Seòmar agus comataidhean

This measure is one piece of a much broader programme of work that the deer working group identified. The measure on its own will not help us to achieve the results that we need, but it is one piece of the puzzle that has been recommended to us, so I recommend it to you all as something that was proposed by the deer working group, based on its evidence. It allows land managers to do something that they are already doing, but with less paperwork. It gives them the choice, as part of our measures to increase the number of deer that are culled in Scotland, which we know that we need to do because of the growth in numbers.

If we were to continue to allow its use, yes. It is with the manufacturer to bring forward its evidence. One reason why the emergency authorisation was rejected is that the manufacturer has been repeatedly asked to show the evidence that the product does not have that effect. If it can provide that information, and, as Rachael Hamilton said, it intends to do that research and share its evidence, that is fine. Once it does so, the matter can be reconsidered.

All these measures are intended to make it easier to manage deer, and part of that involves giving land managers more tools to do so. This measure is part of the kit to allow that to happen.

As one measure on its own, it will not achieve that—it is part of the whole picture and is, relatively, such a small piece of the puzzle. It removes one bit of the administrative burden as part of a large programme and that is how it needs to be pictured. It may well increase the number of land managers who choose to manage in that way.

The cull return information that NatureScot gets will be the same as it gets now—that is unchanged.

That is correct.

That is to be decided. The James Hutton Institute provided an evidence review that identified all the gaps, which is now with the Scottish Government to think about how we want to move that forward. At the round table last week, we discussed the research priorities. I have committed to writing to the committee about how we intend to take forward that research.

That is an excellent question. The work of the deer working group was primarily around concerns about what the deer are nibbling on. Those concerns are partly commercial, relating to crops and forestry, but they are also environmental. Overgrazing causes environmental and commercial problems, which is why we need to address the overall deer numbers.

The member touches on the point that the legislation will not solve the whole problem on its own. The working group made 99 recommendations and this single, relatively minor change to the paperwork that is needed to manage male deer out of season will not resolve the problem by itself. However, it is a small step towards that. It is one tool that we can use to support land managers to do what they already want to do. We know that some land managers wish to manage their deer in that way, and the instrument means that they will be able to do so without the paperwork. It is nice to be able to remove a paperwork burden where we can. Where our interests align, in that land managers want this option and the Scottish Government wishes to update deer management, it is a good thing that we are able to do that.

It is unknown how many land managers would wish to manage their deer that way over and above what is currently being done. The percentage of male deer that are shot out of season has gradually increased from 23 per cent in 2013 to 48 per cent between 2019 and 2020—almost a 5 percentage point increase per year. Therefore, even with the current authorisation requirement, there has been a steady year-on-year increase in the number of land managers who wish to manage their deer in that way. I cannot predict how many more land managers might wish to take up the option. The number might increase, but we will, to some extent, have to wait and see. Given that such a significant proportion of deer are already being managed in that way, land managers clearly have an appetite for it.

I do not have that information in front of me.

Forestry and Land Scotland has to prepare the authorisation forms and send them in. NatureScot then has to process them. The forms are never declined; they are always accepted, so there is no need for that step to be taken.