���˿���

I have not even started talking about the individual amendments in the group, but I am sure that we will get to them.

The strategic action plan that I have laid out will pick up all the points that Rachael Hamilton has just made. On all those issues, I am more than happy to talk to anybody about solutions that they want to bring forward, and we will feed that into the strategic action plan. There is nothing that I am not prepared to discuss, but I am not going to accept the amendments that have been lodged at this stage. I will go through the reasons why, but I am more than happy to discuss with any member how we can make that work going forward.

I will start with Tim Eagle’s last point, which is that the Government needs to take action. When I was appointed as minister, I was immediately made aware of the issue by Fergus Ewing and Douglas Ross. I took a call from both of those members and dealt with the immediate problems by taking appropriate action, and an area-wide licence was granted.

Since then, we have had various debates and statements about the issue. We have a strategic action plan, and regional round-table meetings will start in January—the dates have been set. There were concerns that we have had only one summit, in Inverness, but I said at the time that that would be the start of the process. We will have further summits in Fraserburgh, Eyemouth, Dumfries and Irvine, which should be completed by the end of January.

Bearing in mind that local authorities have the responsibility to fund work on environmental issues in their areas, I note that we are funding gull management plans in addition to each local authority’s funding.

We are raising a national awareness campaign, the resources for which are being developed as we speak. It will have a clear message about how to manage gulls and how people should manage themselves around gulls.

We are putting in place gull population data methodology for a national and urban gulls survey, which is currently being advanced.

We are also looking at best practice intervention management measures, with a focus on deterrence, infrastructure prevention and effective waste control. That is happening as we speak. In addition, the national gull forum will be established in the first part of 2026.

What I am trying to say is that the issue has been raised with me as the minister and I am taking it very seriously, but that cannot be the limiting point. We have to remember that there are protected species and, therefore, those protections should stay in place.

I will come on to all the points on the amendments that have been raised with me.

I will get straight into it. We have a lot to get through, so I will be as brief as I possibly can be.

On amendments 321 and 252, I fundamentally disagree with the member’s intentions to prevent the repeal of the venison dealer licence in the bill. Time and again in Parliament, we have heard about how important it is to raise the profile of venison, as so eloquently done by Ms Hamilton just now and through Lauren Houston’s fine words.

If we want to raise the profile of venison, the venison dealer licence acts as a barrier to that goal. For a start, the price of a licence varies significantly across local authorities and it prevents locally sourced venison being consumed in local communities, hotels, pubs and restaurants. In addition, it makes no sense to me that we can allow other wild game such as pheasant and rabbit to be dealt with without a licence, yet we still require a costly licence for venison. It is entirely suitable for venison to follow the same protocols as other wild game, so I want to increase its availability while maintaining the high food standards that we would expect. Ultimately, the venison dealer licence is no longer fit for purpose. For those reasons, I urge members to oppose amendments 321 and 252.

Amendments 322 and 323 seek to introduce a power for Scottish ministers to repeal section 33 of the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996 by regulation rather than through primary legislation. Amendment 322 goes further and adds that conditions that require ministers to be satisfied that alternative arrangements for data collection are in place and effective before repealing section 33. I understand that the amendments stem from concerns raised by the committee about traceability and monitoring of venison and its recommendation to delay the repeal of the venison dealer licence provision until the NatureScot deer app is in place. However, it would be remiss of the committee not to remember that, when the committee met practitioners during stage 1 of the bill, the current licensing system for venison dealers was criticised as being ineffective.

It is also important to be clear that the venison dealer licence does not function as a national data collection tool. In addition, Food Standards Scotland has confirmed that traceability of wild venison can be maintained through the existing food safety and hygiene legislation, which applies to all meat and wild game. If those reservations remain, we do not need to commence the repeal of the venison dealer licence immediately, and we will work with NatureScot on the correct timing for doing that.

