 Rwy'n gwybod i chi, two-member. Felly, rwy'n gwybod i'r next item of business, rwy'n gwybod i'r cyffredinifat y Ffergus Ewing o'r Cyfrifod ysgolodau i ddefnyddio pwyllwch agri-grwyddo. Rwy'n gwybod i chi, sector, o'i gweithio'r cwestiynau ar y torbaith, rwy'n gweithio'r cyfrifod y cwestiynau o'r cyfrifod ysgolodau i'r cyfrifod ysgolodau i'r cyfrifod ysgolodau i'r cyfrifod yw os ymwyng. Felly, mae'r First Royal Highland Shores Rural Economic Secretary was in June 2016 was somewhat surreal. On the Thursday, I presented key themes emerging to develop a new strategy for Scottish agriculture. Themes were upbeat, positive and I hope visionary. I believe that people left the session generally with the spring in their step. However, the following day, on Friday, we were all reeling from the outcome of the EU referendum, and few felt like springing anywhere. When it became obvious that Brexit was more a slogan than a plan, it was clear that this outlook and work would be needed more than ever. So in June last year, I appointed four champions to build on these themes to make recommendations for a future strategy for Scottish agriculture. Archie Gibson on food and drink, Henry Graham on education and skills, John Canard on sustainability and Marion McCormick on public value. The champions established working groups with a broad range of contributors from across Scotland. Fifty-five individuals took part in those groups and I would express my gratitude to them all for generously giving of their time, their knowledge and expertise. In November last year, the champions published an interim discussion document to which twenty-five organisations responded. Using all the information, views and ideas received, they then developed their final report, which was published last Thursday, with a full set of recommendations on each area. I want to record my sincere thanks to all four champions who have invested so much energy, personal time and resource in the task that I set them. Between them, they have lifetimes of experience and expertise, which they applied to their remits. They also listened and took on board wider views right across the farming and food and drink sectors and I welcomed their report. In particular, I welcomed the three statements of ambition for Scottish farming. Scotland's form of agriculture will be enviable for its alignment with our land and other assets in all their biophysical diversity, supported by tailored policies that lead to real commercial results. Scottish farming will take the actions that forearm it for difficult times and justify support from the public purse, and Scottish farming stewardship of the countryside will protect and enhance our natural assets and will be valued and supported by society. I also welcomed the report's eighteen headline recommendations. I do not have time to go over them all, Presiding Officer, but key ones include that the public must be better informed about Scottish farming and what it delivers, and policies must be guided by real evidence about what the public values. I agree. A top priority starting immediately is a change of mindset to help farmers and crofters to become more progressive, entrepreneurial and resilient. That is a proposition that we must address. I am conscious that change is also at the heart of NFU Scotland's recommendations for the future. There is no doubt that achieving that while also taking people with us will be difficult, but I commit today to seeking to achieve that. Stewardship of the countryside should be a key part of future policy. I have always maintained that farming has twin roles. Farmers are producers of food and custodians of the countryside. Those roles are complementary. In the future, we must maintain those two roles and ensure that farmers and crofters not only play their part in that stewardship and in contributing to our climate change ambitions, but as the champions also recommend that they are recognised for their positive actions. Farming must be more visible as a career option and must attract more young people. That recommendation is key. We must ensure that our young people see and grasp the opportunity of working on the land and in related industries as both a positive and a rewarding one. Government, Parliament, industry and others must co-operate on a 10 to 15-year strategy for Scottish farming. All must work together to get the best outcomes and facing up to harsh realities. I welcome the realism here in this report. The champions and others are acutely aware that farming needs a strategy with a timescale longer than one parliamentary term. I hope that we must all agree with that and work together to the benefit of Scottish farming in the future. They also recognise that we potentially face the most challenging of times. That leads me to Brexit. If we leave the EU and the CEP because of Brexit, it will take time to create a future policy framework for Scottish farming. I also welcome the champions' recommendation for a transition period. I have previously signalled my preference for such a phase. The champions set out related proposals and measures and, again, I will consider them carefully. Of course, the lack of certainty and clarity from the UK Government on what Scotland might expect, should we have to Brexit, does make all this rather difficult. We were promised that all lost EU funding would be replaced. Despite continued pressure