 Minister, mae wedi mae gymryd yr edrych yn cymhiliadu y cysyllfaeth pan ddechrau'r ymaa pobl. Mae'r yma o engineeriaethr Fosiwn 8212 o'r油hau ingomell a mark graffiti o'r Ang� เกlau adegwr. Ffalogell Marigwg samejau a'r esby� o agorlau gwysigol'lltd lyw o taith as soon as possible. I call on the cabinet secretary to speak to and move the motion for a very generous 13 minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer. It was a little over one year ago that I set out this Government's vision for the future of agriculture in Scotland. Our vision is a positive one. Our vision puts farmers, crofters and land managers at its core and it values their efforts to help feed the nation and to steward our countryside. It also recognises their essential role in delivering climate adaptation and mitigation and in biodiversity recovery and in nature restoration. Our vision makes clear that there is a duty owed from our nation to support our producers and ensure that our world-leading climate and nature targets are realised. Farmers, crofters and land managers are vital to our ambition to make Scotland fairer and greener and that journey will be challenging. It will, of course, carry risks but it also presents opportunities and it can be transformative. I and this Government remain committed to working with and listening to our industry and all who have the interests of a vibrant and successful rural Scotland at heart to achieve this. We want Scotland to be a leader in sustainable and regenerative farming. Many are already leading the way and they deserve praise for farming to produce food sustainably in ways that actively benefit both nature and climate. They need to know that we remain committed to supporting them to produce high-quality food while also delivering for climate and nature restoration. Brian Whittle, I am very grateful to the cabinet secretary for taking intervention. Would she agree with me that one of the best things that we can do is ensure that our farming produce is procured locally, especially in public procurement and a lot of work still has to be done on that to support our farming communities? The member raises a really important point and I think that we have so much power through public procurement and there is a lot of improvement that can be made there. A lot of that will also tie in to what we are intending to bring forward through the Good Food Nation Act which was passed last year by the Scottish Parliament and what we can produce through our Good Food Nation plans as well. I would look forward to working with the member as we develop that. That approach that I have talked about will sit at the heart of how and what we legislate for in the future. It is my intention to introduce a new Scottish agriculture bill this year, to provide a replacement for the common agricultural policy and to provide the required powers and framework to deliver our vision for agriculture. The bill's proposals will seek to provide an adaptive framework to respond to the future social, economic and environmental changes, challenges and opportunities. I will continue to actively work with and alongside the agricultural industry to develop those proposals. I accept that not everyone might agree with our approach but what I hope we arrive at is a policy and support framework underpinned in statute that will deliver outcomes that will help us meet our goals to benefit all of Scotland as well as farmers, crofters and land managers. Shepard and Wedderburn have said in the last few days that there is too short notice for farmers to comply with payment details and implementation. I wonder what the cabinet secretary would say to the CCC who has also said that the route map is too slow to meet admission target goals. I haven't seen the initial comments that the member referenced but I'd be happy to look at that in more detail. It's important that we're able to set out as part of our route map and I will come on to discuss that in a bit more detail when we can implement those challenges. I think that showing that transition when that will happen and setting that out is really critical to hopefully give a bit more clarity and certainty to the industry as we move forward. There's only so much we can do at each time but I think that the phasing of that and what we're looking to implement and do those changes is critical as we look to deliver a just transition throughout this change. What I've mentioned will of course involve change but change and adaptation has long been at the heart of the Scottish agricultural sector and many have already embarked on this transformational journey. We'll incorporate what we learn including new and best practice, improvements in technology, evidence on climate impacts and we'll evaluate delivery to monitor how well we're doing and where we need to act more urgently or change our approach. Last year we undertook a consultation on the bill. We are carefully considering the diverse range of views provided and I intend to publish responses later this spring. However, we're not waiting for legislation to act. In the meantime we will progress our agriculture reform programme. On 10 February I published the agriculture reform route map setting out the timescales for information and interaction with the agricultural industry. This route map provides Scotland's farming and food production industry with clarity and confidence on key dates, expectations, the various measures that are being proposed and support that will be available to prepare for implementing change. There are still questions to be answered that can only be answered in the bill and the measures flowing from that but the route map provides a clear set of steps and dates to explain when current schemes will transition our end and when more guidance, support and information will become available. This route map fulfills one of my key pledges, that there will be no cliff edges for the farmers and crofters of Scotland. It's worth saying again that this Government in Scotland, no matter what Westminster does, will maintain direct payments and continue to support our nation's producers. However, there will also be changes, with the proposed future support framework providing conditional payments under four tiers, base, enhanced, elective and complementary. The existing framework of support will continue in 2023 and 2024 to provide stability to farmers and crofters. From 2025, new conditionality will be delivered under existing powers for the 2025 single application form calendar year. This will include the foundations of a whole farm plan, a tool that we will co-design with the industry to help our farmers and crofters better and more sustainably plan their businesses. New conditions will be applied. I've already taken a couple of interventions, so I would like to make progress, unless it is a very brief point. It's just on the dates and the route map here. I don't think that it's much comfort to farmers on this map because it isn't structured enough to allow them to take into account seasonality because they need to be planning ahead five, ten years, particularly for breeding patterns and for cropping rotations. Cabinet Secretary, I can give you the time back for the intervention. Thank you very much, but I think that that's where our work in co-developing that with the industry going forward is really important. I would like to think that it does still provide that stability and clarity in the meantime as to how long the specific schemes that are in place at the moment are going to continue and when we expect those specific schemes to transition. I want to come back to the point that I said earlier that we're not going to see any cliff edges and when it comes to the support that we're providing for our farmers and crofters, we will be ensuring that there is that transition there. Again, we don't have all the answers and details within that route map, but that's what the route map points out is when that information is going to become available as well. New conditions will be applied to some existing schemes to deliver on our commitment to shift from unconditional to conditional support on half of all funding by 2025. The current region model will remain in place in the early stages of the transition, however it will be reviewed to ensure that tier 1 base is fit for purpose in the future. From 2026, with the approval of this Parliament, new powers from the new agriculture bill will be used to launch the new enhanced payment. The enhanced payment will be the key mechanism to incentivise farmers and crofters to undertake actions to deliver positive outcomes for climate and for nature. Codevelopment of this element is being prioritised through preparing for sustainable farming under the national test programme, which launched in spring 2022. Central to this track is the provision of funding for conducting carbon audits and soil testing. Over three years until 2025, the national test programme will invest up to £51 million to help farmers and crofters undertake these essential first steps towards more sustainable farming. On 10 February, I also published a list of potential future support framework measures. The list sets out the sorts of actions that we will expect farmers and crofters to undertake under the new framework. It is based on the actions identified by academic research and the farmer-led groups as being essential to meet Scotland's climate and biodiversity targets. We are focused on their suitability for the enhanced tier, and there is likely to be a range of additional measures to help achieve Scotland's nature and climate targets in other tiers of the future support framework. Underpinning all those measures is the principle that farmers and crofters should choose measures that are right for their business and are based on their farm plans, on audits and on expert advice. The final list of actions in a future support framework will not be prescriptive but elective to encourage that choice, that flexibility and adaptability. It will not seek to penalise those who are already achieving a certain level or threshold. Farmers and crofters therefore do not need to wait before taking action, which has been built into preparing for sustainable farming and the national test programme. Producing more of our own food more sustainably is at the heart of our vision for the future of Scottish agriculture, because it will enable us to be more food secure. As a result of Brexit and the on-going Russian invasion of Ukraine, we are now more aware of and alert to food supply vulnerabilities and price shocks. Last year, I established together with industry a short-life food security and supply task force, which was reported in June. I am pleased to report that the immediate recommendations from the task force are now complete or substantially complete. For example, I have also now established and resourced a dedicated food security unit within the Scottish Government. This unit will allow us to continue to monitor and respond to issues in food supply and production to bolster confidence and address risks and issues as they arise. All of our work in planning is, however, compromised by financial uncertainty. Brexit means that we no longer have the long-term certainty of funding. HM Treasury has provided yearly allocations for the current UK parliamentary term, and there is no funding commitment from 2025. That has direct implications on the management of the current cap, including the Scottish rural development programme and the work under way on the agriculture reform programme. It is unacceptable, and it is far from the sunny uplands that the Brexitaires promised. Scotland needs long-term funding certainty to enable farmers and crofters to plan, invest and deliver just as we had through cap. This funding uncertainty is one reason why we would have preferred to remain in the EU and will stay aligned to the new cap approach now being implemented. Let me reiterate that we expect full replacement of EU funds to ensure no detriment to Scotland's finances, and I will continue to press for this from Westminster, no matter who is in government at every opportunity. But not only has Westminster short-changed Scotland, but it has systematically undermined and diminished evolution through its approach to international trade deals and the UK Internal Market Act. This Government, and indeed Parliament, remains fundamentally opposed to the internal market act. It is an assault on devolution imposed without our consent and should be repealed. The act has allowed UK ministers to introduce the UK Subsidy Control Act, which includes agricultural support in its scope. We now find ourselves in the egregious position of being one of the few countries in the world to treat support for growing and producing food in this way, and it may prevent us from tailoring agriculture payments to the specific needs of Scottish farmers, crofters and land managers in future. I have already taken a few interventions, so I do need to make progress. All of that matters because of the marginal nature of our land, the relative size of our holdings and businesses and our on-going commitment to support farmers and crofters directly. The retained EU law bill