Alasdair Allan
Scottish National Party · Scotland
“Like other members, I very much hope to see further and more comprehensive legislation soon. Meanwhile, as other members have mentioned, it is important not to lose sight of the reasons for and origin of crofting law.”
“I am pleased that my final speech in this session of Parliament is about such an important subject to my constituents as crofting. I, too, pay tribute to the contributions that have been made on the issue over the years by many members, not least by Rhoda Grant and Edward Mountain. This bill has been in the works for a long time.”
“However, the history that I have just recounted means that crofters are very aware that this traditional, culturally vital way of life requires legislation to sustain and protect it. The bill is a step forward in what must be a longer process of crofting law reform.”
“I was pleased to secure several amendments at stage 2, including to give ministers the power to regulate the transfer of owner-occupier crofts, to prevent a right-to-buy where a crofter is in breach of their duties, to explicitly include enforcement duties in the Crofting Commission’s responsibilities and to introduce a more practical and…”
“Depending on the voting intentions of my constituents, I look forward to working with the next Government on the additional legislation that will be required. In the meantime, the bill is an important step forward on the road to crofting legislation reform and I urge members to give it their support. 17:26”
“My amendment 6 would make it clear that that power includes the ability to make provisions on the transfer of associated grazing shares, should it be desirable to strengthen or modify the regime set out in sections 14A and 15. I move amendment 6.”
The complete record
Every one of 496 lines we hold for Alasdair Allan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 10.
“The levy represents an additional cost for a sector that is already suffering as a result of Labour’s national insurance increase—which is a tax on jobs—the additional cost of short-term let licensing for self- catering providers, rising energy costs and flat demand from customers. In addition, the sector as a whole faces staggering increases in non- domestic rates as a result of the current revaluation. It makes no sense to add a visitor levy for a sector that is already struggling with all those other costs. Scotland is already seen as an expensive destination, compared with other parts of Europe or other parts of the world, and the visitor levy will make matters worse. The Government is at risk of killing the goose that lays the golden egg, given the importance of tourism to the Scottish economy.”
“I cannot speak for all local authorities, but I understood that at least some local authorities had agreed not to charge the visitor levy for people who were visiting their local authority area for the purpose of visiting someone in hospital. Murdo Fraser: I accept that that may be the case, but I think that it would be far better, from the point of view of clarity, if we had a scheme that made it very clear who was eligible to pay and who was not, rather than leaving it up to individual local authorities to make those choices. Councils across Scotland are currently seeing the visitor levy as a source of additional revenue, which is not surprising given that their budgets are being cut by the SNP Government.”
“To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its engagement with Comhairle nan Eilean Siar, the Care Inspectorate and the Scottish Childminding Association regarding the improvement of access to childcare across the Western Isles, both for children under three and three to five-year-olds. (S6O-05542)”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Likewise, I could not connect. I would have voted yes. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you. I will ensure that that is recorded. Pauline McNeill: On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would have voted yes. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, Ms McNeill. I will ensure that that is recorded. David Torrance: On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would have voted yes. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you. I will ensure that that is recorded.”
“To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its discussions with NHS Western Isles regarding dental provision across the islands. (S6O-05491)Dental Provision (NHS Western Isles)”
“For the three reasons that I have mentioned, I cannot support the SI, and I therefore encourage those members who share my concerns to abstain until the Scottish Government has clarified which parts of the assisted dying bill fall outwith the competence of the Scottish Parliament and how it will identify the drugs suitable for off-label use to assist in the bill. 18:04”
“I believe that this is a technical measure. On the wider procedural issues, does the member have a view on what options would be open to this Parliament in the hypothetical scenario where this Parliament passes the assisted dying bill but the UK Government, for whatever reason, does not step in to fill the legislative gaps that are left? Edward Mountain: That may be beyond my exact knowledge of this matter. My point is that I do not see how the Scottish Parliament can pass a bill that we are not competent to consider. Aspects of the bill would need further UK Government clearance to be done in advance, and I have seen no evidence that that would happen.”
