Chamber and committees

I will continue with that theme. I declare an interest of a kind: like Jenni Minto, I represent an island constituency.

I am not clear what you are recommending to crofters. On the one hand, you are saying that, rather than having livestock, they might be better off having trees. On the other hand, you say—quite rightly—that you would not want trees to be planted on peatland. In places such as the west of Scotland, peatland is pretty much all that there is. What do you recommend that crofters should do instead of having livestock?

I am sorry to interrupt, but I think that you misunderstood my question—perhaps I did not put it very well. My point is that the animals cannot be just grass fed. In terms of livestock, you cannot have agriculture, as anyone would understand it, without bringing in feed to island and west coast areas. It cannot be done—there would be no livestock.

I asked Jim Walker what the distance was to mainstream. I do not know what the distance is to the end of his contribution, but maybe he can address that point before he finishes.

It is interesting to hear the arguments develop about what agriculture might look like in the future.

I am thinking about my part of Scotland, and the answers that were given to some of my previous questions tended to suggest that there should be less agriculture and that people should be paid not to do agriculture. There might be a place for that, but I am interested in what you said about diet change. That implies that a massive cultural change is needed at the level of supermarkets. If that is the model for the future and the means by which we avoid the offshoring of carbon—a situation in which we do not produce as much food but we ask people in countries that do not care very much about carbon output to produce more for us—how on earth do we navigate through the cultural change and the change in the attitudes of supermarkets that are required to achieve the change in diet that you are talking about?

This is not meant to be a provocative question. Is that because the arable sector has more means than other sectors to invest?

I am sorry, but—again, I understand the point that you have made about restoring peatland; we want to restore peatland—what is the business model for a crofter who might have a total agricultural subsidy of £2,000 or £3,000 a year, as most crofters do, to invest in something else that has not been specified in what you have said to us?

I support diversification. I realise that we cannot use the uplands only for sheep, but I do not understand what form of agriculture you are recommending for the kind of person who I have just described if it is not about trees or livestock.

I am sorry if this question sounds as if it is on a similar theme, but I think that it diverges slightly from what has already been asked.

Again, I am supportive of what has been said about diversification and the need to tackle emissions. However, one of the ways in which we have been talking about emissions has been in terms of animal numbers, and specifically whether the dependency on, say, cattle feed should be part of the business model going forward. We have talked about livestock numbers, but is it sustainable for people to use feed other than grass as a model? After all, it is difficult to see how agriculture would exist on the west or north-west coast of Scotland if no one was allowed to bring in cattle feed. What are your views on animals being grass fed only and on other feedstuffs?

As important as those issues are, perhaps the person to whom we are speaking can, before he finishes, address the question that I asked: what is the distance to mainstream?

My question is: do you view agriculture that involves bringing in feed other than grass as sustainable?

Thank you.