going through Westminster only adds to our concerns, not least in terms of its existential threat to our high animal welfare, plant health, food safety, water quality and environmental standards. Westminster might not care about their environment and countryside, but we do. That is why Scotland needs the right to choose our own future. Independence would give Scotland the opportunity to use new powers to pursue priorities that are tailored to Scotland's needs. The UK economy is fundamentally on the wrong path, with no real alternative on offer within the current system. Not being independent means that Scotland is being dragged down the wrong path too, and one people in Scotland did not vote for. Only through the full powers of independence will Scotland have the full range of economic and other policy tools to take decisions based on our own needs. That will allow us the chance to replicate the success of many neighbouring countries that are more prosperous, productive and fairer than the UK. That is why the Scottish Government is committed to giving the people of Scotland a choice about the future that they want—a greener, wealthier and fairer economy within the European Union or a sluggish, stagnating economy outside of the EU. We have embarked on a journey of transformational change, working with the industry to far more sustainably in the future for the benefit of climate and nature and ultimately for the benefit of us all. It is not going to be an easy journey, but nothing worthwhile doing ever is. What I see in here from all the farmers and crofters I meet is a willingness to do things differently, an appetite for change and often a real impatience for us to get on with it. We must also ensure that this transition is a just one, which takes everyone who wants to stay in or move into farming and food production with us, and that is my goal. We have the ambition, the optimism, the enthusiasm and the talent and skills that we need to become a global leader in sustainable and regenerative agriculture. With that, I move the motion in my name. I welcome the chance to debate how we can deliver a positive vision for the future of Scotland's agriculture. The importance of food security has never been greater. Agriculture remains at the forefront of efforts to reach our net zero targets. Scottish farmers need support at this critical juncture to keep providing that high quality and affordable food that they are famous for. The Scottish Government has a crucial role in providing the platform on which farmers can thrive. They must allow agriculture to have the means to innovate, to advance and to build a positive future. It is essential not only for our farmers but for everyone in Scotland, because only by fully committing to farming can we be sure that supermarkets will be stocked with the very best meat, fruit and vegetables. For too long, agriculture in Scotland has been succeeding despite SNP Government policies, not because of them. The same is true for rural Scotland. The Government talks of delivering in its first line of the debate today, but delivering anything for anyone in rural Scotland has repeatedly proved beyond the capability of this SNP Green Government. In the spirit of co-operation that will be needed for this debate, will the member please try to keep some of the politics out of it so that we can get a solution to the problems that we face? I thank Jim Fairlie for the intervention. It is almost kettle calling pot black, is it not? Listening to the last few paragraphs of the Cabinet Secretary's speech, unless of course that was written by one of her civil servants, they have failed to deliver promised upgrades to rural roads. They have failed to deliver ferries for our islanders. They have failed to give farmers the support and the tools that they need to progress. In every corner of rural Scotland, we find evidence of an SNP Green Government that simply does not understand the needs of Scotland's rural population and the land that they manage. That is a Government out of touch with rural Scotland. Worse than that, ignored completely. To the detriment of our farmers, this coalition has been led by ideology rather than evidence. It puts a high priority on politics than doing the right thing. It chooses to oppose gene editing, ignoring the potential benefits of more food coming from our land so it can stoke its age-old constitutional grievances. It chooses to let the best land for farming become land for planting trees, the wrong tree in the wrong place, ignoring the fact that this ultimately could harm the environment. We may also be forced to import more food, more costly food, from abroad than grow it here. It chooses to make superficial changes that look green on the surface, but underneath, if you look beyond the political spin, they do more damage to the climate than it claims to care about. On those points, we have heard in recent sittings of the rain committee which have been scathing that SNP hamstrung by the radical Green Party have left Scottish farmers playing catch-up to others across the world with similar resources, including those just south of the border. Our farmers are at the forefront of the climate and biodiversity crisis. Few people are more invested in this than them. Without agriculture on side, net zero is just a pipe dream. Scotland's ambitious targets can only be met if farmers are given the opportunity, the incentives and the helping hand to make the difference. As well as evidence taken in committee, I am fortunate to represent a constituency with dozens of amazing farmers who I meet regularly. They are all saying the same thing. We are working flat out to boost biodiversity and farm for the future. Give us the support that we need and we will do the rest. They understand that this is in the interest of the future of their industry. Sustainability has always been part of farming in Scotland and without it there would be no future. However, this Government's attempt to support them in that endeavour is falling woefully short of the mark. Some examples of that were again heard in a recent committee session where experts giving evidence discussed carbon audits, slurry storage, green nitrogen, upland management and carbon neutral beef farming. On carbon audits, the committee heard that farmers already spending thousands on soil testing. The current scheme, which forms part of the current proposals, accounts for just 10 per cent of that figure. It was described as embarrassing. Meanwhile, the Government's carbon audit scheme sits idle as farmers choose to get on with the work themselves. The data that this Government wants to collect through their scheme already exists. However, instead of collating it, it is trying to spend public money on collecting what is already collected. As we heard during the same committee session, Scotland's pig sector is in a generational meltdown. It is clear that solving the slurry storage issue should be a priority, yet in the same meeting we heard that £5 million worth of that scheme will barely touch the sides when storage solutions can cost upwards of £250,000. We heard former and a few president, Jim Walker, calling out the Scottish Government for its infantile discussions around this route map. Countries like Australia and Ireland have been enabled to rear carbon neutral beef herds. This Government is yet to get its head around the grass on which they graze. The distinct lack of understanding of this issue was laid bare by those giving evidence in that particular meeting. This was just one committee session, Presiding Officer. There are many more to come. During a recent meeting with representatives from NFUS, a similar critical picture was painted of these proposals. I believe that they encapsulated the situation perfectly when they accused the Scottish Government of trying to have its cake and eat it. Is that an intervention? Karen Adam. I thank the member for taking an intervention. Does the member agree with me that you are cherry-picking what has been said at the committee and not giving a well-rounded explanation of what was said? As NFUS president, ARIOP chair, Martin Kennedy, told rural affairs that we need to be able to look at five or six years ahead. That was in regards to coming out of the EU and no longer having long-term certainty of funding. He said that we got used to the one that was being delivered by Europe, which covered a seven-year period, so people knew what was going to be available. We do not have such a framework at present, which is really concerning. To give balance to that argument, I thought I would intervene. Rachael Hamilton, I can give you that ten back. I thank Karen Adam for that intervention. I went to the protest that was held outside this Parliament a few months ago, Presiding Officer. I listened to all the farmers out there. Not one of them were complimentary about this SNP green government. The importance of food security, Presiding Officer, has been brought to the fore after Putin's invasion of Ukraine, which led to global supply shortages. Clearly, the role of farming to ensuring Scotland's food security is integral. The more top-quality affordable food we grow locally, the less imported food that we need to bring into this country at great cost to our environment. Much of the concern around the proposals that we are debating today stem from the impression that the Scottish Government is asking farmers to place carbon sequestration and environmental concern above producing food. I made this point in response to a question earlier, because I really do not think that it is fair to pit food production against nature and climate. Would the member not agree to me that these are not conflicting priorities and that all three of those can be done, and that is why they are the three pillars of our vision? Why did the UK Government sell us down the river when it came to trade deals? The solution to this today is that, in summary, we need to ensure, as the cabinet secretary has said, that food security is aligned with the biodiversity game. Time and time again, we have not heard that that is happening. The Scottish Government has put food security at the bottom of the pile. Why are farmers talking about food security? Why are they concerned about the clarity? Why are they concerned about their future? Are you listening to farmers? We are listening to farmers on these benches, and that is exactly what they are saying. I just think that this Government are reaping what they have sown. This Government is sowing the seeds of decline in Scottish agriculture. Our food stocks, as well as our environment, will pay the price for that. Food produced, sold, consumed in Scotland is less harm to our environment than that that is imported from the other side of the world. A policy that rewards tree planting over crop planting or livestock grazing on productive land would only serve to harm our environment, not heal it as this Government would claim. Farmers must be supported to do their job. They deserve to be recognised for the vital role that they play in producing these first-class ingredients. We enjoy our breakfast, lunch and dinner every day. They should, as they do so, often strive to do so sustainably, but the role that they play in providing our nation's food security must not be forgotten. I will never apologise for making that point time and time again in this chamber. The frustration, as I said, was at the heart of last year's food needs of farmer protest outside Parliament. Farmers descended on the Parliament in their hundreds to make this point to the SNP and Green parties. Today's statement from the cabinet secretary is confirmation that they have completely failed to listen. However, as we continue our pre-ledged scrutiny of the new agricultural build, there is still time to change tack, to listen to farmers, to get it right for them. From the evidence that we have heard so far, we should be in no doubt that Scotland farmers know an awful lot more about managing their land than those writing policies at St Andrew's house. We absolutely have the opportunity to utilise the abundance of knowledge available to us in the agricultural industry. I would urge the cabinet secretary to take full advantage of this and commit to greater transparency over how those views are listened to and how those individuals will bear the brunt of the proposals that are taken into account when this bill is introduced into Parliament. We need a plan to help farmers to produce more top quality food right here in Scotland. We need a plan to reduce our reliance on other foods coming in. We need a plan that creates more jobs in the wider food industry. We need a plan that puts farmers first. Not the one-track, short-sighted ideology driven proposal here before us today. The question for our next First Minister is will they ditch the hated bute house agreement, hated by so much of rural Scotland or will they plough on for the sake of the dying dreams of independence to the peril of our rural communities? In reforming and transforming our agriculture sector, everything that we do will need to be in the context of adhering to our net zero targets, the climate and nature emergencies and recognising the impact of