 A fyddwn ni'n berries a gallwch chi'n fwyaf yn ystynnu'r busnes, neu oes unrhyw yma, o ddallych i'r cyffirbaeth i ddod, o hamdangos London mor bgfaith, amgylcheddau gaelig o'i ymgyrchydd a'r gweithio, ddim yn ystod o ran osu i gaelig y cyffirioneddau. A oes i'r ddod i'r ddod i'r peth wedi cyffirionedd a'sgafio i ddod i ddod i ddod i gaelig i ddod. Thank you. I call on Richard Lochhead to speak to and move the motion Cabinet Secretary. You have 14 minutes and we are tight for time this afternoon. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I'm very pleased to be able to open this important debate today on both the opportunities and of course the current challenges facing the Scottish agriculture. As we are all aware, agriculture matters hugely to our country. 98 per cent of Scotland is agriculture, it's a sector underpins our now £14 billion food and drinks industry. It's a sector contributes to our environment by delivering clean air and water, carbon capture, and protects our rich and varied and sustains our rich and varied wildlife. And of course, it's a sector that generates jobs in a wider economy, supporting communities and other industries throughout the nation. Last year, agriculture contributed over £3 billion to the Scottish economy, with around 40 per cent coming from the livestock sector alone. However, turning to some of the current challenges, we all know that our farmers are very used to difficult and sometimes challenging weather and the vagaries of the marketplace as well. But this year, they are facing challenges that really are quite exceptional. Right now, the industry seems to be facing a perfect storm, with local, European, UK, global factors all coming together. Bad weather, in particular, has had a huge impact in farming in some parts of the country this year, with heavy and prolonged rain, particularly in the north and north-west of Scotland. In the first six months of this year, we have seen the wettest weather in a century in Orkney. I'll take an intervention in Orkney on that. Liam McArthur. I thank the cabinet secretary for teaming up so expertly. He'll be aware of the on-going discussions between his officials and local representatives in Orkney about the implications of the wet weather. The shortage of winter fodder, I understand, is gut to the point where the need for selling off breeding stock is rapidly approaching. The situation in Westry, for example, where I think 900 large square bales are needed, the cost of getting them there, is prohibitive. What specific actions can the cabinet secretary give to a shoe of farmers in Westry and across Orkney that they'll get the fodder they need to stop the need to sell off breeding stock from the islands? Thank you for the intervention. I am aware of some of the challenges that are facing many of the farmers in Orkney. I can only assure Liam McArthur that my officials are working on the very issues that he mentioned in terms of transportation and other areas where the Government potentially could help out. Those talks are on-going. I have asked for an urgent report back on what progress they are making. There are some practical issues to be ironed out, but I can assure Liam that we are looking at these issues closely because the effect of continuous rainfall can be profound. As Liam McArthur says, the ground becomes saturated, the grass doesn't grow, farmers have to buy an extra feed and straw for their stock. Also, harvests have been delayed and we wait to see what yields are going to be like and whether drying costs for wet grain will be higher this year as well. As I said, we are working closely with the industry to identify what can be done to help those most affected by the heavy rainfall in Orkney and elsewhere. Other challenges include, for instance, the Euro-styling exchange rate, which is a factor that influences the value of farm payments. In recent years, the exchange rate has seen payments at a higher level, which has helped to buffer the impact of additional costs. However, last year, a combination of the exchange rate and a smaller cap budget overall meant that support fell by around 12 per cent or £70 million. We are coping with the wider international economic backdrop. We hear about economic challenges in China that may slow down levels of growth, and China is a big barometer for world trade conditions, as well as a potentially huge market for Scotland, so its economic prospects are very relevant to the debate. We also have the Russian Baron imports from Europe, which is again having a direct and indirect effect on our sectors, including dairy in particular, given that produce that normally leaves the EU is now remaining within European markets. Of course, the challenges that are facing the dairy sector have very much occupied the headlines in recent months, and some of our producers are now receiving some of the lowest prices that they can get anywhere for their milk. Improvements in efficiency has meant that the sector has managed to increase total milk production by 97 million litres since 2004, but unfortunately that has coincided with the global oversupply of milk and led to a plumeting price for many dairy farmers in Scotland and elsewhere in Europe, a situation here that has been compounded by our over dependency on liquid milk rather than added value products. There are some small signs that international dairy prices may be improving and Europe has made some extra funding available for milk and meat producers, and I will come back to that later. Times are also tough for many other livestock producers, as is not just an issue about dairy, but beef prices this year are sluggish and rising costs in the sector over the past 10 years have led to our real terms falling the average net farm income of more than £6,000. Some early analysis by one group of economists suggests that the decisions of the Scottish Government have taken to have three payment regions within the new common agricultural policy and to use the maximum amount of couple of support available in that policy as well will help to keep beef cow numbers up, so there are some bright spots. Turning to the sheep sector, lamb prices at the start of the season again were disappointingly low, partly because of slow growth, because of pure grass, but again there are now some signs of improvement in that sector as well. As for arable, we have to wait and see what this year's harvest will yield and how far it contrasts with last year's which saw the highest area of arable land since 1994, with Scottish farmers producing more than 2 million tonnes of barley and a million tonnes of wheat. With the poor market situation, many farmers are facing cash low problems, so the direct payments that we are issued every year through the common agricultural policy are particularly important this year. However, as the chamber is well aware, this year we have to implement the first year of the new common agricultural policy, which sees the biggest reforms in any generation. Given the huge uncertainty that there is about the payment schedule, will the cabinet secretary be able to confirm the timetable for delivery of those payments? If Sarah Boyack just bears with me, I am just coming on to that, because by the end of this year we will have launched or relaunched between 50 and 20 new schemes, each needing its own programming, and the time span between Europe and Guinea in the new common agricultural policy and when we need to make the payments has been incredibly short. We have an excellent track record of making payments in this country and we are pulling out all the stops to start making payments by the end of December, as I have said before. We have registered over 20,000 customers into the new payment system, and we have allocated around 400,000 fields into basic payment regions to give an idea of the scale of the challenge that our officials face. Our challenge under the new European policy is not being able to calculate rates of payments until we know exactly how many eligible hectares we will have in each region. Claims are now being checked in eligible areas confirmed so that the values for each farmer's entitlements can indeed be calculated properly for 2015 and subsequent years. However, we have the option of delivering part payments to get cash out of the door to businesses, and we will seriously consider using this option. Europe has given some recognition also to the industry's cash flow issues and has brought forward a €500 million package. That includes £120 million euros for direct aid, for milk and meat producers and £80 million for private storage aid and some promotional activity. The UK's share is going to be just over €36 million, so clearly Scotland's share will be quite modest, but now we have to make sure that we do get a fair share of the UK's allocation because the UK's track record in such matters is not good. UK ministers must acknowledge the serious challenges that I have set out to them that face Scottish farmers. We need the UK to urgently right the wrongs done to Scotland when the external convergence uplift was allocated across the whole of the UK, which resulted in Scotland's farmers losing out £145 million between now and 2019. That also compounds the £1 million per annum that we are already losing through the lost red meat levies, which are now needed back in Scotland more than ever before. Once we get our share of the EU aid package, Europe requires us to make the payments extremely quickly in December, so there is going to be a focus on pragmatism to make those payments in time. That is final intervention. Alex Ferguson, on the subject of the convergence uplift that you mentioned, does he accept that the UK Government is, as I understand it, and I believe, still committed to undertaking that review in 2016-17, as has always been the case? Yes, but my concern remains that the review will take place in 2016-17, which is already too late. Once the review is completed and is implemented, we will be into the period of the next common agricultural policy, whereas Scotland needs that wrong put right now, not later. There are a range of sectors that are facing challenges that we have had to step up the plate to and respond to urgently in this country. We have been doing our best to do that, particularly in areas such as for dairy. I launched our action plan in March, which was designed to help to ensure a viable future for the sector in the context of the current extreme price volatility. Under the plan, we have unveiled a new dairy brand. We have supported dairy farmers through the dairy hub, giving £400,000 of capital support to First Milk and Campbellton, taking steps to encourage serious investment and processing in this country, and taking every opportunity to beat the drum with retailers and others to increase sourcing of Scottish produce. There is no reason whatsoever why 70 per cent of dairy products that we do consume should come from outside of Scotland. We have also been active in the poultry sector, and we have also just established a sheep industry group to look at some of the issues that we have been understanding for many years, such as marketing issues and processing capacity issues as well. However, many of the causes are international, so many of the solutions also have to be international, and that is why we have been arguing strongly as successive EU councils for effective EU action. That means short-term measures that not only look at helping people, but that actually deliver some action. It also means medium-term action such as managing countries of origin labelling and decisive action on supply chains across Europe. However, the clear message from today, and I hope that it is echoed by other parties in the chamber, is that there is much, much more that we can do at home in Scotland and throughout these islands. All parts of the supply chain must play their parts, in particular our food service sectors and retailers, because together they account for around £200 billion of sales in the UK. Let me make this rule with an example. Many parts of the retail and food service sectors are booming, none more so than coffee shops on our high streets, for instance. Exponential growth is forecast to continue for years to come. We spend £80,000 a day buying coffees, yet consumers will be shocked to learn that when they buy their coffee at Costa and Princess Street or Starbucks in Dumfries, the milk and their coffee lattes and cappaginos will have been sourced from outside of Scotland. That is a real missed opportunity at a time when many Scottish dairy farmers are facing enormous challenges and need support in their hour of need. Consumers will have equally been shocked to see that New Zealand product in Tesco shelves advertised as Scottish lamb in season. Those things have been put right and could be put right. Not all is doom and gloom, we are making real progress. This morning, I visited Aroma coffee at the western infirmary, one of 25 branches in our hospitals owned by the NHS to acknowledge their policy of sourcing 100 per cent Scottish milk. Moreover, our hard work with catering companies and retail sectors is also beginning to pay dividends elsewhere. I was delighted to see breaks announced last week their commitment to doubling their sourcing of Scottish products. In due course, that could be worth hundreds of millions of pounds to the Scottish economy. I have also heard similarly positive noises from the other food service and catering business 3663, and well done to the Crerar hotel chain that has just committed to 100 per cent sourcing of Scottish meat. I could go on, but there is much more to do, but the tide is turning. The backdrop that we must not lose sight of is the booming food and drink industry. It is now at record levels at £14.3 billion turnover in 2013, up by a staggering 28 per cent, growing at twice the rate of its counterparts elsewhere in the UK. A recent Bank of Scotland report also predicted the sector would create an extra 14,000 new jobs as producers forecast an average turnover growth of 19 per cent by 2020. It is a phenomenal success story, and we will be doing a lot more in the coming months and years to keep up that level of success. However, the very producers without whom there have been no record-breaking figures, those who produce the raw materials, take the risks, tender landscapes, build up a reputation, they need to see the profit shared right across the supply chain. That is why I have been setting the pace with my UK counterparts in creating a fairer framework for farming. At the summit, I and the NFUS called for on 17 August. I stressed that we have this unprecedented opportunity to stand shoulder to shoulder with our farmers. We can speak with one voice, put our case and our demands to the rest of the supply chain, especially UK retailers and food service companies. We need clearer labelling. We need more Scottish and British sourcing. We need commitments to develop local sourcing and real attempts to develop long-term relations with local suppliers. I repeated this call when I wrote to Liz Truss in a further summit that we all had in Brussels. I am still waiting for her to step up to the plate and join with the Volvo ministers and farming leaders in a joint approach to the retail sector so that we can combine her influence and send her powerful message in what would be an unprecedented show of solidarity with our farmers. In closing, I think that that is a key way forward to helping our primary producers in this country. If the devolved ministers are up for it, if the farming leaders are up for it, I hope that Liz Truss, the DEFRA Secretary of State, is also up for it. Then we can have a transformational change in sourcing in Scotland throughout the UK to help to hold the supply chain, but particularly our farmers, our primary producers, without whom we will not have a food and drink industry and food in their tables. I advise the chamber that members must take interventions within their time, because we really are tight for time. I now call on Sarah Boyack to speak to and move amendment 14327.3, 10 minutes, please, Ms Boyack. I would definitely agree with the cabinet secretary that this has been an incredibly difficult year for our farming communities. The NFUS described it as a crisis. The dairy crisis, the weather this summer, price volatility, not just on dairy but on issues such as grain as well and nervousness and concern over farm payments and potential delays. What is at stake, I think, is the viability of some of our farms. We really need the Scottish Government to do more to support the industry. Our amendment sets out key areas where we think we need change and where we think we need action. At the top of my comments, I want to re-emphasise our support for our farming sector in assisting us with food security, not in the way that we had at the end of the Second World War but the 21st century with climate uncertainty and changes across the globe, the economic instability caused by dysfunctional supply change not just in Scotland but across the globe and the vulnerability for farmers or having to borrow large sums of money to invest in modern farming equipment, you can see what the strains are in the industry. Our supply chains are long, they are remote, they can be lacking in transparency and, as the NFUS says, are sometimes completely dysfunctional. And yet, as the cabinet secretary has said, there is success in the industry, too, that we could celebrate. Alongside the record food and drink exports, I think that it is something that we should acknowledge, although from what I hear from the industry is that in terms of the figures, the figures are boosted particularly by strong performance in the drink sector even though