The next item of business is consideration of Parliamentary Bureau motion S6M-10625, on annulment of a Scottish statutory instrument. I call Alexander Burnett, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, to move the motion.
I offer my apologies for my tardiness, and I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests regarding deer management.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that nothing further be done under the Deer (Close Seasons) (Scotland) Amendment Order 2023 (SSI 2023/184).
I call Edward Mountain.
17:48
Thank you, Presiding Officer. It is always nice to know that one can make the whip short of breath just by making him get here on time.
Deer management is a complex issue. Reducing deer numbers is not about culling males—it is about culling breeding females. The breeding imperative of females means that female deer will always find a male, and thus targeting males is futile.
The question that I posed to the committee was whether we need this regulation. The Deer (Scotland) Act 1996 already allows for the control of deer out of season by regulation. We can control them to prevent damage to agricultural land, timber and natural heritage and for public safety. The legislation is already there—we can already do that.
What is more, every year, the minister grants an automatic general authorisation to control deer on improved agricultural land and enclosed woodland. No one has to apply for a licence—the authorisation is there already. The minister does it. I should also remind members that not a single licence has been refused.
What will this statutory instrument mean? It will basically mean that every male deer will be a target from the day that they are born to the day that they die. The instrument will not reduce the deer population by much and it will mean that deer are harried all year round. What will happen to the deer that are killed late in the season when they are not fit for human consumption? Does the Parliament really forget the 86 stags that were left rotting in Knoydart? Is that where we want to be?
My question to the Parliament is—
Will the member take an intervention?
I am sorry, but I have only three minutes. If the Presiding Officer gives me more time, I will take it. Am I allowed more time, Presiding Officer?
We certainly have some time in hand.
I will give way to the member.
The member raises animal welfare issues. Does he not concede that there are animal welfare issues associated with the current overpopulation of deer, which this measure seeks to address?
I absolutely take that point, but it is not the welfare of those stags that I am worried about; I am worried about the stags that we are talking about shooting. Overpopulation can be controlled by good management, and that is what deer managers should be doing. It will not be deer managers who use the statutory instrument; it will be other people who are not interested in the deer and who will use the measure to protect flora and fauna, which in many cases probably means eradicating deer.
Let us talk about welfare. We are talking about shooting stags or male deer all day, every day. It will be random killing, with no selection. If the stags are not selected, juveniles will often mate with their mothers or, indeed, their sisters. The dichotomy that the Parliament faces is that we try to protect things such as rabbits, blue hares and beavers, all of which eat trees, but then, in the same breath, we declare all-out war on stags and male deer. I am afraid that that is just not balanced.
Do we need a motion to annul? I do believe that we do. There is already sufficient scope in the legislation for proper deer management, and no licence for killing male deer out of season has ever been refused. Just so that the Parliament is aware, I should point out that I had a petition on the issue that, in a matter of weeks, was signed by 1,686 people, saying that they thought that the measure was outrageous.
I ask the Parliament to join me in supporting good deer management instead of approving an all-out war on them. I do not think that that does the Parliament any good.
I call Beatrice Wishart—
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am sorry, but, at the beginning of my speech, I failed to declare an interest in that I own land with deer on it. In accordance with the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee recommendation, I want to be completely clear, so I will say that I have more than 40 years of deer management experience across a quarter of a million acres of Scotland. I have seen more than 30,000 deer killed in trying to protect trees and woodland. I believe that I know what management plans are—I have written them for private and public bodies—and I think that I have an understanding of deer, too.
I stress that we need to manage deer and not cull them through all-out war.
Thank you, Mr Mountain. That is not a point of order, but your declaration is now on the record.
17:53
When this topic came up at the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, I questioned the statistics on the growing population of deer, and I now understand that the population is estimated to be at more than a million. I also took the view, given the debate in committee about annulling the SSI, that the culling of male deer outwith the current close seasons required wider scrutiny.
I have listened carefully to those with knowledge about deer management and have considered closely the issues that have been raised. Some suggest that it would be an unnecessary change, as general authorisations enable male deer to be culled year round on agricultural land and in enclosed woodland. I have heard of the impact that increasing numbers of deer are having on the environment and on native woodland trees and peatland.
There is also the view that the change could raise animal welfare concerns. The Scottish Animal Welfare Commission considered the change and found that there would be no associated animal welfare risks, providing that normal—
Will the member give way on that point?
