 Bwynt i nhw'n ffrif, ac rwy'n gweithio i gyd wedi'i hunain cymaint o'r ffrif i fynd i ddechrau i Eiland Ffyrdd y Cymru, ddod i ddych chi'n gael gyd-aneth y gyd-aneth gwyllwch gyda'r cymaint cymaint o'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ffyrdd gyda'r cymaint. Yr ffrif ystafell yma, ac mae'n gweithio i ddechrau i ddechrau i ddechrau i ddechrau i Gwylig Ffyrdd y Gwylig, Mae'r instrument yn ysgolwg i'r proceduriaeth ffyrnt. Fy fawr i'r gweithio, Llornais Llywodraeth, y Minister for Green Skills, Circular Economy and Biodiversity, ac ymddangosol, Hew Dignan, The Head ac Brody Wilson, y policy manager, a'r Ysgrifennidig yng Nghymru, Norman Munro, ysgolwster ar y Gweithgawr. Felly rwy'n gwybod i'n ddim yn cyfnodig i'r cymdeithasol i'r ddifuig. I thank the committee for inviting me along this morning to outline details of our proposed secondary legislation amendments in relation to deer management. Those include proposals to amend existing legislation to reduce the minimum ammunition weight used to cull deer, permit the use of night sights to shoot deer and remove male deer closed seasons. We are all aware of the destructive impact that wild deer at high densities can cause to our natural environment through overgrazing, particularly in regenerating woodland, including Scotland's rainforest. In 2021, we agreed to implement 95 of the 99 deer working group recommendations to modernise deer management systems in Scotland. Those proposals today are some of the first legislative recommendations to be progressed and are vital in helping us to achieve our deer management aims. The proposed removal of male closed seasons will remove the need for hundreds of out-of-season authorisations to be issued each year to control male deer. That will save land managers time and effort. This is the fire arms etc. Scotland amendment order 2023, where we are not yet at the next motion. Thank you, convener. Sorry, I should have said that. I have one speaking note, but I am happy to maintain part of that for the second session if that is helpful. That would be helpful, because it is quite confusing as it is having the two orders in front of us. If you could focus on the fire arms SSI, please. Proposal to reduce the minimum ammunition weight to shoot deer will make nod non-led ammunition more accessible. That is important as venison suppliers switched only accepting carcasses shot with non-led ammunition. Finally, on the use of night sights, that will allow longer deer shooting hours, especially in the winter months, and more effective culling operation in areas where deer use the cover of forests and woodland during the day and then come out into more open areas during the hours of darkness where they can be shot more easily. Those measures are part of a wider package of deer reforms designed to deliver a range of public outcomes, including native woodland expansion, protection and enhancement of peatlands, reducing human health and safety concerns, such as Lyme disease and road traffic accidents. I thank all those organisations and individuals who have contributed to their development and to delivering on those vital objectives. Thank you. We are now going to move to questions from members. I am going to kick off. Under the Dears Scotland Act 1996, Scottish ministers are required to consult, but there was no public consultation on the instrument. However, it was stakeholders who have an interesting issue. Can you tell the committee why the decision was taken not to go to a full public consultation on this? We have met all the legal requirements to consult on these proposals. I can give the convener the background here. The Dears working group report, which contained these proposals, was published in 2020. In response to that, prior to publishing our formal response, the Scottish Government met with and sought written responses from key stakeholders, including the Association of Dears Management Group's Scottish Environment Link, before publishing our response to the Dears working group. Since that response was published in 2021, we have also met representatives at both ministerial and official level through individual meetings with land management organisations and through groups such as the Dears Management Round Table with some regularity. Rather than through these conversations, we developed a sound understanding of what the stakeholder views are on such issues as closed seasons, which meant that when we received the responses to our consultation, the views that we received were largely in line with what we already understood. Those are the steps that we have undertaken to consult on the matter. Okay, thank you. Rachel Hamilton. How long did you give stakeholders to respond to the consultation? What was the date that you published the consultation for them and which date did they respond to? What was the closing date? The consultation dates I can give my officials to. The consultation closed on Wednesday 14 June. We gave stakeholders four weeks to respond, so it was the middle of May. I can't remember if I had the exact date, but it would have been around about the 18th of May. They had four weeks to respond to us. How many working days was that? 28. Is that in comparison to other consultations that you have done on similar things the same? It varies largely across secondary legislation. But why? Because there is no legal minimum requirement to consult four weeks, we felt that it was adequate, given the fact that we had so much engagement with stakeholders throughout the process. Stakeholders have told me that they had very little time to engage in this process. The separate piece that you are talking about with your proposals that met legal requirements was different. The number of stakeholders that were not asked to respond to the consultation within those 20 working days was considerable. A number of people have come to me and said that they were not asked to respond to your consultation. Why was that? We asked all external stakeholders who are on the deer management round table to respond. We have a list of those, if you would like to see it. Could you read them out? The deer management round table members include Lantra, Mountaineering Scotland, the British Deer Society, the Confederation of Forest Industries Confor, GWCT, Trees for Life, the Scottish Gamekeepers Association, Scottish Association for Country Sports, Scottish Crofting Federation, British Association for Shooting Conservation, Woodland Trust Scotland, Lowland Deer Groups, Transport Scotland, Forestry and Land Scotland, Scottish Wildlife Trust, Police Scotland, Food Standards Scotland, Country Sports Scotland, NatureScot, NTS, a various within the Scottish Government, including the veterinary adviser, RSPB, Scottish Venison Association, Scottish Land and Estates, the John Muir Trust, the Association of Deer Management Groups, Scottish Countryside Alliance, Scottish Environment Link, the National Farmers Union of Scotland, SSPCA, Wild Deer, Best Practice Guides, the Veterinary Deer Society, the National Wildlife Crime Unit, CEH, Community Land Scotland, the Scottish Forestry, Caringworms National Park Authority, Loch Lomond and Trosex National Park Authority, the James Hutton Institute, the Forest Policy Group and the Ramblers Association. How many of those responded? I believe that we received 12 responses. What is the total, just so that I wasn't able to count them as you went? 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19. Around about 40. That's quite a poor response. The reason for that context is because all of these stakeholders have been engaged since 2020 and prior within this conversation. This was not new information to them. When the deer, which was an independent body, the independent deer working group, published the recommendations back in 2020. They did so based on evidence that they had gathered for many months. That has been a very long process to get to where we are today. It is an ongoing process. Back in 2020, the recommendations were published. The Scottish Government then engaged with the stakeholders to develop our response in 2021, so we had those conversations then. When our consultation came out, most of them already have submitted to us what they wished to say. A few, a handful, a dozen, wrote back to us with additional information. They did not contribute any new information. It was largely covering the same ground that we had covered before. That has been thoroughly discussed with stakeholders. I just thought it was interesting, convener, that some of the groups that supported the Government's position looked at this from a climate change perspective rather than an animal welfare perspective, but that is just my observation. In particular, some of the organisations such as the Natural Trust for Scotland, Woodland Trust, Scotland Nature Foundation trees for life, they were not looking at it from an animal welfare perspective, which I have to put my cards on the table and say that this is where my concern is around this SSI in particular. It was great to hear the context of where the SSI arose from and the work of the deer working group. That was set up due to the concern about the levels of damage to public interests caused by wild deer. Those public interests include a healthy environment with flourishing biodiversity and woodlands that can capture our excess carbon emissions. I would like to ask the minister to what extent is increased deer control important for natural regeneration? For that question, as the committee knows, deer numbers have doubled in Scotland since 1990. That is not a sustainable trajectory, given that deer can have serious impact on the environment through overgrazing and trampling of vulnerable habitats, preventing young trees from growing. Research on the national forest estate in 2013 found that 15 to 20 per cent of young trees at that time had been damaged by deer, but of course deer numbers are higher today. In 2021, the climate exchange report found that browsing changes the plant diversity and foliage present, which alters our potential to capture carbon. High levels of grazing are likely to affect bog species and associated trampling causes greater levels of damage by breaking up the moss layer and exposing bare peat and overgrazing occurs at a much lower density in bogs to forestry. Furthermore, Forestry and Land Scotland estimates that the cost of deer damage on on-going management is around £10 million a year and across Scotland at least £47 million a year. Between 2015 and 2020, the Scottish Forestry spent just under £19 million on deer fencing. In addition to the environmental concerns that the member highlights, there are also human safety concerns with regard to deer vehicle collisions. In terms of public safety, there are an estimated between 8,000 and 14,000 deer vehicle collisions in Scotland every year. In 2016, a report estimated that DVCs in Scotland cost £13.8 million, but the deer working group found that that number is very much higher. It is not only affecting our forest and tree regeneration. Having high numbers of deer is affecting many aspects of society and is very costly. Another part of the SSI is about land managers being able to control deer at night. They already do that, but it is currently very challenging as they have to bring these lamps into the forest. How many land managers already control deer at night and how this instrument will make this task easier for them? I have the number of deer controlled at night, which is around 18,640 deer, which is about 17 per cent of the deer that are managed at night. Perhaps officials know the number of land managers who have applied for that. We do not have the L on the specific number of people that I have authorized. We can provide that, but we do not have it at the moment. We have numbers on the deer that are called at night. 17 per cent of deer are currently called at night. My question is how will the change with the SSI make the task easier for them? The intention of the SSI is to allow additional technology. As the member suggests, carrying lamps using the lamping technique may not be everybody's preference. That opens that up to be able to use the sites at night. It should be noted as well that that means that those sites can be used during the day. They are currently not allowed. That adds an additional tool for the land managers to have that option should they wish to use it to manage their deer in this way. In terms of the concerns around animal welfare, has that been looked into? Absolutely. NatureScot did a review into the welfare issues relating to the use of intensifying night sites for the culling of deer at night in 2022. The review found no evidence that culling deer at night using thermal imaging technology increased the risk of deer being wounded and found that all the deer were humanely dispatched. NatureScot was really clear that those sites offered no significant welfare risks over and above the existing technique of lamping. I wonder what research has been carried out into the safety of this. It seems to me that it feels inherently unsafe that people are going around at night shooting things. People walk around at night, people go into forests at night. What research has been done to make sure that people cannot be inadvertently shot? I am happy to cover that matter. As I have already stated, 17 per cent of deer are already shot at night. Night licences for shooting can only be done under NatureScot authorisation. NatureScot has the authorisation for night shooting come with very clear conditions associated with them. There is a code of practice with those that is explicit that anyone shooting deer at night, for example, must be accompanied by an appropriate dog so that a wounded deer can be tracked and dispatched humanely. NatureScot can revoke any authorisation, so it will only issue the authorisation under specific conditions. They can revoke that at any time. They can come to inspect the site themselves to ensure that it is safe to look after those public safety concerns. At any time, during the authorisation period, NatureScot can ask to come along on the shoot to observe that the rules are being followed. That is not being changed by this SSI. That is not being changed by this SSI. Those authorisations and safety conditions are going to be monitored in exactly the same way. That is for animals, but for people. I mean that is the same matter in terms of NatureScot issuing with the conditions and being able to inspect the site to ensure that the conditions are safe. All shooting requires that the person pulling the trigger have a safe backstop and observe all firearm safety requirements, and absolutely that would consider people as well. It is up to the person pulling the trigger to be sure that they have followed all the safety requirements and that it is safe for them to do so. It does not feel safe. Night time shooting really only happens out of season currently, because we have long summer days and daylight, so it would only really happen out of season, is that correct? I do not have that data in front of me. The hind season is through the winter, and a large amount of the culling will happen at that point. That is where some serious effort needs to be carried out in order to reduce the population. Indeed, there is night shooting of hinds during the winter season. I would add to the minister's points about the safety of this. All people who are shooting at night are required to be on the fit and competent register that nature squad operate, and that means that they must have at least dear stalking certificate level 1 and 2 referees or dear stalking certificate level 2, and also all night shooting operations need to be notified to the police. As the minister said, this is a type of operation that has been carried on for many, many years now with no public safety issues as far as I am aware. Just as a supplementary to that, the use of light intensifying or heat sensitive or other special sites is quite different from lamping. The skills and the skill level required to have a clean kill, I would suggest, would not be an expert, would be significantly higher. However, it would appear that this legislation will allow that to be taken place without a separate authorisation scheme. Can you tell me whether there are any plans to bring in additional training requirements or update the best practice guide? NatureScot will be updating the best practice guide. Will they be updating the level of competence that is required to be able to be authorised if that authorisation is for night sites rather than lamping? There is quite a difference in the skill level that is required. NatureScot authorisations require that the people carrying out the shooting under those conditions are properly qualified and are following that best practice guidance. That is the mechanism when the new best practice guidance is issued, which it will be alongside this legislation, then it is up to NatureScot to ensure that that best practice guidance is being followed through the authorisation mechanisms that they have. If someone is authorised to lamp, that would mean that they are automatically authorised to use night sites without any additional conditions applied to that authorisation, which would mean that, potentially, if NatureScot had an issue with someone's ability to safely or competently use night sites, they would lose the ability to lamp as well. I am not sure that that assumption is correct, convener, but I am happy to make sure that we can get the information that I will exactly the detail of those authorisations, whether that night's authorisation specifies which technology is to be used. I do not have that detail level of detail with me, but I am happy to clarify. I do not think that the convener's assumption is necessarily correct that an authorisation for lamping allows you to go ahead and use different technology without clarifying that. That is quite concerning. If people are deemed not to be suitably qualified or trained to use night vision sites, they would potentially not get a lamping licence, because a licence or authorisation covers both. As far as I can see, there is no differentiation between an authorisation for lamping or an authorisation for night sites. I would just add, convener, that when NatureScot reviewed this, they did not recommend that there was any additional training required for night sites, either the thermal intensification or the image enhancement. I am not sure that we would accept the basic premise that a different level of skill is required. Clearly, lamping and use of night sites are both things that require experience