Chamber and committees

Sure. My question is on Vicki Swales’s point, but yes.

On that point, if you are listening to farmers, why are other groups, such as the Farm Advisory Service, being set up?

I feel that I have heard conflicting messages from the panels this week and last. The ARIOB has said that there is not the required capacity among the agricultural advisers, but Jim Walker said that he could only describe the net zero measures as embarrassing because farmers are already carrying out the audits off their own backs.

If we want farmers to be successful and to be part of meeting the net zero targets, surely the ARIOB should be engaging with them to ensure that they are part of it, rather than creating a new group of people in the middle. We should be bringing the economic benefit back to the farmers Vicki Swales described, although perhaps not in those words. We have heard that some are leading the way but that most of the farmers are not carrying this out. I am really frustrated about this, because it seems as though farmers are the last in the group to get the benefit from this.

Can I get some clarification on that? Would the CCC rather that that percentage of land was grazed?

Okay.

I will bring in Jackie McCreery to allow a fair balance of voices.

We had better leave it there. Thank you.

Did you say 60 per cent?

Can I get some clarification? Does the upland that you are talking about, which is being grazed by sheep, have peat?

I just want to pick up on how you answered Jim Fairlie’s question, Chris. Basically, if we look at it in black and white, you are saying that we should cut livestock numbers. You say that you want to support farmers, but cutting livestock numbers is not supporting farmers. However, the CCC also says that offshoring food production is wrong. How are we meant to feed our country?