 The next item of business is a debate in motion 12640, in the name of Marie Gougeon, on agriculture and rural communities Scotland built at stage 1. I would invite those members who would wish to speak in the debate to please press the request to speak buttons and I call on Marie Gougeon to speak and to move the motion up to 10 minutes please, cabinet secretary. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Scotland has a proud and long-standing heritage as a farming nation and today agriculture continues to play a significant role in our rural economy. All throughout history, how our land has been farmed and stewarded has changed, with change often done to the people who live and work on the land rather than with them. The need for the Agriculture and Rural Community Scotland Bill has been forced upon us by a Brexit that we neither voted for nor wanted, but we have taken that necessity and by working side by side with farmers, crofters, land managers and representative and stakeholder organisations, we have sought to create a new way of supporting farming in Scotland that responds to our unique circumstances. We have listened to their expertise and experience and, yes, we have taken our time to make sure that we get it right. We have built on the work done by the farmer leg groups and, over the past two years, have been working closely with industry companies to develop the proposals in this bill, consulting on options ahead of introducing the bill in September last year. That includes, through the Agricultural Reform Implementation Oversight Board, or ARIOP, co-chaired by me and the NFU Scotland president, Martin Kennedy, involving farmers, crofters, academics and stakeholder representatives. Wider engagement was undertaken between August and December 2022 through a consultation that received 392 responses from a range of stakeholders and members of the public across Scotland. We also received feedback from approximately 600 attendees at nine in-person and five online consultation events held across Scotland. I want to thank everyone who has contributed to the consultation and development of this bill, who has given evidence at stage one and is still engaging with me, with the new agriculture and connectivity minister Jim Fairlie and with Government officials to help to develop the new rural support framework that this bill will underpin. The bill embeds in law this Government's vision for agriculture and our ambition for farming and crofting to become world-leading in sustainable and regenerative agriculture, to farm in a way that increasingly protects and restores nature and helps Scotland to mitigate and adapt to climate change, to produce high-quality food and to do that more sustainably and ultimately to enable rural and island communities to thrive. We have heard from hundreds of people and overwhelmingly the message is the same. An adaptive and flexible approach to support for agriculture and rural communities is key to their and our futures. Brian Whittle, I am very grateful to the cabinet secretary. My concern is that there is a farm locally to me that has been bought over and planted with trees. Do you think that there is scope to potentially have a presumption against planning on quality farmland? As the member will no doubt be aware, we have a national planning framework that sets out a lot of the rules in relation to that, but what we want to do is ensure that farmers and crofters have the flexibility and adaptability to do what is right for their farm and their business. However, what the bill does not do and cannot do is undo the damage caused by and still being caused by Brexit, a Brexit created and delivered by the Tories and supported by Labour and the Liberal Democrats. The EU common agricultural policy has many flaws and weaknesses, some of which are being cleared out on the streets of European cities, but it did give us funding certainty over a recurring seven-year period. Thanks to the Tories at Westminster, we have no funding certainty. Brexit began with a huge cut to rural funding for Scotland and all the nations in the UK. The best we have achieved is an annual ring-fence funding envelope, but that limited amount of certainty runs out next year. Rachel Hamilton is absolutely right that the CAP system was seriously flawed in the views of farmers and crofters across the United Kingdom. It disproportionately benefited some EU states, and it also did not give sufficient funding for smaller farms. Does the cabinet secretary believe that the Scottish Government now has the power to create a system that can better suit our farmers in Scotland? As I have outlined, what the bill will ultimately enable us to do is to have that flexibility to design support schemes that benefit our unique circumstances in Scotland. That is exactly how we are developing the policy. Agriculture requires future funding certainty due to its multi-annual funding commitments and long lead-in time for farmers, crofters and land managers. No matter how hard I try, and I have tried, writing to no less than four UK secretaries of state covering agriculture in under three years, I know I have already given way a number of times and I need to make some progress. To get some sense of what future funding will look like, I have yet to receive any clarity, and in some cases even the courtesy of a response. I welcome the rural affairs and islands committee's support in its stage 1 report on that. Despite a lack of future funding certainty and clarity, the Scottish Government's bill sets out a framework that will enable support measures to be developed and delivered over the long term as needed. That approach does not tie us to any particular model for support, and it will help to ensure that we can have the right support in place at the right time. A framework bill provides flexibility. As we continue to recover from the pandemic and are impacted by the illegal invasion of Ukraine by Russia, as well as by Westminster economic mismanagement, that bill, crucially, provides us with flexibility to respond to future geopolitical, economic, climate and nature challenges. It gives us the flexibility to design measures, support and conditions to be implemented through secondary legislation and further adapted on a regular basis, as required. Many during stage 1 have called for more detail on the face of the bill. However, the complex and technical nature of support schemes and the requirement for regular updating is better suited to secondary legislation. That will allow for future schemes to be brought into operation as and when it is appropriate to do so. That enables me to deliver on the commitment that I have made many times to Scotland's farmers and crofters, that the transition from the current support schemes and framework to a new one will be gradual and just, that there will be no cliff edges, and that is what we are delivering. To reassure people and to take them with us on this journey, we have published a route map setting out what they can expect in the future and what they will have to do to continue to receive support. Yesterday, I published an update to that route map, which sets out clearly the changes that will come into effect from 2025 and the support that is available to farmers and crofters now to help them to prepare. From 2025, we begin to introduce the foundations of a whole farm plan. Those will require farmers and crofters to complete two base-lining activities from a list of options, including carbon audits, biodiversity audits, soil analysis, the creation of animal health and welfare plans or integrated pest management plans. We are also introducing new conditions for peatlands and wetlands under good agricultural and environmental conditions 6 of cross-compliance. Those conditions are vital to protecting and restoring Scotland's peatlands, which will help us to do so much to mitigate climate change. From 2025, it will be prohibited on land with peat soils over 50 centimetres in depth and in wetland habitats to plough, cultivate, to drain or maintain existing drainage that causes further drying out of peatland. Activities that damage the vegetation cover exposing the soil in those areas will also be prohibited. However, we are also introducing conditions to help our crucial beef sector to become more productive, profitable and sustainable. Last June, I announced that new conditions would apply to the Scottish suckler beef support scheme, linked to calving interval. In October, I made clear that the new conditions would apply to individual animals, not herds. Yesterday, I provided more detail on that. From 2025, a new condition will be added to the suckler beef scheme, stipulating that calves will only be eligible for payment if their dam has a calving threshold of 410 days or less, or if that is the first calf to be registered as born to that dam. Sorry, I do need to make progress. The interval has been determined by working with the beef sector and reviewing industry data about calving intervals. All animals claimed from the 2025 scheme year onward will be subject to the new calving interval conditions regardless of their year of birth. I also made clear that this Government's continued support for Scotland's livestock industry by announcing that the suckler beef scheme will continue until at least 2028, providing continuity for beef farmers to allow long-term planning and investment, while also ensuring no cliff edges. Until now, Scotland has been the only nation in the UK to provide additional support for beef production, and my announcement confirms that our support will continue throughout much of this decade. At the same time as providing as much certainty and continuity as we can, we are preparing for change, not least through this bill, its powers and its provisions. I therefore welcome the rural affairs and island committee support for the general principles of the bill and that a framework approach provides the right way forward. I also agree with many of the conclusions and recommendations in its stage 1 report, and I have set that out in the response that I issued to the committee yesterday evening. I note what it says and what stakeholders and individuals have said in relation to the objectives of the bill and on the proposed rural support plan. I acknowledge the views given by both the rural committee and the DPLR committee on procedures on a range of the regulation-making powers in the bill. I will, of course, give further consideration to all of those ahead of stages 2 and 3. I hope that we can continue to engage respectfully and collegially during these stages to ensure that we come together as a Parliament to deliver the legislative framework for future support that our agricultural industry and our rural and island communities need and deserve, because our nation needs them and our rural land to help to deliver our priorities for the future, to produce high-quality food more sustainably, to cut carbon emissions, sequester more carbon and restore and enhance nature and biodiversity. It is only our farmers, crofters and land managers who can deliver those outcomes, and all of Scotland owes a debt of support to them. As we move to the next stage of the bill and look to the future, I reiterate my commitment that farmers and crofters in Scotland will continue to receive direct support, but that they and we will also transition to a different way of stewarding land and producing food in a way that is just and by taking our agricultural industry and rural communities with us. I can advise the chamber that we have a little bit of time in hand over the course of this afternoon. With that, I now call Finlay Carson to speak on behalf of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee around nine minutes. I am pleased to speak, as a convener of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, about our stage 1 report on the Agriculture and Rural Community's Scotland Bill. The bill and the direction of our future agriculture policy is of fundamental importance to Scotland. The committee has therefore undertaken considerable work on the bill and agriculture policy over the past year. I thank my committee colleagues and committee clerks for all their hard work leading up to the report. Over the course of our inquiry, many individuals and organisations gave evidence in person or in response to our call for views. We also visited Aruble, Dairy and Hill Farms, and held a consultative event with farmers, crofters and other land managers and representatives from rural communities and development organisations. Those events have helped us better understand grass-root views about the challenges and opportunities in Scottish agriculture and whether the bill would address those. I wish to thank everyone for their time and contributions. Your views were heard and have helped to inform our scrutiny of the bill. The Government states that the bill will be the framework to deliver the Government's vision for agriculture and be a platform to develop the support that farming and rural communities need in order to adapt to new opportunities and challenges and to prosper in a changing world. That framework bill will replace the retained EU cap legislation by giving ministers the powers to provide financial and additional support for agriculture and rural communities, set conditions and eligibility requirements for that support and facilitate a transition away from the current support measures. The committee notes those intentions, but there were a number of concerns raised by various stakeholders, which we will reflect in our report. We agreed to seek greater clarity from the Government. I thank the cabinet secretary and our officials for their response to the report. However, it is very disappointing that we did not receive it until 6.29 yesterday. While it picked up in some of the issues that we raised, the responses provided lacked substantive responses to specific conclusions and recommendations. The response is heavy on noting the committee's position but fails to engage with the substantive points that the committee has made. A few places that the cabinet secretary's response indicated that the committee will be updated on the Scottish Government's thinking ahead of stage 2, and perhaps, in our summing up the cabinet secretary, we wish to advise the committee if there is a timescale and when exactly that will be before the stage 2 considerations. Turning to our report and recommendations, we have heard that this is a framework bill with the detail of future agriculture and rural support schemes to follow in secondary legislation. The committee considered whether a framework bill was the right approach to provide a long-term basis for future support systems. We heard that a framework bill would provide the necessary powers to provide support while also offering flexibility to adapt to changing circumstances. The committee agrees with the Government's approach. However, stakeholders' voice concerns about the lack of detail and how the powers would be used, what their associated costs would be and the time taken to introduce new support schemes. The committee shares those concerns about the impact of delays on farmers and crofters, their businesses and livelihoods, and recommended that the Government should give them additional reassurance by providing for statutory consultation and the co-design of support schemes. The committee notes and agrees with the views expressed by the DPLR and the FPA committees about the use of framework bills and the challenges that are posed for parliamentary scrutiny. Therefore, we ask the Government to provide more clarity on when and how the potentially large volume of sexual legislation will be brought forward. We have written to the convener's