Annabelle Ewing
Scottish National Party · Scotland
“Before we turn to the next item of business, I hope that members do not mind if I say a few words. I would like to say specifically what an honour it has been for me to serve in the Scottish Parliament, which, of course, was reconvened by my late mother, Winnie Ewing, in 1999.”
“There is one question to be put as a result of today’s business. The question is, that motion S6M-21180, in the name of John Swinney, on a motion of thanks, be agreed to.”
“I hope that members feel that I have discharged my duty. I thank you for having given me the opportunity to be your Deputy Presiding Officer, along with Mr McArthur, and I wish each of you all the very best.”
“Members! Màiri McAllan: Equally, the prospect of scrapping the land and buildings transaction tax or stamp duty land tax is for the birds, and I am afraid that it demonstrates that the Conservatives realise that their chances of implementing any such policies are, to put it politely, very slim.”
“Motion debated, That the Parliament recognises the importance of sport and activity as a force for good that goes beyond just physical health; considers that they have a significant impact on mental health, as well as contributing to community and national cohesion and wellbeing; believes that sport breaks down barriers of colour, race, r…”
“Motion debated, That the Parliament notes with concern the reported decision by the Lloyds Banking Group to close 11 Bank of Scotland branches between June and July 2026, including the Rutherglen branch; understands that this is the latest in a series of bank closures across the UK; believes that these closures will have a significant imp…”
The complete record
Every one of 792 lines we hold for Annabelle Ewing, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 16.
“Mandating engagement with named types of voluntary and community organisations could also place an unintended burden on local authorities, especially where capacity varies significantly between areas. I recognise the intention behind amendment 33, in Lorna Slater’s name, and I recognise the important role that community input, including from bodies such as community development trusts, can play in shaping effective community wealth building guidance. However, the wording of the amendment simply restates a discretion that already exists in the bill, because ministers can already include community development trusts in consultation processes, where relevant. Therefore, the Government does not support amendment 33.”
“I recognise the policy intention behind the amendments and agree on the importance of ensuring that community wealth building partnerships draw on local knowledge and experience. However, the partnerships will need to have the flexibility to identify the most relevant local stakeholders, which will be based on local circumstances, but the amendments would remove such flexibility from the bill. In addition, the bill will already require local authorities to consult “such persons as it considers likely to be directly affected by the community wealth building action plan” and other persons who are considered to represent the interests of the community. The bill will enable proportionate and appropriate local engagement without requiring an extensive fixed list of participants.”
“15:15 Ivan McKee: I confirm that the Government’s position is to support Murdo Fraser’s amendment 16 because it seeks to provide for a clear and proportionate strengthening of the consultation requirements for the community wealth building statement. Given the central role of businesses in shaping local economies, including a requirement to consult persons who represent the interests of businesses will ensure that the views of the wider business community can be reflected in the development of the statement. I appreciate Lorna Slater’s strong interest in the bill and the work that she has done on a range of amendments. However, in this group, the Government’s position is to resist amendments 21 to 24.”
“A large landowner could be encouraged to contribute to community gardens, to provide access to nature or to co-operate in climate resilience schemes via this measure. Finally, evidence to the Economy and Fair Work Committee showed concerns that the action plans might not be sufficiently connected to the community. There was a strong feeling that the process should not be done to communities but that communities should be leading the way. The final part of amendment 21 would include “local democratic bodies such as community councils” as a way of supporting that aim. Amendments 22 to 24 are about the same three intentions, but they have been broken out in case members want to consider supporting them individually rather than all together.”
“They often operate closest to communities, create local employment and reinvest their profits locally. By making their involvement a requirement, we will ensure that policy decisions are informed by organisations that understand local needs and are already close to the community. Amendment 21 would be another way—a different approach—to get community development trusts into the legislation. It would also include large local private organisations that might be suitable anchor organisations, because they are significant local employers or landowners, for example, and may have assets and procurement needs that they could contribute. We can imagine a scenario in which a large renewable energy firm could be induced to implement community shares or other community benefits through being included in such a way.”
