Jim Fairlie
Scottish National Party · Scotland
“The Scottish Government recognises the challenges that certain plant and animal species pose to agricultural businesses and is supporting farmers to manage those impacts.”
“Will the Government also commit to implementing a more pragmatic licence application scheme for the removal of species where the impact on business and other conservation species or habitats is clear? Jim Fairlie: As Amanda Lindsay points out, there is a management scheme.”
“The Scottish Government remains committed to that work. Indeed, in September, in the Scottish Parliament, I hosted and chaired a constructive round-table discussion on alternative farrowing systems with representatives from the Scottish pig industry, animal welfare organisations and academia.”
“Therefore, we will be working closely with the UK Government and other devolved Administrations on the delivery of the programme. This is a draft Official Report and is subject to correction between publication and archiving, which will take place no later than 35 working days after the date of the meeting.”
“I welcome Joe Fagan to the chamber. The Scottish Government is committed to supporting agriculture, food production and our food and drink sectors in a fair manner. In March, we published our first rural support plan, outlining support for the next five years and providing the clarity, certainty and opportunity to plan.”
“At column 3, paragraph 3— Original text— I point out to the member that we are doing this in concert with the UK Government. There is a joint consultation ongoing as we speak, and I have confirmed with Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs ministers our agreement to do that joint consultation.”
The complete record
Every one of 663 lines we hold for Jim Fairlie, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 9 of 14.
“The Scottish Government continues to keep a focus on food policy, based on scientific evidence, and in partnership with bodies such as Food Standards Scotland. I absolutely get the point that Murdo Fraser is making, which is that we should have a balanced diet for our children and young people. Edinburgh Biomes Project 7.”
“Does the minister agree that we should support choice when it comes to menus in schools and elsewhere and that, just as there should always be vegetarian and vegan options for those who want to choose them, there should also be the option of healthy, home-produced meat for those who wish to choose it? Jim Fairlie: I am grateful to Murdo Fraser for bringing up that question, because the issue is close to my heart. I am aware of the concerns and campaigns among some stakeholders, and of the potential impact on farmers and food producers of the introduction of meat-free days in public institutions. Indeed, I will meet the local campaigner on that very issue on 19 September, in my capacity as a constituency MSP.”
“Murdo Fraser: I congratulate the minister on his track record in producing healthy red meat on Scottish farms, but he will be familiar with the concern that Scottish farmers and food producers have expressed about the growth of meat-free days—for example, on school menus—and about the substitution of meat with heavily processed meat substitutes, instead of healthy, home- produced Scottish meat products. In the area that the minister and I both represent, a group called ProVeg International is actively involved in designing school menus to reduce the availability of meat.”
“It will come as no surprise to Murdo Fraser to hear me say that Scottish red meat is world renowned and is recognised as a good source of vital nutrients, including iron, zinc and vitamin B12. We continue to work with the sector to ensure that it thrives as part of a climate-smart food system. Decisions on which meals to serve are matters for each managing authority—whether it be public or private—because we recognise that they are best placed to take into account local dietary needs and demands. For example, in schools, provided that statutory food and drink standards are met, decisions on which products to include on menus are matters for the local authority.”
“The Scottish Government has funded improvements to flood resilience across communities in Scotland since 2016. It has allocated more than £570 million to local authorities to support flood protection schemes and wider flood resilience. The Deputy Presiding Officer: There are a number of supplementary questions—I will try to get in as many as I can.”
“Martin Whitfield: The Auditor General’s report highlights that Scotland does not have a clear national plan to improve communities’ resilience to flooding. It says that the funding model is “not fit for purpose”, with costs rising from “£350 million to over £1 billion.” In a previous answer, the minister spoke of providing whole-hearted support for farmers and crofters—and I assume that he also meant support for our communities—so why is it that, after 17 years in government, the Scottish National Party has failed to produce a fully costed, time-bound flood resilience plan? When will such a plan finally be put in place? Jim Fairlie: I dispute Martin Whitfield’s characterisation. I point out that the report stated that there has been “a positive step forward in providing the strategic leadership that is needed”.”
