 I have many thanks. I will conclude support portfolio questions and will now move next item of business, which is a debate on motion 15844, in the name of Alex Ferguson on rural affairs. I invite members to speak in the debate. Please press the request to speak buttons now or as soon as possible. I call Alex Ferguson to speak to and move the motion. The motion is 14 minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer. What a difference a well-timed Scottish Conservative debate? What an impending election can make? Finally, at the last moment the Scottish Government has magicged up £200 million to ensure that, according to its own press release, any farmer or crofter who has not received an instalment of their basic payment by the end of March will receive a nationally funded payment from the Scottish Government in April. It would be childish not to welcome this stunning change in direction on basic payment, even if it did play havoc with my beauty sleep last night due to having to largely rewrite this speech. I do welcome the announcement and I welcome it warmly, but I also have to point out in passing that the cabinet secretary originally ensured Scotland's farmers and crofters that they would receive the entirety of their basic payment by the end of April. That is now an assurance that seems to be unreachable, Presiding Officer, and the cabinet secretary would do himself and indeed the industry a lot of good if he just come out and say so. At least people would then know exactly where they stood because all they know right now is that if the cabinet secretary's plans are carried through and we've yet to hear of any details of how his April payments will be made, all farmers and crofters will have received a percentage of their due payments by the end of April, a far cry from his original assurances. The panic button has been well and truly pressed, Presiding Officer. I just hope this time that the cabinet secretary can deliver. Yesterday's announcement certainly followed the recent trend of last-minute announcements that a cynic might think was designed purely to deflect growing criticism. Firstly, we had the announcement of a £20 million last-ditch loan fund at the NFUS AGM, a meeting that had previously promised to be fairly tempestuous. Last week, in the face of growing pressure about the timing of ELFAS payments, not least in this chamber just two weeks ago, the cabinet secretary announced that he would make national funds available to ensure that those payments, worth £67 million, would be paid in March as per usual. Now, faced with this debate and a rally outside Parliament tomorrow, the cabinet secretary has waived his magic wand and found the money from national funds to deflect this growing crisis once again. No wonder that Mr Lochhead was able once again to smile in the chamber yesterday, which was nice to see following weeks of growing and justified criticism. It is as well for him that his colleague Mr Swinney sitting on his left-hand side appears to have such deep pockets when it is expedient to do so. However, Presiding Officer, however, this opportune announcement may deflect immediate criticism, but it will not make the underlying problems disappear. We need to look just how we have arrived at this sorry state of affairs. It was back on 11 June 2014 that the cabinet secretary made the eagerly awaited announcement on how the new area-based CAP support system would operate in Scotland. It was, in many ways, a truly momentous announcement because it moved us away from a support system based largely on productivity to one based on area alone, which in Scotland of which 85 per cent of land is classified as less favoured presents no small challenge. What that change would bring about was essentially a massive shift in support payments away from the south and east of the country to the north and the west—a truly great challenge, indeed. Thanks to the eminently sensible decision of the UK Government to negotiate Scotland's ability to design and implement a CAP support system that is tailor-made to Scottish conditions, the responsibility for that system lays solely and squarely with the Scottish Government from day one. Later, if I have time, I may. How to best mitigate against the most damaging impact of those reforms had been the subject of intense discussion, debate and consultation over many preceding months. They continued right up to the 59th minute of the 11th hour as various sectors within the agricultural industry made their case for special consideration. I recall meeting with the cabinet secretary along with Tavish Scott to discuss the concerns of the beef breeding sector on the very eve of the cabinet secretary's announcement. Clearly, the final decisions were being made at the very last minute. The eventual outcome, as detailed by the cabinet secretary's announcement in June 2014, was generally thought to be a genuine effort to please everyone, by, as the cabinet secretary himself put it at the time, fitting square pegs into round holes. The problem with trying to please everyone, as I said at the time, is that you can end up pleasing practically no-one. That is pretty much what seems to have happened when you look at where we are today. Despite yesterday's announcement, the whole regime is in disarray. It is an unfortunate situation that remains 100 per cent of the Scottish Government's making. Of course, I will give way. John Swinney. I am grateful to Mr Ferguson for giving me—I wonder if, at this moment in his speech, he would specify the bits of the arrangements that were put in place and approved by the cabinet secretary that he would have done differently. Alex Ferguson. I am coming to that, cabinet secretary, because we do not need to look any further than the new IT system that the cabinet secretary commissioned to operate the new regime to find out. The warnings were there for all to see from the moment the single application form window for applications opened in March 2015. In fact, we now know that industry experts were issuing warnings about the likely problems in mid-2040, but, of course, the Government had other priorities on its mind at that particular time. From the outset, those trying to use the online application system reported extreme difficulties, describing it as unfit for purpose and totally flawed in many respects. I vividly recall being taken through that process by one agent and could only agree with his frustrated assessment that it would be far better to have reverted to a paper-based application process something that I would have considered doing, which, of course, is what later occurred. That is exactly what the UK Government did, an action that has been much derided by the cabinet secretary, but one that resulted in a surprise surprise in farmers south of the border being furnished with paper forms preloaded with the previous year's information, enabling both applications and payments to be made on time. Furthermore, that delay allowed technicians to get on with building a system that I believe is now fit for purpose and ready to receive 2016 applications. That is what you call a sensible plan B, and it appears that the Scottish Government just did not have one. Every time the cabinet secretary was challenged about those problems, he repeated that the changes here in Scotland were really complex and the staff were working around the clock to overcome the difficulties. It is his amendment again today. I am sure that they did, Presiding Officer. I do not doubt that. Yes, it was a complex system, but I repeat that it was and it still is a system designed, implemented and signed off by the cabinet secretary alone and that the responsibility for both it and its failures rests with him and him alone. Those IT problems remain to this day. A system supposed to have cost less than £90 million that has already cost more than twice that amount and is forecast by some to end up costing around £300 million. If that was the case, that would represent a staggering £15,000 to £16,000 for every application that the scheme will process. That is totally unacceptable from the taxpayer's point of view and it should surely be totally unacceptable from the Scottish Government's point of view as well. Those shambles cannot just be put down to complexity. As members may have read in last weekend's Sunday Times, considerable controversy surrounds the whole IT project, which began back in 2013. The former delivery director is quoted as saying that the blame lies with the poor work ethic of the staff and contractors that were in post when he was brought into the project. Others, including some of the aforementioned staff and contractors, point the flinger of blame at that delivery director and his company Spectromax, through which 87 new contractors have been hired to the project, many of whom it has alleged were on tier 2 visa contracts, replacing some of the 180 original staff who had been removed and sidelined from the project. I have no idea of the rights and wrongs of those assertions and allegations, but I do know a subject that merits a full, open and independent inquiry when I see one, Presiding Officer, and this is surely one such subject. My colleague Mary Scanlon will say more about Audit Scotland's on-going investigations, but as our motion suggests, we would strongly support calls for such an inquiry if Audit Scotland's final report leaves many of the questions that surround this embarrassing fiasco unanswered. Those questions, I think, are for a later debate, but the immediate consequences of this fiasco are too important to leave till later. They demand the immediate tension that the cabinet secretary finally recognised yesterday afternoon, because the reality of the failure to have paid the first instalment of the basic payment to the majority of claimants by the end of January, as the cabinet secretary had assured the industry would be the case, is that a 300 million black hole in the rural economy, which comes against the backdrop of a 15 per cent fall in the 2015 total farm income, which in turn follows an 18 per cent drop in 2014. If you add to that that most farmers in the south and east of the country will experience and are experiencing a significant drop in their CAP support payment over 50 per cent in some cases, you can understand why so many in the industry remain angry and distressed despite yesterday's announcement, because that £300 million is money that is just not circulating within the economy as expected and as budgeted for. I am sure that the cabinet secretary will highlight that the payment window is open until June, but I would remind him that it was he alone that raised the expectation that most farmers would receive their money by the end of January, and that expectation has now been well and truly dashed. It's also worth pointing out, I think, that while some 54 per cent of farmers had received their first instalment by the end of last week, only about 25 per cent of the actual money has been paid out, and one very old and established fact has now well and truly come to light. If farmers don't have money, they don't spend money, and you only have to talk to machinery dealers, fencers, drainers, feed merchants and the whole host of rural businesses that are needed to support the sector and which do so much to feed the rural economy, to realise that farmers aren't spending right now. Indeed, not only are they being denied that £300 million, but most of that sum is by now, I suspect, having to be borrowed from banks at commercial rates of interest, adding yet further costs to the individual businesses involved. Why does any of this really matter? As long as it goes, 1998, a report by Dr Ronald Wilson of Edinburgh University highlighted the effectiveness of direct subsidies to farmers as a principal driver of the rural economy. The findings of that report are as relevant today as they were in 1998, of course I will. If the findings of that report, that esteemed report, are as relevant today as they were many years ago in terms of the importance of direct payments to farmers in Scotland, why did the Conservatives try to scrap them during the last negotiations in Brussels just a couple of years ago? The cabinet secretary will be aware that we are in Scotland now. We are dealing with his no, no, no, no. He cannot just deflect criticism of his mishandling of this system by looking at the UK Government. The cabinet secretary knows full well that this party will support his Government and other parties against decisions made by the UK Government, if necessary, as we did with the convergence uplift. Let's concentrate on this point in hand, his responsibility not something over which he has no control. The findings of that report are as relevant today as they were, Presiding Officer, and yet that economy has been and is being starved of its core funding to the tune of some 300 million due to the inability of the Scottish Government to deliver cap support. Until yesterday, the cabinet secretary's only reaction had been to offer a 20 million loan of last resort if the banks refused to extend any individual farmers overdraft facility while waiting for their payment. I would suggest that very little of this will be taken up. Firstly, because the banks appear to be applying considerable sympathy to their credit to the sector when it comes to extended borrowing. Secondly, because any farmer who has refused further bank credit in these circumstances must be in imminent danger of becoming insolvent and the last thing he or she will need is yet further indebtedness. What I would suggest to the cabinet secretary is that he draws down the money and puts it into hiring the extra staff that are clearly still required to sort out the IT system, because that is the best way he can restore faith in his Government's ability to deliver a faith that has been massively eroded over the last few months. So it's not as if his problems are going to go away in the near future because it's been clear for some time now that there will be considerable delays to other payments further down the line. I'm told by the most reliable of sources that the IT programme to process the Scottish suckler beef support scheme, which I know he's going to make an advanced payment on in April, that programme hasn't even been written yet. Pillar 2 schemes all face extensive delays and considerable negative impact is going to be felt by new entrants and young farmers in particular who are also hampered by a complete lack of information about their circumstances. Yesterday's panic-induced announcements won't solve any of those problems. They still need to be sorted out and quickly. To conclude, the cabinet secretary has successfully bought off the long-term criticism of his grip on the basic payment scheme, but the underlying problems that have led to that criticism remain. As we now approach the opening of the next single application form window, he needs to make quite certain that the scandalously expensive system is sorted out once and for all or abandoned if necessary, or perhaps he secretly hopes that that is one legacy item that he can leave to his successor. I move the motion in my name. I now call on cabinet secretary Richard Lochhead to speak to and move amendment 15844.3. Ten minutes, cabinet secretary, tight for time to date. Can I just say the outset? I very much welcome the opportunity to debate this very important subject for rural Scotland and indeed the whole country and discuss the implementation of the new common agricultural policy in Scotland that, of course, supports our farmers, the crofters to put food in their tables and manage our landscapes and helps all the downstream industries sustained jobs at the same time. As I said at the NFU Scotland AGM just last month, farming is facing a perfect storm. Unfortunately, the bad weather that we experienced in the last 12 months and unfavourable market conditions have coincided with the biggest cap reform ever, and that is no exaggeration. Never before have both pillar 1 and pillar 2 of the common agricultural policy been reformed in the same year. Not one single scheme from the last policy in either pillar has come through unchanged in the new policy. Every one of the old schemes has been either changed or replaced with a new scheme or sometimes more than one new scheme. In the course of 2015, the Government has launched around 20 schemes across the whole of the cap that has been taken forward this year. Some of those schemes are radically different from their predecessors, not least of that relating to the biggest reform, which is the allocation of around £400 million on the basis of a business's land area rather than historic activity. On top of that, we have Greening and the new rural development programme. That is why it is absolutely essential that we engage deeply in detail with our stakeholders in Scotland from the very beginning of the reform process. Throughout that process, the industry in general and the NFUS in particular gave us, the Government and the negotiators, a very clear message. They were absolutely adamant that the top priority was getting the right policy outcomes. After all, decisions taken in the most recent reform will determine how the cap operates in Scotland for many years to