Seòmar agus comataidhean

As I have said, when we go through the consultation we will consult deer managers and NatureScot on the proposals, and that will allow us to develop the fit and competent register. All those things can be considered during that consultation.

My apologies—I was distracted. Could you repeat that please?

I am more than happy to look at that aspect during the consultation period, to allow us to find the best way to get register of fit and competent persons. We will consider all the options. Once we have come to decisions, based on the consultation, we can bring the issue back to the committee as an SSI for further scrutiny.

I just want to make the point to Mr Mountain that I held a licence for a heavy rifle for a number of years, but not one bullet ever went through that rifle to shoot a deer. I had not had any training, and yet I had a licence to go out and shoot deer because I held a firearms licence. I absolutely accept the fact that we have stalkers on the hill who have been doing this for many years and who have probably gone through their DSC1. The likelihood is that they will be fit and competent. However, there will be many people who have a licence who might never have shot a deer or had any training whatsoever. Does that not emphasise the point that I made to Mr Eagle that, with regard to our building confidence in a market for venison across the country, having the register of fit and competent persons will give the public the assurance that they are buying a product that is produced to the highest of standards?

Will the member accept that we are doing the consultation to work out what the issues will be, but that that does not change the fact that we want a register of fit and competent people who are taking deer out in Scotland?

It goes back to the point that Mr Mountain just made. He quite clearly indicated that he did not think that NatureScot had the ability to walk the miles that a deer stalker might have walked. I disagree. There will be expertise in NatureScot; it is a very good organisation with expertise across multiple sectors. If experts in that organisation will add value to any panel that has been set up, it is only right that they have the ability to do so. I do not see any conflict, because the panel would have to be set up by a minister in the first place.

The deer working group report recommended that the 1996 act should be amended to allow a member of NatureScot to be a member of a panel in order to reflect NatureScot’s functions under the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Act 1991. There is a good rationale for allowing that to happen, and I urge members to oppose amendment 218, which would remove section 11.

I am curious to understand whether your objection to the close season relates to bringing contractors in, or are you objecting because you want a provision for a close season rather than the current open season? What is the particular issue?

Does the member accept that the code of practice is an on-going process that is delivered and developed closely with NatureScot in conjunction with the Association of Deer Management Groups?

The member made the point that language is important. I absolutely agree. Language is incredibly important in how we take forward the bill. However, without doubt, there is a shared purpose among all the stakeholders, including NatureScot. That collaboration is already working. That is the kind of thing that we want to continue with, and it is already happening.

I appreciate that the member already knows this, because of our previous engagement on the matter, but I want to put this point on the record.

NatureScot has the ability to set a three-month timescale, on the basis that some land managers will simply not engage and will have nothing to do with any kind of deer management plan being put in place. The vast majority of deer managers, however, will actively engage and will get the extension of time that they need. That could be up to six months, or up to nine months, as long as NatureScot knows that it is getting engagement.

The three-month timescale is for those landowners and land managers who simply refuse to engage, as it will allow NatureScot to take action more promptly. I know that the member understands that, but I wanted to put it on the record to give land managers a clear understanding of the purpose of the three-month timescale.

I first give apologies for Alan Elder, who is unable to make this morning’s meeting due to a family incident.

I thank the committee for taking the time to consider the draft regulations. It is proposed that the regulations be made using the modified powers conferred by the Agriculture (Retained EU Law and Data) (Scotland) Act 2020, which enable us to improve the operation of the assimilated European Union law underpinning our common agricultural policy schemes, and powers under the direct payments EU regulation 1307/2013, which permit amendments to the requirements for ecological focus areas.

They will improve the provisions for ecological focus areas by requiring more businesses to undertake EFA activities as a condition of their greening payment, increasing the area of land managed for EFA and widening the options and choices available for those undertaking those activities.

We have committed to providing a replacement legacy Scottish rural development programme scheme, as is set out in the vision for agriculture and the agricultural reform route map and in the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Act 2024. Greening support is required to be modified in order to align with the route map phased transition from legacy common agricultural policy schemes into the proposed new support framework. Without the changes made by the regulations, greening payments would be unable to support the commitment to tier 2 support that is set out in the route map.

The regulations will also improve the operation of the provisions for the Scottish suckler beef support scheme by introducing a derogation from the calving interval requirements for smaller businesses, in response to concerns raised by smaller producers and the Scottish Crofting Federation. They will also extend the end of the application submission period, to allow submissions to be made up to 14 January following the end of the relevant calendar year, which will make it easier for applications to be submitted in time.

The regulations mark a significant point in our progress towards our aim of becoming a world leader in sustainable and regenerative agriculture, and they deliver on our previous commitments. We got here by co-developing in detail with partners, and I fully endorse that approach. The Government, this Parliament and rural partners all support the vision for agriculture. Getting there means working together and agreeing together to longer-term planning and development.

Failure to bring the regulations into force would undermine progress and the efforts and work of many of our farmers and crofters who are already committed to making those improvements.

I am happy to take any questions.