Seòmar agus comataidhean

I press amendment 35.

I ask that amendments 32 and 32A not be pressed and that the other amendments in the group not be moved, because the Government has made an absolute commitment to continue to do the work that we are doing on a four-nations basis. Whatever Northern Ireland does in its back yard is entirely up to it, but it will come across the same problems that we would have if we implemented a ban straight away. As I pointed out, a ban on glue traps has been cleared, yet it is still not doable.

I get that you have been very patient, but I ask for a bit more patience to allow us to continue to work on a four-nations basis. We will press as hard as we can to get an effective ban that works right across the country.

The plan is a living, growing thing. It will continue to evolve, because we will not get all the answers for all the issues that we are facing with gull populations in urban Scotland immediately. It will be an on-going process, but that does not mean that there is not work going on behind the scenes in order that we can say what we will do in the interim for the particular issue that the parties that are involved in the current discussion are facing. It is disingenuous to say that there is nothing being done and that we have not done anything, or that no progress is being made. Progress is being made, and it has been made from the very first phone call that I had with Mr Ross and Mr Ewing. We took action then, and we continue to take action. The plan that we put in place will develop as we go along, because this is not an overnight fix by any stretch of the imagination.

I would like the member to consider the fact that, no matter who has the authority, they will always have to take into account the fact that these gulls are protected for a very good reason. As we find solutions, they will be developed in conjunction with the people who are looking to have the issues resolved.

At stage 1, a range of views were expressed by stakeholders, members and the committee, especially about the long-term impact and effectiveness of the proposed changes to deer management. I acknowledge the concerns that were raised and reassure people that the Scottish Government is listening.

Amendment 74 seeks to introduce a review mechanism in relation to the operation and effectiveness of the modifications made to the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996 by part 4 of the bill. It will place on the Scottish ministers a statutory duty to prepare and publish such a report within 10 years of the relevant provisions coming into force. Importantly, the review will assess the operation and effectiveness of the relevant provisions against three objectives:

“(a) protecting and restoring the natural heritage and environment,

(b) achieving the aims and purposes of deer management set out by section 1 of the 1996 Act, and

(c) improving standards of welfare for deer.”

Amendment 74 will also ensure that the review process is inclusive. Ministers will be required to consult NatureScot and

“such other persons as the Scottish Ministers consider appropriate”,

who should include landowners, land managers and other relevant stakeholders. The report must include a statement of any action that the Scottish ministers intend to take and, importantly,

“where the Scottish Ministers do not intend to take any action, their reasons for not taking action.”

The report must be laid before the Scottish Parliament, thereby ensuring transparency and accountability.

Amendment 74 will strengthen the bill by embedding a clear commitment to review and reflect on the operation of the changes to the 1996 act. It will ensure not only that the deer management provisions are implemented, but that their operation and effectiveness will be monitored. For those reasons, I encourage members to support amendment 74.

I move amendment 74.

I am happy to come on to that point. I am speaking to all the amendments as I go through, because I want to tie the whole thing together. We need to go about this in an effective and efficient way, working with the industry to make the transition a success.

Earlier, the member asked whether there is an expert panel. There is not an expert panel, but I give an absolute commitment that no decisions will be made until we have had full consultation and constructive dialogue with the sector. I am well aware of the problems of bringing a ban in before the rest of the UK and because of UKIMA, because of the impacts that such a ban will have on jobs and the industry in Scotland. It will be massively disadvantageous to us, so I am not prepared to do it.

I take the member’s point about the consultation. The industry has accepted the fact that we are going to have a ban on peat, but lots of really good work is being done on how we are going to transition and what the new forms of media will be. The industry is coming with us and the Government is speaking to it. There is also widespread engagement across the four nations, so that we can bring in the ban at a time that works for all the countries in the UK. It will not benefit anyone, least of all the horticulture sector in Scotland, if we do not do it in that manner.

I invite Mark Ruskell to wind up on amendment 32.

I absolutely concur. As we start to develop the deer action plan, venison will be very much part of the process. I have said a number of times in this committee and in engagements with other stakeholders that we should stop talking about culling deer and start talking about harvesting a product. For me, the two go hand in hand.

Venison must be at the heart of our work to develop the national action plan for deer. I concur with the member’s view in that regard.

Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 35B, her first in this group, would require consultation with a wide range of stakeholders before a licence for grouse shooting could be modified. Carrying out a consultation with landowners across Scotland every time NatureScot proposed to modify an individual licence, or even when a licence holder requested a modification themselves, would be unnecessary and unreasonable. It would slow down any urgent changes that are required to grouse licences, including changes that are requested by the licence holder themselves. The amendment also seeks to add a procedural step that would increase administrative burden for no positive gain.

I would highlight to the committee that amendment 35 already includes the provision that NatureScot

“may not modify a licence ... to identify a different area of land to which the licence relates from that which was identified when the licence was granted without the prior agreement of the licence holder.”

Amendment 35 therefore recognises that NatureScot should agree any changes to the licence area in relation to any licences that are already in place when the proposed changes come into force.

Stakeholder engagement is vital—and it was carried out extensively before amendment 35 was lodged—but it should not come at the expense of timely and effective decision making. For that reason, I encourage the committee not to support amendment 35B.

As with amendment 35B, amendment 335, also in the name of Rachael Hamilton, would introduce unnecessary delay and bureaucracy before the changes to the grouse licensing regime that are contained in amendment 35 could be brought into effect. The amendment would require the Scottish Government to undertake a lengthy consultation process before commencing the much-needed changes to the scheme. However, we already have mechanisms for stakeholder engagement, and duplicating those obligations would add cost and complexity without delivering clear benefits. As I mentioned earlier in relation to amendment 35B, stakeholder engagement has already been carried out in relation to the proposed changes, so this additional requirement is unnecessary, too. In short, the amendment prioritises process over effectiveness, and for those reasons, I encourage the committee to oppose it.

I am quite happy to have a debate on the issues that the member has raised, if she so wishes. However, I am speaking only to the two amendments that are in front of us. It is entirely up to you, convener, how you want to proceed.

We cannot have a discussion, because it has to be done through the convener, as we spoke about earlier today.

I said that they did not adhere to

“the spirit and the letter of the law”.

That is the actual quotation, and it was the spirit of the law that we were talking about at that point, so perhaps I should have been clearer about that. I was talking about the spirit of the law, because, on 94 occasions, the licensed area was redrawn after the licences were agreed and approved. That is why the change to the licence was made.