come. After a lot of discussion and negotiation, we finally agreed with the industry that we needed new activity rules to halt and then phase out the scourge of slipper farming in Scotland, something that was supported across all the parties in this chamber. We also agreed that Scotland should be split into different payment regions and different rates of payments for different types of lands as part of the new basic payment. We could deliver the right level of payments in the right places, again something widely supported amongst all the political parties in this chamber. We also agreed that couple support should be extended, heritage payments to the sheep sector as well as the beef sector. We should look after the needs of the beef producers, particularly on our islands with a different payment of rate for the islands as well, again something that I remember attracted widespread support across this chamber. We agreed that we must not repeat the mistakes of the past when unlucky new entrants found themselves frozen out of the payments for the life of the last cap reform. We spent many months developing the policy details along with the stakeholders, and I firmly believe—and I still believe, I am sure that most people do—perhaps not Alex Ferguson after his speech—that they were the right decisions to take. Europe had already imposed on us a very complex new policy, with the needing to move away from historic based payments and so on, and our decisions here in Scotland, taken jointly with the industry, again supported by this Parliament, added more complexity on top of all that. And the timescale for getting those decisions implemented was very tight indeed. For the first pillar of the policy, the right payments, the EU did not adopt the main regulations till about a year before the new schemes had to start, and the detailed rules were later than that. For the second pillar, the rule development pillar, the situation is even worse. Strictly speaking, the new SRDP has started on 1 January 2014, but Europe had not even set out all the rules by then. It is only because of the transition arrangements that the Scottish Government thought for that we avoided a disastrous gap between the rule development programmes. So, in light of this timescale, we were very clear with stakeholders that the extra policy details that they were asking for and, in some cases, insisting upon would inevitably affect payments to some degree. At least in the first year, because in the first year, we have got a new system that has been implemented for the first time and many one-off tasks to undertake. We all knew achieving the same timetable as under the previous policy was a very tall order, but we were determined, and I said this at the time, to get payments out as early as possible in the seven-month payment timetable window that Europe lays down. However, we all knew the risks, something that the industry itself acknowledges, and we all agreed that the risks were worth taking. In light of his point about the seven-month payment timetable, will he confirm today that every croft and farmer across Scotland will receive their full cap payment by the 30th of June timetable? Clearly, that is absolutely our determination, because we want to avoid fines from Europe, and if we do not have 95 per cent of payments paid by the 30th of June, we are subject potentially to fines. That is not in the interests of Scotland. We will make every effort to avoid that. On the risks that are worth taking, I have said that we agreed that those risks were worth taking, but having said that, I completely understand the difficult position that farmers and crofters find themselves in now due to the poor prices and the extreme weather that we have experienced in Scotland in recent months. I said at the Highland show last year that, although we would do everything possible to get payments out as soon as possible, that was not a normal year and farmers should be prepared for that. I also discussed those issues with the banks briefly. Does he think that, had we had better weather and better prices, the shambles of the IT system would have been more acceptable? Well, actually, if you speak to any farmer and crofter in Scotland, you will tell you that they are very serious issues that have affected their cash flow and their issues, and you may find that a laughing matter, but there are many businesses out there suffering right now because of those issues. So, we have been working tirelessly, Deputy Presiding Officer. We started making first installments in December. By now, we have made basic and greening payments to over 10,000 farmers and crofters in Scotland worth around 80 per cent of their total payment, compared with their initial target of at least 70 per cent. That is over just around 59 per cent of farmers and crofters that have been paid as of today. But we have not been progressing as anticipated. As I have said many times, this is deeply disappointing. Where we are at the moment is not good enough, and for that I did apologise to the industry. The IT system is working, but not anywhere near as quickly as we all want, and I fully accept that. Under the EU rules, we have to complete detailed checks on every claim before we can authorise payment, and it is only after payments are made that we are reimbursed by the European Union. The IT system has to validate each and every claim against 400,000 fields and over 500 EU rules. Just think of that for a second. Every claim, 400,000 fields over 500 EU rules. Officials are constantly having to improve the IT that we are using for the first time, and that Europe says that we have to build and implement to speed up the process and unblock cases. We have already drafted extra staff into our offices, and our IT teams have been working day and night. As I said before and say again today, ministers absolutely believe that we have to learn lessons. We are cooperating with Audit Scotland, who will be producing their own report in due course, and we will support any subsequent inquiry in the future, but clearly that is a matter for the next Parliament, as the NFUS president said quite rightly this morning. In the meantime, the absolute priority is to get the payments out the door. In particular, getting the whole of Scotland sorted into three payment regions has been an absolute massive challenge. Regionalisation was one of the huge problems that the rural payment agency faced in England in the last cap reform, when things went so disastrously wrong for them. Indeed, I am told at this stage that they have paid less than 4 per cent of their businesses. We are going through the reforms that they went through in 2005, plus another set of reforms on top of that. In Wales, this time, the Government could not find a workable regionalisation model at all, so it abandoned the idea. In Scotland, many key players in the industry were absolutely insistent for good reasons that there had to be three regions and not the two that the Scottish Government originally consulted upon. We have been working hard to deal with those challenges and to get the payments out the door. In the meantime, in the light of the rate of progress and the challenges that the farmers face, we have taken decisive action. As Alex Ferguson mentioned, I announced the cash flow scheme for farmers and crofters facing severe hardship. I announced the national LFAS scheme for hill farmers, with payments beginning later this month. That will inject £55 million into many of the more remote and fragile areas of Scotland. We announced that the payment of couple support for the beef sector will be accelerated to mid-April to match last year's timing. Yesterday, we earmarked up to £200 million of national money for a national basic payment scheme similar to the LFAS scheme to get payments to every eligible farmer and crofter in April, who has not had a first installment by the end of March. That is on top of the £150 million already paid out since payments started in December. As I draw towards the conclusion, I just want to say that my motion reflects those important steps but also points out the irony of the Conservative party's position. Being weeks away from the election may have made the Tories suddenly realise that direct payments are vital to Scotland, but, if it was left to them, farm payments would be abolished. Not just pillar 1 payments, LFAS has already been abolished in other parts of the UK. That is also the position that has to be said of the Labour Party. If it was up to those parties, we would not be talking about late payments, we would be talking about payments that are non-existent in the first place. So this Government will continue to defend farming, crofting in Scotland, and will work flat out to support the sector through these tough times. I urge Parliament to support the Government's amendment. I call Sarah Boyack to speak to your motion amendment 15844.2, Ms Boyack. Six minutes, please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. We certainly welcome yesterday's announcement on the £200 million funding package however late in the day it was, but our view is that it is absolutely vital that we know that lessons have been learned and that confidence is fully re-established for next year's payments. I certainly found it troubling that, even today, the cabinet secretary could not give a straight answer to Tavish Scott about when this year's payments would definitely be paid. As NFS US President Alan Bowie has said, for months the NFS was looking for focused thinking and clear leadership from the Scottish Government to resolve this farm payments crisis for the benefit of the whole of the rural economy. That is why our amendment is an ad amendment that focuses on the issue of next year. We have known that the Scottish Government's IT system has not been fit for purpose for months. It should not be a shock to anybody. I want to put on record my thanks to those whistleblowers who came forward. At personal risk, we are a small country in Scotland. They took a personal risk by being prepared to tell it like it was. In a series of freedom of information answers and a whole host of answers that colleagues will have had across the chamber in parliamentary questions, it has laid bare the failures in the system. Worriingly, we read more questions than have been answered about the failures of procurement, management and the development of that system. It is clear that, in the evidence that we had to our committee last June, agents, farmers and farming representatives knew that the system was not working. From the start, the Scottish Government failed to get to grips with that fundamental issue. The chaos that has caused for our rural industries has been complacency from the cabinet secretary over months. We have seen that through the repeated reassurances that have come to not days or weeks after those reassurances were given. It led to the unusual experience of our rural committee asking for weekly updates that have just laid bare the failure to pay those cap payments. That has been a long time coming. The impact has been uncertainty in our industries, which were already under pressure. It is a perfect storm that our farmers have had to endure in the past 12 months. Term oil in the markets and market failures across different products and different crops, the flooding experiences and the weather last summer. We are not expecting the Scottish Government to fix short-term weather. There was so much more that could have been done to support our rural communities to make the industry more resilient for the future. That is why we have been calling for the last few weeks for automatic payments to be made. It is why our amendment raises the specific issue of interest payments that farmers have had to make to banks for interest incurred, specifically as a result of delays from what the cabinet secretary previously gave in terms of reassurance. We also want to make reference to the dairy industry. We know that we have a crisis in the dairy industry, and many farmers are already teetering on the edge, not just through the cap payments fiasco, but that is a crucial issue for them. Some farmers that we have spoken to are simply now asking, is it worth it continuing? That is a desperate state of our affairs. While we welcome the 11th hour action, it is the hallmark of the Scottish Government to sit on a problem for months and then act at the point of crisis. We are now talking about how we move forward. In speaking to farmers from the Lothians last night, the massive uncertainty just came from them, from every one of them. The information that they gave me about the RSABI are important rural charity, financial pressures and stress that is now being dealt with them. It just illustrates how many farmers have not been able to get credit from the banks, so they have either put all their money on the table and they have now gone into huge debt at great instability for their own business for the future or the supply industries have taken the hit, whether it is the seed suppliers, the machinery suppliers or the logistic industries. That is not publicly obvious to all of us, but when you speak to those communities and the rural communities that are affected, it is a clear and urgent problem. Our rural communities have been put on hold and there is worry and there is anger, so we need clear accountability and we need clear commitments on action for the future. It is good that there is a nod at Scotland report, but that will come after the May elections, so there will not be accountability. That is why our amendment asks for a statement from the cabinet secretary and his officials about what comes next, because farmers and crofters will very soon be submitting forms for the 2016-17 process. Will they be on paper? Will they be electronic? No-one has any confidence in the system, minister, because of its complexity. The issue that has not been addressed and has not been addressed over the last 12 months is the reality in rural Scotland where we do not have broad-band connections that can cope with the complexity of his system. We know that the system fell down last year as people were submitting their forms. We have not had the beginning of a reassurance on those basic practical issues, so we want that commitment and accountability before Parliament goes into recess for the elections. There is an issue about procurement and the management of the systems. We need the processes to be laid bare. We need to see what went wrong with the Scottish Government's IT system. It is not good enough for the cabinet secretary to blame everybody else. The failure in this project is truly scandalous. It has put in jeopardy our farming, our crofting and our rural communities, and we need to be able to move forward for the future. There is money now on the table, but we need confidence for 2016-17. Our cabinet secretary needs to tell us how next year will be different, and to date he has not even begun to address that question. I move the amendment in my name. I welcome the £200 million fund that the Scottish Government announced last night is to be spent on crofters and farm businesses across the country. I suggest today that this should have been done months ago. Why did the Government not take decisive action earlier? The French Government paid a 70 per cent instalment to its farmers in October from national reserves. The French knew then that they had processing problems with a new system, just as Scotland does, so they invested to help agriculture then. Here, the cabinet secretary claimed all was well. He was declaring as late as December 10 that most people would get an advance by the end of January with payments starting in December. None of that happened. Questions remain. Can the Scottish Government guarantee that the £200 million will reach farmers and crofters before the end of April? Warringly, the cabinet secretary could not tell Parliament that all farmers and crofters will receive their full cap payment by the June 30 deadline. If he can do that in the wind-up, I will be absolutely delighted. Why should any farmer or crofter believe that a failed IT system costing £200 million will make payments of £100 million in March and April when it has only paid out £103 million in the last three months? We would all appreciate an answer to that. How are farmers and crofters meant to submit a single application formed by the 15th of May when they do not have a final entitlement letter now, never mind a balancing payment? That has never happened in all the years of devolution. What provision has the Government now made for the inevitable EU fines that will follow? The failure of the Government's £200 million IT system is nothing short of a national disgrace. Last night's decision was taken because farmers and crofters from Shetland to Galloway are lobbying Parliament tomorrow. They have not stopped, they are still coming. Yesterday, the First Minister faced what could only be described as a shellacking from the NFUS. She had listened to the cabinet secretary yesterday morning defending the indefensible. Something had to be done, and last night the Government changed its position, and rightly so. Just as well, the First Minister finally understood that telling farmers that they