Seòmar agus comataidhean

I have one more supplementary question, convener.

Are you convinced that the SSPCA will have the resources to do this? After all, it is pulling out of Caithness; it is closing its premises in the area and is not providing services for abandoned animals, and that makes me somewhat concerned about the resources that it has. Are you clear that this will not impact on other services that it provides to the community as a charity?

Could you tell us a wee bit more about what training will be given to make sure that cases do not fall? The collection of evidence is crucial for court cases. What training will be given to ensure that the evidence is collected in a way that would stand up in a court case?

Mary Ramsay and others stand ready to present to the committee, and I think that that would be powerful. She has had deep brain stimulation and is not eligible for the new treatment because of that. However, others are willing to give evidence, so you would see the contrast and hear the different experiences that people have faced. It would be powerful for the committee to hear that. The petition has been running for some time, so those who gave evidence previously did so to a previous Parliament and committee. It would be good for members of this committee to hear that evidence, so I very much back Mary Ramsay’s proposal.

It is really frustrating, because we thought that we were there. We have the machine in Scotland, and there are individual patient applications to get the treatment in Scotland, but we are still stalled in relation to the treatment becoming available to all as par for the course. I do not totally understand what happened in NHS Tayside. The stage 1 application was put in, but something delayed or prevented the stage 2 application from going in. I do not understand that, given that the equipment and staff are there already.

I wonder whether the committee would write to the chief executive of NHS Tayside to find out what happened and whether it stands ready to make a substantial application at the next round, which, I understand, is next year. It might also be helpful if the committee could write again to the national services division to clarify the timescale for applications—when it would need applications—so that we are all clear as to what is required to get this as an NHS treatment in Scotland as in the rest of the United Kingdom.

Those are the two things that I recommend, and I back Mary Ramsay’s offer for her and others to give evidence to the committee, because I think that that would be really helpful.

I hope that the rest of the day is like that. [Laughter.]

The less heating they need to use, the better.

We all know that the cost of living is much higher for island communities—it can be 20 to 65 per cent higher than for those on the mainland, even during good times—and we also know that the level of fuel poverty is higher in the islands and the Western Isles. Shetland Islands Council told us that the rate of fuel poverty there is running at something like 96 per cent and that people need to earn more than £100,000 to lift themselves out of fuel poverty—which is nigh on impossible. That is as much because of climate change and the quality of the housing stock as it is because of the cost of fuel, which obviously also plays a part.

Other members have asked about housing. How confident is the cabinet secretary that programme money is being spent in a way that tackles the issues that are important to Highland communities?

That would be helpful. Perhaps you could provide some information on how we can install insulation in those homes, because people cannot switch off their heating over the summer. We hear of people being encouraged to switch off heating to save energy, but you cannot switch off the heating in those climates.

Do you agree with the proposed scheme and that the powers in the bill are required, given that there are powers in the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 to require a registration scheme?

Deer are a healthy food source; the meat is nutritious and it has a low carbon impact. However, given the way that deer are dealt with out of season, they are not going into the food chain. We have heard reports that deer are being left to rot on the hill. I am not convinced that the Scottish Government has pursued every possible solution to the problem by holding land managers responsible for managing their deer numbers in a way that allows the deer to go into the food chain.

We know that deer fences keep them out and that it is possible for people to manage deer numbers on their land down to zero—or as close to that as possible, as one or two will always get across—if they want to. If someone has a deer fence and they manage their numbers, they can manage the deer properly. Can we assess whether all those options have been used before we use the nuclear option of killing deer willy-nilly at any point?

I absolutely get that we need to manage deer numbers and protect the environment, but deer numbers being allowed to get out of control seems to be a recent phenomenon. Given the number of licences that are being applied for, which is why you are putting forward the SSI, what steps has NatureScot taken to encourage land managers to manage their deer numbers?

We have all heard of contract killing coming in to manage deer numbers, almost against the will of some land managers. We hear stories about deer being shot from helicopters and obscene things like that going on. What does NatureScot do when such contracts are let out to manage deer numbers? How does it encourage those land managers to manage their deer properly in season?