group to consider the broader question of ensuring effective scrutiny of sexual legislation and framework bills. I welcome the cabinet secretary's reassurance on those points. Now, turning to section 1, which set out the Government's four objectives of agricultural policy, sustainable and regenerative agricultural practices, the production of high-quality food, on-farm nature restoration and climate mitigation and adaptation, and enabling rural communities to thrive. Stakeholders expressed support for those four objectives, but they noted a lack of definition on the meaning of each objective. We broadly agreed that agriculture and rural communities are fundamentally intertwined and that should be reflected in the bill. The committee was told that farmers are a cornerstone of their local community and that, in turn, rural communities are essential to the agriculture industry and landscape. The committee recognises the importance of those objectives in shaping the direction of future support and we agree with the stakeholders that their scope and meaning should be made clearer in the rural support plan and secondary legislation. Stakeholders commented on the potential tensions in the allocation of funding towards achieving each objective, and they made some suggestions for additional objectives such as food resilience and the sustainability of farm businesses. The committee asked the Government to consider those suggestions. Section 2 places a duty in the Government to prepare a five-year rural support plan that sets out the expected use of the section 4 powers. Section 3 places a requirement on the Scottish ministers to have regard to various considerations in producing the plan, including the climate change plan and EU alignment. Many stakeholders supported the provision for a rural support plan and the proposed five-year period. However, many had concerns about the content and the detail of the plan and felt that the plan should set out more detailed outcomes, targets or milestones, information about the budget priorities for each tier, delivery mechanisms and procedures for monitoring and evaluation. The committee believes that such additions, as well as an evaluation of the previous plan period, would make the plans more meaningful and useful for stakeholders. It was also noted that the bill does not provide for statutory consultation on the plan, and I would welcome the cabinet secretary's commitment with regard to that. The committee recommends that an amendment be brought forward to this effect at stage 2. Neither is the provision for parliamentary scrutiny of the plan. Stakeholders and the committee felt that such scrutiny would be important and that the Parliament should have an on-going role in the scrutinising future support schemes with an amendment to the bill at stage 2 to require a draft plan to be laid for scrutiny. Regarding the first plan, the committee also believes that it would be helpful for the Parliament to have sight of a working draft in advance of stage 3 and that the draft plan itself should be laid before the secondary legislation is laid in 2025. It is very disappointing, given the huge significance of the rural support plan and the numerous calls for a draft to be brought forward as a matter of urgency, that the Government was silent. There was no mention of when that plan would be brought forward in the response, and perhaps once again the cabinet secretary could bring us up to date on that. Turning to part 2 of the bill, which gives the Government powers to provide and place conditions on support for the purposes that are set out in the schedule 1, including agriculture, food and drink production, environment, forestry, knowledge exchange and animal health and welfare. The committee was broadly content with the power set out in this part of the bill. Some stakeholders felt that the list of purposes could be broader, and the committee asked the Government to consider amending the purposes of support in line with the evidence that we heard. The committee notes that schedule 1 may be modified by regulations under section 4-2. Such regulations are currently subject to the negative procedure, but the committee agrees that the affirmative procedure might be more appropriate, given the potential implications for stakeholders of modifying the purposes for support. Any change in schedule 1 should also be taken forward through consultation and co-design with stakeholders. The committee took evidence on the section 9 powers to limit or cap support for assistance or to progressively reduce support beyond a certain threshold, and the committee understands that similar power is currently in place under EU cap legislation. We heard from the Government that no agricultural support in Scotland surpasses the threshold for UK subsidy control. Some stakeholders held strong views on the need for the element of redistribution and agriculture support through a system of capping, tapering or front-loading of payments. Other stakeholders had reservations about capping, but there was broad agreement that any cap should not be applied to payment-targeted achieving specific outcomes such as environmental payments. The Government should set out its thinking on payment distribution within the rural support plan, and any proposals must be accompanied by impact assessments to avoid unintended consequences. Given the potential impact of that power, the committee agrees with the DPLRC's recommendation that section 9 regulations be subject to the affirmative procedure. Regarding section 13 powers to make regulations on the eligibility and enforcement of support, the committee will monitor the use of that either way power, and we consider that the definition of what would constitute significant powers and thereby be subject to the affirmative procedure should be expanded. The committee was generally content with part 3 powers to amend existing post-EU legislation. I will move to section 7, given the power to provide continued CPD or for farmers and land owners. The committee agrees that a well-designed and co-ordinated CPD scheme would be important. Finally, the committee considered the cost associated with the bill. As a framework bill, it contains very little detail in cost, and the committee recommends that the information is fully set out in secret legislation. The committee also notes that the Government's funding decisions on allocations between each tier were announced by the First Minister out with Parliament. No information was shared specifically with the committee, despite taking consideration at stage 1, and we would like the Government to reflect on that approach. I look forward to taking views from our colleagues and looking forward to stage 2 this bill. We have a little bit of time in hand. That is more to allow for interventions than for members just to go over their speaking allocation times. I call Rachel Hamilton around eight minutes. Thank you for the opportunity to open on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives. I thank the Royal Affairs and Islands clerking team and my colleagues for the way that we got to stage 1. I appreciate the cabinet secretary's presence here today. I hope her recent trip to Chile to discuss agriculture was not the reason why her response to the stage 1 committee report came through this morning and the update to the agricultural reform route map arrived at yesterday. After years of endless consultation and discussion groups, the stakes are high for the survival of rural Scotland. The decisions made during the passage of the bill will have a significant impact on the lives of farmers, crofters and rural communities across Scotland for decades to come. That is why it is so important to bring people along with us on this journey. The SNP's choice to bring forward yet another framework bill has come at the cost of parliamentary scrutiny. I accept that framework bills offer some benefits, but it is crucial that we strike the balance between providing flexibility and ensuring that the Parliament can scrutinise the secondary legislation, which the Government continually reminds us will contain the core of the policy decisions. After reading the cabinet secretary's response to the stage 1 committee report, I am somewhat suspicious of the motivations behind the desire to use a framework bill. Specifically, I am concerned for the Parliament's ability to robustly scrutinise key aspects of the secondary legislation. Notwithstanding the suspicions that she has expressed about the reasons for a framework bill, will she acknowledge that the committee evidence that she received was overwhelmingly in favour of being a framework bill? That is absolutely correct. I thank Alistair Allan for that reiteration. In response to the stage 1 committee report, the cabinet secretary has implied that the affirmative procedure will only be used for matters of principle or great significance, later adding that the Scottish Government would give careful consideration to concerns from Parliament about the use of negative instruments on specific issues, thereby making it clear that it is up to SNP ministers and their green allies to decide which pieces of secondary legislation will be put to scrutiny to this chamber. I do not know if the member is talking about or talking in relation to section 13 and the provisions in relation to that. The member will also no doubt be aware from sitting on the rural committee that there are either way provisions and that we have brought forward regulations, I think, seven pieces of regulation over the course of the past three years, where we have used that procedure, not once has the committee questioned or queried the choice of procedure that has been chosen, so that she recognised that this is a recognised and established practice in relation to some of these instruments. I am not sure if the cabinet secretary is insinuating that the committee, the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, are not doing their job properly, but currently the way this sits in terms of the power to provide support is through the negative procedure, which is in fact a Henry VIII power and should be subject to affirmative procedure, as noted by the DPLR committee, and that is where the committee took their advice from. I know that it can be hard to justify the policies of this Government, but, nevertheless, Parliament should still have the opportunity to hold them to account. Should we really trust the SNP to decide what are not matters of principle or great significance, I for one, alongside many farmers and rural communities, have stopped trusting this Government. They lost all trust when the cabinet secretary failed to stand up for the rural Scotland at the Cabinet table, leading to a £33.2 million reduction in an agricultural budget. They lost the trust of farmers by stealing £45 million of ring-fence funding from the agricultural budget. In a second, cuts so deep that they were described as the last act of betrayal by farmers across Scotland. There is so much to address in the falsehoods that have just been perpetrated by Rachel Hamilton and to use words and emotive words like that, which are completely untrue. In the savings that we had to look to to take from this portfolio, which every single penny of which will be returned to this portfolio, as committed to by me, the Deputy First Minister and the First Minister, ring-fence funds that must be returned because they have to be returned as a result of the economic mismanagement of the Tory Government in Westminster. We have given us the worst settlement since devolution, and we have cut the capital allocation by 10. I encourage interventions, but interventions will need to be brief. I would also caution against using language that, as the cabinet secretary will know, is not acceptable within the chamber, Rachel Hamilton. I heard your remark to the cabinet secretary there. I wonder if you would care to give us an opinion from the chair on the appropriateness of Rachel Hamilton using the accusation that the Government is stealing money from farmers. That word rather jars with me. I would be grateful for your opinion about whether that constitutes an appropriate language to be utilised. I thank Mr Swinney for that point of order. As Mr Swinney will know, I would encourage debate and robust debate. The reference to falsehoods, as Mr Swinney will acknowledge, skirts very close to language that is not acceptable within the chamber. Just as I said a minute ago, this is a bill that fails to deliver on the detail, but why should we be surprised that the raison d'etre of the SNP Green Government is to sow seeds of division? Take, for example, the bill's provision for continued alignment with the EU. Whilst farmers in the rest of the UK will be able to benefit from gene editing technology, Mary Gusion and Jim Fairlie have decided to put Scottish farmers at a competitive disadvantage by siding with ideology and not science. Instead of backing hardworking farmers in Scotland, they have put their obsession with independence first. Last March, Mary Gusion chose to give an indulgent soliloquy on independence rather than using the time to provide farmers with key details on the vital bill. The lack of detail has left farmers uncertain about their future, uncertain about their future investment and uncertain about how they will continue to put food on the plate up and down Scotland. Have I got time, Presiding Officer? I can give you a little bit more time back, but probably not all for all the interventions. Jim Fairlie briefly. The First Minister regurgitated a promise of 70 per cent direct payment in tiers 1 and 2, but gave no indication of a successor scheme for ELFAS. Previously with ELFAS, direct support made up to 86 per cent of payments. If the Scottish Government wants to avoid high-link clearances, it needs to provide clarity on that. At the same time, the SNP Government was supposedly providing all the answers for creating an entirely independent nation in the 12 independence papers. It has failed to provide one iota of detail on its rural support plan. We needed to deliver a bill that is designed with farmers and rural communities at its core. Whilst I welcome the Government's recognition of this, stakeholders have warned that a steering group must be different to the current oversight board. Recently, we have seen the Government cast aside the experienced knowledge of rural stakeholders to suit their own dogmatic and conceptual aims, take the wildlife management and mureburn bill or the consultation on the managing deer for climate and nature as recent examples. Many are worried that this will be repeated, and rightly so, with the DPLR committee's suggestion to include a requirement for a statutory consultation due to the strategic significance of a rural support plan, flat-out refused by the cabinet secretary. In response to the committee, the cabinet secretary notes the concerns of the rural affairs and islands committee and the DPLR committee that decisions to be made on capping should not be subject to the affirmative procedure, should be subject to the affirmative procedure. There is a lot of noting, but not much commitment to acting on recommendations, which is deeply disappointing. Finally, on the financial memorandum, the Scottish Government says that it will provide further detail on transition costs associated with the bill and are currently using estimated costs. Stakeholders, including the RSPB, NFUS, SRUC, are concerned that costs will be passed to farmers, crofters and land managers. If a business conducted themselves in this manner, they would not survive. The Scottish Conservatives will bring forward sensible amendments to fix this bill, but we can only do that if the