should be grateful to be paid in June, as she did last Thursday, was not acceptable. Why did the Government not make this decision earlier? In January they could have made a decision, in February they could have made a decision, or as the French did, they made the decision last year. I'm just going to make some progress. You've got your own speech, and if you want to answer the questions, Mr Swinney, if you want to stand up and answer these questions, I'd be quite delighted, but I know that I normally make so many interventions from a sedentary position. If farmers and crofters receive their instalment in April, and it is a big if, Presiding Officer, then that will be four months later than the cabinet secretary promised. He also promised, of course, full payment by the end of April, not just a percentage. Why £200 million? The total cap budget for Scotland is £400 million. As of this week, the Government have only paid £103 million, so where is the other £100 million coming from? Is the cabinet secretary telling Parliament this afternoon that the busted IT system will manage to make £100 million more of payments before the end of April, where it has failed to do that in the last three months? I know that, because I have been told this by people who know that the IT future system crashed yesterday, it could not make any payments, and that has happened time and time again. Anyone who has been in touch with their own department offices in every part of Scotland knows the reality of what has been going on, so farmers and crofters will find it extraordinary that the Government still believes that this IT system can work. Why doesn't the Government just come clean with all of us, with Parliament and agriculture, and admit that this computer system doesn't work, and it will never work as intended? It should ditch it and ditch it now. Can the cabinet secretary also answer those questions for agriculture today? El Fas, as he rightly said, will be paid this month, and he is right to make that happen, but it is going to be, I am told, using the old payment system. Is that the only system that is now working in the cabinet secretary's department, and which IT system will be used to pay the beef and new hog payments that he mentioned in his speech earlier on? Crofters grants are also late. They haven't been late before, but they're late right now. I have constituents who have not been paid on agricultural sheds because of all this going on. I can give him case work after case work on this. When will they be paid? People who are waiting for money, this is their cash flow, want to know, and the local department office can't tell them, the national government can't tell them, why is all that happening? Crofters and farmers and, indeed, NFU Scotland want a full independent inquiry, and rightly so. Audit Scotland, as has been mentioned, is pouring all over this incompetence and chaos, but will only report in May. How much money, how much money, Presiding Officer, has Spectrum Act solutions made in supplying staff to the government? Audit Scotland will no doubt be followed by EU's auditors. Penalties sadly appear certain. Who will pay those fines? Will it come from the cap budget, or where else will it come from? Audit Scotland will also report this month on the opening of the next single application form. We'll wait to see what they say, but will the cabinet secretary agree today now to extend the 15th of May deadline for SAF applications, given that most farmers and crofters across Scotland simply don't know what they're doing when it comes to their cash flow for next year? Never mind this year because of what has happened. The policy questions, Presiding Officer, need to be answered by that wider inquiry. Can I finish with this point about the hard-working local Scottish Government staff in the local department offices that farmers and crofters all depend on in my constituency, no doubt, in the cabinet secretary's constituency as well? They've been let down by the superiors, so if I was a senior civil servant responsible for this disaster today, I would not be apologising just as Scottish agriculture but to my own staff as well. We've moved the open debate. Colin Rob Gibson, we've followed by Dr Elaine Murray tight for time up to six minutes, please, Mr Gibson. I think to try and put some perspective on what's been going on that we should look at a couple of quotes, one from today, that was made by the Scottish Tenant Farmers Association. Cap relief package should not be marred by political posturing. Many tenant farmers anticipated payment delays in their forward budgets as tenants there at the sharp end unable to use rented land as borrowing collateral but the extreme wet weather and low commodity returns have undoubtedly heightened the need for prompt cap payment delivery, said Chris Nicholson, the chair. In terms of the ELFAS payment, the chief executive of the Crofting Federation, Patrick Crouse, has said last week that the Scottish Crofting Federation very much welcomed this initiative. A lot of crofters will be really pleased to hear payments that were made by the end of March as ELFAS is so important to us. It's great to see the Scottish Government being so creative in finding ways to ease crofters' cash flow concerns during this difficult time. What we've got here is a motion that starts to discuss the problem that we face, and it says in Alex Ferguson's motion that it notes that Scottish farm income has fallen by 15 per cent over the past year, which is only the second time this century, which incomes have fallen in two consecutive years. That issue is being conflated with the issue about cap payments. I think that just to dwell on that first issue for a start, in my experience in this Parliament, we have been held to ransom by the UK Government failing to put in place a competition commission situation where we can hold the supermarkets and the middlemen to account, because Christine Takon, the supermarket adjudicator, does not have the powers to intervene on behalf of producers. The Labour Party, the Liberals and the Tories and the Tories to follow them have each failed to take the farmers' side and make sure that our people get decent prices for their products. As far as I'm concerned, that's right at the heart of the problem that Scottish agriculture faces just now. Those benches were the benches that actually brought forward the grocery code adjudicator when in government downstairs down south. Those are the benches that are calling for the grocery code adjudicator to have further powers right across the supply chain. We are awaiting this with great interest. In the meantime, because of the fact that our farmers have got less support and indeed are getting lower commodity prices, they failed to get the £180 million that Scotland was due from the CAP that might have helped a little bit to our producers if they had got that from this cap settlement, which was their due right. We see also over our heads the agriculture department of the UK split between those who want to be in Europe and those who want to be out. Liz Truss in, George Eustace out. There is no certain sound from there to back up us. Indeed, if we look at the experience that they have experienced, their experience with trying to give cap payments, the cabinet secretary has already said exactly what a mess they got into in 2005, but the difference now is that you cannot go back to paper calculations. You have got to use a computerised system. That is what the European Union said. When the National Farmers Union of Scotland came to our committee for our legacy paper, it said at the beginning that food sufficiency in Scotland and the UK was a high aim, how to promote local food and better procurement, developing supply chains and collaborative projects with the UK and EU partners designed specifically for exports with tools to review successful food exports. How do we deal with that situation to make sure that our agriculture can meet those goals if we do not have a system in place in London that backs us up? You can tell us that we have a difficult land in which to grow crops to bring up cattle and sheep. However, the point is that if the London Government had been in any way interested in making sure that that happened, it would not have allowed us to be underfunded for a start and, indeed, it would have offered extra means to help us to provide the payments. We are talking at the moment about the cost of the IT system. 4 per cent of the cost over the whole period of this particular cap is the actual cost of the computerised system. If you think that you can set up something as complex as this in a simpler fashion, it is purely political posturing. I have heard far too much of that already, and many of my other colleagues will make sure that they tell it as it is. The farmers and the crofters out there know that the Scottish Government is right behind them. They will make sure that we are a success. It is very unlikely that many of the other parties who look to London for their bosses and their ideas will do the same. It is clear that they did not give us competitive safety, and, as far as I am concerned, we can see exactly how hypocritical their attacks are right now. I am pleased that the Conservatives have chosen this important issue to be debated in their time. The failure of the Scottish Government to timidly pay farmers, their basic farm and other payments has caused great concern among my constituents, not just those directly involved in farming, but those who appreciate and those who rely on the enormous contribution that farming makes to the economy and the environment in Dumfrieshire. Anyone listening to Good Morning Scotland yesterday will have heard several of my constituents. Robin Spence, a beef farmer from Lockerbie, Robbie Delglish, who runs an agricultural-related business in the town, and Andrew Nellie Marchant from Thornhill, a new entrance to sheep farming, speak of the effect that the delays in payments were having on them, their colleagues and the local economy. I welcome the remedial action that the Scottish Government has eventually decided to take. We are told that the problems are due to the Government's new IT system. Of course, Public Sector Commissioned IT is notorious for overspend and underperformance, therefore the Government should have been prepared for problems. In particular, the Government should have been alerted as there were problems in the system last year. I contacted the cabinet secretary in April 2015 on behalf of Estelle sheep farmer Diana Stavley, who had been trying for almost a month to complete her single application form online. Despite the much-appreciated assistance of staff in the Dumfrieshire office, she was continually locked out of her account. In reply to my correspondence on her behalf, the cabinet secretary advised me that the account had been corrupt for some unknown reason, but that the problem had been corrected. Mrs Stavley subsequently advised me that it had not, and the system was still reverting to the previous errors. Mrs Stavley personally commented in her email to me that, frankly, the system, although possibly expensive, is too complicated and not fit for purpose. That was the conclusion of a sheep farmer who described herself as not computer brilliant. She seems to have been rather more computer brilliant than the Scottish Government. A further letter in reply from the cabinet secretary on 30 May advised that a defect was identified on our rural payments and services system and that he was committed to ensuring that our new systems continue to improve. That was in May last year and that customer feedback would be taken on board. So much for those words of reassurance 10 months later and that the system still is not fit for purpose. Has the cabinet secretary, or his officials, checked what progress was being made in improving the new systems before he promised that most farmers would receive their first payment by the end of January? Of course complacency and blaming others are the hallmarks of this Government. On GMS yesterday, I listened to the cabinet secretary trying to pass the blame over to the EU for the complexity of the new payments methodology, along with the need to tailor it to the specifics of Scottish farming. However, the new cap regime was hardly a surprise. It was discussed for several years prior to implementation and the new regime was agreed by the EU in 2013. The Scottish Government in fact consulted on implementation of the new rules in December of that year. The new pillar of one direct payments, basic farm payment and the greening payment came into force in January last year, so surely there must have been time either for the IT problems to be resolved or for alternative back-up plans to be put in place. Can the Government advise what actions it has taken since last year, or did ministers just cross their fingers and hope for the best? Anyone who dares to suggest that the Government might might in any way be responsible for anything that goes wrong under their watch is immediately accused of whining from the sidelines. It is a monotonous refrain constantly repeated by the First Minister and her party, and doubtless that accusation will be levelled at Opposition members again today. However, the failure in meeting the promises given to Scotland's farmers and crofters comes at a particularly difficult time, particularly for dairy farmers suffering from the record low price of milk. On that issue, as part of the Rural Affairs Committee in the previous session of Parliament, I was a member of a dairy summit, which was first convened by the cabinet secretary in 2009, six years ago. What did that achieve for the dairy industry in Scotland? Because it seems to me just as bad as it ever was, if not worse. Farmers could not be blamed for thinking that it was all just words and the desire to be seen to be doing something. No wonder that they have little faith in politicians. The Scottish Government is fortunate that it deals with stoical Scottish farmers, to have Scott mentioned the French. French farmers would not just have threatened to demonstrate outside of Parliament, faced with these problems, they might have blockaded the place and poured milk into the ministerial petrol tanks. I know a couple of constituents who, at the end of last year, in desperation, went to their bank to ask for help. Their dairy farm had been in the family for generations. They had kept going through foot and mouth, but now they were brought to the brink of bankruptcy by the milk price and this Government's incompetence in getting their pillar 1 payments for them. They were actually considering throwing in the towel how many other farmers are also or were also considering abandoning farming altogether. I hope yesterday's announcement came in time for my constituents and any other farmers or crofters facing the agonising decision as to whether to give up their living and lifestyle to which they had devoted so much time and so much work. The cabinet secretary could perhaps also explain to us how he's got around the issue that he referred to yesterday's GMS broadcast, where he said that he couldn't do it because he wouldn't be able to access EU funds if that application had not been verified. So, somehow, within a space of a few hours, that problem seemed to have been resolved. The Scottish Government, I believe, should have apologised to Scotland's farmers and crofters and it should, as the Labour amendment states, cover the interest costs of loans, farmers and crofters having forced to take out in order to be able to survive. Many thanks. I call Angus MacDonald to be followed by Mary Scanlon. Thank you, Presiding Officer. There's no doubt in my mind that none of us in this chamber or indeed around the country want to see the agricultural industry where it is today. We're seen falling beef prices, rock bottom dairy prices, other commodity prices dropping, supermarket price wars, the wettest winter on record and, of course, the delayed cap payments, which are all helping to create a perfect storm, as many have referred to. Our farming industry is a vital part of our economy and our society and it's right that they get the support that they need to thrive. Although the complications of a new IT system have led to extremely regrettable delays, the fact is that the SNP in government is taking real action to protect farmers, proven last night with the announcement that the Scottish Government will use up to 200 million of national funds to provide cash support while cap claims are being processed, as well as ensuring that the LFAS payments are out on time. There's also the new £20 million hardship fund, the Scottish Government-backed loan scheme, which thankfully may not now be utilised to the full, thanks to last night's announcement. That said, the current perfect storm is clearly not a good position to be in, but at the same time it's not the first time farmers and crofters have faced difficulties in an industry that has had more than its fair share of difficulties in the past. No, sorry, I need to get on. That said, the Tory motion before us today is nothing short of political opportunism and posturing. While it's recognising that the current situation is far from ideal, it's