Chamber and committees

In the previous group, the minister queried my questioning of the vagueness in relation to NatureScot. I do not think that I did that. Also, there has been a hell of a lot of discussion with stakeholders as we have moved into stage 2, which is why I put on record my desire to meet the minister to go through that. Words and language are important in the bill, because they will make all the difference in its practical application later on. I am about to talk about that now—I am sorry, but it will be at some length, because I have quite a lot of amendments in this group.

My amendment 219 is a drafting amendment relating to amendment 329, which I will come to.

I will turn to amendment 220. As drafted, section 12 of the bill will replace the existing code of practice under the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996 with a new code of practice. The current purpose of the code, under the 1996 act, is to provide

“practical guidance in respect of deer management.”

The bill will add to that, making it also involve the circumstances in which NatureScot

“will intervene in the management or control of deer”.

My amendment 220 seeks to replace “will” with “may”, which feels more in keeping with the purpose and intent of the deer code, which was intended to help land managers understand what they must, should and could do to manage deer sustainably, and to encourage collaboration between them.

At present, the wording of the bill is prescriptive, direct and objective: the code will set out the circumstances in which NatureScot must intervene. That leaves no room for manoeuvre—if the code says it, NatureScot must do it. Such wording would expose NatureScot to lobbying and litigation, particularly from landholders who consider that their neighbours are not doing enough to manage deer. That will, in turn, undermine the voluntary principle that underpins collaborative deer management.

The effect of my amendment 220 would be to maintain the discretionary character of NatureScot’s powers of intervention under the 1996 act, ensuring that the bill does not introduce an unintended obligation to act in every qualifying case.

The committee’s stage 1 report states:

“the Committee recognises the concerns from the deer management sector about the lack of detail around how the new ground for intervention would be used. It is critical that the Scottish Government does not erode the trust and consensus that has been carefully built within the deer management sector in recent years.”

My understanding is that deer practitioners across Scotland are keen to continue to work with NatureScot to meet objectives. During discussions on stage 2, I heard very clearly, I think, from stakeholders that they recognise some of the concerns and are willing to work on those; however, prescriptive amendments to primary legislation reduce the ability to have that proactive discussion in the background about how the Government takes things forward.

I will turn to amendment 329. In the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996, NatureScot is required to “have regard to” the code of practice on deer management. My amendment 329 would require it instead to

“comply with”

the code

“so far as is reasonably practicable”.

The code of practice will play a central role in defining the circumstances in which intervention will take place. The current wording may provide NatureScot with discretion to act in contravention of the code. In its stage 1 report, the committee recognised the

“concerns from the deer management sector about the lack of detail around how the new ground for intervention would be used.”

My amendment seeks to provide greater clarity to deer managers about the circumstances in which NatureScot will intervene.

I am not sure that I disagree with much of that. What I am arguing—which is why it would be nice to have a discussion behind the scenes afterwards—is that, if loads of stakeholders are putting a lot of effort into working with NatureScot and the Government to produce a code but NatureScot has only to “have regard to” the code, there is a concern that it might do something that stakeholders have not felt that they are part of. Does that make sense?

Yes—that is my understanding.

My amendment 229 is similar to amendment 228. It seeks to change “, enhances or otherwise improves” to “or enhances”, for the same reason.

I apologise that some of my amendments might sound confusing. I am trying to get across the wording changes that I propose, the purpose of which is to bring to light the practical importance of the bill.

My amendment 230 seeks to remove the words “or environment” to avoid duplication and ensure clarity of purpose. The bill focuses on safeguarding Scotland’s natural heritage, which already encompasses the ecological landscape and biodiversity aspects that would otherwise be captured by the broader term “environment”. My amendment would streamline the provision without altering its substantive effect or limiting the scope of protections.

I will turn to amendment 231. Section 14 of the bill deals with deer management plans and it outlines what such plans should set out. That includes the measures that relevant owners and occupiers of the land consider should be taken in relation to the management of deer on the land. My amendment 231 seeks to replace the word “the land” with

“a particular area of the land”

to ensure that wording is consistent across sections 13 to 15 of the bill.

My amendment 331 seeks to add to the bill a new section, which would establish a community-integrated deer management model. The provision would place a responsibility on a public authority that is

“responsible for publicly owned land”

to consider the possibility of introducing such a model when

“preparing or reviewing any deer management plan”.

Functions of the public authority would include having to

“identify publicly owned land”

where the model

“may be appropriate”

and having to

“engage with local community groups”.

I think that we all agree that the management of wild deer is essential. Ideas vary on how deer management can be conducted. However, support is growing for the idea of integrating communities into that management.

Amendment 331 would lead to trained stalkers managing deer in their local area and mean that more locals from the community are involved in the provision of training. That means that knowledge of deer, their impacts and their benefits would be more widely known in a community. Many benefits could come from that, because it would build resilience into the management framework; support the harvesting, processing and local consumption of a sustainable food source; assist in protecting the environment; and help the rural economy.

Amendments 234 and 235 seek to deal with the control agreements that are set out in section 15, which states that NatureScot “must” carry out functions after it has formed a view. These amendments would simply replace the word “must” with the word “may” in order to maintain the discretionary character of NatureScot’s intervention powers under the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996, ensuring that the bill does not introduce an unintended obligation for NatureScot to act in every qualifying case. It would also address the concerns that we raised in our stage 1 report, in which the committee agreed to recognise

“the concerns from the deer management sector about the lack of detail around how the new ground for intervention would be used.”

It is critical that the Scottish Government does not erode the trust and consensus that has been carefully built.

NatureScot is required to give notice relating to control schemes, which were established by the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996. My amendment 236 seeks to add a new reasoning:

“a control scheme independent advisory panel has ... decided that a control scheme must be implemented”.

The broad powers of the proposed new section 6ZB of the 1996 act as set out in section 13 of the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill, and the potentially significant implications of the use of regulatory intervention, should require a panel of independent advisers—similar in composition to the previous Deer Commission for Scotland—to be appointed to provide advice to SNH and the minister and to provide oversight of the process.

My amendment 237 seeks to remove NatureScot’s ability to extend the time limit of the control scheme. As currently drafted, the bill gives NatureScot too much power in that regard, which will have significant downstream economic consequences.

I did not read it as that, but I am happy to take that point.

I accept that, but I want to go back to an earlier point regarding the press statements that came out yesterday. You have been advised by officials that there is a serious risk that the new power undermines certain human rights. What are you saying in response to that? We do not want the Scottish Government to have to pay a significant amount of money if a case gets taken to court.

The freedom of information request—yes.

But surely it still stands.

If there is a genuine risk of the potential for a legal challenge to proposed new section 6ZB of the 1996 act, it would be nice to know that before we vote on it.

The minister has agreed to work on this point, but I was trying to get across the point that there is a public safety risk if the notification elements are not right and the tenants and landlords are not aware of where the other is shooting. Do you accept that?