Seòmar agus comataidhean

I appreciate that. Your answer was a little bit more optimistic and hopeful than I was anticipating, so that is good. My second question is, how will your markets change over the coming years? The evidence in relation to salmon is just remarkable. Our briefing says that, in 2019, 53,000 tonnes of Scottish salmon was exported to the EU but that, in 2023, the volume was around 44,000 tonnes. Is that a trend?

Scottish salmon was the UK’s biggest food export in 2023, with France and the US leading global demand. The product is essential to Scotland's economy. Of course, all the sectors represented on our panel are essential to Scotland’s economy, but, if that substantial drop in salmon exports is not reversed, and if there is not a prospect of significant growth in food exports, for example, then Scotland will become poorer. That is pretty devastating. What does the future look like for your industries, and how do we ensure that our nation is not poorer because of the impacts on your industries?

I cannot ask my question without first acknowledging how horrendous it has been for you over the past few years.

I have a question that is a bit more macro in nature. It is about how you see markets changing if nothing improves in relation to the barriers or tariffs to import and export.

I was struck by your story, James Macsween, about exporting to Singapore. Presumably, if those prices continue to be passed on to customers, it becomes a more unaffordable product. I also assume that, in order to get your product into that market, you will have had to invest significantly in marketing and so on. If that trajectory continues, it will presumably have a more lasting impact on customers’ tastes or producers’ incentives.

I wonder how each of you see that panning out, particularly in relation to the impact on the Scottish economy. Ultimately, if your products become less profitable, that will have an impact on Scottish workers and so on. I want to take a step back from your immediate business and ask you, if there is no change, what you see as the most lasting impact on the Scottish economy in 10 years’ time—which could probably take the rest of the week.

That was the strategy that I was referring to. Thank you for that. Did you want to add anything, Daniel?

Alasdair Allan mentioned a report from the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission, and I will go back to that with a question about kennelling. The report says that evidence showed that greyhound kennels in Scotland are providing satisfactory levels of care, but it also says that there is a question about the proportion of their life that racing greyhounds are normally kennelled for and what impact that has on their welfare and care. I wonder what you would say about that.

You talked about the socialising that your dogs have access to. Do you think that that is the norm across the board? How would you respond to the SAWC’s suggestion that the fact that greyhounds are kept in kennels for so much of their lives does

“not appear compatible with giving dogs a good quality of life”?

I hear what you say about the welfare of dogs under your care and your view that they are likely to be treated better than pets. Last year, however, we heard from the GBGB about its new welfare strategy, which it said was starting to be implemented at the time. Do you have experience of it, and do you have any views on it? Do you think that it will lead to any change in practice?

The SAWC report talks about giving greyhounds access to paddocks or open areas in order to roam. How do you facilitate that?

I have a question about the evidence base that would be used to advise on the nature of any review. In your report, you emphasise—this is pretty obvious to all who have been watching the evolution of the TCA—that there is massive tension between political imperatives and what politicians feel under pressure to do, nearly always from their voter base, and a general civic position on the best way to drive reforms. I think that the horizon programme came out of that but, equally, it would not have happened without political pressure. This is obviously a big year from a political perspective. Where do you see the potential for the evidence base to inform change, rather than straight-up politics?

We have spoken to various stakeholders, as you will have done. Members of the farming and agriculture community, for example, have a list as long as their arms of changes that they want to see. What do such stakeholders need to do in order to progress those changes? Do they need to develop evidence, or would doing so be moot and irrelevant because, at the end of the day, changes will result from political pressure? I am sorry—that was almost an essay of a question.

Thank you.

It sounds like you are all in agreement with the Australian Deputy Prime Minister, who said that the big winner was Australia, full stop.

I will ask a follow-up question. Do you see any positive changes happening? For example, are the non-tariff barriers becoming smoother? Do you see any hope on the horizon that issues around costs will reduce?

I will also put to you a controversial question that I have asked other people who have given evidence. Do you have confidence that decision makers are going to be more inclined to make changes because of what the sector is saying, or will it just boil down to straight-up politics?