Seòmar agus comataidhean

The Scottish Government has looked at close seasons in other countries in the rest of the UK, which are substantially different from here, and the reasons for those close seasons being in place. As you rightly said, the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission did not consider that changing the close season would make any difference, provided that all high standards of public safety and animal welfare are adhered to. By consulting with the groups that work in this space, we can understand that.

I know that there are some concerns, as raised by Mr Mountain, about the harassing of deer, but that goes back to the expertise and professionalism of stalkers and people undertaking that work. They have deer welfare at heart and if they feel that deer are being distressed or that there are welfare concerns, they should stop that action. I am sure that they would do so, because they have those concerns.

The evidence was considered by the deer working group, which then made the recommendation to us, and we have accepted it. The evidence was analysed by the deer working group.

It will not have to submit those authorisations any more.

I am sorry; the forms are submitted to NatureScot.

I remind the member that, as we have already discussed, all legal requirements for consultation were met. We did everything that we needed to do. In its letter, Scottish Environment LINK praised our efforts to make sure that we had fully engaged stakeholders on the matter.

People who manage their land want to have the choice about how they manage it, and Mr Mountain is correct in saying that some land management organisations are opposed to the removal of the close season for male deer. The instrument does not stop them from continuing to observe a close season. It is up to them to decide whether they wish to continue to do that.

We know that there is a demand from some land managers to manage deer out of season because deer of both sexes cause damage all year round. If managing the male deer is therefore part of handling those issues immediately, they need to be managed. Managing female deer also needs to be looked at, and two of the instruments that we have looked at today also affect female deer.

We have looked at three instruments today, but this one, in particular, is one small part of a larger approach to dealing with the overpopulation of deer, which, at high densities, cause commercial and environmental damage. The number of deer has increased so sharply in the past 30 years that we know that existing practice is simply not good enough and it is not going to get us there. We need to change existing practice. I hope that members will pass the motion to ensure that we remove this unnecessary piece of bureaucracy, so that we can give land managers those choices.

On the point about deer versus hares, as I said when I spoke to Ms Forbes, the big difference between how we manage deer and how we manage other animals is that deer are not under protected conservation status—there are too many of them. There are relatively few hares, so culling hares is a much more serious matter in terms of the survival of the species. Deer are not at any sort of risk. The member has accepted that deer numbers need to come down. The recommendations of the deer working group support that objective, and the Scottish Government is undertaking to enact the recommendations that were made by the independent body on the basis of the evidence that it gathered.

I am distressed that the member suggests that there would be indiscriminate shooting after all the conversations that we have had about how land managers want to manage their deer for good health and how skilled practitioners in the area are concerned about animal welfare. They must have the correct firearms certification and authorisation, as well as deer stalking certificates. We are talking about professionals who undertake important work. It is not right to accuse them of indiscriminate shooting, and I am distressed by that suggestion.

We can all agree that cull numbers need to go up. That might be distasteful to some people, but it is the case and it does, of course, mean that the amount of venison that will be available will also increase. That should be good for our venison market as well as being good for us if we can eat healthy meat nationally. I look forward to working with the venison industry and to helping it to develop in Scotland, because its success will be good for us all.

We do not know how many land managers have been deterred from managing out of season because of the paperwork and administration requirements—

I thank the committee for inviting me along to outline details of our proposed secondary legislation amendments in relation to deer management. They include proposals to amend existing legislation to reduce the minimum ammunition weight used to cull deer, permit the use of night sights to shoot deer and remove male deer close seasons.

We are all aware of the destructive impact that wild deer at high densities can cause to our natural environment through overgrazing, particularly in regenerating woodland, including Scotland’s rainforest. In 2021, we agreed to implement 95 of the 99 deer working group recommendations to modernise deer management systems in Scotland. The proposals before you today are some of the first legislative recommendations to be progressed and are vital in helping us to achieve our deer management aims.

The proposed removal of male close seasons will remove the need for hundreds of out-of-season authorisations to be issued each year to control male deer. That will save land managers time and effort, and it would—

Sorry. I should have said that I have one speaking note. I am happy to keep part of it for the later discussion, if that is helpful.

Authorisations are not given to individuals; they are for a certain circumstance. An authorisation for a night shooting is for a specific set of circumstances—specific dates and specific locations. There are no blanket authorisations for an operator.

If I may, convener, I will respond to Mr Mountain’s final point. As I said earlier, we know from the latest data that we have that 48 per cent of culled male deer—or nearly half—are currently culled out of season. We know that there is demand from some land managers to be able to do that activity out of season, and the legislation that we are proposing merely removes the administrative burden for those who wish to manage their deer in that way.

Of course, anyone who does not wish to manage their deer in that way and who wishes to leave the deer after the rut may do so. What we are proposing is not an obligation.