Chamber and committees

I am delighted to put on record my support for amendment 71, which will extend the SSPCA’s powers to investigate wildlife crime. Scottish Greens have called for that for a long time, which is why we included in the Bute house agreement reference to the holding of a timely review of the SSPCA’s powers.

On several occasions during stage 1, we heard evidence of situations in which animal welfare officers are limited in what they can do to collect evidence of wildlife crime. The extension of the SSPCA’s powers will improve our ability to bring more perpetrators of wildlife crime to justice and to protect the reputations of those businesses that abide by the law.

I have a long list of birds here.

The report that I have from NatureScot is about the whole of Scotland, which is what we are looking at here. The BTO study “Nesting dates of Moorland Birds in the English, Welsh and Scottish Uplands”, which has been referenced, found that, in 10 per cent of golden plover nests, 15 per cent of lapwing nests and 31 per cent of peregrine nests, eggs had already been laid by 31 March, and by 15 April those figures had increased to 45 per cent, 52 per cent and 82 per cent respectively. Additionally, the study found that 11 per cent of hen harriers, 27 per cent of snipe and 41 per cent of stonechats had laid by the latter date.

My concern is that we are seeing climate change and the nature emergency lead to breeding seasons coming earlier. With this amendment, I am seeking to future proof the provisions.

Yes.

My amendment 167 seeks to set the close of the muirburn season as 15 March. As we have heard, various dates have been suggested this evening, which demonstrates the degree of change that we are seeing in the seasons and the effects on wildlife. My amendment would set an earlier end to muirburn season as proposed in the bill to avoid the season overlapping with the breeding seasons of several bird species that routinely nest on moorland.

The definition of peat was discussed during stage 1, and that is reflected in a variety of amendments, but why is there a focus on peat depth at all? The International Union for Conservation of Nature’s peatland programme is clear that all peat—from the shallowest peaty soils to deep layers—is vital and an integral part of the overall health of peatlands. In fact, the shallowest of peat soils, those less than 30cm in depth, are arguably the most in need of protection, being more susceptible to damage and drying out.

Early in my discussions about the bill with stakeholders, I was surprised to learn that the current definition, which is based on depth, stems from post-war land management strategies when Britain was looking to maximise its natural resources and agricultural productivity. It is based not on ecological understanding or rooted in climate adaptation practices, but rather in an arbitrary assessment that is based on what was required over half a century ago.

Amendment 169 seeks to remove that arbitrary definition entirely, removing the link between the depth of peat and its status under the licensing regime that is set out in the bill. All peat soils would therefore be subject to the muirburn licensing regime. In a time of climate emergency, we should be looking to maximise the protection of peat and not be undercutting the work that other parts of the Scottish Government are doing to fund the restoration of peatlands.

I am well aware that there will not be consensus on my amendment. I await the minister’s response, but I believe that it is important to highlight how peatland is defined.

On Monday, we had a fantastic session with farmers and crofters. It was insightful to talk to folk who are doing the work on the ground. One point that came up in the conversation was that farmers make something that, at the other end of the process, gets sold on to businesses that are considering their scope through emissions.

In your thinking about the objectives, how much consideration did you give to things such as the Sustainable Markets Initiative? I am not sure whether you are aware of it, but it has an agribusiness task force of Fortune 500 companies, which, globally, has decided on five metrics—greenhouse gases, water use, the efficiency of nitrogen and a couple of others. I realised that the committee had not talked about that, but it came up on Monday.

How much have you thought about the fact that we are using public money to support farmers and crofters to become more sustainable, yet some of them sell into global markets? Did you take that into account in thinking about the need for flexibility in the bill? Is that why you think that the bill needs to be a framework bill?

Sticking with the metrics piece, something else that came up was an anecdote from a farmer who has to do a carbon footprinting audit for one part of their business and a different one for another part. When the farmer shared that information, it spawned input from a whole lot of other people, so there is something there that we need to look at. How do we align that? Farmers are having to look one way to meet the needs of one company or industry and then another way for another. Other things came up around alignment with environmental metrics and biodiversity accounting and audits. Somebody said that they felt that, if they invited different companies to come and do their biodiversity audit, they would get different answers. How do we get to a place where there is clarity across the piece as to measurements and how we track things such as that?

That is helpful. It is great that you have already progressed the conversation into the area of delivery, so, when others respond, it would be good if they could give us their thoughts on strategic challenges such as the ones that Callum Chomczuk has indicated, including challenges for councils, as well as anything else that they want to say in relation to implementing the vision.

I will follow up that discussion with a couple of questions, the first of which is a broad one that picks up on the issue of balance. I am interested to hear people’s reflections on the extent to which the Scottish Government is adequately balancing the need to address the short-term housing problems that we have heard about against the longer-term housing policy aims. Do any priorities need to change?