 The first item of business is a statement by Fergus Ewing on the future of Scottish agricultural support post-Brexit transitional arrangements. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of his statement and the thought that there should be no interventions or interruptions. I call on Fergus Ewing for up to 10 minutes, please, cabinet secretary. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Scotland did not vote for Brexit, but we now have to deal with its consequences. The Scottish Government's preferred option is for the whole of the UK to remain in the EU. Failing that, our consistent position has been that staying in the European single market and the customs union is essential for Scotland's economy and particularly our rural economy. That would enable us to continue to benefit from the four freedoms—freedom of movement of goods, services, people and capital—and from a wide range of environmental, animal, plant and food standards. It would mean that we are outside the common agricultural policy. In recent months, a wide range of stakeholders have promoted the prospect of change. No change is not an option. That was one of the central conclusions of the agricultural champions. That premise also features strongly in the discussion paper published by the National Council of Rural Advisers last week, in which it said, now is the time to change the way that we think, act and operate to tailor bespoke policy frameworks. NFU Scotland has also titled its discussion document for a new agricultural policy for Scotland post-Brexit, simply as change. Change now seems inevitable. We must therefore determine how far we go and importantly how fast. However, we are having to navigate our future through a bewildering set of uncertainties. We do not yet know when we might be made to leave the EU. It might be 29 March next year. It might be the end of 2020 or at some date as yet unknown. There is little clarity about funding. We have a commitment from the UK Government to provide the same cash total in funds for farm support until the end of the current UK Parliament and for contracts entered into before the end of March next year to be honoured. We are leaving the EU, as it said, on 29 March 2019, but I have no idea what will follow. That is not all. Additional information about funding guarantees has been sought by me and Cabinet colleagues time and again, but has not been forthcoming. Perhaps the worst of all is the prospect of being denied control over or access to those powers, hard one in the devolution settlement, powers that matter hugely for rural Scotland in terms of enabling Scotland to design its own solutions on funding and policy to meet Scottish needs on farming, food production, food standards and the environment. However, the clock is ticking and we can no longer wait for Westminster and must get on with determining our own future. While the wellbeing of Scotland might mean nothing to Westminster, it is our central and overriding concern. Rural Scotland deserves security and stability in the short term. So today, Presiding Officer, I am launching consultation proposals to provide stability and security for rural businesses in the immediate post-Brexit period. It marks the start of the process of developing a new rural support policy for Scotland. It also forms part of a civic conversation being led by the National Council of Rural Advisers over the summer to shape a comprehensive new approach to supporting Scotland's rural economy. This consultation focuses on what might be done to provide stability in the period immediately after Scotland might have to leave the EU in 2019. It sets out ideas for short term simplifications that could help current claimants of cap-related support, while also improving or enhancing the delivery of policy goals. It also asks questions on how best to support and integrate agriculture into the broader rural economy over the transition period and beyond. Finally, it seeks views on how pilot projects might be developed and used to test different approaches to rural support that might be taken forward into the future. It is not an entirely open-ended consultation. I am clear about what I think the key proposals should be and that those proposals should aim to deliver stability and security for businesses and communities. Firstly, the plan proposes that we have a transition period. The agriculture champion's recommendation and rationale for a three- to five-year period is compelling. Such a transition period would provide the space that we need to properly develop and devise a new and different approach for Scotland. That, Presiding Officer, is in stark contrast to the one-year transition period that is currently proposed by the UK. Within this five-year window, I am proposing that we have a two-year period of stability where we continue to adhere to EU rules. During this initial phase, I would envisage that current EU support schemes would remain largely the same, providing security where it is needed most. That security will be enhanced for more than 11,000 farmers and crofters by my decision to maintain 10 alfass in 2019 at 80 per cent, ensuring that our most marginalised farmers and crofters continue to receive the support that they need. In the second phase of the transition period, I am proposing to make some amendments to payment schemes to simplify