Bill doesn't answer Jobs concerns

 

SGA responds to Rural Affairs Committee on new legislation 

 

(the full response of the SGA Deer Group to the call for views on The Natural Environment Bill can be read below)

 

Comments:

 

The way the Bill sets out Public Interest as a possible trigger for intervention is problematic.

Since 2014, Deer Management Groups have had to have regard to the Public Interest when developing and openly publishing Deer Management Plans. This was defined around 14 set criteria (balancing social, economic and environmental) and, therefore, a clear understanding of public interest developed through this process. In this Bill, the public interest appears to have been given new terms, is much more subjective/ interpretative and muddier. This is likely to lead to greater confusion and dispute.

 

Assessing that a target being published in a Plan may be enough to trigger an intervention is also unworkable. The problem with Deer Management at present is that those on the ground doing the actual work cannot keep up with shifting baselines and moving goalposts. More targets/published Plans or Strategies is not going to ease this. It will lead to contingent, short-term actions instead of joined up, holistic (planned) management in the longer-term interest.

 

Court actions

 

The SGA Deer Group considers certain new provisions within the Bill to have high potential to end up in court around the balance between public and private interest and the level of evidence that may be expected to be able to justify a state intervention which may ultimately damage a private interest.

 

The Bill confers unprecedented new powers upon NatureScot (or the state) to be able to intervene but poorly explains the circumstances under which intervention may be justified or the level of evidence that the courts may consider to be necessary and proportionate to do so.

 

For example, an intervention may ultimately reduce the overall market value of a landholding, if that holding’s value is tied in any way to the number of deer available to maintain a sporting interest, which is a legitimate business. Whilst this type of business model is sometimes viewed negatively in Scotland, it is well understood that the model helps to provide at least some of the income necessary to maintain full-time, skilled deer management staff within local communities.

 

The Bill does not give adequate regard to the possible consequences for a business being forced to take a certain action against its will, or to pay the bill for a cull intervention, when this may result in decisions on whether to retain employed staff. It brings the marginal nature of deer management into sharper focus than ever before at a time when deer management is needed more than ever, to meet targets. Given the many and diverse responsibilities Scottish Government has to the Scottish people with its budget, could it compensate for lost deer management resource and skill when the value of this can’t be measured in solely financial terms?

 

During all discussions since the Deer Working Group report was published, a narrative has been cemented that more deer management jobs will be created in Scotland as the need for culls go up. This has never been adequately explained to the deer managers who are fearful for their jobs and cannot possibly envisage how falling deer numbers can ever mean more employment.

 

What is more likely is that a smaller number of paid contractors who travel around more ground (possibly also from England, as is currently the case) may benefit while full-time, in-community employment reduces, with less deer available to attract income and spend from visitors, which also supports other community activities. Is it enough to justify an intervention that may imperil local jobs on the grounds that the intervention may bring about restoration or enhancement, or should there instead be robust evidence presented that the intervention actually would bring about restoration and/or enhancement?

 

The role of deer panels

 

• Panels: While the SGA Deer Group is split on whether NatureScot should be able to appoint panels, sit on them and ‘mark its own books’, it does see an important role for Panels if these new powers are to be taken forward. Given that there is a greater possibility for dispute, it may be appropriate for Panels to be convened to try to broker agreement on a way forward, before a contentious intervention is ordered, based on ground-truthing and assessment of fact. This may reduce court actions and high legal bills.

 

The SGA Deer Group believes it would be appropriate for work to be undertaken now on rules governing the fair constitution of Panels and believe that professional practitioners MUST be included on all panels (it cannot be like the case of the Deer Working Group where no seasoned practitioners were on the Group).

 

Panels should be used to assess the appropriateness or otherwise of Deer Plans.

 

Giving NatureScot complete veto on Deer Plans is providing them with absolute power, with no check or balance. Plans which are a cause of disagreement instead could be referred to a Panel to assess fitness or otherwise.

 

If the issue is regarding forestry or habitat, experts in these areas, independent of NatureScot, should be included on the Panel.

 

 

• The lowlands: The Natural Environment Bill new measures are aimed almost entirely at the Highlands despite most of the deer in Scotland now being in the lowlands. Highland red deer account for approx. 250 000 animals, based on deer management group counts, and populations are either static or reducing across the Highland red deer range due to increased culling over the past 5-10 years.
• If the disputed figure of 1 million is the one to be used in this debate, then 750 000 of these animals are in the lowlands and around our towns and cities and it is very important for Rural Affairs and Islands Committee members to understand and acknowledge this context, now.

 

In this regard, the Bill’s measures could be seen as disproportionately punitive on Highland Deer Management groups for getting their act together in comparison to the lowlands. There is something fundamentally inequitable about the powers NatureScot are about to be given by the Parliament because it is likely that, in the vast majority of cases, they will use them to encourage more deer management by parties, or in areas where culling has already taken place whilst allowing others who may have done very little - or even nothing - to escape the same attention.

 

How fair will it be for these powers to be used, in full (potentially imposing a significant fee on a Highland holding to pay for culls which may imperil employment) and then not to be deployed against Scottish councils, for example, who have no published deer plan or may even operate no-cull policies?

 

Only 5 or 6 local authorities have published deer plans, despite this being asked of all Highland Deer Groups, or carry out any form of deer management. How can this two-tier approach be seen as equitable and how can it maintain when Government targets depend on it? It is a failing of the Scottish Parliament, with its many, many deer reviews, that this has never been adequately addressed. Damage is not occurring solely in the Highlands, and neither is it the fault or responsibility of the oft-criticised collaborative system in the Highlands that the lowlands are more fragmented. The courts are likely to see intervention as an inconsistent and inequitable application of powers, solely focused on only one half of Scotland.

 

The mental wellbeing of deer managers

 

Buck in the clearing

 

• Deer seasons: The SGA is fully supportive of Scottish Government’s decision not to alter the female deer seasons in the Bill. Since this decision was announced to drop this proposal, the SGA has been contacted by professional stalkers from all over Scotland who have expressed relief that the unwanted prospect of culling heavily pregnant hinds has been removed from them. Should this need to be carried out for any reason or emergency, authorisations remain for this to be able to occur. It is hugely important that, like in most areas of employment today in Scotland, the mental wellbeing of deer managers is accounted for. The decision to preserve female deer seasons is a progressive one in this regard which acknowledges that deer managers are professionals, and their mental health deserves to be protected, like other workers in Scotland.

 

• Shotguns: The SGA welcomes that shotguns for the use of deer management should be made illegal and can only be authorised in specific circumstances. One of those is to retain the ability to use shotguns, where appropriate, for the humane despatch of injured deer.

 

• Training/Competence: The SGA, as a body which promotes and champions professional standards and training, does not oppose the idea of a base level of competence for deer managers which is tied to training. Given that it has been acknowledged that forcing everyone to achieve a certain standard could inhibit new recruits into the sector, the SGA would like it considered that a cost cap be placed on training which should be affordable to all, that training time can be reduced (perhaps done in one day?) and that subsidies are available to U-25s. It is an issue that the average age of a deer stalker is past the mid-50s and, clearly, we cannot discourage new entrants because of costs being prohibitive.

A recreational deer manager, entering the world of deer management, must foot costs for firearms registrations (nearly £200), medical certificates (£200) equipment (X) and DSC Level 1 (currently around £320). Whilst this will often be paid for by an estate in the highlands, we need to cater for all types of deer manager. For those carrying out operations under licence, etc and for more specific types of deer management, DSC Level 2 should be required.

 

• Venison Dealers Licence: The SGA, at the present time, cannot see the value in removing the Venison Dealer Licence.