���˿���

We should bear in mind that there is the public interest test, which also takes into account employability and the local economy. In the scenario that you have just given me, where eight people want to do something and one person wants to do something different, NatureScot would have to consider not just that person’s point of view but everybody’s point of view. That is where you have to have deer management groups, with the local community working and talking together, so that they come to a reasonable compromise to ensure that the restoration can happen—but not to the point where it is completely detrimental to everybody else.

No. I do not accept that. NatureScot has a duty to apply the public interest test, which includes the people who have traditional stalking or deer management on their estates. The two things have to sit side by side, one way or another, and NatureScot has to do that.

I am not sure that the systems are not working. There are good examples of the systems working right across the country. The deer management groups work regularly to manage their deer effectively. That work is already being done.

Some voluntary agreements take time, because NatureScot has to work with people to find satisfactory solutions.

If you allow me to finish the next two paragraphs, I will come back to you.

That will not only ensure continuity but provide potential purchasers of land with prior notice of the deer management that they would be expected to undertake. Where land ownership changes, NatureScot will work with the new landowner to achieve the voluntary agreement and to look to de-escalate from a compulsory control scheme wherever possible.

I will take that intervention now.

To be perfectly honest, I do not think that legislation is the way to ask people to eat venison—there are better ways for us to do that. I give you an absolute assurance that I am committed to doing everything that we can to ensure that venison is a product that people want to eat and can access, and that we are working to change the culture, but I am fairly certain that legislation is not the right methodology for that.

If we did that, it would be in legislation. I would much rather that we did it by asking people to eat venison.

I shall refer back to those comments if I refuse to take interventions in the future, convener.

On amendment 310, in the name of Tim Eagle, I absolutely agree on the importance of clear guidance being provided before new duties take effect, but I ask him not to move the amendment. We are committed to working with him to ensure that the code is developed promptly and in consultation with stakeholders, so that the guidance is available before commencement. NatureScot has already begun work with stakeholders, through a working group, to update the code, and that work will continue as the bill progresses to ensure that the work is done in sync wherever possible.

However, tying commencement to the laying of the code of practice could delay the implementation of key measures that will allow us to support the nature restoration that we are looking for. I would be very happy to meet Tim Eagle to discuss the issue and how we might further address concerns about the sequencing, but I ask him not to move amendment 310. If it is moved, I encourage members not to support it.

On amendment 311, the bill has already undergone full parliamentary scrutiny during its passage, with detailed consideration of sections 10 to 33. The commencement regulations are a standard administrative step and will not introduce new policy decisions, and requiring the affirmative procedure to be used at that stage would add unnecessary bureaucratic delays without improving accountability. For those reasons, I encourage members to oppose amendment 311.

I apologise, convener, but I forgot to address amendment 147, in the name of Rhoda Grant. The changes that we are making to NatureScot’s powers under the bill are intended to support voluntary deer management and ensure that, in situations in which voluntary agreements break down, NatureScot can take enforcement action to ensure effective deer management. That is of the utmost importance, so that we can continue to support good deer management across Scotland.

At the moment, the process requires NatureScot to make meaningful attempts to secure agreement on voluntary deer management. I fear that amendment 147 would undermine that aim entirely and could be detrimental to the good relations that have been fostered to date. The Common Ground Forum, for example, is a fantastic set-up. Therefore, I cannot in good faith support amendment 147, and I ask members to oppose it.

There is a solution to be found here, and, if we work together ahead of stage 3, we can find that solution. I take on board that there are potential safety issues with having two different sets of people going out with guns on a hill, unless there is some co-ordination.

Looking at amendment 39, I can see the benefits that it would have for tenants, notwithstanding the rights of the landowner, who may also be a sporting tenant or someone who has the right to take deer. I would not interpret amendment 39 as providing the right for crofters to harvest deer. It would be a method of allowing a crofter or a tenant to have a conversation with the landowner to say, “This is causing us a difficulty and we require you to do something about it. If you don’t, we have the right to do something about it.” At that point, they would then co-ordinate with the landowner to say, “We will be taking deer at this particular point.” I hope that there is no disagreement about that. There is an opportunity for us to come to a reasonable solution that will satisfy everybody’s desires.

I am happy to do that.