Seòmar agus comataidhean

On that point about the public and private investment, a written response to the convener’s letter of 10 November states that the Scottish Government intends to

“deliver £60m of public and private investment to at least double the size of Scotland’s public charging network”

as you discussed. How much of that £60 million do you expect to come from public sector investment, which budget line do you expect it to come from and over what period?

I have a couple of questions on electric vehicle charging.

The Climate Change Committee considers that we need 30,000 public EV charging points in Scotland by 2030. We currently have fewer than 3,000, I think. Your written evidence to the committee confirmed that you do not have a target for the installation of EV charge points—certainly, not a target of the 30,000 that we understand that we will require. Could the lack of a target have a negative impact on your ability to set budgets for installation and to plan and deliver on a comprehensive roll-out?

I understand. I am grateful.

I am grateful for that response. Can you help me to fully understand that? There was an exercise that looked across the portfolios for, let us say, underspends—that is my word and you will correct me if it is not the appropriate one—and then moved that money from those various budget lines into the £60.9 million budget for the ferries. Is that a fair reflection of what you said?

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?

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.