and people to be on the fit and competent register, but NatureScot certainly did not identify that there was a different skill set or additional training required using those particular tools. There are also different levels of specification for night sites, which could then increase the margin at potential error. Is there any specification of the equipment that needs to be used for specifically the light intensifying or heat sensitive? Again, lamping is lamping. You have a light source that enables you to use standard sites to shoot, whereas there will be different specifications. I could go into a shop and buy night sites for an air rifle, which would not be adequate to be used safely when you are stalking deer at night. As we have already said, the stalking at night can only happen under authorisation, and people doing that stalking have to fit that fit and competent test. We have not specified which types of scopes because technology is always evolving and there are many scopes on the market. That specific authorisation for night shooting is the mechanism for ensuring that people who are doing that night shooting are fully qualified to do so. It is, of course, as with all of these matters, up to the operator themselves, the person who is pulling the trigger to correctly identify the target animal, identify potential risks and ensure a safe backstop. That remains true of whatever equipment anyone is using at any time. You have answered those questions. It looks as though operators are going to need two types of equipment to do what the SSI is requiring. It will require investment in equipment, which could be out of the budget. I have been speaking to people who say that, on average, it will cost them £10,000 to get equipment that is up to standard. You are shaking your head, Hugh Dignan, but I am hearing from stakeholders who are saying this. Also, the minister is saying that change is going to have to be made to the breast practice and fit and competent tests for night shooting authorisations for the welfare of the operator. We are being expected to pass this SSI when we have no answer to these questions. It is just like other bits of legislation that are passed on to NatureScot where there is a code of practice and this committee is expected to mind read what is going to be in that fit and competence test so that the welfare of an operator can be upheld. I am afraid that the member is not accurate in what she is saying. That does not require the use of night sights. That allows the use of night sights. You are expecting operators to go out and you are trying to control dea population, which means that more operators will go out and operators will shoot more. The member said that we are requiring people to buy night sights. We are not requiring that. The minister is now allowed to use the technology. The practicalities of this are that people, to be safe, if you are expecting operators to go out and shoot more dea to control the dea population that you want to control, that they will then be doing more shooting and possibly at night. It could be a hypothetical situation but the likelihood of this is that this will happen and that they will require the right equipment. Why would you not want an operator to have the right equipment? I do not understand this. The SSI that is being passed today allows the use of this equipment We already know that 17 per cent of the deer called in Scotland are called at night, so we know that people wish to do this. If they wish to do this, they may now do so using sights. This is the change to legislation. We are not requiring anyone to manage their deer in this way. We are not requiring them to use any particular equipment. We are merely opening up this option should they wish to do so. With respect to the fitness and competence test, the fitness test is the certificate to use the firearms, and the competence test is about holding the correct deer stocking certificate and the correct authorisations from NatureScot. Those matters are unchanged. Of course, the authorisation will be in line with the new guidance to be able to use this equipment safely—that new guidance that NatureScot is going to issue. I think that the member has misunderstood that this is not requiring anything of anyone. It is just allowing that equipment to be used should they wish to do so. Kate Forbes Good morning. One of the reasons for the SSI, as I understand it, is in terms of making the non-led alternatives more accessible, is to allow more carcasses to enter the food chain, which is a positive thing. We have seen examples in the past few years of huge levels of waste, particularly when non-shooting, non-commercial estates have culled tens, if not hundreds of deer, and left them to rot. I wonder what engagement the Scottish Government has had with estates that might be considering doing that, and what encouragement there is to ensure that a great meat source is actually relieving hunger in this country rather than being wasted. Absolutely. I support the member's call for a thriving venison industry and making sure that that becomes a reliable food source. You have correctly identified that changing the ammunition weight allows for the non-led ammunition to be used by more practitioners, because it fits the standard rifle that most people have, the standard firearm that most people have. There are several things that we are also doing in this space to ensure that a thriving venison industry—we have been working with those in the industry to promote venison as a healthy lean meat by providing £60,000 for funding for online marketing campaign, and we have been supporting local chilling processing facilities through a pilot project with £80,000 of funding made available towards that. I am also aware of the recent announcement by the Scottish Venison Association and their partnership with the country food trust, and this partnership will see wild venison coming from Scottish deer to going to food banks, kitchens and other charities. That is very helpful, and you may be familiar with the country food trust, which is a great job in terms of taking venison that might otherwise go to waste and creating nutritious meals that they then donate to food banks. One of the risks is that, if you have a massive increase in culling, particularly if it is out of season, that has a huge impact on the likelihood of that meat being eaten. Of course, it just sits so wrongly with me that we might be wasting meat. Does the Scottish Government have a word of warning that, if we are to see—if you want to see culling increase, particularly out of season—that that is not a licence to see far more carcasses going to waste, particularly if one of the advantages or benefits of this SSI is actually to see more carcasses going into the food network? I absolutely support what the member is saying. Have we drifted into the discussion of the culling season? No, we haven't. It is very much still in this first SSI. No, absolutely. Making sure that the venison can go into the venison industry, removing that lead ammunition, increasing the options there. I think that is something that we can all work towards, making sure that we have a thriving venison industry. First of all, it is a very tiny proportion of carcasses that have been left on the hillside. There were some incidents a couple of years ago, which arrived considerable opposition among steer managers, but I think that those are pretty isolated incidents, and the people involved probably do not do that as much. They would argue that there are some conservation reasons where carcasses were in an inaccessible position. They might have taken some of the best cuts from them and left some of the carcass there for golden eagle management and so on. The other side of it is that we have certainly been talking with venison wholesalers and the like about the likely effects of the increase in cull and talking with them about how we can improve the market for venison and getting that out into the wider public. We have been joined by Edward Mounting this morning. Edward, do you have questions? Yes, thank you, convener, and before I get any further, I would like to just remind members of my register of interest in that I have a small farming partnership, which does have deer on it, red deer on it, which are given the protection because my neighbours kill an awful lot of them. Minister, I am less concerned about the night sites and the use of night sites. I am disappointed that you have come here unable to say that there would be a difference between using II, IR and TI on what sites will be acceptable under this legislation. I think that that is an admission. I think that there is an admission there on training as well and the extra requirements on training because, as the convener said, the lights at night you can see your backdrop, you cannot see a backdrop with thermal imaging, you can to a certain extent with IR and II but not with TI because it will just blend into the backdrop. That does concern me without extra training. I would like to talk about and ask you about non-LED and the use of copper bullets. The point of LED and expanding bullets is to cause catastrophic shock to the animal, which causes it to die instantaneously. There are some tolerances when you are using LED bullets on the exact bullet placement and there is the ability therefore, if you are slightly further back on where you should be shooting it, it will still pick up the lungs and the liver and cause the animal to die almost instantaneously. Not so with lighter bullets in copper. Can you tell me what investigation you have done regarding the use of copper bullets and bullet placement where you are going to shoot the animal, especially at night using a TI or an II or an IR site and how you are going to achieve that with lighter bullets that require more accurate bullet placement? Absolutely. The NatureScot undertook a trial of the minimum bullet weights that are being proposed to shoot deer to ensure that animal welfare would not be compromised. I share the member's concern about that. We considered the results of the NatureScot report alongside advice from NatureScot on deer welfare. That review that they did on the minimum bullet weights and I have read the report on that, it is very interesting about the placement of the shot and so on. Their review found that these proposed changes would have no detrimental effect on deer welfare. Partly that is because along with the change to the minimum weight, the requirements for muzzle velocity and bullet energy are unchanged, so that effect that the member mentions, as you said, there was some leeway in that, this fits within that grounds for leeway because it does still require that minimum energy of the bullet to have that impact on the animal. I would love to have a long discussion with the Minister on ballistics, but muzzle velocity is one thing that is nothing about delivering kilojoules of energy in a direct point of fame. The problem is, with lighter copper bullets, unless you hit a bone, you are going to cause deflection. There is no doubt that if you hit an animal slightly further forward on the shoulder blade, the bullet can travel over the shoulder blade now at the other side. If you hit it too far back in the guts, it may pass directly through the animal because there is no expansion. My question therefore is, using these during the day is fine because you can aim specifically for a bone at the top of the leg and hopefully hit it. Can you achieve that with thermal imaging, infrared and IR sites? Are you confident you can do that? I am a practitioner with 40 years experience. I am not sure that I can, and I have used some very good thermal imaging sites. NatureScot, when they investigated the use of the night sites and the change to ammunition weights, did not find that there were any welfare concerns at all over and above lamping, which is a practice for trying to see things in the dark. There were no additional welfare concerns that has been addressed from both sides, from both the ammunition angle and from the night site angle. Of course, it is always up to the practitioner, as the member will know, not to take the shot unless it is safe to do so unless they have a correct backstop, unless the animal has been correctly identified, paired up with any young that it may be responsible for, that it is always up to the person pulling the trigger to decide whether that shot is safe to take. Did they carry out those experiments at night and whether it is effectively possible to achieve it with the night shooting sites? Did they do it at night? If they have not done it at night, I would question it. I am asking from a welfare point of view, because actually the welfare of animals is really important, which I will come into the second part of my thinking. Did they do it at night, minister? There were two different sets of testing. The review on the welfare issues with the intensifying rifle sites for culling deer of night was one test that they used. I do not know what ammunition was used for that testing, and then there was the separate testing on the use of the copper bullets. That test was extensive in terms of where you hit the animal and whether it was still able to dispatch the animal humanely. Both of those tests have been done. Probably done during daylight, which is the equivalent of using a lamp at night, so it works fine on that. Have you tried it or had it explained how difficult it is to achieve that with a TI site and an IR site? The NatureScot report around the minimum bullet weight was an experiment done to ensure that we understand how the bullet impacted the animal when it was shot in different places on the body. That would address the member's concern there. I am afraid that it does not address my concern. From a welfare point of view, to minimise any welfare issue from animals. The issue is that night following them up is really difficult because you cannot do that if you have a dog with you. I am concerned. The final question I had, convener, if I may, is what I picked up on one comment that you made about the fact that you thought that using night sites would allow deer culling to go on over that a bigger period and more extensive deer culling, and that Forestryland Scotland spent £10 million a year on deer control. Here are some figures for you that I know are correct. Forestryland Scotland asked their rangers to kill over two deer every day that they work a year. That is a huge amount, and it is probably not achievable. Therefore, if some of the £10 million was spent on putting people on the ground, you would probably achieve more deer culls and you would not need to do this. Are you comfortable that harrying an animal from dawn to dusk, irrespective of its sex, is the way to do it? It sounds like warfare to me, something that I used to do when I was in the army. Among the stakeholders that were consulted on the proposals were the animal welfare groups, the Scottish Animal welfare society and the one kind. No welfare concerns were raised by the organisations that prioritised animal welfare. That is their reason for being that no welfare concerns were raised by those organisations in relation to those legislation. That has been looked at briefly by the member about the dogs for the night shooting. That is part of the good practice guidelines to have a dog to make sure that any animal can be tracked. I am glad that you clarified that it was good practice guidelines. The Scottish Animal Welfare Commission members are not a single one of them. Our dear management practitioners are the World Federation of Animals, Animal Welfare officers, vets, police and lecturers. They are not a single one as practice dear management on a large scale. That concerns me because at the end of the day all us parliamentarians must ensure the welfare of the animals that we are killing to protect our national animal. On the subject of animal welfare, you are citing the NatureScot review on this. I was speaking to the SGA and they had cited a study by the Royal Dick veterinary university. Basically, they concluded that night shooting is a method that is proven under test conditions to be the least in the interest of animal welfare, which requires quick humane dispatch. The SGA are opposing the normalisation of night shooting. As my colleague Edward Mountain has said, we need to look at this from a practitioner's point of view. I do not know what the opinion of the FLS is on that. Do they agree with the SGA? Why did you not get more information around the humane cull of deer from the Royal Dick vet? The Scottish Inventory Advisor was one of the groups on the deer management round table. I want to make it clear that night shooting requires an authorisation from NatureScot that requires that the good practice guidelines be met. It allows NatureScot to come and see the site where the night shooting will take place and even to accompany the practitioners doing that. That is unchanged. Night shooting requires that special authorisation. As I said, 17 per cent of animals are shot at night, but that is not proposed to being changed. Night shooting will still require that special authorisation and that special oversight from NatureScot. That is unchanged. Again, this is not a requirement. People who wish to manage their deer at night now may use these new technologies. That is what has changed. It is just a new option open to land managers should they wish to use it. They are absolutely not required to do so, but they would be required to obtain that correct authorisation from NatureScot. The figure was quoted as 17 per cent of deer culled at night. What percentage of those operators are operating within public land? I do not have that information in front of me, but I am happy to write to the member with that information. I am still concerned about the fact that there is only one authorisation scheme. Can you give us an indication of how many stalkers are currently authorised to lamp to shoot at night? Authorisations are not given to an individual. They are for a certain circumstance. An authorisation for a night shooting is for a specific set of circumstances, specific dates, specific location. They are not blanket operations to an operator. How can NatureScot be assured that the stalker has the appropriate training if it is not for individuals? I am concerned about the lowest common denominator here. If there is only one authorisation scheme, someone who is authorised to shoot at night currently lamping would automatically be able to shoot using night sights, which we have already suggested and agreed that it requires