there are good headlines in some of the food supply sector as well. As an economic sector, farming and agriculture provide a bedrock in many of our rural communities in jobs, in incomes and livelihoods delivered by farmers and farm workers, so I wanted to keep the opening line in the SNP motion and I wanted to note the hard work and dedication, but I also want to make sure that we reward that hard work as well. That is why, in the Labour benches, we believe that it is vital that we retain the agriculture wages board, its positive impact on rural livelihoods, the representation of farm workers who might be only one or two people in a farm and in the traditional industry they might be one of 50, 100, 1,000. It is a very different industry and the isolation can be severe, so those staff need support and we are very disappointed that the SNP Government again is consulting on abolishing the wages board. That would be a retrograde step at this time of uncertainty. In our committee's visit to Islay Endurer this week, the importance of agriculture was stressed by one of the tenant farmers. He highlighted the importance of farming and crofting in supporting the whole livelihoods of rural communities and we cannot take that for granted. So we need to capture the benefits better for those who work in the industry, for those who lead the industry and for our rural communities. One issue that we think is under developed in Scotland is the use of cooperatives among small producers in particular. It is a key way for them to secure value from farming and crofting produce that we see in other European countries and yet not on the same scale here. Our amendment also highlights the importance of farming and farmers as stewards of our land. They have a key role in supporting biodiversity and there's a distinct contribution being made by the organic sector. It's also important in terms of the industry itself, in terms of the long-term health of our soils and capturing the economic benefit of marketing our high quality well-renowned produce. The challenge is designing support mechanisms that help farmers deliver those aspirations in practice and anyone who's gone to visit a farm will find that if not the first thing, the second thing, it will certainly be the third thing that farmers mention. What they regard is sometimes the daftness about how regulations are applied. We need much more to support the transition on emissions and to enable farming to make its contribution on climate change. There is a key piece of work being done by farmers taking advantage of renewables, especially wind, and I hear at the moment solar, but there's a step change back from the UK Government in terms of the rocks and feeding tariff that are short-term obstacles. There's much more that can be done in terms of farming as a whole. I software myself at the Highland show the research that the SRUC are doing, which could be applied if we have the right transition plan in place. That, I think, is something that the cabinet secretary needs to be doing much more to work on. Every other sector in the Scottish economy is now looking at how it plays its part. It needs ministerial leadership and political leadership, and it will get the support in this chamber. We've mentioned the term agro-economy and agro-ecology. That's one of the terms that's now being used by Scottish Environment Link. We need a broader discussion amongst all stakeholders about how we work to innovate and develop good practice. A key threat, though, is the economics. My opening comments about global price fluctuations and the weather are a huge threat to the day-to-day work of our farmers. The milk and dairy industry is massively vulnerable at the moment. I don't believe that we have seen enough urgency with the Scottish Government's day-reaction plan. I wrote to the minister over a month ago with positive suggestions on product development, marketing, public procurement and support in catering in the private sector. I have to say that I am still waiting for a reply. On our committee visit to Orkney this summer, we saw the impact of positive support from local government to our farming communities. I think that's something that the minister should be exploring. There are areas in which we can have consensus—fairer prices for farmers, shorter supply chains, but that needs work by the minister. We need an overhaul of the supply chains that we have in the country to deliver fairer prices. Some of us around this chamber have campaigned for fair trade abroad, and we have had impacts on the trading relationships. I was still shocked this summer at looking at the level of dairy prices that we have in this country that are being paid. Over the past decade, we have had cross-party work in this chamber by the rural committee in particular on the importance of fairness and transparency in contracts and prices. I was still able to visit a farm this summer and commenting on the impressive mound of potatoes in a barn to be shocked to be told that those potatoes were not being sent into the retail chain because the contract had been pooled. That farmer was using those potatoes to feed his livestock. It was just the best that he could do with it rather than wasting them. We still have an issue of power imbalance in the industry, where supermarkets in the retail industry are not in a fair relationship, particularly with our smaller farmers, but it can still be shocking the impact of the randomness of contracts on some of our bigger suppliers as well. I believe that shorter supply chains would be a better part of our picture that would give us more accountability, more certainty and it would also save on logistics. We need a new drive, as the cabinet secretary said, on public procurement. I believe that there is still more that we can be doing. When I talk to my local government colleagues, I believe at the national and the local level that there is still more that could be done. We would like to see new targets, we would like to see a fresh approach to promote co-ops and joint supply locally, crucially targeting hospitality in the commercial sectors. The minister has been in this position for eight and a half years, so some of the things that he has announced today are really welcome, but it should not have taken eight and a half years to get to some of those points. It should not have taken a crisis. As we debated in the procurement bill, standards, the environment, animal welfare, the quality of our producers, they are all high, they are impressive, they are something to be proud of and local sourcing and procurement in Scotland is a key way that we could act as politicians to ensure greater value right across the food chain. Finally, I wanted to emphasise our support for the cabinet secretary in his work in the EU and across the rest of the UK with other UK Governments to support our agriculture and to support investment in our environment to get the right mechanisms. They need to be fair, but they also need to be fit for purpose. I understand that this morning the Audit Committee was interrogating Scottish Government officials this morning about cap payments. It would be really helpful if the cabinet secretary could guarantee payments will be delivered by December. It is astonishing that banks are beginning to put in place special measures to get farmers through winter. That is just a crisis that should not be happening. The cabinet secretary needs to take his share in terms of the responsibility for the mismanagement of this programme. We need better for our farmers. We need to make sure that our farmers are properly supported because of the raft of jobs that they support across our rural communities, because of the vital nature of the money that comes into our economy, so more on country of origin labelling. We have got cross-party support in this chamber for the food sector in Scotland. We are maybe not applying that cross-party support sufficiently effectively, but at the end of the day there is still more that the Scottish Government could do. Our amendment calls for action and urgency. It puts a new set of issues on the agenda that we are not in the initial motion. Special arrangements for loans should not have to be. We need support for our industry that works, that will keep them going through this winter, and that is what this debate should send, a clear message both to the Scottish Government, to the UK Government and to our retail sectors. We need a better deal for our farmers and our farming communities. It is about the role of government. It is about supporting industry. It is about looking at dysfunctional food chains and it is looking about our role in persuading consumers to buy differently. Those are all for us and the retail sector, so let's do it together and move the amendment in my name. Many thanks. I now call Alex Ferguson to speak to you and move amendment 14327.16, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I very much, like others, do welcome this debate, because it is one that is needed if for no other reason than I don't think I have ever known as many farmers, certainly in my part of Scotland, who are genuinely wondering what the future holds for them, and in some cases wondering whether they really have a future in agriculture at all. I don't think that is just down to the serious drop in commodity prices that have so affected milk, lamb and cereals in particular, tough as they are, or indeed to other factors such as those of exchange rates that the Cabinet Secretary mentioned in his introductory speech. What I do think, though, is that there is a real and palpable uncertainty about the future, and in recent years we've grown used to farms changing hands incredibly quickly when they're put on the market, and yet recently, again in my part of Scotland at any rate, farms have been noticeably slower to sell if they sell at all, and that, to me, is as sure a sign as there can be that all is not well in the sector and that the confidence of recent years is no longer there. So what's happened to bring about this change, and what, if anything, can we do about it? Now, I've no doubt that the biggest single factor has been the move away from the cap support system based on productivity to one that is based on the area that is farmed, and I acknowledge there was no choice on this matter, and the Scottish Government had an extremely difficult task to deliver this new system, but with the best will in the world it's quite difficult to look back and heat praise on the way it was introduced. From an apparent reluctance to model new systems at an early stage through a pretty inadequate and hideously expensive IT system that required 50 changes to the guidance between the opening day on the 1st of March and the extended mid-June deadline for applications, through the current inspection and verification process, the outcome of which we do not know, all to deliver a pillar one payment, the amount of which will probably remain unknown to those who receive it until they receive it. Now, that's not a process that was ever going to instill a great deal of confidence, and it's clearly failed to do so. But there is one thing, and I agree with Sarah Boyack here, that the Cabinet Secretary could do to go some way towards rectifying that situation, and that is to ensure that the basic payment is paid fully in December, as I think all the amendments today seek. The motion says that payments will be made as soon as the Government is able to do so. The Cabinet Secretary has hinted at interim payments, and I understand that more was said about that at the Audit Committee this morning. But the fact is that governments are elected to make things happen. The cap support system is the sole responsibility of the Cabinet Secretary, and the measure of his grip on it will be basic payments being made to all primary producers from day one of the December winter. He can, and I believe he should make that happen. Presiding Officer, the motion also makes much of what the Scottish Government thinks the UK Government should do, no surprise there. But it does very little to suggest anything positive that the Scottish Government could do itself when we're looking at how we can bring back confidence to the sector. And maybe that's no surprise when you consider that one of his latest actions, the banning of GM crops, has had a pretty adverse impact, a reaction, sorry, not just from the farming sector, but also from the scientific one. And I appreciate that there will be different opinions about this around the chamber. But it almost defies belief that this Government, which is one that never misses an opportunity to back up any controversial proposal by assuring us that it is only acting on the best scientific advice available, that Government hasn't even bothered to seek such advice in this instance. Now instead, the Cabinet Secretary talks of protecting the purity and quality of Scottish produce by, sorry, by protecting the purity and quality of Scottish produce by banning the growing of GM crops. But he is also then denying any potential to be able to grow those same crops without the use of chemical pesticides and fungicides that are in such common use today. Plant and animal breeding and cross breeding has been going on since time immemorial and GM technology is really just an extension of that science. It has the potential, very briefly please. The member is concerned about the Scottish Government not waiting for scientific advice, how he can be so very positive about the biotechnology GM industry, which could have very serious ramifications across Scotland for our products. My position is that I want the scientific evidence on the table to back up the ban that the Cabinet Secretary has put in place. We have no such evidence, but I believe that GM has the potential, and I only use the word potential to provide an exciting new future for agriculture, of which the principal purpose must surely always be to feed an ever-increasing world population, and we will forget that, as I think the Cabinet Secretary has in this particular instance at our peril. Presiding Officer, I want to move on to a more positive note, and I think we all agree on the need to include the retail sector in our thinking and discussions on making the most of our homegrown products. The success of Scotland's food and drink is fantastic, but until the fruits of that success are being fed back down to the primary producer, it is only a partial success. As some members know, I recently reviewed the voluntary code of practice between dairy farmers and milk processes. It became obvious very early on during the course of that review that the missing link in that chain was the retail sector. For that code of practice to be really effective, the retail sector has to be part of it, so we will back any moves from wherever they come to enhance that relationship. We also fully back moves to further empower the grocery's code adjudicator. Well-known supermarkets selling New Zealand lamb under Scottish signage is just not on, and until we reverse the sort of thinking that encourages retailers to do that, these challenges will remain. Finally, Presiding Officer, the motion rightly notes the hard work and dedication of work in agriculture. They always have been hard working and dedicated, and they always will be. Give them back the confidence that is declining, and they will not let this country down. Thank you. Many thanks. I now call on Tavish Scott to speak to the move amendment 14327.26. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. We are very unfair to blame Mr Lockhead for the rain, but nor could he be blamed in many ways for global pressures. I did think if the sun was shining all summer then, perhaps the Government probably would take the credit for that. I do think that it is important in this debate to concentrate on the aspects of agriculture policy and changes that we need that our Government here in Scotland have the responsibility for or their organisations do. The Cabinet Secretary rightly recognised that Scottish farmers and crofters are under real pressure. Dairy farmers have said to many of us that they are being paid less than the cost of production, an implicit recognition of that in the Cabinet Secretary's speech this afternoon. Lamb prices are at a seven-year low, and the wet summer has created higher costs for baltain fodder, notably for the far-flung areas such as Orkney. Jamie Leslie, who is a farming pal of mine from Shetland for me last night, straw is, Mr Lockhead will well know from his own constituency, £20 a bail in Aberdeenshire. You truck that to Aberdeen and then to the farm in Shetland is another £20, and Northlink's freight rate adds £28.20 for shipping alone. It is costing £68.20 to bring essential fodder to a Shetland farm that normally wouldn't need to buy that because of the summer that we have had. Now, the Orkney weekend freight rate per bail is around £15, and that's certainly helping. So, I and the local NFU in Shetland have been pressing the Government to assist the producers there with this issue, and I've raised that with the Cabinet Secretary before, and I've asked him to consider that need again. It's the kind of practical illustration of help that would assist different parts of our agriculture industry at this time. It's the argument that Alan Barry, the president of the NFU in Scotland made to me last night about the need to help different parts of Scotland, recognising the challenges that we face. Now, the Government's own statistics show at this time that agriculture is actually contracting. Their State of the Economy report published just last month shows annual growth in Scottish agriculture is falling by 5.3 per cent. Cattle numbers fell by 11 per cent between 2004 and 2014, and there's been an 18 per cent fall in breeding new numbers over the same period. So, the strength of the food and drink industry, or the food industry in particular, given Sarah Boyack's very accurate observation in the fact about whisky, is that to grow that is a trend where we need primary livestock production far from falling to actually be going the other way. I think there's a significant challenge there for government as much as the industry in recognising the reality of livestock numbers across Scotland at this time. Similarly, on the environment, as Link has said in their briefing for this debate today, the Government's own environmental advisers, SNH, say that more priority farmland habitats are deteriorating than improving. The national ecosystem assessment says that 44 per cent of Scottish habitats are in decline. So, both from a production point of view and an environmental perspective, the trends are in the wrong direction. How are we to meet those growth targets that we all aspire to for the Scottish food industry when there are less cattle and sheep? And if Scotland's environment is being impaired, environmental change that incidentally cannot be happening as a result of farming when we are becoming less intensive, Scotland's natural beauty at the core of our tourism product is under some challenge. What then can the Government do? Now, I listened carefully to the Cabinet Secretary's words on cap payments and he said, I think if I got him right in the speech that he's just made, that they would be paid by the end of December, and I don't know if that means by the week beginning of Monday the 28th, but the industry would be disappointed by that because they've been arguing very strongly, as Alan Bowie said to me last night, that these payments need to be made in the first two weeks of December. I won't rehearse all the arguments why, because Richard Lockhead knows them very well. He's heard them for eight years and then a long time before that as well in terms of the payment timescale. But this morning, the Cabinet Secretary's officials in front of the Audit Committee were commendably fear about all this. They explained the challenges, but no time said this was impossible. So, I do hope that the Government will listen carefully to the industry and to Parliament and make sure these payments, if not in full in instalment, because we understand how the system works in instalment, are paid out to the great extent in the early part of December rather than after Christmas day. The Cabinet Secretary will also share my concern that Scotland is having to spend £178 million on an IT system to allocate £400 million every year to 21,000 farmers. That can't be a good use of Mr Lockhead's budget, certainly not good use of public money, and an IT system that's 111 per cent over budget, as Audit Scotland has said, has to be questioned from first principles. The Government got no choice about this. It has to implement a system that is, as it were, EU compliant. However, we are in the world of madness when we have to spend that amount of public money on basically a clever computer in order to properly allocate money to agriculture across Scotland, of course. Very briefly, please, Bruce Crawford. Very briefly, I wonder if Tavish Scott would accept that the European auditors have said exactly the same about almost every country in Europe, and therefore there's a common denominator here in its regard to the way that the EU has actually brought this into being. I take that with some agreement, except I have my concerns as to how that approach that the European Commission may take when they meet farm ministers in Brussels is then implemented when it comes to other European countries. I wouldn't wish to direct to name names in Europe, but we all know there are different approaches. I want to make just one final point, which is to agree with Alex Ferguson, Sarah Boyack and indeed the Minister on Public Sector Procurement. I do think there is an awful lot more that we could do on that, not least of which because of the scale of spending £160 million on food and drink every year by Government in the round across Scotland. So, not only is the Minister right to emphasise the importance of tackling the retail sector and bringing them to mark, but we need to make sure that our public procurement is not run by huge multinational conglomerates but is much more local and therefore much more applicable to local farmers and crofters. Thank you very much. We now turn to the open debate. I'm afraid we are extremely short of time. Speeches of under six minutes please, and I call Rob Gibson to be followed by Rhoda Grant. Thank you, Presiding Officer. What is agriculture for? Well, I think we've got to try and feed Scots. It's been suggested that we've got to have an agriculture that tries to feed the world, but the world wastes so much food that I think we should look more closely at the question about how and what agriculture should be doing. I was extremely concerned to see the Conservatives mention the question about the Government's decision to rule out the cultivation of GM crops without having taken any scientific advice or debate the potential benefits of biotechnology in that respect, but there is scientific knowledge. There are significant bodies of research that raise large question marks about the long-term effects of GMOs. 80 per cent of the current approved crops rely on glyphosate, selective pesticide, and the World Health Organization sees it as a possible and probable carcinogen. The increased problem for GM farmers in America where weeds become more prevalent and they need to spend more and more on the types of GM crops is another piece of evidence that we should not ignore. There are vast amounts of research funded by big agrichemical businesses. Indeed, much of the scientific community relies upon very large GM firms to give them the money to do the research that they want. They are not doing it for the benefit of Scotland. They are doing it because they know that that is a large source of money. I would suggest that that does not mean that it makes the best science. Why, for example, are GM supporters spending hundreds of millions of pounds in America at the moment to prevent labelling food-containing GM ingredients? What are they trying to hide? Those are all scientific probes about the way in which the argument for GM has been laid before us. Looking at our situation, Scotland has been joined by Germany, France, Lithuania, Northern Ireland, Latvia, Austria today and Greece. All those countries want to have clean, green production, and they are not ignoring the science. They know about that science as well. I would like to take an example of two groups of people who are actually looking very closely at that science. The inclusion of vegetable protein ingredients must be of a non-GM origin and inclusion rates must not compromise animal welfare or the eating quality and rotational value of the final raw products. That is Waitrose's conditions about what it feeds in its protein divisions. The German Foreign Minister or Agriculture Minister was in South Africa or South America recently trying to find sources of non-GM soya. Waitrose managed to do it. The Germans are looking for it. Why did all the other supermarkets not take that lead? Shavari potatoes are produced in a small trust in north Wales. They are excellent examples of non-GM, blight-resistant potatoes that are available to gardeners, which have a high yield, deep-rooting, good drought tolerance, vigorous weed smothering, fallage. They are very low in carbon footprint because they do not require all the dressings that other kinds of potatoes do. Do they get the kind of cash from Monsanto and the like to develop to the stage of farm scale? No, they do not. That is the kind of argument about why the science that backs GM is very often dirty money supporting dirty science as foodtank.com has just suggested. Going on from there, becoming a good food nation is one of the major planks of this Government. My first question is about what agriculture is for. It must be to make sure that people can get the kind of food that they need to eat to be healthy and to promote a healthy culture. Is that compatible with making bigger profits because of the way in which genetic modification is seen as a means to do just that? I question that fundamentally. There is no going back if GM crops are allowed into the ecosystem. It has been said before that, like nuclear power and fracking, GM is a short-term fix with long-term implications, and that is why the problems that we face at the moment are ones that must be addressed in terms of what we need to eat and what can be usefully sent to other people in a nutritious form that helps their health as well. We reject the Tory amendment, support the cabinet secretary's motion and recognise that this GM bogey has to be dismissed out of hand. Many thanks. I now call on Rhoda Grant to be followed by Angus MacDonald. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I think that we all agree that the agriculture sector is facing extremely challenging times. Crofters and farmers in the Highlands and Islands were already facing challenges, however the weather this summer makes these even worse. Feedstuff cannot be grown, meaning that it needs to be bought in. Due to the poor season everywhere, it has affected growing all over Scotland, meaning that this will be expensive and in short supply. As we have already heard, if you live on the islands, the shipping costs of this is prohibitive. Breeding has also been impacted due to the lack of grass, lambs are smaller and there have been less multiple births, again impacting on profitability and all this at a time when the sector debt is extremely high, increasing to over 4 per cent in the past year. Agriculture is really important in the Highlands and Islands. Crofting has kept people in our remote rural communities. That is now threatened because of the difficulties of making a living from agriculture in the area. Crofting law has been reformed to tackle this, however it appears to be more about tinkering around the edges rather than making a lasting difference. The bottom line is the need to make a living. If changes in the law do not make it easier to make a living, then they are absolutely useless. Government remains deaf to the real issues facing crofting. If young people cannot see a future, they will not stay in those communities. Last week, Crofters in Sutherland called on the Cabinet Secretary to look at the funding of crofting and health farms in Scotland and asked for it to be on a level playing field to the rest of the UK, where they receive over 12 times more in subsidy payments in that sector. The member accepted one of the reasons—in fact, the key reason—why farmers elsewhere in the UK receive much more per hectare in farm payments than Scotland is because previous Labour Governments, as well as Conservative Governments, have failed to negotiate a proper budget for Scotland and we have got an unfair share of overall European farming budget because of a lack of political will from UK Governments. Rhoda Grant I would always argue for more money coming to Scotland what I am arguing about however is the Scottish Government's distribution of that money and ask them to do it fairer in a way that funds those farming on the periphery in conditions that are much worse and they need to distribute the money that they do get fairer in a more equitable fashion because those subsidies come from Europe in order to create a level playing field and in Scotland we use them to do the exact opposite. The Highland clearance has left a long shadow over much of the Highlands and Islands, villages cleared and left to go to the wild. The Scottish Government should make it a priority to resettle those areas cleared by Scottish landowners in the past. They should find ways of encouraging people back into those abandoned villages, which are often the source of the best ground in the Highland crofting counties. Instead, they are presiding over further clearances by making farming and crofting in our remote rural communities uncompetitive and indeed impossible. I would like to see the Government give serious consideration to how we repopulate the Highlands and Islands. People have made and shaped those communities and are fast becoming the endangered species there. The Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs talked about the dairy sector and indeed much of this has ended in Argyll and it will disappear altogether if the Scottish Government does not act. We have seen milk prices plummet, which is acknowledged, and dairy farmers facing bankruptcy. The cremory in Campbelltown needs to be put on a secure footing and this has to happen financially as well as looking at diversifying products that it produces in order to build on its name and reputation. It would be desperately sad to see the cremory close like so many in the areas and their premium products disappear due to the inaction of this Government. Can I turn briefly to the agricultural wages board? It is really disappointing that the current consultation does not allow for the status quo. All options water down the role of the board, ranging from total abolition to a power grab by the Scottish Government and we have seen how those worked out in the past. We need to just look at England to see that those options have a detrimental impact. Almost half the workers who were previously covered by the board in England have not had a wage rise since its abolition and those who did receive a wage rise, the increase was much less than the average increases throughout the country. It would be very revealing if the SNP Government were to follow the actions of a Conservative Government in England. Agriculture is dispersed and collective bargaining is not an option given the multiple employers in the sector. Therefore, the board provides much-needed protection for workers and I firmly believe that it should be retained and indeed have its role enhanced. There is an opportunity for it to take on the role of promoting safety in the industry and sadly we know that this is one of the most dangerous workplaces in Scotland and for too long we appear to have accepted this. I believe that the board should be tasked with enhancing safety in the agriculture industry. As others have said, marketing must play a part in agriculture in Scotland. In the highlands and islands, we have premium products rather than mass-produced commodities. Assistance must be given to market those products and also to use them locally. This summer, I was able to see plans for the Portree micro slaughterhouse. That will enable producers to slaughter animals locally and sell to hotels and restaurants. It will also allow people to access local produce very close to home. For too long crofters in the highlands, I have been at the bottom of the production ladder having their profits squeezed by a very long supply chain between farm to plate. Shortening that chain would allow a larger share of the profit to be retained by the primary producer. Given the shape of the industry, that needs co-ordination and effort, and the Government needs to take a lead in changing that. Presiding Officer, crofters and farmers in my region need more than warm words from the cabinet secretary. They need commitment and action. Thank you, Presiding Officer. You just have to take a quick flick through the farming press to see a mixture of headlines—some good, some bad, some dramatic and some extremely worrying. That debate could go on for hours if we were to do justice to each and every issue. There is no doubt that Scottish farmers and crofters are facing more challenges at the moment than any of us would prefer to see. While most sectors in the agricultural industry can take the rough, with the smooth and struggle through when times are hard, there are sections of the industry close becoming simply not viable anymore. As we know, the dairy industry is on its knees. Having grown up on a dairy farm in the 60s and 70s, my heart goes out to the dairy farmers who must be wondering if a situation can possibly get any worse. It is hard to envisage a worse scenario than the nightmare dairy farmers currently find themselves in. Yet we see an announcement after an announcement from the processors lowering the prices even further. We know that our dairy industry is at the mercy of the global dairy markets, which are experiencing significant volatility. Milk supply continues to outstrip demand globally, partly due to improvements in technology, making production more efficient. We are hearing reports that dairy farms in Scotland were losing around £200 a day on average in August. When the European Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development, Phil Hogan, called in for a chat with our Racky Committee before going to the Highland show in the summer, I, along with my colleague, Mike Russell, asked him about EU intervention on the milk price. During the discussion, Commissioner Hogan stated that he has tools such as export funds and private storage aid that he can use to intervene. Thankfully, there is talk of intervention. However, we must wait and see if the European Commission is willing to go that extra kilometre to help ensure that our dairy farmers survive. However, each and every one of us can intervene by doing our own wee bit, for example, to demand that coffee chains such as Costa and Starbucks use Scottish milk. As the cabinet secretary has already mentioned, at the moment, they do not. I am grateful to the NFUS for their briefing to us in advance of this debate, which raises some salient points. However, the