Seòmar agus comataidhean

NatureScot authorisations require that the people carrying out the shooting under those conditions are properly qualified and are following the best practice guidance. That is the mechanism. When the new best practice guidance is issued, alongside this legislation, it will be up to NatureScot to ensure, through its authorisation mechanisms, that that guidance is followed.

You said that we are requiring people to buy night sights; we are not requiring them to do that. They will now be allowed to use the new technology—

I do not have that information in front of me, but I am happy to write to you with it.

We have met all the legal requirements to consult on the proposals. I can give you the background. The deer working group report, which contained the proposals, was published in 2020. In response to that, prior to publishing our formal response, the Scottish Government met with and sought written responses from key stakeholders, including the Association of Deer Management Groups and Scottish Environment LINK. Since our response to the report was published, in 2021, we have also met representatives, at ministerial and official level, through individual meetings with land management organisations and through groups such as the deer management round table, with some regularity.

Through those conversations, we developed a sound understanding of the stakeholders’ views on issues such as close seasons, which meant that, when we received the responses to our consultation, the views that we received were largely in line with what we already understood. Those are the steps that we have taken to consult on the matter.

Around 18,640 deer are controlled at night, which is about 17 per cent of the deer that are managed. My officials might know the number of land managers who have applied for that.

Absolutely. In 2022, NatureScot did a review into the welfare issues relating to the use of intensifying night sights for the culling of deer at night. The review found no evidence that culling deer at night using thermal imaging technology increased the risk of deer being wounded, and it found that all the deer were humanely dispatched.

NatureScot was clear that the sights offered no significant welfare risks over and above the existing technique of lamping.

That is the same matter. It is covered by NatureScot’s ability to set conditions and inspect the site to ensure that conditions are safe. All shooting requires that the person pulling the trigger has a safe backstop and observes all shooting requirements. That would absolutely cover people, too. It is up to the person pulling the trigger to ensure that they have followed all the safety requirements and that it is safe for them to do so.

The member is absolutely right; I agree that we need to be consistent. Bracken causes some challenges with respect to Lyme disease. Only 2 per cent of the bracken was being managed with Asulox, with 98 per cent being managed in other ways. That means that it is unlikely that the 2 per cent of bracken was making a significant difference to Lyme disease, especially because that bracken was, by definition, in areas that were topographically difficult for people to get to.

Bracken is a challenge and I absolutely understand the severity of the situation with ticks in bracken. Asulox was not solving the problem, which is one that we need to work on together, because we need a steady approach to bracken.

We also do not actually have good evidence, as was highlighted by the review carried out by the James Hutton Institute. We do not have evidence that bracken carries more ticks than other herbage, or evidence on why it might do so—it might be caused by increased deer numbers or by climate change—or why it appears that there are more ticks than there used to be. We just do not have the evidence. That is one piece of work that needs to be done.

To go back to the member’s first question, the James Hutton Institute also brought up the issue of gaps in the evidence about amidosulfuron. It has been used, but there has not been enough experimentation to know whether repeated treatments would be needed or how effective it might be in the long run.

As I said at the start, the James Hutton Institute review identified the gaps in knowledge, one of which is about amidosulfuron, another of which is about ticks. We also do not know about other management mechanisms or about where the bracken is growing, or how fast. Those are all evidence gaps. In the letter that I have promised to send to the committee, I will ensure that we include information about how all those gaps might be filled and about the process for developing a research programme.

Let me be clear that Asulox is not an authorised chemical, but that there is a process by which it has been used. The Bracken Control Group applies for emergency authorisation and, within that application, makes arguments as to why that particular mechanism should be used. The risk of fire is not on the list of arguments, so that would not have been considered, because the HSE was not asked to consider it. If the group wished to include that reason in future applications, the HSE would do that.

The question is really interesting. It is clear that we must manage bracken—I am in no doubt about that. The question is whether Asulox is the right tool to use as part of the authorisation mechanism. That was the question at hand, not the broader question of whether we need to manage bracken, which is something that we all agree on.

That has not been done in relation to the detections in Scotland in the past few years, because most of them have been residual and below the level that is a safety concern. There has been just one incident when the figure was above that level. Scottish Water has worked to manage that. There is no suggestion of undertaking a large trial, which would require us to put Asulam into the landscape.