a different level of skill given the margins of error that infrared or heat-sensitive sights would have. If someone was able to be at the standard to lamp, they would automatically get authorisation to use night sights. Is that correct? Every authorisation for a night shooting project gets its own authorisation. It is for a fixed period of term and are fixed circumstances which practitioners will be doing the work. Based on the technology or the fact that we are not talking about individuals, we are talking about a scheme, if you like. If someone puts in an application for authorisation to night shooting in a forest, they would only need to come up to the lamping standard, but they could effectively go out and use infrared sights under that authorisation. It is a general, you can shoot at night authorisation. It is not a general authorisation in the sense that it specifies a location, a time period and who will be doing the work and the outcomes. I do not have the detailed sort of paperwork in front of me of what that authorisation requires, but that is a detailed specific authorisation for a particular night shooting project. Not for the method or what practitioners are able to carry out that shooting. The authorisation would require the individuals involved to be named, who are going to carry out the work and all those individuals would need to be on the fit and competent register. The fit and competent register is, as I explained earlier, and the minister also said, it requires that an individual has at least dear stalking certificate level 1 and has some referees to give evidence the fact that this person follows best practice and understands the business that is involved in or dear stalking level 2. Those of that gets you on to the fit and competent register, and of course you need to have a firearm certificate, as the minister said. That is the other bit about being fit. When NatureScot reviewed this, it did not find that there was a different skill set required, a different level of skill set required, which would mean that additional training was necessary for the use of the new additional pieces of equipment. There will be changes to the best practice guidance and that will involve things like or around shot placement and so on, but the review that they carried out and the evidence that they submitted to us did not point to a different level of skill or training required for this. I am very concerned that, potentially, the scheme does not require anyone to say whether they are going to lamp or whether they are going to use infrared or thermal sites, which means that, potentially, an authorisation could be given to someone who is competent in lamping but has never used a night site at all. It may also not be equipped with sites that are up to the standard that we would like to ensure the highest level of animal welfare but also public safety. That is where my concern lies. Minister, how many operators are on the fit and competent register and how many spot checks do NatureScot do? I do not have that information with me, but I am happy to write to the member with that information. Have we any further questions? No. We now move on to the next agenda item, which is the formal consideration of the motion to approve the instrument, and I invite the minister to move motion S6M-09640. The Royal Affairs and Islands Committee recommends that the draft deer, fireman's etc. of Scotland amendment act be approved. Does any member wish to debate this motion? No. Is the committee content to recommend approval of this instrument? No. We are not all agreed. We will go to a vote. Those in favour of the instrument, please raise your hands. Those opposed to the instrument, please raise your hands. Which one for your support of the instrument? The vote is six in favour and two against, so the committee approves the motion. Finally, is the committee content to delegate authority to me to sign off a report on our deliberations on this affirmative SSI? We now move on to consideration of a negative SSI, the deer closed season Scotland amendment order 2023. I once again welcome Launas later Minister for Green Skills, Circular Economy and Biodiversity and her officials. The proposed removal of male closed seasons will remove the need for hundreds of out-of-season authorisations to be issued each year to control male deer. That will save land managers time and effort and reduce 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. Of course, no-one is obliged to manage male deer in this way if they do not wish to. The Scottish Government takes animal welfare matters very seriously, which is why we commissioned evidence from the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission and major animal welfare organisations who are supportive of this change to legislations. I look forward to answering your questions on the matter. I might need to move to Edward Mountain first on this. Edward, could you open the questioning please? Thank you very much, convener, and thanks to the committee for allowing me to question the minister first. What concerns me minister more than anything else is that we are going to allow a target to be painted on a male deer's back from the very day it's born in this legislation to the very day it dies so it can be shot from literally as it appears out of its mother to the day it dies. Do you think that that is reasonable, fair and right on proper deer management? The reason that we are bringing all these proposals forward as proposed by the deer management group is to help manage the numbers of deer in Scotland, which have doubled in the past 30 years. We know that isn't sustainable. We do need to be able to call deer. Now deer, including male deer, do nibble at the shoots, nibble at the trees year round, they trample the peat year round. We do need to be able to manage their numbers. Male deer closed seasons were traditionally in place not for animal welfare reasons, but to ensure that male deer were able to grow suitable antlers for the sporting season. There is no animal welfare reason for male closed seasons and therefore removing the closed season does not affect that, but what it does do is mean that practitioners are able to shoot deer year round without that administrative burden. 48% of male deer called in Scotland are already called out of season, so nearly half are already called out of season, but to do so the operators have to put in quite a lot of paperwork and administrative burden to do so. This will just change that administrative paperwork to allow people to do what they are already doing. Minister, I hate to actually say you're wrong, but you are wrong. The reason for closed deer seasons was not to allow antler growth. That is just fundamentally untrue. The reason for closed season is that the deer were in very poor shape in most cases after they completed the rut, certainly the red deer. By harring them all year round, what you're doing is increasing the pressures on them. As a deer manager, I can give you examples where I picked up 60 young stags that were dead on the edge of a plantation after a very cold and wet spring. Without them being harried round, that was them being given a fair chance to recover after the rut. What you're going to do is going to increase that. I think that if your basis is that you are basing this legislation on it's all about growing antler, I'm afraid that's wrong. Minister, are you happy that when the deer is at its weakest point it is most challenge point before it goes into the most challenging season of the year, winter in Scotland, that you are going to be harring it around and shooting it at every possible opportunity? The member may know that in England, Wales and Ireland, for example, male deer can be called during the rut and this has been the case for many years without any significant concern over deer welfare, so that's common practice in the rest of the UK to do that. There are no welfare concerns with hunting deer at any particular male deer at any particular time of the year over and above. Whether the deer is tired or not when you shoot it doesn't matter to that particular deer. Minister, with the greatest respect you've just stated another untruth because in Scotland you are allowed with the male closed seasons, you are shooting male deer during the rut process but afterwards you're giving them a chance to recover, so it's a pity for me and really disappointing that you've made that comment because that's the second thing that proves that there is a lack of knowledge on how to manage deer. So stags can be shot now just as they're going into the rut and on the 20th of October when they've come out of the rut and they're coming back to the lowlands to recover so that they can last the winter then they go out of season and if you want to talk about roe deer we have a similar situation, they rut in August and and they are allowed then to recover after the rut before they go into the winter. So I'm sorry, I don't accept that and I'd find it hugely disrespectful to the animal that you're talking about that you don't know when they're being shot at the moment in Scotland. Mr Wayne, can I just... Wayne, we have plenty of time for your conversation and I think it's just... I am happy then convener to ask no further questions and allow the committee and take my time up during the time when I... I just wanted to remind that we've got plenty of time so there's no need to interrupt the minister when she's given her response. I just want to make sure we carry out our debate with the highest level of respect so if the minister's responding I would request you not to interrupt until she's finished her answer because you will have plenty of time during this debate phase and also later on in the agenda to raise all the points that you need to raise. I'm suitably chastised convener and on the note of that chasmiseman I will keep my questions and my comments to the bit on my motion to a null because I feel passionately about it and I feel it's really important that we are factually correct and deal with the welfare of animals. If I may convener just to respond to the final point there that Mr Mountain was making, as I said earlier 48% at the last data that we have of male deer are currently called out of season. That's nearly half of deer are currently called out of season. We know that there is demand from some land managers for this activity to be able to do this out of season and the legislation that we are proposing merely removes the administrative burden for those who wish to manage their deer in this way. Of course, anyone who does not wish to manage their deer in this way, anyone who wishes to leave the deer after the rut may of course do so. That is not an obligation. Just on clarity, before I bring Alasdair Allyn in, in our policy note, in our briefing it suggests that 15% of Scotland's annual deer cull is undertaken out of season. Your figure you use is 45. 48% for male deer? 48%. The 15% is actually inaccurate. 15% include female deer. 48% is male deer. 48% of male cull is out of season, but the overall deer population is 15. Correct, because female deer are less likely to be called out of season because there are welfare concerns with female deer suckling young. I wonder if you could say a bit more about the reasons in the context for all this. You have mentioned a doubling in deer numbers. I think it would be fair to observe, would it, that deer numbers in Scotland are out of control in many parts of the country? I think, for instance, of a public meeting I was at in my constituency where the debate raged as to whether 100% of the deer should be killed in south-east or merely 90% of them. Nobody spoke up for anything less than 90%. I do not pretend that that is typical of all areas, but would it be fair to say that deer numbers in Scotland are out of control? I think that that is a fair assessment for certain parts of Scotland. I know that some land managers, many land managers manage their deer very well where they are managing for regeneration or for specific interests. Overall, though the member is correct with deer numbers doubling, that is unsustainable and will not allow us to reach our goals on biodiversity, nature restoration, carbon sequestration or things like commercial interest in forestry and crops are being damaged by those deer. We have already heard the numbers on road traffic accidents and so on. Overabundance of deer is certainly causing issues. Apart from the environmental consequences that you have mentioned there, is there also an animal welfare consequence to not intervening here? I am thinking of the fact that we have talked a bit about the prospect that has been raised of malnourished or deer in poor condition. Would it be fair to say that one of the big reasons for deer being malnourished and poor condition to the point where many can't successfully leap offence is because there are too many of them in many places and they cannot survive in the habitat in which they have multiplied? That would certainly be the case in many places. Of course, many deer managers do manage for the health of the animals and that requires culling the weak animals or as appropriate to make sure that the herd is healthy. The legislation that we are discussing just now would give land managers another option. It is an option that they already have but they would now have that option without the additional paperwork is really the big change here. Finally, the question has been raised here or the prospect has been raised today and online as well. The prospect has been raised of deer calves being killed the moment that they are born. Do you feel that Scotland's land managers, keepers, farmers, crofters and landowners are any more minded to do that to male deer now than they have been in the past to do to deer in general in the past? Is there any evidence that there is large-scale attempts by landowners and land managers and others to kill deer the moment that they are born? No, I don't think that that's true. I haven't got evidence to that effect but I don't think that's true. I think that our land managers and stalkers share the members in this room concerned with animal welfare and of course are managing their animals in the best interests of the health of the animals as well as the landscape that they are managing. It is of course up to the land manager and the professional who is undertaking the deer management to make the decisions around animal welfare. If they feel that the animals are being harassed, if they feel that there is a welfare concern, they can of course make the decision not to undertake that stalking activity at that time. That is fully within the discretion of those professionals who undertake that activity and I know that professionals take animal welfare very seriously. Can I just ask a supplementary on questions that were asked before about the percentage of deer killed out of season? You said that nearly 50 per cent of stags are killed out of season. What's the percentage of hines killed out of season? Much, much lower. I would have to work the number back. So 15 per cent of deer, all deer called in Scotland, are out of season but 48 per cent of all male deer so I'd have to do the maths to get that but only a very small percentage of females are called out of season because although there are no welfare concerns that have been identified within the evidence base that we have for culling male deer out of season, that's not a welfare concern. There are, of course, potential welfare concerns with culling female deer out of season, particularly if they are suckling young because that could lead to suffering for the young. That can be done but it's under very specific authorisation and the stalker has to be sure to get both but that's done it much fewer than with the male deer. I absolutely get that we need to manage deer numbers and we need to protect the environment but it seems to be quite a recent phenomena that deer numbers are being allowed to go out of control and given the number of licences being applied for, which is why you're putting forward this SSI, what steps has NatureScot taken before this time to encourage land managers to manage their deer numbers? We've all heard of contract killing coming in to manage deer numbers almost against the will of some land managers. We hear stories about deer being shot from helicopters and pretty obscene things like that going on. I just wonder what NatureScot has been doing when those kinds of contracts are being let out to manage deer numbers, to encourage those land managers to manage their deer properly within the season? Shooting deer from helicopters is not part of standard deer management practice, that isn't part of standard deer management practice at all. I wouldn't want the member to think that. There are various ways in which we support deer management. In Scotland we've heard about the money that Forestryland Scotland invests in that to protect those lands. The key mechanism for managing deer by land managers is deer management groups where several land holdings will get together and come to an agreement on how to manage deer because, of course, the deer move between the land holdings and the purpose of those agreements is to allow the land managers themselves to decide what is the right amount of deer and how they want to manage them between themselves. The association of those deer management groups has been part of the gathering of the evidence base. There are on-going efforts to manage deer that NatureScot has been involved in, including citing fencing, installing fencing and making sure that fencing is marked so that it doesn't hinder capricaly and other ground nesting birds who may fly into the fences and be injured. The management of the deer is a very comprehensive project being undertaken by not just NatureScot but by land managers and forestry managers as well. It may be of interest to the member to know that, way back in 1959, the Dears Scotland Act was introduced at that time with the intention of reducing red deer impact on forestry and agriculture. Since that time, red deer numbers have, we think, doubled twice. They doubled between 1959 and 1990 and again between 1990 and now. The existing deer management measures that are in place have not succeeded in the aim that they even set out to in 1959, which was to manage those pressures. The deer numbers have just been increasing, which is why the Scottish Government asked the deer working group and independent body to come to us with some new suggestions, because what was happening wasn't working. That's where those 99 suggestions came from. The