Seòmar agus comataidhean

There will have to be a control scheme only if we cannot find a voluntary scheme that will reduce deer numbers. It goes back to the point that I made earlier: we have developed very good working relationships with deer managers across the country through the deer management groups. I am confident that, particularly given the fact that only one enforced control scheme has been put in place, NatureScot will be able to find those voluntary agreements in the vast majority of cases. However, I am not prepared to go for a position where we go straight to a control scheme without seeking that voluntary agreement in the first place.

I do not want to alienate landowners, and I want sustainable deer management to be a common goal. Therefore, I cannot in good faith support Mr Ruskell’s amendments 29 and 30, and I ask members to oppose them, for all the reasons that we have just discussed.

Tim Eagle’s amendment 237 would reduce the flexibility for NatureScot to be able to make accommodations for the delivery of actions required as part of a control scheme. The provision in the bill that Mr Eagle’s amendment would remove allows NatureScot to extend the timeline for the delivery of actions under a control scheme. That provision currently exists in the 1996 act and is simply being replicated in the bill. It is right that NatureScot can extend the timeline where there are mitigating circumstances that might hinder delivery. I urge members to oppose amendment 237.

Amendment 239, in the name of Beatrice Wishart, would require NatureScot to publish a copy of a control scheme and to give notice to any owners or occupiers on the land on which the control scheme imposes requirements. I understand that the rationale behind Ms Wishart’s amendment is to ensure that owners or occupiers who are likely to be affected by the scheme should be notified, too. I think that that would provide additional certainty for those with concerns about the impact of deer management in their area. However, the amendment goes much further than that. The current drafting would enable those neighbours who might reasonably be expected to be affected by the scheme to object to a control scheme or to appeal once one is confirmed. It is not our intention that that should be the case. We think that it is appropriate that owners and occupiers who must take action under the control scheme are the group to whom objections and appeals should be available.

If the member is content not to move amendment 239, I will be happy to work with her ahead of stage 3 to return with an alternative amendment. However, if the amendment is moved, I ask that the committee reject it.

I understand the rationale for Emma Harper’s amendment 240 and agree that, on reading the provisions, there may be a question about the circumstances in which it would not be appropriate to provide a copy of the draft control scheme to relevant persons. Therefore, for the sake of clarity, I support Ms Harper’s amendment and ask the committee to do the same.

I am also happy to support amendment 241, which would require NatureScot to include the date on which a section 8 notice is first published as part of the publication. I think that that will add clarity for those viewing the notice, and I urge the committee to support the amendment.

Amendments 242 and 243, in the name of Beatrice Wishart, would not have a meaningful impact on those who are required to be consulted by NatureScot. The people in Ms Wishart’s amendment could already be covered if the Scottish ministers considered that it was appropriate to consult representatives of relevant persons. Ultimately, it is important that there is discretion about who should be consulted, so that Scottish ministers do not require to contact organisations unnecessarily. Instead, that can be considered on a case-by-case basis. If Ms Wishart has another intention, I would be happy to discuss it further ahead of stage 3. I urge her not to move amendments 242 and 243, and, if she does, I ask the committee not to support them.

On Tim Eagle’s amendments 238 and 244, the bill introduces a requirement for NatureScot to register any control scheme made under section 8 of the 1996 act against the land to which it applies. It does so in order to ensure that, should land ownership change while a control scheme is in place, there is continuity in the deer management. That is in recognition of the significant investment of public resources and of the necessity of achieving deer management in that place.

Please allow me to finish this point first. For those reasons, I ask that amendment 251 not be moved at this stage. If it is, I ask the committee not to support it.

There is a NatureScot app right now. When deer managers shoot a deer, they record it in the NatureScot app, which gives the location of where that deer was taken out.

Cull returns are currently happening all over the country. Yes, the app is a pilot at the moment, but it is definitely something that we can develop.

On amendment 333, in the name of Tim Eagle, I appreciate the member’s efforts to seek to incentivise sustainable deer management by introducing a requirement on Scottish ministers to establish and maintain financial assistance schemes. However, I do not believe that we need to legislate for that. We are already taking strides with our incentive programmes, which are being piloted across Scotland, led by NatureScot and the Cairngorms National Park Authority, and which financially support deer managers to control numbers of deer in specific parts of Scotland in response to the climate and nature emergencies.

One of the schemes focuses on central Scotland, and we continue to assess what support is needed specifically in lowland areas. Our intention is to utilise the learnings taken from those pilot schemes and expand the schemes in order to support deer management and wild venison markets.

Ultimately, as I have said, we do not need to legislate for that. For those reasons, I ask the member not to move amendment 333. If it is moved, I ask the committee not to support it.

As far as I am concerned, the biggest incentive would be to create a vibrant market for venison, which I hope is where we are heading. I hope that people can see that venison is very much part of our heritage and culture.

