 Felly, wrth gwrs, rym ni'n lleiwgrif yn ei rai o'peth i'r fwrdd maesol yn ddod am gyfioeddol ar y cwmbr, ac yn ei ddod i'r gael gyda'r Llywodraeth. Oes y ddiddordeb gyda'r cymdeithas, mae'n cyfnod o'r cwestiynau arferfwywr. A'r cyfnod o'r cyfnod o'r cyfnod o'r cyfnod o'r cyfnod o'r cyfnod o'r cyfnod o'r cyffredinol Fy enw i mi gymwidellwch am ein chefnog ac fïnneaccion hwnnecaid a chi idio i'r unid gan unigcyn Federfyn ent holderiaeth? Rydwy i ni'n gynynnu rymlraegach rydw i ein cwestiynau nhw am y gyrswnig ac adroddedgön rydyn i'r adfryd i'r anesthenion. Ie beth ar hyn gyda Cysnod Yrhwm Morrys Gwldin! Rai siŵr Ofert, rydaw hi'n gyd, foldol Services Hyflol Cym crossed y dyfod o'r defnydd o索rfaf Da Hatraedd? We have taken a number of significant steps over the past few years to promote the welfare of dogs, including the introduction of new animal licensing regulations, stronger maximum penalties for the most serious animal welfare offences and fins law to provide additional protection for police dogs. Following the granting of legislative consent for the relevant parts of the UK kept animals bill, we continue to work with other administrations on proposals to restrict the number of puppies that can be imported in one vehicle and to prevent the importation of puppies aged less than six months, heavily pregnant females or dogs that have had their ears cropped or subject to other mutilations that would be illegal in the UK. We also have a programme for government commitment to consult on extending licensing legislation to animal care services, which could include dog training, walking and grooming services. Maurice Golden. I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer. Stealing a dog can affect the wellbeing of both the animal and owner, so it is not just a criminal justice matter, it is also an animal welfare issue. Unfortunately, the law currently regards stealing a dog as stealing an object. Does the cabinet secretary understand why myself, animal welfare organisations and others are calling for the welfare impact to be recognised in law? I absolutely appreciate the points that the member has made in relation to this, and I know that that is an issue that he is very passionate about, as are others. Theft of a dog is a very serious matter, which I know can cause real anxiety and upset to owners, and it is only right that the criminal justice system is able to deal effectively with perpetrators of dog theft. As the member alluded to, theft is a common law offence in Scotland with penalties up to life imprisonment available. Courts will take into account the circumstances of any theft when sentencing, including if a loved family pet has been stolen. Dogs and other pets are not the same as inanimate objects. When a theft of a pet occurs, it can cause significant upset. I appreciate the work and the action that the member is looking to undertake in this regard, and I will be more than happy to meet him to discuss his proposals further. I have four supplementaries. I want to take all of them. I want to play again, brief questions and brief answers. I am very favourable to Maurice Golden's proposal. I hope that he will reciprocate with mine. Cabinet Secretary is aware of my welfare of dogs, Scotland Bill, which fell last session due to parliamentary pressure. That, of course, is to deter prospective owners from purchasing online and from the horrible puppy factory farms. Can I ask the cabinet secretary to wish to ambush her if the Scottish Government will look favourably on my proposal, which I will lodge shortly? I appreciate the member's question, because, as she rightly states, I know that this is an issue that she has worked on for a long time. I know that it is a matter that she is very passionate about, as are other members across the chamber, too. The Scottish Government does welcome any proposal that looks to improve animal welfare in Scotland. We will, of course, carefully consider the contents of Christine Grahame's bill, and I really look forward to discussing in due course the measures that will be set out in it. On the issue of animal welfare, why does the cabinet secretary think that hunting with a full pack of dogs is suddenly not cruel just because a hunt has a licence? This is a matter that my colleague the minister for environment and land reform is working on. As the member will know, there has been a consultation out on the proposals that will be brought forward in due course, but I would be happy to have the minister follow-up with the member. Mark Ruskell. The Greyhound board of Great Britain has finally released injury data from Greyhound racing at Shorefield, revealing a doubling of injuries in 2020 compared to 2018. Given the growing evidence of the systematic abuse of Greyhounds, including doping, does the cabinet secretary agree with me that it is time to explore all options for further regulation of this brutal industry? I would just say to the member that we currently do not have plans to ban the racing of Greyhounds in Scotland, but we would consider any recommendations that the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission may make on Greyhound welfare in due course. I would also state that we consider that the provisions of the Animal Health and Welfare Act 2006, as amended, are sufficient to ensure that action can be taken if the welfare of Greyhounds, whether they are still racing or retired, is not being met. The provisions