Brexit and Russia's invasion of Ukraine on UK food security. The war in Ukraine has driven up the cost of products, which are essential to food production, and the supply chain, including fuel, fertiliser, feed and energy, jeopardising global and domestic food security. The war and its impacts will not last forever, but they may have some long-lasting impacts that we can address now. As you won't need reminding, just this week, farmers on the island of Westry and Orkney have written to the Scottish Government outlining the start reality of soaring inflation, rising input costs and piecemeal support. As a result, farmers in Westry are anticipating the largest ever drop in cattle numbers for a single year and warn that without a change in course that critical mass could be lost entirely by 2025. That is a crisis that demands urgent and targeted intervention. Both the Scottish and UK Governments have been slow to respond on the multiple threats facing agriculture, the lack of certainty around the future of the post-cap schemes as deterring investment and this will be detrimental to the future of the industry. Farming is on a journey but the destination isn't clear, as we heard last night's meeting. Last autumn, Scottish Liberal Democrats passed a conference motion on growing Scottish agriculture. We want an agricultural sector as ambitious as our crofters and farmers. Future financial support and agriculture should be built around the principles that it will encourage active farming, promote environmental sustainability and restore biodiversity, managing change in farming and crofting to tackle the climate and nature emergencies. It must support employment and turnover while maintaining the critical mass in the supply chain and associated industries to enhance the processing of food within Scotland and reduce food miles and fully support the vibrancy and viability of rural and island communities. The UK Government's approach to trade deals risks undermining Scottish and UK agriculture undercutting the goods that we produce to high environmental and animal welfare standards. Those Brexit trade agreements with Australia and New Zealand have been described by NFU Scotland as one-sided with little to no advantage for Scottish farmers and as posing a long-term threat to key Scottish agriculture sectors such as beef, lamb and dairy. Scottish Liberal Democrats want to reaffirm that all trade deals should meet UK standards in environmental protection and animal welfare. We also want to see the UK Government commission an independent review of the role of the Groceries Code Adjudicator Act 2013 to establish how it could be further strengthened. The strength of the big supermarkets has been used to drive down prices at the farm gate and while the major supermarkets have consistently reported large profits, most farms rely on grants and subsidies to make any revenue. Critically, the UK Government needs to provide relief in the face of rising costs. In recent weeks, exacerbated by poor weather in Europe and North Africa, we have seen how a lack of support for UK glasshouse farming energy bills resulted in the shortages on supermarket shelves. We cannot allow food shortages to be commonplace nor food prices to rise too high for consumers. Scottish Liberal Democrats secured additional agriculture transition funding in 2021 and we call on the Scottish Government to build on that by rewarding environmental stewardship and helping agricultural businesses to make investments that will rapidly reduce emissions. We also call on a fresh campaign to improve consumer awareness of the benefits of cutting food miles and using local produce alongside reform of procurement processes to better value seasonal Scottish produce and help producers and processors navigate tendering. We need to get farming practices right for our rural and island communities and tackle the climate and nature emergencies. The UK climate change committees is Scotland climate ready report warns that there is currently no strategy in place to ensure that agricultural sector in Scotland remains productive as the climate changes despite forecasts of more floods and periods of water scarcity. NFU Scotland also warned that wholesale land use change to support climate change mitigation, which takes agricultural land out of sustainable food production, would lead to rapid socio-economic decline across Scotland. We advocate robust food security assessments. Is land productive agricultural land well suited to support food production and sustainability? That needs to be assessed prior to land being used for non-agricultural purposes like forestry. That will ensure that carbon offsetting projects don't jeopardise the ability of food producing land to feed families across Scotland. Finally, we need to see the introduction of a new system of croft proofing within future agricultural support and other relevant regulations. Not all growers operate in the same way and we should protect the crofts that have served us well for generations. To conclude, we will look closely and support means to keep farming profitable, sustainable and with a focus on the need to ensure that food on the dining table is affordable and importantly available. We now move to the open debate. I call first Alasdor Allan to be followed by Oliver Wendell, a generous six minutes. The Scottish Government's vision for agriculture sets out its long-term view for how best to support farming and food production across Scotland. We are, I hope, all agreed on at least the fact that farmers and crofters must be able to live and work sustainably on their land, meeting our nation's food needs and strengthening food supply chains within Scotland while adapting practices to better protect our natural resources. The Scottish Government has committed to reducing agricultural emissions by 31 per cent by 2032. As well as continuing to reduce the sector's overall carbon footprint, attention must also turn to how best to reduce the damaging impact of nitrification caused in part by agricultural byproducts. All that is said, it is also vital that farmers and crofters are supported to produce more of our own food here in Scotland, thereby strengthening Scotland's food security and avoiding the real risk that is alluded to by other members of Scotland off-shoring its carbon emissions elsewhere. Everyone acknowledges that there is a long way to go. However, the publication of the agricultural reform route map gives a clearer sense to the industry of what support mechanisms will be implemented or might be implemented from 2025 onwards, such as the basic payment scheme voluntary coupled support and less favoured area support. The challenges facing Scotland's farmers and crofters are multifaceted and include the continued impact of Brexit, climate change, huge rises in feed, fuel and energy costs, as well as labour shortages. The UK Government must fulfil its promise fully to replace EU funds. It is the very least that Scotland's farmers and crofters deserve. It is also vital that it engages collaboratively with the Scottish Government on future agricultural funding. The four-tiered future support framework set out in the Scottish Government's agriculture reform route map aims to ensure farmers and crofters can access the support that they need to continue producing high-quality local produce while simultaneously working towards reducing emissions and engaging in regenerative agricultural practices. Of course, one of the most sustainable forms of agriculture is already an inherent part of Scotland's cultural life and the local economy in my constituency and across the north and west of Scotland. There are additional low-intensity management practices already associated with crofting, along with the mixture of activities commonly carried out, have for centuries been instrumental in supporting a range of species and habitats while cultivating produce to be used locally. It remains difficult to make much, indeed, if any profit from crofting. It is certainly hard at present for a crofter to access high levels of financial support. The member will now am a great supporter of crofting and all the benefits that crofting brings. Does he agree with me to make it sustainable into the future? Crofting law reform would be of great help, promised in the last Parliament but not delivered yet. I agree that crofting law reform is required and it has been promised in this Parliament and I would certainly urge it to come forward as I am sure it will. My point about crofting is that the levels of support for an individual crofter are modest to put it mildly at present. Half of crofters receive less than 1,400 pounds in annual support according to the Scottish Crofting Federation. However, crofting has marked potential to deliver on-key aims relating to sustainability, biodiversity and the strengthening of rural communities. Often located in areas of high-nature value farming, livestock are able to graze in a well-managed way, which encourages environmental regeneration and sustains the areas of biodiversity. However, crofters often face challenges that are quite unique to their environment. For example, grey-lag geese continue to cause significant damage to crofts and common grazing throughout the western isles and their rapidly increasing numbers make it very difficult to mitigate the impact and the financial losses experienced by crofters as a result can be extreme. The Scottish Government and NatureScot have been supporting control schemes going some way to assist local efforts in containing the local goose populations growth. However, the geese themselves are challenging to effectively control. I have heard more than one crofter make the dry remark that the resident geese in his area can now recognise the registration number plates of the marksman's car and make them scarce at appropriate times. All that said, it is essential that crofters and other small-scale producers have their needs prioritised so that they are ready to access comprehensive support. Their potential contribution to sustainable best practice for the agricultural industry is clearly significant, but it is also important to point out whether it is due to the effects of climate change or anything else that they need support in order to make change. The route map publication has been widely welcomed across the agricultural industry, giving more certainty to farmers and crofters about the road ahead. By ensuring that the future support mechanisms complement each other and are accessible to those who need the support the most, we can continue to best support Scotland's agricultural sector in moving towards the more sustainable farming and high-quality food production that we all seek to achieve. Dr Allan, before calling the next speaker, I can remind the chamber that we have a fair bit of time in hand, so if you are taking intervention you will get that time back and possibly more. Oliver Mundell to be followed by Karen Adam. Scotland's farmers are the beating heart, not just of our rural economy but of our way of life. They are essential to food security and provide the one energy source that we cannot live without. They are the champions of our natural landscape and the true custodians of our environment. The good news is that they are up for the challenge. The question today's debate poses is, are this Scottish Government really behind them? Being no doubt, our farmers will find a way to survive to manage and overcome the challenges that they face, but that should not be enough for us. In a country with as many opportunities and the agricultural potential of Scotland, we should be looking for our farmers to thrive. While the route map is a starting point, we cannot ignore the fact that this SNP Government has been really slow in getting the journey started, leaving farmers to second guess which direction they should be setting off in. Do you think that Brexit has helped the agricultural sector in Scotland? What I can say to the member is that farmers in my constituency are pleased that their ELFAS payments have been able to be maintained and restored to previous levels. To those members on the Government benches who pretend that being in the EU is a panacea for farmers, they need to look again at what the EU is doing to farming support elsewhere. That, combined with 16 years of neglect for our rural communities, has been followed by a sustained attack in recent years on rural life. That is undermined by our farmers and rural communities. It makes many farmers feel that they are not the integral part of Scotland. Farmers should be the SNP's first partners when it comes to driving forward change and aspiration for rural Scotland. Sadly, that has not been the case. In their place at the so-called Scottish Greens, whose answer to protecting the countryside is to ban it. In the place of the evils of farming and food production, in the Scottish Greens utopia, we would instead see a small but merry band of volunteers tend rank vegetation and cross our fingers that reintroducing a few predators will do the rest. Obviously, we do not have the Greens in chamber today to talk to it, but I would like to know which part of the Bute House agreement, in particular