I would much rather that we did not pay people to shoot deer that had no value—I would rather create a market for a product that we were proud of. It would be of much more value to the country if we were able to say, “Venison is a brilliant product. Come to Scotland and eat it in great quantities.” That would create a market for the people controlling deer across Scotland.

Thank you.

I would be more than happy to do so.

Amendments 152 and 153 would remove the word “fit” from the bill’s amendment of section 17A of the 1996 act. Fitness is about more than technical skill; it ensures that individuals are personally reliable and legally compliant when carrying out an activity that involves lethal firearms. Public trust depends on high standards. Police Scotland currently checks fitness for firearms licensing, while NatureScot checks competence. Removing the word “fit” would create a disconnect between those systems and add complexity, not clarity. Competence alone is not enough when dealing with firearms in wildlife management. We must retain the requirement for individuals to be both fit and competent in order to protect safety, maintain legal clarity and uphold public confidence. For those reasons, I encourage members to oppose amendments 152 and 153.

Amendments 37 and 38 are simple but important technical changes that need to be made in consequence of amendment 39. They update and cross-reference section 28 so that the bill makes the necessary changes to the 1996 act, to ensure that it aligns with the revised structure of section 26 and the new section 26ZA introduced by amendment 39. Those amendments are updates to the references in line with amendment 39 and will ensure consistency and clarity in the legislation. They do not alter policy intent but do ensure that the law will work as intended. I therefore encourage members to support amendment 37.

My amendments 72 and 73 make technical but important adjustments to section 17A of the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996, to allow for the implementation of two key recommendations from the deer working group. First, we have made a minor amendment to put beyond doubt the fact that provision can also be made, via regulations, in relation to any additional information to be included in cull returns, over and above the required information about the number of deer of each species and of each sex. Secondly, we have made a minor amendment to the definition of cull returns, to ensure that the information required from planned cull returns can cover a period not exceeding five years. As is set out in our response to those recommendations, the Scottish Government agrees that gathering a broader range of data will improve our understanding of wild deer populations, their impacts and their densities. Those minor but necessary amendments will support the effective implementation of the deer working group’s recommendations, and, for that reason, I encourage members to support amendments 72 and 73.

The proposals in amendments 154 and 155 would weaken the bill’s ability to maintain high standards in deer management. Amendment 154 would introduce unnecessary bureaucracy, forcing ministers to produce detailed statements before they made any changes to the register of persons competent to shoot deer. I also highlight that, because the register has not yet been established by regulations, the requirement in that amendment would apply only to changes made following the introduction of the register and not to the new register when it was introduced. It would also restrict future improvements by preventing new training or certification requirements unless they met the strict tests, locking us into outdated standards. Amendment 155 would go even further by banning mandatory training for registration. That is a major risk, because training is fundamental to safe and humane deer management, and removing the ability to require that would undermine public safety, animal welfare and the credibility of our system. Taken together, amendments 154 and 155 would reduce flexibility, weaken standards and create confusion, and they run counter to the bill’s aims of improving biodiversity and welfare. For those reasons, I encourage members to oppose amendments 154 and 155.

Amendment 247 would allow experience—in the case of amendment 248, it would be a simple reference—to replace formal training. The power to introduce the register of authorised persons does not set out what is required to be fit and competent, and it has a requirement for consultation before regulations are made to bring the register into effect. The amendment would reduce flexibility and pre-empt the results of that consultation. Furthermore, section 17A already provides that the regulations to introduce the register may make provision in relation to how applications for registration will be determined, such as by including the submission of references, and it allows for any conditions to be imposed when applications are granted. Experience is valuable, but it does not guarantee knowledge of current best practice, welfare standards or safety requirements. References are also subjective and offer no consistent assurance of competence. Taken together, the amendments have the potential to dilute standards, undermine accountability and increase the risks of poor practice and of accidents. For those reasons, I encourage members to oppose amendments 247 and 248.

Training is essential, but Beatrice Wishart’s amendment 249 is unnecessary. Regulations to create a Government-run scheme are not necessary, because effective private training schemes already exist. The enabling power in the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996 already allows us to consult widely and to introduce any additional requirements through secondary legislation. Our current preference is not to set out training details in law. Instead, we would use an SSI for the fit and competent person register, and we would request that NatureScot publish a list of approved schemes. NatureScot has the expertise to consider what is required, with input from relevant stakeholders. That gives flexibility, avoids bottlenecks and keeps pace with best practice. A rigid Government scheme would risk duplication and delays.

There are legitimate concerns about how the new fit and competent scheme will work in practice, so I want to set out clearly that we will consult fully with those who will be affected on the proposals for the scheme. We will also look at barriers to access and training, whether they be financial or time-based barriers, or issues to do with locality and travel. In our consultation, we will set out that we expect baseline competence to be akin to deer stalking certificate level 1—DSC1—but we do not intend that to be the only option. We want to hear from deer managers about what other courses should be included and how we can transition to a new register.

As I have already said, in the consultation we will want to hear from deer managers about what other courses should be included and what else we can put in place that would allow their transition to the new register.