of part of the Act apply to all people who are responsible for animals, including breeders, trainers and owners of racing Greyhounds. What more can the Scottish Government do to ensure the safety of latch-key dogs, dogs that are able to escape from private gardens, and in some cases, they can be responsible for livestock worrying, which is of particular relevance in rural and island communities at this time of year? One point that I would highlight in that regard is in relation to microchipping, for example. That is an effective method to identify animals and help to reunite dogs with owners where a dog has been lost, whether it has been stolen. The Government made it compulsory for all dogs to be microchipped and for contact details to be kept up-to-date, which helps to ensure the swift return of lost dogs. It is standard practice for enforcement agencies to scan all dogs coming into their care, but I am more than happy to follow up with the member on the particular issues that she has raised today. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the comments of NFU President Manette Batters, who stated that the UK Government is focused on anything other than domestic food production. The Scottish Government recognises the importance of domestic food production and particularly in these uncertain times. We also recognise the huge challenges that are faced by our farmers and crofters in producing our food, given the rising costs due to supply issues and the overall impact of Brexit on the agricultural sector. We therefore know how important maintaining support is for the industry. It provides vital stability, it provides certainty and that is why we will not remove direct payments and we have also committed to maintaining basic payments at current levels for the duration of this Parliament. That does not appear to be the Tory's approach in England, so I can understand the NFU President's frustration in that regard. Given how little George Eustis or any of the deaf ministers ever want to talk about food production or food security with me or any of the other devolved Government ministers, I absolutely share that frustration. Michelle Thomson. I thank the minister for that answer and I know that this SNP Government has a strong commitment to active farming and food production. Given the recent comments of the chief executive of Scotland Food and Drink on the additional costs, complexity and risks which Brexit has put on the food and drinks business, looking to do business with the EU, does the minister share my concerns that small businesses might in effect give up their trade with the EU as a result of the additional red tape? I do share that concern and I think that it is a very real concern because as a result of the UK's bad Brexit deal, Scottish Food and Drink businesses have to now comply with a whole range of non-tariff measures, whether that's export health certificates, the customs declarations which can include, we know, burdensome paperwork and a range of additional and increased costs if they want to export to the EU. The Scottish Government repeatedly warned the UK Government of the damage that would be caused by EU exit, which was astonishingly and recklessly pursued during the course of the pandemic and some businesses are now struggling to export goods to existing customers in the EU or they've completely lost that trade altogether. These are the inevitable consequences of the UK Government's decision to take us out of the customs union and single market and thereby agreeing to the imposition of third country treatment in customs and regulatory terms. I think that it's also important to remember that in the first nine months of last year, Scotland's food exports to the EU fell by 10% compared to the same period in 2019, so the impact of that couldn't be more stark. Supplementary, I call Rachel Hamilton. Thank you, Presiding Officer. What we saw published yesterday in the vision of the Scottish Government on the future of food production and farming was then on detail. On page 5, and I quote this, emissions from agriculture are still too high. We are not managing to do simple, obvious things. Blaming farmers for food production emissions is a cop-out. Even the Scotland Food and Drink Ambition 2030 only mentions climate change once. Cabinet Secretary, why has your Government failed to do the obvious things, as you call them, like providing proper funding to farmers and a meaningful fleshed-out plan? Cabinet Secretary. I think it's a bit rich of the Scottish Tories to talk about proper funding when we are the Government that's committed to providing funding for our farmers, committed to supporting food production and direct payments. I really have to refute the first accusation that was made there about blaming farmers because that is absolutely not what we are doing here. We recognise that emissions are too high and that's why we are supporting our farmers and crofters to lower their emissions and to do what they can to enhance biodiversity. That's part of the vision that we set out. It will also form part of the proposals that we will bring forward as part of a future agricultural bill next year. For the supplementary, Willie Rennie. We need to apply more pressure to the UK Government to change its approach to the seasonal workers programme. It's having a devastating effect on farms in my constituency who have shrunk in the last year. Last year we had