relation to agriculture, he takes issue with or would disagree with. The cabinet secretary would start by speaking to hill farmers in my constituency who are under huge pressure as a result of forestry, which I will come on to, and who have seen deals with the Greens push the Scottish Government further than it should have gone when it comes to things like predator management. There are plenty of examples of where the Greens are pushing the Scottish Government about, but it is not the Greens that are to blame for everything. The First Minister's time in office coincides almost exactly with the seven years of stalling and delays and disinterest that has led us to today. We can only hope and maybe for some pray that the new First Minister is ready to work with Rural Scotland instead of serving Patrick Harvie and Lorna Slater. The delay and dither has been costly and unnecessary and all the while the job of our farmers has continued to get harder. No longer is it just the elements that they battle, they now fight for the space simply to exist. In my own Dumfrieshire constituency we have seen viable and good quality agricultural land and units carpeted in Sickus Bruce, with a blind eye turned to bad environmental practice. While in the past I might have been able to say that everyone in the Scottish Government understood that people can't eat trees, after that bute house agreement you couldn't quite be so sure. It's laughable that the said same people who tell us that traditional upland farming is bad for the environment are the same people who say that trees should take their place. Again, it's those same people who advocate moving away from red meat telling us that we would be better eating avocados jetted in from the other side of the globe. Worst still, I will give way again, yes, certainly. Alice Rowland? I thank member for giving way. I just wonder if at some point in his speech you might stop dealing in stereotypes given that I don't like avocados and I do eat red meat. Is he going to talk about agricultural policy at any point in his contribution? I am talking about agricultural policy and if Alice Rowland doesn't speak to farmers I do and this is what they say, they're frustrated. These issues do affect them. They're concerned about, I don't know it, in this place that people somehow don't take food security seriously, that don't take domestic produce seriously and who are happy to rubbish red meat to blame it for all the environmental ills. In what world, perhaps the one that the Tories dwell in, does the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs setting up a novel food security task force not constitute taking that issue seriously? It's setting up a food security task force. It looks superficially at the issues and obsesses about things that are outwith the Scottish Government's control rather than focusing closer to home where good quality agricultural land is being planted up every single day, rather than promoting Scottish goods, as my colleague Brian Whistle earlier suggested when it comes to procurement within the Scottish public sector. It talks about a Cabinet Secretary who thinks a plan is what we need when we've had years, in fact 16 years, when the Scottish Government could be doing far more to stand up for Scottish farmers, for the Scottish supply chain, doing something about the lack of abattoirs in parts of rural Scotland, doing something about our shortage of poochers, doing something to make farmers feel valued. It's just not good enough, certainly. I'd like to thank the member. Where in this grand vision of agriculture does the Oral and Wanderseys, and I have to say, I think it must have been one of your staff that wrote your speech, where in that speech anywhere does the free trade agreements between New Zealand and Australia fit? I remind members to speak through the chairs. I've not made a great deal of progress in my speech, most of what I've said has been in response to SNP members. We seem to be more excited about what I've got to say than channeling their energies into challenging their own Cabinet Secretary on what she's going to do for farmers. I'd say to him that there are big opportunities for Scotland's farmers around the world. The SNP are the only party in the UK, it seems, to rubbish the opportunity that trade brings to talk Scotland down, and there were some advantages for Scottish farmers in those trade deals. For example, a reduction in tariffs when it came to whisky, which has supported a lot of jobs in farming and agriculture. As the Scottish Government sets out its future plans, my plea would be that ministers must think more carefully about the priorities and make sure that farmers are not forced off their land to make way for winterbines and trees as a result of imbalances in financial support and incentives. We need a level playing field and one that recognises the importance of food security. We must also remember that farming needs people, and that means making sure that our rural communities are well-served and vibrant places. I don't have time, Presiding Officer, in today's debate, but this SNP Government has gutted rural health services, rural schools, rural policing and failed to offer any solutions to rural depopulation. To hear members today tell us that all the labour shortage problems, all the challenges that farmers have in finding a workforce comes from Brexit, is quite frankly unacceptable. The tone of today's debate has been worrying the proposed route map, rather than seeing fewer barriers in the future, means that our farmers are going to be asked to jump through more hoops. I worry that, in order to access support, farmers are going to be asked to spend huge sums of money on consultants, spending less time on their land, less time looking after it, less time doing the things that they already know work when it comes to protecting the environment. They have been shortchanged and this debate shows it. I'm not quite disappointed at the tone of the debate, but it's not coming from these benches. All we're hearing from here is the description of problems. Being descriptive doesn't offer up any solutions. We're willing here to work cross-party to come up with solutions to a lot of these issues, creating the problems. Brian Whittle? I'm very grateful for the member to give an intervention. For seven years nearly in this Parliament, I have talked about the importance of public procurement for our farmers, and we still don't have a system where the Central XL contract is accessible by our farmers. That is something you could change right here, right now, seven years later, we're still waiting. Thank you and could remind members to speak through the chair please, Karen Adam. Thank you and through the chair, Good Food Nation Bill. It was passed a few months ago. This is what I'm talking about, Presiding Officer. It's all issues. I just want to say that the farmers in our constituency, the whole agricultural sector that comes and talks to us and bends their ear and tells us the issues and the problem they're having, expect us to come up with solutions and to help them, not to just use it as ammunition in some kind of one-sided debate. We need, not at the moment but I will in a second, we cannot just throw in problems like a blunderous Brexit and then stand by mocking the people trying to clean up that mess. Not just now in a second. What we have to do is be solution focused and go forward all working together and doing our best for our agricultural industry, and that is what our farmers deserve and nothing less. They might not have kept the receipts of Brexit, Presiding Officer, but we have because we are picking up the tab. Sustainable and regenerative farming is at the heart of the Scottish Government's vision for agriculture and rightly so. The twin biodiversity and climate crisis are existential and they will present challenges and opportunity for Scotland's farmers and crofters. If we are to ensure that there are fewer of the former and more of the latter in the years and decades to come, it's vital that we act with our climate targets and net zero ambitions in mind. In my constituency of Banffshire and Buckingham coast, we have already seen the alarming impacts of the crisis. We are hit by really hard storms, rising tides and coastal erosion. Acres of forestry has been lost across the constituency as a result of never seen before gales, and the migration of cod and urban gulls have had a notable impact on the lives and livelihoods of my constituents. While many recognise that we have a climate emergency, not all of us know that we face a nature emergency too. Professor Des Thompson, principal adviser on biodiversity and science at NatureScot, told us at rural affairs and islands committee this morning that while there is growing realisation of the nature emergency, we have a long way to go. He said, what's happened with gulls is a catastrophe, but it's because of what's happened at sea. The food base for gulls has declined for a great many reasons, so gulls have had to move inland. So they're moving into towns and cities, not adapted to breeding, and gulls are now very good at tracking school children, unfortunately, but they know where to find food. What we're seeing with gulls is just a symptom of climate change, the broader realisation of climate change contributing to the nature crisis, and therefore to the problems that we have right on our doorstep can't be overstated and our farmers more so than anyone else get it. They are witnessing those changes in real time and understand those changes and challenges that are taking place. I welcome the Scottish Government's emphasis in both our vision for agriculture and in the agricultural reform route map, the emphasis on our net zero ambitions and on emissions reductions in line with our climate targets, because we all need to do better at expressing and mitigating the gravity of the twin climate and nature crisis, and I do praise the minister for our commitment to encouraging cooperative approaches on these issues and to optimising collaboration with knowledge exchange. Food security is an area of vital importance. In recent years we have witnessed many disruptions, global food supply chains, most recently with Russia's abhorrent war in Ukraine. The Covid-19 pandemic posed some very difficult challenges to the global food system, and while those impacts are not unique to Scotland, those caused by the hard Brexit imposed on Scotland were entirely avoidable. The UK Government has done immense and irreversible damage to our world-class food and drinks industries and to rural and coastal communities such as the one that I represent. I commend the minister for her continued and tireless engagement on the issue of combating post-Brexit skills shortages in agriculture and for calling on the UK Government to fulfil its outstanding commitments to fully replace EU funds. I thank the member for giving way, but does she not think that, after 16 years of her party being in government in Scotland, we might have had a hope of home-growing some of the talent that could fill those shortages in rural communities? Instead we see people flock to the cities. I thank the member for bringing in that, because that is a real issue and we are facing a lot of complex issues like that. To be looking into those problems we have to remember that what we were looking at in Scotland 16 years ago is not reflective of the society that we are in right now, and Brexit certainly did not help that. In fact it damaged it even more. We must ask ourselves what the future of farming of food looks like. Scottish enterprises such as intelligent growth solutions are taking innovations such as vertical farming to new heights. Homegrown enterprises such as IGS are redefining the future landscape of farming and food. Year round reliable, high quality crops that are scalable and produced in controlled environments without pesticides and with shorter transits from farm to plate will play a vital role in reducing the carbon footprint of our agricultural industries. As we heard today, there is, of course, a place for our livestock too. The words that we are used to today were that there is a sweet spot, so getting that balance right is vital for our sustainable food and drink industry, for the future of our planet and for a health and wellbeing economy. I'm going to try to be as honest and even productive as I can in this debate, but to gotcha questions just aren't going to work for today's deliberations. Brexit has yet delivered absolutely nothing good for the farming community, the wider Scottish economy or social mobility of our people or for the European neighbours who wished to come to us. That's the view of Ross McCall, who said it on debate night last week. If I was trying to be charitable, however, there is a possibility of a glimmer of any kind of positivity. It's the ability of this Parliament agreeing a new agricultural reform bill, which is tailored made to the needs of our farmers and crofters, our food security and our ambitions or indeed the need to hit the targets that we have set for net zero and nature restoration. I appreciate the importance of getting our vision for our agriculture future