Jenni Minto
Scottish National Party · Scotland
“I would like to reflect on Willie Rennie’s comments. Bute welcomed families from Syria, who are now an integral part of the island. In Lochgilphead, Ukrainian families have settled and helped to revitalise the town’s main street with two new businesses.”
“Mòran taing, Oifigear Riaghlaidh. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I want to start with the words of one of my constituents: “I am not a politician, nor do I ever wish to become one. I am a leatherworker, a father and a business owner.”
“Ben Macpherson: There are many initiatives and policies in this space to encourage and support our young people to ensure that they can fulfil their potential, including the free tuition that the Government has provided for students.”
“Yesterday, I met pupils at Sunnyside primary school in Glasgow, and we talked about climate change, the Celtic and Amazonian rainforests and the fact that Scotland is the proud host of a rainforest. In my constituency, Dunoon grammar school won the world’s best school prize for community collaboration.”
“If any of the Reform members had taken part in my colleague Maggie Chapman’s debate on university education, they would have heard me talk about the Scottish Association for Marine Science, which is in Oban, in my constituency.”
“He spoke about the impact that Brexit had had on his business and how, because of that vote, his order book collapsed. He had to find new ways of marketing and promoting his business to ensure that he and his family survived. He spoke about the support that he had received from the SNP to expand his business.”
The complete record
Every one of 586 lines we hold for Jenni Minto, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 12.
“I thank Marie Curie for that report and recognise its important work in advocating for the palliative care community. The Scottish Government’s “Palliative Care Matters for All” strategy highlights the changes that are needed to improve the experiences of people of all ages with life-shortening conditions, and their families and carers. It is focused on supporting enhanced delivery of palliative care in communities across Scotland. Marie Curie was involved in developing the strategy with the Scottish Government, and I have asked my officials to meet Marie Curie to discuss the figures that are contained in the report. Alex Rowley: Marie Curie said that, without action, the number of people dying in Scotland with unmet palliative care needs will continue to increase.”
“I remain ready to work with the UK Government and will continue to push it to provide clarity about its position on financial redress. In parallel, the chief pharmaceutical officer is exploring how support for people who are harmed by valproate might be improved in”
“I was very pleased to meet and speak to Willie Coffey’s constituents, the McKerrows, in Parliament earlier. As Willie Coffey will know, there was a debate about the issue in Westminster Hall this morning. As I understand it, the Department of Health and Social Care gave no new undertakings on redress and no commitment on the timing of a response. That is greatly disappointing, given the calls for action from the Scottish Government and the other devolved nations. I recognise that there is cross- party support in the Scottish Parliament, so I hope that Labour colleagues in this Parliament will work with us to encourage their Labour colleague, Minister Ahmed, to finally take action. We remain firmly committed to pushing for a resolution.”
“The UK Government has had the Cumberlege report for six years and it has now had the Hughes report for two years. The Hughes report recommends that a redress scheme be introduced, but that has still not been agreed, leaving victims waiting and wondering whether they will ever get any justice from the Government for the harm that was done to their children. Can the minister assure us, families such as the McKerrows and potentially thousands of other families that the Scottish Government will continue to press the UK Government on the matter? If the UK Government continues to let the families down, what action can we take in Scotland to help right that terrible wrong? Jenni Minto: I absolutely recognise how difficult and distressing the situation continues to be for affected individuals and their families.”
“The United Kingdom Government has still not responded to the Hughes report. We are two years on from the report’s publication, and the delay is unreasonable and unfair for affected people and their families. I made that point strongly when I met last month with the UK health minister, Dr Zubir Ahmed. The Scottish Government has still not received any proposals for financial redress schemes that would support the implementation of Dr Hughes’s recommendations. We stand ready to consider any proposals and to work constructively on a four- nations basis. Willie Coffey: My constituents, Charlie and Caroline McKerrow, who are in the public gallery, have been fighting for years for justice for their daughter Claire and many others who have been harmed by sodium valproate, a drug that is given to pregnant women who are at risk of epilepsy.”
“It is my hope that, once in force, the revised allowances will encourage renewed uptake of high-street provision in island areas such as the Western Isles, and support patients in engaging in regular check-ups and routine dental work.”