“Climate change adaptation and improving resilience to flooding, including for our island communities, are priorities for the Scottish Government across ministerial portfolios. The recently completed Millport coastal flood protection scheme exemplifies that commitment. We have invested £39 million to safeguard island homes, businesses and critical infrastructure, which demonstrates how national leadership and local delivery can build real resilience for island communities. We are carefully considering Audit Scotland’s report, while noting that many of its recommendations align with work that is already under way as part of our national flood resilience strategy, which itself was subject to an island community impact assessment and requires cross-Government working.”
“As of 8 September, basic payments scheme and greening 2025 advance payments worth £21,799,762 have been issued to businesses in Ayrshire local authority areas. That is one part of a wider package of support, including the aforementioned agri-environment scheme, that we are delivering to farmers and crofters. I point out that Andrew Connon of NFU Scotland was delighted to see farmers receiving those payments.”
“Ruth Maguire: As of last week, support payments of more than £322 million had reached the accounts of farmers and crofters. Uniquely in the United Kingdom, Scotland has maintained direct payments, showing that the Scottish National Party values the work of farmers and crofters and knows the importance of stability and the ability to plan. How much of that funding has been received by Ayrshire agricultural businesses compared with equivalent businesses in England, thanks to the SNP’s policies? Jim Fairlie: The Government whole-heartedly supports our farmers and crofters. We recognise how crucial forward planning is for agricultural businesses, which is why we have committed to having no cliff edge in support as we transition to the new four-tier framework.”
“As per the vision for agriculture, Scotland will have a support framework that delivers high-quality food production, climate mitigation and adaptation and nature restoration. The agri-environment climate scheme continues to support targeted environmental actions, with £339 million having been committed since 2015. The £14 million future farming investment scheme will facilitate farmer-led actions to restore nature, address climate change and improve business efficiency. We have new requirements to prevent damage to peatlands and wetlands, and the whole farm plan biodiversity audit encourages the adoption of nature-friendly approaches. The transition to the four-tier framework will further incentivise farmers and crofters to improve biodiversity.”
“14:30 On resuming— Portfolio Question Time Climate Action and Energy, and Transport”
“I just thought that that was the main answer that the Cabinet Secretary for Transport gave this time last year. The Deputy Presiding Officer: If you could bring your remarks to a close, please, minister. Jim Fairlie: In the interests of brevity, I will continue what I was saying. The fact is that we have taken the decision to scrap peak rail fares, which will get more people on to public transport. As I have said, I and every other SNP MSP were all over social media last week about this. In the interests of time, I will just say that I very much look forward to seeing every other member across the chamber celebrating this successful SNP policy and the fact that fares have been driven down for the people of Scotland. The Deputy Presiding Officer: That concludes the debate. 13:30 Meeting suspended.”
“Indeed, I and almost every other SNP MSP were all over social media at the start of the week, highlighting the scrapping of peak rail fares with videos and memes, and even handing out tickets at stations, letting commuters know that the SNP Government had scrapped peak rail fares for good. Ironically— Mark Ruskell: Will the minister give way? Jim Fairlie: Yes, I will. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Briefly, please, because the minister is concluding. Mark Ruskell: This time last year, the Cabinet Secretary for Transport talked about how flexi and season passes were going to be the way forward and the way to reduce costs. Was there any analysis of how successful that approach was, and did that lead the Government to changing its view and reintroducing off-peak fares all day?”
“Permanently removing those peak fares will help many passengers to cut down on their travel costs. That is the SNP Government working hard for the people of Scotland. I understand that folk thought that we had not done enough to promote the pilot removal of peak fares, so I will be clear: we want as many folk as possible to take advantage of the excellent value that our railway offers. That is why significant promotional activity is under way right now so that we can maximise the uptake of the great value that the train offers. I am sure that many of you will have encountered advertising on television, radio or social media, spreading the message that peak fares are gone for good.”
