Chamber and committees

So, it is specifically about dealing with that rather than how we support farmers of deer to ensure that they do not have escapes into the wild.

Good morning, everybody. The convener has already touched on this issue. Given that the goal is to halt nature decline by 2030, when will the Scottish Government seek to commence section 1 to ensure that regulations are introduced within a meaningful timeframe, given the tight timeframe that is in front of us?

Thank you. That is helpful. The bill allows for significant changes to be made to EIA and habitats regulations by way of regulations using the negative procedure, as the committee understands it. Those changes might have significant policy implications for how the regimes operate. Why did the Government not consider the affirmative procedure to be more appropriate for a wider range of circumstances under the powers in part 2?

Therefore, at this point, are officials content that the balance has been struck correctly and that the affirmative procedure will be used for the most appropriate occasions?

When you responded to my colleague Emma Harper’s question about the changes that the bill makes in relation to the creation and approving of deer management plans, you mentioned the importance of collaborative working across landholdings. What regard was paid to the very different issues that are experienced in the lowlands of Scotland—the area that I represent—in relation to deer management, where there are a lot of much smaller landholdings and different moving parts? There is perhaps not as much collaboration happening, the number of stalkers is being reduced, and there are no community larders. What thought went into how we ensure that we have robust deer management in the lowlands of Scotland, given that it is a very different situation but one that still needs to be addressed?

So, at this point in time, you are content that it will be an iterative process because of the long lead-in time before we will see the results and that the best way of dealing with that will be through secondary legislation rather than through the bill.

Section 32 seeks to insert in the 1996 act provisions that deal with

“Liability for taking or killing stray farmed deer”.

In particular, it introduces an offence of

“failing to report taking or killing of stray farmed deer”

and a defence of civil liability in that regard. What are the reasons for introducing those provisions regarding stray farmed deer? Is it believed that they will effectively help with the management of stray farmed deer?

Looking at the provisions, it seems that they refer to the liability of the person who has actually taken the farmed deer as opposed to effective management to prevent farmed deer from escaping in the first place.

Last September, the committee took evidence from Fisheries Management Scotland, which pointed out to us that

“poaching for salmon and sea trout is the highest volume wildlife crime in Scotland”.—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, 4 September 2024; c 29.]

It also has one of the highest rates of conviction of any class of wildlife crime.

However, fish poaching also has the lowest fines—under £250 on average—and wild salmon has been classified as an endangered species. There is a real concern that the fines do not act as a disincentive for that illegal activity. FMS has identified that the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill could be a means of introducing amendments to the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 2003. I would like to flesh that out and to ask whether officials will commit to working with FMS to examine the potential for an amendment to be made to the bill to increase the fines for the most serious of fish poaching offences.

I would also like to explore why there is no legal requirement in the bill to align the targets with the overarching 2030 or 2045 goals, given that the policy memorandum sets out the intention that the targets align with those timeframes. Why is that not in the bill?

I also attended the launch of the hard-hitting report. I thank Shelter for commissioning research that finally gives voice to what those of us on the front line supporting families in temporary accommodation have understood for years: children experience multiple negative impacts to their wellbeing through any period in temporary accommodation, but the impacts are worsened by long periods of poor and unsuitable placements, as well as by multiple moves.

We urgently need more social homes. How can the minister and his ministerial colleagues use this critical report as a lightning rod to galvanise action across the sector to improve experiences now? Children need wraparound, personalised support, safe spaces to play in, and well-lit, fully furnished and safe accommodation near to their school and support network. That should be the rule, not the exception. Everyone who delivers temporary accommodation should be supported to view it through a children’s rights-based lens.