Thank you. I will continue my learning process on how this is done. This SI has had quite a messy birth, given that it was withdrawn a couple of times before we came to it.

Sorry, Sarah, did you have a question on the procedure? You caught my eye.

I will keep it short, because I do not suppose that there is any point in debating with somebody who has decried my amendments as “ludicrous” and “unworkable”. They have been submitted because they are not ludicrous and because I think that they are worth while debating in the chamber.

I will make a couple of points. My experience is that people use firearms to shoot deer and other mammals. To shoot birds, they use not firearms but, mainly, shotguns, which may be why there is some confusion in the minister’s mind over the difference between the two when it comes to killing deer, and shot sizes.

I note another issue when it comes to notification about farmed deer. It is a pity that the Government is so keen on ensuring that that happens. I will take the minister back to 2018, I think, when Forestry and Land Scotland went through a purge of killing 222 sheep. I have found no record of its notifying the owners of those sheep. However, what is good for sheep is one thing and what is good for farmed deer is another. I will leave it there, because I do not think that I will win this debate or that it will be properly engaged with.

I press amendment 106.

First, I take members back to the reason for the passing of the 1996 act. Some members might remember that, at that time, there were quite high levels of poaching across Scotland—in fact, there were numerous occurrences of vehicles stopping on the edge of the A9 and deer were shot there, hauled off and sold.

One of the protections that were put in place to prevent poaching was a requirement for a licence to deal in venison, and that is why I have lodged amendment 138. I want to understand the Government’s position on that.

If we get to a stage—as I hope that we will—where we have a deer population that is manageable and sustainable, the high levels of culls that will have been needed to achieve that would no longer be required. That will make venison more attractive and will, therefore, probably increase the likelihood of poaching. The requirements for a licence to deal in venison and for records to be kept by venison dealers will, therefore, be really important. At present, when someone takes deer to a venison dealer, they have to prove where it was shot, and say that it was fit and healthy when it was shot and there was nothing abnormal about its behaviour.

Under the bill, all those requirements are being withdrawn, which I find quite odd. That is why I have lodged amendment 132: to probe the matter and see whether I can get an explanation from the minister as to why he feels that none of that is necessary. Those of us who are involved in deer management feel that it will be a loss.

Turning to the amendments from my colleague Rachael Hamilton, I totally agree with what she is trying to achieve regarding venison. Venison is a great nutritious meal and we should be eating a lot more of it, especially if we are having to kill a lot more of it.

I remind members that, just prior to Christmas, we got to a stage at which venison dealers were no longer prepared to take deer in because they could not sell them—there was just too much there. A lot of the big venison dealers currently have so much venison in cold stores that they are not sure what to do with it. We could be using and eating it, and that is why I support Rachael Hamilton’s amendments.

I will make just two more points in this group. First, I note that Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 135 is about ensuring that venison is not dumped—I think that she used a similar expression. I agree. I find it totally unacceptable that people shoot deer and dump them on the hill, making no effort to recover them. That is a disgrace, and it should not happen in Scotland unless there is an environmental reason for doing it. Saying that it might be too difficult to extract it is not a good reason.

Secondly, when the venison plan is drawn up, I hope that the Scottish Government will consider how Forestry and Land Scotland larders, which have been built at huge expense to the taxpayer, can be made available to people whom the Government is asking to cull deer on its behalf, if they do not have larder facilities.

I will leave it at that, and wait to hear the minister’s response.

I will, in a minute.

I consider fallow deer, which have been here for more than 100 years, to be native. We could argue about that over a drink later, but I am happy to give way now.

I will in a minute.

In my time, I have attended a huge number of deer management meetings. When SNH representatives are present, those deer management groups work a lot better. When they do not bother to turn up, they are missed.

What I will accept is that, if Scottish Natural Heritage or NatureScot—whichever name is the most fashionable at the moment—attended the deer management groups and took part in drawing up deer management plans, it would not be an issue. Therefore, my amendment is entirely correct.