SNP is willing to work with us. We will give the Scottish Government the opportunity to work with us to sign an agricultural system with Scotland's farmers at heart. Central to this, we will be ensuring that the Scottish Parliament can scrutinise the detail, particularly on the Government's introduction of enhanced conditionality. Would you like me to conclude, or do I have a little bit more time? We want to ensure that claimants do not have to jump through hoops to access to support. That means that farmers and crofters must be part of the co-design of the compliance parts of the bill and the code of practice in continuous professional development. On that point, it is regrettable that the financial memorandum does not contain any projected costs to the CPD scheme. We want to see Scotland's food future at the heart of this bill. We want a critical massive livestock retain rather than Scotland's uplands replaced with renewables and rewilding. We want to see a catchment management approach to protect Scotland's best-growing land. We want farmers to benefit from a fit-for-purpose public procurement strategy as outlined in our food future paper. There is so much more, I could say, Presiding Officer, but I will close and say that Scottish Conservatives are pleased to support the general principles of the bill that have distinct concerns around the financial memorandum. I also want to thank the clerks and staff of the committee and all those who give evidence during the stage 1 consideration. That is rightly an enabling bill because it needs to adapt to future circumstances. However, because it is an enabling bill, most of the meaningful legislation is secondary legislation. That is why we need to see a draft rural support plan before the bill is finalised, and we need scrutiny of that secondary legislation, an affirmative process with consultation to make sure that the rural support plan is right. We should have had this bill a long time ago, and indeed we should have had the rural support plan before now. As the clock runs down, there is the excuse not to make change, because we cannot have cliff edges. We do not have a clear direction of travel, and we cannot do that with farming, which is a long-term industry. We then need to have time to adapt. Having legislation this late shows that there is no real clear vision for agriculture. That is stalling innovation in the sector, because people do not want to move until they have a clear indication of which direction they should be going in. Then Carson talked about the principles of the bill, and I think that everybody agreed with those principles, but many of those who give evidence suggested that there should be further principles, such as food security, local production and fair work practices, both in terms of conditions and housing for migrant workers. Protection of income for farmers and crofters, animal welfare and a number of other things along those lines should be principles within the bill and things on which funding into the sector is dependent upon. As I said before, the rural support plan is where the detail is, and the detail of that plan can actually make or break farmers and crofters. It needs to be co-designed, and changes in direction have to allow time for the industry to adapt. We also had evidence that the rural support plan needs to highlight the outcomes of the plan, and that they should be clear and measurable, and there is nothing at the moment in the bill about that. The bill allows capping and the need to manage that and show a clear intention of the direction of travel, because people need to know when the capping powers are going to be used. I hope that they will be used, because at the moment, 50 per cent of the entire agriculture budget goes to the top 7 per cent of recipients. That cannot be right. It is based on the size of their enterprise. Crofters and other small producers are contributing to public goods, and we heard that at the round table, where many were already sequestrating carbon. They provide local food as well, but they are not paid for any of those public goods, and they are often unable to access even environmental grants, because their small areas of land cannot have as many features as the largest areas that sweep up all those grants, even if they proportionally do more. Currently, funding does not give funding to those who work on three hectares or less, because they are excluded. There is a small producers pilot fund. It distributes £1 million of funding to small producers, but that equals an average of £143 per year to the currently registered producers under 30 hectares. However, if you compare that with region 1 funding, where every hectare receives £223 per year just for fulfilling the minimum requirements of active farming, it shows you the disproportionate influence that some of our larger farms have compared to the smaller producers. The supply chains are key to ensuring their success, particularly around providing abattoirs and mitigating the issues that they have that others across Scotland do not have. That could be a part of the bill that could be very important for crofters. Indeed, it is. If we are looking at local production, we need to see how we can provide abattoirs and the other services that allow people to farm, produce and put forward the end product into the market, because that is where the funding is for that. We also need to ensure that legislation is in keeping with other legislation. For example, we have the land reform bill that is seeking to deal with our pattern of land ownership and make it more diverse. However, the payments that we give out for agriculture actually encourage larger holdings, and that simply is not right. We need to make sure that we create that level playing field. There was also concern about unsupported agriculture, such as market gardening and co-ops, such as grazing committees in the Crofton counties. Grazing committees have a history of working together, but they cannot claim agricultural funding for their grazing committee as well as for individual crofters who may also wish to apply. That is missing from the bill, and I hope that we will go into the bill later. You mentioned market gardening. I know that there are some really good producers that produce a lot of local, delivered produce in a very small area. Does she agree with me that that is something that we need to think about is supporting smaller producers such as market gardeners? Yes, it is, because I think that it provides a lot of public goods, not least by providing good, healthy, good quality food to their local community. There are a number of anomalies with this bill. Sustainable and regenerative agriculture is one, and everyone agrees that that should be defined in code rather than the face of the bill, because as the science change is so, must we change? However, in her response to the committee, the cabinet secretary said that the code would not be mandatory and, therefore, there was no need for a lot of scrutiny of the code. However, she also suggested that support would be dependent on adhering to the code, which, to any other means, suggests that it is mandatory if you are going to receive funding. There were concerns about continuous professional development as well. I think that everyone agrees that that is a good thing, but it has to be proportionate. It has to be delivered locally, knowing that farmers and crofters are tied to the land. We also need the bill to be joined up with other legislation—the good food nation plan, the climate change plan, all our statutory duties, the EU law and policy, and the climate change act. All those need to tie up, not to clutter the landscape any further. Finally, Presiding Officer, if you would indulge me, it is right that we should not have farming funding devolved through the Barnett formula. Currently, we get 17 per cent of funding plus convergence funding. That needs to be retained, if not increased. With that, Scottish Labour will support the bill. We look forward to working with the cabinet secretary and working in consensus to improve it, rather than the Government uses its built-in majority to force the legislation through. Presiding Officer, I offer my thanks to the committee clerks and committee colleagues who are all involved in the stage 1 process. The passion in the agriculture sector to grow and produce quality food is evident, as custodians of the land many have shown good practice for nature and climate, and that should be fostered and encouraged. For years now, crofters and farmers have been crying out for certainty over future agricultural support, combined with increased uncertainty due to Brexit, the impacts of global political instability and rising costs, the length of time that is taken to introduce the bill has had negative impacts on farmers, crofters and land managers across Scotland, including negatively affecting mental health. I recently met young farmers in my Shetland constituency that is enthusiastic and knowledgeable, but, like others in every part of Scotland, the information vacuum that they have been left with over the future support system has introduced hesitancy to invest in improvements or new innovations. Certainty is needed soon to avoid. I thank the member for giving way and agree with much of what she says about the need for greater certainty in the support that is given to farmers. Does she also accept that there is a need for greater certainty in the funding envelope from the UK under which we will have to build an agriculture policy in Scotland to achieve any of that? I was going to come to that if you just give me a minute or two, I'll get there. Certainty is needed soon to avoid a scenario in which many scale back their activities or leave the sector altogether, as some have already done. The changes that the bill will bring will have far reaching impacts not just for farmers and crofters directly, but for the wider associated professions. Agricultural suppliers, fencing contractors, sellers of farming vehicles and equipment, vets, auctioneers and abattoirs. A healthy and profitable agriculture sector adds value to rural economies and communities through rural employment. Schools, health services and businesses need people living and working the land in rural and island areas. However, an industry cannot change overnight. If the right support is given, farmers, crofters and land managers will be able to make positive changes to a thriving sector that works for climate and food production. The point that she has just made is not that it signifies that the approach that the Scottish Government has taken to making sure that there are no cliff-edges is exactly the right approach to have taken in the first place? I think that it is important that there are no cliff-edges, but we still need a bit of certainty. The Scottish Government is requiring a 31 per cent reduction in agricultural emissions by 2032. It will be difficult, if not impossible, for the sector to deliver on the climate change targets now, given that the Scottish Government has been so delayed bringing this forward. Presiding Officer, I understand the reasoning behind the use of the framework bill to establish a flexible basis for future support schemes. However, I share concerns about the Parliament's ability to effectively scrutinise the detail in secondary legislation. The Parliament must be given an opportunity to scrutinise significant funding decisions, and I echo calls for the Scottish Government to work together to ensure that Parliament will have sufficient time and information for effective scrutiny of secondary legislation. I would like to highlight the committee's call for the Scottish Government to ensure that there is a multi-year ring-fence budget for support schemes. The UK Government needs to make this possible using a formula that reflects Scotland's agricultural landscapes. The excuse that it cannot bind a future Parliament does not stop policy making in other areas, so it should not stop them here. The Scottish Government previously said that it could not provide detail on the funding split because it did not know the overall budget from the UK Government. That is still unknown, but the funding split has been announced, proving that this information could have been provided sooner. As others have asked, when will the Scottish Government bring forward the draft rural support plan? Questions remain over who will be consulted and how it will be scrutinised by Parliament, and this is time critical. The Scottish Government must publish a draft as soon as possible. Scotland's agriculture sector is diverse. Small producers and crofters play an important part in rural and island communities, including my constituency. The bill must work for farmers of all size and be sensitive to the needs of crofters and small producers. As Rhoda Grant has mentioned, the importance of the Grazing Committee is one area that has been highlighted. Active farming is to be encouraged and everyone should get access to support schemes. I have heard how essential it is that the less favoured area support scheme continues. I have received reports of prime agricultural land being sold way above asking price for the sole purpose of planting trees. The Scottish Government appears to be doing nothing to control this use of agricultural land, rendering the rhetoric of right tree in the right place meaningless. Concerns have been raised about the capacity and resource of the Scottish Government to implement the new support scheme. I would ask the Cabinet Secretary to respond on that point. The bill carries a weight of responsibility. Getting this right is key to secure the future of the agriculture sector and providing not just existing farmers and crofters, but also new entrants with the confidence that they need. Scotland's agriculture sector is very important not just to our rural areas but to our entire country, and the bill must reflect that importance. We move to the open debate. I call Emma Harper to be followed by Edward Mountain in six minutes. I am pleased to speak in this debate in support of the general principles of the agriculture and communities bill. Previously, as a substitute member of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, I have been present for some of the evidence sessions, but my colleagues on committee must be thanked for all of their work, including the committee clerks as well and everyone who came to provide evidence for the bill. I am now a permanent committee member and I was able to attend a consultation event held in Parliament in February, where almost 40 farmers, crofters, land managers and representatives from the rural community and development organisations attended. The purpose of the event was to engage directly on the ground with the agricultural and rural practitioners to hear their views about future agricultural policy. As has been mentioned, this is a framework bill, and the bill will provide measures that the Scottish ministers will use to develop the support that farming and rural communities need so that they can adapt flexibly to new opportunities and new challenges and prosper in a changing world. That means that the bill does need to allow for a flexible model of support to be delivered. The bill replaces the common agricultural policy legislation, which was retained after the UK's exit from the EU. One of the areas that I will explore as the bill progresses is food security and food resilience. Section 1 of the bill covers four overarching objectives of the future agricultural policy. Those include sustainable and regenerative agriculture, the production of high-quality food, which I will come back to, on farm nature restoration, climate mitigation and adaptation, and the fourth