“The pilot demonstrated that more people chose to travel by train when fares were removed. By taking this step and providing certainty that peak fares are gone for good, we are confident that more people will take the opportunity to make sustainable long-term choices, choosing public transport, which will make public transport more sustainable as a result. That is a win-win for us all, but not only that; the decision to remove peak fares was taken against a backdrop of continuing global uncertainty—arguably, a period of even greater economic uncertainty than when the pilot was initially operated. That has had an impact on the day-to-day lives of the people of Scotland. That is why it is vital that we as a Government take direct action to reduce uncertainty and improve the lives of those who live in Scotland.”
“I applaud the unions for their role in helping the Scottish Government to deliver what is a pioneering policy and for their collaboration, which demonstrates that working together allows us to achieve more. That is a further commitment of our desire to be able to do more and to create a railway that is run in the interests of the nation and for the benefit of passengers rather than shareholders. An ambitious move such as scrapping peak fares from ScotRail services shows exactly what we can achieve with a modern, efficient and sustainable publicly owned railway, and I again commend everyone who has partnered us in delivering it. Getting more people to travel by public transport is crucial in tackling our climate emergency. To do that, we need to make public transport more appealing. Removing peak fares will do exactly that.”
“ScotRail passenger numbers have increased by 75 per cent from 46 million in 2021- 22 to around 82 million in 2023-24. That makes ScotRail one of the fastest-growing operators, with one of the best passenger satisfaction rates. We are building even further on that success by removing ScotRail peak fares for good. We have always been clear that further initiatives on peak fares would be considered if money was available. Balancing our budget for the benefit of the people of Scotland is, and will always remain, a priority for the SNP Government. Removing the peak fares is a bold and pioneering initiative that has not been done elsewhere in the UK, and it was possible only due to the Government’s bringing ScotRail into public sector control.”
“Her last point was that perhaps we should be thanking the UK Government for the extra money. I go back to the point that the First Minister made during First Minister’s question time, which was that the people of Scotland should have the right to choose; we should not have to wait for Westminster to do things in order to allow us to deliver for the people of Scotland. I thank all the staff who are involved in Scotland’s Railway for helping us to deliver our landmark policy commitment. It is a collective effort of the staff in ScotRail and Network Rail Scotland, and has resulted in ScotRail performing better than most GB operators. Public ownership has created the opportunity to deliver a railway that is run for the benefit of the nation.”
“I could read the entire list of other performance measures in which ScotRail is doing so well under public ownership, but I will spare Ms Webber’s blushes. I am delighted to welcome Richard Leonard’s warm response and vociferous support. We may not agree on some things, but we absolutely agree on this. Mark Ruskell made a point about the Greens’ involvement, which I absolutely accept, but he should remember that it was the cabinet secretary who extended the pilot scheme in order to see how it would work. He also talked about season tickets and the variety of ways—again, I have a full list—in which people can save money by using ScotRail. Christine Grahame pointed out the same thing. Claire Baker made points about remarks that were made by the cabinet secretary, on which I will come back to my notes.”
“Fulton MacGregor raised the issue of concessions. Despite the fact that he is not here, I encourage him to write to us. A lot of the fares that he was talking about are local authority and transport authority concessionary travel fares, but I am happy to have a further discussion with him on those. Sue Webber was, unfortunately, disappointing but not surprising in making her miserabilist speech. I will correct her on one thing, which is that ScotRail is one of the top-performing train operators in the United Kingdom; it performed better than most operators in Great Britain. In 2024-25, ScotRail cancelled just 2.2 per cent of its trains, which is around half as many cancellations as the GB average of 4.1 per cent.”
