Red Deer (Rum)
The final item of business today is a members' business debate on motion S2M-5492, in the name of Jamie McGrigor, on Rum's red deer. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes that the red deer is an iconic part of the image of Scotland; further notes that, because of its isolation, the red deer herd on Rum has arguably the purest bloodline in the country and has been the subject of scientific research, and considers that Scottish Natural Heritage's plan to cull Rum's red deer solely to protect the trees that it has decided to plant on the island without any protective fencing is to be condemned.
I am grateful to the BBC's "Landward" programme for alerting the public to the subject of this debate. The programme is a great champion and watchdog of rural stewardship and a great credit to the BBC. I am also grateful to the many people who have sent letters and e-mails, and to the academics Professor Tim Clutton-Brock from Cambridge, Jo Pemberton from Edinburgh and Steve Alban from Aberdeen for their invaluable information on the deer project and the natural environment on the isle of Rum.
Let us make no mistake. The subjects of this debate—the island of Rum and the herds of red deer living there—are national treasures and an important part of Scotland's natural heritage. I am not alone in saying that. I represent a large number of people who have written letters and e-mails because they have been horrified by the suggestion that Scottish Natural Heritage might cull the red deer herd on Rum from its present level of 1,200 to 1,300 animals down to a population of 300 to 400.
The reason that SNH gives for the proposed cull is to regenerate trees in Rum without using appropriate fencing. It is using the basis of four deer per square kilometre, which would be a tiny stocking density compared with the current figure. That would be a calamity. Remembering that Rum is publicly owned, I maintain, along with many others, that that flawed policy will result in a very low regeneration of trees at the expense of the destruction of the most important red deer herd in Scotland, which is a vitally important asset.
The herd has been the subject of a 35-year research project, sometimes referred to as the Kilmory project. The findings will increase in importance because they will be of huge value in monitoring the effects of climate change and global warming on a group of mammals on which there is already such a databank of knowledge. No other deer herd in the world has been monitored to such an extent, and it would be an act of extreme folly and—dare I say—ecological vandalism to destroy or harm in any way the subjects of such an important scientific project. The red deer herd on Rum has never been infiltrated by sika deer, which is most unusual in Scotland. It is remarkably pure.
As I have said, there are between 1,200 and 1,300 deer now on Rum. They have already been culled from the 1,600 that were there some time ago. In the north block, which is the research area, there are 300 deer, and most of our current understanding of the ecology of red deer in Scotland is based on the research done in the north block over the past 35 years. For the past 30 years, all 300 deer using the north block have been individually identified and their reproductive success or failure and their longevity and condition have been closely monitored.
SNH talks about overgrazing on Rum, but where is the evidence of that? Who says that there is overgrazing? A leading British expert on grazing ecology, Professor Michael Crawley, has been to examine the ground, and he disagrees with SNH's assessment. The number of deer remains constant and healthy, which is not a situation consistent with overgrazing, and there is certainly no evidence of any reduction in the diversity of plant species in the north block.
Professor Steve Albon of Aberdeen, who has studied Rum for 30 years, is adamant that there is very rich flora on Rum but that it is short, rather than rank and overgrown—perhaps the difference between stubble and a beard. The plants can obviously cope with the present grazing level.
Professor Albon reminded me that there has been continuous research on Rum since 1957, when the island was taken into public ownership. This year is the golden jubilee of its status as a true open-air laboratory. He said that the knowledge of managing red deer that has been gained from the project was internationally acclaimed to be of enormous importance and that there was still a great deal to be learned about the reaction of red deer to climate change.
People like to watch red deer. That was amply shown by the huge popularity of the BBC's "Autumnwatch" programme with Bill Oddie and Kate Humble. The programme brought images of red deer into many people's living rooms, and they were delighted and excited by the natural behaviour of such magnificent, beautiful and intelligent creatures. It is not surprising that people worry about the fate of hero stags such as Maximus, Brutus and Caesar, and would be appalled by their slaughter. What reasons would SNH give the public for why any such slaughter is necessary? What would be the value of it?
I would like to think that another Executive body—VisitScotland—has noted the popularity of the Rum deer on "Autumnwatch" and is planning to promote an obvious Scottish tourism opportunity rather than allowing it to be rubbed out. That would be joined-up thinking.
