���˿���

There could be any number of circumstances. Currently, there has to be a three-year review; the bill proposes that it should be a 10-year review. Things could happen or change, and circumstances could require more immediate action to be taken, and that is why the provision was put in the bill.

It is purely to give that flexibility, yes.

Yes, but if we could see into the future, we would pick six numbers and we would all be millionaires. The point that I am making is that the financial memorandum shows the potential worst-case scenario. We cannot say with any certainty what is actually going to happen. If I am taking what you called a very noble approach, I will take that as a compliment, so thank you very much. However, my approach is a result of the conversations that I have had with the sector. Everybody has a genuine desire to make this work. That is how I have approached the issue right from the start, and it is how I will continue to approach it.

We will try to get through the knotty bits, which we understand are there, and we will try to find resolutions to people’s issues. However, by and large, what the financial memorandum states is based on the potential worst-case scenario.

I would not say that the system has not worked at the moment—it is just that deer numbers are where they are, and we are now going to take action to try to get those numbers down.

There is a huge amount of good will in the sector. I have had a number of meetings with land managers and deer managers, and everybody is agreed that we want to do this and get the numbers down. There are varying reasons as to why the numbers may have gone up, but there is a concerted effort to get them down. Everybody is actually on board with that—that is one of the things that I have taken from my engagement with stakeholders on the bill. They may be unhappy with individual bits of the bill, but the overall consensus is that we want to do this, and we want to do it collectively. As I said right at the start, we are not going to do this on our own. I do not see there being any greater use of the section 8 powers, because I genuinely see a concerted effort from everybody who is involved.

On the occasions when NatureScot has to get involved, that can usually be done through deer management groups and consultation with the people who are involved. I very much hope that that will continue, because there is a collective effort to achieve our aims.

The bill gives certainty to the industry and the Government that we are working towards the same end and the same aims. Notwithstanding the point that I just made that there will be conflicts around different bits of the bill, overall, everybody is behind the aims and objectives, and everybody understands what we are trying to do. I therefore hope that we can resolve the vast majority of issues that come up through negotiation and consultation with the people who are on the ground, rather than by any kind of enforcement.

I do not think so. Brodie Wilson has just pointed out to me something that I should probably have read out. A statutory requirement to “have regard” to something is understood as being a requirement to consider it. If there is a requirement for NatureScot to consider the code of practice, that goes back to what we said earlier about its duties as a public body and what it must bear in mind in any future consideration. If you look at all that in the round, that should give confidence that people will have a good enough working relationship with NatureScot to be able to develop the practices that we want to be delivered.

There is already provision for the tenants that you are talking about to control deer and stop them marauding, and so on. Section 26 of the 1996 act gives occupiers the right to take deer when they might not otherwise have the right to do so, including in “enclosed woodland” and on some agricultural land where they are causing damage. The deer working group recommended that section 26 be extended to provide that occupiers can take action to prevent damage by wild deer across

“any type of land and cover public interests of a social, economic and environmental nature.”

The rationale for that was largely the fact that the types of occupiers have changed in the past 30 years.

There is provision for that in the bill already, but if we need to look at anything else, I will be happy to hear about it.

We are making it so that people will receive that five-day notice electronically. Clearly, if somebody is not at their place, it would be sensible and legitimate for them to tell NatureScot that they will not be back until such-and-such a date—just as long as they do not say that they will be back in September in response to a notice that they got in February.

You get the point that I am making. Yes, there will be flexibility, but only within the bounds of reasonableness.

There is some disagreement on the estimates. We have an estimate of between 750,000 and 1 million deer, which the deer working group compiled using a range of methods. That estimate includes data on the distribution of Scotland’s four species, but I absolutely accept that some people do not believe what that data tells us. We hope that, if people use the NatureScot app, that will give us a much clearer picture and a better understanding of what deer numbers are, in total and in particular areas.

On the day that I was out in Glen Falloch, I was quite struck by the fact that the three deer that were taken out were tagged to the exact spot using GPS, and that was put into the database. If we can get more people using that app, it will build up a data picture and give us a much clearer understanding of what the deer population is. However, as I said, I accept that some people do not agree entirely with the numbers that we have, but I think the estimate that there is between 750,000 and 1 million deer is fairly reasonable.

Are we using drones to gather data?