Seòmar agus comataidhean

That does not have implications for what we are trying to do here.

Police Scotland will still make the decision as to whether a licence should be given to somebody that it believes to be a fit person to have a firearms licence.

That is not something that NatureScot could do on a whim—it must go through a whole process in order to get to that position in the first place.

Section 12(2) merely adds an additional part that NatureScot can then intervene in. However, that would not take away from all the things that NatureScot has to do in order to get to a control order, if it ever gets to that stage. My hope and expectation would be that NatureScot would work with the land managers and the deer managers to find solutions to issues as and when they arise. Surely that is something that the member would agree with.

Does the member accept that extending the timing of a control scheme gives the land manager time to achieve the objectives in the first place? It helps the landowner to achieve the aims.

There would be much value in our having an extensive conversation after this session, because we could get some agreement on an awful lot of things, but that is how I would describe my approach to amendment 237.

I apologise in advance, because there are a considerable number of amendments to get through in this group, which may take more than a couple of minutes.

On amendment 132, it is unfortunate that Edward Mountain has decided to bring this issue back again and to try disrupt proceedings relating to the close seasons of deer. We have a serious climate and biodiversity challenge in this country, and the advice from a huge range of experts from academic and practical backgrounds has been clear: if we are serious about protecting our environment and allowing natural regeneration, we must reduce deer impacts.

The only effective way to do that is to bring down deer populations and reduce deer densities. There is no evidence that shooting male deer during the previously set close season is detrimental to their welfare, which is the point that I made to the member earlier. There is nothing to prevent land managers who wish to observe a close season for deer on their land, for the traditional reasons, from doing so. Skilled practitioners, using best practice and local knowledge and expertise, are best placed to make decisions about which deer to shoot and under which circumstances. The Parliament voted on the matter very recently, in 2023. For those reasons, I ask the committee not to support amendment 132.

On amendments 133 to 135, 138, 139 and 148 to 151, the changes that the bill makes to introduce a ground for intervention for nature restoration purposes stem from a recommendation made by the Parliament in 2017, as has just been referenced by Mark Ruskell. At that time, the ECCLR Committee made the following recommendation:

“The Committee is not convinced the currently available suite of powers are adequate ... The Committee recommends the Scottish Government now take urgent action to devise alternative measures and simple provisions that lead to action to protect and restore habitats and sites impacted by deer.”

We are eight years down the line and the urgency around effective deer management for the purpose of nature restoration has only increased.

The provisions set out in section 13 of the bill to introduce a new ground for intervention for the purposes of nature restoration aim to achieve that. The new ground for intervention is not limitless and will be able to be used by NatureScot only when certain tests have been met. To help owners and occupiers of land to understand and anticipate when NatureScot may decide to intervene, NatureScot will be required to include the circumstances in which it will intervene in the management and control of deer in the code of practice on deer management. It has begun work on updating that code with stakeholders already.

I cannot remember where I had got to.

There is nothing to prevent land managers who wish to observe a close season for deer on their land, for traditional reasons, from doing so. Skilled practitioners, using best practice—I have read all that. The Parliament voted on that matter very recently.

I will go back to amendments 133, 134, 138, 139 and 148 to 151.

The new ground for intervention is not limitless, and it will be used by NatureScot only when certain tests are met. To help owners and occupiers of land to understand and anticipate when NatureScot may decide to intervene, NatureScot will be required to include the circumstances in which it will intervene in the management and control of deer in the code of practice on deer management. It has begun work on updating that code already.

A fair balance is struck between those whose land and possessions are affected by the provisions of the bill and the wider general interest of the protection of the natural environment, as well as ensuring that deer management is undertaken in an environmentally sustainable and welfare-conscious manner.

If we are serious about meeting our climate and biodiversity aims, we must take action now to address our deer populations. I want deer to be part of our functioning ecosystem, and for us to maximise the benefits that they provide as one of our great resources. However, that cannot be at the cost of our environment.

For those reasons I urge the committee not to support amendments 133 to 135, 138, 139 and 148 to 151.

I do not think that amendment 140 has the effects that Rhoda Grant thinks that it has. Under section 8(A1) of the 1996 act, NatureScot can already proceed with a control scheme if it

“is satisfied that it is not possible to secure a control agreement or that a control agreement is not being carried out; or ... 6 months have elapsed since SNH”—

now NatureScot—

“gave the notice and no agreement has been reached”.

