Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you for that. Perhaps I can ask Dr Webster the next question. In light of what we have heard and your own experience, do you think that the core obligations should be universal or relative to each individual?

What you have said about what the minimum core obligations look like in practice brings me back to what Professor Miller said about physical and mental health potentially being one of the core obligations. In the context of substance misuse, for example, what would such a core obligation look like if it was implemented?

Good morning, panel. The meeting has been absolutely fascinating, and I appreciate what Professor Miller said, because we need to get to the core of the disconnection and the feeling of disenfranchisement. What exactly are the obligations, and what would they look like in practice? My questions centre around that issue.

It is clarty. [Laughter.] That is one of those interesting questions. It depends, to an extent, on farmer behaviour. I would much rather that people were not buying animals in from areas with TB, but I recognise why some people do that. It also depends on our surveillance systems picking it up quickly, and, when it is picked up, on the appropriate control measures, such as the isolation of animals, being put in place.

Hand on heart, I think that it is unlikely that we will get an acute flare-up, but, as we saw last year, it only takes one farm with disease, which had probably been there, undetected, for a year or 18 months. It seeded disease to another 18 farms, I think, that we traced, of which seven or eight were positive. It is not impossible. What matters is that, when we find it, we deal with it robustly and quickly. Part of what we do is trace backwards and forwards. When we find an animal that is infected, we immediately go back to find out where it has been and what it has been in contact with, to determine where the disease may have come from. That involves testing a range of herds. We also look at any cattle that have left that farm, and we test them and the herd that they are in.

So, it is not impossible, but it is unlikely. That is probably as much as I can say.

Presiding Officer, for the record, I will ask my question first in spoken English and then in signed and spoken British Sign Language, to raise awareness.

To ask the First Minister, in light of this being deaf awareness week, what work the Scottish Government is undertaking to ensure that deaf people have their communication needs met. (S6F-02068)

I will now ask the question in BSL.

I am a CODA, which is a child of a deaf adult, and I grew up learning BSL alongside English. The importance of the right to be understood in one’s own language cannot be understated. The deaf community deserves to feel included, but BSL provision across Scotland can be a postcode lottery. In Scotland, we pride ourselves on being a progressive nation. On BSL, however, we must go further and faster.

Will the First Minister commit to providing a space where stakeholders and I can highlight to the Scottish Government what we must do to protect the future of our precious minority language in Scotland?

I thank the witnesses for their evidence so far. I will ask about the post-racing life of greyhounds. Last week, we heard from the GBGB, which noted that it contributes towards the costs of rehoming, for example. However, it is a different set-up at Thornton, where more dogs tend to come from homes that they live in, whereas, for GBGB tracks, the dogs are in kennels.

I ask the witnesses to give an overview of the post-racing life of a greyhound and the differences between those two models. Are there any huge differences and any cons?

I will focus for a moment on how the dogs at Thornton are kept. Is there a secure way of collecting data on the post-racing life of those greyhounds when it comes to injuries, their behaviours and their quality of life?

I disagree with the member’s take on that issue. I will come to this later in my speech, but that politics, with the whole rhetoric around “banning fishing”, seems to be driven by popularity. That is not helpful to this debate and it is not constructive.

We place a lot of burden and responsibility on our farmers and fishers, and they are responsible for our food security. If we place ever greater burdens on them, we must ensure that we also provide the relevant financial, human and legislative support. Fishers have lost trust in politicians to deliver for them, and quite frankly I do not blame them. That is the sorry result of their being used as political footballs for so long and having their priorities consistently politicised.

That brings me to the motion that is before us, which is in the name of Rachael Hamilton. Are we really supposed to believe, after everything that the Tories have done over the past few years to bring our rural industries to the brink and our economy to its knees, that they are trustworthy custodians of our farms, fisheries and natural environment? Need I say more than “Liz Truss”, “Boris Johnson” and “Brexit”? [Interruption.] Despite the Tory indignation, I note that it was announced in March that HPMAs will be introduced south of the border by the Tory UK Government. The hypocrisy is astonishing.

Rachael Hamilton is obviously opposed to HPMAs, so why did she stand on a Tory manifesto commitment in 2021 to implement pilot schemes for them? The fishers who are listening at home should be aware of that. [Interruption.]

The cabinet secretary will be reassured to hear that I do not intend to tear up any motion in a fit of theatrics today, although my colleague Rachael Hamilton stated that she would like to see that. The Scottish Parliament is not a place for amateur dramatics. It is a place where we debate and discuss as reasonable representatives the genuine needs of our constituents and our country.

I have had sincere and deep ponderings over this debate today and, in fact, over the past few weeks. I have had cause to really take time to reflect.

My concerns about HPMAs and the impact that they will have on fishers and coastal communities across Scotland are well known to the Scottish Government. First and foremost, however, I hope that they are known to the fishers across my constituency, because representing the coastal communities of Banffshire and Buchan Coast is a great honour and one that I do not take lightly. It is for that reason that I wish to make this promise to them: I promise that I will never support a policy that would be to the detriment of the lives and livelihoods of coastal communities across Scotland. I was elected to be a strong voice for our coastal communities and a steward and an advocate of not just the people but the land and the sea, and I will be just that.

Our rural communities have been through a great deal over the past few years. As a member of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, I have listened to some devastating testimonies about the impact of Brexit on our farmers and fishers. The loss of European Union funding as a result of the reckless Tory Brexit is just one example of the significant damage that has been imposed on our rural economies. We place so much responsibility for delivering net zero on our rural industries. We must remember that our farmers and fishers are also responsible for our food security.