 That concludes the stage 3 debate on patient safety commissioner for Scotland Bill, and it's now time to move on to the next item of business, which is consideration of business motion 10623 in the name of George Adam on behalf of Parliamentary Bureau setting out a business programme, and I call on George Adam to move the motion. Thank you, Presiding Officer, you nearly caught me out there, but moved. Thank you. No member has asked to speak on the motion, and the question is that motion 10623 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. The motion is therefore agreed. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 10624 in the name of George Adam on behalf of Parliamentary Bureau on stage 1 timetabling of a bill. Those of you who would like to speak against the motion should press their request to speak button now. I will now call on George Adam to move the motion. Once again moved, Presiding Officer. Thank you, Minister. No member has asked to speak against the motion, and therefore the question is that motion 10624 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. ydw i ni gilydd. Ysbrydol tumbmi的 iawn adіл is consideration of parliamentary Bureau motion 10625 on annulment of an SSI. I ask Alexander Burnett on behalf of the parliamentary Bureau to move the motion. I prefer members of my register of interests regarding dear management, and I move a motion in my name, thank you. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and it's always nice to know when you can be short of breath in getting here on time. Dear management is a complex issue, and reducing dear numbers is not about culling males, it's about culling breeding females, and the breeding imperative of those females means that female deer will always find a male, and thus targeting males is futile. So the question on this motion that I've posed at the committee was, do we need this? Well, the Dears Scotland Act 1996 already allows for the control of deer out of season by regulation. We can do that to prevent damage to agricultural land, timber, natural heritage, and indeed for public safety. So it's there, we can do that. And every year, what's more, the Minister grants an automatic general authorization to control deer on improved agricultural land and enclosed woodland. No one has to apply for a licence, it's there to do that. And the Minister does that, and I should also remind members that not a single licence has been refused. So what will this SI mean? It basically means that every male deer will be a target from the day they're born to the day they die. It won't reduce the deer population by much, and it will mean deer are harried all year round. And what will happen to the deer they could kill late in the season when they're not fit for human consumption? Does this Parliament really forget the 86 stags that were left rotting on Noidot? Is that where we want to be? So my question to the Parliament is, who do you think will use... I'm sorry, but I only have three minutes, I would love if the Presiding Officer would give me more time, I'll take it. Am I allowed more time, Presiding Officer? We certainly have some time in hand. Alistair Allen. I thank the member very much for giving way. He is raising animal welfare issues. Does he not also concede that there are animal welfare issues associated with the overpopulation of deer numbers which we currently have and which this measure is seeking to address? I absolutely take that point, but it's not the welfare of those stags that I'm worried about. I'm worried about the stags that we're talking about shooting. The overpopulation can be controlled by good management, and that's what deer managers should be doing. And it's not deer managers that will be using this. It will be other people who aren't interested in the deer who will be using this SI. They're doing it to protect flora and fauna, which probably means eradicating deer in many cases. So let's talk about the welfare. What we're talking about is shooting stags all day, every day, or male deer. Random killing, no selection. What that means is if you're not selecting the stags, you will often see juveniles mating with their mothers or indeed their sisters. The dichotomy that this Parliament faces is that we try and protect things like rabbits, blue hares, beavers, all of which eat trees, and then in the same breath we go out and declare all our war on stags and male deer. I'm afraid that's just not balanced. So do we need a motion to annul? I don't believe we do. I think there's already sufficient scope in the legislation for proper deer management. No licences for killing male deer out of season have ever been refused. And just so the Parliament are aware, I had a petition of 1686 people in a matter of weeks who signed up and said they thought this was outrageous. So I ask the Parliament today to join me to support good deer management and not by approving an all-out war on them. I don't think that does the Parliament any good. Thank you. I call on Beatrice Wishart. Thank you, Presiding Officer. When this topic... Miss Wishart, if you could bear with me a moment. Sorry, Presiding Officer. I failed at the beginning of that speech to declare my register of interest that I own land with deer on it. And I would actually say, Presiding Officer, in accordance with the standards recommendation. I want to be completely clear. I have over 40 years of deer management experience across a quarter of a million acres of Scotland. I have seen over 30,000 deer killed in order to try and protect trees and woodland. I believe I know what management plans are. I've written them for private and public bodies. And I think I have an understanding about deer. And I