Seòmar agus comataidhean

It is not a general authorisation because it is specific: it specifies a location, a time period, who will be doing the work and the outcomes. I do not have in front of me the detailed paperwork as to what that authorisation requires, but it is a detailed and specific authorisation for a particular night-shooting project—

That is a fair assessment for certain parts of Scotland. I know that some—in fact, many—land managers manage their deer very well, whether they are managing for regeneration or for specific interests.

Overall, though, the member is correct. With deer numbers doubling, the numbers are unsustainable and will not allow us to reach our biodiversity, nature restoration or carbon sequestration goals. Even commercial interests in forestry and crops are being damaged by deer, and we have already heard the numbers with regard to road traffic accidents and so on. An overabundance of deer is certainly causing issues.

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 as appropriate to ensure that the herd is healthy.

The legislation that we are discussing just now will give land managers another option. It is an option that they already have, but they will now have it without the additional paperwork—that is the big change.

I can get my officials to talk about the consultation dates. I think that Brodie Wilson can talk about that.

Certainly, convener.

The proposal to reduce the minimum ammunition weight to shoot deer will make non-lead ammunition more accessible. That is important as venison suppliers switch to accepting only carcases that are shot with non-lead ammunition.

The use of night sights will allow longer deer shooting hours, especially in the winter months, and more effective culling operations in areas where deer use the cover of forest and woodland during the day and then, during hours of darkness, come out into more open areas, where they can be shot more easily.

The measures are part of a wider package of deer reforms that are designed to deliver a range of public outcomes, including native woodland expansion, the protection and enhancement of peatlands, and the reduction of human health and safety concerns on issues such as Lyme disease and road traffic accidents. I thank all the organisations and individuals that have contributed to their development and to delivering on these vital objectives.

As the committee probably knows, deer numbers have doubled in Scotland since 1990. That is not a sustainable trajectory, given that deer can have serious impacts 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—and, of course, deer numbers are higher today.

In 2021, a ClimateXChange 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. Overgrazing occurs at a much lower density in bogs compared to forestry as well. Furthermore, Forestry and Land Scotland estimates that the cost of deer damage to on-going management is around £10 million a year and is at least £47 million a year across Scotland. Between 2015 and 2020, Scottish Forestry spent just under £19 million on deer fencing.

In addition to the environmental concerns that the member highlights, there are human and public safety concerns with regard to deer-vehicle collisions. It is estimated that there are between 8,000 and 14,000 deer-vehicle collisions in Scotland every year, and, in 2016, a report estimated that DVCs in Scotland cost £13.8 million, although the deer working group found that that number is very much higher. So, you can see that the issue is affecting not only our forest and tree regeneration. Having high numbers of deer affects many aspects of society and is very costly.

The intention of the SSI is to allow the use of the additional technology that we have mentioned. As you suggest, using the lamping technique might not be everyone’s preference, and the change opens up the possibility of using night sights.

It should be noted that that means that the sights can be used during the day, too—that is currently not allowed—which is an additional tool for the land managers, who will have that option should they wish to use it.

I do not have that data in front of me.

I am afraid that the member is not accurate in what she has said. The SSI does not require the use of night sights; it allows the use of night sights.

The SSI that will be passed today allows the use of the equipment. We know that 17 per cent of the deer that are culled in Scotland are culled at night, so we know that people wish to do that. If they wish to cull deer at night, they may now do so using sights. That is the change to the legislation. We are not requiring anyone to manage deer in that way, and we are not requiring them to use any particular equipment. We are merely opening up the option should they wish to do that.

With regard to the fit and competent test, the fit test relates to someone having a certificate to be able to use firearms, and the competent test relates to someone holding the correct deer stalking certificate and the correct authorisations from NatureScot. Those matters are unchanged. Of course, the authorisation will be in line with the new guidance that NatureScot will issue on using the equipment safely.

I think that Rachael Hamilton has misunderstood. The SSI does not require anything of anyone. It just allows the equipment to be used should people wish to do so.