incumbent on all political parties to rally together during difficult periods, not turning each other, which sadly seems to be the case today. However, it has to be said that it is quite spectacular hypocrisy from the Tories to try and score political points over farm support. When their own UK farming minister is set on seeing the support abolished in its entirety by dragging Scotland out of the EU, the truth is that the Tory Government has refused to give our farming communities any information about the future of the support payments that they will receive if we are out of Europe, so the Tories in Scotland have to come clean on their own farming minister's plans. I would hope to hear their plans post-EU membership in their summing up today. I doubt we will somehow. I need to get on, times limited. I would have hoped for more constructive criticism from the Tories. Sadly, I am not surprised by the conduct of the NFUS in recent days and weeks. We have come to expect scathing criticism from the NFUS leaders up until last night. The most recent utterances really do take the biscuit. However, I am glad that they have had the good grace to welcome the Scottish Government's announcement last night, despite having a selective memory and attempting to rewrite history. In an attack on the Government over elfast payments, which questioned an assurance from the Scottish Government that the £65 million in payments would only be delayed by a few weeks, Alan Bowie, NFUS president, said that he did not believe the Scottish Government. I was glad to see that Alan Bowie proved wrong with the announcement last Thursday that elfast payments will be made on time. An inference that the Scottish Government was lying over elfast payments is far from helpful, but sadly typical of the rhetoric coming from the NFUS in recent weeks. In complete contrast, the STFA welcomed the action taken by the Government, with the STFA chairman Christopher Nicholson stating that, farmers across Scotland will be pleased to hear that the Scottish Government is making plans to ensure that the vast majority of elfast claims will receive a payment by the end of March, with most getting 90 per cent of the previous year's claim. That will provide vital liquidity to Scottish agriculture at a time when farm cash flows are under pressure. The warm welcome for last night's announcement from the STFA and also the warning from them that the cap relief package should not be marred by political posturing is also welcome. The NFUS would do well to remember that the cap payment system has been made more complicated by its insistence to include three payment regions, not two. At its insistence, 400,000 fields in Scotland have been newly assessed into three payment regions, not two that had been originally proposed. The NFU accepted in October last year that that could lead to a delay in payments, but it was considered a risk worth taking. To quote NFUS President Alan Bowie in the Scottish Farmer in the 30th of October, last year, he said, Yes, we knew and were told that more complexity would increase the risk of payments coming later. That was a risk that we judged—the industry judged—was worth taking. And former new entrance leader Jim Simmons said that the union had an absolute bloody cheek pointing the finger of blame at the Scottish Government. In the Scottish Farmer in the 23rd of October last year, he continued, I clearly remember former chief agricultural officer Drew Sloane with his head in his hands saying that all of the NFUS demands would lead to significant complexity and inevitable delays. He continued, in short, the NFUS were at the root cause of these delays, were warned that their demands would mean to the timescale of payments, were told to warn their members of the delays and now have the absolute bloody cheek to start nipping at the Government. The Scottish Government was clear to the NFUS all along what it would mean should they wish for a more complex system. However, it is perhaps worth noting on the side that the Scottish Crofting Federation has always advocated a two-region system, which would have been far simpler and would have favoured crofters. So, while the Scottish Government clearly has to shoulder some of the blame for the hopefully temporary inadequacies of the new computer system, the NFUS should be acknowledging some of the responsibility for where we are today, but I doubt if they will. Before we move on, I appreciate that the member was quoting. Can I ask members to just be careful of the language that they use in the chamber? Please. Before I call the next speaker, can I say that I understand that Mary Scanlon is making her valedictory speech? We were both new members of a new Scottish Parliament together in 1999, so on behalf of the Presiding Officer's team, could I wish Mary all the best for the future? Thank you Presiding Officer. I thought I'd keep the tear until the end. Can I just say for Angus MacDonald, the son of a crofter from Stornoway in the Isle of Lewis, I thought that was a shameful speech. You should be ashamed of yourself and the crofters will certainly not be dancing in the streets of Stornoway tonight after hearing that. So can I just say that the Public Audit Committee have been looking at the Audit Scotland reports on Government's IT, particularly farm payments for some time. There is no political posturing and there is absolutely no hypocrisy in any one of those reports. I start with Audit Scotland 2012. This report looked at the registers of Scotland. The IT costs went up from £66 million to £112 million, a £46 million overspend. This Government's got form, Presiding Officer, and much more spent since then. Audit Scotland stated that effective IT is essential to allow public bodies to deliver services that are more timely, co-ordinated, less bureaucratic and to improve efficiency. Everything we can agree on and everything every farmer, crofter and politician wants today. The report stated the lack of specialist skills and experience contributing to a lack of understanding. The report quoted in 2012 that the Scottish Government was unable to provide a register of Scotland with all the advice and support that it sought, therefore the roles and responsibilities were not clear. It asked for effective governance and risk management, robust performance management arrangements, detailed skills assessments, strategic reviews, gateway reviews, better monitoring, lessons learned exercise, address inadequate risk management. Did they do it? No. The Scottish Government was also told to compare the costs and the benefits of investing in skills against the risks of failing to deliver IT. In other words, spend the taxpayer's money investing in success rather than wasting taxpayer money on failures. It was all there, the problems, the analysis and, most importantly, the solutions. But the Government did respond. They carried out a skills review. It only took them two years. And then they had plans for a workforce and an action plan for a central Government IT workforce. And they would also pilot the Scottish wide area network IT programme, otherwise known as SWAN. Well, that SWAN paddled away with another £70 million overspend on the farm payments, not to mention NHS 24 overspend £50 million, and it's still not working. And then we have the 2015 report from the Audit Committee. Information systems didn't have sufficient information, did not receive information from central government and didn't have the staff to pursue the lack of information. And the central Government, Scottish national government, was still finding it difficult to access skills. And can I just remind the Government that they're also in charge of education and training? So if the skills shortage is, they are responsible. And then, so the recommendations in 2012 totally ignored. And then we come again to the Scottish Government's consolidated accounts. You've got to be a serious failure before the Auditor General includes you in here. But here we are. Scottish Government payments seriously concern by the Auditor General. And can I just put on the record today, the £78 million overspend, Presiding Officer, was last October's figure. That was the figure last October. I'm aware that staff have been seconded from as far afield the Shetland to come to Edinburgh and try and sort this out. We are getting an update on the Audit Committee by Monday next week. Not after the election, this committee works. We are getting an update by Monday, and I can tell you it'll be a heck of a lot more than £78 million. So I lay the blame fairly and squarely on the Scottish Government and in particular, Richard Lochhead. And I might just have a little bit of respect for them if they would stand up and just take some responsibility for their actions. This is my last speech and probably the hardest I want to do. I just want to thank my wonderful son and daughter for their support and for the Bans. I'd like to thank everyone in the Highlands and Isles who gave their second vote to the Scottish Conservatives and please trust in me. It's been a great privilege to represent the Highlands and Islands in four sessions of this Parliament and to see so much of the amazing and stunning country that we live in. Having been brought up in a tide farm cottage where my father worked on the farm and leaving school at 15, I never dreamt that my life circumstances and sheer hard work would bring me here. I'd like to thank the Scottish Conservative party. They have tolerated me through thick and thin over many years. I just remembered when the opening of the Parliament, when we marched down the Royal Mile in alphabetical order and I marched down between Alex Salmond and Tommy Sheridan. I don't think any of us could forget that opening day with Sheena Wellington, a man's a man for all that. I would like to thank Sir Paul Gries and all the Parliament staff because they are so thoroughly professional and particularly our security staff. I think they are just amazing. I just want to say that I still feel excited about coming here. I still feel excited about going to committees. I've never forgotten the great privilege it is to be here and to be a public servant. I still read all my committee papers and I always turn up half an hour before every meeting. I have enjoyed every minute of the Public Audit Committee and I thank Hugh Henry and Paul Martin for their management of it. I thank all the MSPs for their friendship and I also acknowledge the commitment in all parties of members of this chamber to serve the people of Scotland. I would particularly like to thank my pal, Christine Grahame. There aren't many cross-party friendships, but I hope that ours will endure quickly. I have to remind Mary Scanlon that this is a revenge intervention. My very first speech in this part, my maiden speech, Mary Scanlon, interweave me of that devastating impact that I vowed I'd never speak again. I've been practising ever since. Mary Scanlon, well revenge indeed. And I finally thank Ruth Davidson and my Conservative colleagues for their friendship and their support over the years. They're the best bunch of people I have ever worked with and I will miss every one of them. I now call Michael Russell to be followed by Margaret McDougall and we do need to try and stick to time, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I regard it as a privilege to rise to speak after the last significant chamber intervention and speech from my friend. I think I'm allowed to say with affection my old friend who I've known her for a long time, Mary Scanlon, who's made a robust, direct and memorable speech as ever. I'm very glad to be the next speaker in this debate. Presiding Officer, for those of us who represent largely rural constituencies or, in my case, rural and island constituencies, this debate is a welcome debate because it gives us the opportunity not only to address the problem but to put on record the many achievements of this Government in support of rural Scotland. That opportunity is welcome. No one's pleased or proud regarding the present problems with a rural agricultural payment system, but we should be very pleased that further work has been done, not least to guarantee the ELFAS payments this month, which are crucial in my constituency, and also now to provide an interim payment and safety net for any farmers who haven't received moneys by the end of March. However, the reasons for those problems are somewhat more complex and presented by any of the Opposition parties. The hard work that is being undertaken to solve them, led by the Cabinet Secretary, is both more intense and more successful than any of them have acknowledged. I'm not alone in regarding some of the criticism that we've heard today as being somewhat misplaced, given that many of the critics inside and outside this Parliament had been cheerleaders. In fact, some had been architects for the very complex system that's being put in place, despite warnings from none other than Richard Lochhead. Now, it's tough in government when the Opposition is baying for your blood. I know, I remember the sound of the hounds in pursuit. You begin to lose a sense of proportion, hyperbole rules, speeches are full of the over-the-top demands littered with unanswerable questions, bristling with indignation, as we've heard from one or two already. And they do no service to those of our constituents who have genuine difficulties and are suffering genuinely in hardship as a result of those issues. Sometimes hyperbole gets out of rational control and becomes something else. That's what happened eventually this week with the involvement salivating of the countryside alliance. People can be tarnished by those they associate with, as Labour found out in Better Together. Having the countryside alliance on board was not an advantage to the NFU leadership in their understandable and intense campaign, nor was a personalised and intemperate language used by Jim Walker last week. It's something that the current NFU president might like to reflect on, and I say this to someone who gets on well with him and enjoys his company. By all means—I want to finish my point, and then I'll take Mr MacGregor— by all means, in the cause of effective representation, bring pressure, feel anger, even indignation and fury. That's what you're there for. No one will criticise you for doing your job, but avoid being used by those who have their own and other agendas, and particularly at this time of land reform. That type of entanglement devalues your actions and damages your brand. Rural Scotland is damaged by such language and by language already used by some in this chamber. Rural Scotland is not on hold to use a phrase used by Sarah Boyack this afternoon, and my constituents are ill-served by that type of remark. I give way to Jamie MacGregor. The head of the young crafters, Mr James Shewan, said in a newsletter that discussion in the young crafter's group has found that most of our members have not even received their illustration of entitlements, which shows how much they are due to be paid, let alone any money. He continued what impression does that give to any young crafter, especially those who are sitting on the fence about whether or not to take on the family. Michael Russell. Problems exist and they are being solved. They are being solved by the work of Richard Lockhead, and that's what we should pay attention to, because that language actually alienates those who are doing the job. I had a phone call this week from a kintar farmer, and then a few members said to me, tell Richard Lockhead not to resign. I thought, I can't tell him anything, he's never listened to me, but I'm sure he wouldn't have resigned anyway, because that cabinet secretary and this Government have significant achievements in rural Scotland. With a produce output of around 2.3 billion a year, around 65,000 people directly employed, it's Richard Lockhead who's worked tirelessly to get the best deal for Scotland's farmers and crafters in Europe. He's brought forward major and beneficial changes in agriculture, tenancies and land reform, which we're completing in the next week. He personally wanted to drive forward the Scottish food industry, now valued at over 5 billion, 14,000 new jobs. People have businesses and jobs because of his work. The clean, green status of our valuable food industries has been developed and protected because there has been a policy to reject genetically modified food. That is something that he has led, and I could go through a range of his and the Government's achievements. The key one that I would also make is this. He's been willing to be personally helpful on those issues to many members in the chamber across the chamber, and I know that, because I used to work with him and now I'm one of those petitioners. Just last week, he helped the butte dairy farmers with their transport costs again, something that was desperately needed, and he's helped too with the milk industries because they've required his intervention. There's lots of work still to be done. There's more work required on the milk issue on supermarkets. He and I and others want to see more land reform. There's more to do on the food issue. In the legacy-run table that the committee had last week, we talked about agriculture and the purposes of agriculture. There have been problems, but when there are problems, it's the leadership of the cabinet secretaries and the Scottish Government that makes the difference. That leadership has been seen in the last weeks and months and was seen again yesterday. We should celebrate what's been done. We should be glad that work is being done to improve things, and we shouldn't be trying to capitalise on that. We should also be following that lead and trying to help. Thank you very much and I'm afraid that we are incredibly short for time. Margaret MacDougall to be followed by Willie Coffey. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I welcome this opportunity to speak in today's debate on rural affairs. I'm going to use my time today to discuss the situation with the common agricultural payments and also the plight of dairy farmers. The current situation with cap, combined with the spiralling costs of the IT system, is nothing short of scandalous. The new IT system was meant to make the process easier and more efficient. Instead, it has experienced significant delays and a massive increase in costs. It's now expected that the total cost of the system will be around £178 million—74 per cent higher than originally forecast. That delay has had far-reaching consequences, with many farmers still waiting on their cap payments. To date, only £100 million has been paid out of the £400 million. The most recent figures tell us that only 7,887 farmers have received their basic payment out of a total of £18,300. While the National Farmers Union Scotland states that there is a £365 million financial black hole in Scotland's rural economy, a cash flow crisis for farmers doesn't just affect farmers but has ramifications for businesses across Scotland. If one part of the chain stops working, the whole of Scotland's rural economy could grind to a halt, which could have long-term effects on the sector itself. That is why I support Labour's call for farmers to be paid as soon as possible. While I welcomed the Scottish Government's announcement yesterday that they are going to pay out £200 million of Scottish Government funds to ensure that farmers get some payments, in my view it is too little, too late. As always, the devil will be in detail. The IT problems and delays have been pointed out to the Government time and time again, yet nothing was done until yesterday. This situation was entirely avoidable, and we need to hear a statement before disillusion from Richard Lockheed to set out clearly how he will ensure that payments are made on time in 2016-17 and that this situation is never repeated. There has been a complete lack of action by the cabinet secretary until it seems his hand was forced by today's debate. He should have been more proactive on this issue and doing everything possible to support farmers who are suffering because of this Government's failure. Another part of Scotland's rural economy that is facing an uncertain future is that of the dairy industry. Having spoken about the industry before in this chamber, I am going to revisit again today, as it will be my last chance before I stand down. Last summer, I saw dairy farmers in Ayrshire protesting in local supermarkets over the price of milk because they felt that no one was listening to them. When I spoke to dairy farmers in North Ayrshire, they told me that at present producing milk is a loss-making business. This situation does not seem to have improved, in fact it is getting worse. Yesterday, at a meeting with dairy farmers, we heard that the industry has been in free fall over the last 12 months. Those who do not have a contract with big supermarkets are being forced to sell milk at 14 pence a litre, with the threat of it falling even further to 12 pence this spring. That has already had a huge effect on dairy farmers in Ayrshire, where there are 55 dairy farmers, and 15 of those farmers are looking to sell. Their yearly turnover has been halved, and up to £11 million has been lost from the local economy. That situation needs direct intervention now. 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 last March and predicts that by 2025 the industry will have increased by 50 per cent. That will not be happening unless we get action now, and whoever is in government after the election needs to tackle that head-on. For example, a regulatory body could be established for the dairy industry. Further direct intervention from government is needed, and there has to be greater transparency across the sector. For example, why is it the case that milk prices are falling for farmers, yet supermarkets are not reducing the price of milk? We also need to look into the prospect of longer contracts for farmers and retailers to increase security in the industry. Dairy farmers clearly face cash flow problems and are at risk of losing their businesses and livelihoods. Given that we are at risk of losing the dairy industry in Scotland, it is time that they were given a helping hand. The situation, which is combined with the cap payment delays and IT issues, has the potential to bring Scotland's rural economy to its knees, which would have massive consequences not just for farmers but for all Scottish businesses that depend on the rural sector. It is time that the Scottish Government stops playing catch-up, admits mistakes have been made and lays out a plan to make it right. Anything less is a disservice to struggling farmers, not only in Ayrshire but across Scotland. Many thanks. If I could ask members from now on to try and take a little bit less than six minutes, then I would not have to cut our final two speakers. I call Willie Coffey to be followed by Dave Thompson. I am grateful for the opportunity to make a contribution to the debate and recognise, as others have done today, the action that was taken yesterday by the Scottish Government to help ease the situation of the delay in subsidy payments to Scotland's farmers. The £200 million support package will come as a relief to many farmers in my part of Scotland in Ayrshire. It is important to acknowledge that this help has been provided. In my contribution today, I want to focus in on the IT issue in some detail and see if we might be able to uncover the real reasons why software systems can take much longer to implement than we want. This new IT system of processing the assessments has come about principally as a result of requirements made by the European Union but also by changes requested by the industry itself, including changing from two schemes to six regionalised schemes and trying to allocate half a million farmers' fields in Scotland into one of three new payment regions using half a million European Union rules that have to be satisfied into the bargain. It is said that people in glass houses should not throw stones, and some have rushed predictably to throw their stones at the Scottish Government because it is the easy thing for some politicians to do when they do not understand the complexity of what has been demanded. For others to divert attention away from their own role in the specification process. I make no mistake, all Governments can be and are exposed to recurring IT issues. We can look back at the not-so-distant past and see some fairly spectacular examples of IT system failures at the heart of successive UK Government projects. Let's take a brief trip down memory lane here. In 2011, the English NHS patient records fiasco started in 2002, cost £12 billion and had to be discontinued. The CSA-IT disaster in 2004, when nearly 2 million people were overpaid and nearly a million were underpaid, when two totally incompatible systems were clashing with one another, that cost nearly £1 billion. For every pound taken in in payments, it was costing £70 to administer it. The failed IT passport registration system of 1999, where half a million new passports were delayed and thousands of holidays were cancelled. The MOD's failed recruitment partnering project cost over £1 billion, but it did not work. The border agency's IT system to manage immigration case work cost £750 million and was cancelled. The current system of trying to work out universal credit is still not working. It has cost nearly £13 billion and it has now been outsourced. The list goes on, but I have been careful not to lay the blame directly at political parties who procured those multi-billion-pound projects. The cost of the current system being developed in Scotland for our farming payments is a fraction of the cost of those disasters and it is a fraction of the total value of the £4 billion payments that it will administer over the next seven years of a cap. No, I want to get through a number of points here, thanks very much. There is something else going on here, Presiding Officer, and if we all look beyond the politics for an explanation, we might be able to see what it is. Our own Audit Scotland and the National Audit Office in the UK have been reporting for years that the fundamental issues that are critical to any successful software public procurement project are early, clear and detailed specifications of what the requirements are before project costings and implementation timescales are agreed. If you do that, you stand a good chance of success. If not, you run the risk of poor specification, leading to multiple changes and uncontrollable cost overruns. If we pick through the embers of all those past IT disasters, I am sure that we will see the latter replicated across most, if not all of them. In our case, we cannot underspecify a complex IT system close to the date that is required and then also try to graft on more complex changes from partner agencies and still hope that it will all be ready on time. Warnings were given about this by the Scottish Government, but we are where we are. It is a bit like starting to build the new fourth crossing bridge using incomplete and late drawings and then changing the design as you go. Software is the same, Presiding Officer. Give the software engineers proper specifications well in advance. Do not change it too much and you will get a good system on time and on budget. Why does this happen again and again if we know what the reasons are? For me, it is clear that all Governments—all Governments—Europe, UK and Scotland need to have strong IT systems professionals directly within and part of the decision making processes, and they need to be allowed to go on record with their advice on major IT systems development projects. Far too much of that expertise is outside of all Governments, and those services are mostly procured commercially. I am not saying no thanks, so why did the European Union proceed with this directive if the IT advice was that it was extremely high risk? Probably because there was no such strong IT advice within decision making circles in European policymaking. All of that has to change if we are to have any hope of delivering large high-scale IT projects on time and within budget in the future. To wind up, I am very proud of our Cabinet Secretary in his attempts to deliver this extremely complex requirement from Europe within those timescales and to accommodate those further demands from the industry. Unrealistic demands, they probably were, but a huge effort has gone into trying to meet all those demands. He certainly does not deserve to be attacked for his efforts by those whose only contribution has been to make political capital, rather than to invest some thinking in how IT systems delivery can actually be delivered effectively in the future. Like most people, I am seriously concerned at the financial difficulties facing Scottish farmers and crofters following the delayed payment of common agricultural policy funds. My constituency of Skyle, Lych, Abernwch is a great number of farmers and crofters, many of whom operate on the most difficult ground in all weather and rely heavily on those payments. They are struggling, and we must acknowledge that mistakes have been made that have resulted in financial hardship for my constituents. However, we also have a collective responsibility to ensure that those mistakes are quickly rectified and that outstanding farm payments are made as quickly as possible. That is exactly what Richard Lochhead and his team have been doing, and he deserves and they deserve credit for that. I am very pleased indeed that farmers and crofters still waiting for a direct subsidy payment to the end of March, just a few weeks away, will receive a cash advance directly from the Scottish Government to tide them over. That follows the First Minister's confirmation that the Scottish Government will provide £200 million, as has been said earlier, of national funds to support farmers and crofters, while common agricultural policy claims are being processed. That is very good news. It comes off the back of the cabinet secretary's recent announcement that national funds will also be used to ensure farmers and crofters in Scotland's most fragile and rural areas that rely on less favoured area support funding will also receive a payment in March, as usual. The delay in payments, however, has a knock-on effect. One example from a constituent of mine, George McLaren of McLaren Tractors in Dingwall, who has been in touch with me, George says that his business has been affected because farmers are not able to pay him for equipment that they have purchased from him. I am sure that that will be the case more widely. Indeed, as has been said earlier, the whole strata of the farming community has been affected, including trailer workers, vets, delivery drivers and others that are connected with farming, and I feel for them all that I really do. It is, however, worth noting, again that, as has been said earlier, and which some want to deny, that the NFUS did insist on the scheme with three areas that we have now, which has added to and led to the greater complexity, which added to the problems that we are now facing. They were well-warrant, but accepted this as a risk worth taking. Indeed, as has been quoted previously, NFUS President Alan Bowie said that, yes, we knew and were told that more complexity would increase the risk of payments coming later. That was a risk that industry judged was worth taking. That was reported on the Scottish Farmer on 30 October last year. There are a number of people playing politics with that. That is not unusual for politicians, but it is a very dangerous game for bodies such as the National Farmers Union when they go down that road. One of their vice presidents who did not realise that I was the local MSP at the Black Isle show a year or two ago, but saw my SNP badge, started to be very provocative in relation to that matter and very clearly showed his own colours, which were not in favour of the party that I represent. He was somewhat taken aback when he realised who I was. Ironically, we have a motion today raised by the Conservatives, the very same party that has argued to scrap direct support for UK farmers and crofters, a view that Labour has also previously supported. The Conservatives have also presided over the pinching of pillar 1 convergence uplift of €223 million, which was due to Scotland and only came to the UK because of Scotland. That leaves Scotland at the bottom of the league in pillar 1 euros per hectare. We wait in vain for news of the promised review of the allocation, a better allocation and a fairer allocation of cap funds that are promised for Scotland. Would he accept that this party, along with others in this Parliament, opposed the UK Government's position on the convergence uplift? Would he accept my assurances that, were there any steps by the UK Government to remove direct subsidies, pillar 1 subsidies? We would oppose that as well. Dave Thompson, please begin to close. The member is quite correct, but unfortunately this place, this Parliament, his party, my party and any party here does not have the power to stop that. I look forward to the member telling me that when his party in London decides to do away with support for farmers that he will back independence so that he and I can fight for Scottish farmers right here. Thank you very much. I am afraid that, after Alex Johnson, I have to ask members just to take five minutes out of time. I am afraid that Alex Johnson is to be followed by Christian Allard. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. It is a very long time since I have spoken on a debate that relates to agriculture. In fact, it is probably more than 10 years, so I would better take care of the niceties and make reference to my entry in the register of members' interests. For further clarification, can I make it clear that I take no income and have not done for a very long time from any farm business, which is in receipt of farm payments? I spend a considerable part of my life as a dairy farmer, a family labour only, working seven days a week in order to keep that business afloat. That experience is one that will colour my attitudes. Many of my family are still in the farming business, as are many of my friends, and have suffered as a result of the particular set of circumstances in which we find ourselves. The decision, half a generation ago, to collect the European agriculture funds together and pay most of them in a single-farn payment annually, was one that was appreciated by many at the time, but it did have the effect of putting most of our eggs in one basket. The risk was that, if anything ever went wrong, then problems such as the ones that we see right now would be the result. That issue about why I have not been asked to speak on agriculture for a long time is partially because I am one of those people who believes that single-farn payments are at best a necessary evil. I believe that we should accrue our value to Scottish agriculture from the marketplace and the fact that we rely on single-farn payments is in itself evidence of failure in many regards. However, we are where we are, and the effect is that this Government is making changes to policy that will affect many farmers in Scotland. The decision to move direct—no, thank you. The decision to move farm support from the south-east to the north and west has resulted in many farmers in my own area already in a position where they expect to get payments that are only 50 or 60 per cent of that that they got only a few years ago. However, for many of them, those payments have not arrived. Promises that have been made by Richard Lochhead over a period of nearly two years now have always appeared to indicate that everything was going along smoothly and that there would be no problem, as recently as December, when payments did not arrive on the expected dates, we were given the assurance that as many as possible would be paid by the end of December and then most of the rest would take place in the January period onwards. The fact is that many farmers have not received their payments and the effects are dramatic. Although the banks have been prepared to extend credit, that increase in debt will itself be a burden on the farming industry and it does not come without additional interest charges. Many rural businesses who trade with the farming community remain unpaid, knowing that they are at the end of a long payment chain that starts with the Scottish Government. Many businesses have now incurred another winter feed bills and certainly will have by the end of April. That will be two winters and, as we move into spring, another year's seed and fertiliser will have to be bought, leaving many businesses in the position that they will have had two years' costs on the basis of less than one year's income. Promises that have been made today in relation to the less favoured area support scheme have come as a reassurance to some, but trust is now at a very low ebb and many farmers who will be relying on that payment will believe it when they see it. The effect is that many farmers, especially those at the beginning and at the end of their career, will be influenced in their forward planning by the experience of this winter. They will become risk averse and there is an inevitability that in many areas we will see the beginning of a slow industry contraction as confidence is undermined. In spite of the confident remarks that have been made today, the land reform issue is also undermining that confidence. We have heard today the phrase, perfect storm, used many times. I have used it myself. The problem is that this perfect storm has been one of policy failure and administrative incompetence. The result is that Scottish farming and the Scottish countryside is on hold. It is holding its breath in the hope that something will go right. The promises made today will hold out some further hope, but I have spoken to businesses that know that the status of their application is now marked as application ready for payment, but they are still waiting for that payment. The money has not yet arrived. In his closing remarks, I would like to hear the minister today tell us at least one fact. How long does it take to go from application ready for payment to money actually appearing in the bank account? I am afraid that the speeches are five minutes. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Following Alex Johnson, who is a farmer himself, I wanted to make a point to Mr Johnson. What he talked about using the market and making sure that, in the future, our farming industry will not need so much help. We need to be very careful about that. It is not the time or the place to have this kind of argument. I will ask him to make sure that, as Alex Johnson said earlier, we are all behind our farming industry and we understand that the cut payments have to be done. If I was delighted to hear Mr Ferguson saying that he will oppose the UK government, his own political party in the line and support the SNP government, I didn't hear a lot from Labour. We know what Alistair Darling said in 2008 and thought that it would be a good idea to scrap this payment to farmers. We need to be a little bit more united on that particular point. Briefly, very briefly. Mr Boyack, could you put your card in? Sure, because you can't have no time for it. I'm very briefly now, please. Many apologies. At some point, members will have to accept that there's a Scottish Labour party and that issues are devolved. We have our own policy in Scotland. We heard it first. Alistair Darling is not part of the Scottish Labour party, which is a bit of incredible. Anyway, it would be good if, in the closing speeches, you'll make it very, very clear what we all stand for farming and making sure that the farmers get that help whatever happens in the future. But, as the cabinet secretary said, and I know I heard the First Minister saying as well, we are less than halfway through the payment window allowed by Europe and the majority of Scottish producers, more than 10,000, have already received a subsidy payment. However, payments are not being made as quickly as you would like. I would like to say again, you know, I heard farmers saying it, and I heard Alex Ferguson saying it again today. You know, the cabinet secretary, as in a few AGM, did say, he apologised about what happened. He made it very, very clear. We all did. I went to a lot of meetings in a few and we all did. And I think there is a lot of honesty from this part of the chamber regarding that. The cabinet secretary's confirmation that the announcement will also enable Scottish beef skins payments to be made in the middle of a problem, I can assure you, but it's very much welcome and welcome in my region. Because my region, as suffered as well as flooding and market price, have not helped. I had a busy, very busy farming surgery at the Thameson Centre. Most people know what the Thameson Centre is now because it's regularly on the BBC. And I had a lot of people coming to that busy farming surgery and a lot of them, about the cap payment, but also about the market price and about the flooding as well. And you know, unlike some of my colleagues, I've got a very good relationship maybe between a few Scotland. I'm quite happy in the region to have a kind of special relationship where I got invited regularly and I was invited three or four weeks ago about the flooding meeting and I was delighted to participate to it. Two weeks ago I was asked to come forward and to talk about the land reform bill, and it's important that we do. And of course last Friday I was asked to come and speak to more than 100 farmers about the cap payment. Again, you know, other political parties decided not to come, and I think that's maybe a mistake. This engagement with farmers is so, so important at difficult time. And I will encourage all the members to do maybe a little bit more of this. It's been a very good situation, but the cabinet surgery I think has reponed it very well. Microsoft spoke about the future of this cabinet surgery, and I want to put on the record that this cabinet surgery should be the first choice to represent our farmers in the next parliament. And I said that to a lot of farmers, you know, if not Richard Lockhead, who else? And there is no answer to that one, because since it took office in 2007, it showed there is nobody else who can take Scotland farming industry forward the way Richard Lockhead did. And on that is particularly on the food, something very close close to my heart about food. He really put Scottish food on the map and talking about the food is so important to have Scotland's brand out there, but not only for export, but for our world market as well. To conclude, Presiding Officer, for many years, I have told farmers in the north-east that we should take the lead from the French counterpart. Helen Murray and Tavish Scott talk about France and Mr Scott, France, unlike Scotland is not a member state, I shall remind him. And I said to farmers, be more French, and I will take them coming on Thursday. It's very important when we do so, but we've got to make sure that the cap reform is what we need. We need a payment for farmers, so I will conclude by saying, buy local and trust our Scottish farmers. Presiding Officer. Thank you. I'm afraid that that's now taken time out of the last speaker. Rhoda Grant, five minutes to be followed by Joan McAlpine. I'm afraid I can only give you four minutes. Rhoda Grant. Thank you Presiding Officer. Can I firstly pay tribute to Mary Scanlon, who made her valedictory speech this afternoon. Her hard work and dedication is one of the respect and affection of people throughout the Highlands and Islands, and I'm sure they'll miss her as much as she is obviously going to miss them. Presiding Officer, those of us that represent rural areas know that life is tough and rurality breeds disadvantage, and therefore cap payments can be the difference between liability and not, and therefore it's not good enough that the cabinet secretary blames everyone else and yet takes no blame to himself, yet today we're debating a degree of negligence that puts our farming and crofting communities in peril. It's led to hardship. It'll lead to animal welfare problems, and there are so many issues to raise. I hardly know where to start. The Scottish Government have belatedly, but I welcome ahead of this debate that they decided to pay out from their own funds, but why wait until now? Surely they must have known the symbolic state of the system and paid out before now. Was the cabinet secretary monitoring and ensuring that the computer system that was being developed would be fit for purpose, what checks and balances were being undertaken, to ensure that the colossal cost of the new system was appropriate, it comes to around £10,000 per application, and that's something that is of particular concern and anger to my constituents, many of whom are waiting for payments that are much less than that amount, albeit payments that are crucial to their businesses. What impact has land registration had on the process? What anomalies are being caused by having three separate systems that map crofts, the Crofting Commission register of crofts, the IATS maps and the Scottish land register maps? To what degree are conflicts in those three systems causing a problem? If so, when on earth can that be sorted out? I've heard about people who are not feeding themselves because they have to buy feeding stuff for their animals, and they don't have the basis to borrow commercially. Asking banks to be flexible assumes that people have the wherewithal to borrow in the first place. The Scottish Government loan scheme asks for confirmation that the bank will not lend, and if the bank won't provide that, then you have no access to the scheme. Bank lending also brings in interest payments and charges, and will people be compensated for that? Is the loan fund being superseded by the new pay-out system? If so, will that happen automatically? Will people need to sign their lives away to access it? I was sent a copy of the old form, and it basically asked some horrendous questions. One of the statements that he had to sign up to is, I'm aware that if this loan payment is found to constitute unlawful state aid within the meaning of article 171 of the treaty of the functioning of the European Union, the Scottish Government may be forced to seek its repayment, along with interest, on the payment insofar as it constitutes an unlawful state aid. Who on earth can understand what that means far less be happy to sign up to it? I, for one, would not. Last week, I spoke to members of Lewis Crofters. This is a co-op that provides feed stuff and other supplies to Crofters, and they tend to try to do that and keep prices down. They are finding that Crofters are still buying feed stuff, but due to the poor summer and having to buy feeding stuff longer, they are now seeing that Crofters are not renewing things such as fencing and equipment and infrastructure because they cannot afford to do it. I have spoken to people who have had to change their business plan and adopt their operations because of the lack of funding decisions that have put them back a number of years. There are also knock-on impacts to other businesses who support that. People who build fences are going out of businesses, and associated infrastructure developers are doing the same. The implications of that incompetence reverberate through our rural communities and have a huge economic impact. Can I touch very quickly on the Croft and Grant scheme that Tavish Scott mentioned? I wrote to the cabinet secretary asking why it had been frozen last year. He wrote back to me assuring that it would soon be reopened. The delay was due to the strategic spending room view. All George Osborne's fault for being late with the budget. We know that this money comes straight from Europe. While I would hold George Osborne responsible for many things, I would not hold him responsible for this, so it is low wonder that we are in such a mess that the cabinet secretary does not even know where that money is coming from. Finally, if the Scottish Government does not clear up the mess in the very near future, there will be sanctioned by Europe. What impact will that have on farmers and crofters? It would be utterly wrong if they were to have to fund this Government's incompetence. I apologise for not being able to give you four minutes. I would like to open by agreeing with Alex Ferguson and others, which might be surprising, but we agree sometimes. I agree about the current difficulties that are faced by farmers and the perfect storm that is described by my colleague Angus MacDonald. In particular, there is not just an issue for farmers themselves, but, as Mr Ferguson said, so many other rural businesses and employees from fencers to feed suppliers. I think that everybody on this chamber understands that, and none of us underestimate its impact. I hope that we can work together to deliver for our rural communities and farmers exactly what Richard Lochhead is doing. It is important that we acknowledge the role of Mr Lochhead in securing the £200 million from the Government at a time of extreme financial pressure and to put it into context. The entire bill of welfare mitigation that we have had to come up with in the Government is £300 million from the start of the welfare reforms, and we must not forget the overall context of our £3.9 billion cuts from a Conservative Government in London over the two spending review period. I am very proud that we have a Cabinet Secretary who has always fought for farmers and colleagues are quite right to remind us that Labour and Conservatives have both argued against single-farm payments. In the past, the current Conservative agriculture spokesman wants us to leave the EU, and Labour's shadow farming spokesman, Kerry McCarthy, is a vegan who wants to campaign to stop people eating meat, which is not a great message to send out to UK farmers. Mr Lochhead, by contrast, as my colleague Mr Russell has pointed out, has consistently promoted agriculture as an industry and has elevated food and drink in the national consciousness, so it is now a sector, thanks to his efforts, whose contribution is rightly praised and recognised. You might expect me to say that, but if I could back to 2011, when the industry lobbied the then First Minister, Alex Salmond, to reappoint Mr Lochhead as the Rural Affairs Minister, in fact, for a few, it was a condition of their support for the SNP in the 2011 election. When Mr Lochhead was appointed, the then NFU Scotland president, Nigel Miller, told the Scottish farmer that the industry would welcome the news, and he was quoted in the magazine saying that, over the past few years, Mr Lochhead has shown a refreshing and genuine commitment to taking Scotland's food and farming sectors forward. It is good news for both industries that he remains in the driving seats. If I was to make a gentle criticism of the cabinet secretary, it is perhaps that that commitment may have played some part in him bending over backwards in 2014 to accommodate the sector's demands for three payment regions. That is not trying to please everyone, as Alex Ferguson suggests. It is called listening to the farmers and going the extra mile. I also wanted to look at a little bit of context to this. England already implemented the main feature of this reform, the Moved Area-based Farm payments back in 2005. The Labour-libbed Scottish Government decided not to make the change then. When the reforms were carried out in England, there were serious problems experienced and the changes that they were implementing were far less