Government is to stop focusing on telling landowners, farmers and crofters to complete ever more complex paperwork, and to start having a positive relationship with them on the ground.
The bill also touches on national parks. During the amendment stage, Fergus Ewing and I picked up on a glaring missed opportunity in that area. Before embarking on discussions about new national parks, no formal comprehensive review was carried out on how existing parks have performed, what has worked well and what has not, and crucially, how local communities view that experience. Such a review could have been the golden ticket. It could have strengthened public confidence, addressed long-standing concerns and created a model for parks that genuinely thrive economically, socially and environmentally. By skipping that step, we missed the chance to learn lessons and to bring communities with us.
I imagine that the breadth of the bill is also striking to everyone. There is so much that could have been included, such as mechanisms to protect our natural environment against wildfires. That is a critical issue, and I am personally deeply worried about it.
I am sympathetic to members across the chamber who have sought to use the legislation to address other long-standing gaps where the Scottish Government has yet to act. That speaks to a wider frustration about delivery and follow-through.
Rural Scotland has a vital role in protecting and enhancing our natural environment, and in truth, much of the rural sector has been doing exactly that for years. What is needed now are practical, locally flexible schemes that recognise the differences between our rural communities, and not abstract, paper-based targets that risk hampering that work rather than heralding a new chapter.
Get this right and rural Scotland will thrive and deliver for nature and the economy together. Get it wrong and there is a real risk of destabilising the communities that we rely on to manage our land and that are vital in protecting our food security.
Having considered all of that, the Scottish Conservatives do not believe that statutory targets will achieve what voluntary, co-operative approaches have struggled to do. We do not believe the case for national parks has been properly made; it clearly required review. The proposed changes to deer management still do not sit comfortably or ensure a real, living, co-operative approach. For those reasons, the Scottish Conservative group has decided not to support the bill at stage 3.