Good morning, and welcome to the 35th meeting in 2025 of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee. Our first item of business is a decision on taking agenda items 4, 5 and 6 in private. Item 4 is consideration of evidence on the draft climate change plan; item 5 is consideration of a draft letter to the Scottish Government on pre-budget scrutiny; and item 6 is consideration of our work programme. Do we agree to take those items in private?

Members indicated agreement.

I should have said right at the beginning of the meeting that we have received apologies from Mark Ruskell, who is unable to attend today.

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?

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?

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.