Chamber and committees

Yes, thank you.

I will bring in Mike Robinson and then Beatrice Morrice on the same questions.

I am sorry—we have lost Mike Robinson. I invite Beatrice Morrice to come in until Mike Robinson’s connection settles down.

We will certainly take that issue away. The point about not leaving some of your best players on the bench is a very good one when it comes to women in agriculture. It is a good point to finish on.

I have a very brief final question. We have touched on budgets, LFASS and so on, but a seismic shift is coming for farming and rural areas, given the challenges ahead. Do we need additional funding to bring forward such policies and to pump prime new projects? Given that we hear so much about the health benefits of better biodiversity in the environment that we live in, and that land managers and farmers have a big part to play in that, does the sector need to have an increased budget? Do you think that your arguments will be listened to and that such budgets will be delivered in the future?

Thank you. I think that Stephen Young wants to come in on that and have the last word.

The session has run over by five minutes, but I am quite sure that the cabinet secretary will not mind having had to wait five minutes as we got your views on such an important topic.

I thank you for your contributions and suspend the meeting briefly to allow a changeover of witnesses.

Do members have further questions? As there are no more questions, we move to item 3. I invite Mairi Gougeon to move motion S6M-00997.

Motion moved,

That the Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee recommends that the Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2021 [draft] be approved.—[Mairi Gougeon]

Motion agreed to.

Finally, is the committee content to delegate authority to me to sign off our report on our deliberations on this affirmative SSI?

Members indicated agreement.

Before we move on from land use, Rachael Hamilton has a brief supplementary question.

Before I bring in Jim Fairlie with a supplementary, I have a question for Beatrice Morrice. You suggested that the NFUS was concerned about the Australia deal. I would like you to elaborate on that, given that there are, as far as I understand it, bilateral safeguard mechanisms to ensure that there is a safety net for industries if they face serious consequences as a result of an increase in imports. It seems fairly unlikely that there will be a big increase in imports from Australia. There are also existing policies that address the fear about the importation of food that has been produced to lower standards. It is clear from the manifesto that the UK Government will not compromise on environmental protection, animal welfare or food standards in any trade negotiations. Could you elaborate on where your concerns come from?

Certainly not. There is going to be a seismic shift in rural areas in relation to agriculture policy, biodiversity and so on. Do we need an increase in budget to deliver that?