Did NatureScot carry out its experiments on whether it is possible to achieve what is sought with night sights at night? If it did not do so at night, I would question those results. I am asking from a welfare point of view, because the welfare of animals is really important. I will come on to that in the second part of my questioning.

I am afraid that it does not address my concern. It is very difficult to follow up on animals that have been shot at night, to minimise any welfare issue. You cannot do that unless you have a dog with you.

I want to pick up on your comments that using night sights would allow more extensive deer culling to go on over a bigger period and that Forestry and Land Scotland spent £10 million a year on deer control. I have here some figures that I know are correct. Forestry and Land Scotland asks its rangers to kill more than two deer every day of the year that they work. That amounts to a huge number, which is probably not achievable. If some of that £10 million was spent on putting people on the ground, more deer culls would probably be achieved and the proposed measures would not be necessary.

Are you comfortable that harrying an animal from dawn to dusk, irrespective of its sex, is the right way to do it? To me, it sounds like a form of warfare, which is something that I used to do when I was in the army.

I thank the committee for allowing me to question the minister first. Minister, what concerns me more than anything else is that, under this legislation, we are going to allow a target to be painted on a male deer’s back from the very day that it is born to the very day that it dies. It can be shot literally as it appears out of its mother until the day it dies. Do you think that that is reasonable, fair and right for proper deer management?

I would love to have a long discussion about ballistics with the minister. Muzzle velocity is one thing, but it is nothing to do with delivering a certain number of kilojoules of energy directly at the point of aim. The problem with lighter copper bullets is that, unless you hit a bone, there will be deflection. There is no doubt that, if you hit an animal slightly further forward on the shoulder blade, the bullet can travel over the shoulder blade and out the other side. If you hit it too far back, in the guts, it might pass directly through the animal because there is no expansion.

Using copper bullets is fine during the day, because you can aim specifically for a bone at the top of the leg and, one would hope, hit it. Are you confident that that can be achieved with thermal imaging, infrared illuminators and IR sights? I am a practitioner with 40 years’ experience, and I am not sure that I would be able to do it, and I have used some very good thermal imaging sights.

They were probably done during daylight, which is the equivalent of using a lamp at night. It works fine in those circumstances. Has it been explained how difficult it is to achieve that with a TI sight, an II and an IR sight?

I am sure that the committee has heard enough from me today, so I will keep my comments brief.

I have to respond to Ariane Burgess’s comment about the administrative burden. Let me be absolutely clear that the general authorisation for the culling of deer, which was issued by NatureScot in 2023-24, allows occupiers who are suffering from damage to improved agricultural land and enclosed woodland to control the deer in the close season. No further paperwork is required. That was signed off by NatureScot. There is no administrative burden and occupiers have that right. They do not have the right to kill female deer that are more than one year old or those that have dependent calves or that are pregnant. There is, therefore, no administrative burden.

I stress that the welfare of deer is extremely important. I cannot emphasise enough that, if we are going to control wild animals, we have a responsibility to do so as humanely as possible, and that does not mean chasing them all day and all night.

I remain concerned about the consultation that the Government has carried out. I lodged the motion to annul to give the minister a chance to carry that out and see whether there is a way that those who would like to see more control of male deer during the close season and those who do not can find a way to work together. I remain concerned about the Government’s consultation.

I propose the motion to annul because it would give the minister a chance to carry out a consultation and see whether there is a way that those who would like there be more control of deer, and of male deer during the close season, and those who would not can work together. With the legislation, there will be those who want more control and those who do not, and there will be a split between people who manage land. When we are trying to control deer, that is deeply unhelpful.

I press the motion.

Just to confirm, SNIB is the Scottish National Investment Bank. It is a strange acronym that some people who are watching might not necessarily pick up, but I am sure that everyone here knows it.

Mr Lumsden, you said two questions ago that that was your final question. You might get in trouble with the rest of the committee. I might come back to you at the end, if I can.

You mentioned farming in your questions. Just for clarity, and so that there is no dubiety, I note that I have a share in a family farming partnership, which is declared and on the record, and that transmission lines go over the farm. There is nothing unusual about that, but I asked a question on transmission lines, so people should be aware of that. I hope that that clarifies things.

Perfect. So, we have the right person to ask questions on 801 and 802. When will 801 be in service? I do not mean when it will be handed over. When will it be in service with CalMac Ferries Ltd?