absolutely on point and my dealings with the Scottish Government would suggest so far that they understand it. It's a huge but exciting challenge to embrace as the Government seeks. Just on the fact that this Government gets it, will the member join me in condemning that the plans that the civil servants put before the Scottish Government which would have seen active measures which would have induced Scotland's beef herd? I don't recognise the position that the member has taken so I'll move on. It's a huge and exciting challenge to embrace as the Government seeks to balance our status as a top quality food producing nation post addressing the political priorities. Excuse me Mr Fairlie, there's a chat going on between the two front benches here which is not acceptable and not Curtis. Please continue Mr Fairlie. I never even noticed but thank you very much. As the Government seeks to balance our status as a top quality food producing nation post addressing the political priorities of both now and the future such as fulfilling our climate and biodiversity responsibilities as Scotland moves towards net zero by 2045. The added complexity is of course that we are essentially starting from scratch as we look to replace EU directors. That will determine what our future farm and agricultural policy is going to look like. I have a fear that we may be trying to do too much in one bill but we shall see how that develops as we scrutinise it as it goes through committee. From my perspective food security and feeding our nation has to be front and centre of our plans and as Martin Kennedy reminded us last week this is an agricultural bill. We have a justifiable word leading reputation for the quality of our food and production practices and our critical mass in producing that food must be maintained for our present food resilience and for the next generation of young farmers to follow. The Scottish Government is working hard to make sure that there is resilience, sustainability and profit in the sector and to give it the tools to support our farmers who are already making meaningful directives on climate and nature issues. It should be noted that, for many of our farmers, they have been doing this, taking these kinds of actions for years. Would you recognise that our farmers have the custodianship of a countryside? They are making significant changes to our climate change but we must support them in that journey and not just demand that they make the changes, they need support to make those changes. Of course we do. I have said it before and I will say it again. If we want to get a definition of regenerative farming, perhaps we should call it old fashioned farming. Unfortunately, while we may look at the sliver of hope that Brexit has given us in this opportunity to realign our policy and agriculture, the negative Brexit effect is particularly profound when we no longer have long term certainty or multi-year funding. That is absolutely critical. The harder thinking Brexiteers that are running the UK Government and Treasury right now are imposing unilateral choices that provide an insufficient replacement for the EU funding. The result is a shortfall of £93 million because pledges from the UK Government have not been honoured. Add to that that there is no certainty of the funding from 2025 onwards from the Treasury so all of our planning and deliberations could be for absolutely nothing if that funding is not at the very least maintained but, in reality, as we have already heard in committee, we know that that needs to be enhanced. Demandlet, this is before you mentioned the extreme shortages of the labour force, meaning veg and food is rotten in the field, the loss of berry farmers pulling out bushes in my constituency in Persia or the anxiety of the pig sector because of the lack of border controls. I thank the member for giving way. I wonder if he accepts that when that funding does arrive that every penny of it should be ring fends for farmers or is he like the rest of the Scottish Government and thinks that it should be spread out to all sorts of other purposes. It's really unfortunate that the tone that Mr Mundell has taken today because it really isn't conducive to trying to find the solutions. I have a deal of sympathy for the Tories on these benches and I genuinely do because I understand that it's difficult for them when the Westminster Government and their champion have brokered harmful free trade agreements with Australia and New Zealand. Incidentally, it's celebrated like a lottery win in those countries, although the former minister, George Eustace, has declared that the UK gave far too much away or the UK Government Minister recently declared that the New Zealand lamb is actually better for the environment than home produced lamb. They've also put Ben Goldsmith on the Deaf Advisory Committee, the old boys network doing its thing, where Michael Gove allowed the man who is on today, Twitter, telling us that sheep have no place in our agricultural system. So sheep farming friends beware because Ben Goldsmith is coming for you again. Having said all that, I'm confident that all of our colleagues in the rural affairs committee will work together collegiately and with a common purpose in finding the right solutions for our agricultural community. Our climate and their natural obligations because it's too important not to. So we will face up the difficulties of competing demands on an ever-growing list of requirements for a fixed pot of money. I welcome that the Government intends to strategically align us in the direction of the EU's cap because that durable framework designed to be flexible enough to adapt to changing social, economic and environmental challenges. However, that won't be a copy and paste of what is set out in Brussels. I encourage the Government to ensure that it is the case as we must make our own vision that fits Scotland's unique needs. You take the words out of my mouth. We've got the opportunity to put forward a scheme that suits Scotland absolutely. So why would we align ourselves with cap in Europe, which will see agricultural payments cut in the future? Do you think that if Europe cuts agricultural payments, the Scottish Government should do the same? That's a ludicrous question, and it's on the basis of whether we're going to align with the EU so that when Scotland, because we're an independent country and we make the application to rejoin, then we'll have that opportunity. With all that said, the Government has got a challenging puzzle to solve but I have every confidence that our conversations are leading us into a clear and correct path. I've got full heart of trust in the Rural Affairs Committee, our Parliament and our Government to set a prosperous vision for Scotland's agricultural future, sending a very clear message to our farmers and land managers and to our people that farming is truly valued here in Scotland. Thank you, Mr Fairlie. I now call Edward Mountain to be followed by Jenny Minto. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer, and just so I can clarify at the start, is that a generous six minutes? It is a very generous six minutes. That's very generous of you, Presiding Officer. Thank you. I would like to say at the start that I'd remind members of my register of interest, and I want to be entirely clear about this, that I, as part of a family farming partnership, am a farmer on farming land. I own, I am a tenant farmer on other bits of land and I am in receipt of agricultural subsidies and it was, without these agricultural subsidies, there is no way that my farming business could survive. That is the fact of the matter and I am very open about it. So I think I would say that I've probably come here proving that I've had dirt under my fingernails from being involved in a family farming business for over 40 years. Indeed, I think that means that I was farming before both ministers were actually on the planet, so it doesn't make me any better than them. It just, I believe, allows me to come here with a certain amount of knowledge. Now, in that time, I've seen governments come and go and policies come and go. But the one constant that has remained throughout this is the fact that there are farmers and those farmers have managed to deliver us some of the best managed land in the world. And it is that land that is one of the key drivers, I believe, of going forward. Because we've got to remember that they aren't making any more of it. What we've got is a finite resource and it is that finite resource that delivers us our food and will help us protect our climate. And the problem is, as Oliver Mundell has said, if we take more of that good food-growing land out of production for things such as forestry, and there'll be even less of it that can be used to take his food, just a moment, if I may. So I think that that's really important. And I think, as Oliver Mundell also said, and I didn't write his speech, that we can't eat trees, and we've got to be really careful about exporting our carbon footprint by importing more food from other countries. So I'll give way to the members. Thank you for giving away. When you're talking about good productivity land being turned over to trees, as it currently stands, is it not up to the seller to sell his land to whoever he wants? Well, it is, of course, and the seller has that right to do it. But what happened, and I don't need to remind Mr Fairlie about this, was the way the agricultural subsidies were based in about 2005. Agricultural subsidies meant that planting good agricultural land in Aberdeenshire, where no defensing were required, there was no work required on the land, actually paid more than producing a crop. Now, that was not good. It was not clever use of that subsidy. And that's one of the things that I think we need to be really careful about. Because, you know, by growing more trees and meaning that we can't use our land for food production, it means that we are purposefully, or unwittingly, saying that we approve of the Amazonian rainforest being chopped down to panned soya. And I don't think that that's something... Yes, I will in a moment, if I may. I don't think that that is something that we should tolerate. I think that the future of Scottish farming should be about using the resources we have a lot more wisely than we are being suggested will be used in the future. Emma Harper. Thank you very much, Edward Mountain, for giving away. We do the rural policy cross-party group together, and it's quite enjoyable when we get to hear what evidence is out there. You mentioned the 2005 subsidy and how it wasn't right. Doesn't that mean that we can learn from that and whatever support schemes are developed in the future means that we can look at learning from the lessons in the past and making it better for the future? I would remind members to speak to you. I actually do, and you must have guessed what my next subject was in my speech, which is about the new farming policy, because we need to build this wider policy to make it fit for the future. And the Government really needs to ask themselves these questions as they're doing it. And trust farmers to deliver the following food, conservation, biodiversity, employment, resting locally, and often being the centre of local communities. And if they do that and they bear that in mind, then farming will continue. But if they don't believe farmers can do that, one has to ask whether they believe that focus groups, large multinational companies, some of which who want to burn the very food that we need to feed ourselves and to feed our animals to get subsidies, will deliver it. There are groups who want to rewild forestry companies who look for hedge funding to make maximum use of carbon credits without knowing fully what that means, or indeed God forbid politicians, because none of those latter group will actually produce what farmers do, and that is produce the food that we need to eat. Now, let's look at the timescales that the minister has been clear about producing. The Climate Change Committee has told the Government to get on with it. It's taking too long. Farmers at the NFU AGM dinner, which the minister attended, also said that the Government needs to get on with it. And surprisingly enough, even NGOs are telling the Government to get on with it. Because whilst you've come up with a timescale, you haven't come up with a policy. And that policy that you are going to develop is only going to come into place in 2026. That means that we have less than six years to address the climate targets that we are being asked to address. Now, I wish those target climates were earlier, and they would have been if these benches had their way. But in the last Parliament, it doesn't need to remind anyone that it was the Liberal Democrats who voted with the Government to say that the new agricultural policy didn't have to be unveiled until 2024, deeply unhelpful, leaving farmers in the lurch. What's going to happen is that this Government, when they don't reach their targets, is going to blame farmers. And I think that that is also deeply unhelpful. And what it's not doing, Cabinet Secretary, is allowing you to model the effects of the changes that you're going to bring into place in 2026. And that's just repeating the errors that Richard Lochhead made when he bought in his scheme, the revised scheme, in 2015. Deeply unhelpful. And I would also suggest that you probably haven't left yourself enough time to commission a new software programme on the basis that it takes a long time to do that, and the last one cost you over £200 million to do. So some of the key questions that I think the agricultural policy will need to deliver is, will you protect the budget? That's a question. Will you support LFA's, I think you need to? Will all farmers have the ability to apply for all payments in all tiers? Will you make conditionality progressive and not regressive? And will you allow that conditionality payments to be applied for by all farmers? And will you make food security a cornerstone of your policy? And if the answer is no to any of these questions, you are going to fail. Presiding Officer, I'm really deeply concerned that we still don't know the full extent of the Government's farming policy. Since 2016, we've had debate after debate, report after report, task force after task force. And the one thing that we haven't come up with is a full and detailed policy. Farmers are resilient, but how does the Government expect farmers to improve our food security and meet the climate change targets if they don't even know what they're going to be doing in two years' time? It sadly appears to me that this Cabinet Secretary, when she inherited the portfolio from Fergus Ewing, also inherited his amazing ability to dither and delay. And my message that is repeated by farmers across the country, farmers that I meet and talk to regularly, is that we need to get on with it if we're going to deliver our net zero targets. And Cabinet Secretary, unfortunately, until you get on with it, farmers can't get on with it. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Thank you, Mr Mountain. I just remind all members that references to you in a debate are references to me, and I'm responsible really for whatever has been said this afternoon, at least I sincerely hope not. So I now on that note call Jenny Minto to be followed by Emma Harper, Ms Minto. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Last week, the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee is part of its pre-legislative scrutiny for the agricultural bill to take evidence from members of ARIOB. And I'm going to start by quoting Kate Rowell, a farmer. Oh, sorry, thank you. I'll just continue. She shows the willingness and commitment to farmers and crofters across Scotland to ensure that they play their part in cutting emissions, mitigating climate change and restoring and enhancing nature and biodiversity. She said, I am here as a member of the ARIOB, representing Quality Meet Scotland, but I'm also a farmer, and it's really important to get across that every single farmer I know wants to improve their farm for future generations. I am a fifth generation farmer. We're all in this for the long term, and by that I mean centuries. We absolutely do not want to be making things worse. After my family, my farm is the thing that I love the most in the entire world, and it's really important to me that it's left in a really good way for my children. If farming is what they want to do, most farmers feel the same way and we need to support them in doing that. Ms Rowell's sentiments are voiced across Scotland and very much by the farmers and crofters of Argyll and Bute 10 days. I was invited, along with Donald Cameron, who I spotted coming into the chamber for a week while, and I was going to use that as an example of cross-party working together. We met with farmers and crofters from Argyll and Bute from the NFUS Argyll and the Isles to hear their concerns about agriculture. I should let the cabinet secretary know that, as a result of this meeting, she'll be receiving a letter in the next day or so on some of the questions and suggestions as to how some of their concerns could be mitigated. It's clear when I speak to farmers and crofters that they recognise the importance of sustainability, sustainability of farms, of food production and of communities, and work has begun supported by the Scottish Government. The Nature-Friendly Farming Network has successfully held a number of meetings in Argyll and Bute. They've told me of the success of meetings held on Islay as part of the supporting biodiversity within island-based farming and crofting. Participants included crofters, tenant farmers, owner farmers and estates. The group allows our farmers to share ideas celebrating what they have achieved and upskill through peer-to-peer experience. I'm pleased to say that Islay is also the home of one of the nine monitor farms in Scotland. These are a farmer-led, farmer-driven initiative and aim to improve profitability, productivity and sustainability of farms through practical demonstrations, sharing best practice and the discussion of up-to-date issues. Cragans Farm, run by Craig Archibald and his family, has 220 suckler cows, 200 store cattle, 1,000 ews and around 1,100 lambs. The farm also has 20 hectares producing barley for one of the local distilleries and 10 hectares of forage rape. The business has also diversified into oyster farming and an on-farm cafe has just opened. For Mr Archibald, the monitor farm programme isn't just about him and his business, but something for the farming community on the island. He says, by the end of the programme, I'd like to be better informed and the farm more profitable. As for the island, I hope it will attract interest from other farmers and inspire some of the younger generations. I know that already other farms are linking in with Craigans Farm as part of the monitor farm project. Farms sustain people, but they also sustain communities. Schools, shops, medical practices, tourism and quality produce all rely on our successful farmers and drafters. I know that all our Gailangute farmers feel very strongly about that. At the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee evidence session two weeks ago, Chris Stark from the Climate Challenge Committee said in response to a question from me, farmers know their land better than anyone else. That is key in what we are trying to achieve by giving farmers the incentive to use their knowledge in new ways. On that note, I'd like to summarise some of the comments that I've heard from our Gailangute farmers and drafters. They feel that it's essential that the agriculture bill recognises the role of farmers, both as food producers and custodians of nature, and stressed that it should note the importance of agriculture in maintaining rural populations. There is also a strong view that the ELFAS payments that Edward Mountain and others have mentioned should be rebased to reflect the current situation on farms, which would particularly help new entrants. They also emphasise that those payments can't be conditional as they are as important, if not more important than the tier one payments to some farmers. Of course. I thank Jenny Minter for taking the intervention. A few weeks ago at the committee, we heard from crofters who were opposed to having the whole farm plan within tier one because of the bureaucracy. I just wondered if she had sympathy with that sentiment. Jenny Minter. I think that that's an interesting question to ask. Because I have both farmers and crofters in my constituency, it's really important that the Scottish Government, and I know that they are doing this, listens to both types of farmer or crofter to ensure that the right solution is provided for them. I also think that it's very clear that crofters have maintained a way of working for centuries that has been custodians of the land as well as producing food, and that's the kind of farming and crofting that we are looking to uphold. I may continue. There's also an on-going concern about slurry storage. For example, getting planning permissions and the viability and price of units are also concerning farmers, and the timeframe enabled to claim the grants for these. The cabinet secretary and the minister, I know, are aware of this and I'd appreciate further conversations with them on this topic. Others have, and I will as well, mentioned local infrastructure with a particular focus on abattoirs. Now, this ties into the important work, as Karen Adam spoke about, that the Scottish Government has undertaken through the Good Food Nations Act, and would be another boost in reducing our food miles. Finlay Carson. Finlay Carson. Will the member join me to raise concerns about the lack of any progress with the Good Food Nation? We were given a commitment that the secondary legislation would be drawn up alongside the bill, but, as I've been made aware, there's been little progress on the national plan. I'm concerned that that sets the standard for how we will see secondary legislation with regard to agricultural policy. I don't recognise that, because I represent a constituency that is already looking at how the Good Food Nation can. The member is speaking to me from a sedentary position, I'm afraid I can't hear what he said, but I have great confidence that the Good Food Nation will become an integral part of our legislative process. Farmers and crofters welcome the opportunity to co-develop the Scottish Agricultural Bill, and I support the Scottish Government's calls on the UK Government to fulfil its outstanding commitments to fully replace EU funds and to engage meaningfully on future agricultural funding. As the cabinet secretary has said, it is this long-term investment that our farmers and crofters need to allow them to plan into the future. To finish, farmers and crofters don't just sustain the people who eat their produce, they sustain an entire network of communities across the length and breadth of rural Scotland. Those communities need successful farmers and crofters. In fact, the entire community of Scotland needs successful farmers and crofters. Thank you, Ms Minto. I now call Emma Harper, who will be the last speaker in the open debate. Ms Harper. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I welcome this debate and the Scottish Government's future for the vision of agriculture. As always, I welcome the briefings from the National Farmers Union in Scotland and Scottish land in the States. It is of paramount importance that we hear from the voices of the industry in these debates. Scotland's farmers are the backbone of our nation. Thousands of jobs are provided and supported across the whole of our country. As colleagues have said, farmers produce our food for our dinner tables and they are the custodians of our land. I agree that it is absolutely vital that any future agricultural policy recognises the contribution of our farmers to Scottish society, to the health of our nation and to our national food security. With Brexit, the pandemic and now rising inflation, this period has seen some of the most challenging times that the sector has ever faced. We know that there has been a catalogue of failures from the UK Government to protect the interests of Scottish farmers. One example again is Brexit, but there have also been the UK Government's abject failure to secure trade deals that protect our own agrifood sector. Indeed, our food standards across the UK have been put at risk due to recent trade deals and I have raised this previously in chamber. Despite the challenges, our farmers and crofters must be commended for their resilience and the Scottish Government is determined to support them over the next few years. Part of the Government's vision for agriculture is supporting our agricultural sector to reduce emissions and to help the sector. It is doing that in Scotland's fight against the global climate emergency. Approximately 50 per cent of emissions in the agricultural sector do come from livestock. However, it is important that the Scottish Government support the farmers to adopt the low-carbon technologies that currently exist, as well as those that become available in the future through technological advances. Those are the advances that I would like to focus on. Yes, I will give way. Finlay Carson. You talked about how important that the livestock sector is. Would the member give us a guarantee that she will lobby to ensure that the livestock numbers in Scotland do not decrease and we don't reach that critical mass which makes it unviable? We heard Chris Stark suggesting that we need to reduce livestock numbers. Do you ensure that the Government does not listen to that and that we find other methods of retaining the number of cattle we have and sheep in Scotland? Finlay Carson for that intervention. I know that there might be choices that farmers might need to make in order to reduce their livestock given their own choice. I would be interested to follow that further and see where we are. We heard from Chris Stark in the committee about some of the challenges in areas such as Alistair Allans region, which is peatland, and some of the challenges of farming on some of those areas. The whole Scotland-wide focus is not one that fits for every part of our area across Scotland. We have a diverse farming across the whole of our country and we need to take that into consideration when we are looking at our future agricultural policy. I would like to focus again and go back to the advances that I wanted to focus on on the technological advances and many of our advances can and do support wider environmental goals. That includes the use of precision farming techniques to reduce the need for pollutant fertilisers or pesticides so that we can support biodiversity. The new biological advances cover a range of areas including feed additives directed at reducing emissions like methane. There is remote sensing technology and associated monitoring of data gathering and analysis that also support our farmers to make the best emission reduction decisions. Moreover, the technology source from non-agricultural sectors, for example, digital ledgers, which are tools used to track and manage supply chains, business finance and information sharing are also helpful for agricultural businesses. 