Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is really helpful, and it leads on to my next couple of questions. The Climate Change Committee said, “Okay, the Scottish Government doesn’t want to see that trajectory in relation to livestock numbers, but there are other options out there that could be exercised to have a balanced pathway.” The CCC did not recommend any individual approach; instead, it has suggested a kind of pick-and-mix approach. For example, car kilometre reductions were modelled at 6 per cent, but the CCC advised that that could go up to 8 per cent, and it also mentioned scrappage schemes for cars and heating. There is a variety of other options that have not been triggered yet.

How would the Scottish Government seek to make up some of that? If we do not take action in one area—for very good reasons that you have set out on the record—what actions can be taken in another area to balance things out?

That was helpful. My final question is about—

Thank you, Phil.

My final question is specifically about peatland. I am not looking for any details just now—it is a wider point. If less land is being given up for forestry or peatland initiatives because more land is still being given over to agriculture and herds of cattle, does that create an issue? Will there still be enough land to do all the sequestration and abatement work that the Government is seeking to do? Could there be a land issue there?

That would be helpful. My next question will relate to that a wee bit, but I will keep my powder dry for now. Fabrice Renaud, do you want to come in?

Ellie Murtagh, do you want to add to that?

I apologise for cutting across you, cabinet secretary—I am just minded that the convener has told me to keep it tight time-wise. That is all really helpful. The Climate Change Committee is relaxed about all of that as long as Scotland makes its own balanced pathway to net zero. My underlying question was whether there is any modelling work to show that livestock numbers are naturally falling as a matter of course. Has that been taken into account in the Scottish Government’s modelling work in relation to its net zero ambitions?

That was helpful on the issue of peatland. You are saying that there is still a lot out there for us to get working on instead of worrying about land supply.

Are there any issues with forestry?

I do not want to misinterpret what you are saying, cabinet secretary. We will discuss later the evidence that we have heard. I think that the Scottish Government is saying that some have said that there could be issues with land supply for forestry, but your belief is that, working closely with the agriculture sector, there are ways to mitigate that and to make sure that there is plenty of supply. You are not spelling out the details today, but is that the message that you are giving the committee?

There has been a theme during the evidence sessions last week and this week. We have each had a giant disagreement about some of this, which is fine. There have been calls for precise details, such as costings for each household in granular detail. The plans will run for 15 or 20 years and will rely in part on business innovation and buy-in in order to make shifts. They will rely on a good, positive dialogue with Westminster about electricity pricing, as well as other things, and will rely on technological innovation. They will also rely on all of us, as householders and not just MSPs, to buy into it. I have not seen the climate change plan and the associated costings, but I think that it is reasonable to say that there will have to be a range. Costings cannot be precise for technologies that are still to be developed or for an electricity market that is still to be reformed. There has to be a fair wind and some realism in relation to it all.

That said, Mark Ruskell has made some reasonable points, in that scrutiny would have been enhanced if we had had the plan at the same time that we were locking in the targets. However, we are where we are. In some respects, we know from the last time that the Parliament and the Government failed to deliver on targets that targets in themselves are just numbers; the actions that we put in place to make them a reality are important. For the Parliament not to agree to the budgets and not to free up the Government and the Parliament to scrutinise the climate change plans that will surely follow would be a big misstep.

Finally, although I concur with the challenge around scrutiny that Mr Ruskell and the convener have pointed out, I think that we are already starting to scrutinise some of this stuff. We will be scrutinising the climate change plan when it is laid for public scrutiny in real time, convener. Scrutiny does not start and end once the process is finished; it will be on-going. We all have a responsibility as a committee—on a cross-party, apolitical basis—to put our shoulder to the wheel and scrutinise the matter in a robust fashion. Although there may be disagreements among committee members, I think that it would be correct to lock in targets and come together to significantly scrutinise the Scottish Government on how it will deliver on them.

Agenda item 3 is an evidence session on pre-budget scrutiny. In the room, I welcome to the meeting Mairi Spowage, director at the Fraser of Allander Institute, and David Bell, professor of economics at the University of Stirling. Welcome to you both. I also welcome our online witnesses, both from the Institute for Fiscal Studies: Tom Wernham, senior research economist; and David Phillips, the institute’s associate director. Thank you both for joining us remotely to support our evidence session.

We will move straight to questions.