“However, people in many communities across the Western Isles have not been able to get on a waiting list for a local dentist for several years—much less to access check-up appointments or anything other than extremely urgent dental care. Prevention is far preferable to later treatment. Can the minister outline the steps that are being taken to ensure that all my constituents are able to begin accessing regular check-ups and routine dental work on the national health service? Jenni Minto: As I noted in my earlier answer, we are committed to the review and refresh of financial incentives to support the workforce and patient access in rural and island areas. That work is at an advanced stage.”
“Officials are meeting monthly with the director of dentistry for the Western Isles, to understand local service provision and concerns. We recognise that access remains more challenging in rural and island areas, which is why our operational improvement plan commits to reviewing and refreshing the financial incentives available to the dental sector, to better support patient access in rural and island areas. That work is under way and we anticipate that revised incentives will be introduced in the 2026-27 financial year. Alasdair Allan: I appreciate the work that the Scottish Government is undertaking to improve the situation.”
“However, as minister for women’s health, I am conscious that those stories of harm have predominantly affected women. We must act to minimise the risks of future harms to anyone who receives such procedures. I welcome the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee’s constructive and thoughtful report and have given a lot of consideration to its proposals. I am grateful to the members across the chamber who have engaged with me for some time and who have arranged round tables to ensure that a wide range of voices have been heard.”
“Non-surgical procedures have become increasingly popular, but regulation has not kept pace with what is a growing industry. Many people who undergo such procedures are happy with the results and there are many responsible practitioners operating in the medical and beauty parts of the sector. Many people value those procedures; the bill is not about restricting access to them or judging anyone who receives them. However, I have heard a number of powerful accounts of such procedures going wrong, including the account of the tragic death in England of a young mother. I am grateful to those who have brought the stories to my attention, including many MSPs who have campaigned on the issue. I present the bill in my capacity as minister for public health.”
“I say to the minister that it is time that she committed to meeting me and the Stroke Association to set out a clear and urgent timetable for expanding thrombectomy services for people in the Borders, because they feel that it is currently an inequitable service. Jenni Minto: I would be very happy to meet Ms Hamilton and the Stroke Association. I have regular meetings with the Stroke Association and with Chest, Heart & Stroke Scotland. I also regularly meet the leaders for stroke in all the national health service boards, to ensure that they are as focused as I am and the Scottish Government is on ensuring that, as I said in my initial response, thrombectomy services can be as equitable as possible through the hub-and-spoke mechanism that NHS National Services Scotland is currently working on. Salmon Farming (Mortality Data) 4.”
“Rachael Hamilton: Essentially, the minister is telling my Borders constituents that, if they have a stroke and need a thrombectomy, they must hope that it happens during the working week. Currently, due to a lack of funding and services, patients in the south-east of Scotland can access that treatment only at the Edinburgh royal infirmary and only from Monday to Friday between 9 o’clock and 3 o’clock. The uplift in the stroke funding is only £1 million, so there is still a deficit, and stroke happens not only on weekdays but on weekends. Previously, Jenni Minto acknowledged that thrombectomy not only transforms patient outcomes but can save the national health service money, due to reduced hospital stays and lower social care costs.”
“Our aim is to deliver a service that provides thrombectomies whenever they are required. NHS Scotland’s national services directorate has established a task and finish group to produce options to expand access to thrombectomy across Scotland, including in NHS Borders, and that work is making positive progress. Since 2023-24, we have provided more than £185,000-worth of funding for thrombectomy in NHS Borders, including for the provision of hyperacute stroke nurses. Subject to parliamentary scrutiny, a further £17 million has been allocated to the development of the thrombectomy service in the 2026-27 budget, and that will include continued investment in NHS Borders.”
“As Mr Carson noted in his letter to the cabinet secretary, the Government has not been afraid of escalating health boards if it is deemed necessary to do so. As I have said, processes are in place and the issue is always kept under consideration. The Presiding Officer: There is much interest in this issue. Concise questions and responses will afford more members the opportunity to ask a question.”
