Chamber and committees

I am making both points. The ethics of deer control should be such that there should be a close season.

I am trying to prove to you, minister, and to the members of the public who are listening to this, that this Government has lost its way and its direction on the ethics of deer control and that there is now a mass rush to kill as many deer as possible. If you do not believe me, minister, you could speak to many of the game dealers in Scotland who are already saying that they are no longer prepared to take deer in the run-up to Christmas, because there is no market, their larders are full and they cannot sell them. Deer will now either not be shot, simply because they cannot be taken in by game dealers, or, if they are shot, they might be left on the hill. Indeed, they might be put into chills, never to be used, or, in fact, destroyed.

Having pushed as hard as I can on that, convener, I will move on to amendment 133, which seeks to remove from the bill proposed new section 6ZB—or 6 Zulu Bravo, as I would say in the army—of the 1996 act. The proposed section will extend a power to NatureScot to intervene in deer management on the grounds of nature restoration—and I should say that amendments 134, 135, 138, 139 and 148 to 151 are consequential to this amendment. I believe that section 6ZB’s unchecked intervention power will destabilise the current voluntary system, which accounts for 80 per cent of Scotland’s annual cull, and will lead to job sectors being destabilised. It will effectively give NatureScot the ability to order culls and just send the bill to landowners.

We know, minister, that deer are not the only animals that cause damage on hills. Sheep, hares and even cows cause damage, too, but SNH will now concentrate purely on deer and will have no control of those other species. That approach has been questioned to such an extent that I believe that the minister’s predecessor was told that just to concentrate on deer would make for bad legislation. Just this morning, I have seen in the press that some other people are controlling other animals—Oxygen Conservation, for example, is killing goats on a whim because it does not want any goats. However, what this legislation does is allow SNH to concentrate on just deer. That is a waste of time if you are not going to take a holistic view of managing the whole catchment.

I am saying that concentrating on one species and not having a holistic approach will not achieve much. Therefore, I would rather go back to a holistic approach—as you suggested with your previous amendment, Mr Ruskell, which I supported and moved to ensure was agreed to. That kind of holistic approach is what the Deer Commission for Scotland had in the past, and it is what I am trying to achieve by removing the proposed new section 6ZB of the 1996 act from the bill.

Amendment 142 would oblige Scottish ministers to consult experts when planning objections to a control scheme. My amendment 143 would further qualify that provision by stipulating that such experts should be “recognised in the industry” as having a relevant amount of expertise, rather than people who consider themselves fit by reading books or scientific papers. I want the people who consider and make judgments on this issue to have dirt under their fingernails from managing deer, instead of just having read about it.

Amendments 145 and 146 would offer two approaches to the scrutiny of deer control agreements and control schemes. Amendment 145 would require NatureScot to conduct a full financial and socioeconomic impact assessment before exercising the relevant functions. It would also require that a move towards a control agreement be informed by robust analysis. That is surely the right way of moving forward—making sure that control plans and agreements are economically viable, instead of causing a desert and having no one there as a result.

That impact assessment would report on the

“cost of enhanced deer management”

and the burden on neighbouring landowners, and it would ensure that the impact on deer management jobs in neighbouring properties would be considered in the control order. It would be part of a holistic approach—the deer management plan approach—that considers the whole catchment, rather than one catchment in particular. Introducing statutory requirements for socioeconomic assessments would ensure that decisions were made with the full knowledge of the consequences for those who would be affected.

Amendment 146 would go further than amendment 145 by inserting two new sections—8A and 8B—after section 8 of the 1996 act. Those sections would create a statutory requirement for financial and socioeconomic impact assessments, as in amendment 145, and they would also establish independent scrutiny of control agreements and control schemes by an independent panel of experts. That has to be good, because we should be bringing in the experts. After all, they are the people who know about, and have done, deer management.

Currently, SNH has authority to implement control agreements or schemes to manage deer populations. However, the impacts of those decisions and measures on local economies and employment, and the cost to landowners and businesses, are often—symptomatically—not addressed or effectively scrutinised. The panel would do that scrutiny. I do not see why the minister would not support such a move, as it would protect him, and the Scottish Government, from any legal actions in the future, if they had not considered everything.

All of these amendments are vital in ensuring that control schemes are appropriately scrutinised and that the welfare of our deer is something that we are proud of, instead of its being a matter of simply going out to machine-gun deer at the expense of everything else, which would be wrong.

I move amendment 132.

I want to make a brief intervention. I am not trying to disrupt.

For over 40 years, now, I have been told by various people that venison will come on to the market and be a great success, and I am still hearing that every day. However, I know of game dealers across Scotland who are not taking in venison, because they have nowhere to put it. We are putting scrawny old stags on to the market in February and March, when they are in no condition for anyone to eat—the meat is probably better as dog food than human food. Surely, if we are going to make venison a quality product, those stags ought to be coming on to the market when they are in peak condition and ready for the human food chain. We should not be getting them at a time of year when they can be culled more easily, because they are so—excuse the expression—knackered that they cannot avoid the hunter’s bullet.

The issue is that sporting rights can be separated from the land. They are a legal right to which somebody is entitled.

The issue was covered by the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, which I am sure you followed as closely as I did and which gave the tenants a right to claim against game damage, and deer were included in that. My concern, Dr Allan, is that we would be extinguishing or interfering with a property right that somebody has at law, and, in my opinion, if the Government makes this law, it will leave itself open to legal challenge.

I do not know whether it helps to say this, but I do not propose to move amendments 148 to 151. I am happy if you want to put a question on those amendments en bloc. If not, I will simply say, “Not moved.”

At the moment, being taken out on the hill by a qualified stalker is usually considered to be sufficient. The qualified stalker goes through every possible eventuality by taking people to a target before they go to the hill. People occasionally have to move in different directions, which might mean that an individual is on his or her own when they shoot the deer. If they are not fit and competent, they could not do that, could they?

I am not absolutely convinced that that is the case. I would perhaps be convinced if I knew, for example, how many of all the animals that go through the Forestry and Land Scotland larder have been wounded and how many have been rejected by game dealers. However, none of that information has been provided. Mandatory training might not actually prove to have that effect. I go back to an amendment that Dr Allan moved on allowing crofters to shoot deer. Many crofters have been shooting deer for generations, but we will now say to them, “Ah, because you’ve been shooting deer for generations, you’re not fit and competent. We’re going to send you off for a test.” I can tell you that, having been considered to be competent for 12 years to carry a firearm in the military, I found it immensely frustrating that I was not considered competent to shoot deer.

I would be absolutely delighted to see the wounding rates. The best way to convince me about wounding rates is to go to the organisation that probably kills as many deer as any organisation—Forestry and Land Scotland. If you can give me the wounding and miss rates from that organisation, I will have more belief in what you are doing. That is what I am asking you to do through my amendment.

Oh, but firearms licensing is a reserved matter under UK legislation.