“I ask you all, particularly my colleagues, why are you here? We have the opportunity to choose courage over complacency. I know what I choose, Presiding Officer. Do you?”
“Is the extent of our collective ambition to make Scotland a better place that we will simply accept the entitlement of some men to demand the purchase of women? We are here as change makers, not just as policymakers. I wrote recently on X: “It is my intention”— as others, of course, would have guessed— “to vote for this Bill at Stage 1 … my principled stance is that the sex class ‘women’ should not be legally bought as commodities and raped for money.” That is the nub of today’s debate. We are wrestling with the principle of the commodification of women and the principle of male demand. Complexity cannot be an alibi for inaction. I agree that the situation is complex and that many states have wrestled with it, but if we are here that should be because we want Scotland to be better.”
“Even if they escape, they struggle for the rest of their life to form trusting relationships with men. On the upside, they will learn that their most valued skill is performing, because their rapists require them to act as though they enjoy what is being done to them. On that basis, who here would argue that that should be regularised? Who here would argue for the protection of abusers rather than of the women themselves, and who here would tell a constituent who cannot afford to put food in her mouth that the solution is to put male members in her mouth? No one. We have privilege. The reality of prostitution will never permeate our lives, but it permeates the lives of the poor, the dispossessed, the trafficked, the vulnerable, the addicted, the homeless—the ones with no voice: exactly the people we are meant to speak for here.”
“They are spat on, ejaculated on, urinated on and sometimes defecated on. They suffer repeated abrasions and injuries to their vagina and anus, often requiring medical treatment, are at a high risk of being slapped or punched and are 18 times more likely to be murdered. They are strangled, potentially until they are unconscious and often without even knowing that that is happening. They are verbally abused by the people who pay for access to their bodies and are at a high risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases and other serious infections. They lose most of their earnings to the pimp who is controlling them, become addicted to mind-numbing substances simply to endure the disassociation and develop complex post- traumatic stress disorder.”
“On the point about evidence from the Women’s Support Project, I note that it was our aspiration for all engagement to be trauma informed and, on that particular issue, we were advised strongly not to engage directly with lived- experience witnesses. Michelle Thomson: I thank the convener for her point, but the point that I am making is that not doing that directly, regardless of whether that was the advice, gives different weight to the two different sides. I am making an academic point. I want to make some progress. So that we are clear about the decision that we are making today, I will discuss some of the harms for women. I accord respect to the women who are in the gallery today. The life that they live is thus. They are systematically raped, vaginally, anally and orally, multiple times a day.”
“Will Michelle Thomson give way? Michelle Thomson: I will finish one more bit and then take an intervention. Consequently, the Government’s six-page response to the committee report is less than compelling. It would surely have been more honest and more democratic to gather the true views of the Parliament by allowing a free vote, especially given that, ultimately, due to the coming election, the bill will fall regardless, and the Government claims that it will seek to introduce legislation as soon as possible if re-elected. I will give way to the convener. Audrey Nicoll: On Michelle Thomson’s point about the balance of evidence, I would point out— this has been reflected already in the debate—that we engaged, or attempted to engage, in a balanced way.”
“Improving our biodiversity is one of our best opportunities to adapt to, and to prevent, climate change and to ensure that we can continue to enjoy nature’s benefits, on which we all depend. As other members have pointed out, this has been a long but, I think, successful parliamentary process. There has been a lot of engagement with the public, and, like other members, I convey my thanks to committee members and staff for doing that work. As someone who represents an island constituency, I believe that the provisions in the bill before us are necessary to support communities as they respond to our biodiversity crisis and that the bill therefore deserves our support. 17:35”
“Although I appreciate that some estates have raised concerns about that part of the bill, I believe that the Government’s stage 3 amendments on notification requirements, along with the guidance that will be set out in secondary legislation, will provide reassurance on animal welfare, food safety and income from deer stalking. The proposal was initially recommended and supported by the deer working group, which the Scottish Government established in 2017 as a result of its concern about continuing issues to do with the standards of deer management in Scotland and the levels of damage to public interests caused by deer. It is clearly essential for stakeholders to continue working together, as they already have been doing, to help to reduce deer numbers and support biodiversity recovery across Scotland.”