rotten fruit and veg in the field. We won't even have the plants this year because we don't have the workers. What discussions has the minister had with the UK minister about this? Is she hopeful that they're going to change their approach? First of all, a vitally important point that Willie Rennie has raised in that regard would acutely be aware of the concerns over the seasonal agricultural workers scheme. What was particularly frustrating about that was the announcement that was made on Christmas Eve with no warning or discussion with devolved administrations. That is also a frustration that we have with the UK Government. We have monthly meetings with the UK Government and other devolved administrations to talk about common issues. We have continually raised the importance of migration. We have sought meetings with the Home Office ministers in an attempt to discuss that. Despite asking for that every single month, following that up with letters in between these meetings, we are yet to see that meeting take place, which is really frustrating and disappointing when we are willing to work constructively with the UK Government to find solutions to those problems. We have also put forward a number of suggestions as to changes that could be made. I have also brought forward proposals for rural visa pilots, too. Unfortunately, you can only go so far when one partner is willing to engage in that discussion, but the other is unwilling to do so. We continue to try. Question 3 has been withdrawn before. To ask the Scottish Government what supports it can provide to Scottish dairy farmers to promote sustainability and provide fairness in the supply chain. The Scottish Government is absolutely committed to supporting our dairy farmers to farm now and into the future. We have ensured that dairy farmers are able to access similar support to what they had under the common agricultural policy before Brexit, such as the basic payment scheme and greening payment. Sustainability is one of the key features of the Scottish dairy strategy, which was launched in February last year. We are also working on the introduction of mandatory written contracts within the dairy sector, providing more transparency and fairness to the sector. I hope that more dairy farmers might also consider converting to organic land to double the amount of agricultural land in organic production. The cabinet secretary will be aware of the recent negative press that targeted the dairy industry as a whole. Does she agree with me that Scottish dairy farmers operate to some of the highest welfare standards due to the robust and comprehensive legal frameworks protecting animal welfare? In recognising that many of our dairy farmers are losing or making very little money, the value and provenance of milk is underestimated in the food supply chain. Can I ask the cabinet secretary what consideration of supports can be given to dairy farmers to assist them working towards sustainable and regenerative farming perhaps with an incentive to focus on school milk provision? I would just start off by saying that I absolutely agree with what the member has outlined there because I've visited a number of dairy farms and farmers in Scotland and I just don't recognise the recent portrayal of dairy farming as bearing any relationship to what happens here in Scotland. We have robust legislation to protect animal welfare and to enable our farmers to operate to the highest standards which they do. We want to see our dairy sector thriving in the future through the dairy growth board. Domestic and international markets are scanned for those looking to opportunities to increase trade and retail opportunities and to supply our high quality milk into value-added products such as cheese. We also want to see more of our products in place in the public sector such as in our schools. I know that the member will be acutely aware and she has mentioned it before in the chamber about the work that Mosgail organic farm does and the role that they have played and they now supply the whole of East Ayrshire and all the schools there too. That is more of what we want to see through our Food for Life programme but I could also just take the opportunity to commend Mosgail farm since I've mentioned them there in the work that they have done recently in relation to the war in Ukraine and they put out an appeal for collections to see the work that they are undertaking and they have just done such a huge effort to try and help with the effort in Ukraine and I really just want to take this opportunity to commend Bryce Cunningham and Mosgail organic farm for all the work that they've done and that they continue to do in supporting that effort. Question 5, Liam Kerr. To ask the Scottish Government what recent discussions the Rural Affairs Secretary has had with EU Government regarding the use of gene editing in agriculture. I'm aware that there is on-going consideration at EU level on novel genomic techniques including gene editing and how these relate to existing GM legislation. The Scottish Government's policy is to stay aligned. We're practicable with the EU and we're closely monitoring the EU's position on this issue. Liam Kerr. Thank you, cabinet secretary, for that answer. Gene editing, which of course is not gene genetic modification, is backed by some of the Scottish farmers and has been shown to have benefits for them, animals and consumers. With trials now given