three that we're bringing today are the first three that are part of a legislative programme to bring in place updated deer management. It seems to me that deer are a healthy food source. This is low-carbon impact, they're nutritious meat, but to have them, I suppose, dealt with in the way that they are being dealt with out of season, they're not getting into the food chain. In fact, we've heard reports of them being left rotting in the hill. I'm not convinced that the Scottish Government has pursued every possible solution to this by holding land managers responsible for managing their deer numbers in a way that allows that deer to go into the food chain. We know that deer fences keep deer out. We know that you can manage your numbers down to zero, if you want, on your land. I just don't quite understand, or as close to zero, that one or two will always get across, but if you have a deer fence in place and you manage your numbers, you can manage that properly. I just wonder if all of those options have been taken before we use this nuclear option of just killing deer willy nilly at any point? I'm not comfortable with the framing that this is killing deer willy nilly. That's not the situation. What we're proposing today is to remove an administrative burden. As we've discussed already, for male deer, they are already being shot year-round. It's just that you need some paperwork to do that. We know that land managers need to manage deer in this way. This is—nobody is obliged to do this, but we already know that land managers want to manage this way. That's why they apply for hundreds of these permits every year to do this. The point around the venison is a good one. Managing deer is costly. It's expensive. Building fences, maintaining fences, hiring professionals to do the stalking—all of that is expensive. The idea that carcasses are left on the hillside to rot is that that's a very small number, as Hugh has already outlined. That is not common practice, and I wouldn't want the member to think that it was. I have had several meetings with the venison industry about this. They didn't have any particular concerns about the change to closed season, where they think it might even help because it expands out the shoulder seasons, where earlier in the year the stags may be in good condition that that would provide a steadier stream of venison. One of the challenges with the venison market is that it is so seasonal. Removing the closed seasons would give land managers a bit more flexibility to be able to level that season out and make a steadier venison market, which is easier to handle and easier on the infrastructure needed, the cool rooms and facilities to manage it. This is something that the venison industry themselves haven't had any particular issue with and should open up the options. However, as we call more, dear in Scotland, as we need to do so, that will increase the supply of venison. As I have outlined earlier to one of the other members' questions, we are putting investment into making sure that infrastructure is in place and making sure that, as you say, excellent, organic, healthy meat is getting on to people's plates. Before I bring in Karen Adam, a Beatrice Wishart has got a supplementary specifically on that topic. I was just on the numbers following Rhoda Grant's line of questioning. You have said that the dear numbers have doubled since 1990, but I had a conversation with an ENGO recently who indicated that the figures had been relatively stable over the last 20 years, but you have also said that they have doubled from 59 to 90 and then again from 1990 to now. You will appreciate the confusion here and who's figures to understand. I wonder if you can say a bit more about the impression that the figures have been stable in the last 20 years. Absolutely. The figures that I have come from the Dear Working Group looked into the evidence to present those 99 recommendations. The changes that we have seen since the 1950s is that you can now find row deer and red deer established across Scotland so that they have increased their ranges. There was an estimate of red deer population in 1959. It was around 155,000 individuals. By 1990, that estimate had doubled. In 1990, the total deer population was estimated at 500,000 individuals. In 2020, the Dear Working Group estimated that it was approaching 1 million, so it doubled again. That was in 2020, so three years ago it's likely to be larger now. We've touched upon the environmental impacts of deer and why this is necessary also for animal welfare, but you've also spoke about the public safety aspects. I would just like to go in a bit more detail on that. Have you explained to us what type of public safety measures would this help to support? Absolutely. The human safety concerns are initially around deer vehicle collisions. We know that there are estimated between 8,000 and 14,000 deer vehicle collisions in Scotland every year, which is a risk to human health and safety. It's also a cost. The estimate from the DVC in Scotland is that those costs £13.8 million a year. That figure is from 2016, so it's much more likely to be higher now. That is an area where there's health and safety concerns. There's also some concerns around Lyme disease, where you have hosts for potential concerns. The other instrument that we'll be discussing this morning on Bracken is that more evidence is required to understand tick-borne disease. We don't have a huge amount of evidence on that, but that's likely to be an impact as well. It's on-road traffic accidents. Just to register my interests, my daughter had a very bad accident that she's describing, but she's fine. I don't understand how road traffic accidents can be prevented if male deer are being shot near pregnant hines, which causes them to bolt. Will we have a situation where you're monitoring the numbers of road traffic accidents if you're using this to bring down the numbers? I don't understand how you can monitor the number of road traffic accidents that this is going to reduce by bringing forward this SSI. We can monitor the number of road traffic accidents in Scotland. This SSI is part of a larger package of measures. As we reduce the number of deer in Scotland, the number of collisions with those deer will reduce. I'll ask a question specifically beyond that. That was a supplemental to the road traffic accident. The first is on comments that you very helpfully made in terms of the figures. You talked about the fact that nearly half are already called out of season. The primary change here is in terms of an administrative burden. One of my challenges is that over the last few years, particularly as a representative rural areas, it's always on the receiving end of very legitimate lobbying, is that we've generally been increasing the burden of administration and authorisation when it comes to shooting or culling in recent years. In this case, we appear to be reducing the need. My question is that entirely for environmental reasons. Secondly, how comfortable do you feel that we're actually reducing the administrative burden when it comes to essentially a licence to shoot in contrast to the general theme of the last few years? That's an excellent question. The two points there are yes primarily the work of the deer working group was around those concerns of what the deer are nibbling on. Those are partly commercial concerns for crops and forestry, but also environmental concerns. That overgrazing causes problems both environmental and commercial, which is why we need to address the deer numbers overall. The point that the member is touching on is that this one bit of legislation on its own is of course not solving the whole problem. There were 99 recommendations of the working group, and that one relatively minor change to the paperwork needed to manage deer out male deer out of season is not by itself going to resolve the problem, but it's one small step, it's one tool that we can use to both support land managers to do what they already want to do. We know some land managers do wish to manage their deer this way, and this way they can do so without the paperwork. It is nice to be able to remove paperwork burden where we can. Where our interests align in terms of land managers wanting this option and the Scottish Government wishing to update deer management, I think that that's a good thing that we're able to align on that. If I could continue. One of the examples in recent years has been of course mountain hares. Remembering that debate, one of the arguments that was made as to why land managers should still be allowed to shoot and cull mountain hares was that because high growth in numbers would lead to, for example, starvation, because the habitat couldn't sustain them. I think that we need to probably think more carefully about how we explain the fact that we've taken a very different direction on mountain hares, which have an equally detrimental impact on vegetation and on trees, I believe, as deer would. I think that the gamekeepers have asked me questions, have asked how do you explain the two different approaches that you're currently taking to, for example, mountain hares and deer? That's an excellent question. The number is, of course, correct, that mountain hares can cause damage, for example, by grazing on newly planted trees. The big difference is the population numbers. As we've discussed, the population numbers of deer in Scotland are enormous, having doubled and then doubled again since the 50s, whereas the mountain hares have unfavourable conservation status. There simply aren't that many of them, not enough of them to require that kind of management. Therefore, because there are fewer hares, the scale of the impact that they can have is much smaller, it is still possible to manage hares under licence when that's necessary, so that tool is still available. We need to increase the number of deer that are called each year in order to meet our targets. Finding ways to make that easier for land managers when they wish to manage their deer that way is part of what this project is about. Two more, if I may. Again, one of the root challenges, I think, with this SSI is the sense from gamekeepers and land managers that often their expertise, their many years of experience, is sidelined. They often feel like their vast knowledge is not treated with the respect that it deserves when it comes to those matters. My question would be, what has the Government done to consult specifically with gamekeepers to learn from them and other land managers? How do we ensure that the relationship between the Government and gamekeepers is strong and based on mutual respect? I hope that that relationship is strong and based on mutual respect. I have engaged with gamekeepers on many occasions and on many visits as well. We have had some excellent visits where we have a lot in common in terms of wanting to increase the venison industry, helping managers to have more choice in how they manage their land. I think that these are things that we all have in common, making sure that we are managing deer for healthy herds, taking consideration of the welfare of the animals. Where we have these things in common, I think that we have been able to engage very fully. Members of representative organisations, both the British Association of Shooting Conservation and the Scottish Gamekeepers, have been engaged in every step of the process from 2020, when the recommendations were first published through 2021, when the Scottish Government submitted their response. They have written to us both as part of our consultation and we have considered those responses. I have had meetings with them, including BASC, most recently on 7 June. Officials have met with the Scottish Gamekeepers Association alongside Nature Scott this year. On-going and recent meetings as well in that space. I do recognise the expertise of the land managers in this space. This legislation that we are proposing allows land managers that choice. We are not dictating how managers may choose to manage their land if they wish to continue to observe a closed season. Absolutely they may do so. For those land managers who wish to have more flexibility, that allows them to make that decision using their own expertise. I am coming at this with great respect for Gamekeepers and land managers, many of whom have said that irrespective of the legislation they will still honour the closed season. The concern is with those who may prioritise environmental concerns over and above animal welfare issues, and that is what sits quite uncomfortably with me. The two questions on that are, how are you going to keep this under review? Secondly, will you heed any new evidence that emerges, for example from those who may disregard animal welfare concerns in order to prioritise tree planting? Absolutely. I am always open to hearing new evidence and, of course, if there are incidences of poor animal welfare management, I would be very interested to hear those. That is something that we absolutely share. As I have cited earlier in our discussion, animal welfare groups have been consulted on this legislation. They have been included in the discussion and no welfare issues were raised with respect to the closed season for male deer at all—none at all. I have a couple of questions about the percentage of the deer cull. How many authorisations are sought and rejected? Do we have any authorisations for outdoor season culling rejected? On what basis is it rejected at the moment? I am not aware of any that have been rejected. For outdoor season, shooting for male deer is a general authorization. As long as people are in the conditions, they can access the authorisation themselves, so they are not routinely rejected for male deer. No. 84 per cent of male deer culled outdoor season. If we take away the red tape, if you like, what percentage is that number likely to increase to? If there is not a closed season, how many additional male deer will be controlled during the controlled season? It is unknown how many land managers would wish to manage their deer then this way over and above what is currently being done. The numbers of male deer shot out of season have gradually increased from 23 per cent in 2013, just almost about 5 per cent a year, up to 48 per cent between 2019 and 2020. There is an increase, even with the current authorisation requirement. There has been a steady year-on-year increase in terms of land managers who wish to manage their deer in this way. That may increase. I cannot predict how many more land managers may wish to take up this option. We will, to some extent, have to wait and see with that. Because such a significant proportion of deer are already being managed in this way, it is clearly something that land managers have an appetite for. I am confused, because you suggested that it would decrease the number of road accidents. You have no indication whatsoever whether that will have any effect on the number of deer that is culled. The legislation is part of those 99 recommendations. On its own, the piece of legislation will not make all the differences that we need to make. That is part of a larger programme of work. That is one of the recommendations from the deer working group, just to remove that administrative burden. By itself, I would not expect this legislation to have measurable impact on its own. Of the 48 per cent, there is a figure that I would imagine that you will be aware of. Of that 48 per cent, how much of that is on forest and land? I do not have that information in front of me. Is it likely to be the bulk of that 48 per cent? I think that it is likely. That is quite a significant portion of it, yes. The main benefactors of that are taking away the red tape, but it is going to be forest and land Scotland. Forest and land Scotland is already culled a third of the deer in Scotland, so there will be big players in that. I can maybe add to that. For example, in 29, 20, 20, 40, 1,331 male deer were culled out of season. Forest and land Scotland culled about 11,000 male deer out of season in 22, 23, so it is a proportion, but it is not the vast majority of them. Okay, that is helpful. Thank you very much, convener. Some of the argument against or around this instrument has focused around animal welfare. I wonder if you could just say a bit more about the animal welfare evidence that you considered. I am thinking of it, and it has been alluded to by the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission to find things that provide enormous requirements for high standards of public safety and animal welfare adhered to. There is no need for a closed season for males, so what has been considered in terms of animal welfare evidence? Government has done is look at closed season in other countries, for example, which are substantially different in the rest of the UK than here. The reasons for those closed seasons being in place, as the member rightly says, the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission did not consider that changing the closed season provided all high standards of public safety and animal welfare adhered to would make any difference at all, so by consulting with those groups who work in this space, we can understand that. I know that there are concerns, as raised by Mr Mountain, about the harassing of deer, but I think that that goes back to what we spoke already about the expertise and professionalism of stalkers and people undertaking this work. They have a deer welfare at their heart, and if they feel that the deer are being distressed or that there were welfare concerns, then they should stop that action, and I am sure that they would do so, because they have those concerns. On the land that Forestry Land Scotland manages, how many general authorisation certificates have been turned down? If you are trying to deal with cutting red tape, is it because the general authorisation that covers shooting male deer out of season? Is that a problem because those have been turned down, the general authorisations? As far as I am aware, none of those have been turned down. How is it going to cut red tape for the likes of FLS? Because they do not have to submit those authorisations. They are not going to submit them at all, but even if they submit them, they are not turned down, so what is the problem? It is NatureScot that they should not submit them to. It is also the red tape that NatureScot administering those authorisations is as much the issue. This is the burden on NatureScot's administration. Forestry Land Scotland has to prepare these authorisation forms, send them in, and NatureScot has to