Seòmar agus comataidhean

To follow up on Brian Whittle’s question, there are a lot of businesses out there that you know are providing treatments for people. As Brett Collins said, they are the low-hanging fruit—the businesses that are easy to detect or find. However, it seems that the number of unregulated businesses that offer non-surgical procedures is greater than the number of regulated businesses that offer such procedures. Paragraph 14 of the financial memorandum provides some numbers. It refers to the fact that not all hair salons will do Botox treatments, for example, but even if only 20 per cent provide such treatments, about 5,000 new businesses will need to be regulated—and those businesses might come forward and apply or they might need to be found.

How much time do you think will be needed to enable a transition? More people will need to look into this area, and people who want to apply will need to have the time to transition, which will involve them turning their place of practice into an HIS clinic area. What are your thoughts on timelines?

Finally, some vulnerable people might seek procedures such as dermal fillers too often, to the point that their physical appearance might be perceived to have been altered and others may say that it does not look good any more. Would the notification process involve flagging up whether someone attends more frequently?

I want to build on what you said in your opening statement about how comprehensive the list of what needs to be contained is. The letter that you wrote to the committee says that some functions are included, but not others. It says:

“In relation to agriculture and planning, for example, the Scottish Government said that these are covered by a specified function on the National Planning Framework”.

I understand that some of the other legislation that you have mentioned will also cover some of the items. It is good that we are working across portfolios.

Last night, I hosted an event for the 10-year anniversary of Food Standards Scotland, and loads of different stakeholders were in the room. Dennis Overton from the Scottish Food Commission was there, as well as others from the Food Foundation. The event was very wide ranging.

Taking agricultural planning as an example, is it sufficient to have regard to the good food nation plan only when producing another high-level plan, as opposed to when exercising other functions that have practical effect, such as issuing guidance, setting eligibility criteria and so on?

It is good to be here this evening. There are lots of amendments in the group, so I will focus on amendments 240 and 241, and I will perhaps mention another couple of amendments regarding lowland deer management.

Amendment 240 relates to the procedure for making, varying and revoking control schemes, which, as members will be aware, is the highest tier of regulatory action that NatureScot can impose in relation to its deer management interventionist powers. The amendment would make it clear that it would always be appropriate to provide relevant persons with a copy of the draft control scheme or, as the case may be, a control scheme as it was proposed to be varied. This is a technical amendment that is designed to ensure that relevant persons receive the salient details in relation to the making, varying or revoking of a control scheme. In turn, that would allow relevant persons to assess what the intervention would mean for them and respond accordingly.

Amendment 241 also relates to the procedure for making, varying and revoking control schemes. It is a technical amendment that seeks to ensure that every control scheme notification clearly states the date of first publication. That date is important, because the deadline for objections is 28 days after the date of first publication of the notice. Therefore, it is important that any notice clearly expresses the date of first publication so as to ensure clarity on the timeline for objections.

On lowland deer management plans, I will focus my comments on Rhoda Grant’s amendment 69. I appreciate the intention behind the amendment, which seeks to provide for a statutory lowland deer management plan. I wanted to speak on the amendment to flesh out further information and to voice concerns that have been raised with me since the stage 1 report and debate and ahead of stage 2 by various stakeholders whom I know or who have contacted me.

Lowland deer management is complex. During stage 1, I sought to clarify what “lowlands” means when it comes to deer management. It includes the central belt, Dumfries and Galloway, the Borders and Perthshire. The land is urban, peri-urban and rural. Land ownership patterns differ significantly from upland areas; there is publicly owned land, tenant farms and smaller holdings. Any plan for lowland deer management must reflect those realities.

Roe deer numbers are increasing in Scotland, including in peri-urban areas. A recent check on NatureScot’s website showed that there are estimated to be 300,000 roe deer, 25,000 sika and at least 8,000 fallow deer—and I know that, if people search, they might find the numbers reflected differently in other documentation. All deer cause damage to woodlands and farmland—and, of course, they cause road traffic collisions.

Management solutions must be flexible and locally driven, not part of a one-size-fits-all national plan. Many deer managers are volunteers or recreational shooters who can and do contribute significantly to control efforts. Forestry and Land Scotland has permanent and contracted approaches and is Scotland’s biggest venison supplier.

It has been raised with me that the requirement for equipment and other associated costs to be self-funded may be a barrier to engagement in lowland deer management. One comment that was made to me was that we need to turn around the perception of deer, so that they are seen as a product—a healthy substitute protein—and not just as a pest.

I want to ensure that if qualified, competent people want to participate in the essential management of Scotland’s deer numbers, they can do so using processes that are as navigable and accessible as possible and that, where barriers exist, we commit to looking at ways in which we can remove them.

I will wait to hear what the minister has to say in response to this big group of amendments and on lowland deer management. I will leave it there.

Thank you, minister.

I did not lodge amendments about lowland deer management. However, so many people have come to me recently about urban and peri-urban issues, including around the M8 and Glasgow, and about the differences in areas, where we have a big mix of rural, urban and peri-urban. I am therefore also interested in gathering more information and engaging with the minister ahead of stage 3 to look at what we can do to ensure that people are aware of the different approaches to deer management. Is the minister open to further discussions on that?

From my engagement with the lowland deer shooters, I know that they absolutely agree that we need to create a sought-after product. I know, too, of a teacher in Lockerbie who is teaching the weans how to make venison mince burgers and creating demand in that way. I just wanted to put on record that I agree with the minister.

My understanding is that deer management is not just about shooting stags or red deer. We have different species of deer, and there are hinds, too. Is that not why we are here today?

The population health framework is also mentioned in the good food nation plan as being part of our ability to address our food system, for example, and to support improved population health. I am just looking at the good food nation plan language within the population health framework.

The Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, of which I am a member, has discussed non-communicable diseases. Some 32 per cent of people in Scotland are obese, we have challenges with type 2 diabetes and we have kids who are not as tall as kids in other European countries because of malnourishment. If we approve the regulations today, that will allow the necessary cross-Government portfolio working to take place, given that the issues around addressing the food system and supporting a healthier nation are complex. Is it the case that the purpose of the regulations is to enable the cross-portfolio work in Government that is required to tackle the issues that I have listed?

I remind everybody that I am a registered nurse and that surgery was my specialty in clinical education. If safety is your number 1 concern, what do we need to do to make sure that appropriate steps are taken to support people to obtain appropriate qualifications to ensure safety?

There are also consumers who seek invasive non-surgical procedures that are at different levels. How do we support consumers to be better informed?