We came out strongly against new deer powers for NatureScot, believing the new proposals will end up in court - a position we still hold.
We now reach the final stage.
Please find below excerpts from the Amendment Guide delivered to ALL MSPs ahead of the Stage 3 debate. We will keep members updated over the course of the next 24 hours.
On New 6ZB Powers and loss of rates relief
We wish to make it known that we are extremely disappointed that NatureScot has been granted unprecedented powers in this Bill to intervene in deer management on the poorly defined and vague new ground of ‘nature restoration’, which is the new power of 6ZB (Page 14, line 29).
The SGA believes this development, allied with the recent Draft Budget announcement that deer forests will no longer be eligible for sporting rate reliefs, represents a significant body blow to the voluntary deer management effort in Scotland. In our view, these steps – in combination- will damage trust at a time when an additional 50 000 deer must be culled each year.
The Scottish Government will not gain from these proposals nor will nature. Voluntary deer management is the lynchpin of all deer management in Scotland and dictates whether targets will be me or not. These measures, which will be self-defeating, have been met with dismay and anger and, while it is too late now to avoid what will inevitably end up in court actions regarding the new 6ZB powers, MSPs have the opportunity to support amendments which address the sporting rates issue before it is too late and we urge MSPs to back amendments which aim to rectify the loss of sporting rates reliefs, in Group 16 in the Groupings.
This would at least go some way to healing the damage. The Bill talks at length about the need to incentivise deer management. There is no logical way that deer management can be incentivised whilst Scottish Government removes reliefs, at the same time.
Amendment 159: Beatrice Wishart (to include an assessment of pheasant and partridge releases as part of a wider Action Plan regarding invasive non-native species)
We recommend that this is not supported.
Whilst we note and are not unsupportive of the amendment’s main objective, per se, we do not support the specific reference to pheasants and red legged partridges and the need to report on impacts of releases.
Species such as the brown hare are also non-native to Scotland and were introduced many centuries ago, like pheasants. Singling out pheasants and partridges as non-native is, therefore, inequitable.
Similarly, the Code of Good Shooting Practice, which is UK-wide, is also subject to regular review, covering everything from legal compliance, recommended release densities and scale, location choice for pens/drives and environmental protection.
Courts and regulators judge compliance against these industry standards which are regarded as benchmarks for the sector.
Amendment 160: Edward Mountain (to ensure the Wild Salmon Strategy continues to prioritise the right actions for salmon, with the right urgency)
We recommend this amendment (SGA drafted) is supported.
To learn more about why we believe this amendment requires support, see: https://www.scottishgamekeepers.co.uk/latest-news/2024/2026-01-21-sga-fishing-group-moves-to-help-salmon.php
The SGA Fishing Group has held constructive discussions with Marine officials regarding this in recent days. It is our intention to work closely with Scottish Government Marine officials to ensure salmon stay in our rivers and continue to bring environmental and economic benefits to Scotland. It is vital that the correct measures are given due prominence, in real time, so the species remain viable and in sustainable numbers.
Amendments 42 and 43: Beatrice Wishart (Muirburn licensing)
We recommend these amendments are supported.
As Scotland tackles the rising wildfire threat and more incidents of large wildfires, it is highly important that practitioners are fully trained by approved bodies and that they are trained to manage fires of all kinds in the right conditions. Observing the muirburn season, with no option to extend for training purposes, would be limit this ability, with no real justification or reward, so this amendment (42) represents common sense.
Amendment 43 reflects evidence found in the longest running study of muirburn and its impacts on peatlands, in comparison to other management techniques (York University).
The legislation, without this amendment, prioritises other forms of vegetation management as something which MUST be tried before trained practitioners carry out muirburn, under licence, to prevent wildfire on peatlands.
However, scientific evidence from York University has shown that cutting, which in some cases is not possible, can have more negative consequences in certain circumstances than muirburn, as can other forms of vegetation control which the legislation promotes as better. It is not prudent for the legislation to recommend these practices as preferable to muirburn, in these conditions, when there is no evidence to back this preference. This sensible amendment simply removes that condition and should be supported.
Tim Eagle’s amendment (162) in this grouping does a similar thing and may also be supported.
Amendment 161: Edward Mountain (Muirburn licensing)
We recommend this amendment is supported.
We believe the word ‘appropriate’ is more workable for both NatureScot and those who will use the muirburn licensing scheme.
The ‘necessity’ test is a very high legal bar, allowing very little room for either regulators or practitioners to manoeuvre. In almost all cases, the people best able to adjudge whether carrying out controlled muirburn would be the best option, on a particular piece of ground, to prevent wildfire would be the practitioners who know that piece of ground, best.
In the absence of ‘certainty’ that muirburn will help to prevent wildfire, NatureScot will be wary that granting a licence could be challenged in court. It is therefore more likely that NatureScot would assess risk and refuse a licence on the basis that ‘certainty’ could not be proved rather than because carrying our muirburn would not be the best option.
Changing the word to appropriate still gives NatureScot oversight under the conditions of a licence but allows a little more leeway, for all parties, to take into account the fire and local knowledge that an applicant may have AND the potential benefit which will be derived from preventing a wildfire or helping to stop a wildfire should it occur.
Group 16: Non-domestic rates relief:
The SGA recommends that all amendments which serve to reverse the draft Budget measure that deer forests and shoots should be removed from eligibility for Small Business Bonus Scheme, be supported.
Analysis gleaned from our worried members, who have contacted our office in high number since the announcement, suggests that this measure will disproportionately impact smaller operators and self-employed deer/wildlife managers - as an indirect consequence - rather than the larger commercial players who were already most likely outwith the thresholds for relief anyway.
Removing SBBS from deer forests sends the wrong signals when the Government is seeking to incentivise deer management.
It is a body blow to those whom Government will have to go to, to do more, and should be reversed.
*The SGA has engaged with Ministers and officials on this issue in the last week and delivered a paper on how the loss of Small Business Bonus Schemes reliefs will disproportionately impact smaller operators. The SGA will continue to represent members on this key issue, with a view to getting the draft Budget proposal reversed.