process them. They do not get declined, they are always accepted, so there is no need for that step to be taken. I will go back to the basics. Is it the male or the female cull that reduces deer numbers? All deer do the damage through overgrazing, and I have either sex to do that damage to the overgrazing. By reducing male deer numbers, you will reduce that impact, particularly in the season where they are removed. The member is alluding to that for long-term deer management, and we also need to manage female deer numbers. I do not want to be distracted by this particular bit of legislation, which, as we have discussed, is one part of the 99 recommendations for updating deer management in Scotland. The other two items that we discussed today apply to female deer, as do many of the items under that 99. That is just one small piece of the puzzle of that picture. It was identified by the deer working group as an opportunity to reduce some paperwork and to align interests and the recommended that we undertake it. Does the Scottish Government have evidence that targeting males all year round will control the deer population? The evidence was considered by the deer working group, who then made the recommendation to us, which we have accepted. That evidence was analysed by the deer working group. To go back to my point that I made earlier regarding the culling of male deer all year round near pregnant hines, it is likely that they will bolt, use at reserves and that they will not be able to get through the winter because we use up those reserves, and, likely, the welfare issues will be starvation or mortality through starvation. What consideration has the Scottish Government given to the welfare of female dears because of the impact of this SSI? That is, of course, part of the welfare consideration with this issue. As we have discussed just a moment ago, the professionals undertaking the deer management need to consider the welfare of the animals when they are undertaking that stocking. If there are hines and females present, they need to consider that when they are undertaking this work. If there are welfare considerations, they should stop their activity and do that activity at a different time. That is with the practitioners who know best, who have the expertise to make that decision as to whether to pull the trigger, whether to undertake that stock on any particular day. On the basis that land managers have raised concerns, I presume with all of us in this room, and to the point that Kate Forbes made, if land managers observe the closed season, do you believe that the Scottish Government will achieve the reduction in population numbers that they expect? This is one piece of a much broader programme of work that the deer working group has identified. The measure on its own will not help us to achieve the results that we need to, but it is one piece of the puzzle that has been recommended to us. I recommend it to you all as something that was presented and proposed by the deer working group based on their evidence. It allows land managers to do something that they already are doing, but with less paperwork. It gives land managers that choice. As part of the measures to increase the number of deer called in Scotland, which we know we need to do because of their growth in numbers. If FLS accounts for 11,000 of those deer being called, according to Roddy Wilson's figures, if they continue to do that but no general authorisation has been turned down, the same number of deer will be controlled. If land managers that control private ownership choose not to do that, you are in the same position currently on publicly owned land. We do not know how many land managers have been deterred from managing out of season because of the paperwork requirements of the administration. All of these measures are intended to make it easier to manage deer. Part of that is giving land managers more tools to do so. That is part of that kit to allow that. As one measure on its own, it will not achieve that. It is part of the whole picture of things. Because this is such a relatively small piece of the puzzle, to remove one piece of a minister to burden as part of a larger programme, I think that is how it needs to be pictured. This may well increase the number of land managers who choose to manage that way. It is not like bringing in a seatbelt legislation. Everybody wears a seatbelt and we actually cut down road traffic accidents. It is not like that because what you are trying to do is bring forward something that a group of people believe is detrimental to the animal welfare of particularly female deer. Arrianne Burgess Minister, throughout the session that you have talked about, and you are just talking about it just now, about the fact that this is part of a package of 99 measures that I do not know if you are bringing all of them. I do not know if you agree to all of them, but that is not the point of my question. You have also talked about the relationships that you have had in going to meet with land managers and discuss with land managers and professional practitioners on the ground. I think that it is a bit challenging for the committee because we are looking at a few of the measures of the package that you are talking about. When you go to talk to those practitioners and land managers, are you discussing those pieces as part of that whole package? Do the practitioners and land managers understand that there are a number of measures that are going to come through over time and that they see those bits as part of the whole that we are maybe not seeing? I think that that is true. Land managers do understand the need to manage deer. That is why so many deer management groups are largely voluntary organisations where land managers have got together with their neighbours to figure out how to manage deer. The specific awareness of those exact 99 recommendations would of course vary. Not all of those are legislative changes. Some of them are changes to other policy areas or the work of nature, Scotland and so on. There are quite a broad range of actions. The issue of how to reduce deer numbers in Scotland is not a simple one, like legislating people to wear their seatbelts. It is about a whole bunch of different things, including legislation, to help to turn the ship in a slightly different direction because the existing legislation has not been sufficient to prevent the damage to tree growth, to crops, to human health and safety that was hoped that it would do in 1959 when that was passed. Those measures are indeed part of that work forward. When meeting with stakeholders and deer management groups, they are very keen to emphasise, as has been discussed today, that they understand the need for deer management, that they have concerns for animal welfare. Most of their issues are around funding. How do we pay for that? How do we, if we want to manage deer differently than how their neighbours do it, how do they resolve these sorts of interests? It is very practical issues, mostly as what comes up. I am going to bring in Rhoda Grant up. Unfortunately, I missed out earlier, Rhoda, before bringing in Karen again. I am getting a little bit more concerned, as I hear the evidence. Most out-of-season deer management is carried out by Forest and Land Scotland, which is a Government agency. It applies to NatureScot for a licence to do this, which is a Government agency. NatureScot appears just to tick the box and give permission. There seems to be very little evidence of NatureScot trying to encourage Government agency Forest and Land Scotland to amend their practice to keep within the spirit of the law, far less anybody else. I am getting really concerned that this is just convenience. Very little thought has been given to one, the food chain, and to animal welfare. What checks and balances are on the system, because you yourself have said today that the reason for bringing forward this legislation is that it happens anyway, and this is going to cut down an administrative burden. It seems to me that the administrative burden has never been done in its job because these two Government agencies are working hand in hand to make life easy for each other. That comes down to the point at which I mentioned earlier about the reason for their being a closed season. The male deer closed season is not a welfare issue, as one kind says that they have no objection to removing the closed season for male deer as long as all the requirements for high standards are here to. The SPSPCA recognises the need for deer management in Scotland and is not against lifting the closed season for male red deer, sitka, fallow or roe deer, as long as control is carried out humanely by individuals trained in the use of farms. The existence of the closed season for male deer is not there for welfare concerns. It is for the sporting interests concerns in particular down in England, so that they can grow the larger antlers for the use of the sporting industry. The closed 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. They were not achieving anything. As I have said, those recommendations have come from an external body from that independent deer working group. It was identified that this was one of many measures that would help to get us towards where we need to be in Scotland with deer management, which is that we need to increase our cull, and we need to reduce deer numbers. That is one of the tools to do that. How many of the deer that are culled out of season go into the food chain? I do not have numbers for that at the moment, but, of course, as many as possible can do that, but I am happy to write to the member with that information. I just want to get clarity on a few points. We have heard arguments that there might be more deer killed earlier, male deer, straight from the womb, but we have also heard that that might not increase the number of deer that are killed. So, just for clarity, what exactly would this do in regards to the numbers of deer being culled? One of a number of measures, the intention of which is to enable us nationally to bring down our numbers. There may be some land managers who, at this time, are deterred from managing their deer male deer out of season because of the paperwork burden of having to fill in the authorisation. By removing that burden, those managers who wish to do so, it just gives them another option to do that. On its own, this measure may only increase the number of deer culled by a very tiny amount, but because it is part of a larger programme, all these steps need to be taken. 95 of those recommendations that were made by that independent group were accepted by the Scottish Government, and this is us systematically working through them. This is the first three legislative ones that have been through. There is some primary legislation that is required as well, which will come later on, and all those other actions as well that are not legislative, but need to be undertaken in terms of supporting deer management groups, how NatureScot practices their work and so on. I just want to get this clear on my head. We do not have an indication of any land managers other than Forest and Land Scotland that might increase the number of deer shot out of season. Is that right? From the number that Brody gave us, roughly between a quarter of a third of the deer shot out of season are done by Forestry Land Scotland, so two thirds to three quarters are being shot by other land managers. There is a desire from other land managers as well. Without needing the authorisation, that means that any land manager can choose to do that without having to do the paperwork. Those who currently think that it is important enough to fill in the authorisation and go through that process do so, but that opens up the space to others who may have been put off by that. I already alluded to this, but it was just to get it on the record. I think that what would reassure the committee to an extent is a willingness on the part of the Government to return, at some point, say, in a year to review the evidence over the course of the year, where there has been evidence, for example, of a relatively newly born male deer being killed, being shot, sorry, and so on. I think that it was just to get a commitment that the minister will return in a year where we can consider the evidence of how this has been enacted. NatureScot certainly keeps a hold of the call returns. Of course, I am at the committee's disposal to come back at any time. Currently, if there is a general authorisation, it means that NatureScot is collecting data. In this situation, without an authorisation, they will not be collecting data. NatureScot still collects the call returns. However, we have not got to this point. How do you know that they will do that? Is that part of the agreement? NatureScot will be collecting call returns, because it is important for all of us for deer management to understand the call numbers and so on. They will get an oversight of anything that is attached to certain circumstances, such as Kate described, the age of a male deer. The call return information will be the same as what they get now. That is unchanged. We will now move on to the next agenda item, which is the formal consideration of the motion to annul the instrument. I invite Edward Mountain to speak to and move motion S6M-10137, that the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee recommends that the day close season Scotland amendment order 2023 be annulled. Thank you very much, convener. I would like to remind members of my register of interests that I have a land farming partnership and there are deer on it. I would also like to say that I would like at the outset to move the motion in my name. For the committee's information, I have got over 40 years of deer management experience and I used to manage, when I was professionally managing land, over 200,000 acres across upland Scotland, often for private landowners, some for crofters and some for farmers. I personally believe that I was trying to tot it up the other day, have probably authorised the culling in excess of 20,000 red deer. That is not an insignificant number. If you work on the amount of deer management groups that I've been involved with, which there are six, and I helped write their deer management plans and those extended from tongue down to Dunlachardoc, the figure of red deer that I have been party to authorising culling of probably is closer to 100,000. That is a lot of deer. I think I have a good understanding of the need to control deer. I would like to say at the outset that I accept that the deer numbers in Scotland need to be dealt with and reduced. I fully accept that point. A few simple facts, if I can just start off with, convener. I believe that deer management is seriously complex. When you look at deer management, you are looking not just about male numbers. You are looking about female numbers. You are looking about the percentage that are in car feature. There are a whole heap of things to take into account before you get into the environment and whether the environment can sustain them. I have done transects on hills across a lot of Scotland to work out whether the environment is being damaged. Suppressing deer numbers is not, and I repeat, not about culling male deer. It is about culling female, breeding female deer. For those of you who go to the hills at the moment, and the stags are just about to start rutting, if they are not rutting already, you will see the stags holding 30 plus females. For those of you who were out in the woods in August, you will see robux charging around, chasing numerous does. It is a funny thing in life when it comes to deer management, and deer is a whole. It is not the number of males that are required. It comes down purely to the number of females. Let me tell you, you can have no males on the ground, or think you have no males on the ground, and come the rut. The females will find them and will move to them if they cannot find them on the ground. Thus, in my mind, targeting males as a specific element of the population is futile and misplaced. My question is, do we need this? We will look back at the Dears Scotland Act 1996. This allows the control of deer out of season by regulation, and we have heard that this morning. There are grounds for granting consent for the control of deer out of season, preventing damage to agricultural land, preventing damage to timber, preventing damage to the natural environment, and also for public safety. You can get an authorisation, and much has been made of that this morning. I am thankful that that is there. However, what has not been made clear to the committee this morning is that there is a general authorisation that is issued all year round at the moment by Scottish Natural Heritage, or NatureScot, which allows the control of deer on improved agricultural land and enclosed woodland. You do not have to apply for anything to do that. You can do it automatically because the general licence exists. The only thing that it does not allow is on that general authorisation is the killing of female deer over a year old. The reason for that is that they could well be pregnant at that stage, and a general authorisation would allow them to be killed in the latter stages of their pregnancy, which I think we all agree would be unacceptable. It is there. We have that authorisation. There is no paperwork to fill in. There is no forms to fill in. You can get on with it because the law says it can be done. What will that mean, this legislation mean? I absolutely tell you, and I know that this matter has been discussed, but male deer will effectively become targets from the day they were born to the day they die. I think that the minister has accepted that by reducing the male deer population you are not going to decrease the overall deer population across Scotland. I made mention earlier about the fact that male deer, when they have made it, are run. They are in very poor condition in many cases, especially hill deer, and by harrying them as they go into the winter, you will increase mortality. You absolutely will increase mortality if you are chasing those male deer before they have had a chance to recover from the rut. Then the question is what you do with the carxes. The minister said that the deer industry is quite keen on having a shoulder of deer over the closed seasons when deer are not being shot. However, if you look at the seasons, there is a very small closed period, and you do not need it in the sense that once the stags come out of season, the hines come into season, and once the bucks come out of