Seòmar agus comataidhean

On that, I accept that the plan will change, but carbon budgets will not change, because we set those to 2045. That was the whole point. It gave us a trajectory.

Am I right in saying that you are asking for more detail in the short term, with a plus-or-minus variance figure to give us an indication of what we need to do to get back on track? Surely, that would be a properly worked out plan. Would it not be worked on that basis—that, if we fail on one thing, we might need to do more on another? Most budgets have pluses or minuses.

I think that it is agreed that, if we exceed the budgets, we cannot write that off against future—

We cannot bank it but have to move on. That is my understanding.

It is very difficult. I was taught to use the words “what if” on every policy. “What if it doesn’t do this?” or “What if it does that?” There do not appear to be any “what ifs” in the draft plan.

I go back to Bob Doris.

Kevin Stewart wants to come in on that point.

Before you answer that, Richard—I think that it was more of a statement than a question, but I am sure you will find a question in there to answer—I am just going to allow a wee amnesty. About three times during this meeting, somebody’s telephone has bleeped. If it is yours and it is in your pocket, could you silence it? I find it really distracting and it is something that I feel very strongly about, so if it happens again, there might be a bit of a hunt to find out who is to blame. On that basis, I ask you to turn it off now if you are guilty. We will now move to Richard to answer the question.

Clare?

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.