On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My machine did not seem to want to connect. I would have voted yes.

I have a mere 26 amendments in this group to speak to. I call amendment 106 the reverse Bambi amendment. Amendments 106 and 107 would change the law with regard to lactating female deer and calves. Calves should not be shot and taken from their mother unless the intention is to shoot the mother as well. It is unfair to leave the mother in a situation in which she is still lactating and subject to mastitis if the calf has been shot.

Amendment 108 would deal with the issue of shooting deer with shotguns. I do not know whether the minister has ever done that, and I do not know how many people in this Parliament have shot deer with shotguns. I have done it, but it is not something that I would generally do, and I have never been comfortable doing it, because shooting deer with a shotgun requires loads of very heavy cartridges and a minimum of SSG, which is a shot size.

If we are to extend the use of shotguns—I can see that there may be an argument for that, but I am very nervous about it—there should be very strict controls in place. If you are going to shoot deer with a shotgun, you should do it very close to you. The load size should not be below 36g, and there is no evidence that steel shot is suitable for shooting deer. I also do not feel that shooting a red deer with a shotgun is humane unless you use a solid slug, which the minister agrees that deer management plans should require.

Amendment 110 would remove the requirement for mandatory training, given that there is no evidence that mandatory training would lead to an increased level of competence. Through self-regulation, the sector has maintained a very high standard of training for many years. It is concerning that policy and legislation have been drafted under the guise of safeguarding deer welfare without a clear case for mandatory training having been provided. The deer working group speculated that wounding rates might be between 6 and 17 per cent without providing any verified data. In fact, Forestry and Land Scotland, which shoots deer on our behalf, has no record of how many shots are taken to kill its deer and how many misses or woundings there are. Perhaps such information should be collected before mandatory training is allowed to go ahead.

Amendments 111 and 112 would exempt from mandatory training those who have continuously possessed a firearms certificate since 1975 and those who were born before the end of 1975, respectively. The average age of a deerstalker at the moment is around 58 or 59, which means that those would, in effect, be grandfather rights and would stop us getting into a situation in which young people, who may have become qualified by reading the law and understanding books, test people who have been shooting deer for perhaps 30 or 40 years and deciding whether they are competent. To me, that is hugely demeaning of the incredibly hard work that those people have put in. Amendment 113, which relates to that, would exempt from mandatory training those who could provide a reference to prove that they are fit and competent, by which I mean that they have shot deer for some time.

Amendments 114 to 120 would oblige ministers to consult various parties when making supplementary provisions pertaining to the register of those who are considered fit and competent to shoot deer and to mandatory training. There are very serious concerns about firearms licensing and the fit and competent register under the bill, especially about the implications for those who travel to Scotland from the rest of the UK. The Home Office has already noted that the bill would require amendments to its firearms licensing guide. My amendments therefore seek to provide for consultation with various UK-wide stakeholders to ensure that new legislation relating to mandatory training and the fit and competent register would be brought to the attention of those granting firearms licences outside Scotland to those who take land in Scotland. That makes sense.

Amendments 121, 122 and 123 would oblige ministers to properly consult on mandatory training. Consultation with and assessment of those who carry out deer management should be undertaken, including an assessment of funding, resources and capacity, and demand for training. Consideration should also be given to wounding rates, second shot placement and other welfare factors, as well as the financial impact on deer practitioners. I believe that a statement should be laid before Parliament affirming that the necessary conditions have been met for mandatory training to be introduced, and that it should not be introduced if those conditions cannot be met.

Amendment 124 would oblige ministers to consult those with

“an interest in the regulations on the recognition of international qualifications for deer management”

and how those would fit with the enforcement of the fit and competent register. The Government says much about keeping pace with Europe. In Europe, they have tests, such as one in Germany called the Jagdschein, that are carried out annually and could be brought to this country. If someone has proved that they are fit and competent to shoot deer in Germany, we should surely consider that they are fit and competent to do that in this country.

Amendment 125 would oblige ministers to

“publish a statement setting out ... the scientific evidence relied upon in support of the proposed regulations”,

along with

“an assessment of the training”

and the availability of resources for deer welfare.

Amendment 126 would oblige ministers to create a fund to meet some of the costs of deer management practices and the costs that people would face due to the introduction of mandatory training. That would help them along the route.