I would like to finish what I was saying.
The Scottish Animal Welfare Commission considered the change and found that there would be no associated animal welfare risks,
“Providing the normal requirements for high standards of public safety and animal welfare are adhered to”.
In those circumstances, and having taken on board all the different views, Scottish Liberal Democrats will vote against the motion to annul and will support the SSI.
17:55
While I speak, we are accelerating even faster into a climate and nature emergency. We must stay focused on that challenge, unlike the Westminster Tory Government, which, today, has unbelievably approved development of the largest untapped oilfield in United Kingdom waters—Rosebank.
The focus of this debate is improved deer management, which is a critical piece of the puzzle for tackling the climate and nature crises. In Scotland, the number of red deer has risen from 155,000 in 1959 to about a million in 2020. It is not natural to have that many deer, and it is not sustainable.
Deer love to graze young tree shoots, which seriously inhibits the growth of new woodland, and we need that woodland to capture carbon emissions in order to meet our net zero commitments. Too many deer also cause damage to farmland and to other critical natural habitats in Scotland—habitats that we need in order to allow other species to survive and nature to recover.
If we do not get the number of deer back down to a sustainable level, we have no hope of reversing the climate and nature emergencies. Labour knows that, which is why, in its manifesto, it pledged to support the implementation of the deer working group’s recommendations, including removing the close seasons for male deer. [Interruption.]
Ms Burgess, I ask you to pause for a moment. I would be grateful if conversations could cease.
I appreciate that, Presiding Officer.
The Tories raised concerns about animal welfare. Nobody wants to kill healthy animals, but, if we do not rebalance our ecosystem, far more animals will suffer and many more species will become extinct. That is the fact of the matter, and it is why the deer working group proposed the change, which major animal welfare organisations support.
Deer stalkers have a very tough job—a key green job—that requires skill and care. Those jobs are valued and will continue to be of the utmost importance long into the future. Scottish Environment LINK asserts that achieving and maintaining lower deer numbers will lead to increased demand, not less demand, for stalkers. Further jobs and community wealth can be created by supporting more local processing units and shared larders for venison in rural communities.
Stalkers already cull almost half of all male deer that are culled out of season. The order will not require anyone to start doing that. It will simply remove barriers for those who wish to continue culling deer in more months of the year, as happens in England and Wales, and in line with our Government’s essential focus on tackling the climate and nature emergencies, including meeting the climate targets that the Parliament brought into law.
I urge members to vote against the motion to annul the Deer (Close Seasons) (Scotland) Amendment Order 2023.
17:58
We are in a climate and biodiversity crisis. The evidence is clear that, if we are serious about protecting our environment and restoring Scotland’s forests, we must reduce the devastating damage that is caused by deer. The only effective way to do that is to bring down the deer population and reduce deer density. Over the past 50 years, we have tried a range of methods, but the population is now double what it was 30 years ago.
Will the minister take an intervention?
No. I am sorry, but I have only three minutes.
The growth in deer numbers is unsustainable, so action must be taken. The removal of male close seasons was one of the recommendations that was made by the deer working group in 2020. As I set out to the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee a fortnight ago, the proposed change is just one part of a wider package of changes to modernise deer management in Scotland.
I am concerned that, with or without this legislation, stags will be shot out of season at a time when they are unfit for human consumption. That is incredibly wasteful when people are suffering from malnutrition and depending on food banks. Will the minister take steps to ensure that that wasteful practice stops and develop a long-term strategy to keep deer numbers at sustainable levels while ensuring that shot deer become part of the human food chain?
I am grateful for that intervention. We absolutely support the increased use of that venison and the growth in that market. How we get more of that venison—more of those deer that we, unfortunately, need to cull for environmental reasons—into the food chain to tackle hunger is something that we can all work together on.
The legislation that we are looking at tonight not only increases the tools that are available to land managers and supports deer management across the year but provides more efficient and effective processes for the control of deer by removing the administrative burden. It will allow land managers who wish to continue to have a close season for male deer on their land to do so.
As others have said on animal welfare, over the past three years, we have taken the time to review the evidence, consult stakeholders and seek expert advice. These measures are part of a wider package of deer reforms that will deliver many benefits, including native woodland expansion, protection and enhancement of peatlands and the reduction of human health and safety concerns.
Since the deer working group made its recommendations, the climate and biodiversity crisis has only deepened, and the evidence of the need for urgent action to manage our deer population has grown. I ask members to stand by their commitments, reject the motion and support our efforts to restore nature.
