���˿���

The annual survey—sorry, I cannot go through all that again. I would need to read the whole thing out to get the clarity that I need in my own head to deliver that information to the committee.

We are not talking about doing an annual survey. We cannot do an annual survey, because wintering birds and different species are involved. We do not have the time or the resource to do an annual survey, because that would take time away from NatureScot carrying out its other functions and purposes. There is no need for an annual survey—and it is very difficult to do one—but we are working out how we can get the population data. As we get the methodology worked out, we will make sure that we have numbers that are as accurate as they can possibly be.

I did not say that we are not doing a survey. You asked for an annual survey, so we need to work out—

Okay. As I set out in the strategic action plan, there is an awful lot of work going on. I am absolutely committed to making sure that NatureScot carries out its functions, as it is required to do by the Scottish Government. We expect that it will do so in a way that protects the gulls in relation to which it issues licences and, at the same time, takes account of the issues that people are raising with it. I hope that I have already demonstrated to Mr Ross that I am prepared to intervene when that is absolutely necessary. However, I do not support the amendments and I ask the committee not to support them.

It is because nuisance and health and safety are two entirely different things.

I also set out in the chamber that the mass reduction and removal of eggs, nests and chicks is not the appropriate way to go. We have to take a much more holistic approach to how we manage and live with gulls as we go forward. That is the position that I will take.

We will absolutely take seriously all the issues that people have raised. I take all the points that Rachael Hamilton, Tim Eagle and Douglas Ross have raised about people’s concerns. I do not diminish them in any way, shape or form, but our actions should not be taken at the expense of the status of some of the gulls, whose numbers have crashed.

I also accept that we do not have the data, which is why a gull survey is currently being advanced. A task force is scrutinising the evidence to consider how we should take the matter forward.

I want to get the committee to understand that we are not taking the matter lightly by any stretch of the imagination. However, actions should not be taken at the expense of a bird population that is in massive decline in some areas. The decline is also across species. When we talk about individual gulls, what are we talking about—is it herring gulls or others?

I will not support the amendments today—

I press amendment 35.

I ask that amendments 32 and 32A not be pressed and that the other amendments in the group not be moved, because the Government has made an absolute commitment to continue to do the work that we are doing on a four-nations basis. Whatever Northern Ireland does in its back yard is entirely up to it, but it will come across the same problems that we would have if we implemented a ban straight away. As I pointed out, a ban on glue traps has been cleared, yet it is still not doable.

I get that you have been very patient, but I ask for a bit more patience to allow us to continue to work on a four-nations basis. We will press as hard as we can to get an effective ban that works right across the country.

The plan is a living, growing thing. It will continue to evolve, because we will not get all the answers for all the issues that we are facing with gull populations in urban Scotland immediately. It will be an on-going process, but that does not mean that there is not work going on behind the scenes in order that we can say what we will do in the interim for the particular issue that the parties that are involved in the current discussion are facing. It is disingenuous to say that there is nothing being done and that we have not done anything, or that no progress is being made. Progress is being made, and it has been made from the very first phone call that I had with Mr Ross and Mr Ewing. We took action then, and we continue to take action. The plan that we put in place will develop as we go along, because this is not an overnight fix by any stretch of the imagination.

I would like the member to consider the fact that, no matter who has the authority, they will always have to take into account the fact that these gulls are protected for a very good reason. As we find solutions, they will be developed in conjunction with the people who are looking to have the issues resolved.

At stage 1, a range of views were expressed by stakeholders, members and the committee, especially about the long-term impact and effectiveness of the proposed changes to deer management. I acknowledge the concerns that were raised and reassure people that the Scottish Government is listening.

Amendment 74 seeks to introduce a review mechanism in relation to the operation and effectiveness of the modifications made to the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996 by part 4 of the bill. It will place on the Scottish ministers a statutory duty to prepare and publish such a report within 10 years of the relevant provisions coming into force. Importantly, the review will assess the operation and effectiveness of the relevant provisions against three objectives:

“(a) protecting and restoring the natural heritage and environment,

(b) achieving the aims and purposes of deer management set out by section 1 of the 1996 Act, and

(c) improving standards of welfare for deer.”

Amendment 74 will also ensure that the review process is inclusive. Ministers will be required to consult NatureScot and

“such other persons as the Scottish Ministers consider appropriate”,

who should include landowners, land managers and other relevant stakeholders. The report must include a statement of any action that the Scottish ministers intend to take and, importantly,

“where the Scottish Ministers do not intend to take any action, their reasons for not taking action.”

The report must be laid before the Scottish Parliament, thereby ensuring transparency and accountability.

Amendment 74 will strengthen the bill by embedding a clear commitment to review and reflect on the operation of the changes to the 1996 act. It will ensure not only that the deer management provisions are implemented, but that their operation and effectiveness will be monitored. For those reasons, I encourage members to support amendment 74.

I move amendment 74.

I am happy to come on to that point. I am speaking to all the amendments as I go through, because I want to tie the whole thing together. We need to go about this in an effective and efficient way, working with the industry to make the transition a success.

Earlier, the member asked whether there is an expert panel. There is not an expert panel, but I give an absolute commitment that no decisions will be made until we have had full consultation and constructive dialogue with the sector. I am well aware of the problems of bringing a ban in before the rest of the UK and because of UKIMA, because of the impacts that such a ban will have on jobs and the industry in Scotland. It will be massively disadvantageous to us, so I am not prepared to do it.

I take the member’s point about the consultation. The industry has accepted the fact that we are going to have a ban on peat, but lots of really good work is being done on how we are going to transition and what the new forms of media will be. The industry is coming with us and the Government is speaking to it. There is also widespread engagement across the four nations, so that we can bring in the ban at a time that works for all the countries in the UK. It will not benefit anyone, least of all the horticulture sector in Scotland, if we do not do it in that manner.