Rum is an exceptional place. It lies within the red deer refuge, which, I remind members, was created in 1999 by a variation to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The refuge also includes the outer Hebrides, Islay, Jura and Arran, but it is hardly a refuge if slaughter takes place.
Rum is also the nesting home of one third of the world's population of Manx shearwaters and many other huge colonies of different sea birds. It was also the launch pad for the reintroduction of sea eagles into Scotland.
Since the two "Landward" programmes and the furore that has followed on the Rum issue, both Scottish Executive answers to my written questions, and a reply from Ian Jardine of SNH to my letters, have indicated a more conciliatory approach to killing the deer on Rum. I am very glad of this apparent softening of attitude, and I cautiously thank them for listening. As SNH moves into planning its policy for the next 10 years, I respectfully implore it to work hand in hand with those running the continuing deer project. That project must go on for another 35 years—at least.
One letter that I received from a constituent in Wester Ross asked:
"Why can't SNH fence their trees like everybody else?"
That is the key point. There are no capercaillie or black game on Rum, so that old argument is not relevant. SNH could use conventional deer fences or the new electric fence system that the Scottish Gamekeepers Association would be only too happy to show it. That fence system is lower than a normal stock fence, but extremely effective. It is best to have circular plantations and to build jump-outs so that deer that are trapped inside a plantation can be driven out.
Any significant cull of the deer on Rum will ruin the deer project, because the figures on which the deer monitoring calculations have been done will no longer be constant.
It is quite possible for this famous red deer herd to live in sustainable co-existence with a tree regeneration programme. However, it will be necessary to use appropriate fencing to achieve results that are good for both projects and good value for the public.
The island of Rum contains one of the oldest-known sites of human habitation in Scotland and it was not so long ago that it had a population of well over 400. In the 19th century, the cousin of the laird, Dr Lachlan Maclean, discovered that he could increase the island's rental value from £300 per annum to £800 by substituting sheep for people and about 400 souls were forcibly repatriated from Rum as a result. Today, the population of the island is very small. The matters that Jamie McGrigor has raised focus on another sad chapter in the beleaguered history of Rum.
I support the motion and congratulate Jamie McGrigor on it, because I know that the proposed cull has caused a great deal of concern among a wide spectrum of people—it is wrong to say that the objections were stimulated by any one body. SNH's plans for a deer cull go well beyond what is reasonable. One is reminded of the slaughter of deer at Glenfeshie not so very long ago, which stimulated an outrage. Glenfeshie and Rum are both in my constituency and I am well aware of the strong emotions that are aroused. The fact that the deer is a symbol of Scotland has been brought home to a great many more people by the "Landward" programme. The idea that that animal, uniquely, should be subject to state slaughter seems to be at odds with the approach to animal welfare issues that is adopted with every other species. It seems that deer is not only the unprotected species, but the species that is picked out for state slaughter by SNH, with the connivance of the Executive and other state agencies. Quite frankly, that is simply wrong and I welcome the opportunity that the debate gives us to say so.
The policy of not fencing forestry is misconceived and has been shown to fail. A recent expert report has highlighted that the conventional wisdom that is apparent among Deer Commission for Scotland and SNH ranks, according to which deer are the source of the problems on our landscape and our hills and the cause of overgrazing, is incorrect. Sheep and cattle have been found to be the main contributing factors. Any justification for the slaughters that have taken place has been removed by that recent report, which—we are told—was not published until it had been peer reviewed.
I hope that SNH will change tack. Along with others, I raised the issue with Andrew Thin, who is the chairman of SNH. He replied stating that the deer cull this winter would be a normal maintenance cull—in other words, deer would be culled only to maintain a steady population. He said that he could not predict future culls until there had been proper consultation on the new management plan, but that SNH would most certainly involve local people and all other interests in the process and would certainly make public the results.
SNH's plans for forestry on Rum were put forward as part of a woodland grant scheme, which, initially, proposed blankets of forestation. I am informed by someone who was close to the situation that SNH then discovered something that one would have thought that it would have known—that a certain conservation designation applied, which stopped them from planting pine trees over the bogland that covers most of the island. In other words, SNH was aware that its own plans were incompetent because of the designation that applied to part of the land. It is a pretty rich irony that SNH, which is supposed to be in charge of designations, was apparently not aware of the consequences of a designation for its own forestry plans. The plans had to be changed.
