Seòmar agus comataidhean

First, I note that, unfortunately, Sarah Boyack’s amendment 103 conflicts with my amendment 36 in the drafting. That is a shame, because we are working with the same intention in the amendments. Perhaps we can work together to create amendments at stage 3 that do not conflict with one another and support the same aims.

The Scottish Government has already signed up to implement the commitments of the United Nations global diversity framework. One of those is the much-publicised 30 by 30 commitment—that is, to conserve 30 per cent of the land, sea and waters in Scotland.

Another of those commitments, which is much less talked about but which the Scottish Government has already made is to restore 30 per cent of all degraded ecosystems. The UN states that that commitment is to

“Ensure that by 2030 at least 30 per cent of areas of degraded terrestrial, inland water, and marine and coastal ecosystems are under effective restoration, in order to enhance biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services, ecological integrity and connectivity.”

Amendment 36 would bring that prior commitment into legislation to encourage action on it. The amendment shines a light on the fact that the Scottish Government has already committed to that significant level of nature restoration. This is a chance to put that intention into legislation.

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

My intervention follows on from Rachael Hamilton’s earlier point. According to Scottish Land & Estates, there are around 439,500 jobs in rural Scotland, which means that the 4,000 gamekeeping jobs that Rachael Hamilton noted represent less than 1 per cent of our rural jobs.

Given that such a huge amount of land is given over to only 4,000 jobs, there is a question to be asked about whether we are using our resources efficiently and appropriately. If that land were to be used for anything else—whether forestry, nature restoration or farming—more jobs may be created.

The idea that gamekeeping is the best use of that land and the best thing for the economy is incorrect. The data does not show that. It is one use of the land, which is challenging for biodiversity and is not necessarily creating the optimal result for Scotland’s rural economy.

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?