Seòmar agus comataidhean

My final question is specifically on some activity carried out by NatureScot on the North Ross deer management group earlier this year, when it spent £32,000 on providing helicopters to private estates to kill deer in difficult areas. Do the deer live in those areas because that is where they are not hounded day in, day out and because they are difficult areas to get to? Is it good management when you are doing that to allow only 21 per cent of the hinds that are in calf to be shot where, for the past five years, the average is about 40 per cent of hinds in calf shot in that area? You were definitely leaving calves on the hill.

You shook your head, Donald Fraser. You were not?

You would be surprised if I did not think about deer management, which is what we are talking about. I am sure that we would all have come prepared with that.

I have a follow-on question from that. Is deer management forming a mosaic of species? For example, in the low coasts of Moray, it might be barley; in Abernethy, it might be capercaillie, if they are not declining too far; in the Cairngorms national park, it might be Scots pine, if they are not being eaten by beaver; and on the west coast, it might be sessile oaks and the rainforest. All those areas are zoned. Should there be areas that are zoned for deer—such as Forestry and Land Scotland has—where greater numbers are allowed, with fewer allowed in areas where it is not appropriate to have them, such as new plantations? Do you agree with zoning?

Robbie Kernahan, this question is for you. Between us, we have probably taken part in or signed off the culling of several tens of thousands of red deer across Scotland. In a couple of sentences, bearing in mind the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996 and the proposed bill, can you define good deer management?

Sorry—it is a point of clarification. The committee may be minded to consider that, if the qualifications are required to be able to shoot deer, Police Scotland may interpret that as the qualifications also being required for ownership of a rifle capable of shooting deer—so rifle ownership may become limited, too. I think that that is a step too far—you do not need a qualification to shoot foxes, for example. The committee ought to ask the police their view of the interpretation of that provision. Sorry—that is just a point of clarification. Thank you. I will shut up now.

I have one further question, convener. I know that everyone is different. I am quite happy to provide a refuge for wildlife that are being persecuted around me, but not everyone is in that situation. One thing that is clear is that, if the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill is passed, ministers will have powers in respect of the lotting of estates that are over 1,000 hectares that are put on the market. That lotting can divide estates into small packages, which are then sold on. In contrast, the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill is trying to achieve things with deer management over a bigger area because deer wander. If some of these estates, especially those across some of the more remote areas or in areas managed by Forestry and Land Scotland, are segmented up and sold off, which might be a good idea, will that affect what the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee is trying to achieve with the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill?

That does not define it; it says what some of the constraints are. Let me try a definition and see whether you agree with it. Wild deer are part of a mosaic of species that affect the habitat in which they all live, and their management ensures that the habitat as a whole is not degraded and that the welfare of all affected herbivores is respected. How about that? Is that a good definition?

Section 20 of the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill seems to be fairly uncontroversial and everyone agrees with it. Section 20 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, which is being considered by the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, which I convene, talks about game damage and provides a right for a tenant who has no right to kill game to seek compensation from the landlord for such damage. That includes damage to crops, trees, fixed equipment, livestock and habitats. For the avoidance of doubt, game includes grouse—so, capercaillie, if they ever come back—black game, pheasants and partridges, and deer.

If a landlord was pursued by a tenant for game damage on the tenant’s land, would the landlord’s defence not be that they cannot control red deer across the whole range but that, if the deer management group controlled the deer, there would not be a problem? Therefore, does the group feel that, if they are part of a deer management group, that might leave them exposed to claims from tenants who would be trying to seek damage from the landlord, who would then chase a deer management group? It is just an idea that is worth considering.

It was 20 years ago!

It seems a lot of money to give to private landowners to control deer when you are talking about serving section 7 and section 8 notices in other areas—£32,000 is a lot of money.

Okay. Let us say a Euro 6 single-deck bus—what does it cost, roughly?