Chamber and committees

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.

Some of the things that I was going to ask about have already been picked up on. Could the 2021 statutory animal licensing framework be extended to include greyhound racing and could there be a licensing approach that might address some of our concerns? With my former local authority hat on, I wonder what the implications would be for local government if that were to be extended. My plea, I guess, is that Government actively looks at that matter and at ensuring that any regulations that come forward are considered by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and licensing officers and that their concerns are taken into account. Is this one of the only ways in which we can have more regulation in this area, given the crossover impact of people in Scotland racing their dogs in England?

I understand the distinction that needs to be made, but following on from my colleague Emma Roddick’s point, we are taking evidence in this place on breeders who have 40 dogs in kennels in Scotland and are racing them in tracks in England. The welfare of those dogs is of paramount concern to this committee and indeed the petitioners. It comes back to the 2006 act and the balancing out of what is the acceptable level of harm that may come to those dogs and what are the welfare concerns. I do not know whether you have any points to come back on.

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?