 Diolch yn fawr, Rock记 of World, on to the next item of business. It is a debate on motion 5351, in the name of Graham Daly on behalf of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee on Dear Management in Scotland. Report to the Scottish Government from Scottish Natural Heritage 2016. Can I ask all members who wish to speak in today's debate to press their request to speak buttons now, and I call on Graham Daly to speak to and move the motion on behalf of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee. I begin by moving the motion in my name on behalf of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee. The report that we are considering this afternoon is a result of extensive committee scrutiny of the SNH report on deer management, which is a rural affairs climate change and the environment committee. The last Parliament has, as part of its work on the land reform act, asked the Government to have produced no later than the end of 2016. Let me thank everyone, stakeholders, clerks, spies and the independent experts that we heard from assisting us in this process. It would be fair to say that deer management is a subject that provokes strong views. It would also be fair to say so too did SNH's report. The task that the committee had was to sift through the diverse range of opinions being offered on the content, consider the evidence and come to a view as to whether the progress made thus far represented the step change required or left to continue as is would deliver such. Whilst recognising that considerable progress had been made in some areas of the country, our unanimous conclusion was that it did not and would not. For those members of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee who served in the Racky Committee, there was a strong sense of deja vu listening to the evidence coming from some deer management interest that it was too early to judge that it had not had enough time. That was exactly what the Racky Committee on which I, Angus MacDonald and Claudia Beamish served was told in relation to the deer code back in 2014. It had only been introduced in 2012 and we needed to give it time to see the positive impact. Biodiversity targets have to be met and soon. We can no longer proceed with manjana as a mantra. In the upland context, many deer management groups still do not have action plans that adequately address the public interest and will result in positive outcomes for the natural heritage. I will come to the lowland context in due course. Therefore, I have made a series of recommendations to the Government, which is convener that I will lay out. The committee has come at this from two directions. First, we have identified some specific measures that we feel should be implemented by the Government. Secondly, we have suggested that the Government might convener a short-life working group calling on a range of expertise and, whilst involving deer management interests, chaired independently of those and SNH to consider other aspects. Let me deal with those in order. The committee recommends that the powers under section 80 of the Land Reform Scotland Act introduced last year are brought into immediate use, effect and deployed as required. Recognising that its significant challenges remain around deer management in lowland Scotland, we are looking for that to be addressed as a matter of priority. We are calling for a strategic approach to managing deer numbers and impacts. SNH should be responsible for determining call levels in the public interest. Deer management groups should carry out deer counts using a clear and agreed methodology in their area on no more than a five-year cycle and return planned deer call details to SNH, while the Scottish Government, through relevant agencies and local authorities, should undertake deer counts in areas that are not covered by a DMG. Sitting alongside that, the close season for stag should be reviewed with the aim of ensuring such restrictions and shooting promote, rather than hinder effective deer management from both an ecological and crop protection perspective. Access to such data will, over time, identify trends around densities and inform appropriate calling levels based on impacts at a local level. That will allow for local flexibility rather than one-size-fits-all. We believe that there is a need for much greater clarity around public objectives and a relative importance set against private objectives at a local level and within each DMG area. Appropriate densities should then be set and both the densities and impacts monitored going forward. The committee is further of the view that the current powers, namely sections 7 and 8, are inadequate. As the SNH report illustrates, section 7 agreements are failing to deliver. They were at the time of the report 11 such agreements in place. Dears density targets had been met in only six, habitat targets had been met in just three, partially in two others. The failure of SNH to use section 8 powers, as seen by many, has been down to a fear that they would be open to challenge. The committee recommends that the Government takes urgent action to devise alternative measures and simple provisions that lead to action to protect and restore habitats and sites impacted by deer. What is needed is an effective backstop power that is fit for purpose. With similar urgency, we recommend the Government commission an analysis of incentives and their use in supporting deer management in the public interest. We are also unanimously of the view that an action plan must be prepared to deliver, as the SGA has called for, a publicly funded network of deer larders across mainland and island Scotland to support greater opportunities for participation in deer culling. The committee has offered its thoughts too on the performance of Scottish natural heritage in relation to deer management. We are of the view that SNH has not provided the level of leadership that might have been expected and there has been a failure to adequately set expectations for deer management in Scotland. SNH appears to have been unable or unwilling to enforce the legislation to secure the natural heritage interests. Further, we felt that knowledge and data gaps ought to have been addressed at an earlier stage by the commissioning of work in time to consider and incorporate the findings into the report. That said, the committee has concerned that SNH may not have the capacity to fully deliver all its duties, including deer management, without additional resources. Let me turn to the short-life working group proposal. One of the things that struck us in taking evidence was the range of expertise in thinking out there around deer management. We are looking for that to be tapped into in order to identify how best to deliver some of the actions that we have called for. That is not about kicking matters into the long grass, far from it. We need to bring people to the table with a clear remit and working to a tight timeframe to provide the Government with practical advice on the way forward for deer management in Scotland. We are reporting back no later than early autumn 2017. Time constraints will prevent me from going into full detail of the suggested remit, but let me expand on two issues. One of the most striking aspects of the evidence that we received on lowland management was just how little had changed from the RACC committee inquiry of 2013-14. By way of example, despite the issues that have been flagged up in the last Parliament, SNH advised that a range of work was under way. Just one additional lowland deer group had been established in the intervening period. It was acknowledged in the evidence gathering process that there was no collaborative approach in large areas of lowland Scotland, a lack of data, that local authority performance in that regard was patchy, and that there was no model or mix of models of deer management to be rolled out. We also learned that the lowland deer network organisation had not consulted its individual member groups before making its submission to the committee. Richard Playfair of the LDNS told us, I would like to think that we promote their views, but we do not necessarily know what their views are at any given time. That admission seems indicative of an organisation that is perhaps not functioning as effectively as it might. We are calling on the Government to do three things, albeit with input from the short-life working group. One, piloting a variety of new approaches, taking account of best practice examples. Two, review the approach to involving local authorities in lowland deer management, exploring whether one which encourages rather than requires their involvement. Three, examine the role and operation of the lowland deer network, considering whether it is sufficiently independent of agencies that fund its work and determine what role it should play in promoting deer management going forward. With regard to ffinsing, the committee is concerned that the costs are considerable and will continue to rise as existing ffinsing deteriorates. It was unclear to us if those significant costs to the public pass are justified, set against the possible benefits of increased culling. Our opinion is that there may require to be a rebalancing, but we would seek SNH to examine the evidence base around this to inform such a decision. That is an overview of the report. I look forward to hearing from members of the committee and others as they explore its contents further. I advise members, including all the front-bench speakers, that we have plenty of time in hand. Feel free to take an extra minute, if you wish. I call on Roseanna Cunningham to open it on behalf of the Government. Can I say in my previous incarnation in this job between 2009 and 2011 that I spent a lot of time in discussions about deer management with colleagues, environmental NGOs and land management organisations. There are still a very few members left who might remember that on-going debate. For much of that time, I was preparing for and then taking through the Wildlife and Natural Environment Scotland Bill, which became an act, a piece of legislation that set out, among other things, to address the shortcomings in the deer act. It is with a slight sense of