Chamber and committees

I, too, thank the cross committee and the people’s panel for their work in this area. As Alex Cole-Hamilton said, we need to do more of that type of thing.

The people’s panel was tasked with answering a pivotal and crucial question: what does Scotland need to do differently to reduce drug-related harms? I thought about that question night and day during my time as Minister for Drugs and Alcohol Policy.

I came into that role two years into the Scottish Government’s national mission to save and improve lives. Coming from a background in which I worked directly with people who use drugs—and being an affected family member—I had already been able to see and tangibly feel the paradigm shift from treating drug issues as a criminal justice matter to seeing them through a public health lens, with an understanding of the underlying social determinants of health that are all too pernicious in our country.

I recognised the transformational power that lay in the full implementation of the medication assisted treatment standards, whereby people were to be empowered by immediate access to treatment, including by being offered a range of options and the right to make their own informed choices. That was a shift away from the all too often stigmatising nature of addiction services, where stigma and lack of autonomy had felt stubbornly baked in and intractable over many decades. I encountered that time and again when trying to help people to access vital services.

Although great strides have been made in culture change, access to same-day treatment and increasing capacity in residential rehab—we exceeded our target to provide 1,600 placements last year—I recognise that we need to do more. We need an increase in stabilisation provision, as well. We have seen flourishing recovery communities across the country, and we cannot understate the positive impact that recovery hubs have at the heart of our communities.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

That is helpful. It is good to have a marker down in relation to the incentive schemes that you mentioned. Although the bill’s provisions may not address the issue, as you rightly point out, the committee needs to be very aware of the issue in the lowlands.

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.