complicated than the ones that we are doing in Scotland today. In 2005, the English payments were promised for February 2006. The actual numbers paid in February 2006 in England were 2,400, which was 2 per cent of payments. In March, it was 4,500, which was 4 per cent of payments. In April, it was 56,000, which was just under half payments. The UK Government set aside 400 million at that time for late and inaccurate payments. I suggest that the Opposition parties perhaps have a look at the legacy report of the Westminster Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee for 2010-15. In paragraph 5 of that report, it is extremely critical of DEFRA, and it just shows that UK Government has been here before under the Conservatives. We now turn to closing speeches. Tavish Scott, maximum six minutes, please. Parliament will certainly miss Mary Scanlon, and possibly mostly in the first few months of the next session, because then whatever is the audit committee at that time, we will have to look into what has gone on. There will be an audit Scotland report sometime before the summer recess, and whoever chairs them is part of that will undoubtedly then have the first chance to look closely at what has happened. I just want to put on record, along with lots of colleagues across Parliament, that Mary Scanlon has been one heck of a performer, if I may put it that way, on that particular committee. There have been one or two witnesses who have visibly blanched under her stare, and I know from speaking to someone who's recently been in front of that committee that they have to confess were slightly relieved he and Mary was retiring, but I think many of the rest of us will, whatever political party we're in, will be sorry to see her not in Parliament, particularly in that committee in future years. I wanted to start with just a few points that the Cabinet Secretary made. He's absolutely right that the combination of the weather and the complexity of the CAP reform has created some real challenges. That is without question, without dispute, and also without dispute, is the point that every SNP-backed venture has made this afternoon, that the NFU and indeed others argued for three payment regions. Those things are not in question, and it's important to recognise that, as the Cabinet Secretary made clear in his opening remarks, that was the position that pretty well Parliament endorsed at that time too. No one is disputing that. What we're disputing is how payments have been made to crofters and farmers. It's the system, and I suspect the system in Richard Lochhead's private moments has let him down personally as well, but he's a Government Minister and ultimately all Government Ministers have to take the responsibility for their department. I've just been passing. It can only constitute that if Ross Finlay had made mistakes like this. Some people might have been calling for his head, probably would have been burning effigies of him, probably led by Mike Russell in fairness, but that would have been the reality of it. The idea that Parliament shouldn't take a close interest in an issue that is profoundly important to rural Scotland and question the ministers of the day is one that I just don't agree with. I also absolutely don't accept the attacks on Alan Bowie, the President of the National Farmers Union of Scotland, from the SNP benches. He has a job to do, as any leader of any industrial body across Scotland has to do. He's done the right thing, which is to point out that the rural economy is £300 million light on the investment that it should have had, and indeed the Government promised it would have, in the early part of this year. He's doing his job, and thus to be attacked by all the SNP-backed benches just for doing his job is, I have to say, a sign of a party that needs to just reflect that we've all got a job to do in politics, and Governments are better if they're held properly to account, both by Parliament and, if I may say so also, by the organisations outside representing members. Just one other point. I think it was the last contribution from Joan McAlpine. She actually rightly mentioned the Environment Committee—she got the title right and I can't remember it—but the Environment Committee of the UK Parliament, who, in my recollection, took apart the rural payments agency in terms of the mistakes that were made in that organisation when, as the Cabinet Secretary rightly said, they made an utter mess of making payments south of the border. The point there is that that committee did a real proper scrutiny of something that had gone wrong, and their members of all political parties, including the Conservative ones who were attacking their own minister, did that at that time. That's maybe a model that I could commend to this Parliament at times, too. Christian Allard, briefly please. We are still short of time. I thank the member to take an interruption. Will he agree with me that, at least, the Government of England took the decision in 2005 when the cabinet secretary, the minister here, the role of her minister here in this Parliament sat on his hands in 2005? I haven't a clue what Christian Allard is on about, but what I do remember about 2005 is that Richard Lockhead backed Ross Finney's decision over the decisions that were taken about cap reform at that time. So you might want to go and read your history books because you're just incredibly badly informed and not for the first time. Let me move on to Mr Russell and Mr Walker. It just seemed to me that Jim Walker used to be pre-denied by the SNP benches when he was a prominent supporter of the Yes campaign. Mr Walker wrote an article that Mr Russell attacked earlier on in The Scottish Farmer last week. It seemed to me that Jim Walker just pointed out the facts around some of the points that Mary Scanlon was making about audit Scotland. He quoted extensively from audit Scotland. One of the things he did also point out is that, of course, Willie Coffey was making remarks about IT projects that have gone wrong south of order, and he's absolutely right. He used to make that point, I thought, very effectively in the public audit committee in previous years. Of course, it's the NHS 24 computer in Scotland that is £40 million over budget, and two of its CEOs have gone. Perhaps we want to take a little context north of the border as well. Let me finish with two points. The first is the simple one, Presiding Officer. I hope that the Cabinet Secretary will accept today that he has a responsibility to crofters and farmers across Scotland to come back to Parliament before this place finishes in this session and answer the many questions that have been reasonably asked by members of all political persuasions about the many aspects that remain outstanding. There are heaps of questions from the 30th of June to the SAF deadline to entitlement trading to what will happen if the £200 million cannot be paid for the reasons that other members have quoted. Finally, just to make very clear that the overall impact on the rural economy is very significant now, and that is the bit that any Government has to address, not least of which, because, as he will know from his own constituency, store cattle prices and finished cattle prices are lower per head than they were a year ago, and the pressure in the system, the whole system, and the way that money flows, is very important in resolving those matters. Thank you Presiding Officer. Early in February, I met with members of NFUS, Fourth and Clyde, along with representatives of local businesses such as an auctioneer firm and one selling farm machinery. The situation has indeed been very dire for those people and many people across Scotland. The mood was gloomridden and, at the same time, very anxious. There was talk of concern for the mental wellbeing of farmers and families. There has also been worry about how long local businesses could go on putting off HP payments. The knock-on effects across the local economy were starkly apparent. Why do I raise this again at the end of this long debate when the cabinet secretary has finally managed to find the funding for interim payments? As the NFUS states, essential liquidity will be provided by the Scottish Government payment advance, and it is, indeed, in strong part due to the NFUS's effort that is now happening and their lobbying. I raise this issue again for two reasons. Firstly, because it took so long, as Tavish Scott stressed earlier in the debate, there was action in France on this issue last year. The tone of the cabinet secretary's motion of the Scottish Government's motion today seems to put far too much blame on the stakeholders when it is actually in the end for the Scottish Government to have sorted out this problem more quickly or to have acted sooner on this issue of the interim payments. The second reason is because this must never be allowed to happen again. This debate has highlighted this second point over and over again, and I know that everyone involved will continue to seek assurances from the Scottish Government that we are on track for a relatively smooth payment process in the next round of the cap. Before focusing on another issue, can I ask the cabinet secretary specifically if the Scottish Government will indeed compensate farmers for any interim bank loan interest? That seems to be only fair and I hope that he will comment on that in his closing remarks. In the throes of the cap chaos, this chamber must not fall guilty of neglecting the serious on-going difficulties for one specific sector, and that is the dairy sector, as has been raised by other members today. It is indeed in free fall and the volatile open market price threatens to drop even lower. The level of disparity between hard-working dairy farmers with and without contracts to big supermarkets is continuing to be untenable. Supermarket contracted farmers have paid more than double the price per litre than farmers without contracts, creating an atmosphere of instability and sometimes competition, which makes it difficult in local areas. Margaret MacDougall highlighted the concerns of the sawn group. I met some of the farmers this week and they delivered a stark warning. Without more intervention by the next Scottish Government, family-run firms may well not survive, and the future of this prized Scottish industry will be fewer and larger factory-style farms. Elaine Murray reminded us that this issue has been continuing since 2007, if not before. It is now about a year since the five points of the dairy action plan were published by the Scottish Government. Given the deepening crisis, can the Cabinet Secretary give us an update on progress made today? It would be very encouraging to hear something about new investment in processing capacity, as it is vital to support the industry at home for niche markets. Has the cabinet secretary looked to Ireland as a good model for this as its early investment has been a great support? We all know that the milk supply chain power is skewed to the big retailers. There must be more regulation here in Scotland to ensure transparency. For Scottish milk and other products, another issue that I want to raise today, which must be addressed in the Scottish Parliament, is Scottish labelling and what that actually means. Looking further to the future, as stressed in the Racky Committee legacy evidence session last week, we must start early to plan for the next cap if this is to be truly visionary and to take account of the complexities of rural Scotland. We must ask this question, where is farming going for the next decade and far beyond? Building on roader grants comments on the Highlands is essential that we support our Crofton communities into the future as well. Where does the organics industry fit and how can it be developed? The same question applies to the agriecology. What have climate change imperatives and the place of agroforestry in tackling flooding and the meeting of biodiversity targets? How do we best support our farmers and the rural communities of the future through the future cap and, indeed, other support mechanisms? In the shameful age of food banks, how do we ensure also so importantly that Scotland's people have access to fresh, affordable and where possible local food? And how do we better, in this case, link rural and urban Scotland so that we can all work together across the parties for good food for Scotland and indeed for export and also for vibrant and very strong rural communities? I want to thank all members for their contribution. I am the second last speaker in the debate, but I pay close attention to many of the powerful points that are made across the chamber. I should start at the outset by, on behalf of the Government, paying tribute to Mary Scanlon for her service to the Scottish Parliament. Although I did not agree with the first half of her speech, the second half of her speech was very dignified and indeed moving. Of course, our swords have often crossed on the streets of Murray, but I want to pay tribute to our contribution to the Highlands, Nylons and the Scottish Parliament. Margaret MacDougall, likewise, is not a last speech, but a last speech on an agricultural topic, so I pay tribute to Margaret Mitchell all the best for the future as well. We have all agreed, of course, of the importance of agriculture to Scotland and supporting our primary producers, our farmers and our crofters, who underpin Scotland's very successful £14 billion food and drink industry that would simply not be there to anywhere near the extent it is without the hard work of our farmers and crofters and our fantastic natural environment. They provide the raw materials that underpin many of our world-famous products, and that is a huge economic value in itself. It is an industry that, despite that massive success within the food and drink industry in recent years, is countering cash flow issues at the moment due to the factors that many members have raised, particularly the low commodity prices that are affecting the dairy sector and other sectors in Scotland. It is really taking its toll, and I will return to that near the end of my remarks. Of course, the recent weather as well. I visited many farms that have been impacted by unbelievable flooding, biblical style flooding and the damage that caused to the farming businesses. That is why we announced £1 million that John Swinney announced towards repairing man-made floodbanks in farms. Last week, I announced that we were providing an additional £1 million to cope with the number of applications in the areas that are affected, so we are doing our best to help farmers in that context. Of course, in terms of the wider farm payments, which is the main topic of this debate, we have been taking every step possible to recognise the cash flow problems facing the sector and deal with the issues. As I said at the beginning of my speech, at the moment, 59 per cent of farmers and crofters have had their first instalment, which is equivalent to 80 per cent of their overall payment. That is worth £115 million overall that is going out the door. Of course, I announced last week that, for the less favoured area status that payments will be going out in the last week in March, we can be very close to the usual timescale for those very vital payments that are very important in particular parts of Scotland. Last night's announcement, the £200 million of national money to ensure that those who do not have their application process this month get their payment in terms of their first instalment in April is the latest announcement. I have to point out gently to the Labour Party and the Tories who both made the point remarkably that that was due to this debate being in the timetable that we made that announcement. I actually said to the industry that I met them last week before the Conservative Party announced the topic for this debate, that we were working hard to address the cash flow problem and we were looking for solutions and we were seeing whether there were options to help the industry at this crucial time. That led to the announcement last night by the First Minister of the £200 million that is being made available. I am very grateful to the cabinet secretary for giving way. We all recognise that the hard work that he has been putting in with his officials to try and solve this problem. However, would he like to associate himself with the disgraceful comments that we have heard from his colleague Angus MacDonald about the leadership of the National Farmers Union in Scotland? I want to come on to the role of the stakeholders shortly. I want to mention the beef scheme, which is important to many producers in Scotland—the £40 million scheme that will be paid on the same timetable as last year's payments. We are making every effort possible to ensure that we tackle the cash flow issues. Tavish Scott said that, perhaps in my private moments, I wish that the IT system was performing better. I have been furiated by what is happening. I am very public about that point. We recognise the issues with the IT system. As I have said many times before, there are many people working flat out to deal with that. I wish that I was a software specialist. I am not. We employ people to do this. If they are not doing a good