is enabling rural communities to thrive. The enabling of rural communities to thrive is important for me. It is one of the items that came from the February consultation event that we needed to consider from that event was to consider depopulation, and there were certainly a lot of issues raised at that event in Parliament. Any action that we take to address depopulation and enable repopulation is extremely important. I know that many of us here across the chamber raised many questions about retaining our young people or encouraging them to return following university education, as well as attracting people to choose to move and choose to settle in our rural communities, including in Dumfries and Galloway and the Scottish Borders. We hear the same issues of recruitment, retention and the need for rural housing in our current health committee inquiry, which I am a member of the health committee. We are focusing right now on healthcare in remote and rural areas, so the same issues are reflected across different portfolios. It is welcome that the Government has launched a depopulation action plan, and I recognise the work that the Minister for Rural Affairs, Emma Roddick, has done on this, and I thank her for her visit to Dumfries last year to hear directly from the young people. Presiding officers, we are coming back to objective 2, which is the production of high-quality food. The stage 1 report makes a recommendation that encourages the Scottish Government to explore amending the number, theme or wording of the objectives in line with the evidence provided. For me, an example could be in relation to food resilience and sustainable farm businesses. I would be keen to hear from the cabinet secretary in our closing whether amendments to the objectives could be considered regarding strengthening the language to do with food security and resilience, given that what we have seen in Scotland regarding the impact on farm production due to the impact of the war in Ukraine and also the current cost of living crisis that people live in Scotland are still currently experiencing. Supporting our local producers whether small enterprises or small-scale market gardeners who produce and provide food, then serves local communities and uses short supply chains, that needs to be considered. I know that our farmers, crofters and producers who raise the best welfare bread animals in Scotland... Sorry, yes, of course. Thank you to Emma Hart for taking the intervention. Reflecting on what she just said regarding market gardeners and small producers and supporting the local economy, does she support capping and does she support redistribution? I thank Rachael Hamilton for that. I think that what we need to support is to look at the wide range of what is happening in terms of food production across Scotland. As we move forward, it is certainly something that will be engaging in to hear the feedback from everybody, but I thank the member for that intervention. I know that members will cover the other aspects of the stage 1 report and the inquiry that includes the creation of and then the monitoring and the evaluation of the rural support plan, so I will not go into too much detail about this, except to say that stakeholders, including industry bodies and land managers, wanted early input into the plan, and Quality Meet Scotland argued for embedding co-design principles into the plan. Relating that back to the creation of this framework legislation, co-design is going to be so important, and I know that the cabinet secretary had not acknowledged the importance of co-design when I asked her about it in her recent appearance at the RAI committee. My final point is that I know that this has been raised directly to me by the NFU in Scotland and also in our stage 1 report and again today in NFUS press release. The committee did know a lack of certainty about future funding for agriculture and rural support from the UK Government. The committee believes that it is important for Parliament to have oversight of the minister's strategic priorities—I am in my last 10 seconds, in fact in my last probably no seconds, so apologies. The committee believes that it is important for the Parliament to have oversight of the minister's strategic priorities, budget priorities and the consequential impact on the support schemes and have democratic oversight on an appropriate level of scrutiny. I realise that time is short, Presiding Officer. I agree with the general principles of this bill. I know that there is a lot more that we could have discussed today, but I will support this at decision time. Edward Mountain, to be followed by Eleanor Whitham. Two treats in two weeks had a chance to talk about mule burn and wildlife management last week. I have a treat to talk about agriculture this afternoon. The reason why it is a treat, I want to refer members to my register of interest, where I am actually a member of a farming partnership in Maryshire, growing barley, also producing pedigree cattle and vegetables. I am in that partnership with my wife and we receive subsidies as a result of being in that partnership. Farming is something that my family have done for three generations, something that we take very seriously. I am sad that we are where we are here today. The reason why I am sad is that we could have been here two years ago if the strange deal done between Mike Rumbles and Mr Ewing, who sadly left the chamber, was not allowed to happen. We as Conservatives wanted to see this policy being brought forward by 2024, but the deal done with Mike Rumbles, the Liberal Democrats and the SNP, allowed this policy to go forward until 2026. That is not where we should be. We wanted this policy earlier, and I am sad that we are not there. However, we are getting closer, and I accept that the Bill is a step forward towards an agricultural policy. I have looked carefully at the legislation that is proposed, and whilst I do not like a framework bill, I understand the need for a framework bill in this situation, and I understand the need to move forward. It would have been helped if the Cabinet Secretary had brought forward some of the proposals that she was going to mute after the Bill had been passed, so we could see what the Bill was all about, what it was going to bring in. Farmers are nervous, and we are desperately nervous, because the last time we went through a review was under Richard Lochhead, which was about the future of agriculture. We had, as a result of that, the PAC review, and we ended up with a complete rewriting of the agricultural subsidy scheme, which in my mind was a disaster, because it had not been costed. Richard Lochhead did nothing to do with the costings to see whether money would go and see the outcome of what he was proposing. Consequently, we saw some farmers who were not really doing a huge amount of farming, getting a lot more subsidy, and those people who were doing farming not getting so much. I would have liked to have seen this policy come forward, because I want to see how this Government is going to ensure that farmers get properly rewarded for their high-quality food, because what happens at the moment makes no bones about it. If you grow barley, what happens is those people who buy barley and look at it, see what the subsidy they are getting from the Government per acre is, deduct that off the price that they are prepared to pay for a ton of barley, and you end up with about a 5 per cent profit. That is not where we want to be. We want to be in a position where we are rewarding farmers for public good, not rewarding the people who are consuming their products. It is a careful balance. I looked at the bill carefully, and I looked at the evidence to find a definition of sustainable regenerative agriculture. What does that mean? What does that actually mean? That, to me, is three words grouped together without a definition. It is going to be defined, I am told, but we are being asked to pass the first stages of a bill on something that we do not know the meaning of. It seems strange to me. It seems very bizarre to me. I mean, if the cabinet secretary would like to stand up and define sustainable regenerative agriculture, I am very happy to give way. I see not. Oh, no, the cabinet secretary is on my mind. I am happy to give way. I can understand the member's point about the definitions of sustainable and regenerative agriculture, but I am sure that he would also understand that it is about a basket and collection of measures, and a lot of that information we did actually set out in relation to our RIPMAP, which I hope the member has read. I try to read everything, even if it comes out just before we are discussing something. I try to read the response to the committee if it would circulate to members. I have watched the RIPMAP on a daily basis. I have watched it changing. I am not sure that I am any clearer. I want to pick up on three specific points, and I am going to have to do this carefully and quickly. On the issue of capping, I understand the need for capping, but I think that we need to be really careful when we are talking about capping to make sure that we are not capping it when it is linked to environmental projects and environmental improvements, because if we do that, we are going to get even further away from the environmental targets that we are set out to achieve. I understand why people want to talk about increasing—I can give you most of the time back. I will try and be as quick as possible, but the member surely realises that those with largest areas of land are pushing smaller land managers out of getting any funding at all for environmental benefit, because they have more features than the smaller land manager. I accept that there is a need to make sure that there is a careful balance here, but what we have seen in the past few years is money being paid to charities under the farming scheme that are not actually farming. That is the kind of thing that I want to get away from. I would like to see farmers being rewarded for farming and for being rewarded also for doing environmental schemes. Talk about animal welfare. I am really keen on animal welfare, and I make the point to people in this Chamber that we have got some of the highest standards of animal welfare across the world in Scotland, and I am rightly proud of that, and it is where it should be. But those animal welfare standards do not cut across when housewives and people are buying meat in the shops. They look at what is often the chiefest cut of meat, and we will buy meat that is... I am sorry, I cannot give way. I am virtuous. I just said housewives. If that is the point that you are going to make, anyone can do shopping. It is the basket that counts. It is very difficult to conclude, if I am being balanced from something. If you could bring your remarks to a conclusion, and I would discourage front benches from heckling during the speeches, but you do need to start concluding with that. Okay, thank you. The final point I would make on is CPD. This Government loves to make sure everyone is trained, and I refer them to section 27.3 of the Bill, which gives a whole reason why farmers need to go through CPD. I can support that if ministers would do the CPD training as well, because I think if it is good for farmers, it is good for ministers. I know that I have run out of time. I just want to say that I am supporting the Bill and will support the Bill at stage 1, but I want to see a lot more clarity from the Government, because it is seriously unclear at the moment. Deputy Presiding Officer, as a member of Parliament representing the vast and wonderful rural constituency of Carrot Cymru, Cundun Valley, and a new member of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, and a granddaughter of a dairy farmer, and indeed a former housewife, it is imperative that I stand here today to speak in this debate and support the agricultural and rural communities bill at stage 1. Deputy Presiding Officer, my constituents saw no just transition away from the mining industry that, along with the agricultural sector, was the lifeblood for many generations in rural Ayrshire, and it is absolutely vital that we support our rural communities through their transition away from EU agricultural funding but also support them in the transition towards land use that is mindful of the existential climate and nature emergencies that we must ensure are at the heart of policy creation and direction. The Scottish Government's vision for Scotland is to become a global leader in sustainable and regenerative agriculture. The new support powers outlined in the Agricultural and Rural Communities Framework Bill must enable delivery of the Scottish Government's vision for agriculture and provide flexibility to deliver future outcomes beyond the current vision. I would welcome additional clarity on how those powers will work in practice. I appreciate the member giving way. Do you agree with me that the framework is a framework? The substance of the bill is delivered through the rural support plan and it is important that we see that as soon as possible to give clarity to farmers and how the Government sees the way forward. I agree with the member on that, and I was just coming to that. In order to secure that just transition and vision, Scotland must have a support system and a rural support plan in place that delivers high-quality food production, climate mitigation and adaptation, nature restoration and a thriving rural and island communities. Scotland's vision for agriculture as set out is positive and puts farmers, crofters and land managers at its core and values their effort to help feed the nation and steward our countryside. The Scottish Government is so far demonstrating that it understands the sector needs flexibility now and into the future to respond to the pressures and challenges that we will face in an ever-changing and volatile world. A framework bill will allow for adaptive support for farmers, crofters and land managers in the near, medium and long-term future. I know that the cabinet secretary recognises the need to ensure that there is a real co-design in developing the detail of its agricultural policy with the people directly affected by it being put and to participate in its formation and its adaptation. As the Scottish Government continues to co-develop the measures for the four-tier support framework, I implore ministers to remain committed to supporting active farming and food production with direct payments now and to have a phased approach to integrating any new conditionality. Please ensure that we have no cliff edges for our rural economies and that stakeholders and this Parliament are consulted along the way allowing for adequate scrutiny. All that I have just said out has been repeated to the committee during our consultation and detailed consideration of the draft bill from stakeholders right across the rural landscape. The biggest plea that we had repeatedly was the need for certainty. Whilst I appreciate the Government's commitment to multi-year funding, I also recognise, as have others, the impossible situation of yearly funding tronches coming from the UK and no information about what will happen to that funding beyond next year. That uncertainty since Brexit is wholly unfair to rural Scotland. Collectively, the committee recognises the need for future agricultural funding to be set out in the long-term multi-year basis, as per the former EU support payments. We call on the UK Government to engage with the devolved nations to that end. The Scottish agricultural sector requires future funding certainty due to the long-term nature of investment decisions and the long lead in times required. We heard repeatedly that farmers and crofters were reluctant to invest and, as they were completely uncertain as to what the future held since Brexit. Regenerative agriculture is something that I have been passionate about for many years and maybe I'll sit down sometime with Edward Mountain and go through what I feel regenerative farming is. Indeed, one of the first speeches that I gave in this place was about the trailblazing work of dairy farmers in Ayrshire as they've developed unimplemented regenerative practices and shared these innovations with their fellow farmers at on-farm peer-to-peer continuing professional development events. I learnt that the cost of the new machinery and the wholesale change of methods was costly in the short term but was being done for long-term sustainability. I urged the Government to consider how it best supports the sector to embrace regenerative agriculture through effective CPD but also through funding for innovation and for the transition required. Can the cabinet secretary confirm that that will be included in the detail on the rural support plan? We must also look at the bill in the context of the wider legislative and reform landscape in which it will operate. Others have already mentioned this such as Rhoda Grant. Areas such as land and estate management, land reform, environmental and biodiversity matters, it is absolutely necessary that we consider the interplay and the overlap between such reforms to ensure a consistent and aligned approach across all policy development affecting the rural sector. We cannot operate in silos and I would also ask the cabinet secretary and her closing remarks to outline how this bill will interact with our aims for a wellbeing economy and how it will help our rural communities to embrace and support the principles of community wealth building via local and small producers. We have heard that time and again today as well, shorter local supply chains and where food resilience and security will fit into its priorities. I represent a vast rural area that is facing significant demographic and depopulation issues and it is only when we put those challenges too at the heart of our decision making that we will be truly supporting our rural communities. Thank you. Thank you, Ms Whitton. My name is Richard Lain. I have to be followed by Kate Forbes in six minutes. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. There is much in this bill that I can in principle support, like the laying down of conditions on the grants, loans and guarantees that are paid out. Those conditions must include fair work, must cover seasonal workers and not just their terms but their conditions including their living conditions as well. The retention of the Scottish agricultural wages board is welcome. The promotion of biodiversity is positive. I am drawn to the summary in the financial memorandum that in future support will be focused on food production and actions that support nature restoration and reduce greenhouse gas emissions in a way that is economically and socially just because for too long under the old common agricultural policy incentives worked in precisely the opposite direction with hedgerows and trees uprooted, biodiversity destroyed and all too often a great injustice was served upon those who live and work on the land. The vital role of producer cooperatives is acknowledged in this bill. They must be nurtured and grown. The commitment to continuing personal development, I hope, will be applied to the 67,000 farm labourers as much as it is to the managers of our land. From the bill's very opening title, with its recognition of rural communities, to the bill's final schedules, with its recognition of rural economies and the importance of investing in local secondary businesses relating to agriculture, food production, processing, forestry or other rural land use activity, those represent important statements of intent. Finally, I must also record that, and this may not be my party's exact position, I do quite like the idea of a five-year plan and a recognition that market intervention, not least when there are exceptional market conditions, is absolutely necessary. Those are all, in my view, correct principles. But there are some basic flaws in the bill which do need to be addressed. We know that 62 per cent of direct farm payments go to the largest 20 per cent of farms, and we know only from freedom of information requests that the biggest recipients of farm payments continue to be the least deserving, the biggest, the wealthiest landowners. So, in 2022, the Duke of Beclu pocketed £1.8 million for Queen'sbury farming limited, or £1.7 million for Bowhill farming limited, and there are some of our other ancient noble families, apparently in need of a helping hand from the state as well, like the Earl of Murray, who netted £1.7 million, the Duke of Roxburgh £1.4 million, the Earl of Rosebury £1.3 million. So, when we are talking in this bill about a cap on support and assistance, we need to remember that this aristocratic lot have had centuries of practice in rigging and fleecing the system. This is, yes, I'll give way to Rachel Hamilton. I thank Richard Leonard for taking the intervention, and I understand that he's very passionate about ensuring that there is a balance in these things. We have to recognise, I think, from the committee's point of view, that we heard from a lot of stakeholders from grass routes right through to large-scale farmers, and I think it's important to recognise that their contribution to biodiversity and other rewilding and reforestry, so I think it's important that we do get that balance right. Richard Leonard can give you the same back. Yes, I'm trying to argue for getting the balance right as well, because this is the people's hard-earned cash, and so the people should know who benefits from it. We need transparency, which is why, in my view, a table of who these recipients are should be published by the Scottish Government as a matter of routine. But we cannot preserve the existing system. We must break with it. We need decisive radical change in the payment system so that it is much more closely aligned with need, with solving the ecological and climate crisis, which is proportionate, and which better rewards the small holders, the small tenant farmers and our crofters. The same is true for forestry, where the spivs and speculators are everywhere, buying and selling land. So when this bill talks of so-called private sector green finance investment, does the Government really mean the likes of Gresham House, who receives a huge capital injection from the Scottish National Investment Bank and who are now the third largest landowner in Scotland? I've raised the case of Gresham House in Parliament on numerous occasions. They were recently taken over by a US private equity corporation, and their speciality is not in planting trees, not in saving the planet, but in tax avoidance for the super-rich. They represent extractive capitalism at its voracious worst. At the same time, we have widespread food poverty, growing inequality. Our seasonal and all-round workforce is exploited ruthlessly. We import 46 per cent of our food. Meanwhile, dairy farms are amalgamating, smaller farming enterprises are struggling, medium-sized holdings are being hollowed out. So let me finish with the words of someone I know the Cabinet Secretary shares an affection for, as I do, the words of Lewis Grassett Gibbon, who said, This autumn's crops, meal for the folk of the cities, good hearts and barley alcohol, would never be spread, never be seeded, never ground to breed, but for the aristocracy of the earth, the plough and the peasants, they are the real rulers of Scotland, they are the rulers of the earth. So with this bill, we cannot go back to being ruled in the old way by the old ruling class in the old order. Power should pass from one class to another, from the old aristocracy to this real aristocracy. That really would be transformative, that really would be radical, that really would be revolutionary and one fine day it will happen. Thank you, I know, Cole. Keith Forbes, to be followed by Ari-Anne Burgess, around six minutes, Ms Forbes. Thank you, Presiding Officer. This agricultural bill is a key moment in Scotland's history. For decades, indeed, centuries, agriculture has been a core part of our economy and our society. In the last 10 years, there have been unthinkable disruptions to the certainty of farmers and crofters and agricultural workers to be able to plan ahead. I commend the Government enormously for the work that they have done in consulting with key stakeholders, not least the NFU and others, to devise a plan that seeks to give farmers a certainty that they need and to ensure that Scotland has a vision for agriculture moving forward. I think that it is critical when dealing with a bill like this that we front up to the reality of not being able to deliver everybody's objectives. The committee had a number of round table meetings which were well attended. At a number of those committees, I asked the stakeholders whether they felt that the number of objectives were right and whether they would add further objectives. I think that it was almost unanimous, if I recall correctly, that everybody wanted to add objectives. It is always interesting that very few want to remove objectives. The danger, of course, for a bill like this is that, for it to be effective, transformational and deliver what agriculture workers and the communities that rely on them, to deliver what they need and want, we have to be clear. I wanted to highlight, for me, the three core objectives that I think this bill should deliver and on which I think the success of this bill and act should be measured. The first is food security. It often battles me that when discussing agriculture, land use and Scotland's economy, so little thought is given to food security. We have an incredible resource in Scotland, a plentiful supply of food and drink from our own resources, whether that is the seafood from our seas, the crops that come from our land, the livestock that graze on our land. I remember the first few days of Covid, and at that time obviously being finance secretary and also a local MSP, being incredulous that, on one hand, our food producers could not get that food to market, and yet, at the same time, people were struggling to access food, and yet there was no connection. Now, I know that it is far more complicated than I have just set out, but to be resilient and secure when it comes to our food production really matters in a world that is incredibly uncertain, whether that is due to war, other forms of geopolitical risks, or indeed the trade and tariff barriers that now exist post Brexit. The second objective has got to be land management. Effective management of our land is the basis for our tourism, for our culture, for our food and drink industry, for some of the biggest exports that Scotland has. Whilst we may focus on some of the public bodies and the national strategies that exist to manage our land well, at the end of the day, right now, it is the farmers and the crofters that are out there working in all weathers to manage our land that are really at the coalface doing the job. I think that it is incumbent on Government and on politicians to recognise the work that they do, not to put up additional barriers or hurdles to make it more difficult than it needs to be and to incentivise good behaviour. The third objective is really the outcome of those first two objectives, and that is reaching net zero and improved biodiversity. By focusing on food security and effective land management, in doing that, we further our progress in meeting net zero and our biodiversity targets. I suppose that the flip side of that is failure to do that and to recognise the role of agricultural workers will only hinder our progress to get to net zero. You cannot get there without taking people with you, and the people that we need to take with us are the workers. The NFU briefing is very clear that higher-quality agricultural production is vital to our economy. It is worth over £16 billion and it employs over 130,000 people. Agriculture and discussions about agriculture is not a niche topic that is only relevant to that sector itself. It has a huge impact on Scotland as a whole. As I draw to a close, I want to emphasise that point again, that if we try and make this bill do too much, it may do nothing. Doing a few things excellently is far better objective than doing many, many things on a mediocre basis. I commend the Government, I encourage them to continue to engage with stakeholders and I look forward to voting for the bill tonight. The Scottish Government, like many Governments around the world, has acknowledged that we are living in a climate and nature emergency, which means that, despite having one hand tied behind our back by the unequal union of the UK, we have a responsibility to mobilise and direct resources as best we can to address those twin emergencies. This is not a game, it is not a political football, it is our reality. I want to thank everyone who gave evidence for this bill, especially the farmers who came to Parliament or welcomed us to their farms to share their views. I would also like to extend my thanks to the clerks and Spice for synthesising the copious amounts of evidence that we took. There is an on-going flow of work that has been taking place to support farmers. This bill is a milestone marking one point in that flow that started long before this bill and will continue long after it is passed. Given the huge change in direction needed, we are at a crossroads. We have a once in a lifetime opportunity to improve how we support agriculture and rural communities. We can secure food production in Scotland and support farmers, crofters and growers to thrive while reducing the sector's impact on climate and nature. Indeed, we can help more farmers to enhance biodiversity and capture carbon as they continue to produce food and underpin rural communities. There is no doubt that this is a tall order, and I do not underestimate the hard work, the graft and the changes that this will require, primarily from farmers but also from other parts of the supply chain, from agricultural policy and from the payment system. I cannot express enough my appreciation to the farmers, crofters and growers that are already leading the way. I am clear that this bill must lead to more support for you and it must support others to adopt climate and nature friendly farming, ensuring that it is profitable for your businesses as well as the planet and our future. Currently, too many farmers are struggling. One third of agroecological growers are not planting the season as they face severe financial squeeze. Scottish Farmer reported fears over the future of the larger horticultural sector. In the uplands and the islands, the inflated cost of inputs has pushed some farming and crofting communities to the brink. Even before the latest cost crisis, it was difficult for hill farmers to make a good living with the average LFA sheep farm making a loss of £38,000 without support. Unlike in England, the Scottish Government has committed to continue income support payments to farmers here. That is welcome, but some change is needed. It is clear that the current system is not working for farm businesses. It is also not working well for the public finances. The Scottish Government highlighted that most common agricultural policy funding from the last round did not deliver the intended benefits or value for money. The current system is not working for climate and nature either. Since the 1950s, an increasingly intensive agricultural system on the whole is driven by a diversity loss both above and below