“Those measures include provisions to modernise the aims and powers of national parks by amending the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000 and provisions to reform the way in which deer are managed by amending the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996, through implementation of many of the recommendations that were made by the deer working group. As members have said, there is an urgent need for effective deer management across much of rural Scotland, and that is regularly raised with me by my constituents. I am pleased that an amendment that I lodged at stage 2, which built on existing legislation to widen the legal right of occupiers of land to cull deer to prevent damage to unimproved land as well as improved land, was successful.”
“The bill will establish the framework for targets, including high-level topics against which specific targets will be set, while the actual targets, such as the detail of the figures, will be provided in secondary legislation. That approach will allow targets to be adapted in the light of circumstances and will ensure that parliamentary scrutiny is maintained throughout. The bill also brings together other measures that will enable us to restore and protect nature and support delivery of the Scottish Government’s net zero and biodiversity goals.”
“The 26th President of the United States, Theodore Roosevelt, noted: “Conservation means development as much as it does protection. I recognize the right and duty of this generation to develop and use the natural resources of our land; but I do not recognize the right to waste them, or to rob, by wasteful use, the generations that come after us.” The Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill seeks to ensure that the people of Scotland do not waste our natural resources or rob future generations. The twin crises of climate change and nature loss are interdependent risks and they need to be tackled together, which the bill seeks to do.”
“As a Labour MSP, I want to see the life of an animal valued and I recognise that there are people who feel strongly about the issue, but I want the limited bandwidth for such issues to be used for more meaningful and less niche issues. I believe that the bill points a judging finger at my older constituents, who sometimes go for a walk down to the bookies and put a wee bet on the dug racing. That is them. The bill does nothing for the welfare of the greyhound breed, and it would take greyhounds a step closer to extinction or, at best, accelerate their addition to the rare breeds list. We recognise that the bill will change at subsequent stages, though, and we will look at how it can be improved. 16:31”
“The UK Labour Government is introducing reforms to the private veterinary sector to make sure that prices are competitive, and further inquiry outcomes are planned. By choosing to tackle a niche sport, which, as members will already be aware, does not currently operate in Scotland, Mr Ruskell’s bill is chasing headlines rather than chasing a shared sense of the need to preserve and improve animal welfare and standards overall. A raft of other issues are higher up the list of Scottish people’s concerns— national health service waiting lists, housing waiting lists and the cost of living crisis, to name but a few.”
“As with other issues, the urge for members to jump on the ban button is too great, but, if there are concerns about the animal welfare in greyhound racing, surely the solution is to improve the standards and monitoring. If Mr Ruskell wants to look at animal safety and welfare, perhaps he should look at the venture capital acquisitions of veterinary surgeries, which are having far wider impacts on owners of potentially all domestic pets, as well as on farmers, by putting costs through the roof in relation to the welfare of pets and animals and treatment for any illnesses that they have. With regard to whether this is a reserved matter, some areas are reserved and some are devolved. Animal welfare standards are devolved.”
“I understand the member’s points and the strong views on the subject, but the committee looked at that. Neither the committee nor the Parliament can be expected to legislate for what happens in England. Davy Russell: Greyhounds have been selectively bred for thousands of years, since the time of the Egyptians, and losing their place culturally will accelerate the extinction of the breed. Due to their huge feeding and exercise demands, greyhounds are not a natural wee pet. They are not easy household pets. I am sure that their owners love them dearly, and I know that they have very good temperaments, because I have friends who have greyhounds.”
