Seòmar agus comataidhean

Two different sets of tests were carried out. There was a review of welfare issues using image-intensifying rifle sights for culling deer at night. I do not know what ammunition was used for that testing. There was separate testing on the use of copper bullets. That testing looked extensively at where the animal was hit and whether it was still possible to dispatch the animal humanely. Both of those tests have been done.

Scotland’s chief veterinary officer was one of the members of the deer management round table.

I want to make it really clear that night shooting requires an authorisation from NatureScot. The authorisation requires that the good practice guidelines be met and that NatureScot is allowed to come and see the site where the night shooting will take place and even to accompany the practitioners when they do that. That is unchanged—night shooting requires that special authorisation.

We know that there is demand for this move because, as I said, 17 per cent of the animals that are culled are shot at night. The need for authorisation will not change: night shooting will still require that special authorisation and special oversight from NatureScot. Again, the legislation does not make night shooting a requirement. People who wish to manage their deer at night may now use these new technologies—that is what has changed. It is a new option open to land managers, should they wish to use it. They are absolutely not required to do so, but if they do, they will be required to obtain the correct authorisation from NatureScot.

Authorisations are not given to individuals; they are for a certain circumstance. An authorisation for a night shooting is for a specific set of circumstances—specific dates and specific locations. There are no blanket authorisations for an operator.

If I may, convener, I will respond to Mr Mountain’s final point. As I said earlier, we know from the latest data that we have that 48 per cent of culled male deer—or nearly half—are currently culled out of season. We know that there is demand from some land managers to be able to do that activity out of season, and the legislation that we are proposing merely removes the administrative burden for those who wish to manage their deer in that way.

Of course, anyone who does not wish to manage their deer in that way and who wishes to leave the deer after the rut may do so. What we are proposing is not an obligation.

It is 48 per cent for male deer.

I would not want the member to think that shooting deer from helicopters is part of standard deer management practice at all. We support deer management in Scotland in various ways. We have heard about the money that Forestry and Land Scotland invests to protect those lands. The key mechanism for the management of deer by land managers is the deer management groups in which several land holdings get together and come to an agreement on how to manage deer, because they move between land holdings. The purpose of those agreements is to allow the land managers to decide what the right number of deer is and how they want to manage them. The association of those deer management groups has been part of the gathering of the evidence base.

NatureScot has been involved in on-going efforts to manage deer, including siting and installing fencing and making sure that fencing is marked so that it does not hinder capercaillie or other ground-nesting birds that may fly into the fences and be injured. The management of deer is a comprehensive project that is undertaken by NatureScot as well as land and forestry managers.

It may be of interest to the member to know that, way back in 1959, the Deer (Scotland) Act 1959 was introduced with the intention of reducing the impact of red deer on forestry and agriculture. We think that, since then, red deer numbers have doubled twice—between 1959 and 1990, and between 1990 and now. The existing deer management measures that are in place have not succeeded in the aim, as set out in 1959, of managing those pressures. Deer numbers have been increasing, which is why the Scottish Government asked the deer working group—an independent body—to come to us with some new suggestions. What was happening was not working. That is where the 99 suggestions came from, and we are discussing the first three as part of a legislative programme for updated deer management.

That is an excellent question. The member is, of course, correct in saying that mountain hares can cause damage, for example by grazing on newly planted trees. The big difference is the population numbers. As we have discussed, the numbers of deer in Scotland are enormous—they have doubled and doubled again since the 1950s—whereas the mountain hares have unfavourable conservation status and there are simply not enough of them to require that kind of management. As there are fewer hares, the scale of the impact that they can have is much smaller. It is, of course, still possible to manage hares under licence when that is necessary. That tool is still available.

We need to increase the numbers of deer that are culled each year in order to meet our targets. Finding ways to make that easier for land managers when they wish to manage their deer in that way is part of what the project is about.

From the number that Brodie Wilson gave us, I think that between roughly a quarter and a third of the deer shot out of season are shot by Forestry and Land Scotland, so two thirds to three quarters are being shot by other land managers. Therefore, there is a desire from other land managers as well. Without needing the authorisation, any land manager can choose to do that without having to do the paperwork. Those who think that it is important enough to fill in the authorisation and go through that process do so, but this measure opens up the space to others who may have been put off by that.

NatureScot keeps hold of the cull returns, and I am at the committee’s disposal to come back any time.

Thank you for inviting me to give evidence on bracken control. This year, the Scottish ministers consented to the Health and Safety Executive’s decision, because of risks to human and environmental health, to refuse the application for emergency use of Asulox in Scotland. Ministers are also aware of the risks that are associated with bracken, and our consent to the regulatory recommendation was not given lightly.

Authorisation of the emergency use of Asulox has been granted annually for 10 years, and Asulox has been applied to between 2,000 and 3,000 hectares of land—to about 2 per cent of Scottish bracken—where topography precludes mechanical control. This year, the Health and Safety Executive assessed that Asulox use did not meet the legislative requirements for authorisation, as safety concerns and risks were identified that outweighed the benefits of use.

The regulatory safety concerns centred on several points. No progress has been made in addressing the risk that relates to Asulam’s endocrine-disrupting properties. The European Food Safety Authority concluded that Asulam meets the criteria for an endocrine disruptor—a substance that can alter the function of the hormonal system in humans.

No progress has been made on addressing data requirements from previous authorisations in relation to livestock exclusion restrictions and long-term risks to soil organisms, birds and mammals. There is also concern relating to the toxicity data of the technical material about a new risk, as well as concerns about detections in water.

Insignificant progress has been made on the development of alternative controls.

Without progress towards filling the data gaps as requested and removing the need for future authorisations, it becomes difficult to characterise the need as an emergency.

The evidence about the risk that is associated with bracken was robustly assessed by ministers during the process of consenting to the regulatory advice. That included consideration of the impacts on biodiversity, forestry and grazing, as well as concerns about links with tick-borne disease.

We are committed to working closely with stakeholders to support sustainable and proportionate bracken management. In August, the cabinet secretary and I convened a stakeholder round table to discuss next steps. We committed to establishing a working group to lead on identified priorities, including further evidence gathering; to support the publication of updated bracken control guidance for land managers, which was a particular request; and to ensure that the decision on the 2024 application is communicated as early as possible, as this year’s delay was frustrating.

Decisions on pesticide authorisation are based on regulation and scientific evidence, and the use of products is authorised when evidence demonstrates that they do not pose unacceptable risks to people, animals or the environment. I am happy to take any questions that the committee has.