Ultimately, whether NatureScot proceeds with a control scheme requires the tests in section 8(A1) to be met. I therefore ask Rhoda Grant not to move amendment 140. If it is moved, I ask the committee not to support it.

On amendment 141, in the name of Rhoda Grant, the process for control schemes requires the Scottish ministers to consider any objections made to a proposed control scheme. The objection period is 28 days, but the legislation does not set out any deadline by which ministers must confirm or reject that proposal. In practice, we would always work to respond as soon as possible, balancing that with the need to give careful consideration to the objections raised and all the relevant evidence. I can see, however, that it would be useful to set out a general expectation in legislation around the timescale within which the minister will respond. The amendment allows enough flexibility where circumstances might require a longer period of consideration. I support amendment 141 and I encourage the committee to vote in favour of it.

Mr Mountain’s amendments 142 and 143 would require all objections to a control scheme to be considered by a group of experts who

“are recognised in the industry”

as being experts. Although I understand and appreciate the aim that Mr Mountain is trying to achieve, the amendments are impractical. It is not the intention that all objections to control schemes made under section 8 of the 1996 act should be subject to advice from one or more experts appointed by Scottish ministers for that purpose. Instead, the intention is that, where ministers feel that there is a need to seek advice from experts, we do so.

Objections can be made on any grounds, and it would not be reasonable to expect that ministers must convene a group of experts to consider objections made on, for example, procedural grounds. There is also the potential for a very high volume of objections to be received, or for objections to be made that are not based on evidence. To be required to have a group of experts to consider those objections would not be beneficial.

There could be differences of opinion in the deer management industry as to who is recognised as having the expertise that is relevant to the objection or the scheme. The amendment does not set out how such differences could be dealt with. Indeed, it is likely that all that it would do is slow down the process. Instead, the current drafting allows Scottish ministers to reach a view on who has the expertise to provide the advice. I ask the committee not to support amendments 142 and 143.

In regard to amendments 145 and 146, the deer working group conducted a comprehensive review of deer legislation and did not recommend increasing scrutiny of control agreements or schemes. The amendments therefore go beyond what the group considered necessary. Section 1 of the 1996 act, as amended by the bill, states that one of NatureScot’s aims and purposes is

“to safeguard the public interest in relation to the management and control of deer.”

Although the bill does not define public interest, the provision is widely understood to include both socio-economic and ecological impacts. That means that the intent of the amendments is already embedded in the 1996 act through the amendments that we are making in the bill.

The current legislation also already requires consultation and proportionality. Rather than improving the outcomes, the amendments duplicate existing safeguards. Introducing mandatory socio-economic assessments and an independent panel would add complexity and slow down urgent control measures, risking ecological harm and public safety. For those reasons, I encourage members to oppose amendments 145 and 146.

On amendments 219 and 329, making compliance with the deer code mandatory, even if only when that is reasonably practicable, could prevent NatureScot from exercising its professional judgment in complex or urgent situations such as disease outbreaks or severe weather impacts. Wildlife management often requires adaptive responses to ecological conditions, emergencies or local stakeholder needs.

Although the suggested new wording would allow NatureScot to depart from the code when compliance is not reasonably practicable, framing that as a duty to comply could unnecessarily slow down intervention and increase the administrative burden. The deer code was designed as guidance to promote best practice; it is not a rigid statutory rulebook. Turning it into something that must be complied with—albeit only when that is reasonably practicable—would change its nature and risk prioritising procedure over the outcomes that we seek. For those reasons, I encourage members to oppose amendments 219 and 329.

Section 12 amends the 1996 act to require NatureScot to include in the code of practice the circumstances in which it will intervene in the management or control of deer. Amendment 220 would make a small but important change by replacing “will” with “may”. That would ensure that NatureScot has the flexibility to act when intervention is necessary, rather than being obliged to do so in every case. Environmental management requires judgment and proportionality, and amendment 220 would allow decisions to be based on evidence and priorities. For those reasons, I encourage members to support amendment 220.

I understand the intention behind amendment 222, in the name of Beatrice Wishart, which would increase the frequency of reviews from at least every 10 years to at least every five years. It is important to note that section 12 already provides that flexibility. Under the proposed new subsection (1A) in section 5B of the 1996 act, NatureScot will be able to carry out a review at any time, including when it is required by ministers, following a significant revision of the code and otherwise not less than every 10 years. That means that the reviews are not restricted to the statutory cycle but can be undertaken whenever circumstances demand. I have set out previously that I would expect the review to be carried out within a few years of the bill being enacted.

