Chamber and committees

We are already seeing the effects of the climate emergency, with further extreme weather events becoming more likely. The National Infrastructure Commission has argued that governments should set resilience standards, which operators would be required to meet. The United Kingdom Government is set to introduce a national resilience strategy, so will the First Minister make the case for the development of resilience standards for vital public infrastructure?

I thank the minister for his support for Labour’s rent-freeze policy. It is vital that that stays in place until we have a national system of rent control to bring rents down, because long-term underinvestment in council housing and the history of poor regulation of the private rental sector has allowed private landlords to cash in on the housing crisis while claiming that they provide a public service. Let us be clear: that is not philanthropy—it is exploitation. Will the minister commit to finally ending the two-tier system of rented housing in Scotland by capping private rents in line with social rent levels?

If I have understood Mr Ewing’s contribution correctly, earlier he explained that the purpose of rough shooting is not necessarily about controlling wildlife but is more to do with enjoyment and, potentially, providing food. Will the bill prevent that?

Is the enjoyment directly linked to the yield?

Would that be possible with just one or two dogs?

Would foxes be included in the definition of ground game?

Last week—it might have been earlier; the discussions are all merging together—we heard that the use of dogs will be tied to a specific activity. That is the intention—that is, the revised intention—of the bill. If I have correctly understood the evidence that we have heard, it seems to be the Government’s intention that, if a person shoots a wild mammal that has been flushed by someone else’s dog, they will not fall foul of the legislation, as long as only one or two dogs flushed the mammal. That is because, for the purpose of that activity, it can be claimed that those dogs are owned by the shooter.

Mr Telford, do you see issues with the idea that dog ownership is interchangeable, depending on the activity and the time? How would that function?

I have a quick follow-up question for DS Telford just to give me a bit more of an understanding of the practicalities of enforcement. I am not sure how you envision things working in practice now, or how you envision them working in the future, but would you tend not to “join” but to “visit” rough shoots, or would you say that you “dropped into” them? Would they come into your frame of work only if there was an accusation of some illegality? How does it work?

I have a quick comment on Jim Fairlie’s point about the purpose of the bill. I accept that point, but we need to be mindful of the effect of the bill, and we are hearing that the effect will be changes to current practices. It is important that we acknowledge and explore that.

Thank you.