the go ahead in England, our farmers are in danger of being left behind commercially and competitively as this Government won't permit it in Scotland. The NFUS has recently expressed support for trials in Scotland. Professor Whitelaw of the Roslyn Institute has come out as a strong advocate. Will the cabinet secretary listen to the experts, put aside any dogmatic adherence to EU legislation and give trials of gene editing the green light in Scotland? Cabinet secretary. I would say that, of course, we continue to listen. As I've already said, Scotland's policy on GMOs hasn't changed. We do remain opposed to the use of GM in farming to protect the clean green brand of Scotland's £15 billion food and drink industry. We're absolutely aware of Defler's plans to review the English regulatory definitions of a genetically modified organism to exclude those organisms that have been produced by gene editing and other genetic technologies if they could have been developed by traditional breeding. We are considering the implications for Scotland and will, of course, continue to engage with Defler, with the Welsh and Northern Irish Governments to ensure that devolved competences are respected. I'm brief, supplementary, genuine mental. As someone who eagerly desires to see Scotland become a good food nation and whose constituency is rich in some of the best produce you could hope to find anywhere. Does the cabinet secretary share my view that we must engage with this subject very carefully to ensure that we do not undermine public confidence in the high standards of Scotland's agricultural sector and the quality of our produce? Yes, I very much do, because, as I'd previously mentioned, Scotland's policy on GMOs hasn't changed. We know that Defler is clear that they want to make changes and we have to ensure that whatever changes the UK Government don't impact on Scotland. We are in discussion with Defler to ensure that a GMO-free Scotland isn't compromised. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on what discussions the rural affairs secretary has had with the land reform minister regarding the future funding of regional land use partnerships. I'm in regular discussion with the minister for the environment and land reform on regional land use partnership pilots that are funded from the net zero energy and transport portfolio budget. Those pilots are aiming to test approaches that facilitate collaboration at a regional level. They are looking to take a natural capital approach to maximising the contribution that our land managers make in addressing the climate and environmental crises. We have provided some resource funding this financial year to support pilot establishment and will continue to fund them next year. Funding from the pilots will inform decision making on future development in the future. I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer. RLUPs including D&G and the Scottish Borders help national local government communities and land owners and stakeholders to find ways to optimise land use in a fair and inclusive way meeting objectives and supporting our net zero journey. Can the cabinet minister provide any further information on how the pilot projects have worked? I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer. Last year, we announced that we would support five pilot RLUPs to first establish themselves and then develop regional land use frameworks by the end of 2023. The pilots are presently at two earliest stage in their development to be fully assessed on that work but should these pilots prove successful, we have committed in our programme for government to develop plans for a second phase as of next year. RLUPs, as I previously intimated, are taking a natural capital-led approach to the development of the frameworks and we hope to have those in place next year and take forward further development from there. To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to ensure that farms are at the cutting edge of innovation and technology. Our vision for Scottish agriculture includes an undertaking to work with industry to improve business resilience, productivity through greater deployment of innovation and technology. Through our strategic research programme, we offer in excess of £46 million each year to ensure that we remain at the cutting edge of innovation and technology. In addition, we continue to deliver our commitment to develop vertical farming ambitions, support precision farming through the sustainable agricultural capital grant scheme and offer a testbed for innovation projects through the knowledge, transfer and innovation fund. Stephen Kerr, at the cutting edge but apparently fairly ignorant of what gene editing is. It really is despairing to think about what qualitative advice the cabinet secretary must be getting on an issue as plain as the daylight in terms of the benefits that gene editing can bring. Setting aside any SNP fetish that there is about the EU what assessment has the minister made of the economic impact of continuing her ban on gene editing of crops? When was the last review undertaken? What did it conclude in terms of the effect this ban is having on Scottish farming's competitiveness internationally? Will she publish the advice that she's receiving? As I've said in a previous response to another question, Scotland's policy on GMOs hasn't changed and it won't change because we remain opposed to the use of GM