deja vu and with some disappointment that I return again to this issue, with many of the same claims and counterclaims still being made about how deer are managed in Scotland, the economic benefits that they provide and their impacts on the natural environment. The first point that I would like to make is that the situation is not exactly the same as it was in 2011. There has been considerable progress. However, the progress is patchy. Many of the DMGs have done well, but some have done very little, especially when assessed against public interest criteria. There are DMGs that are newly established, and perhaps it is not realistic to expect to see much progress from them in a narrow time frame, but in other areas there are no collaborative deer management arrangements in place at all. The SNH report notes that despite the progress that has been made, grazing by deer and other herbivores is a major cause of unfavourable condition status in protected areas and that deer grazing is a major factor in limiting the recovery of native woodlands. The crucial point is that, if deer densities were lower across much of Scotland, the economic benefits could be retained while, at the same time, bringing about a reduction in costs associated with deer vehicle collisions and the impacts on forestry. The Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee has now produced a comprehensive and detailed look at the issues associated with deer management. I am very grateful to the committee and its staff for the thorough job that they have done in examining those issues. I am also grateful to the stakeholders and other experts who have given written and oral evidence in support of the committee's work. I think that it is very significant that the committee has come to broadly the same conclusion in its report about the present position with deer management in Scotland as SNH did in its own report, namely that, while progress has undoubtedly been made, much more remains to be done. Where the report's diverge is on precisely what does need to be done. To be fair to SNH, I should say that we did not ask them to come up with solutions in their report. The report was commissioned to answer a specific question that was agreed with the then Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee in 2013, namely whether or not by the end of 2016 the present voluntary system had delivered a step change in effective deer management, and I think that that was the discussion that was being referred to by Graham Day in his opening comments. As such, the SNH report is a snapshot of deer management in mid 2016. It is a very comprehensive snapshot, however. It brings together much new information and new analysis, focusing in the main on the impacts of deer management on the public interest, but also bringing together information on the socio-economic impacts. It is fair to say that the conclusion from the SNH report is that the step change had not been delivered by the deer sector and that there was a lack of confidence on the part of SNH that the present track would deliver that change, particularly with regard to the achievement of the 2020 biodiversity targets. The committee report, as we know, goes further in calling for some changes, including new legislative backstop powers, new powers for SNH to set cull targets, consideration of a new statutory duty to manage deer and the establishment of an independent short-term working group to provide advice on those issues. I know that there are also other views and proposals among stakeholders. For example, proposals to set a Scotland-wide deer density target offer a new management standard for deer. We are still very much in listening mode. I found the SNH report and the committee's work very helpful indeed in helping to formulate my thinking. I am confident that this debate will contribute to that. While I am not giving a formal Government response today, I can say that I am determined that we will take the steps that are necessary to meet the concerns that have been expressed. I do not want to think that, in another five years, we will be having the same debate again. However, we will be seeking solutions that recognise the realities of the world in which we live. There are no large sums of public money to hand out, and the impact of Brexit on our own legislative timetable is still being assessed. Balance will be the key. The balance to be struck between maintaining economic benefits and protecting and restoring the natural environment with a continuing desire to build and carry consensus support from all those with an interest in managing deer. I refer members to my register of interests. I am delighted to be opening this debate on behalf of my party today, because I have a real interest in this subject, having myself been a main board member of SNH for six years, admittedly some years ago now. Deer management continues to be a contentious issue. It certainly was in my time, and I am sure that it will remain so going forward. The most fundamental challenge facing us, though, is the lack of up-to-date population estimates for all species of deer. I welcome the fact that SNH is working with the James Hutton Institute to provide those numbers across the red deer's main open hill ground range, but the lack of systematic monitoring of deer in more lowland areas and woodland means that we only have limited information on row, seeker and fallow deer. That said, we do have some estimates on those numbers, and we know that numbers of red deer increased markedly from about 1960 reaching a peak in 2000, and since then numbers have roughly stabilised. Based on the estimates that we have, it seems that the deer density in 2016 was around 12.5 deer per square kilometre, which is more than enough to contribute to damage to natural features. Compared to the estimated eight deer per square kilometre in 1960, there would appear to be a need to reduce numbers. However, out of the 14 deer management groups that were scrutinised, only five had called to a level that needed to reduce the population. In grazing not just by deer but also other herbivores is a major cause of unfavourable conditions of natural features in protected areas. We also know that more than a third of native woodlands are in unsatisfactory conditions due to the impact of herbivores and that they are limiting woodland condition recovery and natural regeneration. In addition to the environment of benefit of good deer management, there are also clear economic benefits from it as well. With over 700 full-time jobs associated with deer management, we should acknowledge the importance of this work in contributing to the viability of a rural economy. Deer stocking also supports increasing levels of tourism and, of course, the sale of venison. In that regard, I support and welcome the call for public funding for the establishment of a network of deer larders across Scotland. My experience in this field comes from my work with SNH rather than in the countryside with deer management groups, but there are concerns that I have with DMGs. They are having made success on the ground with less than 50 per cent adequately identifying actions in their plans to manage the impact on designated features from herbivores. I am glad to see that there have been improvements in quantifying and auditing resources through the planning process, but that said, I still have concerns over the success in linking planning with implementation through identifying the specific steps that are necessary to deal with management issues. However, as Scottish Land and the States have pointed out, it is right that we give DMGs the time to deliver further improvements. We must also recognise that two years is far too short a time to see real improvements in biodiversity on the ground. I also note the specific criticism by the committee, namely the lack of formal structure for rural deer management and the lack of leadership from SNH in this manner. Although there is some management in the lowland areas and private land through deer stocking, I recognise that this area will need to be looked at further to ensure that we are hitting the targets required. The lack of leadership from SNH has quite possibly contributed to the delay in deer management plans, and that is due to SNH failure to be clear on their expectations from the start. Presiding Officer, there is undoubtedly more to be done, and some deer management groups need to be encouraged to do much more. However, I do welcome the progress of DMGs so far, and I hope that we in this chamber can continue to support their plans as we seek to protect natural features in protected areas. I would argue that we need to give this process more time to bed in and to start showing the results that we all want to see, namely deer numbers at sustainable levels with healthy animals on the ground and our national heritage and biodiversity in better condition. The committee welcomes the fact that progress has been made in deer management in Scotland in recent years, but that remains a complex issue with competing objectives within and across deer management groups, and often not very much involvement with the local community in some of those. In some areas that do not have established deer management groups at all, as we have heard from the first two speakers. According to the Forest Policy Group briefing, our committee report is a timely alarm call. Their briefing also states that our recommendations show that the entire regulatory system needs to be recalibrated to meet the legitimate expectations of society in the 21st century. That is indeed the case. Scotland has battled a growing problem with wild deer for over 150 years, and the issue has developed to damage some of our woodland and threatened biodiversity, public safety and the welfare of deer in some instances. While it would serve us well to remember that deer are wild animals and belong to no one, the issue of shootable stags on properties that manage stalking has been one of the reasons why deer management has not been properly addressed in the public interest. Overfeeding can undermine woodland regeneration efforts and has a broad knock-on effect on important habitats and biodiversity. As we heard from the