“My amendment 33 is based on evidence to the Economy and Fair Work Committee that suggested that community development trusts that are already doing work on community wealth building have local knowledge, expertise and contacts and so should be included. Amendment 33 explicitly supports that. I thank the Scottish Government for proposing amendments 25 to 27, which, together, will bring consistency to the bill. My amendment 34 at stage 2 added social enterprises to the list of people who must be consulted on the statement, and my amendment 26 today also seeks to add them to the list of people who must be consulted on the action plans. That matters because social enterprises play a distinctive and practical role in delivering community wealth building on the ground.”
“Their engagement can help to identify practical opportunities for local supply chains, inclusive employment practices and forms of investment that will align with community wealth building principles. Ensuring that their voice is included at a national strategic level would support a balanced and deliverable approach to strengthening the local economy, and I invite members to support those principles. I move amendment 16. Lorna Slater: I thank my colleague Stephen Kerr for pointing out that I had been up a bit too late doing my notes. I have already spoken to Murdo Fraser’s amendment 16, so I will leave those comments on the record.”
“Murdo Fraser: Amendment 16 would add a new requirement for the Scottish ministers, in preparing the ministerial statement, to consult “persons … they consider representative of the interests of … businesses”. That would add to the existing provision that already requires ministers to consult local authorities, community representatives, social enterprises and any other persons they consider to be appropriate. Including those who represent the interests of businesses is important in ensuring that the development of the community wealth building statement reflects the perspectives of members of the wider business community, who are key actors in shaping local economies.”
“Ivan McKee: As I said, I am very happy to have conversations with Mr Leonard and other members, notwithstanding the election coming up in May, to discuss how we might use the tax system to impact and influence behaviour in that regard in a positive way. However, as I said, I do not think that the bill before us is where we would signal intent with regard to the tax system. There are other vehicles for doing that. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Daniel Johnson to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 15. Daniel Johnson: I have nothing further to add. I press amendment 15. Amendment 15 agreed to. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Group 4 is on consultation on statements, plans and guidance. Amendment 16, in the name of Murdo Fraser, is grouped with amendments 21 to 27 and 33.”
“I am not opposed to Richard Leonard’s point about the potential use of the tax system to encourage behaviours that we want to see in this area, as we do in other parts of the economy. I just do not think that the bill is the right way to do that, given the process that we have for taking forward tax policy in the budget process, which we are going through at the moment. As I have indicated, depending on who is in Government after May, if I am involved, I would certainly be very interested in having further conversations on how such measures could be taken forward. Richard Leonard: I presume that Mr McKee recognises that amendment 11 seeks to ask the Government to carry out a review. It is not asking, through this legislation, to change the tax arrangements. It is saying that they should be the subject of a review over the next 12 months.”
“Richard Leonard: Can I infer from what the minister has said that he does not support recommendation 17 of the review that the Government set up to look at how we can expand inclusive and democratic business models? What does he say to Lorna Slater’s argument that we should not use tax relief at all to encourage business development or behaviours such as, for example, the conversion of land holdings to crofts? Ivan McKee: I do not agree with Lorna Slater’s comments. I think that there is an important role for the tax system to play, where appropriate, in seeking to encourage behaviours that we want to encourage. That happens across a range of different parts of the economy.”
“That does not require legislation. We will work with business to examine the impact and configuration of all our reliefs in advance of the next revaluation on 1 April 2029. The Scottish Government is also undertaking a review of LBTT, which covers a broad range of policy areas, to assess whether the arrangements in place continue to work as intended. Therefore, I oppose amendment 11, but it is important to say that I would be happy to discuss further with Mr Leonard how he believes the business tax system could better support community wealth building by ensuring that non- domestic rates continue to play their important role in funding services that we all rely on, to inform decisions that are taken in budgets by this Government or future Governments.”
