Seòmar agus comataidhean

To be perfectly honest, I do not think that legislation is the way to ask people to eat venison—there are better ways for us to do that. I give you an absolute assurance that I am committed to doing everything that we can to ensure that venison is a product that people want to eat and can access, and that we are working to change the culture, but I am fairly certain that legislation is not the right methodology for that.

If we did that, it would be in legislation. I would much rather that we did it by asking people to eat venison.

I shall refer back to those comments if I refuse to take interventions in the future, convener.

On amendment 310, in the name of Tim Eagle, I absolutely agree on the importance of clear guidance being provided before new duties take effect, but I ask him not to move the amendment. We are committed to working with him to ensure that the code is developed promptly and in consultation with stakeholders, so that the guidance is available before commencement. NatureScot has already begun work with stakeholders, through a working group, to update the code, and that work will continue as the bill progresses to ensure that the work is done in sync wherever possible.

However, tying commencement to the laying of the code of practice could delay the implementation of key measures that will allow us to support the nature restoration that we are looking for. I would be very happy to meet Tim Eagle to discuss the issue and how we might further address concerns about the sequencing, but I ask him not to move amendment 310. If it is moved, I encourage members not to support it.

On amendment 311, the bill has already undergone full parliamentary scrutiny during its passage, with detailed consideration of sections 10 to 33. The commencement regulations are a standard administrative step and will not introduce new policy decisions, and requiring the affirmative procedure to be used at that stage would add unnecessary bureaucratic delays without improving accountability. For those reasons, I encourage members to oppose amendment 311.

I apologise, convener, but I forgot to address amendment 147, in the name of Rhoda Grant. The changes that we are making to NatureScot’s powers under the bill are intended to support voluntary deer management and ensure that, in situations in which voluntary agreements break down, NatureScot can take enforcement action to ensure effective deer management. That is of the utmost importance, so that we can continue to support good deer management across Scotland.

At the moment, the process requires NatureScot to make meaningful attempts to secure agreement on voluntary deer management. I fear that amendment 147 would undermine that aim entirely and could be detrimental to the good relations that have been fostered to date. The Common Ground Forum, for example, is a fantastic set-up. Therefore, I cannot in good faith support amendment 147, and I ask members to oppose it.

There is a solution to be found here, and, if we work together ahead of stage 3, we can find that solution. I take on board that there are potential safety issues with having two different sets of people going out with guns on a hill, unless there is some co-ordination.

Looking at amendment 39, I can see the benefits that it would have for tenants, notwithstanding the rights of the landowner, who may also be a sporting tenant or someone who has the right to take deer. I would not interpret amendment 39 as providing the right for crofters to harvest deer. It would be a method of allowing a crofter or a tenant to have a conversation with the landowner to say, “This is causing us a difficulty and we require you to do something about it. If you don’t, we have the right to do something about it.” At that point, they would then co-ordinate with the landowner to say, “We will be taking deer at this particular point.” I hope that there is no disagreement about that. There is an opportunity for us to come to a reasonable solution that will satisfy everybody’s desires.

I am happy to do that.

On capacity, I have been assured that there is more than enough capacity to process the number of deer, even if we got to the target of taking an extra 50,000 head of deer a year. However, I absolutely agree that, at the moment, we do not have a viable marketplace for that venison, which is why we want to build the market in a sustainable way. We want to market the produce in the same way that Scotch whisky was marketed, to make it something that is so valuable that people are going to want to pay money for it. That is what I would encourage to happen as a result of the debate.

As happens in any consultation, NatureScot will consult widely across the sector, including with the people who carry out deer management at the moment. The results of the consultation will be brought back to the committee as an SSI. The full scrutiny process will enable us to find a scheme that works appropriately, given the concerns that have been raised.

Does the member accept that, earlier today and this evening, we have talked consistently about our ability to make venison a product that people want to buy and can have absolute confidence in? A register of fit and competent persons will allow the public to be confident that, when they eat wild venison, they are eating venison that was produced properly by somebody who has gone through a process that is designed to give that confidence.

With regard to a lot of the things that the member just spoke about, it is already the case that people have to have that competence. Does he not accept that a register of fit and competent persons will add to our ability to sell the product as a valuable, premium product that has been produced to the highest of standards?

I go back specifically to wounding rates. There is evidence through NatureScot’s reviews that wounding rates are much higher than we would like them to be. I do not have the figures in front of me, but I am happy to share those with the member after the evidence session, and the figures are definitely higher than we would like.

With regard to Forestry and Land Scotland’s wounding and miss rates, is the member’s primary concern that they are too high or too low, or is it that the member does not know what the rates are? From the information that we get via NatureScot, we know that the wounding rates are higher than we would like them to be, which surely gives us cause to think that a register of fit and competent persons will be valuable to the sector.