Before I address this group of important amendments in detail, I will, with the committee’s agreement, set out some context in relation to on-going action in deer management planning to help the committee to consider the issue more broadly.
I have noted the committee’s concerns about deer management, and I take those concerns extremely seriously. The key step in the future of deer management in Scotland is the review that was agreed with the committee. Claudia Beamish mentioned the 2014 assessment of deer management groups by SNH, which was intended to set a baseline for the 2016 review. However, given the concerns that we heard at stage 1, we are absolutely determined and committed to bring about an improvement in the management of deer to protect the public interest.
We have taken the significant step of bringing the review forward so that it will be completed this year. If the review points to the need to make major changes to the legislation that governs deer management, we will be in a position to take action to develop proposals, and we will consult sooner rather than later. I recognise that that increases the pressure on the deer sector to step up and improve, but the current system can deliver effective management, and I am confident that the sector will recognise the concerns that have been expressed in Parliament and the need for concerted action.
I turn to how the review will be carried out. It will focus on the key question whether there has been a step change in the effectiveness of deer management. It will be evidence based and factual and will draw on an assessment of the progress of deer management group plans in meeting the public interest. It will also draw on data on the condition of protected areas and a review of the outcomes of existing section 7 voluntary agreements.
11:00
The Scottish Natural Heritage report will evaluate evidence from upland deer management group areas and the lowlands of Scotland. In compiling the report, SNH will seek data and evidence from other organisations. It will also liaise with the Association of Deer Management Groups regarding progress on the deer management group plans. It will provide a report to ministers by the end of October. A baseline has been established and work is already in hand to gather the data and the evidence.
SNH will also put in place an internal quality assurance process that will ensure that the evidence that is presented is robust. Staff resources have been allocated within SNH and a project manager has been put in place to ensure that the deadline is met.
I hope that some of those details reassure the committee that the review will be comprehensive as well as fair and measured and that the Government and I, as Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform, are determined to make, and committed to making, a real improvement in how our deer are managed. I met the chair of SNH last week and we discussed the importance of ensuring that we have a timely and robust review process. I have no doubt that all those who are involved in the process understand that.
I turn to the amendments, as I am conscious of time. I thank Claudia Beamish for explaining amendments 119 to 121.
Amendment 119 creates a mechanism whereby non-compliance with the SNH code of practice on deer management could become a criminal offence. The code was introduced under the Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Act 2011 relatively recently. It was approved by Parliament under the affirmative procedure and came into effect from 1 January 2012. It is intended to support deer managers with practical guidance in setting out the responsibilities of owners and occupiers who have deer on their land. It has various categories of guidance. It sets out the legal obligations on owners and occupiers and provides advice that might apply only in particular circumstances.
Although I appreciate the sentiment behind Claudia Beamish’s amendment 119, it would not be appropriate now to create a mechanism whereby non-compliance with the code became an offence. The amendment would, in essence, mean that the code would have to be re-drawn to reflect its altered purpose. It would have to be more prescriptive and would end up providing less useful help and guidance, which would reduce the support that is available to our deer managers. Not only has the code been helpful to individual deer managers but it has been used in the deer management group assessment process, which drew its public interest criteria from the code.
I understand that there is a desire for the code and the requirement for effective deer management to have teeth. I remind the committee that SNH already has significant intervention powers, to which we are adding through provisions in the bill. SNH has the power to call for a voluntary agreement to deliver specified deer management measures under section 7 of the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996 and, if those measures are not taken, it can move to compel landowners and deer managers through the use of a section 8 control scheme. As the committee knows, in the bill we are significantly increasing the penalty for non-compliance with a section 8 control scheme.
That hierarchy of intervention powers available to SNH is more focused than a new offence of failing to comply with the code. SNH is required to have regard to the code in exercising those powers of intervention, and that is the appropriate role for the code. Although I understand the intention behind amendment 119, for all the reasons that I have set out, I cannot support it and I ask Claudia Beamish to withdraw it.
I thank Claudia Beamish for the thought that has gone into amendment 120. I appreciate that it could be useful in certain circumstances. We are not always able to predict situations that could arise in deer management and there might be times when we wish to take action. For example, when the code of practice on deer management strongly advises a course of action but deer managers routinely do not comply with that advice, we could consider whether that part of the code could be strengthened by further regulatory action.
