Seòmar agus comataidhean

No, that—

They apply to the Health and Safety Executive.

I have just the evidence that is in front of us, which is that Scottish Water regularly detects residues of Asulam in water supplies. As the result of one ground-spraying incident, the levels exceeded drinking water standard limits. Asulam is getting into the water table.

That relates only to Scottish Water’s responsibility, which is the public water supply. In the uplands where spraying is happening, there are many private water supplies that are not tested, so we do not know whether they are being contaminated.

It has completed that work.

The testing of water supplies was not one of the things that the James Hutton Institute identified, but that is an interesting point. If we take Asulam out of the system by not allowing the emergency authorisation this year, we will not expect such contamination to occur.

That is a really good question. For the 2023 season, some people received money through AECS for chemical control. We have removed the ability for them to do that. It was agreed that those who had received funding would retain it and that they could alter their proposal. For example, if it was useful for them to use the money for mechanical control, that could be done. We allowed some flexibility to make sure that those AECS recipients could still make use of the funding that they had received. The cabinet secretary has—budgetary pressures permitting—committed to include funding for bracken control in the next round of AECS.

I am not comfortable with the framing that the proposal will result in the killing of deer willy-nilly. That is not the situation. We are proposing to remove an administrative burden. As we have discussed, male deer are already being shot year round. People just need some paperwork in order to do that. No one is obliged to do that, but we know that land managers want and need to manage deer in that way, which is why they apply for hundreds of permits to allow them to do that every year.

The point about venison is a good one. Managing deer, which involves building and maintaining fences and hiring professionals to do the stalking, is costly and expensive. As Hugh Dignon outlined, only a very small number of carcases are left on the hillside to rot. That is not a common practice and I would not want the member to think that it was.

I have had several meetings with the venison industry about this and it did not have any particular concerns about the change to the close season. It thinks that it might even help because it will expand the shoulder seasons. The stags may be in good condition earlier in the year, which could provide a steadier stream of venison.

One of the challenges with the venison market is that it is so seasonal. Removing the close season will give land managers a bit more flexibility to be able to level out the season and make the venison market steadier and easier to handle. It will also be easier on the infrastructure that is required, such as the cool rooms and other facilities. The venison industry has not had any particular issues with the proposal and it should open up such options.

As we cull more deer in Scotland because we need to do so, that will increase the supply of venison. As I outlined earlier, we are investing in making sure the infrastructure is in place and that, as the member says, the excellent, organic, healthy meat gets on to people’s plates.

I hope that the relationship is strong and based on mutual respect. I have engaged with gamekeepers on many occasions and on many visits—we have had some excellent visits. We have a lot in common in wanting to increase the venison industry, help managers to have more choice in how they manage their land and ensure that we are managing deer for healthy herds while having consideration for the welfare of the animals. Where we have those things in common, we have been able to engage very fully.

Members of representative organisations, including both the British Association for Shooting and Conservation and the Scottish Gamekeepers Association, have been engaged at every step of the process from 2020, when the recommendations were published, through 2021, when the Scottish Government submitted its response. They have written to us as part of our consultation and we have considered those responses. I have had meetings with those organisations, including most recently on 7 June with BASC. Officials have met the Scottish Gamekeepers Association alongside NatureScot this year as well. There have been recent meetings in that space and they will be on-going.

I recognise the expertise of land managers. The legislation that we are proposing allows them choice. We are not dictating how they may manage their land. If they wish to continue to observe a close season, they may do so. However, where land managers wish to have more flexibility, the legislation will allow them to make the decision using their expertise.

Absolutely—I am always open to hearing new evidence. If there were incidents of poor animal welfare management, I would be very interested in hearing about them. We absolutely share that interest. As I said earlier, animal welfare groups have been consulted on the SSI and have been included in the discussions. No welfare issues were raised with respect to the close season for male deer—none at all.

I do not have numbers for that at the moment, but, of course, as many as possible go into the food chain. I am happy to write to the member with that information.