Amendments 127, 128 and 129 would remedy the bill’s current undermining of basic safety aspects with respect to the introduction of concurrent sporting rights. Amendments 127 and 129 would oblige the occupier of a holding to gain agreement from the owner of the sporting rights of that land prior to taking deer in order to prevent damage. Amendment 128 would remove the ability that the bill gives SNH to decree that anyone is fit and competent to take deer, which I believe creates a huge conflict of interest with the bill’s other provisions regarding the fit and competent register.

Amendment 130 would remove section 31A—“Right of occupier or grazings committee to prevent damage by deer”—in order to ensure that everyone talks to one another.

I turn finally to amendment 131, which seeks to remove section 32, on the liability for taking or killing stray farmed deer. Once a farmed deer has got out of its enclosure, it is feral. I do not believe that any member would suggest that it was possible to catch it again and put it back into its enclosure. Once it has got out, it joins the wild population. I have seen that happen in Speyside—farmed deer that escaped from a deer park in Moray have now spread across the lower Spey catchment. The only way to know whether they are farmed deer—the old, original ones that escaped, of which there are very few left—is if they have a tag in their ear.

Trying to identify such deer is more difficult than you would think. Indeed, trying to identify a farmed deer with a yellow tag using a thermal imager at night just ain’t possible. Section 32 makes a mockery of what we are trying to do. Once farmed deer are out and have joined the wild population, they are feral and need to be controlled.

I will leave my comments at that.

I move amendment 106.

My point with regard to amendment 108 is to remove red deer, because I just think that they are too big to shoot with a shotgun. It is what I would have described when I was a soldier as an act of war. It would be like taking on a tank with a rifle—it is just not physically possible.

Amendment 109 gives SNH the ability to signify that a certain type of ammunition—not steel shot—can be used, provided that it uses 36g of powder. I do not think that that restrains anyone—it just gives them good guidelines. Does the minister agree?

I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests—I own part of a family farm on Moray. I should also declare that I have been managing the environment on that farm and the local river that runs through it for 45 years. It was some 50 years ago that I first embarked on deer management, and I look forward to going back to that in April, when this session of Parliament is dissolved.

I will speak to amendments 24 to 26, which have been lodged by John Mason. They are interesting amendments, and I have some sympathy with amendment 24. It concerns the control of feral species, which are defined as animals

“in a wild state ... after escape from captivity or domestication.”

That is important, as it is something that, to my mind, we have not done properly in Scotland for some time. If we had done that, we would perhaps not now have the fallow deer and many of the other types of deer that are starting to move up from the Borders, nor would we have species such as the ruddy duck—or rather, we would have them, but we would be able to control them.

However, I am concerned about the amendment’s use of the term “feral species”, because the definition is quite wide ranging. Mr Mason may not have intended to bring in some of the animals that the term could cover. For example, it could be argued that “feral species” would include cats that have been released into the countryside, which could become feral and could therefore be part of a management plan. That might or might not be a good thing. In the case of the Scottish wildcats that are being reintroduced across the Cairngorms, the control of feral cats would be important, but in other areas it might not be.

Amendments 25 and 26 relate specifically to the sheep on St Kilda. I think that Mr Mason, by lodging the amendments, has done this country a service by making sure that the owners are aware that the Parliament is considering the problems with the sheep on St Kilda in a sensible way. They need to be controlled, as lack of control and management will result in all sorts of problems such as increased suffering, disease and starvation. That is completely unacceptable, and it would be unacceptable if they were on a farm on the mainland.

I personally would not seek to press amendments 25 and 26 to a vote, because I think that the point has already been made. Nonetheless, I will be interested to hear the Government’s response to amendment 24, because I think that the control of “feral species”, and preventing them from multiplying with or challenging our wild species, is important.

I thank the Presiding Officer for indicating that there is some latitude in timings.

Having been involved in deer management across Scotland, and looking at deer management today, I am convinced that the only part of Scotland where we are at least partially on top of deer management is the uplands. As far as low ground and woodland management is concerned, deer remain significantly out of control. Therefore, deer management is important.

Amendment 1 defines deer that are native to Scotland. To say only “deer native to Scotland” suggests that whoever drafted the bill has no idea what deer in Scotland are. I have therefore laid out clearly that

“fallow, red and roe deer”,

which have been in Scotland for more than 100 years, are the deer that are native to Scotland. I suggest that it is hard to disagree with amendment 1, unless you just want to keep the term open, which would show that you do not know what deer in Scotland are.

Amendment 2, which is an adjustment to my stage 2 amendments, would place a responsibility on ministers

“to ensure employment in the field of deer management”.

If we do not have deer managers, we will have no deer management. Therefore, it would be the wrong approach to focus only on deer management and ignore those who work in it.

