Seòmar agus comataidhean

We would expect NatureScot to still go through the entire voluntary process in the first place before it ever got to that point.

I am glad that you mentioned the collaborative approach that is currently being taken. I have had extensive engagement with land managers since I was given the responsibility of taking this part of the bill through, and not one deer manager or land manager that I have had a conversation with is not on board with having a deer management system that actually works. Yes, there will be discussions, but deer management is already in a much better place than before, when it comes to how people are co-operating. Through the Common Ground Forum, there is much better interaction and engagement.

Where the provision will come into play is if somebody simply refuses to engage. That has happened only once; one control order has been brought into play. NatureScot and the Government are within their rights to say, “If you are not prepared to be part of this community and allow us to achieve the objectives that we are trying to achieve, we should have the ability to take control.” That may well cause conflict with an individual landowner or landholder who is not prepared to take part.

However, one thing that I would like to get across, as I think I have said, is that we have good relations with our deer managers now—they are way better than previously—and I want that to continue. Voluntary engagement with NatureScot is absolutely the way that it has to be done to begin with. However, if somebody refuses to engage, there has to be an ability to make them engage.

Mr Mountain, I find it incredible that a man of your experience would try to pit one traditional land manager against another in such a situation.

We already do that for deer damage. We already have that ability in place. We are looking to create more biodiversity.

I absolutely get the nervousness among deer managers as to what “restoration” means. It is not something that can be plucked out of the air; someone cannot suddenly say, “I am going to restore that,” and it has to happen. There are examples of relevant strategies and plans. It would have to be something out of the Scottish biodiversity strategy, the Scottish climate change plan or the forestry plan, for instance.

There are a number of different schemes that somebody would have to sign up to. In the process of delivering that scheme, if the neighbouring community is asked to bring down its deer numbers, that is acceptable. However, as I said in response to a previous intervention, that does not mean that things will have to be like that for the next five, 10 or 20 years. If there is an allowance for bringing down the numbers and people do that work, that allows the restoration to happen, whether it is peatland, forestry or any other kind of restoration. That does not mean that the deer numbers cannot go back up, however.

If the concern is that people will lose their jobs as a result of deer numbers being brought down, I would say that I do not think that that is the case. I think that there will be a huge demand for shooters to control deer for many years to come. I have no concerns about deerstalkers losing their livelihoods. That may happen in a different way, but I do not believe that that is what is going to happen.

I see that Mr Eagle wishes to make an intervention.

The more the merrier—absolutely.

On Mark Ruskell’s amendment 246, I appreciate the member’s intention to create a national deer management plan. Although we share the ambition to address rising populations, the amendment as drafted would lock us into a rigid five-year programme with fixed cull targets. A statutory plan with predetermined numbers would risk reducing flexibility and could undermine adaptive management approaches. In addition, taking resource to draft such a convoluted plan would prevent us from taking tangible action on the ground. For those reasons, we cannot support amendment 246 at this stage, but I would very much like to work with Mr Ruskell and stakeholders ahead of stage 3, to ensure that any proposals are fit for purpose.

I oppose Beatrice Wishart’s amendment 225 because it risks weakening the effectiveness of the bill’s nature restoration objectives. By inserting the word “materially,” we would raise the threshold for intervention, meaning that NatureScot could act only when deer prevent or materially reduce the effectiveness of work, a project or natural process. Although that sounds reasonable, it would create problems in practice.

The amendment would delay action, as many environmental impacts start small and accumulate over time; it would introduce ambiguity, because the term “materially” is subjective; and it would invite disputes over what qualifies as material harm, adding complexity and slowing enforcement—instead of having clarity, we risk having uncertainty and challenge. It would also reduce flexibility. NatureScot needs to have the ability to act proactively, especially where cumulative minor impacts undermine biodiversity targets. The amendment would limit that discretion and could compromise Scotland’s climate and nature commitments.

For those reasons, I urge members to reject amendment 225.

I cannot support Tim Eagle’s amendments 226 to 230 as they would collectively weaken the bill’s ability to deliver effective nature restoration. Amendment 226 would remove the phrase “natural processes,” meaning that NatureScot could not act where deer are preventing or reducing, or are likely to prevent or reduce, the effectiveness of a natural process that protects the natural heritage or environment and is for, or contributes to, a climate change, biodiversity or environmental target, strategy or plan that applies in Scotland.