“That is not politically credible to our constituents and the communities that we all represent and my officials are working with a number of local authorities who chose to take that additional investment and reduce teacher numbers. To the member’s substantive point, we can enhance teacher numbers by protecting funding in the budget. This year’s budget does so, and I encourage colleagues to consider supporting a budget that will support an increase in teacher numbers.”
“The recent figures that the cabinet secretary mentioned show that there has been an increase in the number of Scotland’s teachers. How will investment in the 2026-27 budget support furthering that progress? Jenny Gilruth: The investment that has been delivered as a result of extra funding that was provided for in last year’s budget increased the number of teachers in our schools by 63—the first increase in teacher numbers that we have seen since 2022. I would like to see more improvements in that regard. It is notable that some local authorities took additional funding from the Government and reduced teacher numbers.”
“Stephen Kerr: I fundamentally believe that at the heart of all this lie an arrogance, a corruption, a dishonesty and a culture in which there is disregard—in fact, it goes beyond disrespect—for those who blow the whistle. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Mr Kerr, you will need to conclude. Stephen Kerr: This Government is morally bankrupt. For the sake of Scotland, we must get it out of office. 16:38”
“That was not talk about pressure within the organisation; to apply pressure suggests something external. Let us be absolutely clear that this whole episode is not a freak occurrence and it is not bad luck. It is the foreseeable consequence of decisions that were taken at the top, and that must extend to the Scottish ministers, driven by political priorities not patient safety. Yes, there was an election. Yes, there was a deadline. Yes, there was going to be a grand opening, similar to the grand launch of the ferries, with painted-on windows and fabricated funnels or whatever it was—another con trick. Paul Sweeney: Will the member take an intervention? Stephen Kerr: I wish that I could, but time does not allow. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Time is racing, Mr Kerr.”
“This issue is another, and there are examples all across public services in Scotland. Wonderful, decent people work in the public services in this country, and they often see and experience things that cause them to raise concerns, and they are then victimised for speaking up. The establishment in those public services closes ranks, because its approach is all about reputational damage limitation. That is the problem at the heart of our public services—an unhealthy attitude towards whistleblowing, truth telling and candour. The fact of the matter is that—these words are significant—“pressure was applied”. Whatever the health board says now—at whomever’s behest— to cover up more of the trails that have led us to this point, pressure was applied.”
“Dr Redding, Dr Peters and Dr Inkster say that they are not satisfied with the conditions in the here and now. Why are they being ignored again, as they have been for the past 10 years, when they have been proven to be right and the Government has been proven to be wrong? Stephen Kerr: Anas Sarwar is right to raise what he raises. It is for the very simple reason that whistleblowing is not respected by this Government. I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests. The SNP talks a good game about whistleblowers, but it does not listen to them. I have heard the Deputy First Minister denigrate people who have acted as whistleblowers about areas within her responsibilities. Neil Gray always says the right words, but nothing happens and the culture does not change. NHS Tayside is a very good example.”
“Instead, for far too many families, it became a place of fear, infection and unimaginable loss. Families were told nothing. They were lied to, in fact, which is worse than nothing. The clinicians whom the leader of the Labour Party named during this debate stood up and spoke up, and they were brave. However, beyond being ignored, they were vilified and marginalised. Warnings were downplayed and reports were ignored. One cannot help but conclude that the ministers in this Government—from that time, and even today—are either grotesquely incompetent or not telling the truth. Members can take their choice. Anas Sarwar: Several SNP members have said that we must listen to the voices of doctors. At the start of my contribution I referenced three doctors, and it is because of them that we are where we are today in terms of making progress.”
“Every time the SNP gets into scandalous difficulty, it erects a barrier and puts up a defence by saying, “Oh, let’s not be political; let’s be above party politics.” That is very far from the culture of the SNP when it is in opposition, and it should be very far from the culture of those in opposition and, indeed, from the culture of the Parliament if we are to take ourselves seriously as parliamentarians, as Paul Sweeney suggested. This is a political matter. The scandal did not happen by accident. It happened because a Government that, to be frank, has been in power for far too long, has stopped listening or questioning itself, has drunk the Kool-Aid and is dining out on its own propaganda. That is the legacy that the SNP Government leaves. The Queen Elizabeth university hospital should have been a place of safety.”