committee convener Graham Day, Scotland's handling of deer management will be pivotal for biodiversity improvements for the future, and achieving the actually 2020 target will need redoubling of efforts. Evidence shows that deer in Scotland, as we heard in committee, can be three times smaller than deer in Norway due to the environmental conditions and competition for food. It is untenable to continue to allow this public resource to go under managed and, in some places, inappropriately managed. As a member of the previous Racky Committee, I took through deer management amendments to the Land Reform Act along with Mike Russell. It is encouraging that deer management parts of the Land Reform Act are now in existence, and my amendment ensures that the code of practice will be reviewed every three years. With such variability and performance among deer management groups, this regular monitoring is vital for identifying progress and challenges. However, are these and other efforts enough? Our committee's suggestion regarding a statutory duty of complying with the code of practice on deer management is clearly necessary. It was brought in as part of the Wildlife and Natural Environment Act, but it was always voluntary for everyone, apart from public bodies. At present, SNH cannot set car targets and it can only request returns. What is needed is a clear expression of the public interest at a local scale, using the tools such as the land use strategy and or regional land use partnerships and deer management groups that should be applying the herbivore impact assessments. Once we have seen that expressed spatially and publicly available, SNH should be setting car targets to accord with the best land use outcomes for that specific area. In that context, I draw attention to our committee recommendations, stated in paragraphs 319 and 323. That is a difficult issue, because, as the cabinet secretary says, in straightened times, it is hard to know how some of those issues will be funded and supported going forward. However, that is a very important issue for the whole of Scotland. Turning to lowland deer management, our committee states that there are significant challenges for deer management in lowland Scotland. Indeed, the committee has disappointed that there has been so little progress. In much of lowland Scotland, there are no formal collaborative structures. That needs to be addressed as a matter of priority. Deer collisions with vehicles, intrusion of deer into suburban areas, fencing costs and culling costs are serious concerns without collaboration on a more formal basis than the present lowland deer network. Real local government support for capacity and training for local authorities will remain intractable. Changes must support sustainable deer harvesting. I have recently met the Scottish Gamekeepers Association, which is building a constructive case for incentivising the public interest of deer management through the development of community larders and the utilisation of existing local skills bases. That would support local employment, the marketing of venison, whether it is to help with food poverty or at the top end, where we have a wonderful Thai venison recipe from the Tweed Valley venison group. Finally, that will help with local employment. Mike Daniels, to end, from the John Muir trust, states that the modest reforms proposed by the Environment, Climate Change Committee offer us a way out of the endless cycle of debate towards a brighter future for our land that will benefit local communities, nature and the entire nation. I call on the Scottish Government to set up a working group, chaired independently, as highlighted by our convener, to help to take things forward. However, there are actions that should be happening now, and I commend the report to the Scottish Government. I would like to begin by reminding the chamber that I am the parliamentary liaison officer to the cabinet secretary for rural economy and connectivity. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank my fellow MSPs and the clerks on the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee and the witnesses and everyone else for their work on this report. It is clear from Scottish Natural Heritage report that progress has been made in relation to deer management in Scotland and in recent years, and that is welcome. As reflected in the committee's report, deer management remains a complex issue. Deer management groups across the country often have competing objectives and many areas do not have established groups. In November 2013, Rob Gibson MSP, who was the convener of the Rural Affairs Committee, stated that social, environmental and the economics of deer populations can be controversial and have even divided some communities. That is still true today because there are significant differences in the management of deer in the uplands and the lowlands, and it is the lowlands that I am concerned about as there are particular issues. Lowland deer management is achieved in a number of different ways, ranging from informal arrangements with local deer management groups and landowners to more formal stocking, at least from larger commercial forestry companies, through to the more formal 11 lowland deer groups. Those variations are a result of differences in the range of species, different behaviours of red and raw deer and in the pattern of local land ownership. There are also practical challenges in managing deer in lowland settings where there is far more public interest and, indeed, more public access. Increasingly, there is an expectation that deer management should support public benefits. It is also clearly vital to Scotland's biodiversity strategy and the plans for climate change mitigation through woodland expansion and peatland restoration. In areas of the lowlands, there has been insufficient progress in ensuring that there are formal collaborative structures for deer management in place. In the south of Scotland, we have reasonable coverage with deer management groups in South Ayrshire and Wigtonshire, Central Galloway, East and Freeson Galloway, Estillmure and the Borders. However, there are still uncovered areas, and, as the committee notes, that results in the lack of information that is necessary to control the environmental impact of grazing deer. However, as the Association of Deer Management Group pointed out in its briefing to members, it is not always correct to assume that, where there is no deer group, no deer management is taking place, there are over 6,000 deer stocking certificate level 1 qualified deer managers in Scotland, and many of them will be active in the lowlands in promoting voluntary collaborative management and encouraging engagement from farming and local owning sectors and local authorities. As the cabinet secretary pointed out in her evidence to the committee, SNH is not solely responsible for delivering a step change in deer management, and both deer management groups and private deer managers must share that responsibility. I am of the opinion that SNH must therefore strive to work collaboratively with the groups. That will involve serious consideration of the evidence-based views expressed by deer managers. Those deer managers often have an excellent understanding of how best to achieve a balance between environment, employment and deer welfare. I was pleased to hear from SNH at committee confirmation that work is under way to highlight areas where they can develop better collaborative structures with the lowland deer network. Currently, there is a pilot project under way that is looking at that range of approaches. There are recreational stalkers who want to go out and do more stocking but do not have their own land. SNH is looking at matching such people with landowners who want deer to be managed. The Forestry commission, which is a key player in the lowlands with large land holdings, is a partner in that piece of work, which is due for publication this year. I hope that SNH will work closely with the lowland deer network, private deer managers and local groups to move towards a more structured approach in some lowland areas, while being mindful that deer impacts are often more important than numbers and should be considered in a local context. Certainly, an organised, structured, professional approach to managing deer populations based on environmental impact and not necessarily their numbers needs to be considered. I welcome the opportunity to take part in today's debate on deer management, and I welcome the cabinet secretary's earlier commitment to making improvements, because deer management in Scotland is currently not up to the mark. The report on deer management published by SNH in 2016 showed that the present voluntary approach is not sustaining or improving the natural heritage. While deer are important to Scotland's rural economy, they provide us with healthy food, recreational opportunities that bring tourism to the country and are also integral to Scotland's ecosystem. However, when deer numbers get too high, the ecological impact can be great. The impact of unmanaged deer populations can lead to suppression of tree and shrub regeneration, causing a loss of species diversity, which will ultimately cause damage to Scotland's natural heritage. The native woodland survey of Scotland found that more than a third of all native woodland were in unsatisfactory conditions due to herbivore impact. Evidence suggests the view that deer are a major factor in limiting woodland condition recovery. There are also socioeconomic benefits to deer management, including supporting employment, contributing to rural tourism, providing sporting income and, of course, the sale of venison. One of the major areas of improvement must be in the way that we manage lowland deer in the future. I am disappointed that there has been so little progress towards proper deer management in much of lowland Scotland. In many lowland areas, there are no formal collaborative structures for deer management, and that has got to be addressed as a matter of urgency. There are undoubtedly a number of challenges surrounding how we improve lowland deer management, and a number of those were highlighted in the Claire report, including the complex