Chamber and committees

We are all struggling to work out who is going to answer. Maybe I can help. We will hear from Daniela Diz and Colin Galbraith, and then we will have to move on to the next question.

You have 30 seconds to answer it. [Laughter.]

It is a huge question, so it is only reasonable that you tackle part of it, Dr Long, and then we can go to Colin Galbraith and Ruth Mitchell—and Daniela Diz, too, at a push; I will not exclude you, Daniela.

Ruth, did you want to come in briefly?

That is interesting, and I will be interested to hear from Colin Galbraith in due course what his take is. Resilience is really important. To hear that, in southern Scotland, we are now at the stage that we might have reached maximum golden eagle numbers is really exciting. Yes, we need to spread that across the country, but it needs to be done in a way that ensures biodiversity.

Thank you. It has been a really interesting evidence session. I could have spent all morning asking all the questions—I think that we all could. Thank you very much for your contributions.

I now briefly suspend the meeting to allow us to set up for the next agenda item.

I bring in Daniela Diz briefly.

Thank you. Those of you who are observant will have noticed that I have not asked a question yet. I have saved my question for the end, but, interestingly, it leads directly on from the previous question, so it is perfectly placed.

Having spent 40 years of my life doing environmental management, one thing that I have learned is that you cannot be all things to all people—and you cannot be all things to all species. For example, managing capercaillies in Abernethy forest cannot be done without control of pine martens, which are the biggest threat to capercaillies, and we have spent millions of pounds on that.

Similarly, I am taken by Deborah Long’s comments about deer. It is about carrying capacity, and the capacity not being the one that damages the environment. Sheep are as big a threat in my mind, as are hares on the high montane places of Scotland, where they will clip the heather and blueberries to such an extent that they cannot grow. Therefore, management is a difficult balance.

On the basis that I do not want to make Scotland—or see Scotland being made—exclusive for any species, I think that there is room for zoning, where we accept that we can achieve things for different species in different zones and therefore achieve something for all of Scotland nationally. A quick yes-or-no answer would suffice, but I suspect that I might not get that from the witnesses. I will quickly go around the table to ask whether the witnesses believe that zoning could play a part in ensuring species and habitat enhancement across Scotland. Ruth Mitchell, I will start with you.

The question will be brief, but the answers may not be. I cannot account for those.

I share the sentiments that have been expressed. We do not want to have a complicated system of forms to fill out. That is not good for farmers or for agents. We do not want to move to a system that encourages the secondary users of our products to benefit by driving prices down for producers—the farmers.

My question is twofold. How do we stop those who use our products siphoning off funds that are meant to improve habitats and environments on farms? Do you think that the Government has left enough time to model the outcomes of what it is suggesting? What the Government did in 2015 did not achieve the stated aims. I put those questions to Andrew Moir and then to Jim Walker.

I want to follow that through. Surely it is a mixture. One side of the issue is improving the efficiency of the animals. If there are cattle, it is a matter of reducing the calving interval and the time that it takes to get the animal into the food chain, and therefore having fewer animals around.

I cannot follow your logic if you are saying that grassland that gets to a stage of being carbon neutral should be used for something else. If grassland is properly looked after, it does not become carbon neutral; it becomes able to produce and sequester carbon from the atmosphere through the use of animals that put manure back on to the ground. I do not see the circularity of your argument. It seems to be far too segmented. Perhaps you can convince me that I am wrong.

Good farmers would never stop managing the grassland properly to ensure that it does both. That is what I do not understand. You are suggesting leaving it alone. You cannot eat leaving it alone.

With regard to the Sea Fisheries (Amendment) Regulations 2023, my concern relates to more bass being seen around the coast of Scotland as a result of the warming of the seas. They are caught regularly—they have been caught right up as far as Tongue. The Scottish Government and the UK Government propose that no more than two sea bass may be retained per fisherman per day during the open season, which runs from March to December. How will they police that?