Chamber and committees

What has changed this year is the Health and Safety Executive’s recommendation. I am happy to go through the reasons for that change, which I have here.

The reasons why, after 10 years of authorising the use of Asulam, the Health and Safety Executive changed its mind this year are as follows.

First, as I have already mentioned, Asulam is considered an endocrine-disrupting chemical, which is a

“substance that alters the ... functions of the ... hormonal system, causing adverse health effects”.

Since 2020, as part of the requirements for making the emergency authorisation, the Health and Safety Executive has asked applicants to provide evidence on that, which they have failed to do. That was one reason. The Health and Safety Executive was not given sufficient evidence by the applicants, which they had been asked for.

A second reason why its use was refused this year was that a new process was being considered that had a new and relevant impurity in it. The data required to evidence the toxicological assessment of that impurity was not submitted, so it could not be assessed.

Another issue is that, in previous years, after emergency applications, Asulam, which is the main chemical, has been found in water in both Scotland and England. The spraying of the chemical in Scotland led to an incident where it exceeded the water quality standard for drinking water, which was above the level for 2022. Such evidence that it was getting into drinking water at above safe levels was another reason for the decision.

The final reason was that, although the HSE recognises the importance of managing bracken for the prevention of Lyme disease and the regeneration of habitat, it points out, and I will read out its exact answer:

“however, while the benefits of controlling bracken are set out, the applicant has indicated that bracken covers 1.5 million hectares in the UK but proposes to treat only 7,500 hectares”—

that is, in the UK—

“meaning that the danger remains in 99.5% of the UK”

and in 98 per cent of Scotland.

“Therefore, the extent of the reduction in danger is unclear and may be low.”

This year, the HSE could not authorise the treating of 2 per cent of Scottish bracken with that chemical because it has ended up in the water, we do not have data that shows that it is safe when it comes to endocrine disruption, and no toxicological data has been supplied about the new impurity in it.

—and from the ground.

As I have said, the paper that we have on the carcinogenic effects of bracken relates to people consuming it—eating it—which is not standard practice in Scotland, so that is not a mechanism—

I believe that we received 12 responses.

About 40.

The NatureScot report on minimum bullet weight involved an experiment to understand how the bullet impacted the animal when it was shot in different places on the body. That would address Edward Mountain’s concern.

That would absolutely be part of it.

I move,

That the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee recommends that the Deer (Firearms etc.) (Scotland) Amendment Order 2023 be approved.

Thank you, convener.

The proposed removal of male close seasons will also remove the need for hundreds of out-of-season authorisations to be issued each year to control male deer, saving land managers time and effort and reducing costs to the public purse. It means that land managers who wish to control male deer year round may do so without the administrative burden. No one is obliged to manage male deer in that way if they do not wish to.

The Scottish Government takes animal welfare matters seriously. That is why we commission evidence from the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission and major animal welfare organisations, which are supportive of this change to the legislation.

I look forward to answering your questions on the matter.

That is correct. Female deer are less likely to be culled out of season, because there are welfare concerns with female deer suckling young.