Chamber and committees

I thank the minister for advance sight of his statement. We have heard from several members today about the new report by Robert Gordon University in Aberdeen, which warns that the energy workforce could shrink by 400 jobs every two weeks for the next five years. However, instead of using his statement to outline a much-needed industrial strategy for the north-east, the minister tries to blame job losses on the redistributive windfall tax on the obscene profits made by Shell and other oil and gas multinationals. In all the years of rampant profiteering, my constituents in the north-east were no safer from economic shock, energy poverty or job insecurity. It does not trickle down. Why does the minister want us to believe that it does?

Does Dr Tuckett want to contribute?

I have two questions. First, I will go back to target topics, which I know we discussed at the start of the session. The programme advisory group identified seven target topics. We have discussed the three that are being taken forward, but I want to hear your views on investment in biodiversity, which is not being taken forward. Does any of your organisations have a view on the extent to which a statutory target on investment in biodiversity would be useful and help to drive forward the changes that are required?

Thank you. My second question is about consultation on the targets. The Scottish Government, in evidence to the committee, said that it did not envisage doing any formal public consultation. Based on your organisations experiences of engaging with the public and people who are affected by and living in the environment, what are your views on the need to carry out public consultation on the targets, specifically?

That is helpful. Would anyone else like to come in?

They have been answered.

No—my questions have been answered.

Good evening, Deputy Presiding Officer and thank you for calling me to speak for Scottish Labour. I congratulate Ms Whitham on securing parliamentary time to debate deer management.

As we know, effective deer management is vital if we are to meet our goals for woodland management, carbon sequestration and habitat health. According to NatureScot, an increase in the national cull of 50,000 deer each year will be needed to meet the targets in the Scottish biodiversity strategy.

We know, too, that venison is a source of lean protein and a sustainable food source, with the potential to contribute to the nutrition of the nation. It is welcome that Jura is leading the way in that respect, with the initiative launched by Argyll and Bute Council to put wild venison on the school menu. Too often, that native wild protein source is not reaching our plates, and that needs to change. There are challenges at every stage of the venison food supply chain, and it all starts with deer management.

As we have heard, the Common Ground Forum brings together a network of individuals committed to a more collaborative approach to deer management. The forum is a welcome development, because although there have been good examples of co-ordination of deer management across boundaries in the past, that has not been enough and the deer population seems to be growing out of control. Constituents in my North East Scotland region have told me that, on some estates, there is a determined unwillingness by an irresponsible few to cull sufficient numbers of deer, because of the income generated from recreational shooting. The same applies to other areas, too.

When those kinds of private pursuits impact on our public goods, they cannot be allowed to continue. However, under the current concentrated pattern of land ownership in Scotland, there is little that a community can do to challenge such irresponsible landowners. We need these vast estates to be broken up where they are found not to be working in the public interest. The Parliament has an opportunity to introduce such a test through the Scottish Government’s Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, and I encourage all members to support that proposal.

Deer culling is only the first step in the process of managing deer numbers, because we must also consider what happens to the carcasses. I have heard mixed reviews of attempts to integrate culled deer back into the local ecosystem and shocking reports of deer carcasses being buried. Therefore, it is all the more commendable to hear of organisations such as Fair Feast, which provides a consistent supply of venison to rural food banks across Scotland; its venison is butchered and packaged on site to maintain the lowest possible carbon footprint, and its mission is

“To protect the environment, by sustainably managing deer, and providing for the community, through consistent food banks supply.”

As a nation, we cannot afford to allow venison to go to waste while people are going hungry. Gone are the days when venison was a preserve of the privileged few—it is now for the people, as all our commons should be.

All my questions have been answered. Thank you, convener.

I also heard you touch on investment, which relates to my second question, which is for the wider panel. When the Government was working on the bill, seven topics were identified by the programme advisory group, and only three of those topics are being taken forward in the bill. One of the topics that is not being taken forward is investment in biodiversity. I heard that mentioned by a few of our witnesses today.

Dr McParland said that CIEEM would like to see targets as a driver for investment in biodiversity and noted that 22 per cent of planning authorities do not have access to biodiversity expertise, and Jacqueline Cook, on behalf of the SPF, spoke about local authorities not having the resources. It seems that there is a funding gap.

My question, therefore, is whether you believe that the protection and restoration that we are discussing can happen without public investment. How likely is it that the outcomes can be delivered without a statutory target on public investment? What is your view on the lack of a target on public investment in the bill?