Hansard

Amendment 78 attempts to reinstate the close season for male deer. I have lost count of the number of times that Mr Mountain has attempted to overturn the decision of the Parliament on close seasons of deer. His attempt at stage 2 was debated and opposed at that time. I therefore recommend that members oppose it again.

I turn to Edward Mountain’s amendment 8 and Tim Eagle’s amendment 79. I cannot support Mr Mountain’s amendment, as I think that there is a benefit in requiring NatureScot to set out in the code of practice details of how and where it intends to intervene in deer management. However, I have listened to the concerns that have been raised by stakeholders and the committee during proceedings at stages 1 and 2. Although the use of “will” instead of “may” was intended to provide some security to stakeholders, it has raised concerns about lack of flexibility, so I am content to support the change proposed by Mr Eagle. I ask Mr Mountain not to move his amendment 8 and instead to support his colleague’s amendment 79, and I ask members to support amendment 79.

I cannot support Mr Mountain’s amendments 9 and 80. At present, NatureScot must review compliance with the code of practice every three years. The deer working group was clear that that requirement was too burdensome, so we consulted on proposals to amend the review period and brought forward changes that will require NatureScot to review compliance in three circumstances: first, when requested to do so by ministers; secondly, if substantive changes have been made to the code; and thirdly, at a bare minimum, no later than 10 years after the code was laid before the Parliament. NatureScot will also be able to carry out a review at any other point if it feels that that is appropriate. I set out very clearly at stage 2, but will do so again now, that it is my expectation that 10 years will not become the norm for compliance reviews. For those reasons, I ask Mr Mountain not to move amendments 9 and 80. If he does, I ask members to vote against them.

I am pleased to support Edward Mountain’s amendments 10 and 11. I would expect NatureScot to undertake such consultation work as part of a review of compliance, but I am happy to support such a requirement in legislation. I hope that that gives some reassurance to those in the land management sector that a key priority for the Government is to ensure that the changes that the bill makes are workable for them. I therefore ask members to support amendments 10 and 11.

Given what I have just said about Edward Mountain’s amendments 8, 9 and 80 and Tim Eagle’s amendment 79, I hope that Mr Mountain will understand why I cannot support amendment 12. It would undo all the changes that we have made to secure flexibility on the code of practice and review of compliance with it. The changes that we are asking for are sensible and are being made in good faith. I therefore ask Mr Mountain not to move amendment 12. If he moves it, I ask the chamber to oppose it.

On amendment 81, I admit that I was a bit surprised at Mr Mountain’s lodging an amendment that would require NatureScot to consider whether speed limits were a better alternative to requiring deer management to reduce public safety risks. I seem to recall fairly strong opposition from the Conservative Party to a previous proposal on speed limits.

The protection of public safety is a circumstance in which I do not want to put up barriers to the ability of NatureScot to take action to control deer. Amendment 81 would require NatureScot to be satisfied that no alternative measure would be effective. However, I do not think that that would be reasonable or practical, given that the primary concern must be to ensure public safety. I therefore cannot support amendment 81.

I turn to amendment 82, in the name of Tim Eagle. As I set out at stage 2 in relation to an amendment that sought to achieve the same thing, although it appears to be technical, changing “in relation to” to “on” would narrow the scope of intervention powers. The current wording allows NatureScot to act where deer activity or management decisions are causing or are likely to cause damage to an area of land, even indirectly. Limiting that to damage “on” the land could create unintended consequences, making it harder to address cumulative or cross-boundary impacts.

Deer do not respect property boundaries, and our legislation should reflect that reality. For example, deer could be on a particular area of land but wander on to roads, causing road traffic accidents. That would be a public safety issue that would not be “on” that particular area of land, but rather “in relation to” it. For those reasons, I believe that the existing wording provides the flexibility that is needed to protect the public interest and the environment, and I encourage members to oppose amendment 82.

In regard to amendment 83, in the name of Edward Mountain, a similar amendment was lodged at stage 2 but was not agreed to. As I set out at stage 2 in relation to that amendment, amendment 83 would risk weakening the effectiveness of the bill’s restoration objectives. For that reason, I urge members to reject amendment 83.

Amendments 84 to 87, in the name of Tim Eagle, all seek to limit the scope and effectiveness of NatureScot’s intervention powers. Amendment 84 would change the wording relating to environmental improvements in an attempt to narrow the scope of the nature restoration ground for intervention and, in doing so, would potentially exclude certain projects.

Amendments 85 and 86 would unnecessarily narrow how we consider deer management. Deer impacts do not sit in isolation but directly affect biodiversity, woodland recovery, climate objectives and sustainable land use. By limiting the relevant targets to ones that are set out in deer-specific legislation only, amendment 85 would risk creating policy silos and undermining our ability to manage deer in a way that supports wider national environmental goals. Managing deer impacts is central to delivering those wider environmental, biodiversity and land-use objectives, and those priorities are often set out in strategies that are led by environmental and natural heritage bodies. Amendment 86 would exclude those plans and would risk the siloing of deer management.

Amendment 87 would simply reinstate the status quo that the bill seeks to reform in line with the deer working group’s recommendations and would undermine efforts to strengthen the use of timely and effective action in the wider public interest. There is already a general requirement for NatureScot to have “regard to the code” in exercising its functions under the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996. The changes in amendment 87 might seem technical, but they would reduce flexibility, weaken accountability and, ultimately, make it harder to deliver effective, joined-up land management across Scotland. The original wording is clear and comprehensive. For those reasons, I urge members to reject amendments 84 to 87.

