Rural Affairs and Islands Committee 03 December 2025
NatureScot has to report to ministers on any issues as well. If a particular issue is of concern, it can come back to ministers.
On amendments 234 and 235, I am not sure why Tim Eagle wants to amend the bill in that way. At various points in the stage 1 debate, the member outlined that he thought that NatureScot’s powers were broad and too vague. I have been clear that we want voluntary deer management to be the focus of our deer management efforts. We want the good collaboration that we have seen until now to continue. However, when NatureScot forms a view that the tests and the grounds for intervention have been met, we want to ensure that it is clear what action will be taken. Changing “must” to “may” would undermine clarity and certainty about what steps will be taken after NatureScot has formed the view that some form of intervention, whether that be a voluntary control agreement or a control scheme, is required. The lack of certainty about the process that would follow would not benefit anyone. For that reason, I recommend that members reject amendments 234 and 235.
On Rhoda Grant’s amendment 137, as I have set out previously, control agreements are voluntary. Publishing all the information related to section 7 control agreements, which are part of an iterative and collaborative process, including all the evidence that led NatureScot to form a view that intervention was necessary, would be pre-emptive and detrimental to everyone involved. It would place a significant administrative burden on NatureScot. The section 8 provisions are the end of the process in which deer control schemes become compulsory, and it is at that stage that the schemes are published by NatureScot. For those reasons, I encourage members to oppose amendment 137.
Tim Eagle’s amendment 236 would add an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy to the process for proposing a control scheme. NatureScot must publish a notice when issuing a control scheme. That notice must include a copy of the scheme itself as well as details of how relevant owners and occupiers can object. As I set out a moment ago, control schemes are the end of the process and, by that point, NatureScot will have been engaging or attempting to engage the owner or occupier on the deer management issues that the scheme seeks to address. Throughout the process, NatureScot will have gathered evidence and outlined its assessment of the situation on the ground, and the rationale for the intervention. Where an owner or occupier disagrees with NatureScot’s assessment, or the actions that are required by the scheme, they can object to the Scottish ministers. If the Scottish ministers then, having considered the evidence and any objections, confirm the scheme, the owner or occupier may appeal to the Land Court.
There is no rationale for introducing an additional step involving an independent panel to review control schemes. At best, that will result in the work that NatureScot has already undertaken being carried out twice, and, at worst, it will be a waste of time and money for everyone involved. We already have sufficient checks and balances in place, and a process that is well understood by all. I therefore urge the committee to oppose amendment 236.
On Mark Ruskell’s amendments 29 and 30, the changes that we are making to NatureScot’s powers under the bill are intended to support voluntary deer management and ensure that, in situations where those voluntary agreements break down, NatureScot can take enforcement action to ensure effective deer management. It is of the utmost importance to me that we do as much as we can to support the good deer management that is happening across Scotland and ensure that it can continue. At the moment, the process requires NatureScot to make the meaningful attempts that I have already spoken about to secure agreement on voluntary deer management. I fear that these amendments would undermine that aim entirely.
We want voluntary deer management to be the focus of our deer management efforts, and we want the good collaboration that we have seen until now to continue. That includes taking proactive action for environmental purposes while maintaining those appropriate checks and balances. It is not our intention, nor is it either practical or feasible, to demand compulsory deer management everywhere.