“I thank my colleague Bob Doris for bringing forward this debate on the abolition of peak fares from ScotRail services. He has done something that we in the Government are sometimes not good at doing, which is celebrating success and making sure that we let people know that we are taking steps that will help make the lives of the people of Scotland better under this SNP Government. Bob Doris asked about the monitoring of the programme. We will monitor it over a three-year period, but I point out that we have abolished peak rail fares for good. We will see what will happen over the three-year period, but those peak rail fares are gone. I also want to congratulate Bob Doris, because he has an exemplary record of standing up for his constituents in the chamber on a regular basis, and I commend him for that.”
“However, the bilateral arrangements that we have secured with Norway and the Faroe Islands increase the United Kingdom’s quota in 2025 by more than 26,000 tonnes, the vast majority of which comes to Scotland. We estimate that, following the introduction of amended economic link licence conditions, an additional £52 million worth of mackerel was landed in Scotland in 2023-24. We met the Scottish Pelagic Processors Association on 22 July in Peterhead. I am happy to consider another meeting to discuss the issue further. Housing Emergency 6.”
“Karen Adam: Scotland’s mackerel industry is a global success story, and Scottish mackerel now accounts for a fifth of the Japanese market. However, processors tell me that they are worried about the possibility of a significant quota cut in 2026, which might put their growth at risk. How will the Scottish Government ensure that processors have access to product, so that Scotland can continue to build on its export success? Will the minister meet me and industry representatives to discuss that challenge? Jim Fairlie: Karen Adam mentioned the success of the mackerel sector, and it is a global success. Scientific advice will be published at the end of this month.”
“Food exports are vital to our national and rural economies. In 2024, food exports were worth £2.1 billion. We have announced an increase in the export support that we provide to Scottish companies through the six-point export plan, which builds on the significant support that we already provide to Scottish exporters, such as the £705,000 that we provided this financial year towards the Scotland food and drink export plan, which helps to exploit the most significant opportunities for Scotland. The United Kingdom Government must secure a European Union sanitary and phytosanitary agreement to remove the complex and costly barriers to trade with our largest single export market, as we have consistently called for.”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: I am conscious of the number of members who want to participate in the debate. Therefore, I am minded to accept a motion without notice, under rule 8.14.3 of standing orders, to propose to extend the debate by up to 30 minutes. I call Patrick Harvie to move the motion. Patrick Harvie: I did not expect to have to do this on the last day of term. The Deputy Presiding Officer: That is undoubtedly an achievement. Motion moved, That, under Rule 8.14.3, the debate be extended by up to 30 minutes.—[Patrick Harvie] Motion agreed to. 17:28”
“It is simply not fair that Glaswegians are subject to this private rent and private profit extraction, when that money could be reinvested in subsidies for loss-making routes and could help to sustain coherence across the network. We do not even know which routes make money and which routes lose money. We cannot plan coherently. On the wall of my office, I have a map of Glasgow’s bus and tram services in 1938. We knew what they were and we knew where they were and how they performed. There were night buses, night trams and late-night subway services. The subway ran on a Sunday and we had a fully integrated transport system. I do not know how we let that unravel. I urge the minister to hear the pleas from the people who represent our great city of Glasgow to fix our transport system and let Glasgow flourish once again.”
“Members across the chamber have relayed the umpteen services that have been curtailed, reduced or cut altogether across the city; that has certainly been the case for many services in my time representing Glasgow. The number 65 bus through the Calton out to Cambuslang is only the latest example of those cuts. It is debasing for a democratically elected parliamentarian to go and beg a private company to sustain a public service. That is not good enough. We need public accountability, which starts with control of the farebox through our franchise system. That would also address the fact that Glasgow’s bus fares are the most expensive of any British city. A single ticket is now £2.85, compared with £2 on Edinburgh’s publicly owned Lothian Buses and £1.75 on Transport for London services.”