“Given that pattern of independent recommendations being identified but rejected, public views being set aside, beds being removed without alternatives and, now, the Patient Safety Commissioner warning of gaps in care and unclear risk mitigation, does the Government accept that NHS Dumfries and Galloway has reached the threshold for stage 4 escalation? If not, why not? Jenni Minto: As Finlay Carson will know, processes are in place to consider such matters, especially when it comes to escalation. As he will also know, NHS Dumfries and Galloway is currently escalated to level 3 for finance and level 2 for mental health, to allow the Scottish Government to monitor things such as child and adolescent mental health services.”
“It is simply not good enough. She is well aware that, in 2024, independent clinical advice recommended the reinstatement of midwife-led births in Wigtownshire, yet the IJB overturned that, despite strong local support and the continued risk of long journeys for women in labour. At around the same time, decisions were taken to replace cottage hospitals in Newton Stewart and Kirkcudbright without first identifying where step- down or palliative care beds would go, ignoring clear public preferences and leaving rural families with even fewer local options.”
“Jenni Minto: As Finlay Carson is aware, decisions on maternity services are made by the health board that represents that footprint. However, in recognition of the Healthcare Improvement Scotland reports on NHS hospital maternity services, we have established the maternity and neonatal task force, which has been set up exactly in order to look at a number of the issues that Mr Carson has highlighted. I am pleased that the Patient Safety Commissioner is part of that group, to ensure that the voices of service users are heard clearly. I am also pleased that, in addition to hearing patients’ voices, we are hearing very clearly about rural and island situations. I hope that that will go some way to responding to Mr Carson’s question. Finlay Carson: I thank the minister for her response, but it does not give me any confidence.”
“Finlay Carson: For almost a decade, mothers, campaigners and politicians from across the parties have raised concerns about patient choice and safety in Wigtownshire. Health minister after health minister—including Jenni Minto and Maree Todd—has said that they have listened. However, the truth is that, although they may well have listened, they have failed to act. Given what the Patient Safety Commissioner has now told us, will the minister explain why the situation has been allowed to drift on for so long? Does she understand why so many people fear that it will become yet another failure under the watch of the Scottish National Party—like the Wishaw maternity services and Queen Elizabeth university hospital tragedies—in which whistleblowers are shunned, nothing is done, no lessons are learned and families are left to pay the price?”
“As Mr Carson will recall, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care wrote to him on 20 November 2025, following his attendance at a meeting held by ministers on 15 October 2025 with the Galloway community hospital action group and representatives of the Dumfries and Galloway integration joint board and NHS Dumfries and Galloway. In that letter, the cabinet secretary outlined the controls that NHS Dumfries and Galloway has in place to prevent adverse effects and manage risk. Those include a clinical risk assessment tool, which is completed at every antenatal visit and supports the identification of individual risk factors for women during the antenatal period. If Mr Carson is content, I will share that letter with the Patient Safety Commissioner.”
“I recognise the real strength of feeling on this matter. I also thank the Patient Safety Commissioner for her work to amplify the voices of patients. Her comments to the committee were important, particularly those about the need for women who feel vulnerable when giving birth to know that they will be supported and safe. I am concerned by the suggestion that patients do not feel that they are getting the communication that they need, and I note that the commissioner said that she will soon meet leaders from NHS Dumfries and Galloway to discuss her concerns. The commissioner is also a member of the Government’s new maternity and neonatal services task force, which has now met.”
“Colin Beattie: Public safety must be paramount, but I have received correspondence from businesses that have spent tens of thousands of pounds on training yet may now be at risk of closure. It is critical that we root out bad practice, but has the minister had any engagements with educational institutions to facilitate a practical pathway for non-medical aesthetic practitioners? Jenni Minto: I agree with Colin Beattie that public safety is paramount. In our work with regard to the bill and the SSI, we will be speaking to educational institutions to ensure that we get the right training standards if the bill is passed. Young Athletes Representing Scotland (Support) 7.”
“The Scottish Government has met many non-medical aesthetic practitioners and listened to their views about issues, including training standards. However, neither the bill nor the Scottish statutory instrument that is currently before Parliament sets any such standards. We know that there are existing training options for practitioners and, before creating standards for the sector, we will continue engaging with a wide range of stakeholders. Training and qualification standards are not included in the bill or the SSI because of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020. I intend to continue working with the UK Government to introduce those important standards as soon as possible.”
