Seòmar agus comataidhean

That concludes our public business for the day, and we move into private session.

Yes, convener. I just want to put on record what is on page 8 of the briefing that has been prepared for us on this matter. It says:

“A voluntary phaseout by 2025 on the use of lead shot that was led by UK shooting organisations has been shown to be largely ineffective at minimising the use of lead ammunition, and therefore effective regulation is required in this case.”

If UK shooting organisations were content to go for a voluntary phase-out, they must have thought it a practical thing to do, even though it turned out not to be successful in driving the change that we want to see.

I also note that—and this is verbatim from the briefing in front of us:

“The Agency only considered a restriction where appropriate alternatives were available, therefore small calibre bullets (=6.17mm) for live quarry shooting have not been included in the restriction as there was insufficient evidence that viable alternatives were available.”

I do not have any background in this matter, convener, but a briefing that has been prepared for us ahead of this committee meeting seems to substantiate the idea that this was a reasonable thing to do.

I get that your experience in this is very bespoke, convener, but it is only fair to put the alternative view or position on the record this morning, given that it is in our briefing papers.

I will follow up on that with Dr Dixon and if Clare Wharmby or Professor Roy wants to come in with any reflections, please do, and then I will go to my second question, convener.

Is it about whether Governments get it right or wrong, or is it about the modelling work that they use to predict what will happen? A lot of modelling work will be done on behaviour. Earlier we heard about behavioural change and how households and individuals will buy into it. Clare Wharmby spoke about incentives and disincentives and how to trigger some behavioural change rather than asking people to buy into the overall plan. We want businesses and sectors to change how they do their business, and that will impact every aspect of life.

None of this is an exact science. It is all based on modelling work, which, by definition, gives best guesstimates of what will happen if different inputs are put into policies. No model will ever get it perfect. I suppose, convener, that I am saying that it is not about whether Governments are right or wrong; it is about whether they are using the best and most appropriate set of modelling assumptions to get to those estimates. Maybe the Government has not shown its working, convener.

Are there any thoughts about changing the narrative on that, Dr Dixon? None of it is exact. All of it is about modelling work. Should the Government show a bit more of its workings and be open and straightforward about the fact that, by definition, models are not an exact science?

That is helpful. Before we go on to my second question, does Clare Wharmby or Graeme Roy want to come in? You do not need to do so, but do you want to reflect on any of that before I move on?

So, it might be a matter of having a bigger suite of early warning indicators, whatever they may be. The committee would like to know where witnesses believe there are gaps in identifying data sources and gaps in the details of methods used. We are not experts in this area, but we are pretty good at scrutinising. We are relying on witnesses to identify where those gaps might be.

Given that the Scottish Government is being asked for more certainty in its budget commitments to tackle net zero for the first five years, in the first instance, should it be clearer about what it expects that it should get directly from the UK Government in order to play its part, not just with regard to what the UK Government does at UK level on reserved matters to meet net zero ambitions but with regard to the money that is transferred from the UK to Scotland for the devolved aspects? Should the Scottish Government be quantifying what it expects to get from the UK Government—not in a political way—if there is going to be a partnership approach to funding net zero?

I found that exchange relevant to understanding how we scrutinise the issue as a committee and as a Parliament.

I mentioned modelling. My set question has a wee bit about modelling, so I will ask it. Annex 3 of the draft plan sets out that there was a

“bottom-up”

approach to analysis, using

“various analytical models and estimation approaches appropriate to each context.”

Most people will have glazed over at that sentence. Without really knowing what it means in practice, although I have just read it out, I ask whether, in your view, there has been transparent communication of the data sources and methods that have been used in the analysis? Good luck to whoever takes that first.

I will stick with you, Professor Roy. My next question is about risks and uncertainties vis-à-vis interdependencies with other policies, including those of the UK Government. You have talked about how the climate change plan talks to the UK budget that we are about to have. The Scottish Government does not yet know the numbers that will underpin its budget, as that relies on a UK Government decision—and that is just for one budget, whereas there will be multiple budgets, spending reviews and changes of Government, looking way out to 2040—and probably just in the next five years, frankly, in the shorter term.

Does the plan set out those interdependencies sufficiently well? I really do not mean to be political in saying this, but we must be matter of fact about building risks into those interdependencies in a clear and transparent way.

I am happy with that, convener, but—and I say this with complete respect and courtesy—as long as the wording of the letter does not recount the comments that you have made as the factual position. They might very well be the factual position, convener, but we have not taken evidence on the issue. If the letter were to talk about a suggestion being made, highlight some of the matters that you have drawn to the committee’s attention and then ask for a response, that would seem reasonable. We could also just refer the cabinet secretary to the Official Report and ask for a comment on that.

Okay. I appreciate that, convener. I do not intend to try to block the policy intent here, and I appreciate that that might mean our having to part ways in relation to how we cast our vote. However, that is no reason to ignore the individual concerns that you have raised, convener, which we could take up in correspondence with the Scottish Government.