NFUS's disappointment in the Scottish Government's stance on GM food cannot and should not go unchallenged. I also note that Alex Ferguson's motion on behalf of the Conservatives quote, regrets the Scottish Government's decision to rule out the cultivation of GM crops, so I make no apology for concentrating on GM this afternoon, despite it being covered by previous speakers. It is clear to me that the Scottish Government's sole objective in banning GM crops is to protect Scotland's clean green status. I am glad that the First Minister and the cabinet secretary took the decision in August to restate our Government's precautionary approach to the cultivation of GM crops in Scotland. Our reputation for producing high-quality natural food and drink has resulted in Scotland's food and drink sector being worth over £14 billion, and allowing GM crops to be grown in Scotland would jeopardise the integrity of our world-class brand and gamble with its future. Our policy on GM crops must be based on what is best for our environment, best for Scottish agriculture and best for the wider Scottish economy. I am hopeful that we can have a parliamentary debate on the GM crop ban at some point in the not-too-distant future. However, can I just challenge Alex Ferguson's assertion that the decision was taken without any scientific advice? You do not have to look far in the press or on the internet to find grand claims being made for genetically modified crops. We are told that the increased yields and profits for farmers, decreased reliance on agrochemicals, improved human and animal nutrition and healthcare, and that GM crops could coexist happily beside organic and other GM-free crops. We are assured time and time again that those crops have been proven safe, often to the point where anyone who dares oppose them can be vilified for impoverishing farmers and starving the hungry. However, when those claims are scrutinised, a very different picture emerges. A study commissioned by the US Department of Agriculture found that the impacts of the adoption of GM crops and farm finances in the US were mixed and, in some cases, even negative. In the developing world, away from the energy and chemical intensive inputs that typify the systems that GM crops were developed for, the picture is even bleaker. The yield reductions and outright crop failure caused by the inability of the GM crops to adapt to local conditions and agricultural practices have been coupled with the soaring cost of GM seed, which cannot be saved for replanting, and there is also, of course, derising pesticide prices. In addition, rather than reducing reliance of farmers on pesticides, not only do herbicide tolerant plants increase the use of herbicides, the emergence and rapid spread of pesticide tolerant weeds and pests has further increased herbicide use, with farmers having to rely on even more complex toxic and costly mixtures to control their weeds. In 2009, a study of pesticide use during the first 13 years of GM crop commercialisation in the US reported that the emergence and rapid spread of glyphosphate, and that is round-up resistant weeds, was the main driver behind the rapidly growing gulf between pesticide use in GM and conventional varieties. On average, fields sown with GM varieties required 26 per cent more pesticides. In September 2013, I attended an event in Parliament hosted by my colleague Gene Urquhart MSP on a study by Professor Sirilini into the toxicity of genetically modified maize and pesticides. In addition, there was a Danish pig farmer, Eib Peterson, who switched from GMO-containing feed to GM free feed in 2011 to see if the health of his animals would improve. Overall, he improved his profit by €69 per sow, despite GM free feed costing more, so we will take no lectures from anyone on the requirement to take scientific advice. The proof is there. GMO is not guaranteed to be safe. Presiding Officer, as an obvious in agriculture debates, I found it particularly useful to read the future of Scottish agriculture discussion document, which addresses some of the key opportunities and challenges facing the sector. It says that the sector must become more efficient but also more sustainable, given climate change imperatives. That necessitates closer working with farmers and the use of new technology, as the cap payments that make up 70 per cent of farmers' net profits are reduced over coming years. The need to turn unique, desirable and ethical Scottish produce into profit based on international and national reputation is vital in the long term. At present, in Scotland, we are told that only 27 per cent of farmers have formal agricultural training. I was surprised by that. Many would benefit from a more diverse skillset when adapting to new demands. In recognising the unique qualities of Scottish local and regional produce, farmers can make an impression on international markets. I think that some of the figures about the exports of food and drink over recent years bear that out. That is why Outcome, one of the discussion documents, recommends that farmers anticipate demand and meet consumers' expectations for quality and sustainability. The outcome also suggests that farmers monitor their productivity using benchmarking data and other tools to identify opportunities for improvement. I wonder if the minister will perhaps comment on what extra training will be provided to assist farmers in getting to grips with such a formula for improvement. I found a lot that was positive in the document. I have to say in the context of our amendment that I thought that it was very unfortunate that the document did not give any mention to the agricultural wages board, which is so important for securing agricultural workers' wellbeing and livelihoods. I was most concerned to hear from Sarah Boyack and Rhoda Grant that it may well be going to be abolished. It is important that that issue is addressed in the debate. Over recent months, the agricultural sector has been reacting to a number of economic shocks to the supply chain. That has served to illustrate the need for a more resilient strategy to support producers and take the most obvious example that others have mentioned. We are all aware of the challenges that are faced by dairy farmers with production costs outweighing wholesale value with severe price volatility and uncertainty over payments, impact on livelihoods, and Sarah Boyack and our amendment emphasise the urgent need to accelerate the implementation of the dairy action plan and the overhaul of the sectoral supply chains to deliver fairer prices for farmers. In the longer term, however, there needs to be a focus on Scottish dairy products as a brand and a concerted effort to gain local and international recognition for excellence in the food and drink sector. There has been welcome extra funding to the dairy growth board to develop a Scottish dairy brand and range of products, and I look forward to hearing how those fare at next month's showcase in Scotland meet the buyer's event. On a more local level, the push to get more local products on the shelves in Scottish stores is also welcome and important. The plan had targeted that to take place in May of this year, and I would be interested to hear if there have been any discernible results from this measure. Which stores took part? Did they report figures on sales and will they agree to continue making local products a top priority for promotion? We certainly need to do everything possible to support local growing initiatives. The community empowerment bill provides a new framework for community growing and allotments, where local residents can grow produce for personal consumption and for sale. We have witnessed in the last year alone a real growth in the number of local food projects, with 150 new developments across Scotland. Those projects serve to change attitudes to food, increase awareness of the supply chain, encourage a sense of community endeavour and improve the environment. That is a sector that offers an opportunity for growth, with smaller farms being more productive per acre, according to the local food education group Nourish. They also have the capacity to reduce carbon from production. Currently, around a fifth of Scottish greenhouse gas emissions come from agriculture and the related land use sector. In 2014, Nourish reported on the need to encourage consumers to choose local produce. The local food economy report highlighted that there is a considerable lack of public awareness of the socio-economic and ecological importance of local food. Much of the rhetoric around buying local does not necessarily translate into actual buying decisions. They suggest that a long-term partnership between the Government and the local food sector is essential for sustainable growth and development of local food in Scotland. Such an approach would help growers and small producers situated in urban environments, such as leaf crops and pots, to widen their market to local retailers looking to profit from the locally sourced brand. I was also interested to see a new locally sourced food initiative launched this week called Leath Food Assembly, and you can see information about that on my Twitter of 20 September. Presiding Officer, in conclusion, sustainability and the success of our agriculture sector requires a multifaceted approach that takes into account the diversity of food and drink production in Scotland. We must find a balance between promoting our brand in a competitive globalised market and encouraging greater awareness of the vast benefits of local growing. A growing global population indicates a future of growing demand, but we must seek development within the boundaries of what is sustainable and not run up a debt of over-exploitation and sky-high emissions that cannot be reversed. The NFUS produced a detailed briefing for members on where it believes the problems that have created the current difficulties in the industry stem from and how these can be alleviated of volatility in key global markets, the impact of the Russian band, poor growing conditions and new cap, burning food producer regulation—all identified as causes. Interestingly, at no stage does it recognise, even in the slightest way, that the industry might, over the long term, have contributed to its own difficulties. Of course, if the causes of the problems lie elsewhere, then so it follows, actions must be taken by others. A number of the things the NFUS is highlighting are calling for are perfectly valid. Retailers are insulated from price volatility and too little of the profit generated by Scotland's food and drink sector is seen at the sharp end. There is not enough sourcing of indigenous produce and too often inaccurate labelling means that consumers who believe that their supporting Scottish produce actually are not. Wining in the scope of the grocery store adjudicator would be beneficial, of course, and Scotland needs to take advantage of the extended promotion package announced within the EU's emergency measures. However, let's look at the general thrust to some of the other items on the wish list. Short to medium-term measures that can be taken by Governments—plural—in order to ease pressure on the sector, a fundamental shift in approach from Governments and the wider food chain, Governments taking every action they can to ease cash flow difficulties and strengthening safety nets, cutting back on greening, regulation and cross compliance, the Scottish Government to strengthen investment research and innovation in farming and farming infrastructure, and the ditching of the ban on GM crops. What is there for Government to do yet not a single mention of anything the NFUS as the representative body or its members could or should be doing in the short, medium or even longer term to help themselves to whatever degree? I do not think that that is an oversight. I believe absolutely in the need for direct support for food production. We, as individual consumers, cannot meet the true costs associated with growing food. Therefore, subsidy is necessary absolutely. In times of genuine crisis, then, of course, the Government must lend a hand. However, this is an industry that, at least at a strategic level, seems to believe that the answer to itself, whatever form they take, whenever they arise, is more public money and being left to farm as it believes appropriate. I would rather not, if you do not mind, because I want to get through this. This is at a time when there is a shrinking public funding pot, and the rest of us have been asked to the orbit to tackle climate change issues and manifesting itself in the bad weather, which is, of course, dogging agriculture. Comparing contrast the approach of the industry with environmental lobby on this matter is articulated by the Scottish environment link in a measured, well-argued briefing that acknowledges the need for short-term support. However, in looking to the longer term, it talks of the need for a step change and not just kicking the can down the road. I think that they are right. I also very much welcome Wink's call for a new social contract between the public and the industry, which sees the people of Scotland supporting its farmers as part of a transformed food and farming system. There is no doubt that Scottish agriculture is experiencing serious difficulties at the moment. The Iraqi committee's inquiry into the dairy sector laid bare some free horrendous problems in that particular sector. The 2015 survey of bank advances to Scottish agriculture showed Scottish farm debt rose by 4 per cent in the year to May. That is the sixth consecutive annual increase in agricultural debt, a concerning trend. There is no denying the need for short-term support, which is being delivered, instance the dairy action plan and the dairy brand. They deliver £400,000 in support for the Cambleton creamery. Let us not forget that £47 million has already been invested since 2007 through the food processing, marketing, co-operation and grant scheme in buildings and equipment, particularly in an estimated 8,500 jobs. Against that backdrop, there is surely a need for the industry to look at itself and how it operates, if not immediately then certainly in the medium to long-term. Are we really saying that a sector that receives vast sums of money by way of support must be billed out whenever it runs into trouble, without any expectations that it will take steps to reduce the risk of further foreseeable problems arising? However limited these may be in the grant scheme of things. There are individual farmers looking to secure more reliable income streams to protect their businesses, to leave them less susceptible to the ravages of market conditions. Just last night, two farms from my constituency were here in Parliament promoting the high-end gin and vodka production that they have moved into using locally grown products. We need more of that kind of imagination and diversification from the industry, and the NFUS is actively reading that, sending out the message that, at the same time as seeking needed help, agriculture has prepared to help itself in a meaningful way. I would like to carry on the discussion about farm payments, which have been raised by several people, and I would like to start by echoing Tavish Scott's comments about what happened at the audit committee this morning, because I do want to commend the officials who came along, and they are very frank, and I think very helpful comments. I'd then like to turn around what I heard there, which was along the lines that there may not be a payment for every farmer in December, simply because there are some compliance issues which have to do with inspections. I would just like to bring to the Cabinet Secretary his attention that fact, and just to ask what he can do, and he may not immediately know the answer of course, to make sure that inspections happen as fast as possible, because I think we do all understand that cash flow is the lifeblood of every business in a farm is at the end of the day a business, and it's therefore really important that those who are entitled to a payment get it as soon as they can, even if it's only a part payment and the rest of it comes along in due course. That in mind, I'd like to consider briefly the regulations on greening within farm payments, and to draw attention to the fact that the regulations on ecological focus areas do seem to be particularly complicated. This has been brought to my attention by local landowners, and I do just wonder whether there might be some scope in future for that to be rather simpler. These of course have to be 5% of a farms area in order to get the 30% of a farm payment that comes from greening. It does seem to run to a very large number of lines. It takes quite a lot of understanding, and I do just wonder whether it might be possible to make that rather simpler given that the European regulations, which they appear to follow, do seem to be very simple. Now if I may continue the point that my colloquium day has raised about the industry helping itself, I would like to point out that there are many technical things that can be done, and farmers are aware of some of these, but probably not aware of some of the others. I recently met with a business from my constituency called Soil Essentials to do some what is at one level, a very simple chemistry, which is just to work out the pH of the soil and to make some recommendations about what one might do with lime and other obvious chemicals in order to make the soil more productive over its total area. Now that's a very simple part of what farmers can and I would suggest should be doing with all their land because at the end of the day the answer does always lie in the