Seòmar agus comataidhean

We have put in an extra £150,000 for processing this year, and a total of £300,000 has gone in. I take the member’s point about shooting a scrawny old stag; no one will be falling over themselves to eat that, but let us not characterise the venison that we have in Scotland as only scrawny old stags that have been shot out of season. That is not what we have, and I think that that undermines the message that we are trying to convey through the bill, which is that we have a fantastic product in Scotland that we should get behind and eat as much of as we possibly can, and that there will be multiple successes as we go forward.

Yes. This is about deer control across Scotland.

That was among the recommendations that came out of the deer working group.

We have not done the consultation because it came out of the deer working group that I commissioned to look at all the deer management options.

It came out of the deer working group. I have just stated that we are bringing in the requirement but we will consult on it before it comes back to the committee for consideration as secondary legislation. All the issues that Mr Mountain has raised and that you are raising can be ironed out as we go through that consultation. We can then lodge a Scottish statutory instrument for the committee to scrutinise.

Although supporting access to training is important, amendment 250, in the name of Tim Eagle, is undesirable. Regulations to create a Government-run training fund are not needed, because there are already private sector and voluntary schemes that support training—for example, NatureScot’s Creag Meagaidh scheme. Our preference is not to fix funding in law. Instead, we can work with NatureScot and the industry to improve training schemes and explore partnership funding. That approach is more flexible, avoids bureaucracy and prevents unrealistic expectations of full Government funding. For those reasons, I ask the member not to move amendment 250. If it is moved, I ask members to oppose it.

We are absolutely clear that this will be a transitional process, and I am more than happy to work with the member to discuss how that will be delivered.

We have looked at the issue for Scotland; we have not looked across the UK.

I will start with Tim Eagle’s amendments 215 to 217. I am not sure that I understand why Tim Eagle is seeking to amend the bill in that way. At various points in the stage 1 debate, Mr Eagle outlined that he thought that the powers that NatureScot had were broad and too vague. His amendments do not seem to add any clarity to NatureScot’s aims, purposes and functions under the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996 but rather seek to limit the functions of NatureScot in achieving the sustainable deer management that we are all looking for.

We have seen significant expansion of deer and growth in their number since the late 1950s, and changes need to be made if we are going to make an impact on their populations. The changes to NatureScot’s aims, purposes and functions under the 1996 act were recommended by the deer working group.

Furthermore, the committee’s stage 1 report agreed with the changes to section 1 of the 1996 act that add

“to safeguard the public interest so far as it relates to the management and control of deer”

to the statutory aims and purposes of deer management for NatureScot. I am not sure why Mr Eagle is seeking to undermine those positive changes. For the reasons that I have outlined, I will not support amendments 215 to 217, and I ask members not to vote for them.

I am supportive of what Mr Mountain’s amendment 131 is aiming to achieve, but I cannot support it. We have excellent deer managers up and down the country, and I want to ensure that they know, as I do, that we will always need skilled people on the ground to manage our deer populations. As drafted, amendment 131 would require NatureScot to consider protection and promotion of deer management employment in carrying out any of its deer functions, which is impractical for the bill.

Through the bill, we have amended the general aims and purposes of NatureScot under the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996. It will have a duty to take into account, if appropriate, the public interest as it relates to deer management in carrying out its deer functions. That will include issues such as the impact on employment in rural communities, which is an important point that has been missed so far. We are also working outwith the bill to provide financial support for deer management, including incentive pilots in the Cairngorms national park and south Loch Ness, and funding for venison larders. Our deer populations are, without doubt, a fantastic asset to Scotland, and I intend to continue to work with deer managers across the country to consider what better support they might need. For those reasons, I do not think that the amendment is necessary, and I ask members not to support it.

Regarding Mark Ruskell’s amendment 28, I understand the intention to provide flexibility in transferring deer management functions, but I highlight to members that the current framework already allows Scottish ministers to direct NatureScot and set priorities without removing its statutory role.

I like your analogy, Mr Mountain, but I disagree with you. I think that NatureScot has the functions and the capability to do its job properly; however, that must be in conjunction with deer stalkers and managers on the ground. That is why I actively encourage NatureScot to have regular contact with deer management groups.

As we start to talk about deer management, I would like us to get to the position where we stop having a polarised debate. We are trying to recognise the asset that venison and deer are to Scotland across all sectors, but that does not mean that we will not have to manage issues as we go along.

I take the point that Mr Ruskell makes, but I disagree with it, so I will not accept his amendment 28. The amendment would add complexity without clear evidence of need. If circumstances require a change in responsibilities, that can be addressed through existing mechanisms, where possible, or through primary legislation, if required, to ensure full parliamentary scrutiny. We already have all the tools that we need. I would be happy to meet Mr Ruskell to discuss any of the specific concerns that he has. For the reasons that I have set out, I ask Mr Ruskell not to move amendment 28. If he does move it, I ask members to oppose it.

On amendment 218, in the name of Douglas Ross, spoken to by Mr Eagle, section 11 simply amends the 1996 act to allow NatureScot to sit on a panel as a member. It will not require NatureScot to do so, and it is not our intention that it will sit on every panel. We can foresee circumstances in the future where it would be beneficial for a relevant expert from NatureScot to sit on a panel, and we would not want NatureScot to be prohibited from doing so in those circumstances.