“In fact, it includes only £1.5 million for hospices to match next year’s NHS pay award, and they say that they need an extra £4.4 million. Will the Scottish Government promise to deliver on its existing commitment to pay parity for hospice staff by ensuring that funding for hospices in the final budget fully covers the cost to hospices of matching the 2026-27 NHS pay award? Jenni Minto: As I indicated in my first answer, our budget includes an initial £6.5 million to support independent hospices. As I said, I look forward to meeting representatives of the Scottish hospice leadership group and Hospice UK in early February. Non-medical Aesthetics Sector (Training) 6.”
“The draft budget for 2026- 27 includes an initial £6.5 million to support independent hospices and help to ensure that front-line hospice staff who provide essential palliative care are paid in line with their national health service colleagues. Although that funding will help to address immediate pay challenges, the Scottish Government acknowledges the importance of longer-term financial sustainability for hospices. I look forward to meeting representatives of the Scottish hospice leadership group and Hospice UK in early February to understand what more can be done to support hospices while respecting local commissioning arrangements. Graham Simpson: The initial £6.5 million for hospices in the draft budget falls significantly short of the £13.3 million that hospices were calling for to fully match NHS pay for their staff.”
“Our changes via the bill will mean that if someone shoots a deer because it is causing damage, for example, and is able, after the fact, to identify it as a stray farmed deer, they must report the shooting to the police within five working days, or they will be committing an offence. If they report the killing of the stray farmed deer, no offence will have taken place. Further, it will be a defence for the person to show that they did not know and could not reasonably have known that the deer was a stray farmed deer. Where a person complies with the requirement to report any such killing, they will also have a defence in any civil proceedings that are brought against them. That is all that section 32 is aiming to do, and it was a recommendation of the deer working group. I therefore urge members to oppose amendment 131.”
“Section 26ZA will empower occupiers of agricultural land or woodland and grazings committees to act swiftly to prevent injury to livestock or damage that is caused by deer to not only crops and woodland but the natural heritage and environment. I will not justify that any further, and I ask members to oppose amendment 130. Amendment 131 seeks to remove section 32 from the bill, so that changes to the 1996 act that relate to liability for taking or killing stray farmed deer would not be made. In particular, section 32 introduces an offence of failing to report the taking or killing of stray farmed deer and institutes a defence to civil liability for taking or killing such deer.”
“Amendment 128 would remove the provision that allows occupiers to authorise individuals who are approved by NatureScot as fit and competent to take or kill deer. It is fair that an occupier may not be able to shoot the deer themselves in the circumstances that are set out in new section 26, and they may wish to have someone else carry out the deer management on their behalf. In those circumstances, they can authorise someone who is approved by NatureScot as fit and competent to do so. That is not a general right to harvest deer. I urge members to oppose amendment 128. Amendment 130 seeks to completely remove the changes that we propose to make by replacing section 26 of the 1996 act. That would completely undermine the aims and objectives of the bill. We have debated the issue at stage 2.”
“Amendments 127 and 129 would, in effect, make defunct the rights that are afforded to occupiers under new sections 26 and 26ZA of the 1996 act. The purpose behind those sections is to enable occupiers to address damage in cases in which they do not ordinarily have the right to do so. If they had permission from the holder of the sporting rights to shoot the deer, they would have the right to do so and new section 26 would not be necessary. The rights that are afforded are about addressing damage quickly and addressing it when agreement cannot be reached. We will set out further in guidance how occupiers, owners and holders of sporting rights should work together. However, Edward Mountain’s amendments are unworkable.”
“With regard to amendment 125, which seeks to require a statement to be made that sets out the justification for our proposals to bring in mandatory training, the member should be aware that regulations under section 17A of the 1996 act will require to be accompanied by a policy memorandum, which will set out the policy rationale, the evidence base and the justification for the proposals, and it will be subject to full parliamentary scrutiny. Therefore, requiring a statement in advance of any change is unnecessary. On amendment 126, although supporting access to training is important, it is not necessary to legislate for it. Consulting deer managers on what they need to access training is far preferable to legislating for it now without evidence.”
