Seòmar agus comataidhean

I mean in terms of the very big picture of everything. Is the modelling based on Met Office data? The Government has built this plan, but I am concerned about whether it is based on the most up-to-date climate modelling. I am aware that modelling projections have changed—change has sped up and there are other things in the mix. For example, I know that the Scottish Environment Protection Agency is not your domain, but my understanding is that its approach is based on much older data and we are not really taking into account the level of flooding and the problems that we are going to have with that. I am concerned that we are building a plan that is based on a certain climate baseline or modelling, when the climate will be even worse than that.

I am a bit concerned that we have a lot to get through. That was helpful, Brendan, but I think that it was about the emissions from forestry and the sequestration through trees. Maybe you can write to the committee on this, but the point that I am trying to get at is about the fundamental climate modelling that we are basing everything on. We have to have a foundation of assumptions on the climate impacts. We are starting to realise that change is happening much faster. We have developed a climate change plan that is looking at our carbon emissions and sequestration, but have we based it on the right model in the first place? That is what I am looking for. Maybe I should leave it there and you can write to the committee.

That would be super, thank you.

My question is about voluntary uptake. The draft plan assumes a 45 per cent uptake of low-carbon farming measures, which will be voluntary. It also says that the approach may be “beyond an achievable level”, which is a bit concerning. Witnesses who gave evidence on 14 January, particularly Dr Vera Eory and Professor Dave Reay, were explicit in their view that a subsidy-only voluntary approach is weak and financially unsustainable at scale. They stressed the need for a “credible policy threat”; in other words, we would need stronger measures that are not voluntary. I raised that area with them, as I am concerned that we are basing the transformation on a high level of voluntary uptake. What do we do if that does not happen? What gives you confidence that the emissions will still reduce, and what is the Government’s back-up plan if the voluntary schemes do not deliver?

Monitoring will help us to know whether we are doing the right thing and how to course correct.

I notice that the first phase of the plan takes us to 2030, which will be the year before an election, so in December 2030 we could be in a situation similar to the one that we are in now, at the end of a parliamentary session. How things have been set up concerns me, because the parliamentary session will be wrapping up at that point—as is the case today—and there will be a compressed amount of time to properly scrutinise the plan.

Okay. Thanks for providing that broader picture. At the beginning of your answer, you said that, in an ideal scenario—I am paraphrasing—we could plant on mineral soils in the most productive areas but that doing so would limit us and push us on to farmland. I am more interested in the point about limiting us. In what way would we be limited? Is it just that we would end up on farmland?

You mention—

Can I raise one very quick point?

The next item on our agenda is to take evidence on the Visitor Levy (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill. We will be joined by two panels of witnesses.

First, we will hear views on the bill from representatives of local government. We are joined in the room by Gareth Dixon, Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, and Elin Williamson, City of Edinburgh Council. We are joined online by Jamie Coventry from Aberdeen City Council, Christie Hartley from Orkney Islands Council, Malcolm MacLeod from Highland Council and Fergus Murray from Argyll and Bute Council. I welcome you all to the meeting and thank you for your attendance, particularly in light of the short notice and the tight timescales for the bill. There is no need for witnesses, either in the room or online, to turn on their microphones; we will do that for you.

I will start by asking a few questions. We want to cover a number of areas, and I will cover why the legislation is needed now. I will try to mix it up so that we do not always go first to the people in the room; however, in this instance I will do so. Gareth Dixon, I will direct my questions to you initially, so you know what is coming. What engagement have you had with the Scottish Government on the bill so far? What did local authorities ask for and what, if anything, changed as a result of that engagement?

Thanks very much for that picture, Fergus. Just to clarify, you held a consultation over 12 weeks, you got some very useful information, and you have some concerns. With the pause, you are not necessarily going to lose all that work, but you could add to or amend what you have based on the views received and on the amendment bill.