Seòmar agus comataidhean

They are about the same thing.

Is the level of detail in the strategic spatial energy plan appropriate? The national planning framework is still waiting for the energy strategy and we have council development plans. I have sensed a concern within the industry about planning to the nth degree and going down the route that Wales went down some years ago with technical advice note 8 designing exactly where wind farms should be. Is there an appropriate level of strategic guidance in the spatial energy plan and does it give the industry comfort and confidence? Also, does it give communities an element of knowledge about where energy development is likely to be and the extent of it, without saying, “It’s going to be this wind farm and it’s going to be over there”?

Gemma, do you want to add anything on the back of that?

Is the 50MW threshold for the use of section 36 too high or too low?

I have nothing further to add. I press amendment 20A.

I am tempted to wind up, Presiding Officer, but, given the hour, I will move straight to the question. I press amendment 141.

Amendment 141 agreed to.

Before section 33C

I moved an amendment at stage 2 to establish a national deer management programme. The aim of that was to set clear expectations on deer management targets for landowners and to provide strategic direction at a national level. I did not just pull that out of my head—it was a key recommendation of the independent deer working group’s report, which was accepted by the Government in 2021, and in fact, the Government stated in a programme for government that it wanted to deliver that. Therefore, I am a little surprised that the minister is saying that it is a one-size-fits-all approach and is not appropriate and that that is really not where we are going. That feels like quite a subtle change in policy and direction for the Government and it begs the question where the independent deer management working group report now sits with the Government. Is the Government continuing to work through those recommendations? Is it adopting recommendation 97, which has already appeared in a programme for government?

The purpose of having a national deer management programme is, in effect, to lower deer numbers, to ensure that the population is managed at a level where public health—particularly with regard to road safety and to Lyme disease—is under control and to make sure that impacts on nature restoration are minimised. That approach has a very strong public health and ecological basis. I have brought that back as amendment 98, acting in the spirit of the independent deer working group’s report by reflecting its specific proposal and asking members to vote on it.

Notwithstanding that, I appreciate the openness that the minister has shown between stage 2 and stage 3. We have had a discussion about the importance of seeing venison and deer as a resource and the need to give greater support to the venison sector. Of course we would like to see venison in more public canteens and local shops and making a contribution there.

However, a balance needs to be struck between the aims of having greater oversight of deer management for the purpose of advancing nature restoration and ensuring that there is a growing market for venison. I am still a little confused about where the minister’s priorities sit in that respect. There needs to be parity. Deer management is essentially about an ecological decision that needs to be taken to restore nature and to deal with public health issues. It cannot be dependent on the vagaries of a food supply chain market, which is often dominated by supermarkets. I am not clear whether we are in the same territory as the debates that we have had in the chamber on organic food, where there has been a reluctance to increase the scale of the organic sector if it does not meet market demand. I am wary of relying on market demand for venison to drive what should be ecological decisions about protecting and restoring nature.

I understand where the minister is coming from. However, to an extent, the provisions will rework the recommendations of the independent deer working group. Those voices were there in the process and the working group came to its conclusions after a long process. It feels as though the policy is evolving, but I am not 100 per cent sure which way it is going.

I will make a bit of progress.

I welcome the minister’s support for amendment 20E, although he also said that it is not necessary to involve the environmental and nature restoration sectors. Why not? We will do that anyway. Nevertheless, I welcome his support for the amendment.

The Parliament has a choice to make. Amendment 98 is clear; its provisions are what the Government signed up to and what was in the programme for government. If policy is evolving in a slightly different direction to be more about working with the market for venison, we should at least put the population estimates into the plan, ensure that NatureScot has a properly funded role to do what the independent working group wanted it to do and ensure that important voices for environment and nature restoration are consulted. Those are the purposes of my amendment to the minister’s amendment and of my amendment 98.

I move amendment 20A.

I hope that the minister acknowledges that the amendment is focused on protected sites. What is the point of a protected site if those who are charged with protecting those sites—such as NatureScot—cannot get in there and ensure that the destruction ends? This is a natural environment bill, and surely we should be following through on nature protection.

On the wider issue of deer management, there are welcome reforms throughout the bill, but on the issue of protected sites, I am disappointed. I would like to hear more from the minister about the priority of ensuring that our last remaining habitats do not just disappear because they were at the bottom of the in-tray.