“I will look at all the issues that Mr Mountain has raised as part of the consultation process, including access to training, appropriate training levels, arrangements for international stalkers and international training standards. I will also look at cross-border stalkers, funding for training schemes, transitional arrangements, the appropriate transition periods, and more. There is no question but that the register is necessary, but I am absolutely committed to bringing it forward in a way that is not burdensome to deer managers and which brings benefits for us all. Therefore, I strongly urge members to oppose amendments 111 to 124.”
“As I have set out many times, the detail of the fit and competent register will be set out in secondary legislation, and we will consult widely and fully on it. Mr Mountain’s amendments include automatic competence for people over the age of 50 or anyone else who has held a firearm for more than 50 years. They might have held a firearm certificate for shooting birds and never shot a deer in their life. In fact, I have held a shotgun licence—a rifle licence—for many years and have never shot a deer. Just because I have held a licence, that does not make me a fit and competent person to shoot deer. At present, I think that references are subjective and offer no consistent assurance of competence. They also do not guarantee knowledge of current best practice, welfare standards or safety requirements.”
“I know that we have many highly skilled stalkers right across the country, and this legislation is not about undermining them; if anything, I want to recognise that skill further. I have set out that we will consult the sector on the proposals to bring the register into effect, and we will consider all the aspects of transitional arrangements, including the duration of any transition period, to ensure that the register works. However, I do not think that it is tenable to stand in the chamber and raise issues of deer welfare and public safety while, at the same time, opposing a baseline level of competence. For those reasons, I urge members to strongly oppose amendment 110. I will address amendments 111 to 124 quickly, and I will not be entering into a debate on each of them individually.”
“Indeed, it is important to remember that ammunition weights and specifications for shooting deer are generally set out in the Deer (Firearms etc) (Scotland) Order 1985. I understand that there might be concerns about steel alternatives, but we can, and do, update the firearms order as appropriate. It was most recently updated in 2023, and agreed to by Parliament. The most important point is that that legislation was consulted on and evidence based; unfortunately, Mr Mountain’s amendment is not. As for amendment 110, the proposal was debated at stage 2 and is, quite frankly, ludicrous. If it were to be agreed to, it would mean that we would be prevented from even requiring a baseline level of competence in deerstalkers in Scotland.”
“However, I said in my opening remarks that that is something that can potentially be looked at in guidance. I would also point out that there are exemptions in the 1996 act for the prevention of suffering and protection of public safety. For example—and this is an example that Mr Mountain used in a previous debate—if a deer is hit by a car and injured, and a farmer with a shotgun shoots it to end its suffering, that would not require authorisation. That is an important point to make. Amendment 109 also relates to the use of shotguns and seeks to insert a new specification for ammunition used with authorised shotguns. I have already set out that we will define shotguns in relation to this part of the bill via secondary legislation.”
“We will keep the matter under review, though, and NatureScot will continue to consider the circumstances in which it is appropriate for a shotgun to be used. 19:45 Edward Mountain: My point with regard to amendment 108 is to remove red deer, because I just think that they are too big to shoot with a shotgun. It is what I would have described when I was a soldier as an act of war. It would be like taking on a tank with a rifle—it is just not physically possible. Amendment 109 gives SNH the ability to signify that a certain type of ammunition—not steel shot— can be used, provided that it uses 36g of powder. I do not think that that restrains anyone—it just gives them good guidelines. Does the minister agree? Jim Fairlie: I have already stated the position on authorisations for a shotgun, and that is the position that we are at.”
“Shotguns are currently permitted for the shooting of all species of deer in Scotland, as long as they meet the specifications that are set out in the Deer (Firearms etc) (Scotland) Order 1985. The bill regulates the use of shotguns, meaning that shotguns can be used only to shoot deer under authorisation from NatureScot. One of the benefits of that is that we will gain a better understanding of who is using shotguns to shoot deer and in what circumstances. I gave consideration to banning the use of shotguns to shoot deer outright, but, on balance, I think that this authorisation process is the best one at this stage. Mr Mountain’s amendment 108 would unnecessarily constrain the flexibility of the authorisation regime.”