Amendments 227, 228 and 229 would change the wording relating to preserving, protecting, restoring and enhancing, which would create unnecessary complexity in an attempt to narrow the scope of the grounds for intervention, and, in doing so, it would potentially exclude projects that focus on only one objective. Amendment 230 would remove the phrase “or environment,” narrowing the scope to natural heritage alone and undermining integrated outcomes such as soil health, water quality and climate resilience. Those changes might seem technical, but together they would reduce flexibility, create ambiguity and limit the bill’s reach, when the original wording is clear and comprehensive. For those reasons, I encourage members to oppose amendments 226 to 230.

Although Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 233 is well intentioned, it would introduce a significant policy and practical challenge that would risk undermining effective deer management. The amendment would also impose a statutory duty on local authorities to require them to manage deer on all land that they own or control, including roads.

First, it is not clear what is meant by the wording, “otherwise under its control”. I am not sure what specific land would be covered by the proposed duty. In practice, amendment 233 would create an unfunded mandate. Many councils, particularly in urban and lowland areas, lack the expertise, resources and infrastructure to deliver safe and sustainable deer management. Without dedicated funding or training, the duty would be unrealistic and unevenly applied across Scotland.

Secondly, the requirement to prepare and publish a deer management plan would add administrative complexity. Councils already face severe budget pressures, and the amendment would divert resources from core services and risk creating plans that look good on paper but cannot be implemented effectively.

Finally, although the amendment rightly links deer management to road safety, it would not address the underlying problem—councils often lack access to reliable collision data and have limited capacity to act on it. Simply mandating consultation and reporting would not resolve those systemic gaps.

In short, the amendment would risk creating obligations without the means to fulfil them, leading to patchy implementation and potential liability for councils. The bill already provides mechanisms for co-ordinated deer management through NatureScot and voluntary partnerships. Adding that duty now would overcomplicate the system and strain local government capacity.

For those reasons, I encourage members to oppose amendment 233.

Tim Eagle’s amendment 331 is well intentioned. However, in seeking greater community involvement in deer management, it would introduce significant challenges that risk undermining effective deer management. It would impose a statutory obligation on public authorities to consider and potentially implement “community-integrated deer management models” on publicly owned land. In practice, that would create complex engagement requirements that could delay decision making, particularly when communities disagree with proposed plans.

The amendment would require public authorities to consider a number of complex elements when exercising their functions, which would significantly increase workload and administrative burdens on them. Such a requirement should not be progressed without careful consideration and consultation with the public authorities that might be subject to that new duty.

Deer management can be an emotive subject, and there are many views on the best way to manage deer in different areas. I do not think that the member has considered the potential implications in peri-urban areas, where some members of the public who rarely see deer do not understand the impact that deer have on the environment if their population is left unchecked.

For those reasons, I ask the member not to move amendment 331. If he does, I ask members not to support it.

Although I appreciate the intention behind Rhoda Grant’s amendment 136, which is to ensure timely action on the notification of control agreements, I remind her that section 7 control agreements are voluntary. NatureScot will look to secure voluntary deer management and work with landowners and occupiers to reach agreement on what it will look like. That can take time, because collaboration and the process are not linear. Therefore, it is not practical to oblige NatureScot to give notice within three months. For those reasons, I recommend that members oppose amendment 136.

I am not minded to change my position on that, because, as far as I am concerned, we have to have that voluntary conversation. I cannot see any rationale for not asking NatureScot to find a voluntary agreement before we go for a control scheme. However, I am happy to have a conversation with Mark Ruskell after this meeting.

Safeguards for whom?

It is not uncommon for such obligations to be registered against land. The Forestry and Land Management (Scotland) Act 2018 enables ministers to register certain notices on the land register or on the register of sasines, and nature conservation orders can be registered in that way, too.

Mr Eagle proposes that, instead, NatureScot publish details of the control scheme on its website. However, NatureScot is already required to publish details of all control schemes, which means that the amendment would duplicate that requirement. It would also not provide continuity of deer management or ensure the transparency in relation to the presence of a control scheme that is intended by the provisions in the bill. For that reason, I encourage the committee to oppose amendments 238 and 244.

