Rural Affairs and Islands Committee 03 December 2025
The more the merrier—absolutely.
On Mark Ruskell’s amendment 246, I appreciate the member’s intention to create a national deer management plan. Although we share the ambition to address rising populations, the amendment as drafted would lock us into a rigid five-year programme with fixed cull targets. A statutory plan with predetermined numbers would risk reducing flexibility and could undermine adaptive management approaches. In addition, taking resource to draft such a convoluted plan would prevent us from taking tangible action on the ground. For those reasons, we cannot support amendment 246 at this stage, but I would very much like to work with Mr Ruskell and stakeholders ahead of stage 3, to ensure that any proposals are fit for purpose.
18:45I oppose Beatrice Wishart’s amendment 225 because it risks weakening the effectiveness of the bill’s nature restoration objectives. By inserting the word “materially,” we would raise the threshold for intervention, meaning that NatureScot could act only when deer prevent or materially reduce the effectiveness of work, a project or natural process. Although that sounds reasonable, it would create problems in practice.
The amendment would delay action, as many environmental impacts start small and accumulate over time; it would introduce ambiguity, because the term “materially” is subjective; and it would invite disputes over what qualifies as material harm, adding complexity and slowing enforcement—instead of having clarity, we risk having uncertainty and challenge. It would also reduce flexibility. NatureScot needs to have the ability to act proactively, especially where cumulative minor impacts undermine biodiversity targets. The amendment would limit that discretion and could compromise Scotland’s climate and nature commitments.
For those reasons, I urge members to reject amendment 225.
I cannot support Tim Eagle’s amendments 226 to 230 as they would collectively weaken the bill’s ability to deliver effective nature restoration. Amendment 226 would remove the phrase “natural processes,” meaning that NatureScot could not act where deer are preventing or reducing, or are likely to prevent or reduce, the effectiveness of a natural process that protects the natural heritage or environment and is for, or contributes to, a climate change, biodiversity or environmental target, strategy or plan that applies in Scotland.
Amendments 227, 228 and 229 would change the wording relating to preserving, protecting, restoring and enhancing, which would create unnecessary complexity in an attempt to narrow the scope of the grounds for intervention, and, in doing so, it would potentially exclude projects that focus on only one objective. Amendment 230 would remove the phrase “or environment,” narrowing the scope to natural heritage alone and undermining integrated outcomes such as soil health, water quality and climate resilience. Those changes might seem technical, but together they would reduce flexibility, create ambiguity and limit the bill’s reach, when the original wording is clear and comprehensive. For those reasons, I encourage members to oppose amendments 226 to 230.
Although Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 233 is well intentioned, it would introduce a significant policy and practical challenge that would risk undermining effective deer management. The amendment would also impose a statutory duty on local authorities to require them to manage deer on all land that they own or control, including roads.
First, it is not clear what is meant by the wording, “otherwise under its control”. I am not sure what specific land would be covered by the proposed duty. In practice, amendment 233 would create an unfunded mandate. Many councils, particularly in urban and lowland areas, lack the expertise, resources and infrastructure to deliver safe and sustainable deer management. Without dedicated funding or training, the duty would be unrealistic and unevenly applied across Scotland.
Secondly, the requirement to prepare and publish a deer management plan would add administrative complexity. Councils already face severe budget pressures, and the amendment would divert resources from core services and risk creating plans that look good on paper but cannot be implemented effectively.
Finally, although the amendment rightly links deer management to road safety, it would not address the underlying problem—councils often lack access to reliable collision data and have limited capacity to act on it. Simply mandating consultation and reporting would not resolve those systemic gaps.
In short, the amendment would risk creating obligations without the means to fulfil them, leading to patchy implementation and potential liability for councils. The bill already provides mechanisms for co-ordinated deer management through NatureScot and voluntary partnerships. Adding that duty now would overcomplicate the system and strain local government capacity.
For those reasons, I encourage members to oppose amendment 233.
Tim Eagle’s amendment 331 is well intentioned. However, in seeking greater community involvement in deer management, it would introduce significant challenges that risk undermining effective deer management. It would impose a statutory obligation on public authorities to consider and potentially implement “community-integrated deer management models” on publicly owned land. In practice, that would create complex engagement requirements that could delay decision making, particularly when communities disagree with proposed plans.
The amendment would require public authorities to consider a number of complex elements when exercising their functions, which would significantly increase workload and administrative burdens on them. Such a requirement should not be progressed without careful consideration and consultation with the public authorities that might be subject to that new duty.
Deer management can be an emotive subject, and there are many views on the best way to manage deer in different areas. I do not think that the member has considered the potential implications in peri-urban areas, where some members of the public who rarely see deer do not understand the impact that deer have on the environment if their population is left unchecked.
For those reasons, I ask the member not to move amendment 331. If he does, I ask members not to support it.
Although I appreciate the intention behind Rhoda Grant’s amendment 136, which is to ensure timely action on the notification of control agreements, I remind her that section 7 control agreements are voluntary. NatureScot will look to secure voluntary deer management and work with landowners and occupiers to reach agreement on what it will look like. That can take time, because collaboration and the process are not linear. Therefore, it is not practical to oblige NatureScot to give notice within three months. For those reasons, I recommend that members oppose amendment 136.