If I will not get my time back, then I will not argue about a matter of fact.

The minister will be delighted to know that I have listened to his entreaties and I will not move amendment 12.

In relation to amendment 93, deer always appear to be the problem. However, in vast parts of Scotland in which there is damage to the environment, especially in upland areas, it is not always deer that are the problem. As I said earlier, the problem is often sheep.

I am conscious that we do not have unlimited time, but I will turn to a couple of other amendments. Amendments 16 to 19 would have a modest cost. The minister talked about bureaucracy, but the bill will produce a huge amount of bureaucracy.

As far as amendment 99 is concerned, we should keep the power at 14 days. I cannot even get a response from the Government to a letter in 14 days, so I do not understand how SNH feels that it will be able to decide and do something in five days.

I have listened to the arguments in favour of Rhoda Grant’s amendment 50. However, I find the amendment to be very wide ranging. It would mean that anyone could make a comment on the state of a hill. Such comments could be vexatious and might even carry no grounds. Therefore, the amendment would increase the very bureaucracy that the minister is trying to avoid.

On that note, I will sit down so that we can get to the voting. I press amendment 1.

I will keep my comments in this group to my amendments 138 and 139. There seem to be a lot of plans for plans and reviews of plans to create the plans, which will then need review. For me, it seems overcomplicated, and I was surprised to be accused of bureaucracy by the minister in the discussion on the last group of amendments. There is a huge mountain here.

My amendments 138 and 139 are very simple. Amendment 138 would ensure that ministers consult those with practical experience in deer management when they prepare a review of the modifications to the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996. Amendment 139 would oblige ministers to consult those with an interest in deer management when they conduct the same review. It is about involving the people who know what they are talking about and have experience of doing it. It is simple really, which is why I will move the amendments.

I rise to speak on the business motion. My issue with it is simple, and I will start with a quote from Winston Churchill, who said:

“democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time”.—[Official Report, House of Commons, 11 November 1947; Vol 444, c 207.]

What we are doing here is part of the democratic process. My concern with the business motion, which was agreed to by the Parliamentary Bureau yesterday—when I was in the process of my four-hour drive down to the Parliament, and therefore unable to feed in my concerns on the timetable—is that it is difficult to understand how each of the timings have been worked out.

In the stage 3 debate that we had on the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, I ended up with a considerable number of amendments in some groups. In one group, I had more than 30 amendments, yet I was given five minutes to speak to those 30 amendments.

There appears to be a repetition today. In group 5, I have 36 amendments. If I am given only five minutes to speak to those amendments, maths tells me that I have about eight seconds per amendment, during which I might just be able to read out what the amendment says. On group 8, in which I have 26 amendments, the time is a little bit more generous, because I will have 11 seconds per amendment, so I might be able to explain what the first line of each amendment is about.

Presiding Officer, I know that, when you and the bureau sit down to work out the timings, you do so with care, to ensure that you comply with rule 9.8 of standing orders and, specifically, paragraph 4A(a), which is on enabling members to be

“given a right to speak on an amendment”

in the debate.

My concern is that I will be in a position where I have considerable numbers of amendments in a small number of groups and will not be able to explain them as I would hope to, which will not allow me to have the democratic process that I expect to have in this Parliament and that I believe people in Scotland expect to see when members stand up to speak and to express their views.

Presiding Officer, I would be grateful if, when we consider the motion moved by Mr Dey—which I do not intend to object to—I could be given some reassurance that, in groups where members have a considerable number of amendments, they will not be limited to eight seconds to speak to each amendment.

Presiding Officer, I am going to move all of my amendments from 112 to 126. Would it help the Parliament if I moved them en bloc, or would that not be possible? Sorry—I am trying to be helpful, not divisive.

I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests in that, as I said at the beginning of the debate, I have an interest in a wild salmon fishery.

In this group I have one amendment that relates to wild salmon. Amendment 160 would oblige ministers to

“prepare and publish a report on the progress that has been made”

regarding

“the Scottish wild salmon strategy”.

