Seòmar agus comataidhean

We are in some agreement on the data collection point. My Conservative colleagues to my right have also expressed some frustration that we do not have the data. However, arguing that we do not know how many game birds are released is somewhat circular, given that licensing would provide a mechanism to determine that. I am not suggesting that any restrictions be applied until data is gathered. I am interested in hearing a more robust commitment from the cabinet secretary about data collection so that both sides of the argument can come to the discussion with some evidence, rather than our own particular views.

Pheasants contribute to the spread of avian flu.

In order even to relocate a red squirrel—something that the members round this table are keen on—you would have to have a licence and 40 pages of paperwork showing that the animal is not diseased, that it is being put in a correct location and that you have considered its wellbeing. However, you can release dozens, hundreds or thousands of tropical birds in Scotland without any consideration of whether they are diseased, whether you are looking after their welfare or whether the release is appropriate to the environment.

I am not saying that we should stop pheasant releases—although, personally, I think that that would be a good idea. I am proposing that they be licensed as we license the release of beavers and as we would license, if we ever got there, the release of lynx—because we want to know who is releasing what into Scotland’s environment.

My understanding is that people who keep pheasants have to register that on the poultry register. That is because, while they are being kept in pens for breeding, pheasants are domesticated. As far as I know, the poultry register is not well kept and is not up to date, and that needs to be worked on. However, once the pheasants are released, they become wild animals. That is specific to game birds. It is true for other types of game birds that are kept in that way, including native ones. If someone is going to relocate a wild animal or introduce one to Scotland, they need a licence. All other species of animals require licences so that we know how many there are and where. That is what I am proposing in relation to pheasants.

That is absolutely the case, Deputy First Minister. The reason why I am asking this is that I had some of the same challenges around NSET, with that focus on growth. As you say, it is not all about GDP. When we talk in the media about growth, it is about GDP, but you are saying that, in this instance, it is more about prosperity, unemployment and other measures.

Would it be better and clearer to say that we are looking at economic prosperity or economic success, rather than that very narrow measure of economic growth? I know that people use growth as a synonym for success, but it is not a synonym, and it is unclear what metrics we will be using. There is an implication that GDP is the only metric, which you have just said is not your intention.

What I am hearing is that you intend to run a carbon budgeting process alongside the annual budgeting process to ensure that all Government policy for which you are responsible, at least, fits within our carbon budget.

Much of which the Scottish Government rejected.

My next question takes a slightly different approach. Recently, the committee looked at the Community Wealth Building (Scotland) Bill at stage 1. That bill has two purposes—one is to reduce inequality and the other is to support economic growth. When the Minister for Public Finance, Ivan McKee, was in, I asked him what he meant by “economic growth” in the bill. We heard from all our witnesses that gross domestic product is not a good measure of economic success, certainly not in the community wealth building sense. I asked him whether, in using the term “economic growth” in the bill, he meant an increase in GDP. He said that that was not necessarily what he intended. That is my question to you. If economic growth is not an increase in GDP, what is it?

My final question on that theme is this: how does the NSET enable a wellbeing economy, rather than simply the pursuit of GDP to, as you say, the potential detriment of the local economy?

I have three questions for the Deputy First Minister today. The first one is on the bigger picture of how the NSET enables the Government’s stated intentions on climate and nature. I ask because there is a general concern on the committee that Government policy is not always coherent. The Government sets out a constellation of intentions, then the budget, then the NSET. However, it does not point out or indicate how the NSET will meet those intentions.

My specific interest is in climate and nature targets. The Scottish Government is imminently moving to carbon budgets. As the Parliament holds the Government to account on financial budgets, we will also start holding the Government to account on carbon budgets. That means that, for the same questions that we ask about how much something costs for any initiative, we will also ask how much carbon it emitted or how much it sequestered, because that budget will now have to be part of your accounting for every decision.

With the NSET going forward, how are you going to do the financial budget and the carbon budget alongside each other?

I apologise for my phone ringing.