The real victims are the community of Rum. There should have been two plans for Rum: on forestry and on community development. SNH has been supposed to promote community and social development on the island since around 1997, but since then people have left Rum, an uninsured house has burned down and not been replaced, businesses have been stymied and the efforts of people such as Charles King—and Andrew Thin, before he became chairman of SNH—have come to nothing.
The problem is that SNH has control over the island—Rum is a company island. I wrote to Ross Finnie to suggest that that should change, because SNH was set up not to control islands but to advise on the environment and natural heritage, but he dismissed my suggestion out of hand. Since then, more people have left the island and the community is insecure. It would be unfair to name people who live on the island, because there are so few of them, so I have chosen not to do so.
The situation is a bloody tragedy for Scotland and the Executive has turned a blind eye to it. This most recent chapter in Rum's history is a sad one. The proposal for a cull has aroused anger, because it is not supported by the people of Scotland or by the experts. The advice of people who know about the subject, such as the Scottish Gamekeepers Association, has been consistently ignored, despite the fact that I suspect that SGA members have more knowledge of the Highlands' red deer population in the tips of their fingers than have all the so-called experts who are in charge.
I hope that there will be a chance for a new start in May, so that we can listen to the experts and say no to the proposals for the cull of red deer. Jamie McGrigor was right to highlight the issue.
As Jamie McGrigor said, the red deer on the island of Rum are a unique breed. Extensive culling of the deer population, as is proposed, would be a retrograde step.
There is a regular annual cull of hinds and stags on Rum, which are selected by professional, experienced stalkers. The herd has been maintained at an appropriate and manageable level, which has protected the natural environment for many decades, as anyone who visits the magnificent island of Rum can see.
However, there is a mistaken perception, which is constantly voiced and enthusiastically promoted by conservation groups—or people who would have us believe that they represent conservation groups—that, unless we accept their advice, our countryside will be destroyed and our natural environment will be irreparably damaged. What nonsense. During the past decade, we have been bombarded by reports of a vast increase in the red deer population in rural Scotland, which many members will remember culminated in the indiscriminate and disgraceful mass slaughter of red deer at Glenfeshie. That cull went ahead very much against the wishes of the local people and in particular the local estate.
The evidence is that deer numbers have not increased. The fact is that, as a result of a great expansion in cultivated and natural regeneration in rural Scotland, large areas of red deer habitat have been fenced off. That has resulted in concentrations of deer in areas where they were not normally seen previously, foraging for their food in areas that are strange to them because their natural habitat has been fenced off. That gives the mistaken impression that the deer population has increased when, in fact, the reverse is true.
The island of Rum has undertaken an annual cull, which has been executed professionally by experienced gamekeepers to ensure that a sustainable balance has been maintained between the animals and their environment. I urge the Scottish Executive to intervene, at an early date, to prohibit any suggestion of a mass cull of red deer on Rum. We should allow the professional gamekeepers to continue their deer management on Rum, as they have successfully done for many decades. If that is allowed to happen, we may continue to enjoy the sight of these magnificent animals in their natural surroundings—which, on the island of Rum, can be described only as unique and magnificent.
I thank Jamie McGrigor for bringing this topic to Parliament. I am sure that many of us have received e-mails and letters from people—not just from the Highlands and Islands—who are concerned about the issue.
Culling is always an emotive issue as well as a complex one, and it is important in any debate to be clear about the reasons for discussing the matter in the first place. The minutes of the SNH north areas board meeting of 22 February say:
"the key priority for the reserve is to bring back into favourable condition the open upland and grassland habitats that are of international … importance. In order to achieve this, a reduction in grazing pressure is essential – regardless of tree planting and the pros and cons of deer fences."
Jamie McGrigor's point about pure bloodlines has some merit. Due to the isolation of deer on Rum, cross-breeding with sika deer is not the problem that it is on the mainland. Also, as the motion makes clear, the Rum deer population has been studied extensively and the resultant greater understanding is of benefit not just to estate managers but to rural communities as a whole and to academics.