“How many cars were on the road then, and how many cars are on the road now? Paul Sweeney: The minister makes a very important point. Relatively speaking, the private car has taken a significant share of the overall movement of people around the city region. However, on the point about social justice, it is important to note that Glasgow remains the city with the lowest level of car ownership in the UK, as only 41 per cent of Glaswegians own a car. The situation accentuates the social injustice across Glasgow. All the concessionary travel schemes that have been introduced are not much use if the bus service does not actually function. That is why we need to address the issue.”
“When we have that summit, all the issues that have been raised in the debate will be discussed and we will consider everything. That is me taking responsibility as a minister who takes the matter seriously. I will ensure that we try to progress it so that we are not standing here in 10 years’ time with another members’ debate about gull species. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I apologise to colleagues for having to constrain the debate but we need to allow time for staff to come in to do the chamber turnaround before afternoon business begins at 2 o’clock. 13:48 Meeting suspended. 14:00 On resuming— Business Motion”
“That is why the species is on the red list and we have to take our international responsibilities seriously if we are to continue to protect it in law. Jim Fairlie: I also disagree with that point, because it is not small increases in numbers in urban birds. The figures that I have seen show large increases in the numbers of urban birds but crashing numbers of birds in their natural environment. That goes back to the point that I made right at the start of my speech, that we must stop feeding them, stop creating nesting spaces and find ways to displace them back to that natural habitat. I am more than happy to take the issue seriously. I have already said that I will convene a summit. I announce—and my officials will ensure that it is done—that it will be in Inverness.”
“They prove beyond any doubt that there is no evidence that the populations are in decline. Therefore, what he said to me in his letter of 12 June is simply incorrect and the whole business is proceeding on the basis of a false assertion by NatureScot. Jim Fairlie: At this moment, I do not accept that. When I have definitive proof that it is the case, I will be more than happy to look at it. Indeed, I am more than happy to look at it. Mark Ruskell: Will the minister give way? Jim Fairlie: Do I have time to take the intervention, Presiding Officer? The Deputy Presiding Officer: I can give you the time back. Mark Ruskell: Does the minister also acknowledge that, although there might be some limited increases in populations in some urban areas, we see a decline across Scotland?”
“Dee Ward has a tweet on his timeline that says that the red-listed herring gull seems to be bucking the trend in Dundee. However, the nine birds in the photo are sitting on top of rubbish bins, which are feed sources for them. I continue to make the point that we have a joint responsibility to work out the ways in which we are creating an environment that allows gulls to thrive in our communities and to consider how we can manage that in the future. Fergus Ewing: Will the minister address the point that I made that the basis of the restriction on licensing was that NatureScot argued—wrongly, I believe—that the populations of the two species that I named were in decline when, in fact, there is no evidence of that? Will the minister study the FOI responses if I send them to him?”
“If he takes the time to look at the reasons for the refusal of applications, he will realise that NatureScot has already stated, and has evidence to show, that the people who are having trouble have already undertaken all the measures for management and deterrence, including those with regard to food waste, preventing a return to old nests, hawking and so on. We need a summit, not just in Moray but across Scotland. Jim Fairlie: I have not missed any points at all. I stated from the outset that I am taking the matter very seriously. There is absolutely no doubt that, as we have heard from members from around the chamber, people are being attacked and injured and that we have to deal with that. Mark Ruskell talked about gull numbers.”
“I dispute the fact that taking away the feeding opportunities is about starving the birds—it is about dispersing them and their behaviour so that they go to other places. We hear about landfill sites that have been closed down. Those used to be feeding stations, but they are no longer available. Christine Grahame is spot on—the birds are having an issue with where they are sourcing their food. We have created that food source and we are creating nesting sites, and that is the issue on which we have to focus. Rachael Hamilton: Jim Fairlie is slightly missing the point.”
“As I said, Mr Ross has asked me to look at my role in how we define the licensing terms, but we have delegated that power to NatureScot, and that is where it should stay at this time. We also have to work out what is causing the issue in the first place. It is quite simple: we are feeding the gulls. We are creating a habitat and creating feeding stations, and we are thereby allowing gulls to inhabit our space. That is now quite clearly causing a conflict. Beatrice Wishart’s point in that regard was absolutely spot on and very balanced, as were Brian Whittle’s comments. There is a conflict, and we now need to find some way of coming to a resolution on that. We have to try to limit food waste and public littering, to take away the feeding opportunities.”