soil, and if that soil is not particularly productive because you haven't looked after the nutrients which need to be in there, then it'd be no surprise that it's not very effectively farmed. There are demonstration farms of course, the Scottish Government has set those up and funded those. There are thanks lessons to be learned. We don't have to just carry on farming us as we always have, and I therefore do want to encourage the industry to do what it can to make use of the technologies and information around. But then talking about what we can do, we can of course all do what I think I've been told to do over my lifetime, which is to buy locally. Once upon a time it was buy British, in this context it's manifestly buy Scottish, but if you can't buy Scottish then please buy British. And if you can buy locally then please buy locally. And nobody can stop me and nobody can stop anybody who might be listening to what I'm saying now, watching us online or there I say it possibly even reading the official report at some stage. It's a choice we actually have to make. If it costs us a penny or two more well so be it, but again that's a choice we can make and we can support our fellow countrymen and industry on which we are going to be long-term dependent by just changing what we do with our money. Briefly presiding officer I'd like to turn lastly to the issue of land reform and I do indeed start presiding officer with your own comments and committee a couple of weeks ago about the fact that it seems that over again over my lifetime what we've done with land reform hasn't been terribly effective one way or another. And reflecting on the fact that it's always been done with good intention. It's always been done I suspect from a philosophical point of view that says we're trying to do the right things. It's always been done with a political willingness to make a change in order to help people get access to the land. I suspect where it has always failed is that those intentions at a social level have not been matched by practicality at an economic level and therefore I would suggest that what we need to be doing in the current land reform has been mindful of the fact that if we set up new leases which are intended to help people get both in and out of the industry we must ensure that the economic backdrop dropper where we get out within which tenants and potential tenants are actually working is there to take advantage of the opportunities because frankly if the money is not available to the tenants to take those opportunities then the land reform will fail. So I think there is a basic point in here which is that we must not just think about what we're trying to do for tenants in land what we're trying to do for society as a general but we have to put that in the economic context of is this actually going to work because I think the lesson of history is otherwise it doesn't. Thank you. Thanks very much and I now call on Margaret MacDougall to be followed by Michael Russell. Thank you Presiding Officer. I'm delighted to be taking part in this debate this afternoon because the agricultural sector is one which is vitally important to our economy and is very often undervalued but if like me you were brought up in rural Angus and you have attended the many receptions which are held for the food and drink sectors in this Parliament you will appreciate just how important the produce of our farms is to our economy. Our reputation as a Scottish brand and the growth of the many small businesses who use the products of our farms. For instance at the Scottish Craft Distillers Association reception last night I met small gin, vodka and whisky distillers many of whom rely on barley and other products grown in Scotland but much more to the forefront of my mind is the plight of the dairy farmers. This summer I saw dairy farmers in Ayrshire protest in local supermarkets over the price of milk because they felt no one was listening to them. When I spoke to dairy farmers in North Ayrshire they told me that producing milk is a loss making business at the present time. The cost of them producing a litre of milk is higher than the price paid by the supermarkets and the gap is widening. Their livelihoods are at risk and many of them told me that they have been selling their dairy cows at below market value at a substantial loss just to pay the bills to stop them going bankrupt. If any of you know dairy farmers you will know how distressing it is for them to have to sell their dairy cows. I understand that there are global factors that are affecting the price of milk however there is a need for action from this Government and from the UK Government. The current position is simply untenable and the industry needs greater support to secure a long-term sustainable future. The Scottish Government's dairy action plan was launched in March and since then the crisis has deepened. I believe that it is vitally important that the Government implements the plan as soon as possible so I was disappointed that it did not receive a mention in the First Minister's programme for Government speech earlier this month. One part of the plan that we need to see progress is the development of the Scottish dairy brand. The First Minister joined her rural affairs secretary to launch the brand logo in June but its launch has failed to improve the position of dairy farmers in my region to date. It would seem to me that the Scottish Government must take immediate steps to bring the roll out of the logo forward to allow consumers to choose local dairy products to support their dairy farmers. I thank the member for giving way just to clarify that the new dairy brand developed in partnership with the industry was unveiled at the Royal Helen show and was broadly welcomed by everyone with an interest in the future of the dairy sector but it will be launched at the Inuga exhibition in Cologne next month because it is a brand for the international market. Margaret MacDonald I thank you for that clarification. I did hear the cabinet secretary mention a few businesses that are committed to using Scottish dairy produce, which I welcome, but the Scottish Government should use its procurement powers to ensure that the public sector procures its fresh milk and other dairy products from Scottish dairy farmers, a move that would give a boost to the industry. As a whole, we need to support our dairy farming industry in any attempts to add value to the high-quality produce that we create in this country. For example, on a recent visit to the Isle of Arn, I was informed that dairy farmers on the island no longer produced milk to sell to consumers direct. Instead, they sell their milk to manufacturers who make cheese and ice cream on the island because that makes it more financially viable. That leaves the Isle of Arn reliant on milk for domestic consumption being transported over from the mainland, which is an issue that could raise concerns during periods when the ferry service is not operational. However, that is clearly a decision that dairy farmers on Arn have made to add value to their product. It is an option that other dairy farmers in Scotland should consider, particularly with products such as yoghurt and soft cheese, which are not commonly produced in this country. The Scottish Government should support dairy farmers who wish to diversify into new markets, which could add value to their business. We must ensure that money provided by the European Commission to support farmers in these difficult times reaches those farmers as soon as possible. They need support now to protect their livelihoods and sustain the agricultural sector, and I urge the Scottish Government to discuss those matters with the UK Government ministers. I asked the Cabinet Secretary today to clarify the Scottish Government's position in consultation with the NFU on whether to use the ability to allow advanced payment of 70 per cent of common agricultural payments from 16 October, as permitted by the European Commission. Dairy farmers clearly face cash flow problems and are at risk of losing their businesses, their livelihoods and we risk losing the dairy industry in Scotland, so it is time that they were given a helping hand. I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate about an issue that is not just important to my constituents but is of importance to the whole country. If I might start a trifle unconventionally, I want to wish a happy 70th birthday to my constituent and friend Robert McIntyre, a councillor for Bute and a farmer of immense experience and wisdom whom the cabinet secretary knows and whose name is known throughout the farming sector in Scotland. I have learned more about agriculture from him and from other working farmers than I ever learned from briefings as an environment minister and much more than I thought I could learn from attending as I did on a couple of occasions the agricultural council of the European Union. Robert McIntyre has been chief amongst my tutors, though I must mention with some sadness the late Bert Leeske of Mull who passed away in July and whose deep knowledge and ready wit were always generously put at the disposal not just of his local MSP but also of the cabinet secretary. But I mention Robert today not just because he's reached the biblical age of three score years and ten. I mention him because he's a dairy farmer on the island of Bute and at a time when he has a right to be experiencing a more comfortable and less stressful light, though he remains a member of our Garland Bute Council, he's facing an immensely worrying and very pressured future. Last year, Robert's son Robert came home from a successful career in England because he wanted to take over the farm. The price of milk was good and the prospects for the industry were promising. That was last year. Earlier this year the price plummeted as members in this chamber know only too well and it's gone on falling. The two Roberts at Dunallan are producing milk for a first milk price, some 10p or more per litre below the cost of production. They are literally pouring their money into a tanker and off the island, and they can't do that forever. The reason for the collapse of the price of milk are many and various. Undoubtedly there was an oversupply with greater efficiency producing more milk from fewer cows. There was increased competition from other countries, there has been lost leading in the retail sector and the closure of the Russian market because of sanctions has meant that milk powder, which first milk was producing, could not be sold there. But there are other more local factors too. First milk has been a disastrously run company. Last year it lost over £20 million after a series of bad decisions and failed projects. It's incoming chief executive, Mike Gallagher, has admitted as much and he gave compelling evidence to the Parliament's rural affairs committee in March about his plans to try and turn the company around, plans that the committee and the agricultural sector have supported. The problems of the company don't just affect the 13 dairy farmers on bute. There are first milk dairy farmers in other parts of Scotland and England and particularly in Wales. They are also, in my constituency, some 36 or so dairy farmers in Kentar and Gia who are similarly challenged by rock bottom prices and a scheme of retention of payments, capital retention, which first milk is used to avoid insolvency. The farmers in Kentar and Gia supply to a creamery in Camelton which grants substantial upgrading if it's to be competitive. I thank Richard Lockhead for helping to fund that work, which has at least started. The previous management of first milk compounded the problems of the area with an inappropriate and ineffective sales and marketing agreement with an external company, which has led to huge amounts of mulling Kentar cheddar, premium cheddar, being sold on the mass market as bulk cheddar and returning very little profit. It's the farmers themselves that are trying to rectify that, the farmers and their families, with their own campaign for Camelton cheese. It's no exaggeration, Presiding Officer, to say that the future of the dairy industry in my constituency in Kentar, on Gia, on Bute, actually hangs on a knife edge. If there is not a significant price rise or significant intervention before the winter sets in with increased feeding costs, then many of those presently in the sector will leave it, no matter the cost to them. It's with great regret that I have to tell the chamber that first milk is now making the situation even worse. Tesco has agreed to pay full premium price for the milk that goes into cheese at the first milk plant at Haverford West in Wales. As this is being paid to a co-operative across the UK, the expectation from all the members of that co-operative is that each one would benefit. First milk announced last week that this would not be the case. Those who supply Haverford West will get a huge boost in payments. All the other members whose money has gone to equip and run Haverford West over the years will get nothing. When, Presiding Officer, is a co-operative not a co-operative, it is when it is run by first milk. I appeal to first milk to rescind that decision, to help all its members to survive, not just some. The members of first milk have much money tied up in the company. They want it to succeed, but if it turns its back on them just when they need it most, then they will forfeit all right to respect and to continuing support. Of course, other parts of the agriculture sector are also facing hard times. We have heard about sheep and beef prices, but dairy is a special case. It is very futures in doubt, in my constituency at least. Some more help must be given, and given now, as the cabinet secretary knows, help over and above the worthwhile but longer term aims of his dairy action plan. I do not want to finish on a gloomy note. In early August, I took my friend Robert McIntyre to the Cintyre show. Wandering around an agriculture event with Robert McIntyre is a slow process. He knows everybody. He is a story for everyone and a story about everyone. Many are immensely entertaining, and many could not be told here. However, there was a sense of camaraderie and comradeship. There were indications of innovation and new thinking. There was enthusiasm for the jobs that had to be done, and many young people wanted to be part of it. Our food industries are flourishing thanks to the cabinet secretary. In Scottish farming and society today, there is a determination to overcome difficulties. Robert McIntyre spent his life in farming. He will tell you that, despite the difficulties, it has been a good life, one in which he feels that he has done good for his island and his community. Unfortunately, he is not unique. Helping them is about what we should do, and getting the European payments on time is the first thing that we should do. I commend the motion and the work of the Scottish Government in that regard. Now, I call on Alex Rowley to be followed by Dennis Roberts. Presiding Officer, our food industry is certainly flourishing, and that is something that we can all welcome. However, the fact is that the producers are not reaping their share of the rewards for that. Farming in many areas in Scotland is in crisis. What we have heard today, I think, sums up a lack of leadership. There are plenty of warm words and rhetoric, but Graham Day attacked the National Union of Farmers and said that farmers need to take responsibility and do more themselves. We have the Government highlighting what the UK Government needs to do, but it does not offer many answers. We live in a global economy. We live in an economy where there is increasing pressure in terms of competition. However, in this country, I believe that there is much more that we can do, and we need leadership from the Scottish Government rather than simply warm words. I would firstly want to highlight the plight of workers within the farming sector itself. The Scottish Government once again embarks on another consultation on the future of the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board. In a brief from the Trade Union Unite, it says that we can test that the options presented by the Government are designed to deliberately constrain the opportunities to genuinely consider the future of the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board by excluding a specific question in the consultation on how the work of the board could be enhanced and improved and for the orders to promote a living wage through the board, despite this being a stated aim of the Scottish Government. It goes on to say that Unite has a strong impression that the relevant Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Food Environment, has launched the latest periodic review of the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board with a view to seeking to abolish it. We also believe that the previous consultation in 2008 was specifically designed to achieve that objective. Will the cabinet secretary confirm that or give us a view that that is not the case? I make a plea to the member not to conflate a review of the agricultural wages board with the proposal to scrap it. Otherwise, why would it be the case that the Labour Government carried out its own review of the agricultural wages board a few years ago when it was in power? I would say to you that there was a review in 2008. I remember at the time my own authority in Fife putting forward a motion through Fife Council making the case for the continuation of the agricultural wages board. But you're right, the Tory Government did abolish the agricultural wages board in 2013 in England, leaving many individual workers in the ridiculous