Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

You said that the standards will come in on 1 January 2023. How quickly will Scottish Water have to carry out the remedial work to accommodate that? Does that have to be done by 1 January 2023? That is a very short lead time. Does it mean incurring the up to £10 million cost before 1 January 2023?

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?

If the directive has been in draft form for a long time and Scottish Water has had time to prepare for it, one would assume that Scottish Water has been asked if it will be able to accommodate that by 1 January. Has that question been asked?

Good morning to the witnesses. On that exact point of transmission and the grid, policy 6(b) concerns forestry, woodland and trees. It states:

“Development proposals will not be supported where they will result in ... Any loss of ancient woodlands, ancient and veteran trees, or adverse impact on their ecological condition”.

During the consultation, various stakeholders, including Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks Transmission, pointed out that such a black and white position means that transmission infrastructure, perhaps linking new wind farms to the grid, reinforcing the network to transport that clean power to areas of demand or strengthening grid resilience for rural communities—in other words, minister, meeting the strategic challenges that you talked about—would not be done on a case-by-case basis and would not be able to go ahead, at least not without things like public inquiries. That policy has not changed in the revised draft. What was the thinking that led to the rejection of those representations and to there being no change?

I understand the points that the minister makes about the ancient woodlands, which could probably be similarly applied to peatland. Of course, policy 5 specifically concerns peatland. It also was not changed, but it is worded in slightly different terms. Policy 5(c) says:

“Development proposals on peatland, carbon-rich soils and priority peatland habitat will only be supported for ... Essential infrastructure and there is a specific locational need and no other suitable site”.

That is an appropriately stringent but, nevertheless, arguably more sensible position that recognises the importance of peatland, particularly in the drive to net zero, but allows for nuance where there are infrastructure projects, such as transmission, that are required. Given that, minister, would you consider reviewing policy 6(b) so that it would be more akin to or mirror policy 5(c) on peatland?

I have a final question. Minister, you have suggested throughout today, for understandable reasons, that the parliamentary process for NPF4 does not allow for amendments to be considered at this stage. How can amendments specifically relating to, given my line of questioning, critical national infrastructure and the perhaps unavoidable impacts of developments on ancient woodland be lodged in the future? How soon can that amending process commence?

That being the case, will guidance be issued to assist local authorities with interpreting policies such as 6(b) so that they can be assisted in deciding, for example, what the loss of ancient woodlands means in cases in which, accepting the point that the minister rightly made, the developer was perhaps going to replace or even enhance what was there? If there is to be guidance, does the minister know when it will be out?