Seòmar agus comataidhean

I would like to clarify something, as the issues that you have raised are pretty fundamental to the situation that we find ourselves in. Three other committees have agreed to undertake specific bits of work to support the work that we are doing. However, as you said, we have limited time, as the Parliament has to have finished its consultation by 5 March, which means that it is likely that we will be considering our report before we have seen the summary of responses to the Government’s consultation, given that that is likely to be released in early February. On behalf of the committee, I have made our concerns clear in that regard.

Unless I have got my maths entirely wrong—which is quite likely considering my inability to do maths properly, as my mother would say—we will have about nine sitting days after we submit our response in which we can consider the draft plan, which will have been amended to become the final plan. We are exactly where you said we were going to be. To me, that is of huge concern. I am sure that scrutiny will suffer because of the tight timescale.

I just wanted to clarify that work is being done by other committees, and that we remain concerned about the situation.

Sorry for interrupting you—or had you come to a logical end?

That is absolutely right and fair. The point you have made about small-calibre bullets relates to such small calibres as .22, where there is no alternative. I think that most people would accept that .243 becoming, or remaining, a suitable calibre for red deer is questionable. You would have to go up to a .270, probably with a 95 to 100-grain bullet as a minimum, because a .243 would not have the effective knock-down capacity.

I certainly take your point, Bob. I do have experience of actually doing this, and I am just trying to get that on the record.

Welcome back to this meeting of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee.

The third agenda item for consideration is a consent notification relating to a proposed UK statutory instrument, the REACH (Amendment) Regulations 2026.

UK registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals—or UK REACH—is the principal regulatory framework for chemicals across Great Britain. It is designed to control the risks that chemicals pose to people and the environment, and allows restrictions to be placed on their use, manufacture or sale. The instrument proposes to amend UK REACH by adding certain types of lead ammunition to the restriction list.

The committee’s role in relation to UK SI notifications is to decide whether it agrees with the Scottish Government’s decision to consent to the change being proposed by the UK Government. If we are content for consent to be given, I will write to the Scottish Government accordingly.??In doing so, we have the option to draw matters to the Government’s attention, pose questions or ask to be kept up to date on particular matters.?However, if the committee is not content with the proposal, it may make one of the recommendations outlined in the clerk’s note.??

Before we go any further, I invite members to speak if they wish to make any comments. I do wish to make some comments, but I am happy to take other members’ comments first.

I will be clear, open and honest with the committee, as I always am. I use lead ammunition to control vermin and deer. I remind the committee that we banned the use of lead shot over Ramsar and wetland sites in Scotland in 2004, and that that was different from what the rest of the UK did. That ban took away the risk that wildfowl might ingest lead, because it was no longer being used over wildfowl areas.

We are discussing a proposal to remove the use of lead shot, but I would argue that no adequate alternative is yet available and that what is available is extremely expensive bismuth or, in some cases, steel. The other issue is that, should you choose to replace lead shot, it would become impossible to use certain calibres or types of guns. For example, shotguns made prior to a certain date—probably around the 1970s—would not be proofed to use steel shot and many of them would become redundant. Some lower-calibre, high-velocity rifles would also become questionable in their use. For example, a .243 rifle would not develop sufficient ballistic energy at the point of impact, meaning that it would no longer, to my mind, be suitable for use on large animals such as red deer.

There are also issues about the risk of ricochet when using lower-density bullets. For example, copper has a far lower density than lead and is therefore more likely to ricochet, causing problems, whereas a higher-density bullet is less likely to ricochet.

To my mind, there is nothing in the financial resolution that has been put forward. Although I support the principle of moving away from lead shot, I am not sure that we are in a position to do that at the moment. I also find it quite odd that that very minor use of lead seems to be being singled out when the use of lead pipes in the delivery of water to many properties across Scotland is still considered to be acceptable, even though it causes a far higher risk. There is a similar situation with the use of asbestos pipes in a huge number of public water mains across Scotland, especially in the Highlands. There are thousands and thousands of kilometres of asbestos water pipes, but those are not being dealt with at the same time as lead shot.

For those reasons, although I support the principle of what is being proposed, I cannot actually support the proposals themselves, and I will have to abstain if the matter is put to a vote. I hope that I have made my reasons for taking this position clear—I support the principle, but not the delivery at this stage. I think that another three years on top of the proposed three-year transition period—or a minimum of two, taking it to five—would be far more suitable.

Bob, I think that you indicated that you wanted to pass comment.

Having shot certain things, I have eaten quite a lot of lead in my time, and I seem to be fine on the back of it—although you might argue that point.

Before we leave the issue of costs, it strikes me that some gross costs have been put into the draft plan that have been netted out to benefits. It is so high level—as Richard Dixon suggested—that it is impossible to see where the risks are and, therefore, impossible for the Government to take people with it when it comes to investing in a climate change plan.

My question is whether that is an accurate statement. Are you fearful that, if people do not know what the real costs of adapting to climate change are, they will not buy into the plan? Do you think that the plan will fall on that basis? Graeme, do you want to comment on that?

And is it? You asked the question yourself, so let me throw it back at you. Is the Government being really clear?

In fairness, Clare, I would say that, if I am asked to sign up to a plan—as I have been in my life in various guises—and I do not do so, I will not have bought into it and will not commit to it. You asked the question, Clare—are you signed up to what is in the plan?

Well, maybe that says everything.

Okay. You cannot sign up to something if you do not know what you are signing up to. You should never do that, should you?

I understand that. It is a pity that Audit Scotland is not here to speak to the figures, but it declined our invitation to come to today’s meeting, for a variety of reasons.

Richard, are the public going to sign up to this plan?

Bob Doris, I would love to come in on that point, but only after you have finished.