Amendment 13 would oblige SNH to consult the holders of any relevant shooting or sporting rights when approving a deer management plan with modifications. The owner of shooting rights is not necessarily just the landowner. It could be the tenant farmer or a completely different person. To ignore those people in the process is totally wrong and will probably result in legal challenge, because it is a land right.

Amendments 14 and 15 are alternatives. Amendment 14 removes SNH power to decide who the relevant owners and occupiers are in relation to land pertaining to a deer management plan. Amendment 15 rewords the relevant subsection to change

“that SNH considers to have”

to

“that has”,

which I think is important, as it ensures that SNH has to get on with it.

Amendments 91 and 92 relate to the consideration of objections by experts in relation to deer control schemes. Those amendments would ensure that ministers consult SNH and others with relevant interests before appointing experts.

Amendments 16 to 19 oblige ministers to establish an independent panel with experience in practical deer management and public audit to scrutinise the recovery of SNH costs from the owner or occupier of land under a control scheme. Where a dispute remains, the parties can then refer the issue to arbitration under the Arbitration (Scotland) Act 2010. Why did I propose that change? I did so because it was not long ago that NatureScot spent nearly £40,000 flying people out in the hills on helicopters to shoot deer in inaccessible places. They ended up shooting the female deer and leaving the calves to die and suffer on the hill. If the minister does not believe me, I am sure that he can check with SNH to see the figures. It was clear to me that, if you kill only 5 per cent of calves with their parents when the calving percentage is 25 per cent, there is 20 per cent left.

Amendment 94 removes the provision that was inserted in the bill whereby SNH may take action where deer damage the natural environment. As the bill stands, SNH is able to use emergency powers at that point, even when it has other powers that are adequate to deal with that situation. Amendment 95 ensures that, where alternative powers exist, SNH uses those non-emergency powers first. That seems to make sense.

Amendment 96 ties in with an earlier amendment about managing deer, and not just in relation to harm to humans. That is a perception, and it is perhaps the actions of those humans that cause them harm, rather than the deer doing it of their own volition.

Amendment 99 reverses the bill’s shortening of the notice period that must be given to the landowner prior to entering their land to investigate deer. The bill attempts to adjust the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996 so that the period is reduced from 14 days to five working days. Amendment 99 would ensure that the landowner had due warning before SNH did that. Amendment 101 clarifies that the person authorised by SNH to enter the land must enter it only at a reasonable time, as previously agreed by the owner or occupier. Amendment 100 clarifies that the person authorised by SNH to enter the land must be qualified in practical deer management.

I am sure that everyone in the chamber will be pleased to know that I am not going to speak to every amendment in the group. I could do so, but I am not going to; I will just pick out the key amendments that I would like to speak to.

At the outset, I will say that what I have tried to do in these amendments is bring a certain amount of clarity to those who are going to be involved in deer management, from somebody who has, I hope, done enough of it to see the pitfalls on both sides.

As far as amendment 1 is concerned, I am sorry, but we should be in a position where non-native animals in Scotland, particularly those such as sika, are controlled and removed where possible. I am not sure that they will ever be removed. That is why I am saying that deer management plans are required for native species, which I consider—

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My device would not connect. I would have voted no.

I welcome the comments that have been made by the cabinet secretary and the work that has been put in by Mark Ruskell and Rhoda Grant.

The cabinet secretary has said that she will reconvene a group later in 2026. Amendment 31B includes the wording

“Ministers may appoint such persons as they consider to have an interest in the habitats regulations”.

I think that most people would prefer it if the minister would agree to appoint people who do have an interest in the habitats regulations, not just the ones whom ministers choose. I would be grateful if the cabinet secretary could say that that is what will happen.

In the hope of helping the cabinet secretary, if the sheep were on a farm such as mine and they were inspected and found to be in poor health, dying of starvation or suffering illness, the first thing that would happen is that there would be an inspection by the department, which would raise action against me. In order to allow Mr Mason not to move his amendments, could the cabinet secretary indicate to him that she will ensure that the department takes an interest in the issue and ensures that there is no suffering?