“The Government’s position is to resist amendment 11, which would require the Scottish ministers to carry out a review of business tax relief to support community wealth building. Non- domestic rates and land and buildings transaction tax are property-based taxes and are not the best tools to target and influence behaviour in businesses, including supporting employee- owned businesses. Matters relating to devolved taxes should be taken forward in tax-specific legislation, with taxpayer and stakeholder consultation, where appropriate, in line with our framework for tax principles. Without that, we risk significant unintended consequences. The Scottish Government is committed to reviewing non-domestic rates policy regularly in order to ensure that the rates system effectively supports our businesses and communities.”
“The Procurement Reform (Scotland) Act 2014, for example, was groundbreaking in imposing on contracting authorities a sustainable procurement duty and a duty to consider community benefits. One of the clear views that came through in the consultation on the bill was that the financial thresholds from which the duties in the 2014 act arose should be reviewed. I am pleased to confirm that a consultation on that issue closed a few weeks ago. The responses are being analysed and will inform any possible use of the secondary powers in that act. Amendments 15, 35 and 36 seek to give a focus and structure to a future review of the approach, taking account of developments such as the review that the European Union has started to undertake of its procurement legislation—much of which, of course, Scotland is aligned with.”
“Ivan McKee: The Government will support Daniel Johnson’s amendments 15, 35 and 36, which incorporate review activity on the recurring process that is attached to the development of the community wealth building statement. Collectively, those amendments will create a single, coherent review mechanism, rather than retaining multiple overlapping requirements. Taken together, the amendments will streamline and consolidate the review requirements in the bill, enabling procurement and community empowerment considerations to be addressed through a single, integrated process that is directly connected to the development of the community wealth building statement. We should not lose sight of the significant work that has already been undertaken in Scotland on procurement.”
“That was also a recommendation from the Scottish Government review on increasing the size of the inclusive and democratic business models sector, which was published in September 2024. Recommendation 17 of the review was a call for the “UK and Scottish Government to explore potential tax relief”. Amendment 11 is simply a call for an exploration of potential tax relief. Lorna Slater: I will comment on Richard Leonard’s amendment 11. The Scottish Greens feel that it is right that businesses pay their taxes fairly—that is one reason why we do not support freeports, for example. There are better ways to support businesses that do not undermine our ability to pay for public services, and I am a bit disappointed that Mr Leonard has made his proposal. The Scottish Greens will be voting against amendment 11.”
“Amendments 15, 35 and 36 have been lodged in co-operation with the Government, which I again thank for its dialogue and for providing handout amendments. They will require the Government, in reviewing community wealth building, to look at the various elements of legislation and at whether those require improvement or amendment in the light of progress on community wealth building. I move amendment 15. Richard Leonard: Amendment 11 calls for the Government to consider business tax reliefs in the year following royal assent. As well as the small business bonus, there are non-domestic rates exemptions for properties that contribute towards net zero targets, for example, so why not have a tax relief for conversions—a right-to-buy tax relief, as there is for crofting communities, for example?”
“The result of the division is: For 20, Against 80, Abstentions 0. Amendment 3 disagreed to. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Group 3 is on reviews. Amendment 15, in the name of Daniel Johnson, is grouped with amendments 35, 36 and 11. Daniel Johnson: Much as I did with the amendments in the previous group, I sought at stage 2 to introduce things that I thought would ensure progress towards community wealth building and looked at whether further means needed to be afforded to enable community wealth building to take place. One concern that emerged at stage 1 was that the bill would provide for the creation of reports but would do little to examine whether we had the legislative process and means to improve communities’ ability to assume control of assets and to improve community wealth building in their areas.”