Reducing the review period from 10 years to five years would create unnecessary administrative pressure without delivering any additional benefits, given that the legislation already allows for timely reviews outside the standard period. The current 10-year period provides a backstop, because it ensures that there is regular oversight if no changes have occurred to the code or otherwise. I do not expect it to become the default that the review is undertaken every 10 years. For those reasons, I encourage members to vote against amendment 222.

Amendments 223, 224 and 330, in the name of Tim Eagle, appear to be technical changes that would change “in relation to” to “on”, which would narrow the scope of intervention powers. The current wording allows NatureScot to act when 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 and make it harder to address cumulative or cross-boundary impacts. Deer do not respect property lines, and our legislation should reflect that reality. For example, deer could be on a particular area of land but wander on to roads and cause road traffic accidents. The public safety issue would not be “on” the particular area of land but rather “in relation” to that land. The existing wording provides the flexibility that is needed to protect public interests and the environment. For those reasons, I encourage members to oppose amendments 223, 224 and 330.

I support the aim that Rhoda Grant is trying to achieve with amendment 68, which would clarify that NatureScot can seek a control agreement from a landowner where the land is tenanted and where damage is occurring on the tenanted land. She is trying to ensure that, in those circumstances, the tenant can ask NatureScot to provide support via an intervention. I support the premise, but the amendment needs some clarification. I am happy to work with Ms Grant to lodge an amendment at stage 3, if she does not move amendment 68 today, but I ask members not to support it if it is moved.

I cannot support amendment 231, because it is unnecessary. The words “the land” in paragraph (a) of proposed new section 6A(2) of the 1996 act must be read in the light of the opening wording of new section 6A(2). Therefore, the words “the land” refer back to the particular area of land previously referred to. For those reasons, I urge members to reject amendment 231.

On amendment 232, in the name of Beatrice Wishart, the bill makes a change to allow NatureScot to request that a deer management plan be submitted in a shorter timeframe, with a minimum of three months’ notice. That is only a minimum timeframe, which is the point that I was trying to make earlier. We consulted on the change, but I appreciate that concerns have been raised since by stakeholders, and I want to use this opportunity to set out my expectations very clearly.

NatureScot will be able to set a deadline that is beyond three months or extend a deadline, where appropriate, as it does now. Where owners or occupiers are working to develop a plan or to address gaps in data or information that relate to developing the plan, NatureScot will work with them to agree an appropriate timescale for delivering the plan.

We already do that for nature damage, so we are adding restoration to that requirement. That can already be done. The amendment that Mr Mountain has lodged would put in statute that there has to be an economic impact assessment. That is my understanding of what his amendment would do. However, we already have the public interest test, which I just explained to Mr Eagle. Therefore, NatureScot cannot dismiss the fact that neighbouring estates have employees who require deer to make a living. That has to be part of its consideration.

It is a voluntary agreement to begin with, and it would only ever become a statutory agreement if NatureScot could not get agreement through a voluntary process. I am trusting that NatureScot, the landowners and the stalkers will be able to find proportionate responses to requirements in order to allow us to get restoration done in Scotland—which this committee has always agreed to. Every time that I have listened to this committee, everyone has agreed to that, and this is the method by which we are doing it.

We could have made it a lot harder and simply said, “We’re going to legislate and this is what will be done,” but that is not what we are doing. We are trying to get people to work together, as communities, to deliver the nature restoration that we are looking for while maintaining the ability for people to make a living out of stalking deer. I do not know how to put that any more clearly. People may disagree with me, but that is as clear as I can make it. I hope that that gives comfort to the people who are actually shooting deer.

Although we will come on to this point later, I want to address another part of the issue just now. When we talk about financial hardship, we also have to talk about how we make venison worth money and valuable. We have to get it up the pecking order in terms of its ability to be part of our heritage and culture, so that people will look to Scotland and say, “They have fantastic wild deer and we’re going to eat it.” There are things that we would very much like to do to bring that forward.

I get that this can be difficult and that it will feel like a change and a threat to people—I absolutely understand that—but we are doing this in a very proportionate way. There are policy objectives that we will try to achieve, but we want to take people with us, and I think that we are doing that with the bill that is in front of us.