The question on the motion will be put at decision time.
The next item of business is consideration of Parliamentary Bureau motion S6M-10626, on approval of a Scottish statutory instrument. I ask George Adam, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, to move the motion.
Motion moved,
That the Parliament agrees that the Deer (Firearms etc.) (Scotland) Amendment Order 2023 [draft] be approved.—[George Adam]
18:01
Part of the purpose of this instrument is to permit the use of night sights for the taking or killing of deer. The objective is to increase the tools that are available to land managers when undertaking deer management by supporting the use of a wider range of firearms that might be more readily available to those who are managing land for a range of purposes and to support culling efforts at all times of the day and night.
There is no doubt that deer control is essential if Scotland is to reach its biodiversity and nature goals, and this legislation will assist in adding an additional tool to the toolbox of those who control deer at night. However, I have significant concerns that the legislation lacks safeguards in relation to animal welfare and public safety.
Practitioners who are responsible for managing our deer population felt that they had little time to respond to the consultation, and their overall response was generally negative. The Scottish Gamekeepers Association does not support the measures which, in its view, would lead to night shooting becoming more of the norm in Scotland.
In relation to animal welfare concerns, research by the Royal (Dick) school of veterinary studies found that culling by rifle at night was the least effective method of placing a shot that would quickly kill a deer. This legislation would mean that a single authorisation from NatureScot would cover lamping and the use of night sights. It would require people to have experience and to be on the fit and competent register, but there is no differentiation between the experience required for lamping and that required for using night sights, which requires different skill sets, training and equipment. Operators who are not experienced in night sights could be prevented from obtaining authorisation to undertake other forms of culling at night, including lamping, that they are currently authorised to do.
NatureScot did not recommend a requirement for further training or an additional assessment of an operator’s ability to competently cull using night sights. The legislation and guidance fail to stipulate or specify a minimum standard of scope to ensure the highest standard of animal welfare and public safety. That is why I joined stakeholders to express fears that the legislation does not require appropriate and proportionate licensing or even mandatory training.
Finally, I do not accept that these provisions have no animal welfare implications. Laws are regularly passed in this place to enhance the protection of wildlife, and it is bizarre that Lorna Slater wants to remove safeguards, which could result in deer being harried and hunted 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, without there being additional training or licensing requirements. Surely that is not a good look and goes against all of this Parliament’s efforts to improve animal welfare.
After many years of inadequate intervention, the Government’s approach appears to be to declare all-out war against our iconic deer population, with very little regard for animal welfare. That is not a position that I am willing to support. The Government needs to rethink this unfortunate and potentially dangerous approach to deer control.
18:05
Permitting the use of night sights and increasing access to non-lead ammunition by reducing the minimum ammunition weight for shooting deer will support land managers in managing them better. Since 1990, Scotland’s deer population has doubled. That has caused significant environmental damage and must be addressed urgently if we are to tackle the climate and nature emergencies.
As we have set out previously, the measures that are provided for in the instrument are part of a wider programme that aims to do just that. They also fulfil the recommendations that the independent deer working group made in 2020, which most parties represented in the chamber have endorsed. We have fully considered the potential implications prior to proposing the recommended changes. NatureScot has completed trials on both recommendations and published reports on its findings, which were that there were no additional adverse impacts on deer welfare.
I thank the minister for confirming that NatureScot carried out trials. Will she clarify whether they were done by shooting at night, with thermal imagers and lighter-weight bullets, or during the daytime?
NatureScot carried out trials on both the pieces of legislation that we are proposing—on both the night sights and the lighter-weight ammunition—because those tackle slightly different issues. No welfare issues were shown.
With regard to night sights, the current practice is to use lamps to see the deer and manage them at night. The new technologies allow that practice to continue, and no additional welfare concerns were raised through the use of those technologies. We also sought the views of animal welfare experts through the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission, which found no issue with the proposals.
Shooting deer at night is a widely used and essential part of deer management. As we look to step up our deer management efforts, it is vital that deer managers who are authorised to shoot at night have the best available technology at their disposal. The use of night sights will allow for longer deer shooting hours, especially in the winter months, and more effective culling operations.
Deer can be shot at night only under strict authorisation from NatureScot, and deer managers must prove that they are fit and competent to do so. That means that they must undertake training and achieve a recognised qualification. They must also meet all the usual requirements to carry firearms and comply with the night shooting code of practice.
