Chamber and committees

There are two points to make in response to that. First, I do not think that the common frameworks are working—because they allow for a lot of work to be done over years then for ministers to swoop in at the end and say yea or nay. There is a larger project, therefore, not just within my portfolio, about how the common frameworks work between the two Governments. I suspect that that will mean having to get ministerial agreement at various points in the process, so that people can have confidence as they move forward. Throwing out two years of working together by officials is not an efficient way for any of us to work. There is therefore a bigger picture about making those common frameworks work properly, because clearly, in this case, the UK Government has not done so.

Secondly, my understanding is that, because the Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill is a framework bill, there are no inherent internal market issues. I ask Ailsa Heine to come in and correct me if I have that wrong.

On whether we should take forward specific measures in the bill, you will know from your session this morning that, for example, we want to take powers to put charges on some single-use items. That in itself is not an issue; however, if, for example, we look at putting charges on single-use coffee cups, that specific piece of legislation could then have internal market act implications. It depends on exactly how that is implemented. As you heard in your discussion, there are lots of ways in which that could be implemented. There are lots of places that the money could go to when it is collected. There are lots of models, Exactly what model we chose might have more or fewer internal market act implications. Ailsa Heine may have more to say.

I understand the frustrations around a framework bill. When it comes to the circular economy, I take the example of disposable vapes, which have become an issue very quickly—only in the past couple of years. We can all see that, if we had to pass primary legislation every time that a new product becomes a challenging problem, that would tie up a lot of parliamentary time. By taking a framework power, we are able to react more dynamically to things such as emerging products and to manage those things much more quickly and efficiently. We do not know what products might be developed in the future, or the environmental impact that those might have. Having that suite of tools means that we can react and put in place measures for the products of the future that we do not yet know might exist.

I can get my officials to talk about the consultation dates. I think that Brodie Wilson can talk about that.

I am not comfortable with the framing that the proposal will result in the killing of deer willy-nilly. That is not the situation. We are proposing to remove an administrative burden. As we have discussed, male deer are already being shot year round. People just need some paperwork in order to do that. No one is obliged to do that, but we know that land managers want and need to manage deer in that way, which is why they apply for hundreds of permits to allow them to do that every year.

The point about venison is a good one. Managing deer, which involves building and maintaining fences and hiring professionals to do the stalking, is costly and expensive. As Hugh Dignon outlined, only a very small number of carcases are left on the hillside to rot. That is not a common practice and I would not want the member to think that it was.

I have had several meetings with the venison industry about this and it did not have any particular concerns about the change to the close season. It thinks that it might even help because it will expand the shoulder seasons. The stags may be in good condition earlier in the year, which could provide a steadier stream of venison.

One of the challenges with the venison market is that it is so seasonal. Removing the close season will give land managers a bit more flexibility to be able to level out the season and make the venison market steadier and easier to handle. It will also be easier on the infrastructure that is required, such as the cool rooms and other facilities. The venison industry has not had any particular issues with the proposal and it should open up such options.

As we cull more deer in Scotland because we need to do so, that will increase the supply of venison. As I outlined earlier, we are investing in making sure the infrastructure is in place and that, as the member says, the excellent, organic, healthy meat gets on to people’s plates.

I hope that the relationship is strong and based on mutual respect. I have engaged with gamekeepers on many occasions and on many visits—we have had some excellent visits. We have a lot in common in wanting to increase the venison industry, help managers to have more choice in how they manage their land and ensure that we are managing deer for healthy herds while having consideration for the welfare of the animals. Where we have those things in common, we have been able to engage very fully.

Members of representative organisations, including both the British Association for Shooting and Conservation and the Scottish Gamekeepers Association, have been engaged at every step of the process from 2020, when the recommendations were published, through 2021, when the Scottish Government submitted its response. They have written to us as part of our consultation and we have considered those responses. I have had meetings with those organisations, including most recently on 7 June with BASC. Officials have met the Scottish Gamekeepers Association alongside NatureScot this year as well. There have been recent meetings in that space and they will be on-going.

I recognise the expertise of land managers. The legislation that we are proposing allows them choice. We are not dictating how they may manage their land. If they wish to continue to observe a close season, they may do so. However, where land managers wish to have more flexibility, the legislation will allow them to make the decision using their expertise.

Absolutely—I am always open to hearing new evidence. If there were incidents of poor animal welfare management, I would be very interested in hearing about them. We absolutely share that interest. As I said earlier, animal welfare groups have been consulted on the SSI and have been included in the discussions. No welfare issues were raised with respect to the close season for male deer—none at all.

I do not have numbers for that at the moment, but, of course, as many as possible go into the food chain. I am happy to write to the member with that information.

I ask Jackie Hughes to come in if I have missed anything, but, as far as I understand it the ECP had made recommendations in previous years. This year, its advice was unchanged from that in previous years.

I am happy to go through the issues that the member has raised.

Bracken is only carcinogenic to humans if we consume it. That is not a practice in Scotland. In some parts of the world, people eat young fronds, but that is not a tradition in Scotland. Bracken does not have that effect unless you eat it. If, for example, animals eat bracken regularly as fodder and humans eat the meat of those animals regularly, there is the potential for that to be the case. Equally, however, that does not happen in Scotland; our animals do not eat bracken as their main food source. The issues that the member raises in relation to bracken being carcinogenic do not apply here, as we do not consume bracken in that way.

The James Hutton Institute report has come back, and it has identified evidence gaps. As I said to Mr Carson, it is up to the Scottish Government to decide what research projects to undertake to fill those gaps. I have already committed to Mr Carson that I will write to the committee. In that letter, I will set out what research is needed to fill those gaps, and—

I do not mean to suggest that the solution to all situations is to plant trees. That might be appropriate in some cases. We definitely need a suite of tools to manage bracken.

As for tree growth, commercial forestry interests like to clear the bracken to allow seedlings to come up straight, but they can use other mechanisms for that, such as mechanical mechanisms or ground spraying of other chemicals. The big difference with Asulox was that it allowed for aerial spraying. Other chemicals are authorised for use in ground spraying, so that can continue as it always has.

There is an interesting point about tree growth for those who are looking for natural regeneration. The rewilding group that I met said that, although it does not manage its bracken, the trees still come through. They are a bit stunted and twisted, which is fine for regeneration, albeit that it is not good for commercial forestry.

The choice of mechanism therefore depends on the desired land use, the available tools and the topography of the land in question. We need that suite of guidelines so that each land manager can make the right choice for their land.