Chamber and committees

I think that that is true—the land managers understand the need to manage deer. That is why so many deer management groups are largely voluntary organisations in which land managers have got together with their neighbours to figure out how to manage deer. The specific awareness of those exact 99 recommendations will vary, of course. Not all of them are legislative changes—some are changes to other policy areas or to the work of NatureScot and so on, so there is quite a broad range of actions.

The issue of how to reduce deer numbers in Scotland is not a simple one like legislating for people to wear seat belts; it is about a whole bunch of things, including legislation, to help to turn the ship in a slightly different direction. The existing legislation has not been sufficient to prevent the damage to tree growth, crops and human health and safety in the way that was hoped in 1959, when it was passed. The measures that we are considering today are part of that work.

When meeting stakeholders and deer management groups, I find that they are keen to emphasise that they understand the need for deer management and have concerns for animal welfare, as has been discussed. However, most of their issues are about funding and how to pay for things, or, if someone wants to manage deer differently from how their neighbour does it, they want to know how to resolve those interests. Mostly, very practical issues come up.

That comes back to the point that I made about the reason for there being a male deer close season. It does not exist because of welfare issues. OneKind says that it has no objection to removing the close season for male deer as long as all the requirements for high standards are adhered to. The SSPCA recognises the need for deer management in Scotland and is not against lifting the close season for male red deer, sika, fallow or roe deer as long as control is carried out humanely by individuals trained in the use of firearms.

The close season for male deer does not exist for welfare concerns; it exists because of sporting interest concerns, particularly down in England, so that deer can grow larger antlers for the use of the sporting industry. The close season for male deer, when it was implemented in 1959, was specifically negotiated by sporting interests for that purpose. It is not there for welfare reasons and therefore removing it does not have welfare implications. NatureScot has no reason to turn down authorisations, if you see what I mean—the measures were not achieving anything.

As I have said, the recommendations have come from an external body—the independent deer working group. The measure was identified as one of many measures that would help to get us towards where we need to be in Scotland on deer management. We need to increase our cull and reduce deer numbers, and this is one of the tools to do that.

The measure is one of a number of measures, the intention of which is to enable us nationally to bring down deer numbers. There may be some land managers who are currently deterred from managing their male deer out of season because of the burden of having to fill in the paperwork for the authorisation. Removing that burden gives managers who wish to do that another option. On its own, the measure may only increase the number of deer culled by a tiny amount, but, because it is part of a larger programme, all of the steps need to be taken.

Of the recommendations that were made by the independent deer working group, 95 were accepted by the Scottish Government, and we are systematically working through them. These are the first three pieces of legislation that have come through. Some primary legislation is required as well, which will come later on, and there are other actions that are not legislative but that need to be taken to support deer management groups, how NatureScot practises its work, and so on.

NatureScot still collects the cull returns.

Yes—NatureScot will be collecting cull returns, because it is important for deer management that we all understand the cull numbers.

I challenge the assumption that Asulox was a primary means of controlling bracken, because only 2 per cent of bracken in Scotland was being treated with Asulox, while 98 per cent is managed by other means or is not managed at all.

I agree that there appears to be an overgrowth of bracken, which seems to be increasing, but we do not have solid evidence of that. As part of the process, the Scottish Government commissioned the James Hutton Institute to conduct a review of the evidence, which found some gaps. We do not know exactly where the bracken is, whether and how quickly the spread is increasing, or which land management practices promote bracken and which discourage it.

There is a larger issue here. As part of the round table that the cabinet secretary and I had last week, we spoke with stakeholders, including farmers and environmental charities, who are affected by bracken, to understand what is needed. It sounds as if we need a big picture. The big ask was for guidance. We all agreed that we need more research to fill the data gaps and have a better understanding. We are taking action to move those projects forward because we all agreed that that is a priority.

To follow up on the final point I made my opening remarks, I realise that timing was an issue. Another ask that came from the round table was that we should improve the timing of the communication of decisions.

I had not visited a bracken-infested area when I agreed to go along with the Health and Safety Executive’s decision. I have visited lots of areas of Scotland that have bracken, but not with the specific intention of discussing it when making that decision. Of course, I have spoken to many land managers, including having the conversation that I have just mentioned about natural regeneration coming through bracken.

When I agreed to the Health and Safety Executive’s recommendation on the matter, it was on the basis that it had looked at all the evidence for itself. I have its full report here, which I am happy to go through with the member. I also asked the UK Expert Committee on Pesticides, and we had a report from the chief scientific adviser. I undertook to consider all that evidence in agreeing to the Health and Safety Executive’s advice.

Once again, I challenge the assertion that nothing has been done. Commissioning the James Hutton Institute to undertake a review of the existing evidence was the first step towards understanding where the gaps are, so that we can commission research into those gaps.

After our discussion with the round table last week, we have identified some of the places where the research is most needed and we can take that forward. I would be happy to write to the member about what came out of that round table and how we are going to move the research forward, because that is something that we are all interested in.

Absolutely. Decisions about pesticides, such as this one, are undertaken on behalf of the Scottish Government by the Health and Safety Executive, which is the delegated authority and does that based on all the necessary evidence.

The emergency application concerning Asulox was made at the UK level. The Health and Safety Executive takes evidence, makes a decision and then makes a recommendation to all four UK nations, at which point each of the four nations responds by either accepting the HSE’s recommendation or by taking other action. In this case, DEFRA took another action, which was to call in the refusal and then make a different decision.

When I got the Health and Safety Executive’s recommendation, I asked the UK Expert Committee on Pesticides to take a view on it. In addition, the Scottish Government’s chief scientific adviser took a view. As has every Scottish minister before me, I agreed to go with the HSE’s recommendation. A Scottish minister has never gone against an HSE recommendation. As to why DEFRA took a different decision, I am unfamiliar with its reasons; it has not published them.

I do not have a date for that, but I can get the member that information.