Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you, cabinet secretary, for letting me in. There is a huge amount of concern about this, and there have been statements and questions on it, but we do not seem to have any better information, and I think that there is a lack of confidence that the information will come out. When does the cabinet secretary plan to publish the paper that she referred to? I am minded to support these amendments, because I am not confident that we will get the answers. Is there any way back from this to ensure that, if what is in the paper is not good enough, people can still get the information that they need? We have to ensure that this does not happen again, but we also have to ensure that those affected, some of whom have spent money on applications, get the answers that they deserve.

I understand the point about security issues, but it seems a bit strange that there is not at least an email address from which board members could pick up their own emails, aside from a standard national park email address.

I will speak to my amendments 68, 69, 136, 137, 140, 141, 147 and 70.

Amendment 69 seeks to provide for the creation of a lowland deer management plan. The species in lowland Scotland and the way in which deer are managed there are very different from the situation in highland Scotland, and land ownership patterns are different, too. Responsibility for deer is therefore different. Stakeholders have told me that they are concerned that the bill appears to be focused on highland deer management and that it will do little to control increasing numbers of lowland deer. We need to have a lowland deer management plan to keep deer numbers in check.

Amendments 136, 137, 140 and 141 seek to introduce clear timescales for different stages of the processes under sections 7 and 8 of the 1996 act to add transparency in that regard. Currently, NatureScot’s use of the statutory intervention powers in sections 7 and 8 lacks transparency and is, therefore, not in line with its own shared principles for wildlife management.

The section 7 voluntary control intervention by NatureScot at Caenlochan in the Cairngorms national park has lasted for more than 25 years, and it has not delivered the required reduction in deer densities on the ground. Only one out of 11 section 7 agreements has concluded successfully.

This set of amendments would set clear timescales for NatureScot to consider use of its statutory intervention powers around deer management and to publish its views, which would encourage swifter decision making and would enable interested parties and the public to keep better track of progress with action by NatureScot.

Amendment 147 would create a new section in the bill that would allow any concerned person to ask SNH or NatureScot to intervene or reduce deer numbers. High levels of deer browsing and trampling can cause significant damage to gardens, crops, woodlands and land management for nature restoration, because deer—as we know—do not respect property boundaries. The amendment would give those who are impacted by deer a formal process for asking NatureScot to help to resolve concerns by using its statutory powers to reduce deer numbers. NatureScot would not necessarily have to intervene; however, it must give a good reason for not doing so.

The confidentiality that is specified in subsection (3) of the proposed new section has been included to cover circumstances that involve a community or estate whistleblower. It would not normally apply to a local authority, community council, non-governmental organisation or other formal body, should they make such a request. The amendment would allow an appeal to the Scottish Land Court if action was not taken.

Amendments 68 and 76 seek to do something similar but specifically for farmers and crofters, by extending their current powers to allow them to take problem deer on land other than their cultivated land. If they are not able, or do not wish, to do that, they can ask SNH to take action to prevent damage to their crops and livelihood.

Alasdair Allan’s amendment 39 would do something similar. I will listen to the debate, but I think that there are two things missing from his amendment. First, not everybody who is concerned or impacted might be able to take action themselves, and they would need a route for asking NatureScot to intervene. It is not always crofters and farmers who are impacted by problem deer—for example, someone who has a market garden might need to take steps to intervene and take deer but might not be confident about doing so themselves.

Not all of them are working well; some of them are not working. Some of them have been in place for many years and have still not concluded agreements.

I apologise, because I do not want to get into a conversation about this, but it feels to me that, if something has been on-going for years, it has not really achieved its goal.

I do not think that we have a stakeholder who is really happy with the approach of the SSI. The disappointment comes from the fact that the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Act 2022 and the plan were supposed to be overarching. We understand that food is of interest to everybody because of health, the economy and so on—it touches so many aspects of life. The SSI seems to narrow the whole process by mentioning some things specifically. It does not provide a full picture, because there are different bits of legislation. Unless someone is totally immersed in legislation, they will pick up on the SSI and miss half of what the good food nation plan is supposed to be doing, and they will see a narrowing of where the plan is relevant. I wonder whether you would have taken a different approach if you had consulted on the draft, because it seems that the SSI pleases nobody and does not meet the aspirations of the bill.

Being so narrow might mean that you miss crucial aspects, such as planning. We all know that, if someone lives in a deprived area, the chances are that they will have an expensive corner shop rather than a more affordable supermarket. Planning is crucial to how we implement all of this, and it feels as though an awful lot is missing from the plan. We are not taking the holistic approach that we hoped would come forward from the act and the plan.

I am not suggesting that it would be an official park email address. It would be an individual email address in the same way as we all have email addresses in the Parliament. It is not for the Parliament to check whether we are reading and responding to our emails; that is down to the individual whose email address it is.

Regarding intervention, it is clear that the systems are not working. Where is the fallback to ensure that, when there is an issue with deer, intervention can take place?

Will the minister be willing to speak to me ahead of stage 3 to consider what action people could take if everything else had failed and they were being passed from one estate to another?