and improve customer service or provide enhanced public benefit. Also, to make clear, we are not standing still during this crucial period. I want to explore and consider income parameters for farm payments, but I also want to declutter the payment landscape by removing penalties for minor discresions. Such an approach signals a key shift in mindset and attitude, away from strict compliance, towards a relationship based on trust that values and supports delivery based on outcomes. I also want to reduce the administrative burden on a range of steps in the payment systems and process, including around inspections, mapping and scheme rules. Further, I am proposing that we use this time to streamline and synergise some of the Myriad pillar 2 schemes. Those measures will free up resources in the widest sense to be used to invest more in activity that we will want to continue in the future. For example, we already know that we want to support more new and young entrants into farming and food production, so we will want to continue providing support in that area. However, we will also utilise resources to innovate and develop pilot new approaches. As well as encouraging new and young entrants, we know that we have intergenerational challenges that we will need to address. As part of the consultation, I also want to hear views on the longer direction of travel. All ideas and proposals will be explored as part of the wider civic conversation around how best to sustain a vibrant and flourishing rural economy into the future. Key to this will be exploring how best to combine delivery of desirable outcomes for rural Scotland with support in the future. A new rural policy framework should seek to ensure that public investments in social, economic and environmental capital not only create a stable and secure environment for rural businesses but contribute to a sustainable, productive, diverse and thriving rural economy. In conclusion, there is no doubt that the next few years will be extremely challenging for rural Scotland. However, unlike the UK Government, which becomes more chaotic and clueless by the day, this Government is focused on its responsibilities to protect and serve the best interests of the people and businesses in our rural communities. Since the EU referendum almost two years ago, the UK Government has provided little clarity and almost no certainty. With less than a year to go to a Brexit that Scotland neither voted for nor wants, we cannot wait any longer. Rural Scotland needs and deserves as much security and stability as can be provided in the short term. Today, I have published a plan to help achieve that. The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues that were raised in his statement, and I intend to allow around 20 minutes for that. Then we will move on to the next item of business. I wish to ask a question to press requests to speak buttons. I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of his statement, and I refer to crofting and farming in my register of interests. It is with a sense of irony that I heard in the statement that the Scottish Government feels that it can no longer wait and must get on with determining our own future, given that every opposition party in this chamber has been urging the Government to stop diddering and to get on without lining its plans since the Brexit vote almost two years ago. This is the third ministerial statement in as many weeks, and until now it is the Scottish Government who has provided little clarity and almost no certainty. It is only after pressure from those benches a day before the Royal Highland show that the cabinet secretary is finally forced to make a statement to Parliament. That said, we welcome this consultation in terms of transition. We will take time to digest the proposals. Where there is common ground, we will seek to find it. Our priorities for support are that the UK internal market is protected, that support concentrates on production from active farming, protects our environment and recognises that 85 per cent of farmland in Scotland is in less favoured areas. My questions to the cabinet secretary are those. In the light of the documentation of the last three weeks, will he commit to holding a proper debate on this subject in this chamber as soon as possible after recess? Secondly, given the NFUS concerns expressed yesterday about the EU commission's approach to alfass, does he recognise that a cap to alfass at 80 per cent in 2019 and potentially 20 per cent in 2020 will be a significant blow to many of Scotland's livestock farmers? In response to the questions that Mr Cameron asked, I am happy to debate these matters. It is right to have a debate. There is a question about the timing. It would benefit us to have the responses to the consultation document. The document here will be consulted upon, but I am obviously subject to parliamentary authorities' proposed that a debate is had. It is a positive suggestion. I entirely agree that that is something that we would do anyway. I am very sorry to disabuse Mr Cameron of his notion of the efficacy of the Scottish Conservatives, but we have in fact been working on this for several months as I hinted at when I gave evidence to the Rural Committee. As I think any members would actually expect, as far as alfass is concerned, the European Parliament happily postponed