���˿���

We want there to be a baseline of competence across everyone who goes out to shoot deer. That is not just about deer welfare; it about public concern and public safety, especially with increasing numbers of deer and more venison entering the food chain. If we can ensure that everyone has the same level of baseline competence, we can guarantee that everyone has the same level of basic food hygiene training and an understanding of shot placement and when not to shoot. Most of our deer stalkers are very competent—there is no doubt about that—but there is evidence that that is not 100 per cent the case, and there is evidence that wounding rates are between 6 and 17 per cent, which is too high for us to ignore.

I had a round-table session yesterday with the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, at which it clearly laid out its concerns about what “fit and competent” means—I absolutely accept that there are concerns in that regard. However, when we did the consultation, 69 per cent of the land management and deer sporting organisations and 74 per cent of all respondents agreed that there should be “fit and competent” standards. There is also evidence that the public would expect us to do that. Notwithstanding the position of BASC, which was clearly laid out to me yesterday, there is clear evidence that other sectors in the deer management groups think that it is the right thing to do.

That will come in through secondary legislation, and we are more than happy to consider all the concerns that were raised with me yesterday, and the other evidence that the committee has heard in the lead-up to stage 2. I understand that there is some pushback on that.

I return to my original point, however, that 69 per cent of land management and deer sporting organisations said that that level should be the baseline, which would give the public confidence. We are talking about getting venison into the public psyche as a good product to eat—which is what it should be—as opposed to its being seen as a problem.

There are an awful lot of positives to take from establishing that baseline. As for how we implement it, let us consider that and see if we can ensure that it is manageable.

My personal definition of public interest is not the relevant point. The relevant point is whether NatureScot has the public interest at heart when it is making those decisions. Nature restoration, the interests of the community and the interests of the people doing deer management would all have to be taken into account during any public-interest test.

A lack of resource to meet public expectations?

My apologies for not mentioning night shooting—that was me not listening.

NatureScot’s inclusion was part of the deer working group’s advice—that is who recommended it. I disagree that there would be a conflict of interest. This line of questioning makes it feel as though the purpose of the bill is to come in with a big stick—it is not; it is about our ability to work collaboratively.

There is no way that the Government, NatureScot or any other individual body will immediately be able to tackle the challenges of deer management on its own. It will have to be collaborative. There can be someone from NatureScot with particular expertise sitting on a panel, but they will not necessarily have to sit on every panel. In fact, I am not even sure how many panels we have at the moment. I think that one was set out in 2018 for a deer management group in lowland Scotland.

I do not see having expertise on a panel as a conflict of interest; I see it as enabling us to get the best decisions that we can on how to manage deer.

I think that you took part in last week’s members’ business debate on deer, during which that issue was raised. Things are happening. We have three pilot projects on the go—actually, that might be two on the go and one still to be done. Stuff is happening now in the pilot projects. One is being carried out on an island, the name of which Brodie Wilson will remind me of.

The advisory panels are there to give advice to local groups on how they will manage their deer.

No. There will be a representative from NatureScot, but the panel will consist of other people, too.

Let us go back to the principle of what the proposal is about. The panel’s appointment must be cleared by a Government minister. The panel’s role is to have a conversation about how deer will be managed in any particular area. Having the expertise of somebody who is enveloped in that work on a daily, weekly or monthly basis can only be a good thing, because it allows the broadest area of expertise to be available when advice is given.

You have used the one word that I think is really important in this, which is “trust”. We all have to be able to trust one another in what we are trying to achieve here. I go back to the point that I made to the convener, which is that NatureScot is a public body and it must act reasonably and with impartiality in carrying out its duties. The deer panels must also be approved by Scottish ministers.

It is not compulsory for NatureScot to have someone on a panel. It will have, however, if that person has expertise that is specific to what the panel is addressing.