from myself, my cabinet colleagues in Scotland, and ministers in the other devolved administrations, current guarantees and commitments fall short of honouring that promise. Despite my best efforts, we cannot even make progress on the convergence review, despite Mr Gove promising last year to set that up. Without such a review and getting a better payment rate agreed, we have very little chance of getting a fair funding settlement that acknowledges and provides for Scotland's needs and interests. This lack of information over funding matters. Any business plan with no numbers in it is simply not worth the paper that is written on. Nor is there any clarity on future trade arrangements that are so important, not just for beef and lamb but also for dairy produce and for our burgeoning fruit and vegetable sectors. There is still a lack of detail about the position of EU nationals who contribute so much to our farming and food businesses and, generally, to rural life in Scotland. We do not even yet know if we will be able to exercise devolved powers over farming and food production powers that were devolved to Scotland in 1998 and which the UK Government is determined to grab for itself on spurious grounds. There might well be a need for frameworks in some areas where powers are pooled for everyone's benefit on these islands, but the Conservative arguments come unstuck when you realise that there are currently no barriers to trading in the UK from within a CEP which allows each of the four nations to operate different support schemes and that there is collaboration on animal health and welfare conducted through relationships of mutual trust and understanding among officials, particularly the chief veterinary officers without resort to legislation or single systems. People, including members of this Parliament, want to know what the future for farming and food production in Scotland will look like. However, agriculture is part of the much wider rural economy, and future farm policy should reflect that reality. The Parliament asked me to establish an independent group involving relevant stakeholders to provide advice as to the principles and policies that should underpin options for appropriate rural support beyond 2020. I duly did so and the National Council of Rural Advisers has been working to deliver that. I expect to receive a further report from the council shortly and want to consider its recommendations and proposals alongside those of the agriculture champions. Any change that we take forward must also, as the champions point out, be guided by real evidence about what the public values. We should therefore involve the wider public in determining future policy and seek their views and opinions, too. In conclusion, I will consider the champions report fully and carefully as I explore and plan for all eventualities in our future. While the champions themselves make clear that no change is not an option, I want to offer this reassurance. Wherever Scotland's future lies and whatever our future holds, in the absence of stability and security from elsewhere, this Government is determined to provide as much certainty and clarity for rural Scotland as we can. I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of his statement, and I also refer to farming and crofting in my register of interests. It is absolutely clear to those benches that the cabinet secretary's words today and the report published last week do little to alleviate the concerns held by the agricultural sector across Scotland, which is becoming increasingly distressed at the lack of any concrete proposals for funding arrangements post Brexit, not least when the Scottish Government knows the amount of cap funding that Scotland is guaranteed to receive until 2022. The SNP Government's approach is weak and lightweight and sits in stark contrast to the comprehensive approach of both DEFRA and the Welsh Government, which have both published detailed proposals with various options for post-Brexit support in England and Wales respectively. The cabinet secretary's statement ends with a wish to provide certainty and clarity, where, with respect, Scotland's farming sector remains in complete limbo because of the dereliction of duty from this Government when it comes to laying out the substance of future support. Almost two years after Brexit vote, Scotland's farmers and crofters do not want to talk about power grabs that they want detailed, so my question is a simple one to ask and a simple one to answer. When will detailed proposals for Scotland's agricultural support system be produced? I think that it would have behoved any member of this Parliament to address the content of the statement and the agricultural champions report. I think that it would have displayed a bit of respect to four individuals, four experienced individuals who are regarded as impartial, who have expertise in their fields to pay some regard to the content of the report, which is the content of this statement. I would suggest that, if Mr Cameron has not applied himself to read the report, he should do so. Unlike him, I want to listen to what people have to say in Scotland about the future of our policy. It is not my desire to dictate policy from top to bottom but to listen to experts and others. That is why I appointed the agricultural champions. It is also why, following a resolution, following a motion