the operation of the 80 per cent limit. Therefore, we maintained alfass at 100 per cent this year in Scotland. It will go down to 80 per cent, but it is completely unacceptable that it goes down to 20 per cent the year after. This paper sets out proposals and asks questions about how we avoid that coming to pass. It is essential that we support our hill farmers. I am pleased that Mr Cameron has raised that letter. I intend to press the point with Mr Goff when I see him at the Royal Highland show tomorrow. I am pleased that the Conservatives have recognised that this is a serious document and it is one that I think will be broadly welcomed by many farmers precisely because it offers stability of continued income, but it is, of course, dependent upon the UK Government playing its part and delivering on their promises that post Brexit they will deliver and at least match the EU funding that we came to acknowledge as necessary. Colin Smyth Thank you to the cabinet secretary for advance sight of his statement. Today's statement is long overdue, but it is also welcome. I agree with the cabinet secretary that in the current constitutional case there does remain a lack of clarity from the UK Government areas such as policy funding, devolution, access to EU labour and trading conditions. The reality is that, for months, organisations such as the NFU and the Scottish Environment Link and Government such as the Welsh Government have been leading the way, setting out what they say is the key principles for rural and agricultural support post Brexit, but the Scottish Government has been left standing. There is much within today's statement that I very much welcome and agree with, which is a stability period of two years and also a commitment to declutter the payment landscape. As the cabinet secretary said, the clock is ticking, so will he give a clear commitment that the consultation will be carried out on a timely basis and that firm detailed proposals will be set out as soon as possible because rural businesses and communities need to start to plan now and the lack of clarity is already damaging our rural economy. Fergus Ewing I think that I will interpret that as broadly a welcome being an optimist. What I would say to be serious is that this plan sets out a very clear set of proposals. It sets out that farmers for the next two years in a stability period would, broadly speaking, continue the payments that they have received under pillar 1, the basic payment and the other payments. It then suggests that there should be a further three years where we will proceed along those lines but then seek to introduce improvements and changes. I think that that mix of stability, certainty and simplicity will be broadly welcomed by farmers in Scotland. I am going to say, having read the other documents by UK Government and other bodies throughout the UK, that this is, so far as I am aware, the most detailed plan that exists on Brexit. That is more detailed than any other document that has been produced on Brexit and that is because we have spent several months working on the need to remove the uncertainty of the current time with certainty over a period not of one year, Mr Gove proposes, but five years. If I am right, farmers will think that a five-year transition will give us the necessary time to prepare for the change that I think most commentators regard as necessary. I do have a lot of questions, so if we can get straight to the questions, please, and short answers where possible. I call Kate Forbes to be followed by Edward Mountain. Can I welcome, as I know my constituents, will the cabinet secretary's commitment to over 11,000 farmers and crofters with his decision to maintain LFAS at 80 per cent next year? Does he agree that any move to pay LFAS at 20 per cent for 2020 would be severely detrimental to crofters and farmers, many of whom have made that clear to me? Will he commit to exploring options to ensure that our most marginalised farmers and crofters, many of whom are in my constituency, continue to receive the support that they need? Kate Forbes represents much of Invernesshire and Rossshire, and there are many, many hill farmers there in my constituency. Indeed, throughout, 85 per cent of Scotland is covered by LFAS that rely on those payments. It is, as I said, completely unacceptable that LFAS goes to 20 per cent. I also remind members that Scotland is the only part of the UK that has continued with the less favoured area scheme. In fact, I believe that that has been the case for around about seven years. To quote from the paper at page 13, the Scottish Government's main priority is to explore options for protecting affected farmers and crofters in this period and maintaining levels of income support as far as possible, taking into account legislative, state aid and budgetary factors. We are wholly committed to doing precisely what Kate Forbes has asked for for her constituents. Edward Mountain, followed by John Mason. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I would like to refer members to my declaration of interest. I am delighted that Cabinet Secretary has come forward in answer to our calls with some ideas and the calls of industry. It is sad that it has taken so long, but I welcome that he has accepted the need for a two-year stability period, but, as he says, the clock is ticking. In most cases, farming business is already working to a five- to ten-year plan. Will this Government publish its vision for agriculture post the two-year stability period before the end of this year? That document sets out very clearly our vision for agriculture, and I have done so on many previous occasions. I am pleased that there is a broad welcome for this plan. It is a transition period lasting five years, the first two of which broadly would be affected by EU rules, and the further three would be an opportunity to provide something, Presiding Officer, that every single farmer I have ever spoken to wishes is a simpler system. This paper sets out a number of ways in relation to mapping, in relation to inspections, in relation to administration, how that simpler system could be achieved. I have to say that, to be fair to him, Commissioner Hogan has also expressed similar desires and objectives in the current CAP proposals that were considered by the council of ministers in Luxembourg, and I was in attendance for part of that meeting. We have published the most detailed plan in the UK, so far as I am aware. I hope and expect that, over the Royal Highland show, which many of us will be attending, I can engage with many farmers in particular and discuss with them those proposals and get their views on our consultation document over the summer months. John Mason, followed by Claudia Beamish. The cabinet secretary mentioned a number of bodies, including the agricultural champions, the national council of rural advisers, NFU Scotland and others who would include the CAP greening group, who have done quite a lot of work in that area already and made comments. Does he feel that a further consultation is really necessary and there is more to be gained from that? Fergus Ewing. I think that it is necessary, because looking at this analytically, there are really two periods. There is a period when we prepare for change and then there is a period of major change after that. In my view, it is essential that the first period is long enough to have the national debate that all members recognise as necessary, to formulate the policy and then ensure that we are capable of delivering it and administering it perfectly. That takes time. It is somewhat comical that the UK Government thinks that that could be achieved in one year. It cannot. I suspect that the UK will renegan that at some distant time. I do not think that there is any overlap or duplication between the various reports that have been issued. They are all intended to do different things. I am proud that the Scottish Government has already reached out through the national council of rural advisers, through our four agricultural champions, to set out clearly a vision of what the longer term change will be after the end of the transition period. Claudia Beamish, followed by Emma Harper. I welcome the long overdue consultation. In the simplification and piloting new approaches section, what is there to inspire the necessary shift to a fusion of production and environmental ways of working towards agroecology and the support that farmers will need for that? I think that many farmers are already grasping that challenge and doing so with vigor and success. We want to continue the work to focus on the environment. For example, carbon testing, the improvement of soil quality, concentrating on effective drainage techniques, which are centuries old and fundamental to farming. The paper sets out certain matters in relation to the environmental schemes and pillar 2, although more work is needed to be done on that, because they are not, largely speaking, recurrent payments for individual projects in many cases. I look forward to working with Claudia Beamish on developing a simpler system, and one that meets the needs of both farmers and the environment. Emma Harper, followed by Mark Ruskell. Thank you, Presiding Officer. On my chamber, I am a PLO to the cabinet secretary. The cabinet secretary has mentioned that he and colleagues have pressed for certainty on funding, for example. Can he provide the chamber with examples of what we don't have certainty on? There are broadly three or four areas. One is that we really do not know what the position is in relation to pillar 2 projects signed after 2019, and that is less than a year away. Most of those projects are very long-term. Secondly, we have no idea, after we fully leave the EU, what the funding position is. Thirdly, we do not know if the UK is going to deliver and implement the promise that they made that funding that was received from Europe would be at least matched. Lastly, and I will be pressing that with Mr Gove when I meet him at the Royal Highland show, we still have no action on implementing the convergence funding pledge—the pledge that Mr Gove made to proceed with an independent review. I can only assume that when he comes to Scotland tomorrow, he will announce that the delay is over and that the dithering is at an end. The review will, as he promised last November, finally, after years of delay go ahead. Mark Ruskell, followed by Mike Rumbles. We will incentivise methods of farming that create new habitats for wildlife, increase biodiversity, reduce flood risk, mitigate climate change and improve air quality. Sadly, that is not the Scottish Government's vision but the vision of DEFRA out for consultation