Seòmar agus comataidhean

I do not have the date in front of me, but it was in the press: it was widely—

But is that not just the Scottish Government taking a massive leap into people’s personal choice in what they do with their land across Scotland? Is there a risk that NatureScot might say that person A is doing everything it wants and saying all the right things, therefore all the traditional land management around them must comply?

Will you take an intervention?

You might partly have answered, minister. My concern is that this might undermine land value and might also discourage a buyer who would absolutely want to reduce deer or meet whatever requirements there were for the land. I suggest that, instead of tying that to land, which seems quite final, we just have a website that lists all those things.

I am grateful to hear that you are keen on doing that, but, if you are so keen, why not put it in the bill?

It is up to the convener, but I would be happy to hear more as this progresses, given the concerns.

Just out of interest, do you have any meetings arranged with stakeholders to discuss how they feel there should be change moving forward?

You are already having that dialogue.

I appreciate the minister’s comments, but I will set out my point of view on amendments 247, 248 and 250.

Section 28 of the bill establishes a new requirement for the register of those who are authorised to shoot deer: those on the register will need to be both fit and competent. In all likelihood, that will require baseline competence to be proven in some fashion. The policy memorandum suggests that, to undertake activities, people would need to display a higher level of competence than the baseline, which could be evidenced by certification or qualification. Amendment 247, in my name, would exclude people from having to undertake such training if they were able to prove that they had been stalking for some time. Industry concerns, from bodies such as NFUS and BASC highlighted that the introduction of so-called mandatory training could leave the sector significantly short of deer stalkers, which is not what we want. There are also concerns that new stalkers might be discouraged from entering the sector, because of the requirement for training.

The Scottish Government has sought to include such training for safety and animal welfare purposes. Although those are reasonable concerns, it does not take away from the fact that the bill might have unintended consequences. Unfortunately, the Government appears to have done little research on the likely negative impacts on the deer sector of specific training. I lodged amendments 247, 248 and 250 to help to manage not only the bill’s likely requirements for competence to be proven but the serious and genuine concerns of the deer stalking sector.

Before I start on my notes, I make a quick apology. First, as there is quite a lot of detail in sections 10 and 11 around deer management, I will try to get through that as quickly as possible. For brevity, I will not spend too long on amendments. Given that level of detail and the work that I have done with stakeholders, regardless of what happens today, I will seek a meeting with the minister—I know that his door is normally always open—before stage 3, just to express some of those points of detail, if that is okay.

Secondly, I want to highlight one point quickly. I was a little bit worried when I saw a press release yesterday, which was put out by some rural stakeholders and highlighted in FarmingUK, regarding the results of a freedom of information request. It said that a briefing to ministers in June 2023 had stated:

“To go beyond preventing damage is a significant shift in balance between public and private interests and we could expect challenges to this proposal on European Convention on Human Rights ... grounds, with particular reference to A1P1 (protection of property).”

That alarmed me when I saw it yesterday; we will come on to consider these issues. My colleague, Edward Mountain, has lodged various amendments regarding the bill’s proposed new section 6ZB of the 1996 act. I am worried—if officials are saying that there is potential for legal challenges, we need to pick up on that, and I hope that the minister might address it in his remarks today.

I now turn to my amendments, starting with amendment 215. The bill sets out the aims and purposes of deer management, making changes to the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996. It currently includes a purpose

“to promote the sustainable management of deer”.

My amendment 215 would exchange the word “promote” for the word “further”, meaning that the aim would read “to further the sustainable management of deer”. I believe that that change will strengthen the Scottish Government’s role from merely promoting to actively furthering sustainable deer management, which I believe will be critical to the medium-term to long-term delivery of biodiversity and climate change actions.

The bill also includes the aim:

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

My amendment 216 seeks to delete that. The decision by Scottish ministers to adopt that broad and highly subjective aim is not consistent with the deer working group’s recommendations. Safeguarding the public interest is not a policy objective in its own right, but the outcome that clear and specific objectives are meant to deliver. The deletion of that provision would remove uncertainty from the legislation. I believe that the term “public interest” has no fixed meaning and introduces a subjective element into the law.

The bill modifies section 1 of the 1996 act, which deals with the Deer Commission for Scotland’s general functions. Under the 1996 act, the commission, while exercising its functions, is to consider factors such as

“the size and density of the deer population and its impact on the natural heritage”.

Section 10(4)(a) of the bill seeks to insert “and environment” at the end of that wording. My amendment 217 seeks to delete that addition. I am concerned that the term “environment” introduces broad overarching objectives that reflect national, rather than local, priorities.

The explanatory notes to the bill justify the insertion of that wording on the basis that NatureScot must consider

“the cumulative impact of deer across Scotland”

when shaping management policy. However, NatureScot itself acknowledges that national deer numbers are less important than the local and regional environmental impacts. If, as NatureScot asserts, the cumulative national impact is of limited relevance, the justification for expanding the statutory language of the 1996 act to include “the environment” is weak and open to challenge.

With regard to other amendments in the group, I will be supporting my colleague Edward Mountain’s amendment, and I look forward to hearing from him today. I will also be supporting the amendments on deer from my colleague Douglas Ross.

I will speak to Douglas Ross’s amendment 218. Section 11 will allow NatureScot to take an active part in proceedings for advisory panels on deer management. Currently, the organisation is able only to attend panels and act as an observer. Amendment 218 would delete that section entirely.

NatureScot has the function of acting as a regulator responsible for supporting deer management measures, but the ability to also sit on the management panels raises concerns about a conflict of interest. Section 11 appears to be little short of further overreach by a Government quango, and it is another example of where NatureScot’s functions, or proposed functions, collide. In the interests of preventing such overreach and reducing further conflicting powers, amendment 218 would delete the extended functions from the bill.

I cannot support Mark Ruskell’s amendment 28, because I have concerns about the uncertainty around who can take on the powers over deer functions that Mr Ruskell’s amendment seeks to transfer.

I move amendment 215.

Certainly. I need a break.