land ownership picture. A collaborative approach is not in place in large areas of the lowlands. Local authority performance is patchy, and there is no model of deer management to roll out, and there is a lack of land owner investment. Although I do not doubt that those challenges are very real, I do not believe that there are barriers impossible to overcome. However, there seems to be little improvement since the Racky Committee in 2014 recommended that the Scottish Government seek to address the lack of success in lowland deer management. Since its report, only one additional deer management group has been established, so it is clear that we need to do more. The Claire Committee has recommended that the Scottish Government give further support to the piloting of new approaches, including a flesh, to look at the roles of local authorities in managing the deer population and the incentives of legislation around it, and to explore how the lowland deer network is working and to encourage much better working with lowland deer management groups. Deer panels are one way of providing considered advice and to welcome the increased function around local community engagement that those panels can now take part in. The committee has suggested that the Scottish Government act to make regulations giving deer panels further functions relating to community engagement. SNH should give full consideration to the appointment of deer panels, particularly in lowland Scotland. Steps such as that could potentially overcome problems in various parts of Scotland where deer management groups do not exist. Progress has been extremely slow, but it is time now for the Scottish Government to take responsibility and implement a strategy of lowland deer management that will properly protect Scotland's ecosystem. I completely support the Claire Committee and its recommendations to the Scottish Government to establish an independent short-term working group as a matter of urgency to provide clear advice and a way forward for deer management in Scotland. The Claire Committee has provided the Scottish Government with the thorough and comprehensive report, and it is imperative that the Scottish Government now seek to address some of the issues that have been highlighted in that report. It is fair to say that deer management in Scotland has tended a long-running saga, not quite of Icelandic saga proportions, but long-running all the same. The argument surrounding what constitutes effective and sustainable deer management is not new. Legislation to control deer and amendments to it has continued since the Deer Act in Scotland came into force in 1959, and, of course, the issue has so many aspects to it that it is impossible to cover them all in this debate. Having served on the previous Racky Committee in the previous session of Parliament, I became acutely aware early on of the need for Parliament and Government to grasp the issue and make some drastic improvements that were made, improvements were needed to deer management in Scotland. One of the frustrations that was felt by my former colleagues on the previous Racky Committee and the current members of the Claire Committee was and is the failure of SNH to properly use section 8. I have to admit that I do not feel comfortable criticising SNH because, as a rule, they do a good job in undoubtedly challenging financial times, however sometimes they do not. That can sometimes be because current legislation is lacking, and there is a strong argument to suggest that that was the reason for the reluctance of SNH to implement section 8. However, SNH also admitted to us that, and I quote, we perhaps have not used those powers—that is section 7 and section 8—or pushed the use of those powers as quickly as we might have done. However, our hand has sometimes been stayed by threats that our evidence base is not good enough and that, therefore, there would be a challenge. As a result, the committee has questioned the risk appetite of SNH in that respect. Indeed, when Ian Ross, chair of SNH, gave evidence to our committee, admitted that there had been frustration at board level, as well as further down the line that enforcement had not been utilised to its full extent. As a result, there is a strong argument, in fact that it is the committee's view that the legislation that aims to protect the natural environment from deer impacts is not fit for purpose. It was clear to the committee that SNH has failed to provide leadership in managing the impact of deer, albeit not entirely its fault. The impact on the environment has been a running sore on the Scottish countryside for decades, if not centuries, causing environmental degradation and high cost to the public purse with scarce and soon-to-be scarcer SRDP funding used to erect miles and miles of deer fencing, money that could have been put to other uses. As an example, £23.3 million of public sector funding was spent on deer fencing between 2003 and 2012, enough to cover the distance between Scotland and South Africa. The SNH reports suggest that, given that there is an issue of deteriorating fencing covering huge distances, if fenses are replaced at the end of their operational life using public funding, that could require a further £100 million at 2016 prices. So, as a committee, we were unclear if the significant cost to the public purse of fencing is justified, set against the benefits of increased culling level, which is why we have recommended SNH examine the full costs and benefits of different approaches to deer management based on the available information. There is no doubt that unsustainable deer numbers are impeding Scottish Government targets on biodiversity and climate change mitigation through worldland expansion and peatland restoration. We need to see urgent action from all parties—SNH, local deer management groups and the Scottish Government—to name three, as times of the essence, if we are to meet our international commitment to the 2020 IHE biodiversity targets, as well as our own Scottish biodiversity strategy. It is not just the clear committee that is frustrated that section 8 remains unused where use of the power might be justified. Simon Pepper of the Forest Policy Group stated that the fundamental key to an effective system is whether there is credible backup power, and he claimed at committee that we do not have the credible backup power in place. It is fair to say that other stakeholders held a similar view to varying degrees. As a result of the comments received regarding section 8, the committee was firmly of the view that if new backstop powers are to be introduced, they must be supported by clear direction from the Scottish Government and SNH must be empowered and resourced to deliver them. In closing, I would like to touch on an issue that has been raised with me by landowners during my travels in the Hebrides. Indeed, it has been raised by lowland deer management groups in the past, and that is the need for more deer ladders, which the convener referred to, as well as the refurbishment of existing ones. That is why the committee has recommended that the Scottish Government prepare an action plan for wider supply chain developments for deer carcasses and deliver public funding for the establishment of a network of deer ladders across Scotland, including the islands, to support greater opportunities for taking part in appropriate culling activity. As far as I am concerned, a good outcome of our committee's work would be a fit for purpose deer ladder network across Scotland and, importantly, the introduction of legislation that allows SNH to ensure that a cull or culls that are in the public interest are delivered ideally without legal challenge. Mark Ruskell, to be followed by Mike Rumbles. Mark Ruskell, I welcome the committee debate this afternoon on the perennial and often vex question of deer management in Scotland. I can also thank all those who participated in this inquiry and particularly the very experienced contribution of members who served in the previous RACI committee as well. It took such an important lead on this topic. Some progress has, of course, been made over the years, but this latest SNH report reminds us that we have yet to see a step change in the management of deer populations so that they can exist within the carrying capacity of ecosystems that they inhabit. Some of the debate around the SNH report between stakeholders was about the accuracy of precise deer counts between helicopters and on foot, but I felt that that largely missed the point, because the step change that SNH calls for is in meeting the public interest objectives on the ground. Although there are undoubtedly excellent examples of deer management groups that are achieving those objectives in full and profitably, we need to drive progress across the board. The time for bolder action is now because so many of our important and threatened habitats are very slow to recover. Failures to take action now, combined with climate change and a dwindling pot of post-Brexit funds for habitat restoration, could tip them over the edge. Peatlands, Montaigne scrub, Broadleave upland woodlands and Caledonian pinewoods are captured by our HE biodiversity commitments, but grazing pressure, soil erosion, tree damage and habitat fragmentation are all strongly connected to deer population levels that are simply too high. That underlines the need not only to act positively on deer management but also to bring into life the national ecological network that we recently voted on and agreed in this chamber. It would be great if the cabinet secretary in closing could perhaps reflect on progress in establishing this network. The fact that less than a quarter of DMGs have properly identified what sustainable levels of grazing are for their areas demonstrates that the step change has not yet happened. That is the fact that less than half of the DMGs identify practical actions to manage deer impacts on habitats that are meant to enjoy protection today. It is quite clear that the powers and resources SNH currently have to intervene are not adequate, and that a simple and effective compulsory backstop is needed to drive voluntary good practice alongside practical incentives. There is a case alongside