Seòmar agus comataidhean

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?

I have a question about the lead-in time. It was communicated that there would perhaps be a two-year lead-in, but from what we have before us it appears that the lead-in time has been slightly truncated. Are there concerns about that? On procuring the equipment, we heard earlier today that people are not so sure whether the market will be able to cope with the demand that might be placed on it in the next wee while. Does anybody have comments on lead-in times?

I thank George and Daniel for joining us this morning. I am sorry that I am joining you remotely.

I have some questions on welfare. A key welfare concern that has been raised with the committee is about the risk of injury and fatalities when dogs are racing. How often are the dogs that you train injured during racing, what kind of injuries do they sustain and what are the risk factors?

Thanks very much for those answers. I ask for just a wee bit more clarification on what you mean by improvements to the track surface. Am I to understand that tracks are moving away from loose, gravelly surfaces to more compacted ones? We hear about many issues relating to animals going into a bend on an oval track, which is where injuries can occur. Will you say a little about the proposals for straight tracks? How could those work in practice?