The red deer is an iconic image of Scotland. It is telling that the subject of Landseer's famous painting, "Monarch of the Glen", is depicted against a backdrop of what we now call deer forest—a bare, denuded hillside that has been degraded by trampling and overgrazing. Admittedly, much of that is dependent on the eye of the beholder. In a previous debate, Mr McGrigor described our historic landscape as
"jungle that our ancestors painstakingly cleared".—[Official Report, 7 October 2004; c 11103.]
I ask him to consider our magnificent woodlands as well as our rich agricultural land, for which we are indebted to our predecessors.
Landseer's monarch is, indeed, a royal stag bearing 12 points. However, with the benefit of scientific research—much of it conducted on Rum—we now know that the beast is, in some respects, as degraded as the habitat to which red deer have had to adapt. Historically, red deer were a good third larger than the beasts that we see nowadays and boasted up to 22 points on their antlers.
Red deer are naturally woodland animals. Eighty per cent of mainland European red deer live in woodlands and they are significantly larger than their Scottish counterparts. Rum is, in some respects, a naturally wooded island, although one from which both woodlands and deer have, at times in its history, been eradicated altogether by human activity. Pollen analyses from the peat cores, along with historical records, indicate the presence of mixed woodlands, and Rum was described as "wooded" as late as the 17th century. Rum still has some wooded areas. The deer in those areas are larger than their open-hill counterparts. Mr McGrigor might be interested to note—again, from the SNH north areas board meeting—that the deer in the area that has been identified for planting in the coming spring are at a low density, with no further reduction required.
So where does that lead us? Red deer are naturally woodland animals and Rum is naturally in part a woodland island. Contrary to what the motion says, the proposed cull is not solely to protect trees, so I cannot support the motion. Nevertheless, I commend Jamie McGrigor's endorsement of the research that has been conducted on Rum and his call for caution in planning a far-reaching species and habitat management programme. I will listen with interest to what the deputy minister has to say in her concluding remarks about the direction of this programme of management.
I, too, congratulate Jamie McGrigor on securing this members' business debate. Given the wide public debate on and media interest in the matter, it is appropriate that members are able to raise their concerns with us.
Very difficult situations can arise when nature conservation objectives come into conflict. The situation on Rum is a classic example of that, and I feel that the review of SNH's management plan, which will take place later this year, will be the best place for the debate on how to manage and meet the different concerns with regard to the proposals for the island.
Before the debate, I discussed the matter with the chair of SNH, Andrew Thin, who assured me that the organisation will be open and inclusive in its approach to the review of the management plan, with the aim of balancing the reasonable objectives of different interests while meeting SNH's legal obligations.
Will the minister give way?
No. I confess that I was tempted to intervene on the member's speech but, at this point, I would rather keep going.
I urge all colleagues to make their constituents aware of the forthcoming consultation so that they can make their views known.
I have also secured an assurance from the chair of SNH that there are no plans for a reduction cull this year. However, there are plans for a maintenance cull similar to those in previous years to ensure that there is an appropriate number of deer on Rum. I hope that that reassures those involved in the important research that is being carried out on the island—which is what prompted Jamie McGrigor's motion—and those who have raised their concerns with the members who have spoken this evening.
With regard to the number of deer on Rum, Andrew Thin, in an e-mail to the Scottish Gamekeepers Association dated 25 May 2005, said that he was not sure why stalking had been lost
"as there have been good numbers of deer on Rum for decades without threatening any of the designations".
Why has he changed his tune since becoming chairman of SNH?
I will come on to that. I spoke to Andrew Thin yesterday, so my information about SNH's current plans is up-to-date.
I want to concentrate on why Rum was designated a protected island, the implementation of the management plan, and the long-standing research that is being carried out on Rum. As colleagues have observed, the red deer on Rum are not native to the island, but were reintroduced in 1845 after having become extinct. Since that time, they have been in a refuge and, as a result of that and the fact that they are protected from interbreeding with red-sika hybrids, we have been able to study the long-term development of one of our most iconic species.
