Rural Affairs and Islands Committee 03 December 2025
I do agree with that. In some ways, that is what I wanted to probe the minister on. I think that I will still move my amendment, but I will discuss the matter with the minister separately, too. The crux of the issue is that there is a lot of wording and new stuff coming forward that stakeholders are really concerned about. This is about making sure that the triangular relationship between the Government, NatureScot—as the regulator—and the stakeholders works in practice. I imagine that we will come back to that as we move forward.
I will turn to my amendment 223. The bill sets out changes to the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996, including grounds for intervention relating to damage by deer. It sets out the conditions that NatureScot will have to believe are satisfied before intervention can take place. It then uses the wording
“This ground is met if, in relation to a particular area of land”.
My amendment 223 seeks to change “in relation to” to “on”. At the moment, the bill uses both terms. I believe that my amendment would introduce better consistency to the drafting of the bill and that use of the word “on” would narrow the reference.
My amendment 224 is similar to amendment 223. It seeks to introduce better consistency to the bill.
My amendment 330 is consequential to my amendments 223 and 224.
Section 13 of the bill adds to the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996 grounds for intervention due to nature restoration. It states:
“This ground is met if, in relation to a particular area of land, deer or steps taken or not taken ... are likely to, prevent or reduce the effectiveness of work, a project or natural process”.
My amendment 226 seeks to delete
“, a project or natural process”
and replace it with the words “or project”. As far as I am aware, “natural process” has not been defined in previous legislation, and I therefore do not believe that it would add anything beyond what would already be covered under “work or project”. Again, I am trying to make sense of the wording for practical application of the law.
My amendment 227 is a consequential to my amendment 228.
As I have mentioned, section 13 of the bill adds to the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996 grounds for intervention due to nature restoration. More fully, it states:
“This ground is met if, in relation to a particular area of land, deer or steps taken or not taken for the purposes of deer management are, or are likely to, prevent or reduce the effectiveness of work, a project or natural process that ... preserves, protects, restores, enhances or otherwise improves the natural heritage or environment”.
My amendment 228 seeks to replace “enhances or otherwise improves” with the words “and enhances”. I am concerned that allowing intervention on the basis of improving the natural heritage or environment is problematic as there is no clear baseline against which such improvements can be measured. Removing the phrase “or otherwise improves” would ensure that deer management remained aligned with the established purposes of preserving, protecting, restoring and enhancing the environment, while avoiding ambiguity over what constitutes environmental improvement.