Chamber and committees

I understand. Thank you.

I will stay with taking people and industry along on the journey.

Professor Bell talked earlier of diet changes, which echoes the COP15 biodiversity conference—protecting nature is about protecting food. The Climate Change Committee makes recommendations on diet change and encourages a move away from meat and poultry of 20 per cent by 2030. NFU Scotland would counter that that could have a negative impact not only on farmers and the economy but, crucially, on food security as well as increasing reliance on imports.

Lord Deben, have you assessed the environmental cost of greater reliance on imported food over locally sourced food? Is there a danger that, in trying to achieve its targets, the Government perhaps unwittingly sacrifices food security, livelihoods and, potentially—given import emissions—the environment?

I will turn to agriculture and land use. The climate change plan update aims to reduce emissions from agriculture by around 28 per cent between 2020 and 2030. The Climate Change Committee says that it is unclear how that can be achieved. We also note that the recent agricultural bill consultation appeared to lack detail. If we assume that new policies will not be in place until 2024 and that new practices, particularly in that sector, will take time to implement, is it too late to achieve the target?

Lord Deben, you note in your report that

“It is currently very difficult to monitor progress against the necessary measures for decarbonising the buildings sector due to a lack of adequate and up-to-date data.”

Would you have expected data collection mechanisms to be in place already? In your experience, which mechanisms could or should be introduced to monitor and support delivery?

I have a further question on the heat in buildings strategy. We heard that the Scottish Government is putting £1.8 billion towards that over, I think, five years. We also know that the cost of achieving the heat in buildings strategy is £33 billion. That figure is now dated. I asked a parliamentary question about what it is now with inflation and answer came there none.

Is £1.8 billion sufficient? Do you get any sense of whether there is a concrete plan that will leverage £33 billion-plus from that £1.8 billion contribution?

I am grateful for that intervention and for the clarity of my friend Rachael Hamilton. I will take that point on board as the debate progresses. I am, as usual, very grateful for her thoughts, which are valuable.

Amendments 58 to 62 seek to add to the bill new exemptions for rabbits. Amendment 62, which is the substantive amendment, provides that an exemption will apply to the offence of a person hunting a wild mammal using a dog if:

“(a) a person is using a dog to hunt rabbits, and

(b) permission for the activity has been given by the owner of the land on which the activity takes place.”

Amendment 63 seeks to insert “subsequently” after “and” in line 17, which says:

“‘hunting’ includes, in particular, searching for and coursing.”

My understanding is that the effect of that would be that, in the bill, the term “hunting” would mean searching for wild mammals first and then coursing afterwards. However, it is a technical amendment, and my colleague Edward Mountain will explain the detail.

Amendments 64 to 68 seek to exclude weasels, stoats, mink, polecats and ferrets from the definition of wild mammals that is set out in the bill. Those amendments were also lodged by Edward Mountain, and he will elaborate why those animals should not be included in the scope of the bill.

Amendment 110 seeks to add a line to section 2 of the bill so that any person who “reasonably believed” that their hunting would qualify for the exemptions in the bill would have to show evidence to support their position that their activity was exempt. That section of the bill pertains to

“Offences of knowingly causing or permitting another person to hunt using a dog”.

Amendment 110 would amend the defence that is available to a person who is charged under that section.

I am grateful to the committee for its consideration of my amendment.

I move amendment 131.

I welcome the remarks, both general and specific. After listening to what I thought were very thought-provoking contributions from colleagues and the minister, I am content not to press my amendment 131, with the intention of seeking to revise it, perhaps in partnership with the stakeholders that Rachael Hamilton mentioned, and with members, such that it might be tightened up and provide the clarity that was originally intended. I note, in particular, the minister’s comments on necessity, which I find interesting and on which I shall reflect.

Any amendment that seeks to give the public a clear message about conduct that is or is not permitted must itself be completely watertight and must not open loopholes of the sort that Ariane Burgess and others have talked about. From the feedback that I have heard today, I am not persuaded that my amendment is yet at that stage. Accordingly, I will not press amendment 131. However, I hope to work with colleagues, and perhaps the minister, to bring back a revised amendment at stage 3, in order to provide clarity without creating loopholes.

Amendment 131, by agreement, withdrawn.

Good morning, committee. I am very grateful to you for your consideration of amendment 131. I will explain the thinking that underlies it. Section 1 seeks to create offences that will replace the offences that are set out in the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002. Section 1 of that act says:

“A person who deliberately hunts a wild mammal with a dog commits an offence.”

However, under the intended replacement provision in section 1 of the bill, someone will commit an offence if

“(a) the person hunts a wild mammal using a dog, and

(b) none of the exceptions in sections 3, 5, 6 or 7 apply.”

What appears to have been lost in the bill is that it does not include knowledge of the intended use of the dog as part of the offence of hunting a wild mammal. My amendment 131 seeks to insert additional criteria for the commission of the offence, namely that the person knew or ought to have known that hunting a wild mammal was the intended use of the dog.

In my view, that will avoid the potential for members of the public to face prosecution for an offence in circumstances where the hunting of a wild mammal using a dog was not their intention—for example, when a dog gives chase to a wild mammal during a walk for exercise purposes. My amendment will provide a clear distinction between those with an intention to hunt wild mammals and those without such an intention. The requirement will enhance enforcement of the legislation by ensuring that Police Scotland can more readily identify perpetrators who have knowledge of the intended use of the dog via evidence gathering.

That is reassuring. I have no further questions.

Good morning minister. You referred to a proposed cost of up to £10 million. If that comes out of the capital budget, what impact will that have on other capital projects that Scottish Water might have in the pipeline? Is there a move to increase Scottish Water’s budget to accommodate that extra cost of up to £10 million?