season, the does come into season. There is that continuity. You will be left with this question of what to do with run animals, which is what they are called. If you have ever been on the hill, you can smell them from a distance. The stags stink, they are thin, they are scrawny, and they are not fit to eat. Most game dealers will not accept them into their lardas. They will not accept them because no one wants to eat them. Indeed, I would not eat them. They are not in my mind fit for human consumption. There was a point made today about shooting stags out of season. I remind you of the not insignificant number of stags left on the hill at Neudard, 86 of them to Rot, which is not acceptable. That is what will happen if we allow this to come along. During the process, I am disappointed because I cannot find out who the minister consulted on. The minister has alluded to the people that were open to the consultation, and I think that there was a meeting on 28 June where you discussed this. You had Forestryland, Scotland, Natescott, Scottish Animal Welfare Commission, who do not, as I say, have a single dear management practitioner on the board. I do not think that you even got support at that meeting from all the people that were there or represented. Perhaps you can clarify that, but what is abundantly clear is that dear managers, dear practitioners on the ground were not in favour of this and do not support it. Perhaps in answer to this at the end, the minister will be in a position to clarify who actually voted in favour of this and who voted against it. We have heard today about who will use this. What we have heard is that people who manage deer will be unlikely to use this regulation, and I hasten to add, manage deer. What we have also heard is that the people who are likely to use it and will support it and have said to me openly that they will support it are Forestryland, Scotland, RSPB and some land-owning charities. I say to the committee, remember, they do not manage deer. They are not deer managers. They are land managers, and they control deer to allow their other activities to take place. I do not criticise them for that, but there are two very different objectives. Now, when I started the campaign, which I will talk about in a minute, to the petition to overdo this, I was stopped when I was driving down the road around Inverness by a Forestryland Scotland ranger who said to me, thank you, Edward, for doing this. I'm disgusted by the job that I'm having to do. I'm having to kill over two deer every day that I work. I'm told it doesn't matter what age they are, what sex they are, or whether they're calves, whether they're females. They are in timber. I'm told to destroy them. He was disgusted. He said to me that that was not management, that was eradication. Now, I find that difficult, and I find that difficult from a welfare point of view, which is the point I want to come on to next. What we're suggesting by this legislation, or the Government is suggesting, is there will be no rest, no respite, so you can shoot male deer all year round, you can shoot them with lighter ammunition, and you can shoot them all night. So what it means, you are shooting them 24 hours a day, seven days a week because there is no stopping you on a Sunday, so it's seven days a week, 365 days of the year. That doesn't sound like management to me. That sounds like something I used to do when I was in the army, which was called warfare. Now, there will be some arguments deployed by the Minister that there are great technological advantages, like using suppressors, which doesn't frighten the deer so much. Well, people get confused about what a suppressor does on a rifle. Guess it muffles the noise. But if you're on the end of the receiving bullet, let me tell you, you still hear the crack, you still hear the thump, and you'll still run away, and that will be the case with deer. So in this process, there is no respite, and you can see when you go into woodlands that I've done with rangers, that as soon as they see a vehicle they're gone, and as soon as they see a light they're gone at night, that to me is not where we want to be. I would also argue that shooting calves, young male calves, when females are in milk, especially on the hill in woodlands, is not good practice. Deer do get mastitis, and it's deeply unpleasant when they do it. And the fact that you're doing this with males means that you have no selection. People who manage deer take a great deal of effort to make sure that they cull deer so that males are not mating with their mothers and their sisters. That is bad deer management. Now, if you are just indiscriminately killing males, you will end up with juveniles who are probably more difficult to identify, who could end up mating with their sisters and mothers. That will cause all sorts of problems and make the herd poorer. And let me say in answer to the question about Forestryland Scotland that we've heard. If you look at the larger records of Forestryland Scotland objectively, and you see who is culling deer out of seasons, and then ask the question, how many of the deer that Forestryland Scotland shoot in their woodlands are under 12 months old? You would be shot. You are seeing very young animals, calves being shot, when mothers are shot, calves are shot automatically. They can be just months old when that happens. So we're in a situation where I don't believe that there's welfare grounds for doing it. I don't think it's necessary. And here's the dichotomy for me and a point raised by Kate Forbes. I sat in this committee when I heard about the need to control rabbits and the fact that we need to look after their welfare. I agree. But never forget rabbits eat trees just as much as deer do. And I sat in this Parliament and heard why we needed to protect blue hares. And there may be an argument for it. Localised, I would say, but there may be an argument for it. But one of the biggest destroyers of young trees is actually hares, not deer, in cold weather they have an ability to strip bark off young trees, which prevents their growth. And I've also heard in this Parliament when I sat here about how we need to protect seals and I heard that when we were talking about salmon. That's despite a population explosion in seals and that's something that we're not addressing. And I've also heard about how we're going to protect beavers. In the last session of the Parliament, we weren't going to allow them to be moved around Scotland now under the current government we are and they are given virtually total protection. And we're hearing also why in this Parliament we should ban the use of glue traps which are used to control rodents. So is there a common thread that we can see about small fluffy animals, hares, rabbits, seals? Why did deer not fit into that? Why did deer not order the same protection as these animals are? Now, I would say that when I heard this instrument coming forward, I started a petition online. I didn't advertise. I just put it on Facebook and I put it on Twitter with a few tweets. I got support from the Scottish Standards and Estates, Scottish Gamekeepers Association, BASC, SCA and just by every other land manager in Scotland with little and no effort, with little or no effort, as of today, 1,640 people have signed up saying that this must not happen. And some of the comments are quite telling. Some of them are unhelpful, but some of them are quite telling that they don't believe it's going to help deer management. So in summary, and why I've brought this motion to a null is I don't believe this, believe we need this. It's misguided. The government already has the ability to control deer within woodlands and agricultural land without the authorization to kill male deer. I do, however, understand the difficulties that may be placed on the government by people considering that this motion to a null would put them. But by unnulling the motion today, and I'd say to committee members, I absolutely accept it won't be the end of it. I absolutely accept that the minister may wish to bring this back to the committee in a slightly bigger form. It will allow the minister to carry out the consultation which I believe the minister has singularly failed to do. It would allow the minister to understand some of the nuances of deer management, which is not about horn growth and it's not about shooting deer in the rut because we shoot deer in the rut anyway. And it would give this committee, which I believe is singly important in the parliamentary procedure, the ability to scrutinise the government when we've had more evidence and when you, convener, and committee members, have heard more evidence from deer practitioners. That's why I've raised the motion to a null. I make no bones about the fact that I would rather it didn't happen, but I accept it might happen. But I want to make sure that the primacy of this Parliament and this committee within the parliamentary process is heard, which is why I've raised the motion to a null. Thank you, convener, and I'm happy to take any questions on any part of that that you're allowing me. Thank you, Edward Mountain. Does any committee member wish to debate this motion? Arianne Burgess. I'd like to just raise some points against the motion to a null. I think what I've heard this morning, first of all, that already 48 per cent of male deer are currently shot out of season, and what the minister is bringing forward is a piece of regulation that will remove the administrative burden on NatureScot and ForestrylandScotland. I've heard from EnvironmentLink, which is a body that is comprised of many environmental organisations in Scotland, and I'd like to just read from that, that they fully support all recommendations of the independent deer working group, accepted by the Scottish Government, including the removal of the closed season for male deer. There's no scientific basis for maintaining closed seasons for male deer, nor is there any historic tradition for the arrangement, which was introduced by the UK Government in the 1960s, at a time when the red deer population was less than half its current size. Even then, there was opposition from the Deer Commission, based in Scotland, which expressed concern about rising deer numbers. Deer damage to habitats does not cease during closed seasons. That measure does not actually oblige any landowner to cull male deer all year round. I say again that it's about removing excessive bureaucracy, time and cost to the public purse. I think that that's important. I'd also like to say that what I've heard this morning is also that the land managers and the practitioners are professional. I've also heard that they are people who care about animal welfare. I trust that they will carry out the work. Again, we must remember that already 40 per cent of male deer are currently cull shot out of season. I trust that, with removing the bureaucratic burden and removing that burden to the public purse, those professionals will continue to carry out that work in that way. I also think that rather than listening to anecdotal evidence on animal welfare issues, we must listen to the evidence and advice that is given by the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission, the SSPCA and one kind, as they are independent and all experts in the matter. Can I answer briefly, convener, one of the points raised in that road? You really need to intervene on the speakers. I'm going to bring in committee members who've got road. Beatrice Wishart to come in. I've listened very carefully to the views presented today. I appreciate the need for action to protect biodiversity and recognise the negative impacts due to overpopulation of deer and that requires action. I also understand the existing licence process to obtain authorisation to shoot deer during the closed season and that there are both arguments that this is sufficient and arguments that this is overly bureaucratic. I'm also concerned about the consultation process or lack thereof. I'm off the view that the instrument should have full parliamentary scrutiny and for that reason I will support Edward Mountain's motion in order for the SSI to come before the full Scottish Parliament. Thank you. Any other member? No. I now invite Edward Mountain to wind up. Sorry, I've jumped the gun. Can I ask the minister to respond? Thank you very much, convener. I will remind the member, as we've already discussed, that all legal requirements for consultation were met. We did everything that we needed to do. In the letter from the Scottish Environment link, they praised our efforts for making sure that we had fully engaged stakeholders on this matter. People who manage their land want to have the choice about how they're going to manage it. Mr Mountain is correct. Some land management organisations are opposed to the removal of closed seasons for male deer. This instrument does not prevent them from continuing to observe a closed season. That is up to them to decide if they wish to continue to do that. We know that there is a demand from some land managers to manage deer out of season because they cause damage all year round. Deer of both sexes cause damage all year round. Managing the male deer is part of handling these issues immediately. They need to be managed. Managing female deer also needs to be looked at. Two of the things that we spoke about today affect female deer. The three pieces that we have looked at today, but this one in particular, is one small part of a larger approach to deal with the issue of the overpopulation of deer, which at high densities cause commercial damage and environmental damage. The numbers have increased so sharply over the past 30 years that we know that existing practice simply isn't good enough and isn't going to get us there. We do need to change existing practice. I very much hope that members will allow this motion to afford the negative amendment to ensure that we remove this piece of unnecessary bureaucracy to give land managers those choices. On the point of deer versus hares, when I spoke to Ms Forbes, the big difference with how we manage deer with other animals is that deer are not under protected conservation status. There are too many of them. With animals like hares, there are relatively few of them. Culling hares is a much more serious matter in terms of the survival of the species than it is for deer. Deer are not under any sort of risk there. The member has accepted that deer numbers need to come down. The recommendations of the deer working group support that objective and the Scottish Government is undertaking to enact those recommendations, which were made by an independent body based on the evidence that they gathered. I am distressed that the member suggests that they would be indiscriminate shooting after all the conversation that we have had about how land managers want to manage their deer for good health, about how skilled practitioners in this area are concerned about animal welfare. They must have the correct firearm certificate, authorisation and deer stocking certificates. Those are professionals who undertake this very important work. It is not right to accuse them of indiscriminate shooting, so I am distressed by that suggestion. We can all agree that cull numbers need to go up, that may be distasteful to some people, but that is the case. That does of course mean that the amount of venison available will also increase, and that should be good for our venison market as well as for our health eating healthy meat nationally. I look forward to working with the venison industry to help that development in Scotland, because I think that the success of that industry will be good for all of us. I am sure that the committee has heard probably enough from me today, so I am going to keep those very brief, my comment. I have to respond to Ariane Burgess' comment about the administrative burden. Let me be clear and absolutely clear that the general authorisation for the culling of deer, which was issued by NatureScot in 2324, allows occupiers suffering from damage to improved agricultural land in Clotheswoodland to control deer in the closed season. No further paperwork required, signed off by NatureScot, no administrative burden, they have that right. The right they do not have is to kill female deer over a year-old or female deer where there are dependent, i.e., with dependent calves or pregnant, so there is no administrative burden. I do stress that I think that welfare of deer is really important, and I cannot emphasise enough that we have a responsibility if we are going to control wild animals that we do so as humanely as possible, and that does not mean chasing them all day on all night. I remain concerned about the consultation that the Government has carried out. The reason why I have proposed this motion to a null is because it would give the minister a chance to carry that out and see if there is a way that we can work together, see if there is a way that those would like to see more control of deer, and deer and males during the closed season, and those that do not. What you will have with the legislation is those that want to and those that do not want to, and there will be a split in those that manage land. When we are trying to control deer, that is deeply unhelpful. I invite Edward Cymru to indicate whether he wishes to press or withdraw the motion. I still would like to press it. The question is that motion S6M-10137 be agreed to. Those in favour of the motion, please raise your hands now. Those opposed to the motion and no abstentions. The result of the vote is 4-4. As a convener, I have the casting vote. I cast my vote in favour of the motion on the basis that I believe that there is significant concern over this instrument. It does not put it to bed but allows the Government to revisit it and take on board some of the suggestions that the committee has made. On that basis, I cast my vote in favour of the motion to annull the instrument. That will be the instrument annulled by the committee. Finally, as a committee content to delegate authority to me to sign off a report on our deliberations on this negative SSI, that completes consideration of the negative instrument. Can I ask that the minister and officials remain seated while we move on to the next item? The committee will now consider the negative instrument, the Serial Seed Scotland Amendment Regulation 2023. Do any members have any comments on the instrument? No comments? We will now suspend the meeting for a 10-minute comfort break to allow a change over our witnesses. Our next item of business is to take evidence on the issue of braking