still stress with the fact that I think we need to manage deer and not cull them by all-out war. Sorry, Presiding Officer. Thank you, Mr Mountain. It's not a point of order, but your declaration is now on the record and I call on Beatrice Wishart. Thank you, Presiding Officer. When this topic came up at the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, I questioned the statistics about the growing population of deer. And I now understand that these are estimated to be at over one 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 season required wider scrutiny. I've listened carefully to those with knowledge about deer management and considered closely the issues that have been raised. Some suggest that this would be an unnecessary change as general authorisations enable male deer to be culled year round on agriculture land and in enclosed woodland. And I've heard of the impact increasing numbers of deer are having on the environment and also in terms of native woodland trees and on peatland. There's also a view that the change could raise animal welfare concerns. The Scottish Animal Welfare Commission considered the change and found no associated animal welfare risks, providing normal requirement for high standards of public safety and animal welfare are adhered to. Under those circumstances, and having taken on board all the different views, Scottish Liberal Democrats will be voting against the annulment and will support the SSI today. The Scottish Animal Welfare Commission considered the change and found no associated animal welfare risks, providing normal requirement for high standards of public safety and animal welfare are adhered to. Thank you, and I call on Ariane Burgess. Thank you. Presiding Officer, while I speak in this chamber, we are accelerating even faster into a climate and nature emergency. We must stay focused on this challenge, unlike the Tory Government at Westminster, which today has unbelievably approved the largest untat oilfield in UK waters, Rosebank. The focus of this debate is improved deer management and this is a critical piece of the puzzle for tackling the climate and nature crisis. In Scotland, red deer numbers have risen from 155,000 in 1959 to around 1 million in 2020. It is not natural to have this many deer and it is not sustainable. Deer love to graze young treeshoots which seriously inhibits the growth of New Woodland. Woodland that we need for capturing carbon emissions and meeting our net zero commitments. Too many deer also cause damage to farmland and to other critical natural habitats in Scotland. Habitats that we need to allow other species to survive and nature to recover. Without getting deer back down to a sustainable level, we have no hope of reversing the climate and nature emergencies and Labour knows this. That is why their manifesto pledged to support the implementation of the deer working group recommendations including removing closed seasons for male deer. Ms Burgess, if I may ask you to pause for a moment. I would be grateful if conversations could cease. I appreciate it. The Tory's 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 go extinct. That is the fact of the matter and that is why the deer working group proposed this change which major animal welfare organisations also support. Deer stalkers have a very tough job, a key green job requiring skill and care. It is valued. These jobs 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 an increased demand for stalkers, not less. Further jobs and community wealth can be created by supporting more local processing units and shared larders for venison in rural communities. Stalkers are already culling almost half of all male deers culled out of season. It will not require anyone to start doing this. It will simply remove barriers for those who wish to continue culling deer in more months of the year, as 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 which this Parliament brought into law. I urge members to vote against the motion to annul the deer and close season order. Thank you. I call on Lorna Slater to respond. 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 caused by deer. The only effective way to do that is to bring down deer populations and to reduce deer densities. We have tried a range of methods over the last 50 years, yet the population is now double what it was 30 years ago. This growth is unsustainable and action must be taken. The proposed removal of male close seasons is one of the recommendations made by the Deer Working Group in 2020. As I set out to the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee a fortnight ago, that change is just one part of a wider package of changes to modernise deer management in Scotland. It will increase the tools available. Yes, I will take an intervention from Rhoda Grant. Concerns that with or without this legislation, stags will be shot out of season at a time when they are unfit for human consumption and it's incredibly wasteful at a time when people are suffering from malnutrition and depending on food banks. Will the minister take steps to ensure that this wasteful practice stops and develops a long-term strategy to keep deer numbers at sustainable levels while making sure that deer shot are part of the human food chain? I'm grateful to that intervention. We absolutely support the increase of use of venison, the increase of the venison market and I think that's something we can all work on together is how we get more of this venison, unfortunately we do need to call for environmental reasons into the food chain to make sure we do tackle hunger. This legislation that we're looking at tonight not only increases the tools available to land managers