Chamber and committees

I do not think so. Brodie Wilson has just pointed out to me something that I should probably have read out. A statutory requirement to “have regard” to something is understood as being a requirement to consider it. If there is a requirement for NatureScot to consider the code of practice, that goes back to what we said earlier about its duties as a public body and what it must bear in mind in any future consideration. If you look at all that in the round, that should give confidence that people will have a good enough working relationship with NatureScot to be able to develop the practices that we want to be delivered.

There is already provision for the tenants that you are talking about to control deer and stop them marauding, and so on. Section 26 of the 1996 act gives occupiers the right to take deer when they might not otherwise have the right to do so, including in “enclosed woodland” and on some agricultural land where they are causing damage. The deer working group recommended that section 26 be extended to provide that occupiers can take action to prevent damage by wild deer across

“any type of land and cover public interests of a social, economic and environmental nature.”

The rationale for that was largely the fact that the types of occupiers have changed in the past 30 years.

There is provision for that in the bill already, but if we need to look at anything else, I will be happy to hear about it.

We are making it so that people will receive that five-day notice electronically. Clearly, if somebody is not at their place, it would be sensible and legitimate for them to tell NatureScot that they will not be back until such-and-such a date—just as long as they do not say that they will be back in September in response to a notice that they got in February.

You get the point that I am making. Yes, there will be flexibility, but only within the bounds of reasonableness.

There is some disagreement on the estimates. We have an estimate of between 750,000 and 1 million deer, which the deer working group compiled using a range of methods. That estimate includes data on the distribution of Scotland’s four species, but I absolutely accept that some people do not believe what that data tells us. We hope that, if people use the NatureScot app, that will give us a much clearer picture and a better understanding of what deer numbers are, in total and in particular areas.

On the day that I was out in Glen Falloch, I was quite struck by the fact that the three deer that were taken out were tagged to the exact spot using GPS, and that was put into the database. If we can get more people using that app, it will build up a data picture and give us a much clearer understanding of what the deer population is. However, as I said, I accept that some people do not agree entirely with the numbers that we have, but I think the estimate that there is between 750,000 and 1 million deer is fairly reasonable.

Are we using drones to gather data?

We want there to be a baseline of competence across everyone who goes out to shoot deer. That is not just about deer welfare; it about public concern and public safety, especially with increasing numbers of deer and more venison entering the food chain. If we can ensure that everyone has the same level of baseline competence, we can guarantee that everyone has the same level of basic food hygiene training and an understanding of shot placement and when not to shoot. Most of our deer stalkers are very competent—there is no doubt about that—but there is evidence that that is not 100 per cent the case, and there is evidence that wounding rates are between 6 and 17 per cent, which is too high for us to ignore.

I had a round-table session yesterday with the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, at which it clearly laid out its concerns about what “fit and competent” means—I absolutely accept that there are concerns in that regard. However, when we did the consultation, 69 per cent of the land management and deer sporting organisations and 74 per cent of all respondents agreed that there should be “fit and competent” standards. There is also evidence that the public would expect us to do that. Notwithstanding the position of BASC, which was clearly laid out to me yesterday, there is clear evidence that other sectors in the deer management groups think that it is the right thing to do.

That will come in through secondary legislation, and we are more than happy to consider all the concerns that were raised with me yesterday, and the other evidence that the committee has heard in the lead-up to stage 2. I understand that there is some pushback on that.

I return to my original point, however, that 69 per cent of land management and deer sporting organisations said that that level should be the baseline, which would give the public confidence. We are talking about getting venison into the public psyche as a good product to eat—which is what it should be—as opposed to its being seen as a problem.

There are an awful lot of positives to take from establishing that baseline. As for how we implement it, let us consider that and see if we can ensure that it is manageable.

My personal definition of public interest is not the relevant point. The relevant point is whether NatureScot has the public interest at heart when it is making those decisions. Nature restoration, the interests of the community and the interests of the people doing deer management would all have to be taken into account during any public-interest test.

A lack of resource to meet public expectations?

My apologies for not mentioning night shooting—that was me not listening.