The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.
All Official Reports of meetings in the Debating Chamber of the Scottish Parliament.
All Official Reports of public meetings of committees.
Displaying 2837 contributions
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee
Meeting date: 3 December 2025
Jim Fairlie
That related to 2023.
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee
Meeting date: 3 December 2025
Jim Fairlie
If we are talking about the same thing, it was a press release that was put out about guidance or advice that was given to ministers in 2023. I was not the minister then; I am a different minister, and this is a different Government.
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee
Meeting date: 3 December 2025
Jim Fairlie
No, it doesn’t.
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee
Meeting date: 3 December 2025
Jim Fairlie
We are content that we are compliant with the requirements of the law as it currently stands. I should also make the point that the protection of property rights under protocol 1 of article 1 of the European convention on human rights is not absolute. However, I am content that we are more than covered with regard to the information that you are talking about, which came out in the press release.
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee
Meeting date: 3 December 2025
Jim Fairlie
The whole point of this is that we are still looking for voluntary agreements when there is an intervention to be made. It is about going through the whole process before we get to an enforcement order, which is what I presume that you are asking about.
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee
Meeting date: 3 December 2025
Jim Fairlie
Yes, I am.
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee
Meeting date: 3 December 2025
Jim Fairlie
That is absolutely fine. We have all night.
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee
Meeting date: 3 December 2025
Jim Fairlie
I absolutely accept stakeholders’ concerns on the issue, but let us be absolutely clear: such an intervention will happen only after NatureScot has gone through a considerable period of asking for voluntary agreements to get to a collective agreement. The role of deer management groups will be very important, but when a specific and targeted plan is being introduced on a piece of land or an estate and a very high density of deer is preventing the development, restoration or whatever it is from being done on the piece of land, then, yes, it is appropriate to ask the neighbours to play their part. The intervention will come in when a neighbour simply refuses to take part in the conversation.
We need to get to a position at which deer numbers come down to allow the peatland or forestry restoration, or whatever is in the specific plan that has been laid out, to happen. The plan cannot just be someone saying, “I want to rewild that.” The action must be part of a particular plan, such as a biodiversity or climate plan—we have a range of plans in place—that is set out, that is deliverable and that people have been consulted on. It is reasonable to ask people to get deer numbers down to allow the specific restoration event to happen.
That does not mean that those deer numbers cannot go back up. I absolutely accept how some people feel, and I have heard the phrase, “We’ll be shooting ourselves out of a job.” However, I do not believe that that will be the case. We have massive numbers of deer. Edward Mountain spoke earlier about deer having to come down from the hill to get the better grass at the bottom of the road. There is scope to allow us to ensure that we can require a landowner to cut their deer numbers to allow a particular piece of work to happen.
Mr Ruskell asks us to go even further and not to even have voluntary engagement. I think that the current provision is absolutely reasonable, because we have a very high deer population. I take the point that was made this morning that we have a national vision and a local vision, and I understand all that, but, if something needs to happen in a local area, then, yes, an intervention is appropriate. That does not mean that the population of deer would necessarily have to be the same in five or 10 years.
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee
Meeting date: 3 December 2025
Jim Fairlie
That is exactly what Ross Ewing did in the press release that he put out. I find it astounding that you are prepared to go down that road.
First, you know as well as I do that you can go out with 10 bikes and 50 dogs but you will not round up deer and manage them in the same way as you can manage sheep; whereas you can certainly manage sheep with a couple of shepherds and dogs and get them off that land. I am astounded that you are taking that position of pitting one land manager against another. Deer are a naturally roving and marauding animal. Sheep can be managed as livestock. I find it unbelievable that you could go down that road. However, that is entirely up to you.
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee
Meeting date: 3 December 2025
Jim Fairlie
We should bear in mind that there is the public interest test, which also takes into account employability and the local economy. In the scenario that you have just given me, where eight people want to do something and one person wants to do something different, NatureScot would have to consider not just that person’s point of view but everybody’s point of view. That is where you have to have deer management groups, with the local community working and talking together, so that they come to a reasonable compromise to ensure that the restoration can happen—but not to the point where it is completely detrimental to everybody else.