It seems strange to bring in a law if it cannot be enforced. Signing up to something that is unenforceable could bring discredit to the Government. I would be grateful if the committee would agree to seek guidance on that.

Although I have attended the committee and made a declaration of my interests before, considering the subject that we will discuss today, I want to make a slightly more detailed declaration of my interests so that there is no dubiety about my interest in the subject.

I am a member of a family farming partnership that employs three people full time. I have been farming in my own right for more than 40 years. I run a pedigree Simmental beef herd. I grow barley and vegetables. I farm not only land that I own, but also land that I am a tenant of. To save any dubiety, I note that I receive agricultural subsidies under the current schemes—the single farm payment scheme, the less favoured area support scheme and the beef calf scheme.

Thank you, convener. I thought that it was worth putting that on the record at the start.

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?

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.

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 thank Colin Smyth for that intervention, because I clearly agree with him. The deposit return scheme is something that we should encourage, provided that it works properly. That is why, when the SSI came before the committee—and I had a chance to consider its contents—I abstained in the vote on it.

I would like to make it clear at the outset that, although I am a member of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, I am speaking on behalf of my party.

I begin by stating the obvious: the drinks industry is watching the actions of this Government with absolute despair. At the same time as the outgoing First Minister is urging drinks producers to sign up to the deposit return scheme, her three potential replacements are already promising to make changes to it, and Kate Forbes has even warned that the scheme could cause “economic carnage”. However, that does not seem to have discouraged Lorna Slater. The Greens are pressing ahead with the SSI, whether the Scottish National Party likes it or not, which makes one wonder whether the tail is now wagging the dog in this coalition Government.

Parliament is being asked to support an SSI that allows penalties to be levied in a scheme that is not yet in place, that has already suffered two delays, and with which only 16 per cent of producers across Scotland have registered.

At the weekend, the minister did not even know whether the small drinks producers would be exempt for a further year but, today, she appears to want to set up a police force to enforce the scheme. That sounds a lot like putting the cart before the horse—a logistical nightmare that the minister seems to be drawing inspiration from.

I turn to the nuts and bolts of the SSI.

If I can finish this sentence, I will take an intervention.

Now, in the cool light of day and having had a further chance to consider it, I no longer consider it appropriate to move on with the proposal.

I am aware of examples in the Highlands where victims have not been notified in advance of when the trial is going to court, and they have sometimes read the outcome in the press. Can the Lord Advocate confirm whether that issue is widespread throughout Scotland and, if so, how many victims have not received advance notification of trials in the past year?