Chamber and committees

Thanks, Paul. We have come to the end of our questions. I thank you all for joining us and giving evidence today. It has been useful for the committee to hear your reflections on the National Care Service (Scotland) Bill.

We agreed at the start of the meeting to take the next two items in private. Therefore there is no more public business today, and I close the public part of the meeting.

The second item on our agenda is an evidence session on the national planning framework. From the Scottish Government we are joined by Tom Arthur, the Minister for Public Finance, Planning and Community Wealth; Fiona Simpson, who is the chief planner; Andy Kinnaird, who is the head of transforming planning; Cara Davidson, who is the head of environment and energy; and Carrie Thomson, who is the head of development planning and housing. I warmly welcome you all.

This might be the first time that we have all been in the same place during the national planning framework 4 process, which I know has been a great deal of work. It was around this time last year that it was being brought in, and it is tremendous to see that you have taken on board a great deal of feedback. This is such an important piece of work, as we look forward to shaping the next 10 years in Scotland in response to the climate and biodiversity emergencies. I also welcome Liam Kerr, who is attending in his capacity as a member of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee.

I invite the minister to make a brief statement.

Thanks very much for that response. It is really heartening to hear the continued commitment to engagement and collaboration.

I will touch on resourcing and biodiversity, because I have heard you talk a number of times in conversations about NPF4 about the fact that climate and biodiversity is the headline that we are trying to attend to. Last week, Bruce Wilson, who is the head of policy and advocacy at the Scottish Wildlife Trust, said that there was a lack of resources to measure biodiversity and that that threatened the ability of planners and developers to understand what is at risk and how they must modify developments to safeguard biodiversity. The increased workload of that additional responsibility is further augmented by the shortages of planners across Scotland. Therefore, how will the Government ensure that local authority planning departments are resourced and supported to properly evaluate and monitor the impact of developments on biodiversity?

I will now bring in Miles Briggs, who has a few questions on behalf of Annie Wells. Annie is with us online, but she has a throat ailment. Afterwards, I will bring in Liam Kerr.

It is interesting that we are talking about rough shooting as it is done now. We are trying to establish whether, if we pass the bill, rough shooting could be used as a smokescreen, as Robbie Marsland said. Rough shooting could be carried out in a different way, not by people who are genuinely rough shooting but by people who want to use it as a loophole.

I want to pick up a thread of conversation about intent that happened a wee while ago with Billy Telford. We need to consider the person, the intent, the activity and the role of dogs. Is it possible to establish intent? How is it established? Is there a way to ascertain that people were planning to do something? Surely, if people are going to use rough shooting as a loophole, they will have to plan a bit in order to get the dogs, which are no longer spaniels or Labradors but hounds, to gather in a place. Something will need to be pulled together in order to do that. Anything that you can say about intent would be helpful.

Maybe it is not such a worrying issue after all that this is in the bill.

Mercedes Villalba asked about two dogs. Ross, you talked about the fact that you would lose enjoyment. However, why would you have to reduce the number if we have established that the types of dogs that you use on a rough shoot are not hounds that hunt in packs? Why would you have to reduce the number of dogs?

I heard laughter when I asked whether a Labrador could be trained to work in a pack. If you are using dogs that could never ever—I should not say “never ever”. If you are using dogs that would be unlikely to be used in a pack, surely having a number of dogs at your rough shoot is fine, because they are not hounds that hunt or kill in a pack.

I am an MSP for the Highlands and Islands.

The point is that, although people might not use hounds now and Mr Hogg would never use a hound, somebody might do so once the legislation comes into play. We are not talking about how people are doing this at the moment.

I totally get the “one for the pot” idea. That is all well and good, but when the legislation comes in, it might be used by people who consciously choose to find a way through it by saying, “We’re on a rough shoot.” That is what they will plan to do, and they will not be people who genuinely want to do rough shooting, but people who want to have a mounted hunt.

We heard earlier about the types of dogs that are used. Surely you would have a range of dogs, such as Labradors and spaniels. We have talked about the loophole and how it might be used. However, people who were fox hunting would have hounds, so that would be a clear indication and a way for the police to see the difference between a rough shoot being used as a smokescreen and a genuine rough shoot. Potentially, you could tell it by the type of dog.