that for implementing immediately the section 80 powers under the Land Reform Act to establish DMGs where there are gaps and require more community involvement, but the compulsory backstop needs urgent examination, and the starting point should be a short-life working group. We agreed unanimously in the committee that a new framework is needed, where SNH determines the co-level that is required to deliver the public interest, where DMGs monitor deer levels and submit plans to SNH for discussion and, if required, revision. In addition, the working group needs to consider other questions surrounding the costs of the public forest offencing and the approach to deer management in the lowlands. We also consider it important for this group to be tasked with looking further afield at deer management in other countries. There is much to learn, Presiding Officer, especially from our Nordic neighbours. I felt the evidence that the committee took from Norway was compelling. Its approach focuses on the health of the animal first and foremost as an indicator of the health of the ecosystem that sustains it. Lower deer population densities in Norway have resulted in higher carcass weights, greater fecundity and more impressive antlers compared to Scottish deer with similar genetics. It is not surprising that, given the long-term studies of deer populations from RUM, it has highlighted that for decades. However, here we have a live system of management in Norway that appears to work well and has also controlled another major cost to the public purse road accidents. What do shooters and tourists expect to see in Scotland anyway? Heards of emaciated deer sweeping across the moor or the monarch of the glen resplendent with his 12-point antlers? There have to be economic advantages to putting deer and ecosystem health first. One of those advantages could also come from developing deer ladders and supply chains for venison that many members have already discussed, especially in the lowlands. The lowlands is a gap that points the need for more extensive networks of gamekeepers and stalkers to gather the data and manage populations, more not less jobs helping to manage an ecological network across the country. I look forward to action from the Scottish Government and a return to this issue in committee, picking up the thread of scrutiny again when the working group reports. The issue of deer management has been controversial and complex one ever since I was first elected to this Parliament when we started back in 1999. As a member of the Rural Affairs Committee in our first parliamentary session, we looked at this. If I can say so, it is interesting for me to see that on my return to Parliament for this fifth session I found that the responsible committee for this issue is now the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee and not the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee. I can see the convener smiling on that committee there. There has been a stabilisation in overall deer numbers in the past 10 years, and that is welcome. However, a concentration of excessive deer numbers is still having a significant impact on the environment, and the committee has noted that there is an urgency to address the challenge. The report of Scottish National Heritage highlights the fact that it believes that half of all deer management groups have failed to identify the actions that are needed to control the activities of deer, and therefore the scale of the problem is huge. Identifying the scale of the problem is a necessary first step before identifying the way forward in solving the problem. In addition, the committee has taken the view that, despite the best attempts of SNH and the association of deer management groups, they cannot be confident that they are capable of delivering the change that is required. The committee calls for a statutory duty of sustainable deer management. It believes that SNH should be responsible for determining the cut levels, that deer management groups should carry out effective deer counts and return information on their planned deer calls to SNH, with agencies of the Scottish Government being responsible for that in areas that are not covered by deer management groups. However, what I find surprising is that the committee at the same time is calling for more involvement from SNH and is severely critical of that organisation for failing to provide the required leadership in deer management. SNH appears to the committee to have been unable or unwilling to enforce the law as it stands to protect our natural environment. Indeed, the committee in its report states that it shares the frustration felt by many that section 8 of the Land Reform Act remains unused, where the power of that section might be justified. The committee goes on to say that it is not convinced that the currently available suite of powers are adequate. When a committee uses that phrase, we are not convinced, we all know that that is diplomatic speak for the current legislation is not fit for purpose, convener nodding his head. However, I am not convinced, personally, that new legislation is particularly the answer. Why? SNH recognises that there has not been a detailed assessment of the barriers to improve deer management and confirms that they have not carried out a full analysis of how incentives, for instance, have been taken up and how, indeed, effective they could be. I would suggest that this really must be the starting point. I question why has no effective assessment been carried out to date. This is an issue that has not just happened recently. This is years in the making. Positive reinforcement of good practice is always, in any field, more effective than wielding the big stick. I would suggest that the Scottish Government starts here. It starts by finding out what incentives are effective in improving deer management rather than simply going down the road, or we must have more legislation. We surely want a situation where everyone—of course— I would just like to ask the member how much more time is needed for those groups that are not getting their act together in the public interest and are not involving communities, and, indeed, those places where this just is not happening. How much more time is needed? Mike Rumbles, I am sorry. Do we have to look forward years as well, Mr Rumbles? Yes. Mike Rumbles, please. I understand the frustration that that comes from, but that is no reason to jump to legislation. I am just saying that. I am not saying that the member is jumping to legislation. I am just concerned that the Government jumps to legislation here. I reiterate the point. Why have we not looked at what actually is effective in incentivisation? It is natural. In any walk of life, as I have just said, you get far better results out of people if you can incentivise people to do something correctly rather than try with a threat of punishment. I think that that may be the difference between the political perspectives that we have in this chamber. I feel that we surely want a situation where everyone gains, land managers gain through incentives, the public gain, and our environment gains. I would like to say that, at the very least, we should find out what positive incentives to improve dear management will be most effective. I am astonished that that has not already been done. Thank you very much, Mr Rumbles. I call Linda Fabiani, last speaker in the open debate. A few of my colleagues have expressed their surprise that, as the member for East Kilbride, I have asked to speak in the dear management debate. However, there is a particular aspect of dear management that I feel has to be addressed, peri-urban-dear. The report and all the discussion that we have talks about lowland deer, but I feel very strongly that peri-urban is much more specific and that that has not been well enough recognised either by Scottish Natural Heritage or the lowland deer network or, in popular opinion. My colleague Gordon MacDonald just beside me here just told me a minute ago that, when he moved to Cumbernauld, his father was attacked by a stag, so there you go. Who would have thought that? It is not that long ago. He is a lot older than he looks. It is a very real and challenging issue, reducing the environmental impact of wild road deer in the central belt. It has not been adequately monitored or managed. Investment, attention and energy have always, I feel, focused on deer management in the highlands of Scotland for very valid reasons. I welcome the report by the Parliament's committee, acknowledging some of the issues that need to be addressed. It recognises that wild road deer numbers are rapidly increasing in the central belt, and that is causing jeopardy to road users and environmental impacts on public and private grounds. One of the things that a local deer manager said to me that is always stuck in my mind is that, of course, this is happening because we are carrying out all those infrastructure projects, we build houses and actually the deer were there first. There are particular difficulties in managing the deer on public ground because there is a really patchy response from local authorities, like so many other agencies. Local authorities in the central belt do not recognise the particular issues. It is very clear that what the committee says is quite right. A one-size-fits-all approach does not work. I was pleased that the committee recommended setting up a short-term working group. I strongly recommend—I cannot recommend it strongly enough— that the working group includes expertise from local urban deer managers, with the skills, experience and knowledge to help us to move the agenda forward. SNH gave training to many recreational deer managers in the central belt, a very high standard. That is a significant resource in central Scotland. We should use it to much better effect to manage deer. Instead, we often find that deer management is commissioned from private contractors rather than from those who have been keeping our roads, streets and towns safe for many, many years. I mentioned the South Lanarkshire deer group earlier, and this was a group that I have been working with for many, many years. It is well noted for its standard of collaboration