“In the interest of accuracy, and lest the member has misunderstood what I understood Joe FitzPatrick said, he suggested not that it was illegal for the Parliament to discuss those matters but that it might be illegal for the Government to follow the advice in the motion. Stephen Kerr: Yes—he said the motion. Emma Harper surpassed herself with what she said. I have never heard such nonsense. Paul Sweeney is right. What kind of self-respecting parliamentarian begins to draw boundaries around the things that the Parliament is going to consider? It is just ridiculous. The convener of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee spent more than half of her speech erecting a barrier to prevent ministers from being held accountable by the Parliament, and we heard more of that from Joe FitzPatrick. That is typical SNP behaviour.”
“I will take no lessons from the Tories on external affairs. Summer of Sport 2026 (Cultural Legacy Benefits) 3.”
“It is grimly amusing to hear a Tory use the words “value for money”, “funding” and “external affairs” in the same sentence. Scotland still awaits from the Tories some contrition for the travesty of Brexit. Will the Scottish Government say what funding Scotland has lost out on since Brexit was forced on us? Angus Robertson: Brexit has been an unmitigated economic and social disaster. Its red tape has increased costs to businesses and hit Scotland’s trade with our largest international export market, which is the European Union. Recent research estimates that, in 2023, the United Kingdom suffered a 2.5 per cent hit to gross domestic product as a result of Brexit, which is forecast to increase to 5.7 per cent by 2035. In Scotland, it equates to a cut in public revenues of around £2.3 billion in 2023 alone.”
“I am genuinely grateful to him for the meetings that we have had to discuss his proposals, but our national deer management plan will build on the direction of travel that we have already set out and our aims to increase the annual deer cull by 25 per cent. It will also include how we will ensure that venison is an integral part of achieving that. We will come to the amendments relating to the national deer management plan in due course, but we have to approach deer management in Scotland with a focus on the priorities.”
“What is the point of a protected site if those who are charged with protecting those sites—such as NatureScot—cannot get in there and ensure that the destruction ends? This is a natural environment bill, and surely we should be following through on nature protection. On the wider issue of deer management, there are welcome reforms throughout the bill, but on the issue of protected sites, I am disappointed. I would like to hear more from the minister about the priority of ensuring that our last remaining habitats do not just disappear because they were at the bottom of the in-tray. Jim Fairlie: I am not quite sure that I accept the way in which Mr Ruskell has put that.”
“I have been clear throughout the process that we have to find ways of working effectively and collaboratively to meet our deer management aims. That means bringing the sector with us. Unfortunately, I do not think that amendment 93 would achieve that. Furthermore, the amendment would include a significant amount of land and well over 1,000 holdings. The resources that would be required by NatureScot to enter into control agreements in all those places would mean that it would have to down tools on almost all of its other deer management work and swathes of its wildlife management work. I do not think that that is what Mr Ruskell is aiming for here, but I cannot support the amendment. Mark Ruskell: I hope that the minister acknowledges that the amendment is focused on protected sites.”
“Amendments 91 and 92, in the name of Edward Mountain, are the same as amendments that were originally lodged by Ms Wishart at stage 2 and debated then. As I set out at stage 2—I believe that this is why the amendments were not pressed by Ms Wishart—in practice, the amendments would not have a meaningful impact on those required to be consulted by NatureScot. For that reason, I urge members to oppose amendments 91 and 92. I turn to amendment 93, in the name of Mark Ruskell. I appreciate Mr Ruskell’s intention, but I cannot support the amendment. I have said this before and I will say it again: it is vital that we balance the need to reduce deer populations with the needs of our rural communities; we have to get that balance right.”