“The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-20606, in the name of Monica Lennon, on the Ecocide (Scotland) Bill at stage 1. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons. 14:26”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: Question 8 was not lodged, so that concludes portfolio questions on climate action, energy and transport. Before we move to the next item, there will be a brief pause to allow front-bench teams to change. Ecocide (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1”
“I have listened carefully to the cabinet secretary’s comments and she will know that I have been raising this subject for many years. My constituents want to know by what date there will be no more short-formed trains on the line. Fiona Hyslop: As I said in my answer to Murdo Fraser, I know that Annabelle Ewing has consistently and persistently raised that issue. I made the point that May 2026 will see an improvement. The member’s question was specifically about when the end will be. I know from my experience that electrification will help to eliminate short-forming. I am not the train operator and will refer to Transport Scotland and ScotRail to confirm what I have said, but I know from experience that it was electrification that finally ended short-forming on the Glasgow to Edinburgh line.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what the implications of its draft budget 2026-27 are for the provision of a new medical centre for Lochgelly. (S6O-05468)”
“Motion debated, That the Parliament recognises the significant mental health impact that cell therapies such as stem cell transplant and CAR-T can have on patients and their families, not only in Glasgow Anniesland but across Scotland; notes the recommendations in the June 2025 report by the charity, Anthony Nolan, How we can improve the mental health and wellbeing of cell therapy patients, and further notes the view that all those involved in the delivery of cell therapies should commit to working together towards these recommendations to ensure that every patient and family receive the support they deserve. 18:31”
“The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-19950, in the name of Bill Kidd, on the mental health impact of cell therapies. The debate will be concluded without any question being put. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons, and I call Bill Kidd to open the debate.”
“The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-20653, in the name of Murdo Fraser, on saving Scottish hospitality. I invite those members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons, and I call Murdo Fraser to speak to and move the motion. 14:47”
“The next item of business is a statement by Neil Gray on the Scottish hospitals inquiry. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of his statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions. 18:11”
“The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-20628, in the name of Meghan Gallacher, on the Desecration of War Memorials (Scotland) Bill, at stage 1. I call Meghan Gallacher, the member in charge of the bill. 15:35”
“The next item of business is a statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs, Angela Constance, on Scotland’s prison population. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of her statement and so there should be no interventions or interruptions. I remind members that we are quite tight for time this afternoon, and I therefore expect succinct questions and answers to match. I also expect that the statement should last no longer than 10 minutes. 15:05”
“Motion moved, That the Parliament agrees to the following revisions to the programme of business for— (a) Tuesday 3 February 2026— delete followed by Stage 1 Debate: Prostitution (Offences and Support) (Scotland) Bill followed by Stage 1 Debate: Desecration of War Memorials (Scotland) Bill and insert followed by Ministerial Statement: Scotland’s Prison Population followed by Stage 1 Debate: Desecration of War Memorials (Scotland) Bill followed by Stage 1 Debate: Prostitution (Offences and Support) (Scotland) Bill followed by Ministerial Statement: Scottish Hospitals Inquiry delete 5.55 pm Decision Time and insert 6.20 pm Decision Time (b) Thursday 5 February 2026— after followed by Stage 1 Debate: Non-surgical Procedures and Functions of Medical Reviewers (Scotland) Bill insert followed by Financial Resolution: Restraint and Seclusion in Schools (Scotland) Bill— [Graeme Dey.] The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Gillian Mackay.”
“The next item of business is consideration of business motion S6M-20664, in the name of Graeme Dey, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, on changes to business. Any member who wishes to speak to the motion should press their request-to-speak button now.”
“Before we move to the debate on the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill at stage 3, I call Gillian Martin to signify Crown consent to the bill.”
“The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-20579, in the name of Jim Fairlie, on the draft Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products (Fruit and Vegetables) (Miscellaneous Amendment) (Scotland) Regulations 2026. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak button. 16:59”
“The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-20519, in the name of Daniel Johnson, on the Restraint and Seclusion in Schools (Scotland) Bill at stage 1. I invite those members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak button, and I call Daniel Johnson, the member in charge of the bill, to speak to and move the motion. 14:40”
“The next item of business is portfolio question time. The portfolio this afternoon is education and skills. I remind members that questions 2, 4 and 6 are grouped together. I will take supplementaries on those questions after all three have been answered. If a member wishes to ask a supplementary question, they should press their request-to-speak button during the relevant question. Question 1 has not been lodged. Newly Qualified Teachers (Permanent Posts) 2.”
