Seòmar agus comataidhean

Yes.

You said that there are still on-going discussions with stakeholders. What engagement have you had with the seafood industry?

I thank the minister and his officials for making time to discuss with me some of what I am about to speak about.

Amendment 222 seeks to reduce the time period in which compliance with the deer management code of practice will be reviewed from 10 years to five. Given the expanded role of the code in setting out the circumstances in which NatureScot will intervene in the management and control of deer, it would seem appropriate to ensure that a review of compliance is conducted earlier than at the 10-year backstop that is prescribed in section 12 of the bill. I understand that the most recent review of compliance was conducted in 2019.

NatureScot must carry out a review, if required to do so by ministers,

“within such period as it considers appropriate”.

However, to ensure that the code is fulfilling the functions agreed by Parliament, it does not seem unreasonable to mandate that a review of compliance be completed once every five, as opposed to once every 10, years. If there are problems with the code and ministers or NatureScot choose not to conduct a review, deer managers could be left operating under a deficient code until 2035.

Amendment 225 relates to the new ground for NatureScot to intervene in the management and control of deer. During stage 1, the committee heard concerns from the deer sector about the uncertainty surrounding the new ground for intervention based on nature restoration. It was underlined in the committee’s stage 1 report that ministers must ensure

“that the Scottish Government does not erode the trust and consensus”

that have paved the way for voluntary and collaborative deer management.

Amendment 225 is designed to help to alleviate some of the uncertainty that is inherent in the new ground for intervention by clarifying that intervention would be permissible only where there had been a material reduction in the effectiveness of works, projects or natural processes as a consequence of deer impacts or a lack of deer management. The amendment would ensure that NatureScot focused on situations in which the impact of deer is material and tangible. The use of the word “reduce” in section 13 is unqualified, which I recognise is generating concern in the deer sector. My intention is to provide clarity on when NatureScot will step in.

Amendment 232 seeks to increase the timescale for submitting a deer management plan from three months to six months. The bill proposes a three-month timescale for deer management plans to be submitted. Members will be aware that such plans are generally created at the landscape scale and that they cover the entirety of the landmass in a given deer management group area.

The amendment is based on information from Scottish Land & Estates and the Association of Deer Management Groups. Both organisations have confirmed that, for some deer management groups, the three-month period is not achievable. Some deer management groups have as many as 40 landholdings, with multiple objections. Both organisations note that six months constitutes half the time that is currently available to create and submit a deer management plan. My amendment would, therefore, still result in a meaningful reduction in the time available, but it would do so in a way that would be workable and reasonable for the deer sector.

Thank you, minister.

Amendment 239 relates to the application and interpretation of control schemes, which constitute the highest tier of regulatory intervention relating to deer management. The significant and wide-ranging implications of a control scheme mean that careful consideration must be given to what constitutes a “relevant person”.

Relevant persons, first and foremost, receive notice of the proposal and then notice of confirmation of the proposal. Relevant persons are also entitled to a right of appeal against the terms and conditions of a control scheme or decisions to make, vary or revoke a control scheme.

The bill’s current definition of “relevant person” in the context of a control scheme is deficient. It covers the owner or occupier of land on whom a control scheme proposes to impose actions or on whom, where a scheme is already in place, it imposes actions.

The implications of a control scheme will not be confined to the owner or occupier of land where the control scheme applies. As deer are not confined to land ownership boundaries, it is reasonable to expect that other landholdings and businesses will be implicated as a consequence of a control scheme being imposed.

The committee has heard that deer stalking is an important income generator for rural businesses. An absence of deer that curtails stalking may, in many cases, result in a loss of jobs. Amendment 239 proposes to add

“an owner or occupier for the time being of land reasonably expected to be affected by the terms of the scheme”

to the definition of “relevant person”. It has been drafted with input from senior legal counsel and Scottish Land & Estates to ensure that all holdings that are reasonably expected to be impacted receive notice and appeal rights.

Amendments 242 and 243 relate to the consideration by experts of objections in relation to control schemes. The objection process is important in ensuring that any compliance issues with the processes that are followed by NatureScot or with the substantive content of a control scheme are addressed before the right to appeal to the Scottish Land Court is engaged. Substantive objections may be referred to experts who are appointed by the Scottish ministers. My amendments would mean that the Scottish ministers would need to consult NatureScot and such other persons as they consider appropriate before appointing experts, as well as

“such persons as the Scottish Ministers consider to represent the interests of relevant persons”.

The amendments are designed to promote trust and confidence in the objection process by ensuring that representatives of relevant persons are consulted on any appointment of experts to consider an objection.

Amendment 251 would establish a single deer management data dashboard for Scotland as a means

“to record, collate and publish data”

relating to deer management in Scotland. Good monitoring of data and other relevant information is the bedrock of informing and delivering sustainable deer management and appropriate cull levels. In most other European countries, such data is readily available to wildlife management practitioners in a fully open and transparent way.

The intention with amendment 251 is to create a means of bringing together data on deer and deer management in one format, so that it can be widely shared. I think that having a unified process of data management and presentation that engages everyone with an interest in deer management would also help to address the polarisation issue that the minister mentioned earlier.

In response to our call for views, the Shetland Fishermen’s Association said:

“the Good Food Nation framework is only meaningful if it recognises seafood as a pillar of Scotland’s food production”.

Is seafood recognised as a pillar of Scottish food production?

The seafood sector also includes the aquaculture industry, but it feels like aquaculture has been left off the list.

Section 28 of the bill sets out changes to the 1996 act in relation to the register of authorised persons. Those provisions will require some deer management practitioners, such as non-certified stalkers, to make changes—in effect, the provisions mandate training. Some in the deer sector have expressed concern that the transition to mandatory training could result in a reduction in the number of deer stalkers. For example, older farmers might decide to stop deer management. The Scottish Government has stated that it is engaging with stakeholders and will continue to do so when creating the secondary legislation on the detail of the training scheme. My intention with amendment 249 is to ensure that there is a commitment to the transitional timeframe and that support for the transition is set out in the bill.

It is about whether the derogation would lead to general herd reduction and people having smaller herds, and the cumulative effect of multiple herds being reduced.

In its response, Shetland Islands Council welcomed the derogation for small herds but flagged up its concern that the limit of 10 calves would lead to a general herd reduction in the islands, which would obviously have an on-going impact on the wider supply chain. I also note that an impact assessment was done. Can you expand on that?

Part 2 of the bill introduces a new regulatory power relating to nature restoration. Without a non-regression clause, there is a risk that regulations could be weakened by future Governments, standards could be lowered through secondary legislation and the overall environmental protection regime could become less robust over time. That is particularly important because, although nature targets are long term, regulations might change more frequently.

My amendment 196 seeks to address that by ensuring that any regulations that are made under part 2 can only maintain or improve existing environmental standards. That non-regression safeguard ensures continuity and prevents backsliding at the implementation stage.

I note that other members have also lodged non-regression amendments. That reflects the concerns that others have alluded to and the need for such amendments. My amendment uses the phrase “maintain or improve”, which reflects the standard that is used in other major environmental statutes and provides a clear, legally recognisable threshold.