Amendment 4 would oblige ministers to prevent conflicts between the public and those involved in deer management. That just seems good, sensible practice.

Amendment 3 would place a duty on ministers to ensure that deer management was carried out in a “humane” way. It is a simple amendment, and I cannot see why anyone would disagree with it.

Amendments 5 to 7 would ensure that Scottish Natural Heritage was represented on all deer management groups and that a representative of SNH must attend meetings of the panel involved in local deer management. That is sensible, given that SNH will have to enforce control if it is not happy with something that is going on in deer management. I have been involved in deer management groups for many years, so I know that SNH’s attendance at meetings of those groups significantly helps members of the group to work together and prevents SNH from making recommendations out of the blue, without having knowledge of what has been going on.

Amendment 78 relates to the reintroduction of close seasons for male deer. I have campaigned on this issue, and I note that Lorna Slater acknowledged that I have done a significant amount of work on it. I call amendment 78 the Bambi amendment. Members who have not heard of Bambi have missed a great novel by Felix Salten in which a young male deer is brought up by other animals in the forest after his mother is killed out of season. That is not a real story. In the forest, if females are killed out of season but the calves are not killed, those calves are left to starve.

The Scottish Government has said that, from the moment a male deer is born to the moment it dies, it can be shot. To me, that is inhumane. From the moment its mother delivers it on to the ground, somebody can kill it. I have never thought that that is right.

I find it interesting that organisations have suggested that MSPs vote against amendment 78 because it is for individuals to decide whether that is cruel. I can tell members, based on more than 50 years of experiencing and practising deer management, that it is cruel to shoot a calf the moment it is born or within days of being born. That puts significant pressure on the mother and, if male deer are being chased around the woods while trying to recover from the rut or in difficult conditions, as happens the whole time at the moment, those deer are put under pressure, too. In woodlands across Scotland, I have seen dead male deer lying in the fence lines in the spring because they have been prevented from getting to their feeding grounds. I do not feel comfortable about that, and many people who work in the countryside feel uncomfortable about it. Therefore, I ask members to consider whether that is humane and whether they can put up with the fact that the actions that are being taken do not necessarily control male deer—in many cases, the deer are killed not by the bullet but by starvation.

Amendment 8 would remove the requirement for SNH to articulate the circumstances in which it would intervene in the management of deer. I have lodged the amendment because, as I said earlier, I think that SNH needs to be involved in deer management groups. If its representatives were part of the groups, those circumstances would already have been articulated.

Amendment 9 would remove the provision that SNH may review the code of practice on deer management at any time. Members who have been involved in the code of practice since it was first introduced—I admit to being one of those members—know that the code cannot just be changed overnight to suit requirements. We need to give some time for the code to bed in and to see whether it is working. Only then can it be adjusted.

This might upset some people, but I have never found NatureScot or SNH to be the arbiter of good taste in deer management. The arbiters of good taste are those people who are involved, who have blood on their hands and dirt under their fingernails from managing deer, not necessarily people in offices. Amendments 10 and 11 would oblige SNH to consult those who have an interest in deer management when carrying out a review of the code of practice, and to publish details of that consultation. Surely that makes sense. Surely someone who is not doing it but is reading about it in a book will want to speak to those people who are actually doing it.

Amendment 80 ties in with amendments 8 and 9 and would reduce the review period for the code of practice from 10 years to five years. That would mean that, rather than a review just being done on an arbitrary basis, the time that the code of practice would be allowed to stand before a review should be carried out would be reduced.

Amendment 12 seeks to delete section 12 on the proposed changes to the code of practice. That will make sense if the other amendments are passed.

Amendment 81 would allow SNH to intervene to prevent damage caused by deer only after it has considered other measures to protect public safety. I say that for a simple reason. I remember being involved in a survey that was being conducted along some of the roads in the Highlands because SNH was saying that the number of deer along the edge of those roads was far too high. Well, it was too high, but why was it too high? It was because the grass along the verges was covered in minerals, such as salt, which attracted the deer, and there was no proper fencing. The effect on public safety was not the result of the deer being there. We knew that the deer were there, but we also knew that people were driving far too fast along those roads and ignoring the signs that the Scottish Government had instructed Transport Scotland to put up across the Highlands to say that there would be deer on the roadside.

