Chamber and committees

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.

We are traditionally a “stack it high, sell it low” economy, and people in this country are used to cheap food. The supermarkets tell us that they respond to consumer demand. The cost of production in this country is always higher because of the standards that we set—standards that we, as a Government and as consumers, expect from our producers—yet that cost is never reflected in the shelf price. How do we ask consumers to put pressure on supermarkets and demand that product when people are struggling to pay their everyday bills?

I want to talk about natural impacts such as weather, pests and things like that, from a livestock producer’s point of view. A couple of years ago, the Galloway Cattle Society used a phrase, “The future is traditional”, to promote native breeds and their ability to outwinter—there is resilience and profitability. I go back to the question that I asked you earlier, Kate, about whether we are judging on eating quality or shape—my question is focused on cattle and sheep again, I am afraid. What role do the traditional native breeds have in ensuring that we have long-term profitability?

I will stop there, convener.

So, the dogs have these bonds and what have you. I am interested to hear that they are not being rehomed because they have never been homed. That goes back to the point that I was trying to make earlier: the dogs are bred for a specific purpose, which is to race only, whereas my understanding—I could be wrong—is that, at the amateur track, the dogs are very much part of the family. Please do not think that I am trying to make that differentiation between the two things.

At a professional track, do the owners have insurance? If I am a pet owner and my dog gets injured, I can have pet insurance that will allow that dog to be treated, up to a certain amount. Do you have insurance? Paul, do the folk who come to your racing track insure their dogs against injury on the basis that there is a risk that the dogs will get hurt when they are going round the track?

Thank you. I am pretty sure that that is the company where Professor Alice Stanton did the work on the red meat supply chains. I think that the committee will look at that.

I want to talk about profitability. Kate Rowell, this is for you. Farmers can make money in two ways. They can either sell to the market at the cost of production plus, to get a profit, or they can sell to the market and be supported by the Government so that the price of the product is not beyond the consumer’s ability to buy it. That is my understanding of the two ways in which a farm can be sustainable. What role do supermarkets play in that equation?