There are some problems with the amendment as drafted. For example, there is no provision for penalties for non-compliance with the new regulations, and the powers are rather wide. It is also not realistic or fair for a legal duty to comply with the code to apply only to some owners and managers and not to all. I therefore suggest that, if Claudia Beamish does not move amendment 120, my officials and I will work with her between now and stage 3 with the aim of coming back with a much more tightly drafted provision that could assist SNH in ensuring that we have sustainable deer management.
Amendment 121 provides for a penalty in relation to the requirement to comply with a code of practice enforcement order under amendment 119. I also ask that amendment 121 not be moved.
I thank Mike Russell for setting out the rationale behind amendments 1 to 4, and for the detailed work that has gone into them. I recognise and fully support the intention behind amendment 1 in encouraging more consultation and engagement with the local community and interested parties on the development of deer management plans. However, the process that is set out in amendment 1 is a little bit cumbersome. I am advised that it is also legally problematic. For example, it defines the legal owners and occupiers to which it applies by reference to membership of a deer management group. At the moment, deer management groups have no legal status, membership of them is not compulsory and they do not cover all the deer habitat in Scotland.
The amendment also does not provide for the publication of the plans in draft or final form. That could be problematic. Given that the trigger for the proposed provision is the development of a new plan, it could actually provide a disincentive to the production of new plans, which I am sure would not be Mr Russell’s intention.
I support and welcome the intention behind Mr Russell’s amendments and the fact that they address transparency and opportunities for community engagement. I suggest to the committee, however, that there are other ways of achieving what amendment 1 is trying to do. The benchmark for deer management groups includes a communications section and advises that local consultation should be accessible and that it should be carried out during the development of the plan. I know that action is being taken to place deer management plans on the Association of Deer Management Groups website—I am on there just about every day to see what progress is being made.
As the committee will be aware, the deer provisions that are already included in the bill include a provision that allows new functions to be conferred on deer panels with a view to facilitating improved consultation and communication with the local community. While I completely support the spirit of amendment 1, for all the reasons that I have set out, I ask Mr Russell if he will consider not moving it.
On amendment 2, I expect there to be dialogue between SNH and the owners or occupiers who have been served with a section 6A notice that requires them to prepare a deer management plan, while allowing for modifications to any plan under preparation to be made. However, I can see that there is benefit in formalising the position in legislation and I am happy to accept Mr Russell’s amendment 2, which clarifies that.
I am extremely sympathetic to the intention behind amendment 3, which will provide a focus and a reminder for all that, although there are a number of aspects to deer management, it will nearly always be important to keep control of numbers. There is a technical issue, however, with the way in which the amendment is drafted, in that the offence in the Deer Act 1996 that attaches to the requirements to provide a cull return would also attach to the new requirement to provide a cull projection. The offence also applies to the provision of false data, and clearly that would be difficult to interpret when applied to projections. Therefore, although I am happy to accept amendment 3, we will probably want to give further thought to the operation of the offence that is linked to the new requirement and work with Mr Russell to come back at stage 3 with an amendment that addresses those concerns.
On amendment 4, I recognise the concerns that the committee and others have raised in relation to the timing of the commencement of the deer provisions. I have listened to those concerns carefully and have decided that the provisions should be commenced as soon as it is practical to do so rather than, as was originally intended, after we see the outcome of the review. The provisions provide SNH with additional useful powers to intervene in support of sustainable deer management, and it is right that we make those powers available to SNH.
Nevertheless, I resist amendment 4, which would commence those provisions the day after the bill receives royal assent. It is normal practice for certain technical provisions to be commenced at that point, but not for substantive provisions to be brought into force so quickly—certainly not provisions with offences attached. However, as I have made clear, we recognise the imperative to move quickly. We have brought forward the review and, alongside that, I will commit to commencing the deer provisions as soon as is practicable, which will be approximately two months after the bill receives royal assent. I trust that the committee will accept that commitment, and I ask Mr Russell not to move amendment 4.