Unless anyone else has any more comments or questions on that issue, I will go straight to the end of my notes on it, because we have exhausted everything through that little interaction. I ask Beatrice Wishart not to press amendment 232. If it is pressed, I ask members not to support it.

Let me turn to amendment 69 in the name of Rhoda Grant. Good deer management is about achieving balance, which is exactly what we have just discussed at some length. What that looks like in different local areas will very much vary depending on the immediate environment and the impact that deer may be having. I take the member’s points about the complexity of managing deer on the lowlands, and I agree that there are very different circumstances and barriers to be addressed.

However, there will be more benefit in establishing a national deer management plan that brings together all those strands to ensure that we are not working in silos. That national deer management plan could certainly have a specific section on lowland deer management that addresses issues such as the different approaches to collaborative deer management and NatureScot resources, on which I am very happy to work with the member.

As a result, I would like to suggest working together with Mark Ruskell on his amendment 246 ahead of stage 3 of the bill, so that we can develop a national deer management plan—[Interruption.] Give me two seconds until I finish this point.

That plan will be capable of addressing the issues that are raised by amendment 69. On that basis, I ask Rhoda Grant not to move amendment 69.

I will take that intervention. Was it from Emma Harper?

NatureScot has to report to ministers on any issues as well. If a particular issue is of concern, it can come back to ministers.

On amendments 234 and 235, I am not sure why Tim Eagle wants to amend the bill in that way. At various points in the stage 1 debate, the member outlined that he thought that NatureScot’s powers were broad and too vague. I have been clear that we want voluntary deer management to be the focus of our deer management efforts. We want the good collaboration that we have seen until now to continue. However, when NatureScot forms a view that the tests and the grounds for intervention have been met, we want to ensure that it is clear what action will be taken. Changing “must” to “may” would undermine clarity and certainty about what steps will be taken after NatureScot has formed the view that some form of intervention, whether that be a voluntary control agreement or a control scheme, is required. The lack of certainty about the process that would follow would not benefit anyone. For that reason, I recommend that members reject amendments 234 and 235.

On Rhoda Grant’s amendment 137, as I have set out previously, control agreements are voluntary. Publishing all the information related to section 7 control agreements, which are part of an iterative and collaborative process, including all the evidence that led NatureScot to form a view that intervention was necessary, would be pre-emptive and detrimental to everyone involved. It would place a significant administrative burden on NatureScot. The section 8 provisions are the end of the process in which deer control schemes become compulsory, and it is at that stage that the schemes are published by NatureScot. For those reasons, I encourage members to oppose amendment 137.

Tim Eagle’s amendment 236 would add an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy to the process for proposing a control scheme. NatureScot must publish a notice when issuing a control scheme. That notice must include a copy of the scheme itself as well as details of how relevant owners and occupiers can object. As I set out a moment ago, control schemes are the end of the process and, by that point, NatureScot will have been engaging or attempting to engage the owner or occupier on the deer management issues that the scheme seeks to address. Throughout the process, NatureScot will have gathered evidence and outlined its assessment of the situation on the ground, and the rationale for the intervention. Where an owner or occupier disagrees with NatureScot’s assessment, or the actions that are required by the scheme, they can object to the Scottish ministers. If the Scottish ministers then, having considered the evidence and any objections, confirm the scheme, the owner or occupier may appeal to the Land Court.

There is no rationale for introducing an additional step involving an independent panel to review control schemes. At best, that will result in the work that NatureScot has already undertaken being carried out twice, and, at worst, it will be a waste of time and money for everyone involved. We already have sufficient checks and balances in place, and a process that is well understood by all. I therefore urge the committee to oppose amendment 236.

On Mark Ruskell’s amendments 29 and 30, the changes that we are making to NatureScot’s powers under the bill are intended to support voluntary deer management and ensure that, in situations where those voluntary agreements break down, NatureScot can take enforcement action to ensure effective deer management. It is of the utmost importance to me that we do as much as we can to support the good deer management that is happening across Scotland and ensure that it can continue. At the moment, the process requires NatureScot to make the meaningful attempts that I have already spoken about to secure agreement on voluntary deer management. I fear that these amendments would undermine that aim entirely.

We want voluntary deer management to be the focus of our deer management efforts, and we want the good collaboration that we have seen until now to continue. That includes taking proactive action for environmental purposes while maintaining those appropriate checks and balances. It is not our intention, nor is it either practical or feasible, to demand compulsory deer management everywhere.