���˿���

I would much rather that we did not pay people to shoot deer that had no value—I would rather create a market for a product that we were proud of. It would be of much more value to the country if we were able to say, “Venison is a brilliant product. Come to Scotland and eat it in great quantities.” That would create a market for the people controlling deer across Scotland.

Thank you.

I would be more than happy to do so.

Amendments 152 and 153 would remove the word “fit” from the bill’s amendment of section 17A of the 1996 act. Fitness is about more than technical skill; it ensures that individuals are personally reliable and legally compliant when carrying out an activity that involves lethal firearms. Public trust depends on high standards. Police Scotland currently checks fitness for firearms licensing, while NatureScot checks competence. Removing the word “fit” would create a disconnect between those systems and add complexity, not clarity. Competence alone is not enough when dealing with firearms in wildlife management. We must retain the requirement for individuals to be both fit and competent in order to protect safety, maintain legal clarity and uphold public confidence. For those reasons, I encourage members to oppose amendments 152 and 153.

Amendments 37 and 38 are simple but important technical changes that need to be made in consequence of amendment 39. They update and cross-reference section 28 so that the bill makes the necessary changes to the 1996 act, to ensure that it aligns with the revised structure of section 26 and the new section 26ZA introduced by amendment 39. Those amendments are updates to the references in line with amendment 39 and will ensure consistency and clarity in the legislation. They do not alter policy intent but do ensure that the law will work as intended. I therefore encourage members to support amendment 37.

My amendments 72 and 73 make technical but important adjustments to section 17A of the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996, to allow for the implementation of two key recommendations from the deer working group. First, we have made a minor amendment to put beyond doubt the fact that provision can also be made, via regulations, in relation to any additional information to be included in cull returns, over and above the required information about the number of deer of each species and of each sex. Secondly, we have made a minor amendment to the definition of cull returns, to ensure that the information required from planned cull returns can cover a period not exceeding five years. As is set out in our response to those recommendations, the Scottish Government agrees that gathering a broader range of data will improve our understanding of wild deer populations, their impacts and their densities. Those minor but necessary amendments will support the effective implementation of the deer working group’s recommendations, and, for that reason, I encourage members to support amendments 72 and 73.

The proposals in amendments 154 and 155 would weaken the bill’s ability to maintain high standards in deer management. Amendment 154 would introduce unnecessary bureaucracy, forcing ministers to produce detailed statements before they made any changes to the register of persons competent to shoot deer. I also highlight that, because the register has not yet been established by regulations, the requirement in that amendment would apply only to changes made following the introduction of the register and not to the new register when it was introduced. It would also restrict future improvements by preventing new training or certification requirements unless they met the strict tests, locking us into outdated standards. Amendment 155 would go even further by banning mandatory training for registration. That is a major risk, because training is fundamental to safe and humane deer management, and removing the ability to require that would undermine public safety, animal welfare and the credibility of our system. Taken together, amendments 154 and 155 would reduce flexibility, weaken standards and create confusion, and they run counter to the bill’s aims of improving biodiversity and welfare. For those reasons, I encourage members to oppose amendments 154 and 155.

Amendment 247 would allow experience—in the case of amendment 248, it would be a simple reference—to replace formal training. The power to introduce the register of authorised persons does not set out what is required to be fit and competent, and it has a requirement for consultation before regulations are made to bring the register into effect. The amendment would reduce flexibility and pre-empt the results of that consultation. Furthermore, section 17A already provides that the regulations to introduce the register may make provision in relation to how applications for registration will be determined, such as by including the submission of references, and it allows for any conditions to be imposed when applications are granted. Experience is valuable, but it does not guarantee knowledge of current best practice, welfare standards or safety requirements. References are also subjective and offer no consistent assurance of competence. Taken together, the amendments have the potential to dilute standards, undermine accountability and increase the risks of poor practice and of accidents. For those reasons, I encourage members to oppose amendments 247 and 248.

Training is essential, but Beatrice Wishart’s amendment 249 is unnecessary. Regulations to create a Government-run scheme are not necessary, because effective private training schemes already exist. The enabling power in the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996 already allows us to consult widely and to introduce any additional requirements through secondary legislation. Our current preference is not to set out training details in law. Instead, we would use an SSI for the fit and competent person register, and we would request that NatureScot publish a list of approved schemes. NatureScot has the expertise to consider what is required, with input from relevant stakeholders. That gives flexibility, avoids bottlenecks and keeps pace with best practice. A rigid Government scheme would risk duplication and delays.

There are legitimate concerns about how the new fit and competent scheme will work in practice, so I want to set out clearly that we will consult fully with those who will be affected on the proposals for the scheme. We will also look at barriers to access and training, whether they be financial or time-based barriers, or issues to do with locality and travel. In our consultation, we will set out that we expect baseline competence to be akin to deer stalking certificate level 1—DSC1—but we do not intend that to be the only option. We want to hear from deer managers about what other courses should be included and how we can transition to a new register.

As I have already said, in the consultation we will want to hear from deer managers about what other courses should be included and what else we can put in place that would allow their transition to the new register.

As I have said, when we go through the consultation we will consult deer managers and NatureScot on the proposals, and that will allow us to develop the fit and competent register. All those things can be considered during that consultation.

My apologies—I was distracted. Could you repeat that please?

I am more than happy to look at that aspect during the consultation period, to allow us to find the best way to get register of fit and competent persons. We will consider all the options. Once we have come to decisions, based on the consultation, we can bring the issue back to the committee as an SSI for further scrutiny.

I just want to make the point to Mr Mountain that I held a licence for a heavy rifle for a number of years, but not one bullet ever went through that rifle to shoot a deer. I had not had any training, and yet I had a licence to go out and shoot deer because I held a firearms licence. I absolutely accept the fact that we have stalkers on the hill who have been doing this for many years and who have probably gone through their DSC1. The likelihood is that they will be fit and competent. However, there will be many people who have a licence who might never have shot a deer or had any training whatsoever. Does that not emphasise the point that I made to Mr Eagle that, with regard to our building confidence in a market for venison across the country, having the register of fit and competent persons will give the public the assurance that they are buying a product that is produced to the highest of standards?

Will the member accept that we are doing the consultation to work out what the issues will be, but that that does not change the fact that we want a register of fit and competent people who are taking deer out in Scotland?