NatureScot’s report was clear that there need be no additional training requirements, above those that are already in place, for deer managers who wish to use such sights rather than the traditional use of lamps for night shooting. The proposal to reduce the minimum ammunition weight to shoot deer will make non-lead ammunition more accessible. That will remove a significant barrier that currently exists for deer managers and will reduce the amount of toxic lead in our environment.
Furthermore, many venison retailers now insist on having a supply of lead-free venison products, and we want to maximise the venison that makes its way into the food chain. When that is taken in combination with NatureScot’s review, which found that the changes to bullet weights would have no detrimental effect on deer welfare, there is no reason for that barrier to remain.
The question on the motion will be put at decision time.
The next item of business is consideration of Parliamentary Bureau motion S6M-10627, on approval of an SSI. I ask George Adam, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, to move the motion.
Motion moved,
That the Parliament agrees that the Land and Buildings Transaction Tax (Green Freeports Relief) (Scotland) Order 2023 [draft] be approved.—[George Adam]
18:08
Scottish Greens oppose the instrument and the tax breaks that it would give to businesses that purchase land or property within the two Scottish freeport areas.
When the Scottish Greens were negotiating the Bute house agreement two years ago, our party and the Scottish National Party recognised that freeports were one of the small number of areas for which compromise probably was not possible. Just as our SNP colleagues were not expected to support all Green amendments to the Hunting with Dogs (Scotland) Bill due to the differences in our positions on blood sports, Green members are now exercising our right to agree to disagree with our Government partners on freeports.
In saying that, I wish to give credit to Tom Arthur, and to Ivan McKee before him, for the work that the Scottish Government has clearly done to try to inject fair work criteria into a freeport model that was forced on it by the United Kingdom Government. The issue here is the ideology that underpins freeports, and, in particular, the corporate tax breaks that they provide. It represents trickle-down economics, to which the Scottish Greens cannot subscribe.
The key selling point for the freeports is the impressive-sounding number of jobs that they would create, but studies show that, when the United Kingdom tried this approach in the 1980s, four in 10 of those jobs were simply displaced from elsewhere, increasing regional inequality. As a West Scotland MSP, I am concerned that the Forth freeport, in particular, will only worsen the challenges of depopulation and sluggish growth in wages that we face across the west coast while the east sees substantial growth in both population and wages.
Most of what is involved in setting up the freeports is reserved, but there are levers in the Scottish Government’s power that have not been used here, including the power to exclude any entity that is based in an offshore tax haven from accessing land and buildings transaction tax relief. We legislated for that previously in the Parliament, with Covid business relief, so what would have prevented a ban on tax dodgers accessing this tax break? It is within devolved competence.
We know from the experience with freeports elsewhere in Europe that businesses that operate from tax havens are attracted to this type of operating model. After all, what are freeports other than mini tax havens? There is a significant reputational risk to Scotland here, particularly considering the findings in the European Parliament’s report on “Money laundering and tax evasion risks in free ports”.
The European Union is cracking down on freeports, given what it has described as a
“high incidence of corruption, tax evasion, and criminal activity”,
but Brexit Britain is taking the opposite approach, setting up new freeports all over the UK.
I recognise the Scottish Government’s commitment to fair work, but in the case of free ports, it is just language, encouragement and guidance—there are no binding commitments to ensure that the companies adhere to fair work principles, or clear consequences if they do not.
I recognise that the Government is in a difficult position because the policy is ultimately being driven by the UK Government. However, devolution exists for the purpose of creating divergence where we believe that that is necessary, and I do not think that the opportunity to do that has been taken in this instance.
For all the reasons that I have outlined, as well as the objections that have been raised by trade unions, environmental groups and communities, the Scottish Greens oppose the instrument.
18:11
During my appearance at the Finance and Public Administration Committee earlier this month, I set out the rationale for this particular tax relief in relation to supporting the wider green freeport programme by encouraging investment in, and regeneration of, underdeveloped areas.
LBTT relief is a targeted relief that will apply in tightly drawn locations, and only to those businesses that meet the relief conditions. Together with significant capital investment, the relief aims to help to facilitate the creation of a large number of high-quality, fair green jobs; support the development of our renewables sector; and help to accelerate Scotland’s transition—a just transition—to net zero.
The question on the motion will be put at decision time.
Previous
Business Motions