situation where they have to negotiate their own wages face to face with their employers. It is the case that the UK Government's own figures estimate that farm workers in England will lose more than £250 million over a 10-year period in lost pay, sick pay and holiday entitlement. That cannot be the way that we want farm workers and agricultural workers in Scotland to be treated. In England, a survey conducted by Unite reported that only 56% of those who responded said that they had a pay rise since 1 October 2013 when the board was abolished. So I would say to the Cabinet Secretary, we see the lessons here of what happened when the Conservative Government in England abolished the agricultural wages board. You could give that assurance, remove that threat and make absolutely clear and sum it up today that you have no intentions of abolishing the agricultural wages board in Scotland. Can I also pick up on another few points that was there? The National Union of Farmers, I've also read their brief, which I thought was fairly reasonable in what it was bringing forward, but there are points there that they are saying and asking that the Scottish Government could intervene. For example, they say Scotland is part of an ambitious and forward-looking agricultural sector in the UK, and the Scottish Government should strengthen investment in farming, research and innovation in order for Scotland to become more resilient and competitive. Investment in processing infrastructure is lacking in Scotland, which leaves Scotland far behind other global exporters. The support is essential in increasing the Scottish agricultural industry's competitiveness with neighbouring exporters. Again, they are pointing out some things there that we can do, practical things that we can do, to bring about investment that would make our industry more competitive and support farmers. There are a number of recommendations that they make that seem to me to not be unreasonable. Again, the Minister might want to say what he's actually going to do to start working further and see this type of investment come in. The brief that was put forward by the Scottish Environment Organisation link, I thought, was also very good. Again, it cries out for leadership. It talks about what can be achieved if we have the procurement processes in place that allow to buy local, that we have local authority, public sector organisations purchasing local, buying local and being able to support local. I would sum up by finally saying, if we are serious about buying local, getting people to buy Scottish produce, then again it needs leadership. So, a lot of warm words for the Government, a lot of warm words for the Minister, let's actually turn that into something and start to have action that supports our farming industry or agricultural sector, which is important for everyone in Scotland. Thanks very much. Now Colin Dennis Robertson to be followed by Alison Johnstone. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Alex Rowley has just asked for leadership and asked us what we can do. Can I follow perhaps Nigel Dawn's remarks when he said that, as consumers, we have a responsibility ourselves to ensure that we, as consumers, do our bit to ensure that we protect our farming industry. So, if we're looking at the fair framework for farmers, let's look at it in detail, Presiding Officer. When it leaves the farm and the producers, we've got to look at, you know, what the produce is and how it gets to market and how it gets to the plate in terms of our consumption. We're at a stage now where our Cabinet Secretary on many occasions, and in fact I think it's basically just last month, I think it was the 17th of August, he had a meeting with the other UK ministers and with the supermarket industries to look at how we could actually support and get the supermarkets to sign up to the sort of fair work deal. I just don't know how many have signed up to this, but what we do know is there is supermarkets who are trying to duke the consumer. Alex Ferguson made reference to the fact that when we are branding in the supermarkets Scottish lamb, for instance, when you look closely, you pick up the pack and it's New Zealand lamb. Alex Ferguson is absolutely right, it has to stop. But that's not the job of the Cabinet Secretary. That is the job of the supermarket and those who manage the supermarket to ensure that when we have a brand and we have the labelling and that has been taken forward, Presiding Officer, that the industry ensures that the consumer is actually getting what the consumer is looking for. Certainly, in my constituency, Presiding Officer, we have seen some diversity from our farmers and within the industry. More of our farmers have been within the farmers markets. Just a few weeks ago, I was in Huntley, a local farmers market, and I was buying local produce. Many people were doing exactly the same. What they were saying is that they go to the farmers market because they are assured that what they are getting is local. That is supporting our local farmers and, as consumers, that is something that we can do. The campus will be a cheese in my constituency, again, a premium cheese that goes out and sources the premium retail. Are they getting the price that they require? Well, probably no. Again, that is the retail market that is actually taking the gain and the profitability that we are seeing within the food and drink industry, which is at a massive high at the moment. Are they passing it on to those who have produced the goods? No. We need to try to ensure that what we are doing is protecting where the source comes from. Our farmers do require subsidy, but they do require a fair contract from the people that they are selling their food on to. It is not just a fair contract, Presiding Officer. They need long-term contracts. They need contracts that they know at the end of the day that they have an income, a source of income that they can be assured of, regardless of the weather. I think that, within those contracts, the retail needs to take some of the risk. That is something that we are not seeing, Presiding Officer. The other thing within the diversity within the farming industry, certainly within my constituency, we have seen more farm shops opening. Certainly in the area of Fingen, in my constituency, it is not just a farm shop, but a restaurant. What that does, Presiding Officer, is that it produces employment for the local community. It brings together that community, and that community is extremely proud not just of what is being produced locally, but of bringing in the tourist industry and bringing other people from around the constituency, and maybe as far as Aberdeen up to Fingen, just to taste that local produce. However, I think that this is something that the farming industry is doing. I think that, in spite of some of the adverse aspects and some of the adverse hardships that are there, the farming industry is doing what I believe it can. It is difficult, there is no doubt about it, because the hardships that they have are subject to things that they have no control over. That mean hardship probably is the weather, but then again, the subsidy is coming from the European Union. When we call for leadership, let me give—let me suggest one way of leadership. Let our cabinet secretary go to the top table in Europe. Let our cabinet secretary actually negotiate the payments for our farmers. That is the way that we can support our farmers in Scotland, Presiding Officer, by enabling our cabinet secretary, someone with eight years of experience in this Government, go to the top table in Europe and protect our farmers. Most people in Lothian region live in urban areas, but that does not mean that agriculture is not vitally important. How and who produces our food is of interest to all. Local people campaigning to save Damhead in Midlothian from the new A701 have proposed an alternative use for the green belt and Edinburgh food belt. That is changing our perceptions of the green belt and hopes to open up croft-sized opportunities for people to start new businesses with short food chains and embedding this resilient approach in future local development plans. Shortening supply chains, reducing inputs and improving the environment are all needed for a sustainable food system. The authors of the Scottish Government's discussion document, the future of Scottish agriculture published this June, clearly get the challenge and it is refreshingly clear for a publication like this. Improved innovation, resource efficiency, skills and profitability all have suggested action. The need and opportunities for Scotland to be a world leader in green farming is recognised. Advice, training, education and demonstration farms are all suggested to support farms to be environmentally and commercially successful. In the not-so-long term, those two concepts are thoroughly inseparable. One of the risks missed by the Government's discussion document was our food system's reliance on fossil fuels, for transport, for pesticides, fertilisers and much more. Breaking this link is one of our biggest challenges, making sure that we can sustain a system of affordable food production without fossil fuels. To do that, we will need innovative thinking and a willingness to try new techniques. Imagine walking down a road with a field of crop on your left and natural woodland on your right. Which one is more productive? The field gives us a uniform crop, but the other is layered with a vastly greater weight of plants and biomass all without fossil fuel inputs. We still have many lessons to learn from nature. As with so many industries, co-operation on innovation and sharing good ideas will be key to success. There is plenty of strong community in farming to do that. Cooperative models are also working to help farmers to get the best deal and share resources, but we have very low production numbers from co-operatives compared with EU countries. Cap reform has finally got rid of some of the artefacts of the old system, but the wrong decision was made on allocating the convergence uplift uniformly across the UK. I support calls for that to be revisited. Across the 521 businesses in the Lothian region, the new cap is expected to deliver gains of 1.4 million euros and losses of 5.4 million, so a net loss of 4 million. The Government motion also refers to the red meat levees. I agree with that, but the action that the Scottish Government can take right now is to support new abattoirs here in Scotland. That would help to solve the levee issue and increase animal welfare by reducing transport distance. New farmers are faced with lots of barriers, including high land values, and land reform should be seen as a way to open up more opportunities for farms of all sizes. Many farmers now have renewables or low-carbon energy, but there is always more to do to maximise the benefits to farmers and to wider community initiatives that need land for projects. The UK Government's attempt to pool the rug from those initiatives demonstrates why Scotland needs more influence on energy policy as well as in EU agriculture debates. Broadband infrastructure is another issue for rural businesses. I know my colleague John Finnie will mention the importance of the Royal Mail's universal service obligation in his member's debate tomorrow, but that principle could be applied to broadband provision so that rural businesses are not stuck with a loading page instead of the latest price data. Finally, TTIP, the Transatlantic Trade Treaty, is a risk to Scotland's reputation for safe quality agriculture. I have asked the Government to step up to the plate on this, be quite clear in opposing it. It is not a trade deal. It is a corporate power grab that is bad for food. Rob Gibson in his welcome contribution asked what agriculture is for, and I agree that it is not about providing profits to huge monopolies. It is about ensuring that we all have enough to eat, and we should remember that the right to food is established in international human rights law. I received an email today from Edinburgh Central and Edinburgh North West Food Bank asking us all to watch the Food Bank, Scotland's hidden hunger, which will air next week. Now, while we sadly understand why there has been a rapid increase in growth of food banks, I would attribute that in no small amount to welfare reform at Westminster, let's listen to nourish Scotland who call on us to eat more of what we produce here and to produce more of what we eat here. Listen to people like Professor Elizabeth Dowler and Professor Graham Richies when they tell us that relying on corporate food waste, the same corporates who do not pay farmers a fair price for milk is not an effective, sustainable or fair response to hunger. Perhaps if we use the poverty alliances term emergency food aid rather than food banks, we would better appreciate the urgent need to ensure that Scotland's food success story is one that fully benefits local producers and local people. I would ask that we continue to strive for a stronger food culture that brings people closer together, that brings producers and consumers together. I enjoyed Malcolm Chisholm's contribution to his focus on the right to grow and local initiatives and I would also like to highlight in Edinburgh here the fabulous Dig In, a community greengrocer making the most of that local produce. Thank you. Thank you very much. We now move to closing speeches and I call on Tavish Scott at six minutes please. Oh, I beg your pardon. We move to Bruce Crawford and then we'll move to closing speeches. Forgive me, Mr Crawford. Six minutes. I think my time in making closing speeches is a minister's probably gone, Presiding Officer, but I would like to start my contribution today by recognising the vitally important work that farmers do across Scotland for our nation on a daily basis. Our farmers, their families, their employees are the very backbone of our rural communities. They provide the food on our tables through countless hours of hard toil and commitment to the land. Within my constituency of Stirling and across Scotland, the plight of our dairy farmers has been something that we've heard this afternoon that we're all concerned about. Earlier this year I had a member's debate to highlight the issues regarding the labelling of dairy products and the need for the introduction that I made in Scotland label for Scottish produced dairy products. I, for one, was therefore very pleased to note that such a brand was launched in June at the Royal Highland show by the Scotland's first minister, Nicola Sturgeon. I believe strongly that the Scottish dairy brand will assist consumers understanding of where their food is being produced and should lead over time to greater sales of Scottish produce. Now, while the recent focus has been on dairy, it's not only the dairy industry that's facing challenges. A lot of our farmers are receiving very low returns, prices for our sheep farmers are dropping and there are significant pressures on beef margins. That's why the matter of Scotland receiving a fair share of Europe's new 500 million euro market support package becomes so critical, particularly in the light of the UK Government's failure to yet allocate the £190 million of convergence uplift provided to the UK as a direct result of low payments in Scotland. That money could provide some hope for a hard-pressed sector if we could get that money into the system quickly enough that it could stop at least some foreign businesses from falling over. However, the Scottish Government must play its part, too, by getting the 2015 cap pillar 1 payments into foreign business accounts at the earliest possible date. I welcome what the cabinet secretary had to say about that earlier today. I recognise the challenges, though. I also want to highlight today the remarkable resilience of Scotland's farmers, in particular tenanted sector. Tenant farmers in many cases own no assets by way of property and face real challenges in securing financial support from banks, even in circumstances where lifelong secure tenancies exist. Farming infrastructure and machinery is expensive. To be able to invest in the best technology and the most up-to-days ways of working, tenant farmers need to have better access to capital. To that end, I ask the cabinet secretary what discussions he has had with the banks to encourage them to be much more amenable to supporting the tenanted sector. We have heard about some of the challenges, but there are also opportunities. Diversification is one of the ways that some of our farmers—and certainly farmers in my constituency—have chosen to improve their business. Diversification, through agotourism works, not only for the agricultural sector but also delivers greater sustainability for the whole of rural life. I have some great examples in my own patch. For instance, the Rogers family, Nochraeach dairy farm in Fintry, who has diversified into an artisan dairy business. The Rogers family has been farming at Nochraeach since 1947 and now has a herd of 60 British freezons. They are also run an exquisite soft furnishing company, coffee and creamery all within the farm courtyard. The business is now going from strength to strength, selling a ward running dairy produce handmade in Scotland. We are aware that times are tough for our farmers and the current economic climate for dairy farmers. Clearly, not all dairy farmers can do what the Rogers family has done, but it shows what diversification can do for farm fortunes. Another great example in my constituency is the Ingalls family, who has farmed at Briarlands for over three generations. In 2006, they opened up the farm to the public to enjoy family-friendly activities for children and adults to enjoy as well as opening a new restaurant recently and giving fruit-picking experiences for the whole family. Mains far and wigwams is another fabulous example of where diversifications worked. Lewis and Martin have created 15-wigam sites from original wigwams, heated, double glazed, insulated, and even of electricity. They have created a glamping experience for those who might prefer home comforts over conventional camping. Agri-tourism, at an area that I strongly believe, is a way to help the farming industry through some of the fluctuations that often suffer in market prices. It can also help, frankly, our countryside to be an even more appealing place for people to visit. I would be interested to know from the cabinet secretary what more the Scottish Government could do to support and promote agri-tourism. Every industry that we know goes through its tough times. Our farmers are in a prolonged period of rough period, but they will come through it. Although, yes, there are many challenges facing the agriculture sector, I can say without doubt that farmers are some of the most resilient people that I know. That is why I very much agree with NFU Scotland when they say that the future can be bright for farming industry in Scotland. When I got to my feet, Scotland was leading 45.10. Obviously, our farmers are doing something right by feeding our rugby players. I hope that that is finished on the right side by the time we get to full time. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Many thanks, and I can confirm that that was indeed the full-time score. We now move to the closing speeches this time. I call on Tavish Scott. Six minutes. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I am pleased to see you watching your iPad like the rest of us. The point of information is a note from our office. This has been a very useful debate on agriculture, and I just want to make a couple of points about contributions that other colleagues have made. Firstly, to Alex Ferguson, who had the temerity, as some would see it, to raise GM crops, and was then landed on by a number of members across the chamber. Actually, I think there is an argument that needs to be had about the science behind that, and Rob Gibson and others obviously feel—and I've heard Rob make that speech a number of times over the years—very passionately against any dalliance whatsoever with GM crops, but I suspect he and others would accept that, at the very least, the science and the full assessment of the science is something that needs to be considered, not least of which, because the Scottish Government are rightly at the moment having to consider exactly the same principle when it comes to fracking, and I don't see how you can have a policy on fracking, which is absolutely looking at the science and, of course, all the environment consequences of that, and not take, in principle, the same approach to another issue in a different policy area. The other observation I wanted to make just about Graeme Dey's was not that Graeme Dey has every right to make his observations about the NFU, but I'd just say gently that, over many years, particularly when his colleagues were in opposition, then there was always the requirement on government to do more, particularly when the NFU had made that argument, and if I may say so, the Cabinet Secretary in Opposition was particularly good at pressing that case when such luminaries as Jim Walker were shouting loudly from the—not just from the pages of the Scottish Farmer, but from other places as well. A serious point I wanted to get to on remarks that other colleagues have made was actually about Rob Gibson's challenge about what agriculture is for, and I didn't disagree at all with his contentions around local food production and just the principle of producing for both the marketplace and for the consumer, particularly in a local context, which I think was the argument that Sarah Boyack was developing in her opening remarks. For me, the other fundamental is—I mean, no apologies for this—supporting rural communities. Many of us in this Chamber support and represent many outlying and rural parts of Scotland, and if it were not for agriculture, if it were not for crofting and farming, there would just be a lot less people there. That means not a school, not a shop and all the other ancillary industries that are so wedded in parts of the country that I think give it the flavour and give it the context that makes it so attractive to visit, as Bruce Crawford was just saying from a tourism point of view. He's right about, in that context, about both crofters and farmers recognising what they're doing in diversifying their businesses into that area. It's not for all, but it's certainly for some. Just two or three other points in relation to matters that have been raised. I agree with the assessment of the so-called 500 million euro emergency package as far as I can read of what that means, that it'll either be very thinly spread across Europe, in which case, I suspect Mr Lockhead will be batting his head against a brick wall trying to get anything out of that for Scotland. Therefore, whether the argument should be better put that, particularly at this time of extreme pressure on primary producers, not just in our country but in other parts of Europe as well, there may be more that could be done with marketing and assistance in a different kind of way, but I leave that to people who are closer to that argument than I. But also, to Bruce Crawford's point about convergence funds, I thought this plan on that one had a very solid and consistent line across all parties, whereby we made a case in support of the arguments that were had in the previous year or so to make that. And there is now to be a midterm review and to be other assessments in that area. It's very important that that does continue and it does produce results for Scottish agriculture. On cap payments, the arguments have been made about timing and I won't repeat those. I just want to make one other point to the Government, and that is, again, for many of us who represent rural and island constituencies, if the move is towards filling in a complex form online, then that goes hand in hand with better broadband services around Scotland as well. Superfast is a bit of a joke to many parts of Scotland. They're just like some broadband service, so I know the Government are on this, as it were, but I'm not sure we're getting all we might out of that current contract in terms of the investment, huge investment that Government's putting in. I personally feel it's the wrong way around. I still think we need to be targeting the most hardest-to-reach areas first prior to targeting, frankly, big towns where the market will probably deliver anyway. It seems to me that's somewhat in BT, just certainly. So, I think that contract's somewhat in BT's favour rather than in people's favour. Dave Thompson. Thank the member for taking the intervention. I'm sure he's aware that the 4G mobile signal spectrum was auctioned by the UK Government last year, and that the 5G is coming up for auction, I believe, next year. The great thing about 4G and 5G is that it can piggyback broadband on the back of it. Would he support a clause in the contract the next time it's auctioned that would insist that 95 per cent of the Highlands and Islands were included in terms of the masks going out of all of our rural areas? 45 seconds, Mr Scott. The principle is good, Mr Thompson, but the 95 per cent is always the one that I've worried about, because I've probably got some of that 5 per cent in my constituency, and in fairness, you've probably got some of that 5 per cent in yours as well. When you say to those people that you're not going to get any of it, I think that's, again, the policies the wrong way around. Can I just finish with two points on just the pressure facing agriculture? The first is I just want the Cabinet Secretary to recognise the point that Liam McArthur made in terms of breeding stock, livestock production, the underpinning of all agriculture in Scotland, and I think the argument that Liam McArthur made about Western and the potential to lose stock because of the fodder problem I hope the Cabinet Secretary will take very seriously. Finally, on sheep sales, Presiding Officer, the pressure there is significant at the moment in terms of land prices, and I hope that, in the context of the discussions that he's having with the supermarket trade, that market's being pushed as hard as it possibly can be. Thank you so much. Now Colin Jamies McGregor, six minutes please, Mr McGregor. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I refer members to my farming interests and the register of members' interests, and I'm pleased to close today's debate and thank those organisations that have provided briefings for today. As members across the chamber have said, this debate is very timely. Our farming sector is facing a number of very tough challenges, and some of our farmers under severe pressure and have significant cash flow problems, with Scottish farming debt levels at their highest since the late 1980s. Farmers and crofters, therefore, are rightly looking to the Scottish Government for support. The challenges arise from a number of areas, including volatility in global markets, low commodity in livestock prices, bad weather, the relative strength of the pound compared to the euro, and the implementation of the newly-formed common agricultural policy. And there are a number of issues that I want to pick up from the debate. Mike Russell was quite right to refer to the continuing crisis affecting dairy farmers in Kintar butte and gear, who supply first milk. They remain under huge financial pressure. The investment in Campbelltown Creamery is welcome, as this is a vital processing facility, and we need to continue to do more to promote Kintar cheddar and ensure that Scottish dairy products are properly labelled and made from Scottish milk, which is processed in Scotland. The Scottish Government needs to look at what further support it can provide our hardworking specialist dairy farmers to ensure that the industry gets through the current challenges so that we retain the producers and processing infrastructure, which, with the right marketing and export support, and by building on Scotland's strong reputation for quality food, does have the potential when market conditions improve to be an area of growth for the rural economy. Bad weather, starting with the cold late spring and then a very wet summer, has sadly been a feature this year for far too many of our farmers. I'm aware, for example, that parts of Orkney have had their wettest summer for over 100 years, and a combination of poor grass growth and a shortage of silage has been very difficult for many farmers, with some being forced to sell livestock far earlier than normal and, what's more, at a loss. I know that the Scottish Government is looking at what additional assistance it can provide to those farmers most affected by the adverse weather conditions that have prevailed, and I hope any announcements can be made without further delay. Lamb prices, which are at a 7-year low and 20% less than a year ago, are a source of real concern to many in the sheep sector. The price of breeding sheep has also fallen significantly, and I support the NFUS in calling on every retailer to have British or Scottish lamb on its shelf, so the consumer does have the choice of having local lamb or imported lamb rather than just having only imported lamb. In the longer term, we need to do more to encourage Scottish consumers to eat more lamb and mutton. We currently eat far less lamb and mutton than most other countries in Europe, and I simply don't know why that's the case. The new common agricultural policy system has been mentioned by a number of members, crofting constituents in my region, for example, some in Kinloch Berwy, who were recently quoted on BBC Radio Scotland, are continuing to invoice their disappointment at what they see as very low levels of support for poorer quality rough grazing in Scotland, even when combined with the U-Hog payment, when compared to support for equivalent land in England and especially in Wales, where it is many, many times higher. And I am told that while Grave 3 land in Scotland receives £7 per hectare, the equivalent ground in Wales is receiving £88. This puts Welsh hill farmers on a very considerable advantage, and our own crofters and farmers at a very considerable disadvantage. Could the minister comment on this? The greening element of the new common agricultural policy has meant extra regulations and cross compliance, and I support the NFUS in calling for the removal of gold plating and simpler guidance so that our primary producers are not disadvantaged. The simplification agenda at EU level should be seized upon to deliver improvements to the greening regulations. Before closing, I just want to touch on the Scottish Government's decision on GM crops. The vast majority of the farmers I have spoken to about this are aghast at the Government's decision, taken with no consultation either with their industry or it appears with a scientific community. This policy risks putting Scotland's farmers at a competitive disadvantage and can only do damage to our world-class research institutes. Ministers should look at this subject again and recognise that GM does have a role to play in increasing food production and developing disease-resistant crops. This is a debate about opportunities in the farming sector, not disadvantages, and it would be a travesty if ministers were to stop farmers benefiting from the new technological advances. I refer actors on that point to the EU commissioner Hogan's comments to the Rural Affairs Committee that animal feed would be far more expensive for our farmers if GM is not accepted. Finally, given all the challenges facing the industry just now, I want to emphasise again the importance of our farmers and cross farmers receiving their payments in December. I look to the minister to deal with this one. Thank you. Thank you very much. I have no comment. Claudia Beamish, up to eight minutes please, Mr Beamish. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I want to start, although many members have already said this, in paying respect to our farming communities across Scotland. They face so many challenges, as we have heard today, the eternal daily struggle in all weather and the effect, particularly this year, of the poor weather on harvests. Price uncertainty and volatility and the NFUS actually state in its briefing that this has forced many Scottish farmers to question their future viability. This is a very worrying position for many farmers to be in and very stressful, and this needs to be acknowledged. However, the NFUS also states, I quote, this is a crucial time for Scottish and UK farming, but with a fundamental shift in approach from governments and the wider food chain, NFUS remains convinced there can be a bright future for the farming industry. NFUS also highlights how essential it is that the Scottish Government engages with banks and lenders to clarify new measures and lending structures that will provide assistance to farmers dealing with price volatility. Dennis Robertson made the point, I thought very well about the argument about how important it is for the contracts to be longer for farmers as well, because no business likes uncertainty. It is significant though that the Bank of Scotland has already established a large fund of £500 million to help agricultural customers who are eligible to receive the basic payment and who might be adversely affected in the event of a delay in December. It will be free of any arrangement fee and will be in place for the time required until payment is received, but I really do emphasise the importance, as we have done across the chamber today, for the December payments to be made. I do wonder whether earlier payments might have been of use to Scottish farmers and whether the Cabinet Secretary can comment on whether he is not taking up Commissioner Hogan's arguments for this due to the fairly chaotic situation that developed earlier with the applications. I am also clear from examples from the US that the development of farm credit cooperatives can make a significant difference and contribution to investment with the development of specialist knowledge for farming needs, and I wonder if the Cabinet Secretary will consider support for their development along the lines of credit unions. Dairy today has been the symbol of the challenges faced by all sectors, and Margaret MacDougall highlighted the plight of farmers in her region. Also, we heard from others, including of course Michael Russell. The concerns are really very grave. The development of the processing industry infrastructure with support from government is vital to the future in the longer term, but at the moment there are issues that cannot be resolved in that way. I know that dairy farmers across Scotland and including in my region are turning to the Scottish government for a plea for help. Retail needs to take some of the risk, as Dennis Robertson said. Supermarkets still need to be faced with the failure to give specific support and priority to Scottish produce. The grocery adjudicator gave evidence to our committee earlier this year, and the role should be broadened in the words of the NFUS to receive complaints from indirect as well as direct suppliers. They need to be held to account. Dennis Robertson highlighted the value of farm shops and the role of farmers markets, which I know that our presiding officer had a role in developing in the early days. These are an important way in which consumers