“I think that the amendments would be effective in ensuring that local communities are notified and are able to feed back on compulsory deer management. The amendments would not give those wider groups of people the right to appeal to the Scottish Land Court, given that a scheme needs to be confirmed by Scottish ministers where it comes into effect, which will require any objections to be considered. It is considered only appropriate to give the right of appeal to the owners or occupiers on whom a control scheme, or a variation of a control scheme, is imposed. Such a right of appeal is no different from the existing appeal rights under the 1996 act, and it is a recognition of the seriousness of that undertaking. I therefore ask members to support amendments 51 to 53.”
“I thank Ms Wishart for not pressing her amendment at stage 2 and instead returning with slightly updated amendments, which I will gladly support. The amendments will require NatureScot to notify not only the owner or occupier of land on which a control scheme applies, but others who are likely to be significantly affected by the scheme. The amendments would also mean that those who are likely to be significantly affected have the right to object to a scheme. I have listened to concerns that were raised about the potential impact of a control scheme on local communities and local economies and how balance will be achieved when these powers are used. That touches on some of the issues that were raised by Mr Mountain and Mr Eagle earlier.”
“Amendment 50, which sets out the process by which someone can request an intervention from NatureScot in response to damage being caused by deer, would provide clarity and assurance for those suffering from damage by deer that they do not have the right or responsibility to manage on how to access support from NatureScot. In later groups, we will come to amendments that relate to the statutory rights of occupiers. However, I have taken on board the concerns raised by stakeholders about friction between landowners, sporting tenants and occupiers, especially when there are long-standing deer management issues or differing priorities. Amendment 50 can go a long way towards addressing some of those concerns, so I ask members to support it. I turn to amendments 51, 52 and 53, in the name of Beatrice Wishart.”
“For the same reason that I gave in opposing amendment 87, I ask Mr Eagle not to move amendments 89 and 90, and if he does, I ask members to oppose them. Amendment 49, in the name of Rhoda Grant, will refine a stage 2 amendment. It will require NatureScot to publish the outcomes of reviews of control agreements, which will help to maintain public confidence and make clear whether agreed measures are being delivered. It will also encourage compliance and support learning by making evidence about what works publicly available. That is a proportionate step that will align deer management with wider principles of openness in environmental governance. For those reasons, I urge members to support amendment 49. I thank Ms Grant for her willingness to work with me to improve amendments 49 and 50, following the stage 2 proceedings.”
“Collectively, the three amendments would increase bureaucracy, reduce flexibility and make timely intervention in the public interest harder to achieve. I ask members to reject amendments 13 to 15. Amendments 89 and 90, in the name of Tim Eagle, would do the same to control agreements and schemes as amendment 87 would to deer management plans. Amendments 89 and 90 would simply reinstate the status quo that the bill seeks to reform in line with the deer working group’s recommendations, undermining efforts to strengthen timely and effective action in the wider public interest. I discussed the issue in a meeting with Tim Eagle recently. There is already a general requirement for NatureScot to have “regard to the code” in exercising its functions under the 1996 act.”
“Taken together, amendments 13 to 15, in Edward Mountain’s name, would complicate the process for putting in place effective and, in many areas, much-needed deer management plans. Amendment 13 would require NatureScot to consult holders of shooting or sporting rights even when they have no direct responsibility for land management, which would add unnecessary delay. Amendment 14 would remove the clear definition of “relevant owners and occupiers”, creating uncertainty and increasing the risk of dispute. Amendment 15 would go further, by removing NatureScot’s discretion to determine who has “sufficient interest ... or control”, replacing professional judgment with a rigid test that would invite challenge.”
“The changes in amendment 87 might seem technical, but they would reduce flexibility, weaken accountability and, ultimately, make it harder to deliver effective, joined-up land management across Scotland. The original wording is clear and comprehensive. For those reasons, I urge members to reject amendments 84 to 87. The issue that is addressed in amendment 88, in the name of Edward Mountain, was also fully debated at stage 2. The bill’s provision of a minimum three-month time frame is just that—a minimum. The change made by the bill simply gives NatureScot greater flexibility to act sooner where responsibilities have not been met, as I said in my earlier intervention. For that reason, I do not support the amendment, as it would reduce that important flexibility. I urge members to reject amendment 88.”