“It would therefore not be appropriate for ministers to get involved under the provisions that are currently in place. I am happy to take an intervention from Douglas Ross. Douglas Ross: On the point about ministerial direction and the licensing function of NatureScot, does the minister accept that—as the motion states and as members have reiterated today— there is a clear conflict between NatureScot’s responsibilities to conserve bird numbers and to consider applications to control those numbers? The Deputy Presiding Officer: I can give you the time back, minister. Jim Fairlie: I am more than happy to have a wider discussion when we come to discuss resolutions and what the debate will actually deliver. I am happy to look at all the issues that have been raised with us.”
“The use of language is important, and licences can be issued only on the basis of health and safety. That is why the approach to current applications has differed from the approach that was previously taken. I am well aware of that issue, and we will pursue it. I appreciate the frustration that people feel when they have not been able to get a licence because of the surrounding bureaucracy. Mr Ross has asked me to intervene using section 11 of the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Act 1991, which allows for ministerial directions. However, we have delegated the responsibility for licensing to NatureScot in order to have it make the decisions— Douglas Ross: Will the minister give way? Jim Fairlie: In two seconds, Mr Ross. If we go against the licensable purposes, we could be open to judicial review.”
“We are still engaging with Moray Council to try to get a similar approach to that which has been taken in Inverness. NatureScot has been attempting to engage with Aberdeen City Council—so far, it has been unsuccessful, so I urge the council to engage with NatureScot so that we can get some resolution on the issues that we are talking about. With regard to the rationale for licensing, the licences that are issued for dealing with gulls are based on the NatureScot guidance, which has been subject to clarification. Mr Ross has, in the past, raised the question of why the licensing has changed. The licensing has not changed, but the guidance has on the basis that the use of language such as “menace” or “nuisance” does not constitute a licensable purpose. That is a critical point, and I will come back to possible solutions later.”
“Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer—I will try to get through everything, but there is an awful lot to get through. When I mention the fact that we are having a debate on gulls, people chuckle and laugh—just as Mr Ross talked about. It seems funny, but it is not—it is deadly serious. I absolutely accept that, and I hope that Mr Ross and Mr Ewing accept that I have taken the issue very seriously right from the start. I met them both on 15 April to talk about the gull management issues in Inverness and Moray; I then had a meeting with NatureScot immediately after that, on 23 April, to discuss those issues. I subsequently had a meeting with the Nairn and Inverness BIDs and Highland Council on 7 May to ensure that we were progressing the issues. I understand that we currently have area-wide licences in Inverness and Nairn.”
“However, the Scottish Government’s refusal to grant them protected status has enabled a cull that aimed to reduce a herd of 138 to just 20 during the birthing season. Will the minister commit to meeting me and the Wild Goat Conservation Group and working with us to find a workable solution to safeguard this unique part of the natural and cultural heritage of the Scottish Borders? Jim Fairlie: I understand the sentiment with which Rachael Hamilton has asked the question. As I said, however, this is an issue for Oxygen Conservation Ltd. It is its land and it is for it to decide what it will do in order to achieve the restoration targets that it has set out. Student Accommodation 2.”
“We have not had any engagement with local stakeholders on that issue. It is for Oxygen Conservation Ltd, as the landowner, to consider how any reduction in the wild goat population should be achieved in practice. It has produced a question and answer document that has been circulated to all local residents, and it has published updates in a quarterly newsletter on its website. NatureScot has also provided several members of the community, the Wild Goat Conservation Group, local political representatives, councillors, MSPs and the MP with advice and information on the legal status of feral goats. Rachael Hamilton: Wild goats have roamed Langholm moor for centuries, and more than 12,000 local residents have signed a petition calling for their protection. They are not just part of the landscape; they are a living link to Scotland’s past.”