control with Lorna Slater, Minister for Green Skills, Circular Economy and Biodiversity and her officials. We have Jackie Hughes, the deputy director of agriculture and rural economy and head of science and advice for Scottish agriculture. Jack Bloodworth, the principal scientific advisor for rural and environmental science and analytics services division, and Romney Strachan, a policy officer. Can I invite the minister to make an opening statement? Thank you, convener, and thank you for inviting me to give evidence on braking control. This year, Scottish ministers consented to the health and safety executive, taking the decision to refuse the application for emergency use of acilox in Scotland due to risks to health, to human and environmental health. Ministers are also aware of the risks associated with braking and our consenting to this regulatory recommendation was not taken lightly. Emergency use of acilox has been granted annually for 10 years and applied to between 2,000 and 3,000 hectares of land, so around 2 per cent of Scottish braking, where topography precludes mechanical control. This year, the health and safety executive assessed that acilox use did not meet the legislative requirements for authorisation as safety concerns and risks were identified which outweade the benefits of use. The regulatory safety concerns centred on that there was no progress in addressing the risk related to aciolams endocrine-disrupting properties. The European Food Safety Authority concluded that aciolams meets the criteria of endocrine disruptor, a substance that can alter the function of the hormonal system in humans. No progress on addressing data requirements from previous authorisations related to livestock exclusion restrictions and the long-term risks to soil organisms, birds and mammals. There was concern about new risks related to toxicity of a new source of technical material, as well as concerns around detections in water. In significant progress towards development of alternative controls, without progress towards filling in requested data gaps and removing the need for future authorisations, it becomes difficult to characterise the need as an emergency. The evidence relating to risk associated with bracken was robustly assessed by ministers during the process of consenting to the regulatory advice. That includes the impacts on biodiversity, forestry and grazing, as well as concerns about links with tick-borne disease. We are committed to work closely with stakeholders to support sustainable and proportionate bracken management in the future. In August, the cabinet secretary and I convened a stakeholder round table to discuss next steps. We are committed to establishing a working group to lead on identified priorities, including further evidence gathering. Support the publication of updated bracken control guidance for land managers—that was a particular request—and ensure that the decision on the 2024 application is communicated as early as possible, as the delay this year was frustrating. Decisions on pesticide authorisation are based on regulation and scientific evidence, and products are authorised where that evidence demonstrates that they do not pose unacceptable risks to people, animals or the environment. I am very happy to take any questions that you have. Thank you very much minister for that update. You have said in the past that we need to take urgent action to reverse the decrease in biodiversity and the impact various land use and climate change has taken on nature in Scotland. It looks like bracken biomass has increased by 28 per cent on average over the past two or three years, which I would say is hugely significant. Bracken does suppress, if not kill out altogether, any other species that is under the bracken. How do you see bracken control being tackled as a matter of urgency when, potentially, I understand the reasons for azure lux not being licensed? When we take away what was one of the primary tools for controlling bracken spread, what urgency is the Scottish Government looking at alternative methods of controlling bracken? I challenge the convener's assumption that azure lux is a primary means of bracken control, because only 2 per cent of the bracken in Scotland was being treated with azure lux. 98 per cent of the bracken in Scotland is being managed either by other means or not managed at all. However, I agree with the convener that there does appear to be an overgrowth of bracken and that it does appear to be increasing. What we do not have is solid evidence on that. As part of the process, the Scottish Government commissioned the James Hutton Institute to conduct a review of the evidence, and it found some evidence gaps, so exactly where the bracken is, how fast it is increasing, whether it is increasing, what types of land management practices promote bracken, what discourages it. This is a larger issue. As part of that round table that the cabinet secretary and I had last week, we spoke with stakeholders in the space of farmers and others who are affected by bracken, as well as environmental charities and so on, to understand what is needed. It sounds like we need a big picture guidance. That was the big ask for guidance. We all agree that there needs to be more research to fill these data gaps so that we can understand those things. We are taking that action to move those projects forward, because we all agree that this is a priority. To follow up on the final point from my opening remarks, I realised that the timing was an issue, so that was the other ask at the round table that we tried to improve the timing in which decisions are communicated in future years. A written response to a question that I asked you probably over a year now is that everything you have said now you are aware of, but there seems to be little action on the ground. We have not seen a programme that is mapping bracken to the extent that we need. There has been some research that suggests that there is a significant increase in carbon storage in areas that are not covered in bracken, so that is obviously important. The safety aspects of other bracken control have not been looked at in any great detail, so we are a year on from a commitment that you made, and nothing has happened. When will we see Scottish Government funding come forward to put some of those practices in place? We are not in the position that we were this year where we have land managers desperate, in some instances, to get a decision, and, as you look, we have a far more planned approach to that. Is there funding forthcoming? I challenge the convener's assertion that nothing has been done. That commissioning James Hutton Institute to undertake this review of the existing evidence is the first step into understanding where those gaps are and then being able to commission the research into those gaps. After our discussion with the round table last week, I think that we have identified some of the places where the research is most needed, and we can take that forward. I would be very happy to write to the member on what came out of that working group or what came out of that round table, and how we are going to move that research forward, because it is something that we are all interested in. I will ask you to say a wee bit more about the extent or manner in which the Scottish Government can be said to have followed scientific advice in that decision and how that compares or contrasts with the deftest position in England. Absolutely. The decisions on pesticide matters such as those are undertaken on behalf of the Scottish Government by the health and safety executive. They are the delegated authority to do that, and they do that based on all the evidence that is needed. The application for this emergency application for acetylox was made at a UK level. The process is that the health and safety executive takes evidence, makes its decision and then makes a recommendation to all four nations of the UK, at which point each of the four nations respond to either accept the recommendation of the health and safety executive or to take another action. In this case, DEFOR took another action, which was to call in the question themselves and make a different decision. For the Scottish Government, what I did when I got the recommendation from the health and safety executive is that I first asked the expert committee on pesticides to take a view on the position. Additionally, the chief scientific adviser for the Scottish Government also took a view on that. I agreed, as every Scottish minister before me has always agreed, to go with the health and safety executive's recommendation. There has never been a Scottish minister that went against that recommendation. As to the reasons why DEFRA may have taken a different decision, I am not familiar with those reasons. They have not published them. Rhoda Grant There are reasons that we need to control the environmental damage that it causes, but it is also quite dangerous to human health, not just through AMTICS, but it also causes cancer. It is not a no-win situation if we cannot control it. Can you tell us when you expect the James Hutton Institute to come back to you so that we will be in a position to look at this in more detail? What are the alternatives available just now? We are doing nothing, it is spreading as we speak, so we will be coming into a different situation when we are in a position to do something in a worse situation than we are now. It is quite concerning if nothing is going to happen if there is quite a long time where that policy is being worked up. I am happy to go through those issues raised there. Brachan is only a carcinogen if humans consume it if they eat it, which is not a practice in Scotland. In some parts of the world, people do eat the fronds of Brachan early, but it is not tradition here in Scotland. Unless you are eating the Brachan, that is not a mechanism by which you could have that effect. If, for example, animals are eating Brachan as fodder, and then humans are regularly eating that meat, that is also potential, but that equally does not happen in Scotland. Our animals do not eat the Brachan as their main food source, so those are not issues. The issues that the member raises around it being a carcinogen do not apply here because we are just not consuming Brachan in that way. The James Hutton Institute's report has come back, and it has identified the evidence gaps. As I said to Mr Carson, it is with the Scottish Government to decide what research projects to undertake in order to fill those evidence gaps. As I have committed to Mr Carson to write, I will write to the committee to set out what we are looking at in terms of the research that is needed to fill those gaps. Could we get a timeline as well, because the timeline is important? Absolutely. We will make sure that all the information is that. In terms of the action that is being taken, 98 per cent—nearly all the Brachan in Scotland is already being managed by other means or not managed at all. That is unchanged. It is only 2 per cent that is affected by the particular refusal of the emergency authorisation this year. In terms of managing Brachan, there are mechanical methods for managing Brachan. It can be sprayed from ground level with other chemicals. This is what we probably need to look into more what ecological methods are available for managing Brachan, for example allowing tree growth, which would be a natural mechanism for managing Brachan. However, that is what the research needs to develop. What we have been asked for urgently by the members of that round table, which was farmers and other people affected by Brachan, was some guidelines right away. What do we need to do? That is our first priority, to get those guidelines out there so that land managers know what they can do right now. When will they be available? I do not have a date for that, but I can get the member that information. Just before we move on to other members, you touched on tree growth. The issue with that is that, if we are seeing a 28 per cent increase in Brachan by or mass, while Agilux was licensed to be used, it would appear to be out of control. We have taken one of the tools, and I know that you are suggesting that it is only 2 per cent, and I take that on board. However, we cannot plant trees on Brachan. It needs to be controlled. There is no way to plant trees. It will not work. How do you—is it not chicken and the egg? How do trees, if you cannot plant them, stop the growth of Brachan? I am a bit confused. I do not mean to suggest that in every situation the solution is to plant trees. That may be the case in some cases. We definitely need a suite of tools to manage Brachan. In terms of the tree growth, the commercial forestry interests do like to clear the Brachan boat to allow the seedlings to come up straight, and they can use other mechanisms for that—the mechanical mechanisms or ground spraying of other chemicals to be able to do that. The big difference with Agilux was that it allowed aerial spraying. There are other chemicals that are authorized for use for ground spraying, so that can continue as it always has. Interestingly, the tree growth is that if you are looking for natural regeneration, the rewilding group that I met said that they do not manage their Brachan. The trees do come through. They come through a bit stunted and twisted, which is fine for regeneration—not good for commercial forestry. It depends very much on the land use that is being desired on the tools that are available in the topography of land. We need that suite of guidelines so that each land manager can make the right choice for their land. The James Hunt research is going to be critical because we will also have an idea of what areas of Brachan can be controlled by mechanical methods and where it is not safe to do so. That will give us an indication of how successful any potential control methods will be. Rachael Hamilton, then Kate Forbes. I have a number of questions. First of all, when advising land managers to use mechanical control, have the minister visited a Brachan-affected area to understand the topography? I have never advised anyone on Brachan control at all. The Scottish Government—sorry, not the minister. In terms of the decision being made to go along with the health and safety executive decision, I had not visited a Brachan-affected area when I agreed to—I mean, I visited lots of areas of Scotland that have Brachan, but not with the specific intention to discuss it when making that decision. Although I have, of course, spoken to many land managers, including the conversation that I just mentioned about natural regeneration coming through Brachan, the evidence that I looked at when agreeing to the health and safety executive's recommendation in this matter was that the health and safety executive themselves had looked at all the evidence, and I have their full report here, which I am not happy to go through with the member. I also asked the expert committee on pesticides, and we had a report from the chief scientific adviser, so I undertook to look at all that evidence in agreeing to the health and safety executive's advice. The bit that you are talking about there at the ECP advice remains a little bit of a mystery to me. The HSC did not seek new advice from the ECP on the 2023 application as no new scientific questions were identified for independent advice. The ECP is a scientific committee and can only provide substantive advice when adequate data is supplied to allow members to reach a conclusion, and the committee operates on a precautionary basis. That would continue to do so on occasions when members were unable to reach a conclusion due to lack of data. How did you make a conclusion when the ECP did not advise the HSC and the data was inconclusive and no new data was provided? As far as I understand, and I'll get Jackie to come in if I've missed anything, is that the ECP had made recommendations in previous years, and this year their advice was unchanged from previous years. Why did you recommend it last year? What's changed is actually the health and safety executive's recommendation this year, and I'm happy to go through the reasons for that change. I've got them here. The reasons why the health and safety executive, after 10 years of authorising these, changed their minds this year. First, as I've already mentioned, ASTULAM is considered an endocrine disrupting chemical. There are substances that alter the function of the hormonal system, causing adverse health effects. As part of the requirements for making this emergency authorisation, since 2020, the health and safety executive has asked the people making this application to provide evidence on this, which they have failed to do. That was one reason that the health and safety executive were not given sufficient evidence by the applicants that they had been asked for. A second reason why it was refused this year was that a new process was being looked at, which had a new relevant impurity in it, and the data required to evidence the toxicological assessment of that impurity was not submitted so they couldn't assess that. One of the issues is that, from applications in previous years after emergency applications, ASTULAM, which is the main chemical, has been found in water in both Scotland and in England, and in Scottish water the spraying of the chemical did lead to an incident where it exceeded the water quality standard in drinking water above 2022. That was another reason that there was evidence that this was getting into drinking water above the safe levels. The final reason was because, although the HSE recognises the importance of managing bracken for preventing issues of Lyme disease to help to support regeneration of habitat, I will read their exact answer here, which is, 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, so that is in the UK, which is a meaning that the danger remains in 99.5 per cent of the UK, 98 per cent of Scotland. Therefore, the extent of the reduction in danger is unclear and may be low. Treating 2 per cent of Scottish bracken with this chemical ended up in the water, and we do not have data showing that it is safe in terms of the endocrine disruption, but they did not supply data on the new toxic, the new toxicological assessment of the new impurity meant that they could not authorise it this year. There are obviously, the bracken control group would contest that there is on-going research on the use of isilox, but it just remains, I think, a little bit sloppy from the Government in terms of the response that I was getting that the Government had taken advice from