between deer managers and other partners, and they have been recognised for their contributions to training and the deer code. In fact, development of other deer groups has been modelled on it. I do not see why groups such as those are not routinely included in deer management plans, because their local knowledge and expertise is there for being ignored. Again, that is about that one-size-fits-all approach. We should not be pursuing it. If I have time, I am more than happy to. I thank the member for taking the intervention. It is obviously interesting that there are some areas in urban areas that deer come into conflict with the population, not only on roads but also in their gardens. Does the member feel that fencing and excluding the deer from those problem areas would play an important part in making sure that we can still see wildlife in urban areas? What I would say to Edwin Mountain is that, although that sounds like quite a good idea, I think that the complexities of deer management in cities, towns and urban settings require a lot more looking at than coming up with instant solutions. That hits at the heart of the problem. We have not really looked at the issues of urban deer management. We are still trying to apply solutions that are perhaps better for areas where deer herd, for example, rather than when you have individual family units of deer like you have with the road deer in the central belt. I think that the SNH report did not demonstrate that detailed knowledge and understanding of the very different challenges that there are for peri-urban deer management against rural deer management. Urban Scotland is not swathed any more in woodland. What we have is we have farmed small holdings, private land, publicly owned land, housing estates, as mentioned. It needs very different solutions and different relationships. The short-term working group is welcome, but let us make sure that we cover all aspects of it. If I can, Presiding Officer, I would like to move on to another aspect quickly if there is time. If there is time in hand, yes. Oh, thank you very much. You rarely speak, so I will be generous. So another aspect of deer management, which is covered by the committee report and a few colleagues have mentioned it, is the establishment of deer larders to help with the processing and marketing of venison products. Venison deer meat is one of the most nutritious forms of protein that we produce in Scotland. It is grown naturally and is abundant in the central belt, but it is not available to consumers in central Scotland. It is one of the most valuable forms of protein on our doorstep, close by to big population centres. We are the only people who are not able to consume it in other than tiny quantities, because most of that valuable resource is exported directly to Europe, which is great, but it should circulate in the local economy. The reason that it does not is about a lack of infrastructure. Although we have many highly qualified deer managers in the central belt, there is no infrastructure to deal with the deer after they have been culled. I would ask that we look into setting up larger facilities where deer can become a local venison resource, benefiting the communities that quite often would benefit most—good-quality food with low-carbon miles, a reduction in some of the very sickening behaviour that we have seen against wildlife by poachers in our area, and it could also help employment. I am pleased to see that the South Lanarkshire deer group— I am sorry, I have to say to the member that I have been very generous— I have been very generous, but I am not overly generous. Let me just close, Presiding Officer, by saying that we have a deer code for all in Scotland, but it seems that there are no local authorities, councils or nature reserves in the central belt taking a bit of notice. I would like to see a pilot scheme set up, looking specifically at central belt deer management. I would like the central belt deer managers to get the respect that they have deserved for many, many years. Thank you very much. I now call David Stewart to close for Labour. Six minutes earlier about, Mr Stewart. Thank you for your generosity, Presiding Officer. Could I first of all thank the members of the Claire committee for their input into this report and in this debate, but as well as, of course, the other members who are not members of the committee who have spoken today, which I felt has been an interesting and insightful debate across the chamber. There are a number of key issues, such as how to manage deer, what the responsibility of the land owner is, how do you measure the effect of deer in the natural environment, what the role of the DMGs, local authorities and SNH is, and what is the role of the public interest clause. I believe that the report has been a thorough scrutiny of those issues. Could I acknowledge for the onset, Presiding Officer, the work that the environmental NGOs have carried out in giving evidence for the report, such as LINC, the Forest Policy Group and the John Muir Trust, who have all, incidentally, welcomed the report, which I appreciate. Previous efforts to control deer management have been largely voluntary. While there have been some inroads made, improvements have plateaued and further action is certainly required. Not tackling the deer issue clearly, as members have said, would have a negative impact on biodiversity, climate change, peatland restoration and woodland expansion, as well as adding to the public costs with coping, with fencing versus culling and, of course, a mixture of both. Proper deer management should obviously have a firm impact on environmental issues but will also help to create jobs in fragile rural communities, such as in my region in the Highlands and Islands. That not only includes on-the-ground efforts with deer but, as many members have said, with more ladder and arbitrar services to deal with an increase in culling to allow the meat to be processed and distributed across Scotland to void a missed opportunity to help the food sector. As Claudia Beamers said in her earlier contribution, evidence shows that our deer can be three times smaller than deer in Norway due to environmental conditions and competition for food. It is intendable to continue to allow this public resource to go under-managed and sometimes inappropriately managed. A number of members have also referred to the land reform act, and through Claudia Beamers' amendment in the last Parliament, the code of practice must be reviewed every three years by SNH. The convener of the committee opened the debate by saying that it was important of an extensive scrutiny of SNH's report. There are, of course, strong views about deer management, but, as the convener said, there are also strong views about SNH as well. We have to recognise that. With deer management groups, it has been mixed. Some are still lacking action plans, while others clearly have done an excellent piece of work. What the committee, which I, member of, want to see is a short-life working group, is a sensible solution to get some action for the next steps. One of the key issues that Graeme Dey raised was what are the public objectives when it comes to deer management. He also pointed out what he felt was inadequate legislation in the section 7s and section 8s. With section 8, for example, there has been no use of that section at all by SNH. I think that what I have picked up is obviously some fear of legal challenge, but my view, as a member of this Parliament for a number of years, is that, if the legislation is not competent, it should be reintroduced to Parliament. Is there a wider issue why SNH is not using that section? I am certainly welcome any view from the cabinet secretary on her wind-up. What the committee has suggested is a backspot power, which I think is a very sensible way forward. There are also issues around data gaps, and more resources to SNH would probably help that. On a personal issue when it comes to the SNH report, what I felt, and the number of members agreed with me, was having a clearly external independent expert peer appraisal would be very useful. I welcome the cabinet secretary's view on that issue as well. The cabinet secretary also raised the issue about assessing the expense to the public purse. Clearly, when it comes to fencing, it is extremely expensive. What we need to do is a cost-benefit analysis, looking at large-scale fencing versus small-scale fencing versus culling versus no action at all. The public spend a lot of money on that, so we need to know that we are getting a good value for money. When it came to the cabinet secretary, she talked about the deer management groups, and some deer management groups are clearly doing a good job. She also raised the issue of deer vehicle collisions, which a number of members have also mentioned. However, she made the point that the step change has not been delivered. I thought that the cabinet secretary made a very useful point, as she said. Although the Scottish Government will take steps to address concerns, there will not be large sums of money to be handed out for the issue, particularly when it comes to a post-Brexit Scotland. In summary, I feel that I am sorry for the members who have not been able to mention it. I think that this has been an excellent debate. As a member of committee, I would support the recommendations of the committee, but I think that it is an important subject that goes before us. It is important for climate change, biodiversity and food miles, and we need to take action on the issue. Claudia Beamish said that we have been sitting on our hands for many years on the issue, but now it is time for action, and I would endorse the report to Parliament. I would like to say how much I have enjoyed it. My interest in the subject is not because I own a deer forest, as some have suggested. I own a farm with a few roe deer on it, but my enjoyment has come because I have had a huge part of my professional life managing deer. I have drawn up deer management plans. I have drawn up one for the Cangormen Spacide deer management group and for other deer management groups, and some of these plans are still running. I have been making sure as well in my