Seòmar agus comataidhean

The whole point of this is that we are still looking for voluntary agreements when there is an intervention to be made. It is about going through the whole process before we get to an enforcement order, which is what I presume that you are asking about.

Yes, I am.

I absolutely accept stakeholders’ concerns on the issue, but let us be absolutely clear: such an intervention will happen only after NatureScot has gone through a considerable period of asking for voluntary agreements to get to a collective agreement. The role of deer management groups will be very important, but when a specific and targeted plan is being introduced on a piece of land or an estate and a very high density of deer is preventing the development, restoration or whatever it is from being done on the piece of land, then, yes, it is appropriate to ask the neighbours to play their part. The intervention will come in when a neighbour simply refuses to take part in the conversation.

We need to get to a position at which deer numbers come down to allow the peatland or forestry restoration, or whatever is in the specific plan that has been laid out, to happen. The plan cannot just be someone saying, “I want to rewild that.” The action must be part of a particular plan, such as a biodiversity or climate plan—we have a range of plans in place—that is set out, that is deliverable and that people have been consulted on. It is reasonable to ask people to get deer numbers down to allow the specific restoration event to happen.

That does not mean that those deer numbers cannot go back up. I absolutely accept how some people feel, and I have heard the phrase, “We’ll be shooting ourselves out of a job.” However, I do not believe that that will be the case. We have massive numbers of deer. Edward Mountain spoke earlier about deer having to come down from the hill to get the better grass at the bottom of the road. There is scope to allow us to ensure that we can require a landowner to cut their deer numbers to allow a particular piece of work to happen.

Mr Ruskell asks us to go even further and not to even have voluntary engagement. I think that the current provision is absolutely reasonable, because we have a very high deer population. I take the point that was made this morning that we have a national vision and a local vision, and I understand all that, but, if something needs to happen in a local area, then, yes, an intervention is appropriate. That does not mean that the population of deer would necessarily have to be the same in five or 10 years.

That is absolutely fine. We have all night.

That is exactly what Ross Ewing did in the press release that he put out. I find it astounding that you are prepared to go down that road.

First, you know as well as I do that you can go out with 10 bikes and 50 dogs but you will not round up deer and manage them in the same way as you can manage sheep; whereas you can certainly manage sheep with a couple of shepherds and dogs and get them off that land. I am astounded that you are taking that position of pitting one land manager against another. Deer are a naturally roving and marauding animal. Sheep can be managed as livestock. I find it unbelievable that you could go down that road. However, that is entirely up to you.

We should bear in mind that there is the public interest test, which also takes into account employability and the local economy. In the scenario that you have just given me, where eight people want to do something and one person wants to do something different, NatureScot would have to consider not just that person’s point of view but everybody’s point of view. That is where you have to have deer management groups, with the local community working and talking together, so that they come to a reasonable compromise to ensure that the restoration can happen—but not to the point where it is completely detrimental to everybody else.

No. I do not accept that. NatureScot has a duty to apply the public interest test, which includes the people who have traditional stalking or deer management on their estates. The two things have to sit side by side, one way or another, and NatureScot has to do that.

I am not sure that the systems are not working. There are good examples of the systems working right across the country. The deer management groups work regularly to manage their deer effectively. That work is already being done.

Some voluntary agreements take time, because NatureScot has to work with people to find satisfactory solutions.

If you allow me to finish the next two paragraphs, I will come back to you.

That will not only ensure continuity but provide potential purchasers of land with prior notice of the deer management that they would be expected to undertake. Where land ownership changes, NatureScot will work with the new landowner to achieve the voluntary agreement and to look to de-escalate from a compulsory control scheme wherever possible.

I will take that intervention now.