the ECP, but if the ECP advice had remained unchanged from 2022, then that was actually technically incorrect, despite the minister now saying that it was due to other information that was forthcoming. On the carcinogenic effect, what assessment has the Scottish Government carried out on the on-going population growth of bracken on the water courses? As I have said before, the paper that we have got on carcinogenic effects of bracken relates to people consuming the bracken, actually eating the bracken, which is not standard practice in Scotland, so that is not a mechanism. You are not worried about the water courses and the growing bracken. There is no evidence that there is a significant exposure in that respect. We have got some papers here, for example a paper from Galpin in 1990, that, while some studies have linked exposure to drinking water to some cancers, a FERA risk assessment from 2010 suggests that human exposure to bracken toxins via drinking water is low, and there is a reference paper for that as well. I would be very happy to share those papers with the member. The 2 per cent that you refer to, I think that I must have spoken to the 2 per cent that were affected at the Highland show and Kelstor show. It seemed that it was the topic of conversation, the fact that land managers were left without any ability to look to an alternative, and if there had been concerns previously that the Government had and the devolved administration had the ability to make a decision much quicker, why did you not do that to give people clarity? Absolutely. That is a real frustration, and I also engage with people at the Royal Highland show and elsewhere, and I understand that that was a frustration. I am very happy to go through that. Just to remind you, acilox is not unauthorised chemical. It has not been authorised in the UK for more than 15 years. This emergency authorisation process has been used every year to enable the use of acilox, and the timeline for this year was that on 20 March I received the HSE recommendation. I consulted with HECP as discussed, and I was able to make my decision on 3 May because the mechanisms for this, because it is a UK application, all four nations of the UK need to respond before the result can be published. That is the convention. After all the nations of the UK, because some of the nations were slower than us, we got the final decision from DEFRA on 15 June, so there was some delay there in DEFRA making that decision, and then a further six days while the Scottish Government considered DEFRA's decision before we made that decision. Now, something that I am keen to look at, and I am happy to take away the action to discuss with health and safety executive, is whether next year we can break convention and have different nations announce their decisions in a more timely manner. That is never something that has been done before, but understanding everybody's frustration around that, I am happy to take that away as a discussion to have with HSE. My last question is that there is a new product that you will be aware of amid a sulphuron. What work is the Government doing to establish a new approach to control, because obviously mechanical control on steep banking is not safe, and also I just want to make the point that it is very difficult to suck up the argument that in some circumstances controlling ticks and ensuring that there is not a public health issue here for walkers and ramblers and others enjoying the countryside and getting Lyme's disease potentially. In Scotland we know that Lyme's disease carrying ticks is more prevalent than they are in the rest of the UK. It is a really important point, but to pick and choose when controlling Lyme's disease is important and controlling ticks is important. I am referring to the last session about deer. It is really important that we approach it in a consistent way, if I might just make that comment. The member is absolutely right, and I agree that we need to approach that in a consistent way. There are some challenges with the bracken with respect to Lyme's disease. One is that only 2 per cent of the bracken was being managed using Asulox, so 98 per cent is being managed in other ways. What that means is that that 2 per cent was not as unlikely that that 2 per cent was making a significant difference on the Lyme's disease, especially as it was in, by definition, topographically difficult areas for people to get to. Yes, bracken is a challenge that ticks in bracken. I absolutely understand the severity of that. Asulox was not solving that problem, but it is something that we need to work together on, because I think that we do need a steady approach to bracken in Scotland. The other piece of that is that we do not actually have good evidence, and this was highlighted by the James Hutton Institute review either, as well. We do not have evidence that bracken carries more ticks than equivalent herbiage, or why, whether it is due to the increased deer numbers or some other or climate change or why there appear to be anecdotally more ticks than there used to be. We just do not have the evidence, so that is one of the pieces of work to go away with. To go to the member's first question, the Amidosulfurin was also brought up by the James Hutton Institute as one of the evidence gaps. It has been used, but there has not been enough experimentation with it to know whether it needs repeated treatments, to know how effective it is in the long run, that kind of thing. As I said at the start, we have the James Hutton Institute review, which identifies all those gaps in knowledge. The Amidosulfurin is one of them. The ticks are another one. Other mechanisms for managing where the bracken is, how fast it is growing—those are all evidence gaps. I will make sure to include how we see all those potential gaps being filled and the process for developing that research programme in the letter that I have already promised to colleagues. I have Kate Forbes and then Ariane Burgess. Thank you very much. It is just a slight tangent, perhaps, but I know that the minister will be very familiar with this. Over the summer, in my constituency, I had two of the largest wildfires, so David and Canny. I went to visit the site of one of them and was told, quite repeatedly, that by both some of the environmental charities as well as the gamekeepers on the ground, that one of the primary reasons at the wildfire, particularly in Canny, spread so fast because of the fuel load, the build-up of vegetation. There is a lot of stuff to burn on vast areas where the only option might be aerial application of something to control bracken. I wondered whether, in your deliberations over the importance of bracken control, you had considered the risk of wildfires spreading faster and whether that might be a consideration in the future as you weigh up the pros and cons of using particular methods to control bracken? I am very happy to answer that question. Being clear that the acetylox is not an authorized chemical, the process under which it has been used is that the bracken control group applies for the emergency authorisation and, within that application, they make arguments as to why we should be using this particular mechanism. Fire risk is not on their listed arguments, so it would not have been considered because they were not asked to consider it. If, of course, the bracken control group wished to include that as a reason within a future application, then, of course, HSC would do that. However, it is a really interesting question. Please be clear that we need to manage bracken. I am under no doubts that we need to manage bracken. Is acetylox the tool under this mechanism of authorisation the right one to use? That was the question at hand, not at all the broader question of whether we need to manage bracken, under which we all agree. I'm hearing that 2 per cent of bracken is managed using acetylox, and it's sprayed area-ly. That's one thing that I wanted to clarify. The reason that the health and safety executive raises this as an issue and probably why it's not an authorised chemical and it can only be used under emerging application is that it's an endocrine disruptor. Is that correct? That's the kind of key reason that it is considered by the European Food Safety Authority to be an endocrine disrupting chemical. Could you explain what endocrine disruptors do? I can have a go. There are various hormone pathways in the body, androgen hormones, for example, which control six characteristics and so on. The acetylam is considered an endocrine disruptor of the T pathway, which is thyroid function, and it largely would affect embryos in developing humans, as I understand it, from looking online. That is the limits of my understanding that they affect human development. Of course, there is the risk that they affect birds and mammals as well as aquatic organisms as they develop to, and the lack of evidence, so neither the applicant nor the manufacturer have been able to demonstrate that this chemical is safe and it is with the producer of this to demonstrate to the authorisation bodies that it is safe to use, that it doesn't have these negative effects and that they have failed to do so. Presumably, the 2 per cent of land managers who apply to use it—who is it?—Natrix Godd, or who do they apply to to use it? They apply to the health and safety executive. The health and safety executive knows where it is being used in Scotland. Correct. You said that some of the concern is that it is flowing into our water courses, which then, of course, once it gets into water, you cannot really control where it goes. Can you speak a little bit more about that concern? I mean, I just—the evidence that I have got in front of us, which is that Scottish water regularly detects residues of acetylamine water supplies, so that is regular, and there was one incident and it came from a ground spraying incident where those levels did exceed drinking water standards. So it is getting into the water tables. Now that is only—and I need to point out maybe to the member that that is specifically Scottish water, so public water, within the uplands where the spraying is happening, there are, of course, many private water supplies, which are not tested, so we do not know whether they are being contaminated or not. And so you said that James Hutton is taking on a review of the evidence and looking for gaps, and then we will do more— No, they have done that. They have done that. And so they are going to be doing research into—they are doing further work. Well, that is to be decided. So the James Hutton Institute have provided this evidence review, which has identified all these gaps, so that is now with the Scottish Government to have a think about how we want to move that forward. We discussed that with the round table last week about what are the research priorities and I have committed to write to this committee about how we intend to carry that research forward. So in those—I might be mixing two things together, but in that work that may get taken forward, will there be research into the gaps of evidence around the water that is not being tested? That was not something that the James Hutton Institute identified. The testing of water supplies was not one of those things, but it is an interesting point. I guess that if we are taking Asule I am out of the system by not allowing the emergency authorisation this year, then, of course, we would not expect that contamination to occur. I wonder if there is also something to look at in terms of health issues around, you said specifically, thyroid or people in the area where it has been used. Has there been any work done by the health and safety executive on that? Not specifically in Scotland on these detections in the last few years because they have been below. Most of the detections are residual and below the level of safety there was just the one incident of it being above the level. Of course, Scottish Water will have worked to manage that. There is no suggestion of undertaking some sort of large trial, which, of course, requires us to put Asule I am into the landscape to do the trial. There is no suggestion of doing that. Is there any concern about accumulation over time? It has been not an authorized chemical for 15 years, but it has been being used through emergency application in that time. Is there concern about an accumulation of Asule I am in the land? That is a good question. I will go to Jackie on that one. Is that a characteristic of Asule I am? There was nothing in the rapid evidence review, particularly around persistence, was there? It is not something that we are particularly concerned about. I would just like to say about the drinking water concentrations. There are no exceedances at the tap of the permitted concentration of Asule I am. We are talking about raw water here. The concerns from HSE around finding some exceedances in raw water in relation to Asule I have been around the potential for endocrine disruptor and the lack of data around that. It is difficult to characterise the risk, but there is not the level of concern that would mean that there would be a benefit from conducting the kind of research that you are suggesting. We need more information about the chemical and its endocrine disruptor ability. If we were going to continue to allow it to use, that is now with the manufacturer to bring that forth at evidence. One of the reasons that they were rejected is because they have repeatedly been asked to bring that evidence, that it does not have those effects. If they can bring that forward, as Rachel Hamilton said, they are intending to do that research and bring that forward, and that is totally fine. Once they bring that evidence forward, then the matter can be reconsidered. I am just still a bit confused. This is probably one of the reasons that there was a bit of confusion when we looked at this prior to recess. We have got the ECP that looks at certain aspects of the pesticide and the chemical of itself, and the HSC then looks at that evidence to make a decision. What I am unclear about is that when the HSC makes that decision, do the benefits outweigh the potential harm? I get that. That is obviously one of the critical factors. EPC gave advice that it would not recommend emergency authorisation. Much of that was around the fact that the applicants had not provided any more information, which is one of the technical obligations to get an emergency licence. It is not an emergency if nothing changes. It is an on-going issue. The ECP gave advice based on the fact that, technically, nothing had changed, so it could not be an emergency. With the chemical? Yes. Do the HSC look at the impact of bracking on biodiversity or whatever? They sit down and do that work and then come up with a reason and a balanced argument for either recommending that ministers approve it or otherwise. Is that correct? That is correct. I think that the member has understood it well. The ECP looks at the chemical itself and there was no new information about the chemical. The HSC looks at things much more in the round. I have got here the full report, which I want to inflict on you. The HSC's assessment has to undertake a series of tests. The assessment of the application must pass every test, and the application did not pass the test. For example, the need for special circumstances test was not met. Although, for example, the danger test was met, we know that bracking is a hazard, that test was met, the reasonable alternatives test was met, but not all the test was met. Does the emergency authorisation appear necessary to address the danger that test was not met? The danger of 75,000 hectares of bracking is not being met by treating only 2,000 hectares of it. The HSC has to look at it in the round. The HSC does agree that there is a danger from bracking, but it did not meet all the tests. That is interesting. Is that to report on the public domain? No, it is not in the public domain. Is it something that the minister can provide? I think that is quite important when we look at how the decision was made. Is that something that can be made available to the committee? We can take that away in. I can go and ask. Very finely, I will give you an opportunity to sum up. National bracking strategy. Where are we with that? I understand that NatureScot and their counterparts in England have met to discuss the approach and how to go forward, but, as of yet, they have not met stakeholders. Can you give us your overview of how that strategy is going to be developed and how stakeholders will be involved in that, other than NatureScot and their English counterparts? I think that the member is correct that the work on to develop that is very early doors. Certainly, the commissioning of the work from the James Hutton Institute was a good first step. The round table the other week was a good preliminary step into that domain of understanding which research areas are important and how we want stakeholders to engage. As yet, there is not a plan that I am aware of to take it forward, but I am happy to go away and get that information and provide that to the convener. I have a small supplementary question, Ms Rachel. I forgot to ask minister that when stakeholders with all farmers, land managers, talked to me about this, they brought up the eight scheme. The eight scheme asks them to control bracking with use of azulam. I would like to know whether the eight scheme will change to reflect your decision on that. What are your views on that? It is a really good question to ask. In this year, for the 2023 season, some people did receive money through the agri-environment scheme for chemical control, and then we removed the ability for them to do that. The agreement was made that they would still retain that funding, that funding would stay with the people who had received it, and that they could alter their proposal and if it was useful to them to use that money for mechanical control. We allowed some flexibility on those applications to make sure that those aches recipients could still make use of that funding that they had received. Cabinet Secretary has committed to budgetary pressures allowing to include funding for bracking control in the next round of aches as well, so that people can continue to have funding to control it. Minister, that brings us to the end of our question. Thank you very much for giving us a lot of time this morning. That is very much appreciated. That concludes this agenda item and our meeting in public. I move the meeting into private session, and I will suspend for a couple of minutes to allow witnesses to leave.