professional life before I became a politician that they were implemented on the ground, not sometimes an easy task. The debate has proved to me that much can be learned from taking evidence and listening to experts, but there is no real substitute for actual experience. I think that that came across on a lot of the evidence sessions that were given to the committee that I listened to. When I read the report, I was pleased that it identified some key and important facts, but before I look at those, I want to mention and remind members of a simple fact. Red deer are an iconic Scottish species and should be treated as such. However, it has become clear to me that some are fixated by deer management and micro deer management. We have had two committees in this Parliament that have carried out reviews of deer management. There have been two assessments of deer management carried out by SNH, one SNH report, two further consultancy reports, and it all seems a bit of an overkill to me, but it should be a warning to those people that are out there managing deer that they need to step up to the plate because this Parliament is giving it scrutiny. Maybe scrutiny is some that could argue that it is not truly deserved. Turning to the report, I would like to mention four of the key points that have been highlighted by SNH. Deer numbers might have increased since 1960, but they peaked in 2000 and 2001, and those increases have stopped. Cull numbers dropped in 2011 and 2012, and that was due to an actual physical event on the ground, which were two extremely hard winters where there was natural mortality, a huge amount of natural mortality. On one estate I know, they lost over 200 hines in that winter alone. However, the culls now returned to the high levels of culls that were achieved in 2004-2005. Red deer culling across Scotland had actually increased by about 30 per cent. There are 38,600 animals culling each year. There is also a huge economic impact of deer management. It employs 722 people, probably more, and it benefits the rural economy by an excess of £15.8 million a year. As somebody that managed deer, I want to mention five key facts that I think are fundamentally important, and it has been picked up in the debate today. Deer management is not about numbers, it is impacts on environment than count, and it is also the result of grazing on those environments by other herbivores such as sheep, rabbit and hares. If we are truly to look at habitat management, which is what we should be basing deer management on, then we need to look at the management of all herbivores on hills. I do accept that deer management groups have made progress on deer management plans, and, although it is a collaborative approach that the committee welcomes, it takes time—a huge amount of time—to move things forward, as Peter Chapman and Emma Harper suggested. I can tell you from personal experience that drawing up one deer management plan took about three years of my life, and it was about balancing the needs not only of the estates, but the Forestry Commission, SNH and other interested local groups such as the local community. Effective deer management has got to be responsible, and I have mentioned already the hard winters of 2010 and 2011. We had huge mortality. Wet spring weather can bring the same effect, and we have got to make sure that whatever is put in place effectively takes account of events on the ground as they occur and we do not get tied into the numbers game. There were numerous generalisations in the report that I felt were perhaps misleading. For example, there was a comment that deer condition is determined by nutrition, i.e. the less day you have, the better they condition they can be in. That is fundamentally not true. There are other things that contribute to deer condition, such as the parasitic burden, the overall health, and obviously a fundamental factor is genetics. Bigger deer do not just appear. We all have to understand that deer across Scotland will be genetically suited to the environment that they are in. Deer on Lewis are naturally smaller than you get deer on the mainland. Parkland deer are naturally bigger than deer that you get on the high hills of the Kangalls. That is genetics, and that is where they come from. Now, I was concerned that I heard that SNH was suggesting to set centralised targets. I have seen this before when we had the Deer Commission for Scotland. They set centralised targets. You used to go to the deer management group every year, the annual meeting, and you would be given targets. Those targets did not necessarily achieve what they were supposed to do. Now, I also heard for an increase of seasons and the stag season in particular. The reason why I am concerned about that is because it usually means that there are not enough people on the ground to carry out the stag-storting season when it needs to be done. I accept fully that deer larders will be helpful, but so would markets for venison. We have very limited game dealers. Now, in summary, I could go on about one or two other things. I do not think that I have the time, do I, Presiding Officer? There are a couple of points that I would like to mention. You have got another two or three minutes at least. I think that a working group would be extremely helpful, and I think that engagement by them and the deer management groups across Scotland would be useful. I believe that the loss of the Deer Commission for Scotland that happened when it was absorbed into SNH was a mistake. I believe that if we are going to take deer management seriously, we ought to look at having the Deer Commission for Scotland re-established with the specialisms that it brought. In summary, I think that we should accept that deer are an important part of our heritage. Secondly, they are vital to the rural economy, providing income and employment. Thirdly, the debate about deer management should always be about habitat management, not about the number of deers, and we need to make sure that we manage all herbivores that infect on that habitat. We should also encourage the formulation of deer management plans through the deer management group. If necessary, we should get more deer management groups involved. Finally, I would say that responsive and local management is vital when you are dealing with living animals. Centralised and bureaucratic control based purely on numbers would be a mistake. On the basis of above, I think that this Parliament would be advised to encourage deer management groups to work a lot harder on the collaborative management based on achieving good habitats across Scotland, rather than spending time on money trying to centralise a micromanaged deer that will not be helpful to the deer or the habitats that we are trying to protect. I will do my best to use up the extra time that is available. I hope that, as I mentioned in my opening speech, there has been a useful debate in helping us to crystallise our thinking on important issues. A lot of valuable points have been made and, in response, there are some key points that I would like to make. There are quite a number of members who have referred to deer numbers. I thought that it might be worth putting on the record what the current estimates are. We currently believe that there is a total of between 587,000 to 777,000 deer in Scotland. The annual cull is sitting at a right at 100,000. That is about 13 to 17 per cent of the total. I think that it is just worth reminding ourselves what the actual numbers are when we are talking about deer numbers. The use of current powers was raised by a number of people. I think that, first by Claudia Beamish, some of the discussion at the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee questioned whether the current legislative provisions for deer management are adequate and whether SNH has made best use of its powers to secure the natural heritage interests. I would like to reassure the Parliament that SNH is determined to move forward decisively to ensure that control agreements established under section 7 of the deer act achieve the desired benefits for the natural heritage. Since publishing the report on deer management, SNH has undertaken a review of the eight existing section 7 control agreements. I have no doubt that, where section 8 orders are required, they will be brought forward. As part of last year's Land Reform Act, SNH was also given new powers to help to address deer management. I should be clear that all of those new powers are commenced and SNH will be looking to use those new powers from here on as part of their duties for deer management. I understand and share the frustration with the pace of change in this area. The temptation is to think that new powers will automatically fix the situation. It may be that further refinement or addition to the powers available to SNH is in fact required. I have an open mind on that at this stage. However, I feel that it would be sensible for SNH to try the intervention powers available to them through section 8 before we conclude that they are not adequate. That has been the issue, the difference between the management of section 7 and moving to section 8. Mark Ruskell I hear what the cabinet secretary says about the application of section 8, but we have had those powers since 1959. Does that not tell us something about the inability of the Government to be able to act on that issue? As I indicated just a few minutes ago, SNH is quite clear that it is working very hard on section 7, and, as I indicated, I have no doubt that where section 8 orders are required, they will be brought forward. I am going to completely lose the plot here in terms of where I am. I am also cautious about proposals for new powers that might require significant extra SNH or other public sector resources to operate. I have to be absolutely blunt about that. We do not have an unlimited amount of money to spend on that. I, as I indicated by opening speech, am looking for solutions that take that issue on board and that allow us to move that forward without a huge burden on the public purse, which in many cases would be getting spent on dear management, is a commercial enterprise. That is an issue that we have skited over a little in this debate until