enough job, of course, we get more staff as we are just now to make sure that there is improvement in the system. Would the cabinet secretary, if the single application form process shows any signs of difficulty this year, have a planned V in operation? We are taking steps to make sure that the system is working, but we cannot divorce the complexity from the payments. If it had been a two-region system, the IT would not have encountered the same number of problems. However, we chose a three-payment region system in Scotland, speaking to the stakeholders, listening to the Rural Affairs Committee in this Parliament and the political parties across the chamber. The UK Government, in the last cap, had to pay disallowance of £642 million. We have to abide by the EU rules to avoid paying disallowance in the Scottish circumstances. Although I am not defending the IT system because there are problems with that, we have publicly acknowledged that we cannot divorce it from the complexity. The complexity has to be dealt with so that we can avoid disallowance. We are not allowed to pay one single claim unless it is error free, it has been validated and it is compliant. Therefore, we have to process it properly before we can pay out the money. That is an important point for us all to keep at the forefront of our minds. On the cost of the IT system, I know that many members have been talking about the £178 million IT system. It is a lot of money, and it is a lot of public money that is being invested in delivering £4 billion worth of support to our agricultural communities. So far, £131 million has been committed to just over £98 million has been the IT system and just under £33 million on non-IT spend in the futures programme, which is the £178 million figure, and I just really wanted to get that on the record. In terms of my remaining time, Deputy Presiding Officer, I am looking for indication. Can I just say that there are a number of issues raised? I will seek an opportunity either in writing to the committee or to Parliament or wherever to try and wrap up some of the issues that have been raised in the chamber today before recess. I do want to point however to this week's farming press because I like to read the farming press, because sometimes I feature in it, sometimes it is positive, sometimes it is not so positive, but I was looking at the headlines this week in the civil servants failing UK farming. MPs demand payment timing clarity as bizarre communications continue. Childish turf war blamed for farm payment delays. MPs' brands' cap delays are unacceptable. I thought that this must be about me because of what is happening in Scotland. It turns out that it is actually a bit Tory Government south of the border. Do I say that to make a cheap political point? Maybe? The real reason why I say it is because these are immensely difficult issues. Ross Finlay took the decision in 2005, with the support of other political parties, not to move to the area payment system because it is so complicated and difficult to do in Scottish circumstances. This time around, we have no choice. Europe says that we had to move to it, and even without that complication south of the border, the UK authorities are struggling with their cap payments without what we are doing in Scotland. If you add that to the fact that the Conservative party does not even want the payments in the first place and argue to scrap them, that amounts to blatant sheer hypocrisy in the debate. I have worked flat out for the Farmers and Croffers in Scotland. I will continue to do that in the times ahead, in terms of getting a better return from the market and ensuring that the payments get at the door as quickly as possible, and the Irish Parliament supports the Government amendment. To wind up the debate, I apologise for losing a bit of time that you have until 5 o'clock. I start by thanking all members who contributed to the debate. I will try to respond to as many points as I can, but I would like to single out my coleg and friend Mary Scanlon for her valedictory speech in the chamber, giving us a real flavour of what the next parliamentary session will be missing without Mary's presence. A number of members, Tavish Scott and Richard Lochhead, are very generous in their praise of Mary's contribution, at least to the Public Audit Committee. I saw from press reports that at lunchtime a semi-naked man was arrested in Holyrood Road by the police. I am sure that there is no truth in the rumour that this was a senior civil servant who just had a bruising encounter with Mary in the Public Audit Committee and was trying to escape, but Mary will indeed be missed. At the outset of the debate, my coleg Alex Ferguson set out the background to the issue. We are now in a situation in which, as of 3 March, 54 per cent of CEP payments have received part payment under the basic payment scheme. That is a statistic mass, the rather more worrying figure that the total payout equates to £103 million or approximately a quarter of the total amount that is expected to be paid out, meaning that some three quarters of total funds have not yet been paid. We know why we are here. As Mary Scanlon said, Audit Scotland carried out a very helpful section 22 report for the Public Audit Committee in October, looking at the failures in IT management. The cost of the programme has now escalated to £178 million in itself. That is a scandal. Those are large sums of money that could and should be spent in other areas. They are simply indicative of Government failures in IT, which we see elsewhere, including in NHS 24. As we have heard during the debate, the impact of those failures has been dire. Delays in CEP payments and ELFAS payments mean a whole in the rural economy of some £365 million. A number of members have reminded us that money that should be in the bank accounts of farmers who, of course, would be spending it, spending it on paying invoices, on settling suppliers or placing orders for new supplies and equipment. Who knows what damage has been done to the supply chain on the wider rural economy because of the failure to pay this money out? That was recognised even on the SNP benches. I think that Dave Thompson recognised the damage that is being done to the rural economy. Although I was concerned by Mr Thompson's suggestion when he recounted his anecdote about his encounter at the Black Isle show that he seemed to be suggesting that it was no longer acceptable within Scotland to hold a different political opinion to the Scottish national party, it seems, Deputy Presiding Officer, that we all have to conform to the SNP's view on the world or that we are not allowed to have a voice. There is a name for that, Deputy Presiding Officer. It is called a one-party state. Now, as we heard from a number of members, there has been a huge burden on farmers themselves with added time, expense and worry. Sarah Boyack and Elaine Murray gave a number of examples of this. I spoke just recently to one constituent farmer living in Highland Persia who told me that, because of the difficulties with their broadband and other issues altogether, they had to make the journey to Perth a return trip of two hours in order to visit the area office to discuss their application and entitlement letter. When they got there, they found that the area office could not access the IT system and never had great difficulty in assisting. There are many others in the chamber who will report constituents having similar problems. Throughout the debate, we heard from the SNP members on the back benches all the excuses about how that was such a substantial CEP reform, about all the individual claims that had to be processed, about all the farms that had to be inspected and about how much more complex the system was than that previously. Yet every single one of those challenges was known in advance before the IT system was put in place. Those excuses simply do not wash, because whenever this Government runs into problems, its default response is to turn around and blame somebody else. It is Westminster's fault. It is Europe's fault. In this case, it is no one's fault but their own. The buck stops with the Scottish Government. We heard the first line of defence from the likes of Rob Gibson and others on the back benches. I really think that people like Mr Gibson who well do come up with a show of humility for the failures of their Government on these particular issues. Then we had the extraordinary attack from Angus MacDonald on the leadership of the National Farmers Union in Scotland. I would like to thank Mr MacDonald for two things. First of all, for giving me some very helpful lines to deploy on election literature about the SNP's view of the rural communities. Secondly, I would like to thank Mr MacDonald very sincerely for circulating to all Opposition members the SNP's attack lines to deploy, on that is telling us in advance what the interventions will be in this particular debate. Oh, Mr MacDonald, of course I will give way. Angus MacDonald. I thank Mr Fraser. As the official report will show, I was highlighting that the NFUS leadership acknowledged last October that the three payment regions could lead to a deal in payments, but that that was a risk worth taking. I thank Mr MacDonald for reading out rebutto line number five on the SNP's lines to deploy. As we heard, when similar problems occurred in England with the English rural payment agency, they reverted to paper-based application forms, but at least their farmers got paid, which is more than we can say for the situation in Scotland today. Let me acknowledge the sets that have been taken by the Scottish Government. First, we saw the hardship scheme of £20 million. Then we saw the announcement of ELFAS payments, where the Scottish Government would use its own funds to make payments to the majority of farmers in March. Just last night, we had the announcement that £200 million would be paid to ensure that basic payments would be made by the end of April. I know how welcome that announcement is to the farming community. However, we have to wonder when this is a Government always pleading poverty, when they are always telling us that there is not money to be found for anything, how they can suddenly find £200 million down the back of a sofa to get the cabinet secretary out of a very deep political hole. It demonstrates the power of the Scottish Conservative Party as the real opposition in this Parliament. We schedule a parliamentary debate in our debating time. We put down a motion for action and within 24 hours the Government produces £200 million out of thin air to address the problem. What a pity, residing officer, that the parliamentary session is about to come to an end. What a pity that there are no more opposition debating slots for the Scottish Conservatives. Who knows what other problems we could solve by championing them here in the Scottish Parliament. I can imagine a long queue at our door from those in Scotland in need of emergency government cash. Sadly, they will have to wait until after the election before we can deal with those other problems. The Government action so far is welcome, but it is not the end of the story. Three things need now to happen. First, we need to know that the entitlement letters that have been issued are indeed accurate. I have had many constituents on to me saying that they believe that they are riddled with errors that will take a long time to resolve. Secondly, we need to know what the additional administrative cost of all this will be. We already know about the IT cost overrun so far. We know that extra staff have had to be drafted in by the Scottish Government, and we know that the latest move will involve extra administration. How much does this total, and where in the Scottish Government will this additional cash come from? Finally, we need a full independent inquiry into what has gone wrong. Audit Scotland has already done sterling work, and they understand that they are continuing their investigations. We need to see what they conclude, but we should not close the door on further scrutiny. Despite all the scuttling around over the past couple of days, there is no doubt that the cabinet secretary has lost the confidence of rural Scotland. The former NFUS president, Jim Walker, formerly an SNP supporter, someone who voted yes in the independence referendum, has called for the cabinet secretary's resignation and has said that he could never support a party, a minister or a Government who has been quite so incompetent and, frankly, naive. On these benches, we are more generous. We are not calling for resignations. We are not here to score political points or throw bricks. We will leave that to others. What Scotland's farmers want to see is firm action to make sure that our farmers get the money that they are due without any further delay. We want this matter sorted. It has dragged on too long and we need a thorough investigation so that it can never happen again. That is what our motion is calling for today, Presiding Officer, and I commend it to the chamber. Thank you, Mr Fraser. That concludes the debate on rural affairs. The next item of business is consideration of business motion number 15873, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick on behalf of the parliamentary bureau, setting out a revision to the business programme for Thursday 10 March. Any member who wishes to speak against the motion should press the request speak button now, and I call on Joe Fitzpatrick to move motion number 15873. No member has asked to speak against the motion, therefore I now put the question to the chamber. The question is that motion number 15873, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. The next item of business is consideration of business motion number 15852, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick on behalf of the parliamentary bureau, setting out a business programme. Any member who wishes to speak against the motion should press the request speak button now, and I call on Joe Fitzpatrick to move motion number 15852. No member has asked to speak against the motion, therefore I now put the question to the chamber. The question is that motion number 15852, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. The next item of business is consideration of seven parliamentary bureau motions. I would ask Joe Fitzpatrick to move motion numbers 15853 to 15857, on approval of SSIs on block. Motion number 15858 and 15859, on suspension of standing orders. Questions on these motions will be put at decision time to which we have arrived. There are seven questions that we have put as a result of today's business. The first question is amendment number 15844.3, in the name of Richard Lochhead, which seeks to amend motion number 15844, in the name of Alex Ferguson, on rural affairs. Be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. We move to a vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment number 15844.3, in the name of Richard Lochhead, is as follows. Yes, 62. No, 53. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed to. The next question is amendment number 15844.2, in the name of Sarah Boyack, which seeks to amend motion number 15844, in the name of Alex Ferguson, on rural affairs. Be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. We move to a vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment number 15844.2, in the name of Sarah Boyack, is as follows. Yes, 53. No, 62. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. The next question is amendment number 15844.1, in the name of Tavish Scott, which seeks to amend motion number 15844, in the name of Alex Ferguson, on rural affairs. Be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. We move to a vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment number 15844.1, in the name of Tavish Scott, is as follows. Yes, 54. No, 61. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. The next question is motion number 15844, in the name of Alex Ferguson, as amended, on rural affairs. Be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. We move to a vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion number 15844, in the name of Alex Ferguson, as amended, is as follows. Yes, 62. No, 53. There were no abstentions. The motion, as amended, is therefore agreed to. I propose to ask a single question on motions number 15853 to 15857 on approval of SSIs. Any member who objects to a single question being put, please say so now. No member has objected to a single question being put. Therefore, the next question is motions number 15853 to 15857, in the name of Doverford's Patrick, on approval of SSIs. Be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motions are there for agreed to. The next question is motion number 15858, in the name of Doverford's Patrick, on the suspension of the order to be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is there for agreed to. The next question is motion number 15859, in the name of Doverford's Patrick, on the suspension of studying orders to be agreed to. Are we all agreed. The motion is there for agreed to. Welcome. That can close the decision time. We now move to a member's business. Members who leave the chamber should do so quickly and quietly.