“The next item of business is consideration of business motion S6M-20610, in the name of Graeme Dey, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, on changes to business. Motion moved, after followed by Scottish Government Debate: Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products (Fruit and Vegetables) (Miscellaneous Amendment) (Scotland) Regulations 2026 [draft] insert followed by Stage 3 Proceedings: Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill delete 5.25 pm Decision Time and insert 6.25 pm Decision Time—[Graeme Dey]. Motion agreed to. Portfolio Question Time Education and Skills 14:15”
“Amendment 153 agreed to. Amendment 154 moved—[Finlay Carson]. The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 154 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Deputy Presiding Officer: There will be a division. The vote is closed. We have a point of order from Craig Hoy. Mr Hoy, you have voted, if that is what your point of order is about. Oh—he has gone.”
“For Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP) Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP) Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con) Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP) Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP) Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con) Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP) Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP) Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD) Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP) Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP) Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP) Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP) Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP) Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con) Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP) Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP) FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP) Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con) Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP) Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con) Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP) Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP) Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con) Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP) Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con) MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP) MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP) Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP) Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP) Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP) Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD) McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP) McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP) McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP) McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP) Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP) Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP) Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP) Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP) Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP) Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP) Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP) Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP) Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con) Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con) White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con) Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP) Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) Against Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab) Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab) Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (Ind) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab) The Deputy Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For 89, Against 16, Abstentions 0.”
“Thank you, Ms Harper. Do I take it that you are pressing the amendment? Emma Harper: Yes. The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 153 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Deputy Presiding Officer: There will be a division.”
“To ask the Scottish Government when the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs last met with For Women Scotland to discuss the protection of women’s sex-based rights. (S6O- 05430)”
“The next item of business is portfolio questions. The first portfolio this afternoon is constitution, external affairs and culture, and parliamentary business. I ask those members who are leaving the chamber to do so quietly. Outdoor Arts, Circus and Spectacle Sector (Support) 1.”
“Good afternoon. The first item of business is consideration of business motion S6M- 20599, in the name of Graeme Dey, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, on changes to business. I invite Graeme Dey to move the motion. Motion moved, That the Parliament agrees to the following revisions to the programme of business for Wednesday 28 January 2026— after followed by Scottish Labour Party Debate: The Role of Political Decision Making in NHS Scandals insert followed by First Minister’s Statement: Update on the MV Bella-1 delete 9.30 pm Decision Time and insert 10.00 pm Decision Time—[Graeme Dey.] The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Russell Findlay. 14:00”
“The member will agree that we cannot do deer management without deer managers on the ground who know that they are doing. The proposals that I am putting forward in my amendment will ensure that the deer management community knows that it is being supported and that we have the ability to use venison in our food markets. That is alongside the legislative requirements for people to reduce deer numbers. Mark Ruskell: I understand where the minister is coming from. However, to an extent, the provisions will rework the recommendations of the independent deer working group. Those voices were there in the process and the working group came to its conclusions after a long process. It feels as though the policy is evolving, but I am not 100 per cent sure which way it is going.”
“Amendment 20A would add in the need for population estimates for deer and cull targets, and 20B would ensure that the minister sets out how NatureScot will be funded to meet the requirements of population estimates and cull targets. Putting deer management on the basis that the independent deer working group requested will require provisions that are much more explicit than those that have been laid out in the bill and in the minister’s amendment 20. That is why, as well as providing the option of amendment 98, which is a lot clearer, I also provided the option of amending the minister’s amendment to make it crystal clear what we are talking about. 18:45 Jim Fairlie: I hope that the member understands that we are making sure that we have a balance.”