in farming because ultimately that protects the clean green brand of Scotland's £15 billion food and drink industry. When it comes to gene editing, as I've already stated in the previous question that I had, that this is a situation that we are continuing to monitor and to follow closely. Highly innovative sector of agriculture seed potato farming. I just would like to hear the cabinet secretary's response to the UK Government potentially striking a Canada style deal, but recognising that it's still wholly inadequate in terms of repairing the damage that a hard Brexit has done to this highly valued part of Scotland's agricultural sector at least in the north-east. Margins of relevance, but cabinet secretary, briefly please. I absolutely share Gillian Martin's view on this and particularly this is something that is particularly relevant for our north-east and the industry there. I continue to be extremely disappointed by the UK Government's lack of progress in this issue and in securing an equivalence agreement with the EU because the loss of the EU and Northern Ireland markets happened quite literally overnight and it's been a significant blow to the sector but to be clear it is a direct result of the UK Government choice to pursue a hard Brexit and the lack of commitment on dynamic alignment with the EU and the Scottish Government has been and we will continue to press the UK Government to seek an urgent resolution to the EU decision. To ask the Scottish Government how the 2022 regulations on the prohibition of fishing in the Firth of Clyde will impact on fishing businesses. Cabinet secretary. The Scottish Government has continued seasonal Clyde's cod spawn enclosure for 2022 and 2023 from February to April without exemptions. However, the enclosure has been adjusted to make it more targeted and to make it more focused. We believe that this measure will provide a higher chance of stock recovery and contribute to a more sustainable fishery in the west of Scotland. For 11 weeks, fishers are not allowed to fish in key spawning grounds for cod. This is crucial for the long-term sustainability of the stock because despite the seasonal closure being in place since 2001 the stock has shown very little sign of recovery. Responsible fisheries management means ensuring that we get the right balance between socio-economic and environmental outcomes. In this case, we have done this by ensuring the right protections for spawning cod while also ensuring that some fishing can continue to take place in surrounding areas. I hear what the cabinet secretary says but I wonder if she too has heard Elaine White who spoke powerfully yesterday on behalf of the Clyde Fishermen's Association at the Rural Affairs Committee. She made clear that the Firth of Clyde closures have left many fishermen with no understanding on finding alternative work. Of course, that is causing unbelievable stress. Many of them have had lifetime careers. Furthermore, she is concerned that this may lead to us having no fishermen in this area and that the Clyde coast will end up being a forgotten coast in terms of fishing. Will the cabinet secretary agree to listen to the industry and also out on compensation plans to support those who have been affected by this peremptory enclosure? As well as perhaps giving a guarantee that she will consult with the industry in advance before taking such important measures that have such a profound impact on the industry in future. I would just like to state that we are committed to listening to industry and that is part of the process that led to this and led to the decision that was taken where we took a pragmatic approach to protect the exact areas where cod are spawning and, as a result of the scientific and pragmatic approach that we took, we ended up producing the overall size of the area, which I think means that we have the protections in place while enabling more fitting activity to continue. In relation to compensation in line with Scottish Government policy we would not be providing financial compensation for areas closed in order to protect fish spawning such as those in the Firth of Clyde. That approach is consistent with that for management measures including the national cod avoidance plan and MPAs. Very, very brief supplementary, Kenneth Gibson. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Can the cabinet secretary advise the chamber how Firth of Clyde fishing businesses will ultimately benefit from an increase in the tonnage of fish that we will be able to catch in future years through the conservation being introduced by the Scottish Government and, indeed, could she touch on the benefits to the marine environment? Briefly, cabinet secretary. Well, this closure is specifically aimed at introducing more eggs and, hence, larvae and, eventually, adult fish. So, if they are not protected, they won't have the eggs to begin with and the biomass certainly wouldn't be improving. But introducing measures like this ultimately gives a higher chance of stock recovery for fish stocks on the west coast and it will help benefit those who make a direct living from the sea, onshore support businesses and the wider Clyde fishing community and an increase in availability of fish will also help reduce the reliance on key shellfish species on businesses to diversify. Thank you. That concludes portfolio questions. There will be a brief pause before we move to the next item of business.