of this Parliament, I appointed the National Council of Rural Advisers. I can confirm to the member in providing a response to his question that, following a full and careful study of the report that has been published last week from the agricultural champions and, following the publication in the coming months of the final report of the National Council of Rural Advisers, we shall respond to those recommendations and put forward our views as to the future. However, I would point out that the document that he referred to from the UK contains no figures at all, no figures as to the future post Brexit. It was his party that promised post Brexit that the totality of the funding for Rural Scotland would be at least matched. On that key issue, on that key pledge, made by Mr Gove, Mr Eustace and many other Brexit tears, there has been total silence. Only once we receive confirmation about that information will it be possible to put forward any detailed proposal, but we are, of course, working hard in order to look at the best options for the future of Scottish agriculture despite the enormous uncertainties that are thrown up by the Brexit bungal that is being pursued by the UK Government. Colin Smyth I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of his statement. I also place on record my appreciation to the four agricultural champions for their work and report, much of which Labour can support. I also share the Scottish Government's concern at the lack of certainty not only on what the final negotiated Brexit settlement between the UK and the rest of the EU will be, but frankly the lack of certainty on what the final negotiated settlement will be within the Conservative Party on the UK Government's position in those negotiations. That cannot be used as a shield by the Scottish Government not to set out clearly what its vision is for post-Brexit support for agriculture and rural Scotland. I said in the chamber last week that there is frustration among Scotland's farmers in the lack of detail from the Scottish Government on that issue. Organisations such as the NFU Scotland and Scottish Environmental Link are leading the way, exploring alternatives to the common agricultural policy and setting out clear principles behind what that support should look like. Does the cabinet secretary agree that it is time for the Scottish Government to do the same to bring all key stakeholders together to agree a shared vision of what Scotland wants to see that support look like and then take that case to the UK Government instead of waiting for the UK Government to tell us what to think? In other words, is it not time for the Scottish Government to stop waiting and start leading on this issue? I appreciate Mr Smith's acknowledgement of the good work that the champions have done. I think that that is quite respectful and in contrast to the approach of the Conservative, sadly. We have, of course, and we constantly bring stakeholders together and both myself and Roseanna Cunningham have done so on numerous occasions in order to discuss the best way ahead. That led to the appointment of the agricultural champions, whose recommendations in chapter 3 I would have thought merit considerable careful consideration rather than the political approach that the Conservatives have adopted. To take Mr Smith's question, there are three elements for any business that are fundamental. There are costs, revenue and workforce. In relation to Brexit, it appears almost certain that if we are dragged out of the single market, there will be tariffs. Costs will go up. That was commented on by numerous spokespeople at the NSA event recently at Ballantree, not least by Jim McLaren of QMS. Costs are likely to go up. Secondly, revenue is likely to go down. Thirdly, with regard to the workforce, the continuing availability of those people who give of their lives, their effort, their family life to work here in Scotland, as they are welcome, that future has been under a cloud of uncertainty since the Brexit referendum. The three fundamentals for every single business are shrouded in uncertainty. As soon as the UK Government can get round to deciding something on Brexit and putting forward some sort of plan, perhaps it may be possible to address the realities and response to that. However, until that, there are no figures and there is no clarity and there is no capacity to deliver any clear plan at all. That must be a statement of the blindingly obvious. Stuart Stevenson, to be followed by Edward Mountain. Presiding Officer, I draw your attention to my ownership of a very small registered agricultural holding. Can the cabinet secretary clarify if the champion's vision and recommendations apply only after we've left the EU or whether there are some that we can start work on before that? Cabinet secretary? Yes, I can confirm that the champion's recommendations apply to the future whatever it may hold. I think that that is why I'm surprised that the Conservatives don't appear the slightest bit interested in the work that is done by those leading figures in Scottish rural life. It's very sad, really. However, the champions have a great deal to say about the future on sustainability, productivity and skills. They have a lot to say about the need for new entrants, about the need for increased productivity. They have a lot to say about the contribution that farmers already make to the stewardship of the environment, of course one of their main twin purposes. I commend, as Mr Stevenson obviously agrees, to every member that they read carefully the contents and recommendations of the report, as they are extremely valuable in informing a pathway ahead for Scotland, whatever happens in relation to Brexit. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I'd like to thank the cabinet secretary for sight of his speech. I'd also like to declare members to my register of interests. This afternoon, Presiding Officer, we've had a statement from the cabinet secretary that says nothing about a plan or a policy. I do want to quote the agricultural champions. Let me quote it specifically. Brexit amplifies and makes more urgent some fundamental challenges that farming was already facing. They have also accepted that the EU will reduce cap funding over future years, and we know that the UK Government has protected subsidies until 2022. Farmers need a plan for the next five years. That means, cabinet secretary, you're going to have to stop dithering and start delivering. Where is the policy? Will you be consulting with farmers before next year's crops are planned and planted, and when will we see it? I encourage members to speak through the chair, but, cabinet secretary. Mr Mountain says that the UK Government has protected subsidies until 2022. That's simply not accurate. The facts are that the assurances provided do not relate to the totality of rural funding, primarily to pillar 1 and to the phrase, farm support. All the elements of support—I wouldn't use the word subsidy because I think that what they do is valuable, and subsidy implies that Mr Mountain disagrees, but the assurances simply do not apply to the totality of pillar 2 payments. To say that all subsidies, as he puts it, is protected until 2022 is simply yet another false premise from the Conservatives. I say again that it would be more respectful if some attention were played to the substance of the reports that we have had rather than nitpick and make party political partisan points, which seems to be the Scottish Conservatives' only contribution to the debate. I encourage shorter questions and answers to Mr Scott's 10-2 for this session. Claudia Beamish will be followed by Kate Forbes. Thank you, Presiding Officer. While I welcome the Champions report, food banks are Scotland's shame. Can the cabinet secretary reassure the chamber and this country that ending food poverty through the principles and structures of the support and development of local affordable fresh food for our communities in a way that fuses the twin roles of food production and steward trip of the countryside will be at the heart of the Scottish Government's future policy, whatever happens with Brexit? Yes. I think that Claudia Beamish raises a more sensible point than we have had from the Conservatives today, sadly. Of course, food poverty is a blight in our country, and tackling it is a priority for us all. Farmers play a direct part in addressing that by contributing food for the nation. I am also engaged in encouraging and working with public bodies, including schools, to ensure so far as possible that food is procured locally for school meals, for example. Some local authorities have had enormous success in that, and we have seen the proportion of food that is procured locally increase. That contributes to a sufficient, healthy and nutritious diet for our children in particular, and addresses across the board of the Scottish Government with my colleagues the topic that Claudia Beamish raised today. The cabinet secretary will be aware of the UK Government's white paper on the future of farm support. Are there areas in that report that the Scottish Government is likely to support or adopt? I want to study the report carefully, as I said, and I also wish to do so in conjunction with study of the second report from the National Council of Rural Advisers. Here, of course, the NCRA report was set up at the behest of this Parliament, following an amendment that was accepted from Mr Rumbles to a motion. Therefore, that is something that I think is correct that I should do in order to implement the will of Parliament. It is therefore correct, I think, logically, that, since Parliament has asked me to do this, that we allow time A for the NCRA to deliver its final report and B, pay them the respect that they deserve and that Parliament deserves by studying it carefully before announcing conclusions. We will do precisely that. Mark Ruskell, to be followed by John Mason. Presiding Officer, if I heard the cabinet secretary correctly, just 55 people have been feeding in to this critical work on the future vision of Scotland's food and farming, disappointing given that over 800 people, farmers and growers, food businesses and communities, have been meeting from the Scottish Borders to Shetland in kitchen table talks to talk about their vision of food and farming, now pulled together and published in a critical report. There seems to be something missing here, Presiding Officer. Why has the Scottish Government failed to meet its promise to consult on a good food nation bill in 2017? When is that now going to happen? If I may just correct the member, Presiding Officer, the first phase of consultation by the champions involved early work with a number of individuals, and I referred to the fact that