That was among the recommendations that came out of the deer working group.

We have not done the consultation because it came out of the deer working group that I commissioned to look at all the deer management options.

It came out of the deer working group. I have just stated that we are bringing in the requirement but we will consult on it before it comes back to the committee for consideration as secondary legislation. All the issues that Mr Mountain has raised and that you are raising can be ironed out as we go through that consultation. We can then lodge a Scottish statutory instrument for the committee to scrutinise.

Although supporting access to training is important, amendment 250, in the name of Tim Eagle, is undesirable. Regulations to create a Government-run training fund are not needed, because there are already private sector and voluntary schemes that support training—for example, NatureScot’s Creag Meagaidh scheme. Our preference is not to fix funding in law. Instead, we can work with NatureScot and the industry to improve training schemes and explore partnership funding. That approach is more flexible, avoids bureaucracy and prevents unrealistic expectations of full Government funding. For those reasons, I ask the member not to move amendment 250. If it is moved, I ask members to oppose it.

We are absolutely clear that this will be a transitional process, and I am more than happy to work with the member to discuss how that will be delivered.

We have looked at the issue for Scotland; we have not looked across the UK.

That is not something that NatureScot could do on a whim—it must go through a whole process in order to get to that position in the first place.

Section 12(2) merely adds an additional part that NatureScot can then intervene in. However, that would not take away from all the things that NatureScot has to do in order to get to a control order, if it ever gets to that stage. My hope and expectation would be that NatureScot would work with the land managers and the deer managers to find solutions to issues as and when they arise. Surely that is something that the member would agree with.

Does the member accept that extending the timing of a control scheme gives the land manager time to achieve the objectives in the first place? It helps the landowner to achieve the aims.

There would be much value in our having an extensive conversation after this session, because we could get some agreement on an awful lot of things, but that is how I would describe my approach to amendment 237.

I apologise in advance, because there are a considerable number of amendments to get through in this group, which may take more than a couple of minutes.

On amendment 132, it is unfortunate that Edward Mountain has decided to bring this issue back again and to try disrupt proceedings relating to the close seasons of deer. We have a serious climate and biodiversity challenge in this country, and the advice from a huge range of experts from academic and practical backgrounds has been clear: if we are serious about protecting our environment and allowing natural regeneration, we must reduce deer impacts.

The only effective way to do that is to bring down deer populations and reduce deer densities. There is no evidence that shooting male deer during the previously set close season is detrimental to their welfare, which is the point that I made to the member earlier. There is nothing to prevent land managers who wish to observe a close season for deer on their land, for the traditional reasons, from doing so. Skilled practitioners, using best practice and local knowledge and expertise, are best placed to make decisions about which deer to shoot and under which circumstances. The Parliament voted on the matter very recently, in 2023. For those reasons, I ask the committee not to support amendment 132.

On amendments 133 to 135, 138, 139 and 148 to 151, the changes that the bill makes to introduce a ground for intervention for nature restoration purposes stem from a recommendation made by the Parliament in 2017, as has just been referenced by Mark Ruskell. At that time, the ECCLR Committee made the following recommendation:

“The Committee is not convinced the currently available suite of powers are adequate ... The Committee recommends the Scottish Government now take urgent action to devise alternative measures and simple provisions that lead to action to protect and restore habitats and sites impacted by deer.”

We are eight years down the line and the urgency around effective deer management for the purpose of nature restoration has only increased.

The provisions set out in section 13 of the bill to introduce a new ground for intervention for the purposes of nature restoration aim to achieve that. The new ground for intervention is not limitless and will be able to be used by NatureScot only when certain tests have been met. To help owners and occupiers of land to understand and anticipate when NatureScot may decide to intervene, NatureScot will be required to include the circumstances in which it will intervene in the management and control of deer in the code of practice on deer management. It has begun work on updating that code with stakeholders already.