The issue that is addressed in amendment 88, in the name of Edward Mountain, was also fully debated at stage 2. The bill’s provision of a minimum three-month time frame is just that—a minimum. The change made by the bill simply gives NatureScot greater flexibility to act sooner where responsibilities have not been met, as I said in my earlier intervention. For that reason, I do not support the amendment, as it would reduce that important flexibility. I urge members to reject amendment 88.

Taken together, amendments 13 to 15, in Edward Mountain’s name, would complicate the process for putting in place effective and, in many areas, much-needed deer management plans.

Amendment 13 would require NatureScot to consult holders of shooting or sporting rights even when they have no direct responsibility for land management, which would add unnecessary delay. Amendment 14 would remove the clear definition of “relevant owners and occupiers”, creating uncertainty and increasing the risk of dispute. Amendment 15 would go further, by removing NatureScot’s discretion to determine who has “sufficient interest ... or control”, replacing professional judgment with a rigid test that would invite challenge.

Collectively, the three amendments would increase bureaucracy, reduce flexibility and make timely intervention in the public interest harder to achieve. I ask members to reject amendments 13 to 15.

Amendments 89 and 90, in the name of Tim Eagle, would do the same to control agreements and schemes as amendment 87 would to deer management plans. Amendments 89 and 90 would simply reinstate the status quo that the bill seeks to reform in line with the deer working group’s recommendations, undermining efforts to strengthen timely and effective action in the wider public interest.

I discussed the issue in a meeting with Tim Eagle recently. There is already a general requirement for NatureScot to have “regard to the code” in exercising its functions under the 1996 act. For the same reason that I gave in opposing amendment 87, I ask Mr Eagle not to move amendments 89 and 90, and if he does, I ask members to oppose them.

Amendment 49, in the name of Rhoda Grant, will refine a stage 2 amendment. It will require NatureScot to publish the outcomes of reviews of control agreements, which will help to maintain public confidence and make clear whether agreed measures are being delivered. It will also encourage compliance and support learning by making evidence about what works publicly available. That is a proportionate step that will align deer management with wider principles of openness in environmental governance. For those reasons, I urge members to support amendment 49. I thank Ms Grant for her willingness to work with me to improve amendments 49 and 50, following the stage 2 proceedings.

Amendment 50, which sets out the process by which someone can request an intervention from NatureScot in response to damage being caused by deer, would provide clarity and assurance for those suffering from damage by deer that they do not have the right or responsibility to manage on how to access support from NatureScot.

In later groups, we will come to amendments that relate to the statutory rights of occupiers. However, I have taken on board the concerns raised by stakeholders about friction between landowners, sporting tenants and occupiers, especially when there are long-standing deer management issues or differing priorities. Amendment 50 can go a long way towards addressing some of those concerns, so I ask members to support it.

I turn to amendments 51, 52 and 53, in the name of Beatrice Wishart. I thank Ms Wishart for not pressing her amendment at stage 2 and instead returning with slightly updated amendments, which I will gladly support.

The amendments will require NatureScot to notify not only the owner or occupier of land on which a control scheme applies, but others who are likely to be significantly affected by the scheme. The amendments would also mean that those who are likely to be significantly affected have the right to object to a scheme. I have listened to concerns that were raised about the potential impact of a control scheme on local communities and local economies and how balance will be achieved when these powers are used. That touches on some of the issues that were raised by Mr Mountain and Mr Eagle earlier.

I think that the amendments would be effective in ensuring that local communities are notified and are able to feed back on compulsory deer management. The amendments would not give those wider groups of people the right to appeal to the Scottish Land Court, given that a scheme needs to be confirmed by Scottish ministers where it comes into effect, which will require any objections to be considered. It is considered only appropriate to give the right of appeal to the owners or occupiers on whom a control scheme, or a variation of a control scheme, is imposed. Such a right of appeal is no different from the existing appeal rights under the 1996 act, and it is a recognition of the seriousness of that undertaking. I therefore ask members to support amendments 51 to 53.

Amendments 91 and 92, in the name of Edward Mountain, are the same as amendments that were originally lodged by Ms Wishart at stage 2 and debated then. As I set out at stage 2—I believe that this is why the amendments were not pressed by Ms Wishart—in practice, the amendments would not have a meaningful impact on those required to be consulted by NatureScot. For that reason, I urge members to oppose amendments 91 and 92.

I turn to amendment 93, in the name of Mark Ruskell. I appreciate Mr Ruskell’s intention, but I cannot support the amendment. I have said this before and I will say it again: it is vital that we balance the need to reduce deer populations with the needs of our rural communities; we have to get that balance right. I have been clear throughout the process that we have to find ways of working effectively and collaboratively to meet our deer management aims. That means bringing the sector with us. Unfortunately, I do not think that amendment 93 would achieve that.

Furthermore, the amendment would include a significant amount of land and well over 1,000 holdings. The resources that would be required by NatureScot to enter into control agreements in all those places would mean that it would have to down tools on almost all of its other deer management work and swathes of its wildlife management work. I do not think that that is what Mr Ruskell is aiming for here, but I cannot support the amendment.