The strategy that the cabinet secretary has set out represents a step forward in that regard, and I welcome its introduction. However, my amendment would ask the cabinet secretary to produce a report within 12 months of the bill gaining royal assent and for

“each subsequent period of 12 months.”

That is logical because it would allow the sector to respond to the issues that have been found, and it would also allow the cabinet secretary to justify the strategy, which sometimes comes under fire from other fishing interests.

I totally support Douglas Ross’s amendment 147. The issue that we sometimes miss is the unpredictability of major fishing incidents. The response is predictable if it is known where the enforcement assets are. If it is not known where the assets are, and how quickly they can get to an incident, that is a real deterrent.

Maurice Golden’s amendment 21 would also represent a step forward.

I slightly question Emma Harper’s amendment 34. I want to make it clear that I have not killed a wild salmon for years, and have no intention of doing so, but accidents sometimes happen. I see that the cabinet secretary is laughing—she might feel that that is because I am not a good enough fisherman to catch wild salmon, which might be true, but I stress that I have not killed one. They are caught in the gills, which causes them to bleed and they then die. The issue with Ms Harper’s amendment 34 is that a person fishing could not take a dead fish away; they would have to put it back in the water and leave it there, which seems odd to me. I am not happy enough to support the amendment, but, when she sums up, I would be grateful to hear what she thinks should happen in a situation where a dead fish cannot be taken away and just has to be put in the water to rot, because such an approach seems strange.

The distinct actions that deer managers have always undertaken when it comes to sika deer are to shoot on sight, so that we can get rid of them.

The fact that the minister is not going to support amendment 2 suggests that this Government is not interested in jobs in the countryside. However, I am pleased that the minister will accept amendments 3, 10, 11 and 102.

With regard to amendments 5 to 7, I do not understand what the issue is with getting NatureScot representatives to attend deer management group meetings for each deer management group in Scotland. There are about two meetings a year. I am not sure what else they do in their offices all day—maybe they sit in Great Glen house pontificating things into the future.

I will not withdraw the comments. I stand by them entirely, because they are my impression from what I have seen in my time in deer management.

I am sorry that amendment 78 has fallen on deaf ears. For those members who cannot remember, the amendment is about the killing of male deer. Let me be clear: it is a biological fact that it is female deer that produce calves, and it is female deer that will hunt out the male deer. They will travel for miles to find a male deer to mate with. It is not the male deer that will do that; they will hold territory. Therefore, to kill just the males is not the way to keep the population down.

It is not tenants that I am concerned about here; it is people going in and acting on behalf of SNH. I want to ensure that all the sides talk together, because the only way in which deer management will work effectively is if all sides work together.

Amendment 102 obliges SNH to share with the landholder any information that has been recorded under SNH’s investigatory powers in an accessible format and within three months. That seems fairly reasonable. Amendment 103 obliges SNH to share the information with the landowner before SNH takes any further action regarding deer control. It cannot just go in and not provide the evidence for doing so.

Amendment 104 obliges SNH to compensate the landowner for any damage caused to the land by any agent entering under SNH’s investigatory power. In fact, that ties in with one of the amendments that were made to the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, whereby people exercising sporting rights had to compensate the tenant or the landowner if they caused damage.

Amendment 105 is a wording change in the section that is being inserted into the 1996 act headed “Power to require information and documents” to ensure that it is acted on only when the documents are relevant to SNH’s exercise of its function.

I am disappointed that the Scottish Wildlife Trust is advising members that they should vote against many of my amendments in this group. That is because, as I said earlier, I do not believe that the people in the trust have ever got blood on their hands or dirt under their fingernails, or enacted policies by drawing up deer management plans to ensure the management of deer. It is easy to sit in an office and tell people on the ground how to do things better; I believe, and always have believed, that the people on the ground with experience know better about that.

In passing, I note that RSPB Scotland, too, is asking members to vote against some of my amendments in the group. However, the RSPB is a protection organisation for bird species and not necessarily for other animals.

I will leave it at that and perhaps come in again at the end with some closing remarks.

I move amendment 1.

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

I will if I have time, Presiding Officer.