but it's to support deer management across the year but it provides more efficient and effective processes for control of deer by removing that administrative burden. It will allow land managers who wish to continue with a closed season of male deer on their land to continue to do so. As others have said on animal welfare we have taken the time over the last three years to review the evidence, consult with 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 reducing human health and safety concerns. Since these recommendations were made by the deer working group, biodeversity crisis has only deepened and the evidence for the need for urgent action to manage our deer population has grown. I ask members to stand by their commitments, reject this motion and support our efforts to restore nature. The question on this motion will be put at decision time. The next item of business is consideration of parliamentary bureau motion 10626 on approval of an SSI. I ask George Adam on behalf of the parliamentary bureau to move the motion. 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 available to land managers when undertaking deer management by supporting the use of a wider range of firearms which may 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 control is essential of Scotland to reach its biodiversity and nature goals. The legislation will assist in adding an additional tool to the toolbox of those controlling deer at night, but I have significant concerns about the safeguards that the legislation lacks in relation to animal welfare and public safety. Practitioners responsible for managing our deer population felt that they had little time to go on to the consultation and their overall response was generally negative. The Scottish Gamekeepers Association does not support the measures to which, in their view, would lead to night shooting becoming more of a norm in Scotland. In relation to animal welfare concerns, research by the Royal Dick Vet School found that culling by rifle at night was the least effective method in placing a shot that would quickly kill a deer. That legislation would mean that a single authorisation for NatureScot is to allow the use of the lamping and the use of night sights. It does not require people to have experience and to be a bigger partner. It does require people to have experience and to be on the fit and competent register. However, there is no differential in the experience in using lamping and the use of night sights, which requires a different skillset, training and different equipment. Operators not experiencing night sights could potentially be prevented from using the legislation to undertake other forms of culling at night, including lamping, which they are currently authorised to do. NatureScot did not recommend that further training be required or any need for additional assessment of an operator's ability to competently cull using night sights. The legislation or guidance fails to stipulate or specify a minimum standard of scope, which would ensure the highest standard of animal welfare and public safety. The bill does not require appropriate and proportionate licensing or even mandatory training. Finally, I do not accept that there are no animal welfare implications of those provisions. Laws are regularly passed in this place enhancing the protection of wildlife and it is absolutely bizarre that Lorna Slater wants to remove safeguards, which would potentially lead to deer being harried and hunted 24 hours a day, 365 days a day, 365 days a year with no additional training or licensing requirements. Surely this is not a good look and indeed goes against all this Parliament's efforts to improve animal welfare. This Government's approach after many years of inadequate intervention appears to be a declare to declare all out war against an iconic deer population with very little regard to animal welfare. This is not a position that I am willing to support. This Government needs to rethink this unfortunate and potentially dangerous approach to deer control. Permitting the use of night sites and increasing access to non-led ammunition by reducing the minimum ammunition weight for shooting deer will support land managers to better manage deer. Scotland's deer population has doubled since 1990, causing significant environmental damage and must be addressed urgently if we are to tackle the climate and nature emergencies. Those measures, as discussed previously, are part of a wider programme that is aimed at doing just that. They also fulfil the recommendations made by the independent deer working group in 2020, which most parties in this chamber have endorsed. We have fully considered the potential implications prior to bringing forward these recommended changes. NatureScot completed trials into both recommendations and published reports on their findings. Through these trials, there have been adverse impacts on deer welfare. Edward Mountain. Sorry, Mr Mountain, if you wouldn't mind beginning again as your microphone wasn't on. Sorry, Presiding Officer. Thank you for confirming NatureScot carried out trials. Could you confirm they carried out trials shooting at night with thermal images and lighter weight bullets or was it during daytime? Minister. I think that both of the bits of legislation that we are bringing, both the night sites and with the lighter weight ammunition, because they are attacking slightly different issues and no welfare issues were shown. With respect to the night sites, the current practice is to use lamps to see the deer and manage them at night. These new technologies allow this to continue and there was no additional welfare concerns raised through the use of these new