Chamber and committees

Douglas Lumsden has a question.

I will ask the next question. I am going to try and drag you back to the actual bits in the bill that are important.

I think that we all accept that there are huge challenges to face; in fact, the committee wrote a report about the challenges facing local government in achieving the targets, which I am sure that you have read; Claudia Cowie is nodding politely. That report highlighted many of the problems.

I will ask about a specific problem. The majority of witnesses that we have had in front of the committee have said that the Scottish carbon budget periods should align with the UK ones. The bill says that they will not. Do you agree or disagree with that majority view that they should align?

I will go right the way along the table on this one.

Aberdeenshire seems to have huge representation here today. That is good. Thank you for those declarations.

I will start with two very easy questions, and I will work along the panel, starting with Alison Leslie and ending with Claudia Cowie, so you will need to be fleet of foot, Alison, in answering them. What are your views on the existing annual targets? Have they helped local government to reduce emissions? I would like your views on whether they work.

Will five-year targets be as helpful as the annual targets?

The next agenda item is the third day of evidence taking on the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill, which seeks to amend the current approach to the setting of interim greenhouse gas emission reduction targets in Scotland.

I am delighted to welcome Claudia Cowie, team leader, sustainability and climate change, Aberdeenshire Council; Alison Leslie, team leader, climate and sustainability policy, Aberdeen City Council; Mike Rivington, senior scientist at the James Hutton Institute; Jamie Brogan, head of climate partnerships at the Edinburgh Climate Change Institute; and Cornilius Chikwama, audit director at Audit Scotland.

Thank you very much for taking the time to be here this morning. It was very short notice, so I appreciate the fact that you have found the time to come.

Before we move to questions, I note that the deputy convener has been held up in getting here this morning, but he will be joining us shortly. I also note that two members would like to declare interests. I invite them to do that now.

Before I go any further, I remind members of my entry in the members’ register of interests. I am a farmer and part of a farming partnership. I am also a dog owner and have recently registered puppies. I am an honorary member of the British Veterinary Association.

I will speak to amendment 59 and I will move it for three really good reasons, which I am sure that everyone will find easy to support. First, what I have proposed is good for dogs and their welfare. It would also allow the Government to carry out some post-legislative scrutiny, and it would help to address the issue of dog theft, which is subject to a separate bill that another member has proposed.

I am sure that I do not need to remind the minister that the rules for microchipping were introduced in 2016. Now, eight years on, we do not know whether microchipping works. There is a requirement to microchip a puppy at eight weeks, and owners are supposed to update the information when a dog is moved, an owner changes their address or telephone number, or the dog is sold or given to another owner. We are pretty sure that that does not happen across the country. There are thousands of strays every year that are not properly recorded on the database. I am sure that the minister will say that they are 12 properly accredited databases in Scotland, which he would be right about. There are 22 databases across the United Kingdom, so which database is being checked, which one is being kept up to date, and which is the proper one to use?

When we are farming, we have a simple situation: we have ScotEID, where we record our animals on a database and every animal has a passport. We know where the animals are and we know their history. Now, the Government has produced a poultry register. If you have one chicken at home that is scratching around your door, you must register it and record it on a database that the Government keeps. Everyone in the countryside is used to doing that with animals and we also do it if we have a car, because we have a responsibility to keep the V5C up to date and to record any changes.

I suggest that the Government should think carefully about its 2016 legislation and should consider whether it is working. I have asked the Government to review it and to check whether microchipping and the database are working properly and I have said that it should consult breeders, acquirers and owners of dogs as well as consulting veterinary practitioners.

I know that it is a step too far for some people, but I believe that vets should check dogs that come into their practice to ensure that they are properly microchipped and that the person who has brought the dog in is the correct owner. That might be a step too far for now, but I believe that it should come in due course.

Amendment 59 is a simple one. It puts an onus on the Government to check that the legislation that it brought in in 2016 is working correctly, is effective and is doing what it is meant to do, which is to look after the welfare of dogs. I do not see what people dislike about that, but I suspect that the minister is going to tell me.

I move amendment 59.

I will concentrate on two recommendations in the report that the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee produced in 2018. Recommendation 51—which I am sure you will know off the top of your head, Mark, but just to remind you if you do not—was that the Scottish Government should undertake a strategic spatial planning exercise, taking into account all the affected areas. That recommendation should have been carried out. Has it been carried out? Do you use that in making your planning decisions?

Will the minister take an intervention?

Sorry, but who—

Thank you, convener. You are suggesting that my amendment 59, which calls for a review, should be rejected on the basis of an informal conversation with one member of a devolved Administration and no conversations with any members of the UK Administration. Do you think that the basis for your approach—some chit-chat at a meeting—will fly with people?