“Managing deer impacts is central to delivering those wider environmental, biodiversity and land-use objectives, and those priorities are often set out in strategies that are led by environmental and natural heritage bodies. Amendment 86 would exclude those plans and would risk the siloing of deer management. Amendment 87 would simply reinstate the status quo that the bill seeks to reform in line with the deer working group’s recommendations and would undermine efforts to strengthen the use of timely and effective action in the wider public interest. There is already a general requirement for NatureScot to have “regard to the code” in exercising its functions under the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996.”
“Amendments 84 to 87, in the name of Tim Eagle, all seek to limit the scope and effectiveness of NatureScot’s intervention powers. Amendment 84 would change the wording relating to environmental improvements in an attempt to narrow the scope of the nature restoration ground for intervention and, in doing so, would potentially exclude certain projects. Amendments 85 and 86 would unnecessarily narrow how we consider deer management. Deer impacts do not sit in isolation but directly affect biodiversity, woodland recovery, climate objectives and sustainable land use. By limiting the relevant targets to ones that are set out in deer-specific legislation only, amendment 85 would risk creating policy silos and undermining our ability to manage deer in a way that supports wider national environmental goals.”
“For example, deer could be on a particular area of land but wander on to roads, causing road traffic accidents. That would be a public safety issue that would not be “on” that particular area of land, but rather “in relation to” it. For those reasons, I believe that the existing wording provides the flexibility that is needed to protect the public interest and the environment, and I encourage members to oppose amendment 82. In regard to amendment 83, in the name of Edward Mountain, a similar amendment was lodged at stage 2 but was not agreed to. As I set out at stage 2 in relation to that amendment, amendment 83 would risk weakening the effectiveness of the bill’s restoration objectives. For that reason, I urge members to reject amendment 83.”
“However, I do not think that that would be reasonable or practical, given that the primary concern must be to ensure public safety. I therefore cannot support amendment 81. I turn to amendment 82, in the name of Tim Eagle. As I set out at stage 2 in relation to an amendment that sought to achieve the same thing, although it appears to be technical, changing “in relation to” to “on” would narrow the scope of intervention powers. The current wording allows NatureScot to act where deer activity or management decisions are causing or are likely to cause damage to an area of land, even indirectly. Limiting that to damage “on” the land could create unintended consequences, making it harder to address cumulative or cross-boundary impacts. Deer do not respect property boundaries, and our legislation should reflect that reality.”
“The changes that we are asking for are sensible and are being made in good faith. I therefore ask Mr Mountain not to move amendment 12. If he moves it, I ask the chamber to oppose it. On amendment 81, I admit that I was a bit surprised at Mr Mountain’s lodging an amendment that would require NatureScot to consider whether speed limits were a better alternative to requiring deer management to reduce public safety risks. I seem to recall fairly strong opposition from the Conservative Party to a previous proposal on speed limits. The protection of public safety is a circumstance in which I do not want to put up barriers to the ability of NatureScot to take action to control deer. Amendment 81 would require NatureScot to be satisfied that no alternative measure would be effective.”
“I am pleased to support Edward Mountain’s amendments 10 and 11. I would expect NatureScot to undertake such consultation work as part of a review of compliance, but I am happy to support such a requirement in legislation. I hope that that gives some reassurance to those in the land management sector that a key priority for the Government is to ensure that the changes that the bill makes are workable for them. I therefore ask members to support amendments 10 and 11. Given what I have just said about Edward Mountain’s amendments 8, 9 and 80 and Tim Eagle’s amendment 79, I hope that Mr Mountain will understand why I cannot support amendment 12. It would undo all the changes that we have made to secure flexibility on the code of practice and review of compliance with it.”