Edward Mountain got to his feet towards the end. In that regard, I am grateful that Edward Mountain did do that, because there is a tendency to forget that, underlying that, there are many commercial enterprises. However, that in itself is an issue about how much the public purse ought to be expected to step in when it is private enterprise that is at point at David Stewart. David Stewart. Thank you, cabinet secretary. I thought that you were giving away to someone else. On the issue of section 8, is it the cabinet secretary's view that the legislation is totally adequate and does not require any remedial effect? Or is it that SNH is having difficulty in getting the evidence that it would be legally challenged if it went to court? Cabinet secretary, I am going to be diplomatic here. I would like to see the SNH pushing section 8 before we make a decision about whether it is not fit for purpose. If it has not been tested, it is difficult for us to know that. I have used up quite a lot of the extra time already. If I can briefly refer to Lolaindir, which was raised by a number of people, it is obviously something where many MSPs will have seen the evidence for themselves. I think that Peter Chapman raised this issue. I am a Harper and indeed Linda Fabiani. There are a great deal of risks in respect of Lolaindir and indeed, as Linda Fabiani reminds us, peri-urban deer, not least of which the risk of vehicle collisions, which is now a very significant question in many urban areas. Even peri-urban might be pushing it now. I suspect that we just have to outright accept that we are talking about deer in urban areas. Clearly, the deer need management, but it is the case that the problems are not the same as those in the uplands. That means that the solutions and the structures are not the same. The Lolaindir network has made a good start bringing together those with an interest, mainly recreational deer stalkers, but there is no doubt that more needs to be done, and that includes involving local authorities in that, those who manage our highways and railways and other public and private landowners. SNH recently held a sharing good practice event targeted at public bodies and local authorities. It was well attended and I hope that it will begin to have an impact. As I indicated, I know of Linda Fabiani's long-standing interest in that, and I know that she will continue to push it. The latest evidence of trends and changes in the occurrence of deer vehicle collisions has just been published for those who are interested in it. A number of people have talked about the use of venison and deer larders, such as Peter Chapman, Angus MacDonald and Mark Ruskell. I could not agree more on that. SNH has organised venison butchery masterclasses, although people might wonder what SNH has to do with that. It is an interesting question about whether that is really what SNH should be about, but it has done it, and members might be happy to know that I will be opening a new deer larder in Caithness over the summer. We are still opening new deer larders. I have had a comprehensive and robust review of the evidence in the SNH report today. I welcome the scrutiny and evidence taken from the committee. It is clear that there has been considerable progress, but more needs to be done, and we will look for a redoubling of efforts from the deer sector and, specifically, from SNH. We will shortly be setting out a clear plan of action to focus on the need to build on and maintain momentum in focus and ensure that land is managed to safeguard public interest. I thank you very much, cabinet secretary. I call Maurice Golden to close for the committee. Mr Golden, please. Eight minutes are there about. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. It is an honour to be closing this debate on behalf of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee. The committee welcomes the fact that progress has been made in deer management in Scotland in recent years. However, that remains a complex issue with competing objectives within and across deer management groups and in areas that do not have an established deer management group. We have heard much today about that, and indeed there is strong degree of cross-party consensus with respect to the issues and the mechanisms that should be employed to improve the current situation. Graham Day ably outlined the key committee recommendations, and I will echo many of his comments in my remarks. The cabinet secretary stated that progress has been made, but there is still much to do. We can also welcome the fact that the Scottish Government is in listening mode. On behalf of the committee, I would like to highlight key areas of the report as part of my closing remarks, namely the environmental impact, a strategic approach to managing deer, the variable performance of deer management planning, the capacity of Scottish natural heritage, the wider supply chain development and, finally, concluding about steps moving forward. On the environmental impact, although there has been a decline in overall deer numbers in the past 10 years, deer are still impacting significantly on the natural heritage, and a greater focus and urgency is now needed to address the challenges of deer management across Scotland. The Scottish Natural Heritage report to the Scottish Government highlights that 50 per cent of deer management groups have failed to identify actions in deer management plans to deal with the deer impacts in designated sites. Habitats take a long time to recover and the committee considers that we do not have time to wait in delivering the Scottish biodiversity strategy. The scale of action that is needed to address deer impacts on the natural environment across Scotland is a significant factor. We need a deer management system that is developed collaboratively, covering the whole of Scotland based on a clear expression and spatial articulation of the public interest, particularly in relation to biodiversity and climate change. Deer management plans need to take an inclusive habitat approach focusing on deer densities and impacts at a local level. We also need a strategic approach to managing deer numbers. SNH should be responsible for determining the cull levels in the public interest. Deer management groups should carry out deer counts in their area and return planned deer culls to SNH. Mike Rumbles? From the report, I could not find out really. What does he think that the reasons are why 50 per cent of the deer management groups are not performing the task properly? The committee took evidence with regard to that. Certainly in some cases it was a case that deer management groups have only been recently established and it is going to take time to deliver the deer management plans. In other cases, we took evidence that there was not the correct vigour employed in order to ensure that deer were controlled in a manner in which we would expect to be delivered for the public interest. Nevertheless, in terms of the variable performance of deer management planning that the member has highlighted, there has been a notable increase in deer management planning across the sector since 2013, but there is considerable variability in that. Some deer management groups have worked to develop deer management plans with the support of the Association of Deer Management Groups and Scottish Natural Heritage. In some DMGs, there has been substantial and rapid change in their performance. However, progress on the ground in terms of positive outcomes cannot be evidence in all areas. In Lowland, Scotland in particular, the committee is extremely concerned about the lack of progress, and that needs to be addressed as a matter of priority. The committee is of the view that Scottish Natural Heritage has not provided the level of leadership in deer management that might have been expected and there has been a failure to adequately set expectations for deer management in Scotland. SNH appears to have been unable or unwilling to enforce the legislation to secure the natural heritage interests. The committee recommends that the Scottish Government engage in early discussion with SNH in relation to priorities for delivery and review the adequacy of resourcing in light of the potential additional calls upon it and the extension of duties and report back to the committee on the outcome of those discussions. The committee recommends that the Scottish Government prepare an action plan for wider supply chain development of deer carcasses and deliver public funding for the establishment of a network of deer larders across Scotland, including its islands, to support greater opportunities for taking part in appropriate culling activity. Following careful consideration of the SNH report, the committee can see no compelling reason why the interim measures that allow SNH to intervene to amend and to lead on drafting deer management plans should not come into effect immediately. That should provide a backstop to ensure that all deer management plans adequately address the public interest. The committee therefore recommends that powers under section 80 of the Land Reform Scotland Act 2016 come into immediate effect and are used as required. Looking forward, to address some of the issues highlighted, the committee recommends that the Scottish Government establish, as a matter of urgency, an independent short-term working group to provide clear advice on the way forward for deer management in Scotland and report back in early 2017. The group should have a very tight remit and should consider the recommendations contained within the committee's report. The group should also consider the cost to the public purse and whether there are alternatives to fencing that could deliver the objective, the approach to deer management in the lowlands and lessons from management approaches elsewhere in Europe. The committee believes that the Scottish Government should act on the recommendations in the report with the utmost urgency. That concludes the debate on deer management in Scotland, report the Scottish Government from Scottish Natural Heritage 2016. It's now time to move on to the next item of business and I'll take a slight pause while the members move to the front bench when necessary.