Chamber and committees

You narrated how much stigma there is in health and social care. Would the bill help to break down the barriers to individuals accessing treatment? As opposed to adding stigma, does it have the potential to reduce stigma?

Finally, we have heard quite a bit from family members about the role that they play in supporting their loved ones when seeking access to support and treatment. What thoughts did you have about them when you were considering the bill? I understand that the scope of a member’s bill needs to be quite narrow, so perhaps that was why they were not included in the bill as drafted. Is the role of family something that you would seek to look at going forward?

When you were discussing residential rehab, a question came into my mind about the variety of provision across the country. A directory has been created that gives to people who are seeking residential rehab a little bit of information about what a particular rehab service provides. Have you thought about whether people’s decision making also pertains to choosing to go to X rehab? There are rehabs that are faith based, rehabs that require abstinence before you attend, and rehabs that you can go to while you are still using and that will stabilise you in the facility. Rehab is not the same across the board, and I wonder whether you have given any thought to that.

At the moment, the reality is that ADPs commission rehab facilities to send their service users to, and that facility might not be local to where the person resides. There are a lot of competing issues for individuals, and I wondered whether people would have the right to make a specific choice. I take your point, though, that people could not have their top three or whatever.

I thank colleagues from across the chamber who signed my motion, enabling us to debate and celebrate the award-winning work of the Common Ground Forum, which has been instrumental in giving a collective voice to the deer management sector. That innovative approach has effectively managed conflict and traditionally difficult relationships in order to bring together key stakeholders, including land managers, conservationists and practitioners, to build consensus, and common understanding and purpose, where possible, with the ultimate aim of promoting a more collaborative approach to upland deer management. Let me tell members—that has been no mean feat.

The Common Ground Forum was born out of an approach that was made by the Association of Deer Management Groups to the Alliance for Scotland’s Rainforest in late 2020. After tentative discussions, it grew and more parties become involved, and a total of 50 protagonists—sceptical, but curious—from all sides of the deer sector gathered together for a two-day event that was facilitated by civic mediators, the Centre for Good Relations. I welcome Abdul Rahim, one of the centre’s mediators, to the public gallery this evening. A wide range of stakeholders attended the event, including traditional deer managers, environmental non-governmental organisations from Scottish Environment LINK, forestry interests, community groups and academics, plus staff from NatureScot, Forestry and Land Scotland and the Scottish Government.

Deer management in Scotland relies on collaboration between land managers across landscapes that are diverse and often expansive. For decades, different objectives for landholdings have created tensions, in particular—and acutely—between sporting and conservation interests. In many instances, unfortunately, that has resulted in broken relationships and conflict.

However, I am pleased to say that the Common Ground Forum is tackling the issue head-on. Over those initial few days, while most of us felt that resolving the deer management conflict was a long shot, a wee germ of hope that it just might work started to be felt across the board. Confidence has visibly grown in the years since, with clear signs of progress among those who have engaged in the forum’s work as word about it has spread. The forum’s focus is now on embedding its approach to bring about more positive relationships for the long term—a process which will, it is hoped, make the forum obsolete in three to five years’ time.

Those who are involved have seen how the forum can contribute to a vision of a greener, healthier and economically vibrant future for deer management. The forum takes no side in the debate about deer and avoids attempting to assess disputes from above or outside. Instead, the sole focus is on enabling the stakeholders themselves to own and transform their relationships with others, so as to build self-sustaining solutions.

That is key to how such forums operate effectively. It is not about being an arbitrator—it is more about being a facilitator and helping the group to find their common denominators, thereby creating a collegiate voice that can be amplified. That is hugely important in dealing with complex legislation and consultations, and it enables the group to present to ministers and committees a common purpose and ask.

More than 250 stalkers from different backgrounds across Scotland have directly engaged with the process to discuss the future of deer management, and to make their voices heard in Parliament to help shape the future. Through a series of workshops and events, the forum has engaged with more than 500 people from across the deer sector and related community and land management interests. So far, 148 individuals and 42 organisations have signed up to the common ground accord, which sets out principles for respectful and constructive dialogue. That is a key factor in the forum’s success.

Capacity building has also been a key strand of the forum’s work, and 27 change makers have been trained in understanding conflict and how to manage it. Deer management group chairs have also gathered twice to discuss handling conflict in their role, with further day-long gatherings scheduled. That approach has been transformative, and we can see real signs of progress at policy and advocacy level, with stakeholders who hold different perspectives and objectives coming together to develop and propose joint messages and solutions on shared interests such as venison, deer welfare and funding models.

