Chamber and committees

Before I say anything about the amendments, I remind the committee of my entry in the register of members’ interests. I am a farmer in Moray, farming about 500 acres that I own and about 500 acres that I rent.

I am privileged to have red squirrels on my farm, and I want to talk about that, but I will first discuss two amendments that I welcome, starting with amendment 169, in the name of Ariane Burgess. I would be delighted if the member could explain to me why killer whales were left off the list, which surprised me. They are an important species. It may be an oversight, and that could perhaps be brought back at stage 3.

The other amendment is amendment 171, on red squirrels, which was lodged by Ross Greer. I have a great hope that red squirrels will appear across Scotland. I see that Rachael Hamilton has lodged amendments 291 to 293 in group 5, which relate to red squirrels and their management. If red squirrels are to re-establish in Scotland, they will need a lot of protection. As I am sure the convener and members will know, Moray has been declared a safe haven for red squirrels, with the aim that the species will be able to expand out from there and that populations will regrow. I hope that nothing less than that will happen.

The problem is that there are limiting factors. I am glad to see that, if the proposed provision goes into the bill, the cabinet secretary will be responsible for introducing targets and methods to ensure that red squirrels spread out. It may be unpalatable to point this out but, in order to allow red squirrels to spread out, we will have to control two species, namely pine marten and goshawks, which both prey on red squirrels extensively and are both being introduced into land that is owned by Forestry and Land Scotland in Moray. That has resulted in the demise of red squirrels in an area that has been classed as their safe haven. I hope that amendment 171 will be agreed to.

I have problems with amendment 168, and not only as a farmer. At this time of year, we are calving. Because of the change in climate, we are putting calves outside to ensure that they do not get the effects of pneumonia. That means day-old calves going outside, and they are a perfect target for lynxes. That would cause me immense problems, as it would for all farmers across Scotland.

I am always happy to engage with other parties regarding species that may have a place in Scotland. I have already suggested that there may be problems, however, and I have a bigger problem. For the past eight years, I have fought hard with local interests on the reintroduction of wildcats to Scotland, which is the most exciting project that is being undertaken in the Highlands. I wish that they were as common as they were when I was a young boy—it was not unusual to see them. The problem is that the two species—lynx and wildcat—compete for territory, and no work has been done to determine what would happen to the wildcat population were lynx to be introduced.

I have carefully watched some of the discussion groups, and people say that the wildcats that we are introducing back into Scotland through the wildlife park at Aviemore are not fully certified as wildcats. However, they are as close to wildcats as we can get, I would think, at 70 to 80 per cent pure genetics. As I am sure the cabinet secretary is aware, to lose those genetics so as to introduce lynx may well result in the cabinet secretary and whoever introduces the lynx being liable to a charge of ecocide, should the Ecocide (Scotland) Bill be passed.

I will not speak to amendment 5, because I believe that I have already made my points in relation to it and I know that you are short of time, convener. Thank you for allowing me to speak to the amendments in the group.

Our second item of business is an evidence session with the Climate Change Committee. Today’s session will focus on adaptation to climate change and the CCC’s view on progress on adaptation. I welcome Richard Millar, the head of adaptation at the Climate Change Committee. Thank you for attending the meeting. I offer you the chance to make some brief introductory remarks. No politician who has given introductory remarks has ever been able to keep them brief, but let us see how you get on.

It would be helpful to write a letter to the Government on the issues that Mark Ruskell has raised. Technically, I should seek the committee’s permission to sign off that letter on its behalf as a result of our discussion. Are members happy with that?

Members indicated agreement.

Water is so fundamental to everything that we do that putting a value on it is difficult. Even back in the 1980s, when I was a young soldier, I was told that most future wars would be fought over water, and that, if we did not get our approach to water management right, it would be a serious problem, especially with such high and low levels happening in the same year.

I will hand over to Mark Ruskell, who will ask our next questions.

That is a bit of a politician’s answer. Will the carbon budgets that we were given as a Parliament make the 2045 target achievable or do they mean that we are skating on thin ice?

It appears to me that the simple answer is that we write—well, I will ask the question, to be totally correct.

Is the committee content that the provision that is set out in the notification should be made in the proposed UK statutory instrument?

Members indicated agreement.

I have a final easy question to end the session with. Scotland has kept its ambition for net zero for 2045, but it has lowered its ambition for interim emission reductions. Are you happy with that and are we doing enough?

That is everyone’s aim, but those costs remain stubbornly high for most people.

It appears to me that you are saying that a 4°C rise by the end of the century is possible but that a 3°C rise is more likely. Is that what you are saying?