The Rural Affairs and Islands Committee published their Stage 1 Report on the Natural Environment Bill. We have summarised the sections relating to deer management in the table below.
The Scottish Countryside Alliance agree that implementing compulsory training for deer managers and recreational stalkers is a positive step. This will allow deer management to be carried out ethically, with the highest levels of animal welfare, and guaranteeing a quality food product that should be recognised internationally.
We are concerned about the fact that some elements of the Bill will not be fully determined until the revised Deer Code is published, after the Bill has been passed. Elements linked to the definition of the duty “to safeguard the public interest”, and we also have some issue with the increased powers being proposed for NatureScot under section 6ZB. This would introduce new grounds for intervention related to nature restoration. What exactly does nature restoration encompass, and will it erode the trust of the voluntary deer management sector? Again, this factor will be addressed in the revised deer code.
We have produced a table showing what the Bill proposes and comments from the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee for each provision related to deer management. The full Stage 1 report is available here.
Provision / Theme |
What the Bill proposes |
Committee’s key observations / recommendations |
| Aims and purposes of deer management | The Bill seeks to restate and expand the statutory aims of deer management to include a duty “to safeguard the public interest” in relation to deer. | The Committee supports adding a public interest aim but flags the need for clarity and a definition on what “public interest” encompasses in practice. This definition should be contained within the Code of Practice for Deer Management (Deer Code). |
| Grounds for intervention (including nature restoration) | In addition to existing grounds (e.g. damage, danger to public), the Bill introduces a new ground: intervention where deer impede nature restoration—i.e. affecting projects or natural processes that restore or enhance the environment. | The Committee welcomed this additional ground as potentially helpful but cautioned that it should not erode voluntary approaches to deer management. They urged the Scottish Government to ensure the detail (in e.g. a deer code) is transparent, proportionate, and subject to parliamentary scrutiny. |
|
Investigatory powers (Sections 21-23) |
The Bill would strengthen NatureScot’s powers to conduct investigations into deer management and compliance. The notice period for entry on to land for certain purposes to be reduced from 14 to 5 working days. | The Committee requested further clarity on safeguards, cost, and proportionality of such powers, especially how they will be used in practice. |
|
Authorisations / specified activities (Sections 24-31) |
The Bill introduces a regime under which certain deer-related activities (e.g. shooting with a shotgun) would require authorisation from NatureScot, linked to the intervention grounds. The Bill also introduces offences for non-authorised actions. | The Committee raised concerns about how “fit and competent” will be assessed, the balance of enforcement and support, and the risk of over-regulation for deer managers. They also emphasised that authorisations should only be used when justified by the intervention grounds. |
| Repeal of the Venison Dealer Licence (VDL) (Section 33) | The Bill proposes to remove the requirement for a separate licence for venison dealers. | The Committee recommended maintaining traceability and oversight in the venison supply chain during transition, to avoid gaps in food safety and market regulation. Recommended that the VDL is retained until NatureScot’s new national deer app has been fully rolled out across the country. |
| Impacts on landholding / tenant farms | The Bill’s new or expanded intervention powers could affect how large‐scale landholdings and tenanted farms manage deer, especially where land is contiguous and deer move across boundaries. | The Committee emphasised the importance of ensuring that the burden on farmers and tenants is fair, and that interventions consider shared deer impacts across neighbouring properties. |