“Jim Fairlie: I think that the member is mischaracterising what the deer management plan that is set out in the bill will do. It is set out that there will be targets and that NatureScot will have the powers to set them. We are adding to that that we will use venison as a product to be savoured by Scotland rather than seeing deer as a problem. We have to get that balance right. I think that our amendment 20 does that, while the member’s amendment 20A is far too prescriptive. Mark Ruskell: If that is the case—I accept that that is a useful clarification—I do not understand why the minister is not supporting amendments 20A and 20B.”
“I am still a little confused about where the minister’s priorities sit in that respect. There needs to be parity. Deer management is essentially about an ecological decision that needs to be taken to restore nature and to deal with public health issues. It cannot be dependent on the vagaries of a food supply chain market, which is often dominated by supermarkets. I am not clear whether we are in the same territory as the debates that we have had in the chamber on organic food, where there has been a reluctance to increase the scale of the organic sector if it does not meet market demand. I am wary of relying on market demand for venison to drive what should be ecological decisions about protecting and restoring nature.”
“That approach has a very strong public health and ecological basis. I have brought that back as amendment 98, acting in the spirit of the independent deer working group’s report by reflecting its specific proposal and asking members to vote on it. Notwithstanding that, I appreciate the openness that the minister has shown between stage 2 and stage 3. We have had a discussion about the importance of seeing venison and deer as a resource and the need to give greater support to the venison sector. Of course we would like to see venison in more public canteens and local shops and making a contribution there. However, a balance needs to be struck between the aims of having greater oversight of deer management for the purpose of advancing nature restoration and ensuring that there is a growing market for venison.”
“Therefore, I am a little surprised that the minister is saying that it is a one-size-fits-all approach and is not appropriate and that that is really not where we are going. That feels like quite a subtle change in policy and direction for the Government and it begs the question where the independent deer management working group report now sits with the Government. Is the Government continuing to work through those recommendations? Is it adopting recommendation 97, which has already appeared in a programme for government? The purpose of having a national deer management programme is, in effect, to lower deer numbers, to ensure that the population is managed at a level where public health— particularly with regard to road safety and to Lyme disease—is under control and to make sure that impacts on nature restoration are minimised.”
“However, it would clarify the process in the bill, so I am happy to support amendment 140 and I urge members to do the same. I move amendment 20. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Mark Ruskell to move amendment 20A and to speak to the other amendments in the group. Mark Ruskell: I moved an amendment at stage 2 to establish a national deer management programme. The aim of that was to set clear expectations on deer management targets for landowners and to provide strategic direction at a national level. I did not just pull that out of my head—it was a key recommendation of the independent deer working group’s report, which was accepted by the Government in 2021, and in fact, the Government stated in a programme for government that it wanted to deliver that.”
“That already provides the flexibility to engage with those who have practical experience of deer management or those who have a wider interest where that will add value. Making those groups mandatory consultees would, in practice, require a broad public consultation and significantly reduce flexibility. It is better to retain the discretion so that the consultation can be proportionate and targeted. For those reasons, I urge members to vote against amendments 138 and 139. Amendment 140, in the name of Tim Eagle, would make explicit that, when a report on the effectiveness of changes that were made by the bill is laid before Parliament, a copy must be sent to the relevant lead committee. In practice, that already happens whenever a report is laid before Parliament, so the amendment does not materially change the current arrangements.”
“I reassure him that the review will include any provisions that have not been commenced and why that is the case, or indeed any that are in force but have not been relied on. For the reasons that I have set out, I ask the member not to move the amendment and, if he does, I will ask members to vote against it. On amendments 138 and 139, in the name of Edward Mountain, I understand that the desire behind them is to ensure that a wide range of voices are heard when the effectiveness of the changes to deer legislation is reviewed. However, I do not believe that it is helpful to prescribe consultation so tightly in legislation. As the bill is drafted, ministers “must consult” NatureScot and anyone else whom they “consider appropriate”.”