I just want to make the point to Mr Mountain that I held a licence for a heavy rifle for a number of years, but not one bullet ever went through that rifle to shoot a deer. I had not had any training, and yet I had a licence to go out and shoot deer because I held a firearms licence. I absolutely accept the fact that we have stalkers on the hill who have been doing this for many years and who have probably gone through their DSC1. The likelihood is that they will be fit and competent. However, there will be many people who have a licence who might never have shot a deer or had any training whatsoever. Does that not emphasise the point that I made to Mr Eagle that, with regard to our building confidence in a market for venison across the country, having the register of fit and competent persons will give the public the assurance that they are buying a product that is produced to the highest of standards?

Will the member accept that we are doing the consultation to work out what the issues will be, but that that does not change the fact that we want a register of fit and competent people who are taking deer out in Scotland?

I will start with Tim Eagle’s amendments 215 to 217. I am not sure that I understand why Tim Eagle is seeking to amend the bill in that way. At various points in the stage 1 debate, Mr Eagle outlined that he thought that the powers that NatureScot had were broad and too vague. His amendments do not seem to add any clarity to NatureScot’s aims, purposes and functions under the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996 but rather seek to limit the functions of NatureScot in achieving the sustainable deer management that we are all looking for.

We have seen significant expansion of deer and growth in their number since the late 1950s, and changes need to be made if we are going to make an impact on their populations. The changes to NatureScot’s aims, purposes and functions under the 1996 act were recommended by the deer working group.

Furthermore, the committee’s stage 1 report agreed with the changes to section 1 of the 1996 act that add

“to safeguard the public interest so far as it relates to the management and control of deer”

to the statutory aims and purposes of deer management for NatureScot. I am not sure why Mr Eagle is seeking to undermine those positive changes. For the reasons that I have outlined, I will not support amendments 215 to 217, and I ask members not to vote for them.

I am supportive of what Mr Mountain’s amendment 131 is aiming to achieve, but I cannot support it. We have excellent deer managers up and down the country, and I want to ensure that they know, as I do, that we will always need skilled people on the ground to manage our deer populations. As drafted, amendment 131 would require NatureScot to consider protection and promotion of deer management employment in carrying out any of its deer functions, which is impractical for the bill.

Through the bill, we have amended the general aims and purposes of NatureScot under the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996. It will have a duty to take into account, if appropriate, the public interest as it relates to deer management in carrying out its deer functions. That will include issues such as the impact on employment in rural communities, which is an important point that has been missed so far. We are also working outwith the bill to provide financial support for deer management, including incentive pilots in the Cairngorms national park and south Loch Ness, and funding for venison larders. Our deer populations are, without doubt, a fantastic asset to Scotland, and I intend to continue to work with deer managers across the country to consider what better support they might need. For those reasons, I do not think that the amendment is necessary, and I ask members not to support it.

Regarding Mark Ruskell’s amendment 28, I understand the intention to provide flexibility in transferring deer management functions, but I highlight to members that the current framework already allows Scottish ministers to direct NatureScot and set priorities without removing its statutory role.

I like your analogy, Mr Mountain, but I disagree with you. I think that NatureScot has the functions and the capability to do its job properly; however, that must be in conjunction with deer stalkers and managers on the ground. That is why I actively encourage NatureScot to have regular contact with deer management groups.

As we start to talk about deer management, I would like us to get to the position where we stop having a polarised debate. We are trying to recognise the asset that venison and deer are to Scotland across all sectors, but that does not mean that we will not have to manage issues as we go along.

I take the point that Mr Ruskell makes, but I disagree with it, so I will not accept his amendment 28. The amendment would add complexity without clear evidence of need. If circumstances require a change in responsibilities, that can be addressed through existing mechanisms, where possible, or through primary legislation, if required, to ensure full parliamentary scrutiny. We already have all the tools that we need. I would be happy to meet Mr Ruskell to discuss any of the specific concerns that he has. For the reasons that I have set out, I ask Mr Ruskell not to move amendment 28. If he does move it, I ask members to oppose it.

On amendment 218, in the name of Douglas Ross, spoken to by Mr Eagle, section 11 simply amends the 1996 act to allow NatureScot to sit on a panel as a member. It will not require NatureScot to do so, and it is not our intention that it will sit on every panel. We can foresee circumstances in the future where it would be beneficial for a relevant expert from NatureScot to sit on a panel, and we would not want NatureScot to be prohibited from doing so in those circumstances.

Allow me to finish my point, and then I will come back to you. Panels must be approved by Scottish ministers, so I do not agree that there is any risk of a conflict of interest. For those reasons, I urge the committee to vote against the amendments in this group.

I take your point about calves, but what effect would shooting male deer out of season or at any time of the year have on calves? Is your specific point not so much about close seasons or open seasons as about this not being good for animal welfare overall?

I understand the member’s point, but only one control order has been brought into place since 1996.

First, I presume that you are talking about—I do not know how we should address one another in this committee, convener, so I apologise if it was wrong to say “you”. I presume that the member is talking about the press release relating to advice in 2023.

We would expect NatureScot to still go through the entire voluntary process in the first place before it ever got to that point.

I am glad that you mentioned the collaborative approach that is currently being taken. I have had extensive engagement with land managers since I was given the responsibility of taking this part of the bill through, and not one deer manager or land manager that I have had a conversation with is not on board with having a deer management system that actually works. Yes, there will be discussions, but deer management is already in a much better place than before, when it comes to how people are co-operating. Through the Common Ground Forum, there is much better interaction and engagement.

Where the provision will come into play is if somebody simply refuses to engage. That has happened only once; one control order has been brought into play. NatureScot and the Government are within their rights to say, “If you are not prepared to be part of this community and allow us to achieve the objectives that we are trying to achieve, we should have the ability to take control.” That may well cause conflict with an individual landowner or landholder who is not prepared to take part.

However, one thing that I would like to get across, as I think I have said, is that we have good relations with our deer managers now—they are way better than previously—and I want that to continue. Voluntary engagement with NatureScot is absolutely the way that it has to be done to begin with. However, if somebody refuses to engage, there has to be an ability to make them engage.