ground. The proposed measures to reduce the sector's emissions would take us less than halfway to where we need to be to stay on track for net zero by 2045. The Scottish Government is absolutely right in their aim to transform how we support farming and food production. The bill is a significant first step in that direction, but, as is often the case at stage 1, there is room for improvement. Given that there are millions of animals in our food system, it is quite a startling omission not to list animal welfare as one of the key objectives in the bill. We should also expand our consideration of climate mitigation and nature restoration through the agricultural sector, ensuring that policy supports improvements upstream and downstream from the farm gate, as well as measurable landscape scale improvements on the ground. We must see farms and crops as part of the wider ecosystem and support farmers to improve soil health through biological and regenerative practices. There have been calls for the bill to commit to a fairer payment system, including fair work principles. There have also been strong calls to redistribute some of the budget away from the largest wealthiest farms towards smaller producers, as I have heard from several colleagues here this afternoon. I wholeheartedly support this, given the evidence, as quoted in the committee's report, that small producers generate the most jobs per hectare, are among the most productive and feed local communities, and are more likely to implement nature-based solutions and diversification. In particular, I would like to see a commitment to extend support to small-scale fruit and veg growers. Those key workers in green jobs are hugely valued by my Highlands and Islands constituents, but most receive no public funds, despite modelling the kind of climate and nature-friendly farming that could make Scotland a true leader in regenerative agriculture. In order to plan and implement positive change, farmers need multi-year funding certainty. Again, we have heard that across the chamber, which is being denied by the UK Government. They also need a clear idea of budget priorities across tiers, which the rural support plan should provide as soon as reasonably possible. We have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to change how we support farming. It might also be the last chance that we have to course correct to get back on track to end the nature emergency and keep our power's climate agreements. John Swinney, to be followed by Tim Eagle. The Agriculture and Rural Communities Scotland bill comes at a moment of enormous change and challenge for the industry in Scotland. The decision to leave the European Union has necessitated the repatriation of decision-making on agriculture. The instability in the global community, especially arising out of the illegal invasion of Ukraine, has created a renewed focus on the importance of food security. Climate change is becoming a real and apparent risk for rural communities, with specific pressures on those involved in agriculture. That backdrop of uncertainty makes the consideration of the bill and the issues it covers ever more difficult given that there are a wide range of views about what different stakeholders want to see achieved through the bill and from the new support regime for agriculture in Scotland. The Scottish Government's willingness to engage with the agricultural community and a wide range of other stakeholders with an interest in developing the proposals in the bill is to be welcomed. As it has been by many organisations, including the National Farmers Union of Scotland, equally, the decision of the Scottish Government to take a framework approach and to co-develop the detailed propositions that are involved strikes me as the reasonable way to proceed. I am happy to give way to Ruchel Hamilton. Ruchel Hamilton, thank you for taking the intervention. In the agricultural reform route map, the cross-compliance has been added to the cross-compliance and those provisions were added to it. There has been no consultation with farmers. You talk about consultation, but we have to be genuine about that and this is going to affect farmers. I think that the Conservatives cannot have it both ways. I have sat and listened for years, Edward Mountain was making this point a moment ago, that the Government has been talking to too many people for too long. Now, apparently, according to Ruchel Hamilton, we have not been talking to enough people for enough time. The Conservatives need to make their mind up and stop being obstructive to everything, because that is all that the Conservatives do in any debate in this Parliament. I would imagine that there are some—indeed, there may even be some over on those benches over there—who voted for Brexit and who previously bemoaned the intricacies and the complexities of the common agricultural policy, who are now beginning to regret the loss of some of the inherent stability and certainty that the common agricultural policy brought to agriculture in Scotland. There was long-term financial stability that enabled effective forward planning. Any few Scotland in their briefing for today bemoaned the absence of financial certainty beyond the end of this United Kingdom Parliament. That is a valid worry, and it does not help long-term planning, but it is a problem that emanates from Whitehall and not St Andrew's House. Of course I will give way to Mr Carson. I appreciate John Swinney's giving way. John Swinney might remind the chamber which Government it was that provided five years of multi-year ring-fence funding to the Scottish agricultural budget and potentially—or tell the chamber which Government it was that took 63 million out of the Scottish agricultural budget. John Swinney. I actually heard Edward Mountain earlier on. That is back to my point about the Conservatives not knowing what way they are standing, whether they are up or down or inside out or whatever. Edward Mountain was bemoaning the fact that the Scottish Government had provided funding certainty for as long as it is providing it. Edward Mountain wanted the new regime in 2024, and now Finlay Carson is demanding that we carry on to 2026. Really, the Conservatives are a shambolic bunch when it comes to any particular issue. It is vital to note the other point that is raised in the briefing for today's debate by the National Farmers Union of Scotland, which makes the plea echo in the contents of the committee report that the Scottish Government should not take an approach of passing on the Barnett consequentials of the funding settlement for agriculture in England. In my experience, organisations in Scotland are normally clamouring for a Barnett consequentials approach to be taken. Why is the NFU not doing so here? The answer is simple. The UK Government is butchering financial support for agriculture in England. NFU Scotland can spot the obvious. That may have massive ramifications for the financial support available for agriculture in Scotland. I cannot see an incoming Labour Government in the UK taking any sort of different stance. Here we can see one very visible example of the reckless damage being done by Brexit. There is a direct financial challenge for Scottish agriculture due to the folly of Brexit and the highly damaging decisions of the UK Conservative Government in the aftermath of Brexit. The global issues that are now having an effect on food security create an imperative for us to strengthen our approach to maximising our food production here at home. I make an appeal to the Government as it wrestles with the key questions to act in its planning system to preserve as much at prime agricultural land for the utilisation of prime agricultural purposes and less emphasis on providing planning consent for solar farms that take significant prime agricultural land out of production and put the money into the hands of some already very wealthy farmers. The bill before us creates the opportunities to address the implications of climate change, which is now posing a real and present threat to all of us, but is manifesting itself acutely in rural Scotland. Parliament does not need me to explain the detail of the generally wet stormy and atrocious series of weather incidents that we have experienced since October, but I have lost count of the number of constituents active in farming whose volume of land has now been eroded because of significant flood damage as a consequence of climate change. That will affect the livelihoods of some of the farmers I represent being able to actively cultivate land because their land has quite simply disappeared. That is the real and present threat of climate change in our society. I am grateful to the cabinet secretary, to the agricultural minister and also to the minister for green skills, circular economy and biodiversity, who have engaged with me on those questions. The bill that we have before us creates the framework for some very challenging questions to be resolved. The approach that the Scottish Government has taken of bringing together disparate and competing voices to try to create a common approach is at the heart of this bill, and it merits our support this afternoon. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I refer the Chamber to my register of interests as a farmer. Sadly, as you can see, I cannot be there today in person. When I put my own tops in last year, I did not know I was going to become an MSP and now find myself here in the middle of lambing. I am not from a farming background, but agriculture has become my life. I have built what I can of my own farm, worked as an agricultural adviser and as a land agent, and as an assessor for quality meat Scotland and Scottish quality crops. Farming has for hundreds of years helped shape and build our country and our people. That said, how we farm must continue to change, and over the last 15 years, I have seen that change first hand over in the northeast and across the highlands. Traditional methods are being replaced with environmentally friendly, digitally fuelled practices modernising and protecting the environment moving forward. I believe it is important to recognise and commend all those in the sector who already deliver within the spirit of this proposed bill. In regards to the bill, I have three quick points to make. First of all, is framework and detail. Framework bills do seem to be becoming the norm. Whilst I do recognise the need for the adaptability which the framework is trying to provide, it is important to stress the need to be as detailed as possible within the primary legislation, and further thought should be given on how this can be accomplished. Secondly, objectives, the stage 1 report. Yes, colleagues, if you just bear with us a moment, we will try to resolve this issue. My back, Presiding Officer. You are back, Mr Eagle. I apologise for providing an officer for that. It has been stable all afternoon and now it decides to go off. The objectives I was talking about there, it was the interplay between food production and the environment. It should not become a contest between food and the environment, and so more thought needs to be given to both balance the objectives and the broadness of them to ensure it is a strength and not a potential limitation. Thirdly, consultation. I recognise the value of all stakeholders in this debate, and a commitment to consultation is vital for the development of the proposed secondary legislation. I support the call that amendments provide for this at stage 2 with clear plans provided to stakeholders as soon as possible and consideration to forming a new advisory group. In terms of the Rural Support Plan, that is in essence the beating heart of this bill. The Scottish Government's current plan is to publish the Rural Support Plan without an accompanying funding plan. Without funding, I worry that the bill will become meaningless. I urge the Minister to commit to ensuring a funding plan running alongside the Rural Support Plan. Bureaucracy. I cannot stress enough the sector simply cannot take any more bureaucracy or overly complicated schemes. I want applications for schemes to be positive working with the wider sector and government to achieve shared objectives. Overly complicated application forms, punitive punishments and paperwork which is not useful through those objectives should be minimised. Front loading payments. Most of the sector agree the principle of front loading payments. Funding must be shared equally and front loading is a positive way of doing that. I urge the government to consider this above capping as laid out in section 9. And scrutiny. There is no current provision in this bill for parliamentary scrutiny of the secondary legislation or the Rural Support Plan and I urge that there is a commitment to bring that in at stage 2. Now, I know others have picked up on various elements of that, so I want to pick up finally on a couple of issues from my own personal experience as a slightly aging new entrant with a small sheep farm. First of all, and it has been said already today, it is hard for crops and small farms to get funding through the current area based system. I understand that there is the small producers pilot fund, but this still excludes. We have lost Mr Eagle again and we will just wait a moment and see if we can reconnect. Do continue, Mr Eagle. It really is not great. The Scottish Government's proposal for a whole farm plan, where I note more details came out yesterday, would include a range of measures such as soil testing, animal health and welfare and so on. It will propose real difficulties for small and medium-sized units and crofters. Can the Cabinet Secretary look at how this will work for smaller farms given the potential cost and make sure there is provision to complete the plan themselves? I have heard for many years the talk of new entrants and young farmers, yet both these groups continue to face huge barriers to establishing themselves in the industry. Access to land, for sale or for rent is minimal, capital costs for even basic equipment is high. I would press the Minister, and this hasn't been raised yet today, to think about the inclusion of a succession plan scheme in agriculture that both fuels new blood into the industry, but also absorbs the years of experience and expertise of those leaving. Finally, in conclusion, Presiding Officer, there is so much yet to be done before the next stage, and to do it right we'll need intensive industry discussion, clearly defined objectives and a commitment to work with all those in the farming across the many regions of Scotland, but above all it will require the commitment to government to genuinely listen to the rural sector, to commit to giving more details about what is to come, and to commit to reducing unnecessary burdens so that the focus can actually be on the delivery of all the objectives that the stakeholders want to see. I apologise, convener, Presiding Officer, for my internet connection this afternoon. Thank you, Mr Eagle. We move to the final speaker in the open debate. I call Alistair Allan. The agriculture bill and the secondary legislation that will follow it will have far-reaching effects across rural Scotland. The Rural Affairs and Islands Committee on which I serve has not been idle in taking evidence on the bill, already visiting farms, holding round table events and receiving evidence both in person and in writing from a very wide range of stakeholders. The voices that we have heard have represented not just farmers and crofters, but many others who likewise have a stake in rural development, the environment and questions of food security. Like others, I would like to thank all members of the committee and indeed the clarking team for