can connect with the industry, but the public sector procurement targets are highlighted in our amendment and the shorter supply chains highlighted by nourish as a charity are vital. Providence and niche markets across the country are also vital. The food and drink awards, which I attended along with the cabinet secretary and many others earlier this year, are testimony to the success of our industry. In my own region alone, there was recognition for peel and farm produce platters of char chouterie and Galloway chilies for their soup and preserves, canopy for curried Scottish goat, which I haven't yet tried, and much more. I want to turn now to the contribution of co-operative models for agriculture. While first milk has certainly been a bitter disappointment in dealing with milk producers and is as far away from the co-op spirit as one might imagine as explored by Mike Russell, members of the Scottish agricultural organisation society and beyond that show how effective and efficient co-operation can be. So I ask the Scottish Government to maintain a strong commitment to investing in farmer co-ops and their growth and development with grants and specialist support and ask the Scottish Government to step up its endorsement. There are indeed many more systematic and systemic challenges being addressed by Scottish agriculture. These relate to biodiversity, climate change and connectedness with communities. This transition must be a just transition to support farmers. And Scotland's biodiversity route map was published last week. It presents a number of direct challenges for agriculture to face and acknowledges that agriculture pollution is a key pressure on biodiversity and states that land use intensification reduces diversity and connectivity of habitat, something raised by Alison Johnson. Facing the climate change challenge, farm level carbon assessment must now be considered and it is also important that farmers take up the opportunity of the new collaboration fund in addressing flooding and climate change solutions. The expectations have changed through the new cap payments robustly signal the need for a shift in farming approaches and the ultimate aim of fusing farm food production and greening in the future of Scottish agriculture. Earlier this summer, Sarah Boyack and I visited Whitmure Organics and the Cabinet Secretary wrote to me recently and stressed that it is essential that our organic sector will be well placed to successfully compete with the growing market in Europe and Scottish Environment link briefings highlight the possibility of agroecology. Further, link calls for, I quote, a new social contract between farmers and citizens in Scotland, one of mutual benefit, respect and value and this is something that needs serious consideration. I also want to highlight education, the RETs make a large contribution to schools and make young people and children aware of the future. We've had Apple Day at Holyrood, we've heard from a range of members from Bruce Crawford to Malcolm Chisholm about the initiatives for growing and I do believe that these will address some of the problems for the people who are faced with food banks if they can be involved in food co-ops and in those sort of initiatives although of course the main challenge for people faced with that with food banks is the UK government's approach. So I commend all those who work in agriculture and wish them well and we are determined to work with the Scottish government to ensure a positive future for Scottish agriculture and our rural communities from the highlands to the south of Scotland. Many thanks and we now move the closing speech from the cabinet secretary. Cabinet secretary Richard Lochhead you have until five o'clock please. I just want to begin by thanking all the members for their contributions and of course it's been a good opportunity to commend and highlight the contribution of many men and women to Scottish agriculture and for putting food on their tables and looking after Scotland's environment and underpinning a large part of Scotland's economy. It's also a good opportunity to follow in the footsteps of Michael Russell by wishing Robert McIntyre the renowned dairy farmer from Bute a 70th happy 70th birthday. He is certainly a stalwart of the dairy sector in Bute and cares deeply about the future of agriculture in Scotland and of course I do know Robert McIntyre very well because I accidentally gave him my mobile phone number a few years ago and he's still a fine man. There is a lot of agreement across the chamber on many of the key and serious issues facing Scottish agriculture and food production in this country as well as on the enormous achievements of our food and drink industry underpinned by agriculture at the same time and looking at the amendments in the opposition parties. There are many good points made in most of them albeit we cannot support them because we don't agree with everything and of course to remove some of the good parts from the Scottish Government's motion so we aren't able to support the amendments and of course there is one amendment in particular and I talk about the Tory party's amendment which of course we we do oppose and have severe reservations about particularly the support for GM crops and I have to remind the Tory party as I have done many times before and will continue to do the reason why Scotland was able to opt out of the growing of GM crops in Scottish soil is because the EU changed its regulations and decision making process therefore decisions over science have now been divorced in the decision making process from social and economic and democratic factors therefore the Scottish Government were only able to take the decision that we have taken on the basis of democratic social and economic factors the science has decided the EU level the crops are authorised once have gone through the scientific analysis at EU level and then member states and governments within member states are able to take decisions to opt out on other factors and it was in those other factors as well as long standing reservations on the wider debate by which we took these decisions briefly not for one minute have I questioned the right of the Scottish Government to take the decision it has and nor have I advocated anywhere today a sort of compulsory requirement for all Scottish farmers to take on GM cultivation would he accept that I simply my belief is that it is wrong to close the door to the potential benefits that this technology could provide? Well I think a key point is that our belief as a Scottish Government since we took the decision has now been shared by Austria, Bulgaria, Cyprus, France, Germany, Europe's biggest country, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Northern Ireland, Poland and Slovenia and no one is seriously suggesting any of those countries are anti science or don't care about feeding the world and when it comes to feeding the mouths of people around the world in the future globally the planet currently wastes 1.3 billion tons of food that is a one third of agricultural output intended for human consumption on this planet equivalent to using 28% of the world's agricultural land producing foods that goes to waste so can I suggest to Tory party the way to feed the world is not GM is to stop that waste I also want to turn to some of the other issues that were raised by members particularly Labour benches in relation to the future of the Scottish agricultural wages board we are not proposing to scrap the Scottish agricultural wages board what was consulted upon was the options for the future because we had a similar consultation in 2008 where we promised to have a further consultation in a few years time this is not novel and I really wish that Alec Rowley and other members would not conflate a consultation with your proposal for closure because the Labour party had exactly the same kind of review back in 2003 so can I gently say it's a touch of hypocrisy from the Labour party to criticise the government for having a review of the Scottish agricultural wages board when it's exactly what they did when they were in power in the Scottish Parliament so we will announce our outcome of that consultation in due course I'm really running out of time to take a brief intervention. I thank the cabinet secretary the concern of agricultural workers that I know in South Scotland and as highlighted through the unite points that were made by my colleague Alec Rowley is quite simply the concern about the abolition of the ability to negotiate for isolated rural and horticultural workers in the sector and that is a concern. As I said we're listening carefully to responses to the consultation and we'll announce the outcome in the coming weeks I just want to turn to some of the areas where the members who spoke in the debate felt the Scottish Government should be taking action or more action. Firstly of course the big issue was to ensure to help the industry with its cash flow problems that the government got the European support out the door as quickly as possible once the payment window opens in the 1st of December and I would remind the chamber that over the years between now and 2019 that four billion pounds worth of European support will be delivered by the Scottish Government to farmers and crofters the length and breadth of Scotland's. I've said already that we are busting a gut to get the money out the door beginning hopefully by the end of December that's the policy position at the moment we'll keep the industry up to date as things become clearer and we do have the option of course of paying the money out in two parts with an additional payment followed by a later payment at some stage and we are seriously considering using that option. In terms of the administration and the complexity of the policy I should say that yes we are investing in an IT system and administration it's a new complex system radically different to the former policy this was based in areas of land as opposed to past activity that's why that investment has been made the investment is equivalent to four percent of the four billion pounds that will go out the door but it's necessary investment but I do agree with members the policy is far too complex and it should have been simplified as it was promised by the European authorities and other politicians and other member states indeed the EU estimates the cost of administering a new cap is going to be between 15 and 45 percent higher than the previous programme so quite clearly Europe has failed on its objective of simplifying the programme indeed it's much more costly and much more complex than the last programme but in terms of getting the budgets out the door wouldn't it be great that we had more budget to get out the door because I listened to Rhoda Grant standing up there and criticising Scottish government for not having enough funds for Scotland's crofters can I remind Rhoda Grant that we wish we had bigger budgets to allocate to the crofters and other farmers in Scotland but at the moment in terms of the 2013 average payment figures in England it was 265 euros per hectare in Wales it was 247 euros per hectare and in Northern Ireland it was 335 euros per hectare whilst in Scotland thanks to the poor negotiation who ignored Scotland's pleas by previous Labour governments and then Tory governments the average in Scotland that we've been allocated is 130 euros per hectare so when I get complaints from Rhoda Grant saying that isn't it terrible that England farmers are getting more payment they're getting in Scotland I ask her where were the Labour party in Scotland when the UK Labour party were letting Scotland down in these budget negotiations but now of course the UK government can help Scotland's farmers and crofters by putting right some of the big wrongs in the past year or two firstly there's the cap convergence budget money where because of Scotland's low payments Europe said that yes that isn't an issue therefore Scotland should get more money and an extra 190 million pounds was allocated to the UK because of Scotland's low payments otherwise the UK would not qualify for that uplift and what happened was the Tory government kept the money and we've been denied 145 million pounds that should have come to Scotland so I asked the Scottish Conservative party to ask the UK Conservative Secretary of State to fix that wrong as quickly as possible and help Scotland's farmers and crofters now we're also losing a million pounds per year from red meat levies from animals reared in this country but because of the current system and its flaws the money goes south of the border to produce some south of the border and not produce some north of the border where the income was generated so the UK government could help our farmers at the moment by fixing that as well and now of course the battle turns to the new EU aid package which was given to the UK to help us address some of these challenges there's about 36 million euros not a huge amount of money coming to the UK through the aid package and of course there'll be a modest amount coming to Scotland from that but it's really important it's not a third time unlucky and we get a fair share of that 36 million euros can you bring your remarks to the post cabinet secretary and I should say in conclusion that that decision was taken Luxembourg informal council which Scotland was not allowed to attend where some of the money was decided upon the weather conditions in some countries and there was no one there to speak for Scotland but the wet weather we've had here to earn more of that emergency aid but there wasn't Eastern Europe and they're getting more money because of the droughts they've had we don't get money because of the wet weather we've had because there was no one there speaking for Scotland that's why Scotland should have their own voice at these negotiations so the Scottish government will continue to urge the UK government Europe or retailers and food service companies to get behind the men and women that farmer land and put food on their table in their hour of needs. That concludes the debate on agriculture current challenges facing sector and opportunities. We now move on to next item of business which is consideration of business motion number 14332 in the name of Delford's Patrick on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau setting out a business programme. Any member who wishes to speak against the motion should press a request to speak but now and I'll call on Delford's Patrick to move motion number 14332. No member has asked to speak against the motion therefore I now put the question to the chamber. The question is that motion number 14332 in the name of Delford's Patrick would be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. The next item of business is consideration of three business motions. I would ask Delford's Patrick on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau to move motion number 14333, 14334 and 14335 setting out stage one time tables for various bills on block. I propose to ask a single question on these motions. If any member objects to a single question being put, please say so now. The member has objected to a single question being put therefore I now put the question to the chamber. The question is that motion number 14333, 14334 and 14335 in the name of Delford's Patrick would be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motions are therefore agreed to. We now come to decision time. There are four questions to be put as a result of today's business. Can I remind member that in relation to today's debate, if the amendment in the name of Sarah Boyack is agreed to, the amendments in the name of Alex Ferguson and Tavish Scott fall? The first question is that amendment number 14327.3 in the name of Sarah Boyack, which seeks to amend motion number 14327 in the name of Richard Lockhead on the agriculture sector to be agreed to. Are we all agreed? It's not agreed. We move to vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of voter amendment number 14327.3 in the name of Sarah Boyack is as follows. Yes, 38. No, 78. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. Can I now remind members that of the amendment in the name of Alex Ferguson is agreed, the amendment in the name of Tavish Scott falls? The question is that amendment number 14327.1 in the name of Alex Ferguson, which seeks to amend motion number 14327 in the name of Richard Lockhead on the agriculture sector to be agreed to. Are we all agreed? It's not agreed. We move to vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the voter amendment number 14327.1 in the name of Alex Ferguson is as follows. Yes, 14. No, 102. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. The next question is amendment number 14327.2 in the name of Tavish Scott, which seeks to amend motion number 14327 in the name of Richard Lockhead on the agriculture sector to be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Perhaps not agreed. We move to vote. Members should cast votes now. The result of the voter amendment number 14327.2 in the name of Tavish Scott is as follows. Yes, 18. No, 97. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. The next question is at motion number 14327 in the name of Richard Lockhead on the agriculture sector to be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. We move to vote. Members should cast votes now. The result of the vote on motion number 14327 in the name of Richard Lockhead is as follows. Yes, 102. No, 1. There were 13 abstentions. The motion is therefore agreed to. That concludes decision time. We now move on to members' business. Members should leave the chamber, should do so quickly and quietly.