since February. We still await the Scottish Government's vision for what it is actually trying to achieve with its food and agriculture policies. How will the status quo measures that have been announced today get Scotland's biodiversity targets back on track? We are failing with our biodiversity targets. We have the news that one out of five of every single British man will face the next extinction. What is the cabinet secretary going to do around this? I refer the member to question 25, page 22, regarding agri-environment climate scheme matters and climate change matters on page 18 of the document. It does not seem that he has read them. Mike Rumbles, followed by Joan McAlpine. The cabinet secretary just said in his statement that this marks the start, the start of the process of developing a new rural support policy for Scotland, and I said, hooray, but 18 months ago this Parliament unanimously on the Liberal Democrat amendment told him to start this process. We have lost a year and a half. Why has it taken him so long? Well, I was pleased to hear the hurrah but I did expect that it would be caveated and I wasn't surprised. We've been working for some time on these proposals. We had hoped that by now we would have had greater clarity on the big Brexit questions. Questions about whether there are going to be tariffs of as much as 70 per cent on some of our food produce. Questions about will people that work from EU countries be able to continue to do that. Questions such as, are we going to be flooded by cheap meat imports from countries that do not respect our high environment and welfare standards? No answer is worth forthcoming. We've been preparing this for several months. When we decided, as I said in the statement, that the time for waiting for Westminster to act was over, now this most detailed plan, I believe, in the UK will, I hope, alleviate the concerns of farmers. It's over to the UK Government now to confirm that it will provide the necessary funding to enable the stability, certainty and simplicity to be guaranteed over five years ahead. If we can be quick, I'll manage Joan McAlpine, followed by John Scott. Thank you. Scottish farmers have been members of the single market for all the 25 years that has existed. Without membership of the single market and the customs union, as the cabinet secretary has outlined, they'll face tariffs and labour shortages. Do the cabinet secretary share my concern that no amount of subsidy can mitigate the damage that will be done to farmers and rural communities by a Tory hard Brexit? I think that it's a very serious point and I entirely agree. I noticed just this morning that the director of the Fraser of Allander Institute said this about the UK Government. He said, with just nine months to go until the UK leaves the EU, the lack of a coherent plan from within Whitehall about the UK's long-term economic relationship with our most important trading partner risks holding back Scotland's recovery. At least today, the Scottish Government has published a plan that would address some of those problems, but it cannot address the bigger problems that Joan McAlpine mentions about freedom of movement of people, the application of tariffs and the withdrawal of access to the single market that has been so important to our farmers in Scotland. John Scott, thank you, Presiding Officer, and can I declare an interest as a hill farmer? Presiding Officer, another day, another consultation, but in the real world concerns are growing, and the cabinet secretary is well aware of the concerns of the sheep industry and QMS's concerns about the future viability of sheep farming in Scotland's LFA's post-Brexit, given the massive cuts to LFA's LFAS that he is proposing. Given the lack of alternatives to sheep farming in much of Scotland's LFA's, what additional special measures does the Scottish Government consider are likely to be required to keep farmers and food producers and custodians of our landscape in business in Scotland's LFA's post-Brexit, as LFAS payments reduced from £65 million to £13 million in 2020? As I said this year, I made sure that LFAS was paid at 100 per cent after the European Parliament secured that concession from the previous proposals, which were that it must be at 80 per cent. We took action to deal with that. Secondly, we have announced that we will continue to pay LFAS at the maximum possible rate that we can pay it. Thirdly, I have said, and it is in the paper, that on page 13, I referred to it in responding to Kate Forbes, that going down to 20 per cent, I think that that is what Mr Scott's question and visages and the figures that he quoted, is not acceptable. We therefore want views from all concern about other alternative means of providing the necessary support. I am pleased that there seems to be a consensus across this chamber that that is the correct approach. If it is a very quick question, I can squeeze in Angus MacDonald very quick. Okay, thanks. Can I ask the cabinet secretary if the UK Government has bothered to share its draft agriculture bill and will it contain measures that impact on farming and food production in Scotland? Very quick answer, please, Mr Ewing. No, it has not. That concludes questions on the cabinet secretary's statement, and we will move on to the next item of business, a couple of moments for people to shift seats.