A recent independent evaluation of the process, which was undertaken for a PhD by Callum Leavey-Wilson, has provided a candid report on progress to date and highlighted where relationships might still need to be addressed a wee bit.

I first became aware of the forum when Tim Eagle, who I see is in the chamber, sponsored a lunchtime event in the Parliament last year; I must say that I came away from that event enthused and dismayed in equal measure. I was blown away by the approach that was being undertaken, but dismayed that there were not more MSPs in attendance. However, those of us who were there assured the forum’s members that we valued the work that they were undertaking, and that we were keen to find ways to engage further to hear their take on proposed legislative changes affecting deer management.

I am glad to say that there have been real signs of progress at a policy and advocacy level, with work undertaken by Scottish Environment LINK, the Association of Deer Management Groups, the Scottish Gamekeepers Association and Scottish Venison in discussing changes to deer policy with ministers and members of the two relevant parliamentary committees.

That joint advocacy was based on discussions that were held by the Common Ground Forum on difficult subjects—it is important to think about those difficult subjects—such as the changes that were proposed at that time to the close season for female deer. The shared messaging has focused on shared interests in developing Scotland’s venison market—I think that members across the chamber all agree that we need to develop that market; the ways in which new regulatory powers are introduced; and the funding models that will be essential to delivering Government strategy for climate and nature.

Currently, the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill looks to the deer sector to make changes to deer management to enhance biodiversity and store carbon through peatland and native woodland restoration. It is in everyone’s interest to maintain workable relationships across the deer sector so that management can function effectively in our upland landscapes. That will not just be a benefit for nature and the natural carbon cycle; it will accelerate and build over time as soils and habitats restore themselves under reduced pressure from browsing animals, with deer being a prominent part of that.

However, it is crucial that we remain mindful of the need to protect, if not increase, deer-related jobs in rural communities through the period of change ahead. Whether they are focused on traditional sporting or conservation interests or both, the skill and the dedication of deer managers of all backgrounds are essential to delivering the changes that we need across the country.

By bringing those key professionals together, the Common Ground Forum is reducing the conflict affecting working lives and is supporting deerstalkers to co-develop their own solutions to the challenges ahead. That is an approach that we should champion and support at every turn, including by ensuring that the forum is resourced appropriately. I would like to hear the minister say a wee few words about that in his response later.

I know that the guidance will have been drawn together with a desire to comply with the recent Supreme Court ruling and with the best of intentions, but it has created a degree of segregation that we have not experienced under the Equality Act 2010. How does the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body intend to resolve a situation in which trans and non-binary people are reporting that they feel excluded from their nation’s Parliament?

Homelessness is a terrible symptom of the housing emergency, which is actually a people emergency. People who have grown up in poverty, who have already experienced severe disadvantage and discrimination, are the most impacted. I have heard directly from women who have experienced violence in hotel accommodation, including sexual assault. That is trauma upon trauma.

The lack of housing supply is directly causing people to be homeless. Given the seriousness of the situation, will the Scottish Government commit to doing everything that it can to foster innovation and to increase the resources available for both housing supply and support to sustain tenancies, while also supporting our third sector partners to play the huge role that they can play to deliver housing first?

In the evidence that we heard from the Dogs Trust, Police Scotland and the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, they felt that the bill needed to be strengthened regarding domestic abuse. We also heard from the Crown Office that it felt that the existing domestic abuse legislation, as you have narrated, would be enough to deal with that situation.

I understand that, in relation to the United Kingdom Government, there is a proposal called Ruby’s law, which was brought forward because of a gap in the legislation in relation to the Pet Abduction Act 2024 and the family law concerning domestic abuse. Ruby’s law seeks to remedy that gap. I do not know whether you have had any regard to those proposals. Incidentally, in that case, it was a cat and not a dog, but it is the same issue of an abuser perpetuating domestic abuse against a victim using a pet.

That was helpful, because I was going to ask you about underreporting. You have answered that question, so thank you.

I will explore the fact that there is a strengthened duty in the bill on public bodies to “facilitate the implementation of” national park plans and not just to “have regard to” them. I am interested in exploring some of the submissions on that.

I know that SLE has concerns about the unintended consequences of that provision, including the possibility of ministers having to facilitate a plan that they might not agree with. Will you talk us through your thinking around that?