“Mr Mountain’s amendments are well intentioned, but I do not think that it is appropriate for what is proposed to be placed in primary legislation. It is already best practice, and therefore a requirement of a NatureScot authorisation, to cull a calf first. If, for any reason, a calf is orphaned, it is a requirement that it is then culled. It is intended that compliance with that kind of restriction would be a requirement in order to be considered competent to shoot deer under the new register. Perhaps Mr Mountain would agree that that would be a fitting use of a register. For those reasons, I am asking the member not to press amendments 106 and 107. If he does so, I would ask members to oppose them. Amendment 108 seeks to remove red deer from the species of a deer that could be shot with a shotgun, where authorised by NatureScot.”
“It is my intention that the updated code will cover that and will address some of the other issues that were raised at stage 2 around the relationship between occupiers and owners or sporting tenants generally. The key aim is to find a way for us to work together and to enable occupiers to tackle damage that is occurring without the process becoming unnecessarily burdensome. I have also supported Ms Grant’s amendment in the earlier group that will enable occupiers, among others, to seek NatureScot intervention where damage is being caused by deer. I urge members across the chamber to support my amendments. I turn to amendments 106 and 107, in the name of Edward Mountain. I appreciate that there are a wide range of views on the best ways to manage deer in Scotland, and I understand that there are legitimate concerns about deer welfare.”
“I do not think that, at this stage, a solution to the safety concerns can be found in notification, but I am committed to finding a solution that works and, importantly, one that enables tenants to take action in a timeous way when deer are a problem. It is my intention that, before the proposed changes that will be made by replacing section 26 are brought into effect, I will consult with those affected—occupiers, landowners and sporting tenants—on options to address those safety concerns. As I have set out previously, NatureScot is already working on updates to the deer code. Amendment 56 will enable us to set out in that code further guidance on section 26 rights.”
“I move amendment 106. Jim Fairlie: I will speak to my amendments 54 to 58 before turning to Mr Mountain’s amendments in the group. My amendments seek to do two things. First, they seek to provide reassurance that I have listened to the concerns that have been raised at stage 2 about the potential safety risks of expanding the land on which occupiers can kill deer in order to prevent damage. Secondly, they seek to address the concerns about relationships between owners and occupiers. Amendment 56 will enable us to set out, via secondary legislation, further steps that must be taken before rights under new section 26 of the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996 can be exercised. I listened carefully to what was said during the stage 2 debate and the solutions that were proposed about notification.”
“I do not believe that any member would suggest that it was possible to catch it again and put it back into its enclosure. Once it has got out, it joins the wild population. I have seen that happen in Speyside— farmed deer that escaped from a deer park in Moray have now spread across the lower Spey catchment. The only way to know whether they are farmed deer—the old, original ones that escaped, of which there are very few left—is if they have a tag in their ear. Trying to identify such deer is more difficult than you would think. Indeed, trying to identify a farmed deer with a yellow tag using a thermal imager at night just ain’t possible. Section 32 makes a mockery of what we are trying to do. Once farmed deer are out and have joined the wild population, they are feral and need to be controlled. I will leave my comments at that.”
“Amendments 127 and 129 would oblige the occupier of a holding to gain agreement from the owner of the sporting rights of that land prior to taking deer in order to prevent damage. Amendment 128 would remove the ability that the bill gives SNH to decree that anyone is fit and competent to take deer, which I believe creates a huge conflict of interest with the bill’s other provisions regarding the fit and competent register. Amendment 130 would remove section 31A— “Right of occupier or grazings committee to prevent damage by deer”—in order to ensure that everyone talks to one another. I turn finally to amendment 131, which seeks to remove section 32, on the liability for taking or killing stray farmed deer. Once a farmed deer has got out of its enclosure, it is feral.”
“Amendment 125 would oblige ministers to “publish a statement setting out ... the scientific evidence relied upon in support of the proposed regulations”, along with an assessment of the required training and its availability, the required resources and the impact on deer welfare. Amendment 126 would oblige ministers to create a fund to meet some of the costs of deer management practices and the costs that people would face due to the introduction of mandatory training. That would help them along the route. Amendments 127, 128 and 129 would remedy the bill’s current undermining of basic safety aspects with respect to the introduction of concurrent sporting rights.”