their work on producing this stage 1 report. Parliament will, I know, scrutinise this bill closely as befits any legislation of this scope and scale. With Scotland being forcibly removed from the European Union, the common agricultural policy, as we have all understood it for half a century now, of course, requires wholesale legislative replacement. As others have pointed out, this is a framework bill. A wide range of voices in the countryside have recognised that this is the best way to proceed. Indeed, a framework bill is the only practicable solution, and it is inevitably only in secondary legislation that many of the questions about the future direction of agricultural policy will receive their answers. However, to refute what I think was said in the last contribution, which seems to suggest that secondary legislation does not involve scrutiny by this Parliament. The objectives of agricultural policy set out in the legislation therefore take on a particular importance. The overarching objectives of agricultural policy are set out in part 1. That lays out the Scottish Government's vision for agriculture, a vision that has been broadly welcomed by stakeholders and which commits to transforming how the Scottish Government supports farming and food production. The aim is to make Scotland a global leader in sustainable and regenerative agriculture. A requirement is placed upon Scottish ministers to prepare, labour for Parliament and publish a rural support plan. That plan will cover up to a five-year period and must set out the strategic priorities for providing support during the plan's period. It must also give details of each support scheme in operation or expected to come into operation during that period. The plan also allows ministers to make clear as to how agricultural support contributes to other statutory duties, such as climate commitments and EU alignment. Such a plan offers a level of certainty that was sought by many through the consultation within the flexible support model. Making those objectives into policy on the ground will, of course, ultimately involve wrestling with some clear tensions. To cite but one such question, we will have to ask how do we reconcile the need for food security, including some production on scale, with the need to support forms of agriculture that have a low environmental impact? That has been alluded to by other speakers, but I think of my own Crofton constituents who, on average, currently receive £1,400 each in annual farming payments. I would hope that we should ask in future if that is the balance that we want to see. We, as a committee, have pointed to the need to recognise that we cannot simply offshore some of those big questions rather than answer them effectively ourselves. There would, for instance, be no point in simply asking areas of the country that cannot easily support much agriculture beyond livestock to stop producing livestock, but would not of itself change the demand in Scotland and the UK for meat. It would simply transfer its production to parts of the world with far lower welfare and environmental standards. At the same time, we will have to ask contentious questions too about whether the need for national food security should be taken so far as to include subsidising the large-scale production of grain for whisky. Many of the answers to those and other questions about Scottish agriculture depend, of course, to a very large extent on the UK funding envelope made available to Scotland in the first place. Despite the posturing of the Tories on some of those issues, I hear some posturing from the Tories, so I will give way. I just wanted to clarify, but are you suggesting that we stop whisky production in Scotland? Did I mishear that? That is what I thought you said. I am sure that you cannot meant it. The member did mishear that. I merely asked, as others have asked, whether we should look at the point that I am making about tapering and the fact that there are some forms of agriculture that we might want to ask questions about in the future and require less support than others, but that does not mean that we do not support. That does not mean that we stop growing grain for whisky, as the member well understands. It is not just what I said, so the member well understands that point. When I gave way, I was making the point about posturing by the Tories, a point that has been illustrated more adequately than I could ever try to do myself. Despite that posturing, we know that there has been a wider catalogue of failures from the UK Government to protect the interests of Scottish farmers and crofters. The obvious example is Brexit itself, on which subject others today have rightly spoken. However, there has also been the UK's abject failure to secure trade deals that protect our agri-food sector. Despite all of that, our farmers and crofters remain resilient, and the Scottish Government is clearly determined to support them as we transition from the EU's cap payment system to a new support system that realises the vision for Scotland to be a global leader in sustainable agriculture. To conclude, there lies a long process of scrutiny ahead, but for the moment I urge the chamber to do as the committee has done and to endorse the general principles of the bill. This debate has shown that people get that you cannot dot every single I and cross every single T of a rural support scheme in primary legislation. You need flexibility to ensure that changes can be made when needed without having to revisit that primary legislation. However, several speakers have rightly highlighted that there is a difference between a framework bill and, frankly, an empty frame. It is eight years since the vote to leave the EU, four years since this Parliament agreed that agriculture retained EU law and Data Scotland Act paving the way for a transition period, a period that has been extended. Yet, at a time, the clock is ticking towards the end of that transition period, when time is running out to meet our climate targets. The Government's watch is all too often stopped. We have a bill that does not have enough detail over future rural support. There is no draft. I will take an intervention here. When I sat as a member on the Rural Affairs Committee, on a number of occasions we tried to get ministers from the UK Government to come to the committee in order to answer the question about where the multi-year funding was going to come from. They refused time and time again. They also refused to answer the letters from the cabinet secretary. Will it be the Labour Party's position that they will provide multi-annual year funding? Will they also make sure that the 17 per cent payment that currently comes to Scotland is maintained, and will they increase the funding that the NFU has asked for? Colin Smyth. What was the failure asking us to do is to write a manifesto for the next election, but Labour has consistently in government committed to providing the funding that our agriculture sector needs. Rhoda Grant was very clear that we should not subject that to the Barnett formula and the disproportionate amount that comes to Scotland at the moment should continue in the future. However, the Scottish Government needs to take responsibilities for what it has authority over at the moment. There has been no draft rural support plan as to how the minister would spend that funding. It is all very well to start demanding funding, but when will we see the plan on how that funding should be spent? There is no sense of policy direction if I have time. We have no time to give back at this point in the debate. I will continue because it hopefully may answer some of those points, but there has been no real sense of policy direction from the Government. There has not even been a commitment to have statutory consultation on those future support plans. There are no measurable targets being outlined by the Government. There is no detail on how the Government would even allocate any funding that it has given and the breakdown of that funding. There is no mention of fair work in the bill. It is a bill that is in danger of undermining the Parliament's ability to do its job because there is a lack of proper scrutiny mechanisms and an ability to hold ministers to account. The bill should have set out the clear strategic direction. The Government is very purposeful for the bill for future support, ensuring that Parliament has a say over that purpose. No-one expects every single area that could be supported through any scheme should be listed in the bill. As Richard Leonard said, the inclusion of the basic principles, such as conditionality on grants and support, is welcome, but it would be an understatement to say the four objectives, just 30 words or so, to define our future agricultural policy, are too vague and have obvious exclusions. At a time that so many face a cost of living crisis when feeding families has never been more challenging and when we face the impact of conflict and war on security of supply, any of you Scotland and others are right to say that food production must be at the heart of any support scheme in front and centre of any objectives in the bill. We should never forget that what is often lazily described as subsidies is support to put affordable food on our tables, but Scottish Environment Link members are also right to highlight at the heart of the bill must also be ensuring that this crucial food production is done so in a sustainable way. They have made the sensible suggestion that objective 1A and B should be combined stressing the need for the production of high-quality food but doing so using sustainable and regenerative agricultural practices. Our farmers and croffers are not just key to producing the food we eat, they are key to restoring natures, tackling climate change and supporting our rural communities. They are also key to farmed animal health and welfare, so one kind and others are absolutely right to highlight that it is a failure of this bill not to include maintaining and enhancing animal welfare in its objectives. Scotland's farmers can compete and won't try to compete in a race to the bottom on price and standards. High-quality food production is delivered through the highest possible animal welfare, so let's reflect that in the objectives on the face of the bill. We know that there is also an imbalance in the agriculture supply chain. When our farmers and croffers are facing higher costs, more frequent weather events are growing need to drive down emissions, and the face of a climate crisis increases threats to food security, when producer margins are increasingly being squeezed by the big suppliers and when public spending is under more pressure than it has ever been, the power imbalance in the market is growing, so it should be an objective in our support schemes to strengthen the position of farmers and croffers in that supply chain. Whatever those objectives we need to measure how they are being delivered. I don't expect them to be on the face of the bill, but at the very least, if there are to be no targets in that bill, there should at least be a duty on ministers to set clear measurable targets in relation to the objectives within any rural support plan. We need more detail on what that plan should and will contain. When I sat on the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, we were very clear that the draft plan should be published before stage 3 of the bill and that Parliament should be cited on and allowed to scrutinise future plans before approving secondary legislation. Those plans should be subject to statutory consultation. Time is tight, but I want to make one final point. The bill is an opportunity to better distribute the support that we provide. Rhoda Grant and Richard Lylem highlighted that too much of our current support goes to too few. We need to look at issues such as power, such as cap and taper payments, but also free front-loading that approach. Thank you, Mr Smith. I must stop you at that point. Jamie Halcro Johnston has up to seven minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Can I draw members' attention to my register of interests as a partner in a farming business and the owner of a registered croft and is a member of NFU Scotland, the Scottish Land and Estates and the Royal Highland Agricultural Society of Scotland, and being receipt of payments? I should also note that, as a substitute member of the Royal Affairs and Islands Committee, I was part of some of the consideration of the report on the bill, although not its final recommendations or any of the evidence sessions that guided it. I am also a member of the finance committee that scrutinised the financial memorandum for the bill. This debate is a long time coming, and the UK Government's agriculture bill was passed three and a half years ago. The Rural Affairs Committee in their report highlighted stakeholder concerns over how long it has taken Scottish Ministers to introduce this bill and the impact that this delay has had on farmers, crofters and land managers. Yet, having waited so long for this bill, we still do not have the detail that we should have by now. We still await the Scottish Government's rural support plan, a plan that Professor Thompson of Scotland's Rural College said needs to be at the front and centre of which Douglas Bell of the Scottish Tenant Farmers Association said the earlier that can come, the better. There is real frustration among agricultural stakeholders just now about working in a vacuum. The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee recommended that the rural support plan should be published before stage 3, the Rural Affairs Committee backed that call. When I asked Scottish Government officials during the Finance Committee's consideration of the financial memorandum whether the plan could be presented earlier than originally planned, I was advised that it would be for ministers to commit to that. It is disappointing that, despite those clear calls from committees of this Parliament in her response to the Rural Affairs Committee, the Cabinet Secretary has failed to make that commitment. That matters, because while I recognise the Rural Affairs Committee accepted in their report the need for this to be a framework bill, it is also worth noting the concerns of the finance and the DPLR committees and the difficulties that this poses for legislative and fiscal scrutiny. I have some concerns over the area of co-design. I recognise the committee's position on the commitment to co-design and its concerns that there is not enough detail on how that will be achieved or assurances that key state coders will be included in the process. As we have seen with other bills, the co-design process can often lead to very different outcomes and different costs than is originally intended or considered. If I can touch on a number of other areas of concern, my party has been clear that we don't support continued alignment with the EU, an approach that the Scottish Government is taking, as Rachael Hamilton rightly highlighted. This will leave, for example, Scottish farmers missing out on the benefits of new gene editing technology. Also, the EU new cap scheme requires reserves to be kept for crises. It was confirmed to me in the Finance Committee that this bill will include powers that would allow for a crisis reserve to be established. However, officials could not give more details on any reserve or how it would be funded. Again, I quote, the bill is silent on that but there is flexibility that it would be for ministers to decide. My concern is firstly where this funding will come from. Will it be shaved off the top of the agriculture budget? Also, as we have seen with the Scottish Government's procreation