Seòmar agus comataidhean

We also need capacity in processing and slaughtering. A lot of those lads came from eastern Europe, went home and have not come back. If we are talking about resilience and profitability, we need people in those jobs. However, the Scottish Government has no locus in any of the immigration policies, so how does the bill rectify that?

The CCC is a statutory adviser to the Scottish and UK Governments. The Scottish Parliament signed off the Climate Change Act 2019, so it is clearly part of the equation. However, I take your earlier point about the science. When we had an evidence session with the CCC, it said that older grazed grass will probably sequester less carbon, but there is no actual science on that.

When we are talking about resilience, we must talk about whether there is a long-term future for the livestock sector in Scotland, given the numbers that you have just given us. Do you know of any work that is being done to look at the science that will probably tell us that old grass sequesters less carbon?

Convener, you asked the panel whether we could do anything with the bill. Given that Brexit is clearly the biggest cause of the lack of labour coming into the country compared to what we had previously, how could the bill alter that, given that immigration is reserved?

I am very disappointed that you do not mention Galloways. I do like my Galloway cow. I know that I was very specific in that. Is there anything else that others want to talk about on natural issues? I go back to traditional breeds wintering out better, rather than needing to be in sheds. Is there anything else that the rest of the panel wants to add to that?

I am certainly not asking you to kick the supermarkets. I want to get to the factual position of how the farming community sells its products to be profitable. It is either through Government support or through the market or it is a combination of both. If the export market is constrained in any way, the supermarkets go to war with each other, and it is always the primary producer that pays the price for that, in terms of how much the supermarkets take out of the marketplace. Do supermarkets have a responsibility to play more of a role in making sure that there is food resilience for the people of the country?

Sorry, I am hogging the session. I apologise. With the convener’s permission I will ask one final question. If we are to get consumers in this country to demand Scotch beef, Scotch lamb or specially selected pork, surely we have to be looking for a point of differentiation. That cannot be just the badge. It has to be something else, such as eating quality, taste and all those kinds of things.

I have a problem with our grading system. Other parts of the world are looking at grading their beef, in particular, with a focus on eating quality. My view is that there is a much better eating quality with native breeds—Angus, Galloway, Highlanders—but we are not looking at the shape of the animal before it goes to slaughter. What is QMS’s view on the grading system?

Does Mark Bird or Madeleine Campbell want to come in on that?

I want to go back to the point about euthanasia. I presume that, when you get to the point at which a dog is going to be euthanised because it is unsuitable for rehoming, that is because of a severe injury, the dog’s temperament or whatever. How did you manage to reduce the number from 190 to 13? What made a difference? Why did people change their minds about euthanasia?

I have to admit that I have never been to a dog track in my life and I have no idea what it is like, but I have raced pigeons, I have been to agility tests and sheepdog trials, and I have worked with animals most of my working life.

What I am getting from all the evidence that we have been presented with and from hearing from what I would like to call the professional side of the business and from the side that Paul Brignal seems to be on is that two fundamentally different things are happening here. The amateur side that you are working on, Paul—and please correct me if I am wrong; this is my assumption—is based on people who own their dogs. The dogs are part of the family. They go to the racing and that is part of their everyday life. Those dogs are cared for and treated in the same way as pets, except that they race around a track, whereas some of the evidence that we have taken is that big breeders produce lots of pups specifically with the purpose of racing them at the highest level and, if those dogs do not hit the highest level, they are no longer needed by the people who breed them or train them. Am I wrong in making that assumption?

However, the evidence that we have taken from the SAWC and from the GBGB is that there is much more of a professional take on it, with the point of view that the dog is a commodity rather than part of the family. That is the point that I am trying to make.