“I believe that a statement should be laid before Parliament affirming that the necessary conditions have been met for mandatory training to be introduced, and that it should not be introduced if those conditions cannot be met. Amendment 124 would oblige ministers to consult those with “an interest in the regulations on the recognition of international qualifications for deer management” and how those would fit with the enforcement of the fit and competent register. The Government says much about keeping pace with Europe. In Europe, they have tests, such as one in Germany called the Jagdschein, that are carried out annually and could be brought to this country. If someone has proved that they are fit and competent to shoot deer in Germany, we should surely consider that they are fit and competent to do that in this country.”
“My amendments therefore seek to provide for consultation with various UK-wide stakeholders to ensure that new legislation relating to mandatory training and the fit and competent register would be brought to the attention of those granting firearms licences outside Scotland to those who take land in Scotland. That makes sense. Amendments 121, 122 and 123 would oblige ministers to properly consult on mandatory training. Consultation with and assessment of those who carry out deer management should be undertaken, including an assessment of funding, resources and capacity, and demand for training. Consideration should also be given to wounding rates, second shot placement and other welfare factors, as well as the financial impact on deer practitioners.”
“To me, that is hugely demeaning of the incredibly hard work that those people have put in. Amendment 113, which relates to that, would exempt from mandatory training those who could provide a reference to prove that they are fit and competent, by which I mean that they have shot deer for some time. Amendments 114 to 120 would oblige ministers to consult various parties when making supplementary provisions pertaining to the register of those who are considered fit and competent to shoot deer and to mandatory training. There are very serious concerns about firearms licensing and the fit and competent register under the bill, especially about the implications for those who travel to Scotland from the rest of the UK. The Home Office has already noted that the bill would require amendments to its firearms licensing guide.”
“In fact, Forestry and Land Scotland, which shoots deer on our behalf, has no record of how many shots are taken to kill its deer and how many misses or woundings there are. Perhaps such information should be collected before mandatory training is allowed to go ahead. Amendments 111 and 112 would exempt from mandatory training those who have continuously possessed a firearms certificate since 1975 and those who were born before the end of 1975, respectively. The average age of a deerstalker at the moment is around 58 or 59, which means that those would, in effect, be grandfather rights and would stop us getting into a situation in which young people, who may have become qualified by reading the law and understanding books, test people who have been shooting deer for perhaps 30 or 40 years and deciding whether they are competent.”
“I also do not feel that shooting a red deer with a shotgun is humane unless you use a solid slug, which the minister agrees that deer management plans should require. Amendment 110 would remove the requirement for mandatory training, given that there is no evidence that mandatory training would lead to an increased level of competence. Through self- regulation, the sector has maintained a very high standard of training for many years. It is concerning that policy and legislation have been drafted under the guise of safeguarding deer welfare without a clear case for mandatory training having been provided. The deer working group speculated that wounding rates might be between 6 and 17 per cent without providing any verified data.”
“I do not know whether the minister has ever done that, and I do not know how many people in this Parliament have shot deer with shotguns. I have done it, but it is not something that I would generally do, and I have never been comfortable doing it, because shooting deer with a shotgun requires loads of very heavy cartridges and a minimum of SSG, which is a shot size. If we are to extend the use of shotguns—I can see that there may be an argument for that, but I am very nervous about it—there should be very strict controls in place. If you are going to shoot deer with a shotgun, you should do it very close to you. The load size should not be below 36g, and there is no evidence that steel shot is suitable for shooting deer.”
“Amendment 105 disagreed to. Section 24—Authorisation for taking or killing deer during close seasons The Deputy Presiding Officer: Group 8 is on authorisations. Amendment 106, in the name of Edward Mountain, is grouped with amendments 107 to 126, 54, 55, 127 to 129, 56 to 58, 130 and 131. Edward Mountain: I have a mere 26 amendments in this group to speak to. I call amendment 106 the reverse Bambi amendment. Amendments 106 and 107 would change the law with regard to lactating female deer and calves. Calves should not be shot and taken from their mother unless the intention is to shoot the mother as well. It is unfair to leave the mother in a situation in which she is still lactating and subject to mastitis if the calf has been shot. Amendment 108 would deal with the issue of shooting deer with shotguns.”