Chamber and committees

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.

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?

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?

Do we need a specific target for investment? The Scottish Government said that it believes that there is a risk of perverse outcomes, such as greenwashing. I would therefore be interested to hear your views on whether a target for investment would be helpful.

Is there something that the Government can do with the bill to support farmers to drive forward that action? It sounds as though you are saying that it is more about making sure that what is in place is clearer.

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

I will clarify that my question was, “If not statutory targets, then what?” As you said, you have outlined your reasons why you oppose statutory targets. That is on the record. What would you like to see instead in order to drive that action forward?

Good morning, everyone. Thank you for having me back. I have two questions, if you will indulge me.

My first question is for the NFUS. We have heard this morning that the organisation believes that the focus needs to be on actions, not outcomes. I also heard that the NFUS does not want to see targets in the bill.

The committee took evidence from the Scottish Government when the bill was introduced, and it said that its view is that targets are a key way to drive action and that it already has a strategy and six-year delivery plans. Therefore, the idea is that the third part of the biodiversity framework will be the bill, with its statutory targets, and that the third element of the statutory targets, along with the strategy and the delivery plans, will be how we drive action forward.

If the NFUS disagrees with that—and it sounds like it does—what does it see as the best way to drive that action, given that we already have the strategy and the delivery plans? If not statutory targets, then what?

I thank my environmentally conscious constituents in the north-east who have contacted me with concerns that we might be about to see yet another of our national natural assets sold off and trashed by the highest bidder.

One constituent writes:

“It’s not that long ago that the Scottish government made the grave mistake of overturning a local planning committee’s decision not to allow Donald Trump to destroy the dunes at Menie, giving one of the nastiest people on the planet a foothold in our fair country.”

In February 2024, the Department for Business and Trade identified Flamingo Land Ltd as having failed to pay its workers the national minimum wage. How does giving permission to the resort align with the Scottish Government’s intention to end minimum wage avoidance under its fair work commitments?

I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of her statement. Ahead of this year’s international day for biological diversity, which falls on Thursday, I am glad to hear her acknowledge the reality of the catastrophic impact that a rapidly changing climate is having on our environment. However, is it not telling that nowhere in her statement was there mention of the Scottish Government’s Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill? Is that because, at a time of severe droughts, wildfires and life-changing floods, all of which put further species at risk, the bill in its current form does not bind itself to the very 2045 goal that the cabinet secretary’s statement references? Ambitious goals sound great, but it is getting the job done that matters. How confident is the cabinet secretary that the Scottish Government can meet its 2045 goal?