Meeting of the Parliament 27 January 2026
I have already stated that, through the bill, we are bringing forward a national deer management plan and introducing new powers to take action where deer are preventing nature restoration and enhancement. Outwith the legislation, we are working hard to trial incentive schemes, which will be used to inform our decisions on the form of support that would best achieve our deer management aims.
Amendment 93 would risk undermining the collaborative work that has been put into getting deer management where it is today, which I intend to continue.
Amendments 16 to 19, in the name of Edward Mountain, relate to cost recovery for control schemes that are put in place by NatureScot. Amendments 16 and 17 are not necessary, as the bill as currently drafted will already achieve the aims of those proposed drafting modifications.
Amendments 18 and 19 would introduce a complex and disproportionate challenge process for the recovery of very modest sums. Creating independent panels followed by potential arbitration, while still retaining the mechanism of appeal to the Scottish Land Court, would undermine finality and risk legal confusion, in particular given that arbitration is intended to be binding. The cost of establishing and operating those processes would likely exceed the expenses being disputed, while the suspension of recovery action would encourage delay.
Taken together, amendments 16 to 19 would add bureaucracy, reduce regulatory efficiency and weaken NatureScot’s ability to recover costs proportionately and effectively. There is already a robust appeal mechanism in place through the Scottish Land Court. For those reasons, I urge members to reject the amendments.
Amendments 94 and 95, in the name of Edward Mountain, seek to reverse necessary changes that the bill makes in respect of emergency powers under section 10 of the 1996 act. Amendment 94 would strip out the bill’s prudent expansion of those emergency powers to cover damage to “the natural heritage” and “environment”. That would mean that section 10 of the 1996 act would be out of line with the rest of that act, and it would undermine rapid intervention precisely where it is increasingly required to protect peatland restoration, new woodland and sensitive habitats. The expanded measures are short, targeted powers that are already used proportionately to address immediate harm, and they are supported by the deer working group’s recommendations.
Amendment 95 would remove from the bill the simple, sensible safeguard that authorised persons must be “fit”, cutting across the wider drive for competence and high standards.
The changes that I have set out are necessary and balanced and are in the public interest. For those reasons, I urge members to reject amendments 94 and 95.
Amendment 96, in the name of Edward Mountain, seeks to remove section 20 of the bill. Section 20 introduces a tightly drawn and sensible defence where a person acts “to prevent or stop” an imminent risk of harm to human safety from deer. It applies only where the risk is immediate, the action is reasonable and proportionate and the incident is reported to the police. Removing that provision would mean that someone could still commit an offence even when acting responsibly to protect life. That would be neither practical nor proportionate, and it would retain an unnecessary offence in the law. The safeguard introduced in section 20 is carefully balanced and firmly in the public interest, and it should remain in the bill. I therefore ask members to reject amendment 96.
Amendment 99 seeks to undo the changes that the bill makes with regard to NatureScot’s notice period when entering on to land to exercise its functions. The bill reduces the minimum notice period that NatureScot must give to five working days. That was a recommendation from the deer working group, which recognised that the current period of 14 calendar days was unreasonably long in some circumstances, especially where NatureScot needs to take action to address damage quickly.
The change was fully consulted on. It is important to note, however, that the notice period is simply a minimum and that if NatureScot issued the notice and the relevant owners or occupiers were in touch to make other arrangements, NatureScot would consider alternative requests so long as the request was made in good faith. I ask members, therefore, to oppose amendment 99.
Amendments 100 and 101 relate to the proposed new subsection (2ZA) to be inserted in section 15 of the 1996 act, which provides NatureScot with the power to authorise a person to enter land owned or occupied by another for specified deer management purposes. Mr Mountain’s amendment 100 would require that person to be
“qualified in practical deer management”
as well as, under the bill’s proposed new wording in the 1996 act, being “authorised in writing by” NatureScot.
However, Mr Mountain does not define what is meant by “qualified in practical deer management”. That would leave the provision open to interpretation, creating uncertainty over its meaning and application and thereby making it not fit for the intended purpose, particularly in relation to powers of entry, where clarity as to lawful exercise is especially important.
Amendment 101 would remove from NatureScot the power to enable an authorised person to enter on to the owner or occupier’s land for the reasons set out in section 15(3) of the 1996 act unless “previously agreed with” them. That would effectively transfer control of the power from NatureScot to the landowner or occupier, which would undermine its very purpose. In practice, it would risk delaying or preventing necessary deer management actions. For those reasons that I ask Mr Mountain not to move amendments 100 and 101. If he moves them, I ask members to oppose them.
Amendments 102 to 104, in the name of Edward Mountain, would insert new provisions in section 15 of the 1996 act. Amendment 102 strikes the right balance between transparency and effective regulation. It would ensure that landowners receive timely, accessible information about deer counts and impacts gathered on their land, which would support collaboration and informed management.
However, I cannot support amendments 103 and 104, because they would unduly constrain NatureScot by preventing further action until the information has been shared, removing the necessary flexibility and risking delay where multiple or urgent interventions were required. Amendment 104 would impose an unnecessary and disproportionate statutory compensation requirement for lawful entry, despite no evidence of harm arising from existing powers. Amendments 103 and 104 go beyond what is reasonable and would weaken NatureScot’s ability to carry out its functions.
I therefore support amendment 102, but I urge members to oppose amendments 103 and 104.
Amendment 105, in Edward Mountain’s name, seeks to require NatureScot to be absolutely confident that the information or documents that it is requesting are relevant to its functions. Although the amendment is well intentioned, in some cases, NatureScot may not be able to determine whether the information or documents required are relevant to a specific function until it has sight of them. With the bill, our aim has always been not only to retain flexibility, particularly in relation to voluntary agreements, but to ensure that NatureScot has the appropriate powers to allow it to exercise its functions. Amendment 105 would take away an element of that discretion, which is necessary to ensure that NatureScot can obtain the information that it needs.
For those reasons, I ask Mr Mountain not to move amendment 105. If he moves it, I ask members to oppose it.