As colleagues have said, there are other refuges in the outer Hebrides as well as on Arran, Islay and Jura, and most of Britain's estimated population of one third of a million are to be found in the Highlands and Islands. Getting the number of deer in a given area right depends on an assessment of the number of deer the area can support. While I was preparing for this debate, I found it interesting to examine SNH's 10-year management plan, which was approved before the Parliament was created and was intended to ensure the effective management of nature conservation on the island. I am told that it was assumed in 1998 that the number of deer would be brought down to a much lower level than is currently the case. Over the years, SNH has carried out a maintenance cull to keep deer numbers at the current level of 1,200 animals.
Colleagues have talked about the problems with deer. There are no natural predators on the island and culling is the most important means of controlling them. If there are too many, there will not be enough food and real problems will arise, as has happened in other parts of Scotland.
Will the minister take an intervention?
I might take an intervention later.
Deer influence the composition and structure of vegetation. That has to be managed by those who are looking after the features on the island.
It is important to put it on record that SNH has to deliver effective management of Rum to meet a range of objectives. Notwithstanding Fergus Ewing's antipathy to SNH's involvement on Rum, that is its job. Surveys have shown that the national and European designated habitat features on the island are in an unfavourable condition because of trampling and overgrazing by deer. SNH has a statutory responsibility to avoid deterioration on the island. A small number of feral goats live on the island, but the Macaulay Institute research Fergus Ewing quoted is not relevant in this case because we know there is a problem to be addressed.
More detailed survey and monitoring work to assess the nature and scale of deer impacts is currently being discussed to inform the best way forward. That is where the suggestion of a reduction cull has come from. However, I want to repeat Andrew Thin's assurance that there will be no more than a maintenance cull this year.
SNH is in discussion with the University of Cambridge and the University of Edinburgh about the management of the herds on Rum and about their scientific research. SNH will take their comments into account in its consultation.
I want to correct the suggestion that Jamie McGrigor and Fergus Ewing made, that the only reason there are discussions on plans to cull deer on Rum is to protect the trees that SNH has decided to plant without any protective fencing. The issue is much more complex. SNH is trying to protect a range of habitat features. The consultation on the management plan will have to look into all the issues.
I am told that SNH is planting trees without using deer fences because of the landscape impacts, the restrictions on the movements of deer, interference with public access, and the logistical difficulties with large-scale fencing operations. The latter is a particular problem on Rum, which has remote and difficult terrain.
No—
I am sorry. Fergus Ewing may disagree, but that is what I have been told.
Has Sarah Boyack ever been to Rum?
Yes, I have been to Rum.
Some additional tree planting will take place this year in line with the current management plan. That will be done in areas where deer density is currently low—in the east and south-east of the island, and not in the north.
I am happy to take an intervention from Jamie McGrigor now.
Thank you. The terrain on Rum is no more difficult than lots of places on the mainland. There are several ways of building fences. There is conventional fencing; there is electric fencing, which can be powered by wind turbines if necessary; and there is fencing that locks together and can be moved to another plantation once the first one has grown up. I therefore do not understand SNH's argument about refusing to use fences. That is the key to the issue.
There is no suggestion that SNH is refusing to use deer fences around plantations. It is avoiding them because of landscape impacts, hindrance to recreational access, interference with the movements of deer and logistical difficulties. I am happy to get SNH to write to Jamie McGrigor, but I am told that, because Rum is an island and because of its nature, it is particularly difficult to get equipment there and then around the island.
Rum is a wonderful place. It is host to a range of important plant species and to birdlife—and it is a refuge for red deer. In consideration of a future management plan, all those issues will have to be weighed up.
We have focused on deer tonight, but the points that Mark Ruskell made also have to be taken into account. There are many key features on Rum, which is why it was designated a protected island. There is birdlife; upland, coastal and aquatic habitats worthy of protection; special areas of conservation; sites of special scientific interest; and a range of species that are nationally scarce. Many issues of management of species and habitats arise. The deer have to be part of the discussion, but they are not the only issue that SNH has to consider.
The part of the motion that I very much agree with is that red deer are an asset and are iconic to Scotland. They are valued by all concerned. They will continue to be an integral part of Rum for years to come.
I invite colleagues to ensure that they are in dialogue with SNH. When the consultation on the management plan comes round, SNH will be willing to listen to people's comments. I hope that it will be a constructive process. SNH is willing to listen.
Meeting closed at 16:49.