of supposedly ring-fenced agriculture funding to plug gaps in other parts of the budget, money meant for farming and held in reserve for crises in funding could be used by the Scottish Government in other parts of their budget. In summing up, perhaps the agriculture minister and his summing up could give more details on how they see the crisis reserve being funded and administered and how much they envisage will be held in that reserve. If I can turn to some other contributions, Rachel Hamilton was right to highlight the importance of this bill to rural Scotland but also the lack of trust in SNP ministers in Edinburgh because of their cuts to the agriculture budget and the diversion of ring-fenced funding away from farming. No wonder some SNP MP seems so sensitive about this issue. This lack of trust has not helped when the SNP Green Government can provide reams of indie papers—no-one will read—but not the rural support plan that farmers are desperately waiting for. I will take intervention from the minister. He may not be aware of this, but Johnnie Hall from the NFU Scotland sat in the rural affairs committee and said that not a single penny of the agricultural budget was cut by the Scottish Government. Every single penny went to the farmers. The money that he is talking about is a completely different fund that has nothing to do with the original £630 million that comes from agriculture. I think that there is considerable confusion from the minister on that. I think that it is probably best for the minister if we move on from that relatively quickly. I am sorry that Tim Eagle could not be with us in the chamber today, and I am sure that all of us in the farming sector will appreciate and perhaps enviously why he cannot be. I was going to say that I am disappointed that he is not doing his speech live from the lambing shed, but he was. It was great to see, although of course the wi-fi is not good, but it does highlight, in many ways, the importance of technology in our farming communities. That is something that should be part of that. It did have the feel of a Willie Rennie press stunt at some point. I was waiting to see what was going to happen in the background, but unfortunately it was disappointing that nothing of great incident happened. However, it was extremely valuable to hear from Tim Eagle and his experiences, particularly as a small farmer, and the challenges that they faced. He was right to highlight in the discussion about objectives. It should not become a contest between food and environment, and they are both important. He also raised a very important issue of new entrants and the concerns raised regularly with me. Speaking as convener of the Rural Affairs Committee, Finn Carson highlighted his and the committee's concerns over the lack of detail in the bill, a common thread in today's debate. He reiterated his committee's calls to see the rural support plan before we reach stage 3. Edward Mountain highlighted his concerns over CPD and I would support his rather mischievous suggestion that if it is good enough for farmers, perhaps there should be CPD programmes for Scottish ministers as well. More seriously, the Rural Affairs Committee was clear that they did not believe, other than that we are training to the certain standard of qualification that is required for health and safety reasons, or that in order to undertake specific activities, any CPD should be compulsory or tied to support. Putting additional burdens on the time of already busy farmers restricting their ability to farm helps no-one. As such, I am disappointed again in her response to the committee that the cabinet secretary has failed to rule out the possibility that CPD requirements could be linked to payments or made compulsory. Just briefly to say, I agree with Beatrice Wishart on the importance of infrastructure such as Abattoir's and Orkney's issue. At the moment, I know that it would also include ferries as a key part of that too. Delayed and lacking in detail, we are being asked to trust this SNP Green Government, a Government that has siphoned off money ring fence for agriculture with no answers on when that money will be returned to the sector. As my Conservative colleagues have made clear, we will look to improve this bill with amendments and we will support it at stage 1, but we do so with real concerns at the lack of detail that the Scottish Government has provided, a lack of details that impacts on farmers and crofters Thank you, Mr Halper Johnston. I will have to stop you there. Thank you, and I call on Mary Gusion to wind up up to eight minutes, cabinet secretary. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Firstly, just to say that I do welcome today's debate and members' input in views. I'm pleased that I think we're mostly in agreement on the bill's general principles and content. I'm also grateful for the considered responses from members across the chamber and the approach that I would say the vast majority have taken to the debate today. I have a lot of information to work through, so I will try and cover as many points as I can. However, I really just want to focus on some of the key areas that have featured in the debate, as well as some of the areas that were raised during the committee's consideration of the bill. Firstly, the fact that this is a framework bill. I welcome the committee's agreement that the approach to establish a long-term basis for future support schemes is the right one, and that framework approach enables tailored provisions and support to be implemented through that secondary legislation and further adapted on a regular basis, as we might need to do that. That is also similar to the approach that we took through the Agriculture Retain to Ulaw and Data Scotland Act 2020. By doing that, that allowed us to bring forward regulations that enabled us to start making payments at a much earlier date than before. As a result of Parliament agreeing to that change, we were able to make a basic support and greening payments from September last summer and something that we intend to repeat this year. Without that framework approach and the ability to pass secondary legislation to change the dates for making payments, we would not have been able to do that. That is why a flexible approach is also needed for this bill, because it will allow Scotland to adapt to changing social, economic and environmental conditions and challenges. Secondly, the scope for parliamentary scrutiny, and I recognise that that is a point that has been widely raised today, I do note the committee's views on that and those that were expressed by both the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee and the Finance and Public Administration Committee on that. I have been clear about my intention to be transparent with the industry and with Parliament and also made clear in my response to the stage 1 report that I will, of course, be giving further consideration to that. I know that you may touch this in your later contribution, but I want to make sure that we do get the question asked. It is of critical importance, and that has been stated by many of the stakeholders and the committee and the DPLR, about the importance of the rural support plan being published as soon as possible. Will you commit, as the committee has suggested, to providing a working draft of that rural support plan prior to stage 3? If not, why not? I am glad that the member raised that, and I welcome on to the rural support plan, because I know that that is a point that has been widely raised today. However, in response to his question, and as I outlined at committee, I said that I initially wanted to take advice on that, but, of course, we would be looking to, if it is possible for us to at least provide an outline or a sketch of what that plan may look like, we will endeavour to do that as soon as we can. However, I am sorry, I do need to make some progress. Another important point that I want to touch on is the claim about a lack of detail available for farmers. It is disappointing that there has not really been any real acknowledgement of the range of information that has been made available, and not least through the agricultural route map that was updated again yesterday. Those updates will continue, and we will continue to seek ways to engage with and inform as many farmers, crofters and land managers as possible to ensure that they know what they need to do from next year and the actions that they need to take now. However, I reiterate that it is right that the Scottish Government takes the time necessary to develop the detail of its policy with the people who are directly affected by it, which is important if the Scottish Government is to deliver on its commitment to no cliff edges for our farmers and crofters. The cabinet secretary heard me make an intervention to John Swinney, and it was specifically on the point of bringing in a cross-compliance on peatlands and wetlands. Now, that is a really significant move, but farmers were not consulted or land managers, and you have just made the point that the Scottish Government will consult on these significant issues. What changed? Yes, we do it. As I have already outlined, co-development is the absolute foundation of our approach in developing policy going forward. I am surprised that the member has raised that with me now, because we announced that new condition last year and provided more detail on it yesterday. It is also something that we have had discussions about previously. I certainly hope that the member would not be insinuating that we do everything within our power to ensure that we are protecting our peatlands from further degradation. In relation to the route map, I know that, just in relation to the general timing of this bill and the criticisms around that, I know that Colin Smith and others have raised concerns about today. I think that there is also forgetting the commitment to stability and simplicity that this Government committed to to ensure that we had some security through what has been an incredibly tumultuous time. I realise that that may not have been a popular decision at that time, but as it has been proven, I think that that was absolutely the right decision to take in relation to that. Rhoda Grant delivered a very powerful contribution in the chamber today, and a lot of excellent points were raised that I want to go through together with Tim Eagle. I think that they touched on the relation and just how important our smaller producers are, and the points raised in relation to that I would absolutely agree with. That is exactly why the Small Producers Pilot Fund and the work that we are taking through that is so important. There was a steering group of small producers established to take forward that work to help ultimately design the support that they need, and that is why I was glad that Rachael Hamilton also recognised the importance of abattoirs and raised that in an intervention, because the initial phase of that pilot looks exactly at that point, working with two abattoirs to test solutions for small producers to access abattoirs as well as considering other matters. That work that we are taking forward in relation to that is so important, because the support that we previously had in place for small producers did not work, and that is why that pilot is being taken forward, so that we can learn from that and deliver the kind of support that we know our small producers want and ultimately what they need as well. Rhoda Grant also raised hugely important points about crofting, grazing committees, support for co-operatives, and I know that that was a point raised more widely by other members too. All of that is vitally important, we recognise that, and I would just want to emphasise that with the bill, and if that's agreed to the general principles that are agreed to, today we will have the powers to deliver that within the framework that we'll be bringing forward. A number of members also raised the objectives of the bill today, particularly Kate Forbes, who focused on food security, and I know that Ariane Burgess and others touched on the importance of animal welfare. In relation to the objectives as they're set out, and as I set out in the evidence that I provided to the committee, the objectives are, by their very nature, wide-ranging and aligned with the principles that have been contained in the vision for agriculture. The four objectives aren't hierarchical, they're not listed in order of priority, nor in respect of the importance of their outcomes, but each serves to support the others. In saying that, I do acknowledge the committee's recommendations here, and I also welcome the wide range of comments and views made during the committee's evidence-taking on the proposed objectives. That's why I will continue to listen to those views and will consider further whether any changes are needed to the objectives as they stand at the moment. I would also just like to touch on a couple of important points that were raised today. I really do think that I need to address and clear up the misinformation that has been put across this chamber politicising issues when I feel like I would hope that we could work collegiately as we look towards stage 2 of the bill. From the way that some contributions have gone today, I fear that that might not be possible. In relation to the budget, I need to address the comments that were raised by Rachel Hamilton and Jamie Halcro Johnston, which were complete and utter nonsense. It is because of the economic mismanagement of the Tory UK Government that we have faced the worst budget settlement since devolution. Significant cuts of up to 10 per cent to our capital budgets, which have meant that all portfolios across Government have had incredibly difficult choices to make. In that portfolio, all funding was ring-fenced. We did not take any money from the pockets of farmers and we protected that spend because we recognised just how hugely important it is. In closing, it is important that we do not forget that agriculture is devolved and that it is for this Government and this Parliament to decide what our policy on agriculture should be in the future and how we support its delivery. Scotland has a unique landscape. Our agricultural interests and capabilities are different from the other nations in the UK. Yes, there are similarities. We should always listen to and learn from each other on these islands, just as we should continue to learn from the EU cap and what other European nations are doing. But ultimately, this is Scotland's bill and I am glad that it has the support of most of the members in this chamber and of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee for its general principles. I therefore move that the general principles of the bill be agreed. That concludes the debate on agriculture and rural communities in Scotland. I seek your guidance because I have been accused of misinformation. The key point is that the UK Government has provided £620 million of ring-fenced funding to the Scottish agriculture budget and will continue to support that sector. The Government also secures £61 million to Scottish farming through the Bureau of Youth. The Government took £46 million from the budget, from the ring-fenced funding. That is absolute black-and-white fact. It is not misinformation. I remind members that a point of order relates to procedural matters. I suggest that we now move on to the next item of business, which is consideration of motion 12111, in the name of Shona Robison, on a financial resolution for the Agriculture and Rural Community Scotland Bill. I call on Mary Gougeon to move the motion. Thank you, cabinet secretary. The question on this motion will be put at decision time.