Seòmar agus comataidhean

On the assertion about them being pets, I think this is where we get a bit confused about how the tracks operate in two different places. We have the issue with GBGB tracks that the animals must be kept in kennels; they cannot be part of a family set-up. I am not so sure if that works for dogs that are raced at the only track that we currently have in Scotland. I do not know whether they are able to be part of the family or whether they have to be kennelled and not kept as part of the family as a pet in order to race. That is where it gets a bit confusing for us in trying to unpick the differences between here and England.

Yes. Further to what the convener was asking about, is the Government considering extending the licensing requirements to include greyhound racing? We know that people were evenly split down the middle in the consultation, but does this approach provide us with a way of starting to address some of the issues, if indeed the member’s bill does not reach its conclusion?

Amendment 22, in my name, will make it very clear that

“the promotion and support of practices that protect and improve animal health and welfare”

are core objectives of Scottish agricultural policy. I know that there is cross-party and broad stakeholder support for ensuring that we recognise the key role of promoting and supporting animal health and welfare in the successful delivery of other objectives.

The case that there can be no high-quality food production without first ensuring that practices deliver animal health and welfare is well made and I am sure that all here support it. Some might say, however, that animal welfare matters are already covered in law elsewhere, that the issue is accepted and does not need further elaboration. That surely only highlights, in my view, how integral it must be to what we do. By including it as an objective, we are making a clear statement of the values of Scottish agriculture. If we want the world to acknowledge the provenance and high quality of our Scottish produce, we must start with being clear that the promotion and support of welfare matters deeply to us. I therefore ask the committee to support the amendment.

Amendment 42, in my name, seeks to add “biodiversity” to the policies and proposals that must be considered when preparing the rural support plan. The inclusion of biodiversity alongside the environment in that section is vitally important. We know that many farmers, crofters and growers already strive to deliver positive impacts to mitigate climate change and enhance biodiversity. Scotland’s targets to reach net zero by 2045 are enshrined in legislation, and we need to ensure that there is read-across over all policy areas to that end.

The Scottish Government has proposed to introduce a natural environment bill, which will provide a framework for statutory nature targets and must link to the biodiversity duty strategy and delivery plan, the climate change plan and the bill that we are discussing. The inclusion of both environment and biodiversity in the legislation would underline the importance of both and strongly place them in a strengthened legal context.

The Scottish Government’s vision for agriculture sets out the importance of achieving climate mitigation, nature restoration and food production. We cannot have one without the others; therefore, it is only right that a holistic approach to the legislation is taken by including environment and biodiversity specifically. That will allow the benefits that are being delivered by our producers to be fully realised. I urge members to support amendment 42.

Thank you, cabinet secretary, for coming along this morning. Some stakeholders have told the committee that they are not clear what REM can provide that is not already being provided by current compliance and enforcement practices—indeed, someone called it

“a sledgehammer to crack a nut”.

However, you have just called it a game changer. What problems are you seeking to solve with REM and what are you seeking for it to add to the industry?

I have a question about compliance. If REM showed that a skipper had been involved in discarding fish or, indeed, catching a protected species, do we know yet what would happen to that skipper?

Thank you.

I want to ask a little bit more along those lines. In general, scientific data that is produced will often be checked by peers just to test its robustness. In essence, are you saying that the scientists are looking for another confirmation of the existing data, so that we can guarantee its veracity?

I am interested in financial implications and timescales for implementation. The committee has received written evidence about fishers being concerned about the level of investment that they will have to make to meet the requirements, should the system come into being. The effect will not be felt equally across the various fishing activities or perhaps even across different sizes of vessels and so on. Such equipment is in place in various places around the world, including Canada, the US, New Zealand and other parts of the UK, which are also looking to bring in a wider model. How appropriate is it that fishers should pay the full costs associated with the purchase, installation and on-going maintenance of REM equipment, and is it clear what those costs would be?

A range of estimates is contained in the business and regulatory impact assessment. Does anybody on the panel have examples from other places in the world where the technology is used of how Governments and fishers coped with the costs associated with it? Have there been any incentives, or has the cost been met by industry?

Do you have examples from other sectors in which high compliance is required, such as animal welfare? Perhaps there is monitoring equipment in abattoirs for compliance? Is there a comparable example of an incentive being provided or a cost being met by the Government?