there were 55 individuals who made specific contributions. Secondly, I do not think that Mr Ruskell picked this up, but I did say in my statement that, after they published their initial work last year, they then consulted on that with a number of organisations. I think that around 25 that included Ring Link, the RSPB Scotland, the Scottish Crofting Federation, as well as statutory bodies of Scottish wildlife trust. Therefore, some of them are membership bodies, some of them are not, some of them are statutory bodies that reach out to a large number of people. It is maybe slightly unfair to try them for a lack of consultation. They were very open in their work, and they remain so, so I think that that is a little bit unfair. So far as the second part of the statement is done, it is not really the topic of today, but obviously we wish to progress all of the matters that we have undertaken in due course, and I am sure that we will come back to the specific topic in due course. John Mason to be followed by Mike Rumbles. Thanks very much. I wonder if the cabinet secretary feels that the champions put enough emphasis on climate change in their recommendations. Well, I think that they have taken that vital matter into full account. Many of the recommendations can indeed help reduce greenhouse emissions, and I commend a careful reading of the report. Their approach is strongly consistent with that set out in the agriculture chapter of the climate change plan earlier this year. For example, improvements in efficiency, benchmarking and more integrated land use can each help to lower the emissions intensity of Scottish produce. As the champions have said in the report and I quote, reducing waste will lead to lower greenhouse gas emissions per unit of output, and I would also add that it can help to improve farm profitability as well. That is why I think that these two documents complement each other in the future. Mike Rumbles to be followed by Emma Harper. The cabinet secretary just said in his statement that people, including MSPs, want to know what the future of farming and food production in Scotland will look like. Too true, but it is his job to tell us, not anyone else's. Why hasn't he involved relevant stakeholders for his advisers, as Parliament told him to do in January of last year? He has the producers, but where are the consumers and where are the environmentalists? He has wasted nearly two years. When will he stop making excuses about not knowing the figures and start making the actual decisions that he is being paid to make on our behalf? The motion to which Mr Rumbles refers is a motion passed by Parliament. My belief and understanding is that I have obtempered the obligations that are incumbent on us in that amendment to the letter. I have said so before, and I say it here again. As far as the primary question is concerned, at the moment, we do not actually know whether there will be a Brexit. We do not know if there will be a Brexit deal. We do not know if there will be no deal. The UK took us on this course. Scotland voted against this. We do not know whether there will be tariffs. We do not know whether there will be regulatory barriers to perishable goods. We do not know if our Scotch lambs, for which European markets are so essential, will be able to access those markets as Jim McLaren and many others said in much more trenching terms than I am using today, quite frankly, at Ballantree, at least according to the SF reporting of them. We do not know if the workforce, which we value in Scotland from countries throughout Europe, will continue to be welcome here. In the light of the fact that we have a complete lack of clarity about Brexit, because of the way that the UK cabinet and Prime Minister have completely failed to indicate any clarity at all, it is somewhat premature to expect me to have a clear plan in the outcome of all of that. Emma Harper The cabinet secretary has just spoke about tariffs and increased costs and decreased revenue and the uncertainty of Brexit for farmers. What steps is the Scottish Government taking to prepare for the Tory's Armageddon Brexit, which newspaper reports even suggested would result in Scotland running out of food on the second day after Brexit exit day? John Swinney That reference to the Armageddon option is not a product of the Scottish Government spin doctors or officials. It is an option that is set out by advisers to the UK Government. It is advisers to the UK Government that said that Scotland and parts of England may run out of food within just a couple of days of Brexit. That shows how serious it is, and all that we get from the lot over there—not one of them, incidentally, will say a word against the way that the UK is handling or mishandling this—is a political rant that we have got to produce a plan when we have got no idea whatsoever—and no one else does in Scotland—that Scotland voted against Brexit anyway about what exactly is happening down south. It is a complete and utter shambles. John Swinney That concludes our statement this afternoon. I apologise to Mr Scott and Ms Martin. There is no time left. In fact, we have used up all the time available for flexibility in this afternoon's debate. Our next debate will be a debate on motion 12561, in the name of Angela Constance, on celebrating Scotland's volunteers. We will just take a few seconds for members to change seats.