Meeting of the Parliament 27 January 2026 [Draft]
I thank the minister for quite a lot of discussion of my amendments. I have brought back some amendments that were previously lodged at stage 2. I have lodged them again because I have had a lot of contact with the deer sector, which has raised some concerns. I want to set out again what the concerns are, although this is pretty much only for the record, because I do not think that the amendments will be agreed to.
My amendment 79 would make it clear that the code of practice on deer management will set out the circumstances in which NatureScot “may” intervene in the management or control of deer, instead of the circumstances in which it must intervene. The amendment reflects concerns that have been expressed to me by Scottish Land & Estates that the present wording will act as an impediment to NatureScot and will potentially force its hand to take action in line with the circumstances for intervention that are due to be set out in the deer management code of practice.
The concern is that the wording “will intervene” will leave NatureScot with little room for manoeuvre. If the code says it, NatureScot will have to do it. It is likely that NatureScot will become exposed to direct lobbying and potential litigation, particularly from pressure groups, as well as from landholdings that consider that their neighbours are not doing enough to manage deer. That, in turn, will undermine the voluntary principle that underpins collaborative deer management.
My amendment 79 seeks to clarify that the code should set out the circumstances in which NatureScot “may” intervene. That would afford it discretion to decide whether intervention is appropriate relative to the circumstances. For clarity, the amendment seeks to replace “will” with “may”.
In its stage 1 report, the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee recognised the concerns of the deer management sector about the lack of detail on how the new grounds for intervention will be used. It is critical that the Scottish Government does not erode the trust and consensus that has been built up carefully with the deer management sector in recent years. Therefore, I urge members to back my amendment 79.
I turn to my amendment 82. The Scottish Government has been clear about the importance of voluntary and collaborative deer management when it comes to delivering positive outcomes for people, jobs and nature. I could not agree more with that sentiment, which is why I am concerned about the new ground for NatureScot to intervene in deer management under the auspices of nature restoration, which will be created by section 13 of the bill.
Several stakeholders, including Scottish Land & Estates and the Association of Deer Management Groups, have highlighted to me the potential for the new ground to generate conflict between landholdings. That is because the new ground for intervention will permit taking regulatory action “in relation to” an area of land, instead of “on” an area of land. That means, hypothetically, that intervention could be levelled against one landholding to deliver works, projects or natural processes on another landholding. That has the potential to drive a wedge through collaboration at the landscape scale and might even result in some landholdings lobbying NatureScot to intervene on their neighbours. I raise that as a genuine concern that has been expressed to me by the deer sector. It serves nobody’s interests, least of all the Scottish Government’s, to incite division and conflict among deer managers. I hope that members will be inclined to support my amendment 82.
The effect of my amendment 84 would be to remove the phrase “otherwise improves” in relation to the “natural heritage or environment” in the new ground for intervention. It is difficult to see what that phrase will usefully add, given that the preceding terms—“preserves, protects, restores, enhances”—are comprehensive and cover the full range of meaningful improvements that could be delivered for the natural heritage or environment. If ministers could set out, perhaps with reference to a case study, why the terms “preserves, protects, restores, enhances” are insufficient on their own, I am sure that that would address the concerns of the deer sector.
Beyond that, I simply point out to members that the subjectivity that is inherent in the new grounds for intervention has generated, and continues to generate, significant concern among deer managers.
The application of the new ground for intervention for nature restoration, in proposed new section 6ZB of the 1996 act, requires a connection to
“a relevant target, strategy or plan relating to the environment, climate change or biodiversity”.
Deer managers have expressed concerns to me about the all-encompassing nature of those targets, strategies or plans. My amendments 85 and 86 therefore seek to ensure that those targets, strategies and plans relate primarily to deer management. I do not consider that that would in any way tie the hands of either the Scottish Government or of NatureScot. Given that those powers relate to deer management, it is logical that the overarching targets, strategies and plans should also relate to deer.
Finally, my amendments 87, 89 and 90 are designed to provide reassurance for deer managers about the uncertainty and subjectivity inherent in the new grounds for intervention. Members will be aware that the code of practice for deer management will be used to set out the circumstances in which the new grounds will be used. That code is in the process of being updated, with input from the deer sector, so we do not yet have any detail about exactly how the new grounds will be applied. Given the central function of the code in steering where and how intervention will be used, amendment 87 seeks to underscore that NatureScot will be obliged to act
“in accordance with any requirements set out in the code”
when considering deer management plans, control agreements and control schemes and would, ultimately, help deer managers to understand where and how any intervention under the new grounds will be used.