Seòmar agus comataidhean

The intention of the SSI is to allow the use of the additional technology that we have mentioned. As you suggest, using the lamping technique might not be everyone’s preference, and the change opens up the possibility of using night sights.

It should be noted that that means that the sights can be used during the day, too—that is currently not allowed—which is an additional tool for the land managers, who will have that option should they wish to use it.

I do not have that data in front of me.

I am afraid that the member is not accurate in what she has said. The SSI does not require the use of night sights; it allows the use of night sights.

The SSI that will be passed today allows the use of the equipment. We know that 17 per cent of the deer that are culled in Scotland are culled at night, so we know that people wish to do that. If they wish to cull deer at night, they may now do so using sights. That is the change to the legislation. We are not requiring anyone to manage deer in that way, and we are not requiring them to use any particular equipment. We are merely opening up the option should they wish to do that.

With regard to the fit and competent test, the fit test relates to someone having a certificate to be able to use firearms, and the competent test relates to someone holding the correct deer stalking certificate and the correct authorisations from NatureScot. Those matters are unchanged. Of course, the authorisation will be in line with the new guidance that NatureScot will issue on using the equipment safely.

I think that Rachael Hamilton has misunderstood. The SSI does not require anything of anyone. It just allows the equipment to be used should people wish to do so.

Two different sets of tests were carried out. There was a review of welfare issues using image-intensifying rifle sights for culling deer at night. I do not know what ammunition was used for that testing. There was separate testing on the use of copper bullets. That testing looked extensively at where the animal was hit and whether it was still possible to dispatch the animal humanely. Both of those tests have been done.

Scotland’s chief veterinary officer was one of the members of the deer management round table.

I want to make it really clear that night shooting requires an authorisation from NatureScot. The authorisation requires that the good practice guidelines be met and that NatureScot is allowed to come and see the site where the night shooting will take place and even to accompany the practitioners when they do that. That is unchanged—night shooting requires that special authorisation.

We know that there is demand for this move because, as I said, 17 per cent of the animals that are culled are shot at night. The need for authorisation will not change: night shooting will still require that special authorisation and special oversight from NatureScot. Again, the legislation does not make night shooting a requirement. People who wish to manage their deer at night may now use these new technologies—that is what has changed. It is a new option open to land managers, should they wish to use it. They are absolutely not required to do so, but if they do, they will be required to obtain the correct authorisation from NatureScot.

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.

It is 48 per cent for male deer.

I would not want the member to think that shooting deer from helicopters is part of standard deer management practice at all. We support deer management in Scotland in various ways. We have heard about the money that Forestry and Land Scotland invests to protect those lands. The key mechanism for the management of deer by land managers is the deer management groups in which several land holdings get together and come to an agreement on how to manage deer, because they move between land holdings. The purpose of those agreements is to allow the land managers to decide what the right number of deer is and how they want to manage them. The association of those deer management groups has been part of the gathering of the evidence base.

NatureScot has been involved in on-going efforts to manage deer, including siting and installing fencing and making sure that fencing is marked so that it does not hinder capercaillie or other ground-nesting birds that may fly into the fences and be injured. The management of deer is a comprehensive project that is undertaken by NatureScot as well as land and forestry managers.

It may be of interest to the member to know that, way back in 1959, the Deer (Scotland) Act 1959 was introduced with the intention of reducing the impact of red deer on forestry and agriculture. We think that, since then, red deer numbers have doubled twice—between 1959 and 1990, and between 1990 and now. The existing deer management measures that are in place have not succeeded in the aim, as set out in 1959, of managing those pressures. Deer numbers have been increasing, which is why the Scottish Government asked the deer working group—an independent body—to come to us with some new suggestions. What was happening was not working. That is where the 99 suggestions came from, and we are discussing the first three as part of a legislative programme for updated deer management.