The venison dealer licence is outdated and acts as a barrier to increasing venison supply and supporting local communities. For those reasons, I believe that both amendments are unnecessary and that they risk delaying the removal of a system that is no longer fit for purpose. I ask members to oppose amendments 322 and 323.

Finally, amendments 75, 254 and 255 seek to make better use of venison. As I have said many times, that is a subject that I feel very strongly about. Although the amendments are well intentioned, it is critical that we look at deer management as a whole when creating action plans. During a stage 1 evidence session, Ms Grant said that it is important that we manage deer properly and do not waste the venison that is created from the cull of deer. I absolutely agree with that sentiment.

We are taking forward various strands of work on venison, including on how we can learn from the wild Jura venison project, which was referenced, where products have been distributed to schools. However, creating stand-alone plans that focus solely on venison risks overlooking the wider objectives and the need for integrated solutions. That is why I supported the creation of a national deer management plan, which we heard about during the discussion on amendments 246, which will be capable of addressing the issues that are raised by amendments 75, 254 and 255.

I invite Ms Grant and Ms Hamilton to work with me and Mr Ruskell to develop a proposal for an amendment on a national deer management plan ahead of stage 3 of the bill. I therefore ask those members not to press those amendments, and if they are pressed, I ask the committee to reject them.

Let me finish—

I have concluded them.

On amendment 256, I support the intention behind the proposal and the underlying policy aim, as it would enable the Scottish Government to make regulations for a fixed-penalty notice regime in order to enforce local authority byelaws aimed at the prevention of wildfires. However, I do not believe that the bill is the right place for that change.

As the committee is aware, part 3 of the bill includes similar regulation-making powers that will enable national park authorities to issue fixed-penalty notices for byelaw breaches within national parks. That will be an important additional enforcement tool, including for the new fire management byelaws that will come into force in the Cairngorms national park in the spring. Those fire management byelaws aim to deter irresponsible behaviour and ensure improved compliance and behaviour change in order to reduce the growing risk of wildfires. They will form part of the integrated wildfire management plan within the national park, which will include enhanced patrols at key sites, training for rangers, signage, a targeted wildfire communications campaign and co-ordination with landowners, NGOs, public bodies, businesses and communities.

I can understand why Emma Roddick has proposed similar fixed-penalty notice powers for local authorities that may be considering whether to introduce fire management byelaws in their areas. In my view, however, more detailed work needs to be done at this stage before proposing legislative changes, so I cannot support amendment 256. We have to consult local authorities and other partners to ascertain the most effective means by which to prevent and manage wildfires.

It is important to note that, similar to how the fixed-penalty notice regime is likely to work in national parks, we would not expect the full costs of enforcing the byelaws to be covered by income from financial penalties.

We would expect NatureScot to still go through the entire voluntary process in the first place before it ever got to that point.

I am glad that you mentioned the collaborative approach that is currently being taken. I have had extensive engagement with land managers since I was given the responsibility of taking this part of the bill through, and not one deer manager or land manager that I have had a conversation with is not on board with having a deer management system that actually works. Yes, there will be discussions, but deer management is already in a much better place than before, when it comes to how people are co-operating. Through the Common Ground Forum, there is much better interaction and engagement.

Where the provision will come into play is if somebody simply refuses to engage. That has happened only once; one control order has been brought into play. NatureScot and the Government are within their rights to say, “If you are not prepared to be part of this community and allow us to achieve the objectives that we are trying to achieve, we should have the ability to take control.” That may well cause conflict with an individual landowner or landholder who is not prepared to take part.

However, one thing that I would like to get across, as I think I have said, is that we have good relations with our deer managers now—they are way better than previously—and I want that to continue. Voluntary engagement with NatureScot is absolutely the way that it has to be done to begin with. However, if somebody refuses to engage, there has to be an ability to make them engage.

Mr Mountain, I find it incredible that a man of your experience would try to pit one traditional land manager against another in such a situation.