Amendment 83 would regulate the grounds for NatureScot to intervene in the management and control of deer. The amendment is designed to alleviate some of the uncertainty that is inherent in the new grounds for intervention. It clarifies that the intervention will be permissible only when there is a material reduction in the effectiveness of work or projects as a result of deer impacts or a lack of deer management. It is very easy for someone to go into the countryside and say, “That damage up there is due to deer” when they have no idea whether it is due to deer. Are there sheep on the hill? Are there hares on the hill? What other herbivores are there? There could be cattle tracking backwards and forwards as much as sheep and as much as deer. I do not think that we can say that damage is a consequence of deer just by looking at it.

Amendment 88 would increase the deadlines for the submission of deer management plans from three to six months, which reflects the minimum standard that is required to create a deer management plan. That is based on evidence provided to me by Scottish Land & Estates and the Association of Deer Management Groups. For those who say that that is ridiculous, the current legislation says 12 months. The Government wants to reduce the deadline to three months, but that is far too tight—it takes six months. Having written a deer management plan for the Strathconon deer management group with Professor Rory Putman, I can tell members that it took me nearly two years to get everyone, including some of the private and public bodies, to work together.

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.

I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests, which shows that I have a livestock farm in Moray.

To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the rural secretary has had with ministerial colleagues regarding the potential impact on farmers and crofters of any reintroduction of lynx into Scotland. (S6O-05392)

As the minister rightly says, the majority of farmers in Scotland would like the Government to abide by its policy not to reintroduce lynx in Scotland. Has the minister had any discussion with farmers about the likely costs in relation to the loss of livestock, including pedigree livestock, should lynx be reintroduced and start killing them?

Will I get my time back if I give way, Deputy Presiding Officer?

I will not spend much of my speech talking about this or that line of spending in the net zero, energy and transport portfolios or about this year’s direction of travel. There will be an opportunity for the committee to consider those matters when it takes evidence from the Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero, Energy and Transport next month. At those sessions, the committee will jointly consider the 2026-27 budget and the draft climate change plan—it makes sense to do so, because it is clear that the committee must read across those documents, from one to the other.

I will reflect on the extent to which what we might call net zero thinking has been fully embedded in the budget-setting process. Let us be clear that public confidence about Scotland’s net zero momentum and direction of travel has clearly been dented in this parliamentary session. One way for the Scottish Government to restore that confidence is for it to more convincingly show its workings on how it expects to achieve its spending decisions to drive emissions downwards.

The Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee’s pre-budget representations were about the joint budget review, which was set up at the end of the previous session of Parliament to improve budget information on climate change and increase alignment between budgets and the climate change plan.

I do not need to remind everyone—but I will, because people might have forgotten—that that work had three main strands. The first was to include in each annual budget a climate change assessment narrative—an overview of the impact of spending decisions on the climate. That was an opportunity for the Government to go beyond the narrow confines of the balance sheet and to explain, for example, how second-order outcomes of the headline spend could have an impact on emissions and on the private finance that is needed for particular policies and projects that are linked to net zero—not in a vague and aspirational way, but by setting out concrete actions and any relevant modelling or estimates.

The second strand was a so-called taxonomy approach for budget spend lines, which the cabinet secretary mentioned, that would set out how those spend lines do or do not align with emissions reduction goals. The Scottish Government embarked on that approach in this session with a rather simple traffic light system, but it has undertaken to “deepen”—its word—the taxonomy and to expand its coverage to make it more useful.

The third strand was the development of a net zero assessment—a process to evaluate the climate impact of policies and their associated budgets early in the policy development stage.

In other words, I take that process to be somewhere upstream of budget setting and a process that might even, in some cases, filter out projects or policies that are simply too costly—to borrow a word from finance—with regard to their carbon output to go anywhere near the final budget.

In that connection, I remind the Parliament that what we are discussing today is not the only budget that the Parliament has to monitor. We are expressly bound to a carbon budget, with a spending limit of no more than 175 million tonnes of CO₂ between 1 January this year and the end of 2031.

Turning back to the budget that we are debating, the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee has not yet collectively considered the 2026-27 offering, so I will be careful when I express a view. I simply say that, although the committee welcomes the start that the Scottish Government has made during this parliamentary session on implementing the three key recommendations of the joint budget review, the momentum needs to be kept up. I am not sure that I have seen much momentum this year on those three strands.

My concern is compounded by what I see as a lack of rigour in how the draft climate change plan sets out financial costs and benefits. I stress that that is a personal view, not a committee view, but it is shared by some of the experts we have heard from. For instance, the Auditor General found the costs in the draft climate change plan to be vague. He said that the plan

“includes limited information on how the cost estimates were calculated and what assumptions underpin them, and it recognises that there is significant uncertainty associated with many of the estimates.”