technologies. We also saw the views of animal welfare experts through the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission who found no issue with these 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 technology available at their disposal. The use of night sites will allow for longer deer shooting hours, especially in the winter months and during the following operations. Deer can only be shot at night under strict authorisation from NatureScot and deer managers must prove they are fit and competent. This means that they must undertake training and achieve a recognised qualification. They must also meet all of the usual requirements to carry a firearm and comply with the night shooting code of practice. NatureScot's report was clear that there are no additional training requirements above those already in place for deer managers to use one of these sites rather than the traditional use of a lamp for night shooting. The proposal to reduce the minimum ammunition weight to shoot deer will make non-led ammunition more accessible. That removes a significant barrier for deer managers at the moment and will reduce the amount of toxic lead in our environment. Furthermore, many venison retailers are insisting on a supply of lead-free venison products and we want to maximise the venison that makes its way with NatureScot's review, which found that those changes to bullet-weights would have no detrimental effect on deer welfare. There is no reason for this barrier to remain. Thank you Presiding Officer. Thank you. And the question on this motion will be put at decision time. The next item of business is consideration of parliamentary Bureau motion 10627 on approval of an SSI and I ask George Adam on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau to move the motion. Thank you Presiding Officer and I move. Rwyfwng Eglagffarr, gyn lyf ar y cyflwynedd Ysgolaf Gwyrdd, ac mae'r cyfleu, chi'n gwneud i cyflwynedd yw beth yw Llywodraeth, yn beth yw'r clyweddol? Gynnyddio yr Ysgolaf Gwyrdd gymaerchol Ieigwyrd ein cyflwynedd mewn gael Gwyrdd yn cyffredinol wedi ymlaenu, ac mae'r cyflwynedd gwyrdd yn cyflwynedd Rhoeddi'r Cyflwynydd. Ar gyflwynedd, gyfo'r Cyflwyneddдau ysgolaf gwyrdd, sy'n ddifol cael y cyflwynedd a ddweud dim yn gweithio dddangosach ar fy rhai ddechreu, ond rydyn ni'n rydyn ni'n dwygr ddweud, neu ydych yn eu cynnem hon i gan ddag'i duodd, i'n du tyfnio gyda'r cyfrifio sydd wedi'u ei personality o gwbl i'r ddesod. Felly, mae'r cyfrifio, i ddiwedd ddysgu'r cyfrifio, yn ei ddysgu'r cyfrifio wedi ddeghwydu i'r gweithio i hyd i'r cyfrifio i ddiaddemu eich pryd ac yn roeddiwch ei ddysgu'r cyfrifio The issue here is the ideology underpinning freeports and particularly the corporate tax breaks that they provide. It's that of trickle-down economics and the Scottish Greens can't subscribe to that. The key selling point for the freeports is the impressive-sounding number of jobs that they would create. Studies show that when the UK tried this approach in the 80s, four in ten of those jobs were just displaced from elsewhere, increasing regional inequality. As a west of Scotland MSP, I'm concerned that the fourth freeport in particular will only worsen the challenges that we face of depopulation and sluggish growth in wages across the west coast, while the east sees both substantial population and wage growth. Most of what's involved in setting up the freeports is reserved, but there are levers within the Scottish Government's power that have not been used here, including to exclude any entity based in an offshore tax haven from accessing LBTT relief. We legislated for this before with Covid business relief in this Parliament, so what would have prevented a ban on tax dodgers accessing this tax break? It is within devolved competencies. We know from freeports elsewhere in Europe that businesses that operate from tax havens are attracted to this kind of operating model, because, after all, what else are freeports other than many tax havens? There's a significant reputational risk to Scotland here, particularly considering the findings of the European Commission's report entitled money laundering and tax evasion risks in freeports. The EU is cracking down on freeports due to what it described as a high instance 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 this case, in the case of freeports, it is just language and 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 the Government's in a difficult position because this policy is ultimately being driven by the UK Government, but devolution exists for the purpose of creating divergence where we believe that that is necessary. I do not think that the opportunity to do that has been taken in this instance. For all the reasons that I've outlined, as well as the objections raised by trade unions, environmental groups and communities, the Scottish Greens opposed this instrument. My appearance at the Finance and Public Administration Committee earlier this month set out the rationale of this particular tax relief in relation to supporting the wider green freeport programme by encouraging investment in and regeneration of underdeveloped areas. LBETT 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, relief aims to help to facilitate the creation of a large number of high-quality, fair and green jobs, support the development of a renewable sector and help to accelerate Scotland's transition, just transition, to net zero. Thank you. The question on this motion will be put at decision time. I am minded to accept a motion without notice under rule 11.2.4 of standing orders that decision time be brought forward to now, and I invite the Minister for Parliamentary Business to move the motion.