Amendment 245, in the name of Tim Eagle, seeks to amend section 10 of the 1996 act, which contains measures that can be taken in emergency situations. In all circumstances, NatureScot will ask the landlord or occupier to undertake the emergency measures themselves and will make use of the power only in cases where the landowner or occupier is unwilling or unable to take appropriate emergency action to halt deer damage.

I should say that NatureScot has used section 10 powers in circumstances that are not connected with the carrying out of culling. At Flanders Moss, for example, NatureScot uses section 10 powers as an enabling, not regulatory, tool to allow cross-boundary deer control. That intervention was requested by deer controllers themselves, to allow them to follow and kill deer across boundaries within a defined and agreed area.

By introducing the prevention of damage to the natural heritage and environment as a purpose for which that power can be used, we are increasing the tools available to land managers across Scotland. Deer are, as we know, highly mobile and, although they are a great resource, they can also cause great damage, so we must have the appropriate tools available to us if we are to achieve our climate and biodiversity aims. For those reasons, I ask the committee to oppose amendment 245.

Turning to amendment 70, in the name of Rhoda Grant, and amendment 332, in the name of Tim Eagle, I have heard from tenant farmers and crofters about their concerns regarding deer damage on unimproved land and common grazings. The issue of occupiers’ rights was raised by the deer working group, and I know that it was also highlighted in the committee’s stage 1 report. Although I support the intention behind both amendments, I want to ensure that we strike the right balance between protecting occupiers’ interests and protecting the right of landowners to take deer.

When I speak to Dr Allan’s amendment 39, I will set out my intention to work with him on tweaking that amendment ahead of stage 3, but I would also be pleased to work with Ms Grant and Mr Eagle on the matters that they have raised. I therefore ask them both not to move their amendments but instead to work with me to improve Dr Allan’s amendment. If their amendments are moved, I encourage members to vote against them.

Turning to amendment 39, in the name of Dr Allan, I accept that he has not spoken to it yet, but I have to say that it represents a vital step towards sustainable land management and biodiversity recovery. It will empower occupiers of agricultural land or woodland, and grazings committees, to act swiftly to prevent both injury to livestock and the damage that deer cause not only to crops and woodlands but to the natural heritage in our environment.

That change supports Scotland’s biodiversity and climate targets by helping to reduce deer densities, which is essential for woodland regeneration and tackling tick-borne diseases that harm livestock and human health. It is a simple, low-cost measure that strengthens local capacity while maintaining safeguards through NatureScot competency approval and close-season restrictions. By enabling timely and responsible action, the amendment protects rural livelihoods, improves habitat resilience and ensures that communities can contribute to national nature restoration goals. For those reasons, I encourage members to support amendment 39.

My amendment 71 seeks to address concerns raised by NatureScot regarding the definition of “shotgun” that the bill inserts into the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996. The current definition, which is drawn from the Firearms Act 1968, may inadvertently allow the use of certain firearms to shoot deer without authorisation, despite their being shotguns in practice.

Amendment 71 will introduce a regulation-making power to enable Scottish ministers to define “shotgun” for the purposes of the 1996 act. That ensures flexibility to include weapons that function as shotguns but which fall outside the definition of “shotgun” found in the 1968 act. The amendment includes a requirement for ministers to consult relevant stakeholders before making any regulations, including those with?expertise?in the area of?firearms, to?ensure that we define shotguns in a way that captures all relevant weapons.

On amendment 251, in the name of Beatrice Wishart, although we fully support the principle of transparency in deer management, I must ask the member not to move this amendment today. The proposal for a national dashboard is ambitious, but it introduces significant technical and resource challenges that require careful planning. We share the objective of improving public access to deer management data, and we are already exploring opportunities to achieve that through NatureScot’s existing deer management app. Indeed, that platform can be developed to provide much of the functionality envisaged by the amendment, without creating additional legislative complexity.

We are fully committed to improving the data and information that we gather on deer management, and to making that information more readily available to the public. I would welcome the chance to discuss that further with Beatrice Wishart, to ensure that the aims of her amendment are met in a practical and cost-effective way—

It is, yes.

We do require cull returns to be made. I am more than happy to talk to Beatrice Wishart about how we can improve the amendment that she has lodged.