“That is why the Scottish Government supports the bill and believes that granting legislative consent is the right decision at this time.”
“The bill will make provision for, and in connection with, the restricting of the importation and non-commercial movement of dogs, cats and ferrets from third countries, on the grounds of animal welfare. Puppies are frequently imported when they are underage and unvaccinated, with fraudulent paperwork, and they are then transported and sold to unsuspecting buyers in Great Britain by dealers who are illegally posing as home breeders. The measures in the bill have been strongly called for by many of the main animal welfare organisations, and the Scottish Government supports their introduction. Let me be clear that, if the Scottish Parliament does not grant legislative consent to the bill, it is highly likely that Scotland will inadvertently enable routes for increased puppy smuggling.”
“However, as is my responsibility, before confirming support for the bill’s extension to Scotland, I considered it necessary to obtain clarification and assurances from the UK Government regarding some of its proposals, in order to protect this Parliament’s right to scrutinise any legislation that is put before the chamber. That took time. I wrote to the UK Government on 28 March but did not receive a response until 13 May, a situation over which I had no control. However, from my point of view, it was essential that I got that response in order to protect the rights of this Parliament. It is my view that the Scottish Government has given as much notice as possible to the Scottish Parliament.”
“In the interests of time, I am happy for members to reach out to me in writing, and I can provide timelines and copies of the letters relating to the bill that I sent to the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee and the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, as well as correspondence with Baroness Hayman in which we obtained clarification and assurances from the UK Government on some of the proposals in the bill. The Rural Affairs and Islands Committee has raised the fact that the Welsh Government lodged its LCM on 21 May.”
“We understand that, just as ministers require detailed preparation, co- ordination and time to consider legislative instruments in order to ensure that high-quality contributions are made to parliamentary committees, committee members require the same in order to ensure that they can properly scrutinise items. At every step, the Government acted promptly and constructively. No meeting was cancelled, no deadline was missed and no information was withheld.”
“Despite the lateness of the evening, I am pleased to be leading for the Scottish Government in this discussion of a positive legislative consent memorandum that will give effect in Scotland to the Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill. It is regrettable that the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee feels that it has not had the time to fully consider the LCM relating to the bill. I emphasise that the Scottish Government has no role in the timetabling of UK bills. We recognise the concerns of the committee members in relation to their workloads and their ability to scrutinise legislative instruments as well as to undertake the other aspects of their roles.”
“Jim Fairlie: Roz McCall raises a very good point. I would like to correct her on one issue—I think that Finlay Carson has said to me previously that his local authority supplies venison. However, she is absolutely right to make her point. We need to stop looking at deer management as a problem; we should embrace it and add venison to our natural larder. The Scottish Government is committed to doing that.”
“Roz McCall: I listened intently to the minister’s answer, but data following a freedom of information request indicates that public bodies tend not to include venison in pupil and patient meals. The nutritional benefits of venison have been emphasised by the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, which teaches schoolchildren about venison at its hill-to-grill educational events. In an effort to improve deer management and make good use of quality meat, Perthshire-based Glenkilrie Larder participates in a project that involves venison being donated to local schools and food banks. At a critical point in the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill’s passage through the Parliament, what additional steps will the Scottish Government take to ensure that this healthy, low-fat meat appears on school and hospital menus across the nation?”
“I thank Roz McCall for that question because it allows me to put on the record that, although menu content will be decided locally, much Scottish Government work is under way to facilitate the uptake of venison across the public sector. That includes a successful pilot with Wild Jura Venison, Argyll and Bute Council and Food for Life to supply venison in six primary schools. Officials are working collaboratively to explore opportunities to increase demand for venison and develop options to increase supply by helping the sector to make the most of the various routes to market through approaches such as wholesale and framework agreements, which are widely used across the public sector.”