3G printing is also emerging as a tool to help farmers to reduce emissions. I was invited to the Borders College at Hoyt campus on Monday where I heard about the green potential of 3G printing and also the other excellent techniques that are being taken forward to develop green skills in the future. I have been particularly interested in the role of bioscience in improving agricultural efficiency and in reducing emissions. Products such as pro-soil, pro-fortis, biosell, biosell agri and bovair work hand in hand to support increasing output while reducing emissions. I am impressed with some of the products that apply natural methods to enhance the cell walls and plants, for instance, which improve disease resistance, improve mineral uptake and enhance soil quality for other products, however. I will, if I have time, Presiding Officer. Yes, thank you. I thank the member for giving well. Increasing production is really important, and I think that we all agree with that. It is also ensuring that the animal in the case of livestock has got off the farmers quickly and into the food chain as possible. We have the strange system where a lot of animals now, beef animals, are ready at 11 months, but under the Scottish quality assurance scheme, they cannot leave the farm until they are 12 months old because they cannot sell to Scottish beef. It is not good for the environment, not good for the farmers. Do you think that the minister should be changing those sorts of rules as well? Yes. I definitely agree that these are things that we should be looking at, because the products that I am talking about that may help to improve the weight gain of beef cattle or sheep, for instance, means that they are on the land less time. I think that it is something that should be considered at least because, as you described, having the cattle on farm for a month, which may not be necessary, is something that we probably should be thinking about. I wanted to touch on, Presiding Officer, if I have time, about dairy research that is happening with the dairy nexus project at the Barney campus in Dumfries and Galloway, and research conducted by Huma Climent that shows that if you improve the welfare of the animals, you can improve the milk yield by up to a litre every 24 hours, which is about 21,000 extra litres of milk a month if an average dairy herd size is 700 whole steams. I would be interested to hear from the Cabinet Secretary whether the Scottish Government could explore financially supporting farmers to introduce evidence-based welfare measures like extra brushes and mats for the cattle because that evidence has shown that you can have increased output with not necessarily increased input. I think that I will be at right out of time. Further, I would like to conclude by saying that the Scottish Government does have serious concerns about the internal market act that affects our ability to make decisions in Scotland and it is impeding on the devolved aspects of agriculture. In closing, I would like to look forward to the Cabinet Secretary's response and I think I will leave it there. Presiding Officer. Thank you, Ms Harper. We will now move to closing the savings. Finlay Carson to wind up on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives around seven minutes. Please, Mr Carson. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Today we have had the opportunity to once again hear how agriculture can and will play a key role in combating climate change and reversing biodiversity loss. As someone coming from generations of farmers and as a former beef and dairy farmer, I, with a couple of notable exceptions, am more than most in the chamber able to confidently say that it is a challenge that the industry relishes. I say that because it is a challenge that farmers and generations of land managers have faced for many, many years and provided the sector is given sufficient, properly targeted funding and meaningful support and more than confident that the agriculture industry can deliver for the environment, for climate change and biodiversity while ensuring security in terms of healthy food and healthy rural communities. Regrettably and to the detriment of farmers and the environment, the SNP have been too slow in preparing our future agricultural system. Sadly, its route map fails to provide the certainty that farmers need. Farmers and crofters need to be given greater clarity sooner rather than later and any further delay will cause more long-term damage to our agriculture sector and risk us as a nation reaching our ambitious climate change targets. Those views on the snail's pace or progress from this Government are not only mine. They are shared by Chris Stark from the CCC and Farmer Andrew Moy who in his contribution to the Rural Affairs Committee on a couple of weeks ago said, and I quote, the arable sector is in grave danger of leaving the Scottish Government way behind. That is where we are. We are at the top of the curve compared to the Scottish Government which is down at the bottom. We are leaving the Scottish Government way behind on things that we are doing. I do not want to make that point. The Scottish Government is in danger of losing any control of farming. If you rightly insist that food production must be at the heart of future agriculture policy, it cannot be denied that the sector is absolutely committed to long-term sustainable food production, helping to tackle climate change and enhancing biodiversity. There is already a great amount of work under way to buy many farmers to deliver in those areas We hear the Government say that it is important to work with the sector and get it right. That I do agree with, but there is a time for Government to make its position clear. A recent NFU survey, its members remained worried about uncertainty surrounding future agricultural policy. While the route map is welcome, they say there is a greater urgency required surrounding more information on how it will be delivered. Last night in Parliament, representatives from Farming 1.5 set out their 2021 reports recommendations. That is a report published two years ago. It was packed full of policies that could have started being delivered two years ago. Its focus was on all the stuff we already know works and can be delivered. Not on the magic stuff that this Government will now need to reach net zero by 2045. We are two years behind and two years closer to the climate and biodiversity cliff edge that we have been reminded of. We have the national test programme and pilot schemes for soil testing, carbon audit and even 250 pounds for animal health support. It is welcome, but these Government interventions have been totally inadequate. Of the current net zero measures and funding, one chair of the farmer-led group Jim Walker said, and I again quote, the only word that I can use to describe them is embarrassing. We are sampling with undefined outcomes, a carbon audit for farms that we are not quite sure what they will do with it once they have it, and animal health and welfare plan, which is interesting, because we have been doing it for years. Will the member give way on that point? I certainly would. Edward Mountain. I thank the member for giving way. Having been one of those people that was employed to draw up those schemes and knowing the costs of drawing the schemes and doing those audits, does he share my concern that farmers will lose more money in employing surveyors and such like to draw up their plans than they will actually get in ground? Absolutely. I agree, and there are concerns that future agriculture policy must be clear enough that we don't need a consultant at the kitchen table to work your way through it and ensuring that you are doing the right thing and maximising the benefits that will help your business. The Government's failure to introduce adequate schemes and adequately promote them is indeed embarrassing, but the one word that is repeatedly stated as missing is outcomes. The Government has completely failed to let farmers know what the outcomes and expectations of the national test programmes are to be. The desired outcomes for the national test programme are so far undefined and it is totally unacceptable this late in the game. It is a sign that the Scottish Government is simply treading water and playing lip service because they still don't know what they are going to do. Martin Kennedy, the NFU president, said, if we get a future policy for agriculture wrong and listen to the ideology of those who cannot see the wider picture then we will go in a backward direction. Given the challenges that Scottish agriculture faces at this time, you would think that any politician is champion at the bit to come up with Scottish solutions to tackle the problem that farmers are facing. I can tell you now, we on these benches are champion at the bit and ready to scrutinise and hold this Government to account. Like all of the agriculture sector we are being frustrated in our work because we are currently working on a vacuum of information and even a firm idea of the direction of travel that policies to deliver a new agricultural support system will take. I will give way. Emma Harper. I was at one of the evidence sessions just a couple of weeks ago as a substitute and one of the things we heard was there are some data that's missing that might help us to figure out better approaches like the uptake of some of these products that I'm talking about. There isn't a lot of data around that. Do you think that that's something that might need to be worked on as well? Finlay Carson. I welcome that intervention. That's absolutely clear. We do have soil testing in carbon audits that are independent of the Government schemes which are not feeding in to give us a fuller picture. So in some ways the Scottish Government are working blind in developing these policies despite six years of discussions with the farming sector. In March 2022 the Scottish Government set out its vision for Scottish agriculture. The basis of the plan for what would form the current farm funding model which will end in 2025. In February we have heard the cabinet secretary revealed the agriculture reform route map covering 39 measures which potentially would be included in the enhanced tier of the new funding model. However, details are still short and the Government has still not released the details of the consultation that have held regarding agriculture bill. The cabinet secretary did however say that the results would be available later in spring. But every month we wait is another month lost. The route map is clearly too little too late but it didn't have to be this way. As well as a hugely helpful and deliverable actions as highlighted in the farming for 1.5 report and there's a whole list of interventions that could be taken we could have been doing two years ago. We have a climate friendly scheme for suckler beef and it was created years ago as well in 2021 by the farmer-led groups which were established to develop advice and proposals to the Scottish Government on how to cut emissions and tackle climate change but they've been sidelined by the Government. What a missed opportunity. Some of those policies are now being used in Ireland to deliver carbon neutral beef. We see it very similar schemes in Australia where carbon neutral beef is actually on sale on the shelves right now. What a opportunity we should have gras that with both hands. The farming industry is desperate to invest and protect not only our food security but our biodiversity and climate goals. However, we need a Government not only to listen to the industry because they say they do that a lot but they actually need to commit to act but with urgency on what they hear from the industry to ensure we achieve our collective aims and ambitions. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Thank you. I call on Mary Gougeon to wind up. Nine minutes are there about, Cabinet Secretary. Thank you, Presiding Officer. There is an awful lot to cover in the closing today and an awful lot of points that I want to touch on. An important points that have been raised through the discussion today. First, I want to say that I'm really grateful to members across the chamber for their contributions today. A lot of really passionate contributions too, which I think shows just how important we consider all of these issues to be. The continued success of our agricultural sector matters to all of us here. It's clear that we all recognise the essential role that our industry has in driving the rural economy and contributing to our nation's food security and in enabling it the realisation of our world-leading climate and nature restoration outcomes. I set out in my introductory remarks this afternoon. This Government has a positive vision for the future. One with our producers right at its core, one that recognises the duty that's owed to them from our nation and one that supports them to produce high-quality food while delivering for climate and nature restoration. I will reiterate the clear path set out to how we will deliver that future in partnership with our industry and with all who are committed to that vibrant and thriving rural Scotland. It's my intention to introduce a new Scottish agricultural bill this year, one that will provide the powers in the four-tier framework to deliver our vision for agriculture. Last month I set out the agriculture reform on a route map showing that we are taking action now, providing the industry with more of that clarity and confidence on the key steps towards that coherent framework. I think that we also need to be clear that it is a coherent framework and one that's being co-developed with partners to deliver our vision and one that comes together through the whole farm plan, a tool that we will co-design with the industry to help our farmers and crofters better and more sustainably plan their businesses. I also just want to take a moment to commit again that there will be no cliff edge for farmers and crofters in Scotland and reiterate that this Government will maintain direct payments to ensure that we are supporting our nation's producers. I welcome the opportunity to turn to some of the comments that were made across the chamber today. There were just a couple of quick points that I wanted to address firstly. Finlay Carson talked about delays in the Good Food Nation and I know that the plans were criticised in another contribution by Oliver Mundell. I just want to emphasise that there isn't a delay but I'd be happy to write to Mr Carson in his role as convener of the Rural Affairs Committee with information on the timescales and setting that out if that would be helpful. There were also a lot of really thoughtful contributions today across the chamber from Beatrice Wishart, Alistair Allyn, Jim Fairlie even Edward Mountain to a certain extent I'll give him. I really welcomed the interventions from Brian Whittle. I know he weren't safe in part in the debate today but through your interventions because I don't disagree with what you're trying to do or the points that you'd raised. When I talked about the Good Food Nation plans it's because they will tie together all these vitally important threads of food policy and bring that together in the one place and show how we will monitor and track progress against what we set out there. Emma Harper also put a really important focus on technology and innovation and I want to make sure that I come back to that point in my contribution today. Rachel Hamilton in her contribution touched a lot on the funding element and talked about enabling farmers to do what they need to do and I would just emphasise that that is exactly what we are currently trying to do and support going forward. The member talked about slurry storage and the budget for that and how that had come up in evidence that the committee had heard. I would have loved to have put more funding into that capital budget for the agricultural transformation fund this year but there's no getting around it. Since we left the EU not only do we not have certainty of funding going forward we're not getting that full replacement of EU funds that we were promised and not only are we not getting full replacement of funds, we're only getting that replacement in resource funding I would just like to finish this point first because it is important before I take that intervention we're not only not getting the full replacement of funds, we're only getting that replacement of funding and instead of a mixture of capital and resource funding that we previously received. What that has meant is that I've had to make incredibly difficult choices in capital terms in relation to the capital budget such as what we can offer to assist with slurry storage and another announcement made just last month was about the restricted aches round, again a really difficult decision to make and that's not where I or I think anybody else in this chamber would want us to be in relation to that but sorry I'll come back to the member and take that intervention now Rachel Hamilton I don't recognise the cabinet secretary's argument because the Scottish Government have had the highest block grant ever plus the cabinet secretary has considerable latitude to make devolved decisions within the competence of the Scottish Government plus I would like to know what she will do in her role as cabinet secretary for rural affairs with the Barnett consequentials that Jeremy Hunt has announced today of £320 million will she put that towards aches funding or rural affairs? If we are getting full replacement of EU funds and it's going to where it needs to go of course I would spend that within my portfolio but the fact is we haven't had the full replacement of EU funds and our budget has been continually eroded and these are all points that are covered when it appears in front of the committee I think it's also important that I'm funding to touch on a point that Oliver Mundell had raised I welcome that he welcomed and recognised the importance of ELFAS he was very critical of the decisions taken by this Government but it's only because of the decisions of this Government that we still have ELFAS payments in Scotland and we've been able to maintain them at the current level there was also a lot of talk around trade and food security and again when it comes back to Oliver Mundell and his contribution and some of the other contributions we heard today where members would just like to gloss over Brexit and act like it didn't happen gloss over the trade deals and pretend that they haven't had an impact on our industry and while Mr Mundell was keen to talk up the benefits to the whisky industry and trade deals while being silent on the impact to our farmers and food producers who will be completely undermined by cheaper imports down the line I'd be happy to Finlay Carson There are fears that some of the policies that our green colleagues might want to implement in Scotland will see us offshoring much of our food production and maybe at that point you'll welcome the trade deals in New Zealand and Australia because that may be the only way we can actually get beef and be into this country because we're going to offshore it How it's only the Tories in Scotland that will be welcome in those trade deals because even members of their own party down south have said how they pretty much sold our farmers and food producers on the river and I'll come back to that the DEFRA Secretary of State doesn't even agree that those deals worked for farmers of course he only said that after he left post where he was actually quoted as saying we did not actually need to give full liberalisation of beef and sheep because it's not in our national interests and we also have more trade deals coming down the pipeline no sorry I do need to make progress we have more trade deals coming down the pipeline we have Mexico amongst deals with many others we have no guarantees that our producers are going to be protected through any of that and why would they be because no doubt other countries will be looking for the similar concessions that have already been given to Australia as well as being given to New Zealand I do want to touch on some other really important areas today and focus for a moment on Alastair Allans I do just need to make some progress I want to focus on Alastair Allans contribution and the really important focus on crofting that he talked about and Beatrice Wishart touched on this too as well as Edward Mountain in one of his interventions Crofting does have a really unique role in our nation through the social contribution it makes to our remotest communities and through the examples of high nature value farming which Mr Allan touched on and why I will continue to invest in our crofters just this week I announced that I'd be increasing the grant rate for home improvements under the Croft House grant from 40 per cent to 60 per cent with a maximum grant of £38,000 and last year the Scottish Government awarded more than £850,000 in Croft House grant funding and since we launched that in 2007 more than £24.2 million has been awarded to over 1,100 families and individuals in rural and island communities From April 2020 to October 2022 we also saw over 1,000 new entrants into crofting each of those representing a new or continued member of the local community 42 per cent were island crofters and over 40 per cent were female and over 25 per cent were under 41 years of age and I think that those figures give that real optimism for the future and I think also coming back to points that were raised by Edward Mountain when they talked about crofting law reform and the need for this I don't disagree with that, they're right that's why I committed to that and I'm still committed to that and the crofting bill group has been continuing to work and develop the proposals for that legislation going forward so I hope he will welcome that when it's introduced another really important point coming back to Emma Harper's contribution about technology and what Jenny Minto focused on in relation to investment in innovation and Jenny Minto talked in her contribution about the really important role of monitor farms and the fact that there's now going to be one on Islay we of course have supported monitor farms there are knowledge transfer and innovation fund and last October I announced seven new projects oh yes I thank the cabinet secretary I wonder if the cabinet secretary could offer some clarity around the way that crofters can benefit from carbon credits and in conclusion cabinet secretary sorry if you could respond to begin to draw your remarks to close yes I will I mean I could just reiterate to the member that we're continuing to develop all our policies in alignment with and working with our farmers and crofters to ensure that we get this right in a way that delivers for rural Scotland and I do just want to emphasise just how important some of the networks we have are the monitor farm network agriculture biodiversity climate change network integrating trees network which are really showcasing some of the best practice that's taken place right across Scotland and I would really encourage farmers and crofters to engage with these and look at what's happening and in conclusion and drawing to close Presiding Officer change is a constant that our farmers and crofters have always shown creativity about and resilience to and all that I've covered today and all that I've committed towards supporting is in that context our vision for agriculture is positive it seeks to enable our producers to continue to thrive and to contribute to our nation's food security to support them in ways as we do already that allow them to better manage changing market expectations and production realities and also in ways that recognise that agriculture does have a crucial part to play in tackling the climate and nature emergencies farming and producing food in ways that support climate outcomes agriculture isn't just a future it's the only future and our approach of working with our industry won't change and it ensures what we build together can be delivered and again I'm clear it ensures that there are no cliff edges for our producers through delivery of our new framework continuing to work with the real experts who are our farmers and crofters I'm confident that we can deliver what I know all of us across the chamber want to see a resilient, a sustainable and a profitable industry to deal with the challenges we face now as well as in the future thank you that concludes the debate on delivering the Scottish Government's vision for agriculture through the agricultural reform route map it's now time to move on to the next item of business and I'm minded to accept a motion without notice under rule 11.2.4 of standing orders that decision time be brought forward to now and I invite the minister for parliamentary business to move the motion thank you the question is that decision time be brought forward to now are we all agreed we are and there are two questions to be put as a result of today's business the first is the amendment 8212.1 in the name of Rachel Hamilton which seeks to amend motion 8212 in the name of Mary Gougeon on delivering the Scottish Government's vision for agriculture through the agricultural reform route map be agreed are we all agreed the Parliament is not agreed therefore we'll move to vote and there'll be a short suspension to allow members to access digital voting