 room quènwch? The final item of business is members business debate on motion gave all to me in the name of Mari Gougeon on the leader programme. The debate will be concluded without any questions being put and I would ask those who wish to press the request to speak buttons. Mary Gougeon, flowch i chi i gael eu peth ar y ysgol dweud? I'm really glad to be able to host this debate tonight, to focus on an issue that affects all our rural communities and that is the future of the leader programme. I'd really just like to start by providing some of the background as to how this programme evolved. Leader is a French acronym which I will attempt to pronounce. Hopefully, I won't put my French family to shame, which stands for liaison entre actions de développement de l'economie rural and translates to English as links between the rural economy and development actions. Leader comes under the common agricultural policy, where pillar 1 deals with the direct support to farmers, leader falls under pillar 2, which relates to wider rural development. The purpose of leader is to be a bottom-up grassroots method of delivering support to our rural communities, encouraging businesses, individuals and community groups to bring forward projects that drive action on climate change, enhance rural services and facilities, including transport initiatives, enhance natural and cultural heritage, tourism and leisure, support food and drink initiatives and build co-operation with other local action groups across Scotland, UK and in Europe. The programme was first launched 25 years ago and initially involved just 217 regions with a focus on disadvantaged rural areas. The results from those regions were positive and encouraging and so the leader method was mainstreamed as a fundamental part of the EU's rural development policy. By 2013, the programme covered 2,402 rural territories across the member states. So, what is so effective and innovative about the leader method? Prior to the early 1990s, different approaches to supporting vulnerable rural communities were tried out, but those were typically sectoral, aimed at farming and were a top-down approach with schemes and funding that are desired at the regional or national level. The effectiveness and innovation of leader comes from the principle of the bottom-up and area-based approach involving the local community, community-led local development. The decision-making process is driven by local action groups, made up of those who represent the social and economic interests of a local area and who represent both public and private bodies. Those groups then assess and decide on the projects that they feel fit the priorities to be pursued in their local areas. So, what has leader delivered? In the last programme funding period from 2007 to 2013, leader awarded £92 million to more than 2,500 projects. That created more than 1500 jobs in local communities and helped more than 60,000 people from rural areas into training. For every £1 awarded, leader leveraged in an extra £1.38 through match funding, and that is set to be even higher in the current programme that runs until 2020. However, what is so great about the fund is the sheer breadth and variety of the projects in our rural communities that it has helped to support. In the current programme period, the 21 local action groups across rural Scotland have helped to deliver through leader, glamping pods, artisan tea, apple orchards, the five-pilgrim way, converting derelict outdoor pools into caving spaces, jazz on the locks, equestrian tourism, outdoor nurseries for children, cycling hubs, a project that introduces young children to aeroplane design, and that is just to name a few. In my constituency of Angus North and Merns, leader has been worth £2.7 million to Angus and £2.8 million to South Aberdeenshire, and it has contributed to the Caledonian railway based in Brechen to help to fund a replacement station building at Bridge of Dun. It has provided funding towards new mobile cinema equipment for Brechen community cinema, and it has helped the Merton Trust and Forfer to create a centre for developing rural skills. I hope that I am not stealing Graham Day's thunder here and that he will not mind me mentioning this too much. That is also a very deliberate ACDC reference for any budding fans or those of you paying attention. It helped to support DD8, which is a youth music project in Cary Muir. It was in the last funding period, but it helped to find premises to set up their own recording studio. From that, the group was able to grow and they now organised one of the biggest festivals in the north-east, Bonfest, which this year is happening in the first weekend in May. I will re-invite the cabinet secretary to it again this year, as I did the last time that this was raised. However, in 2016, that event pulled in over 5,000 visitors and it had an estimated economic impact of £403,000. That is huge for the local economy. Leader continues to evolve and innovate. I have spoken before in this chamber about the Angus Council crowdfunding platform and the funding team behind it, which is dedicated to improving community capacity. Crowdfund Angus now works in synergy with the Angus leader programme. 50 per cent of the crowdfunding target can now be provided through the local leader programme for those projects that seek to reduce inequalities, support better connectivity or create first-class community facilities, all underpinned by the desire for stronger local economies. Leader has delivered such a hugely diverse and impressive list of projects. That is why it is imperative that we ensure as far as possible that, post Brexit, we develop policies and funding programmes that support the same innovation and creativity that in turn supports our rural communities. Now to the real crux of the matter. What now? There are no concrete proposals as to what will replace this element of rural development funding. The only hint that we have is from the Conservative manifesto, where a UK-wide shared prosperity fund was raised, where its proposed that money spend will help to deliver sustainable inclusive growth based on a modern industrial strategy, which will allegedly involve extensive consultation with devolved administrations, local authorities, businesses and public bodies. However, as far as I am aware, the process has not started. With just over a year to go until Brexit and two years until the leader programme comes to an end, that is a big concern. I wanted to hold this debate on leader tonight because, among the myriad of EU funds that have drawn attention and where there are various campaigns, that one needs to get the focus and the attention that it deserves. That is why I really want to thank the East of Scotland European consortium for taking the lead in looking at this issue alongside the local action groups and for all the briefing information in this debate that they help to provide. Leader needs to be recognised for the positive impact that it has had on communities across Scotland. As of January this year, 914 projects had applied for funding across the 21 local action groups. The value of leader commitment was £25 million, with a value in match funding of £37.5 million. The sad thing about the Brexit process is that it is only by going through it that we can fully appreciate what we have right now and what we are going to lose. We cannot afford to lose this programme without a rural development strategy that will work for our communities and work on the same bottom-up principle in its place. That needs to be developed by working with the local action groups, with local authorities and those who work to deliver the funding on the ground and who therefore know it best. I hope that we can all unite in that message tonight and that each one of us work to ensure, as far as we possibly can, that in the Brexit process our rural communities do not get left behind. Can I, first of all, ask those in the public gallery to refrain from clapping their hands or booing or any such thing? I will now move to the open debate. A lot of speakers wish to speak, so if we can be quite tight on that, please, four-minute speeches. Graham Day, followed by Peter Chapman. Presiding Officer, thank you. It is entirely understandable, perhaps, given where the balance lies, that debate around what will replace the cap has focused on farm payments. Indeed, given how much of the money that is concerned is distributed through pillar 1 and the fact that farming has a powerful lobbying voice, that was perhaps inevitable, but pillar 2 does so much more than just supporting farming activity. It provides for the environment, rural communities and the wider rural economy. I very much welcome tonight's debate on the leader programme and I congratulate Mary Gougeon on securing it. I have seen close-up in my constituency the good that leader does. The Angus leader fund 2014-2020 totals just over £2 million. To date, in the region of £1.25 million, it has supported 23 projects across the county and it has anticipated that the remaining £800,000 will be snapped up by the autumn of this year. We are at the point already where new inquiries are being turned away. That is how popular leader is. Let me offer just a few current examples of what the fund has supported in my constituency of Angus south. It is back to Frecom Community Hub project, in which the old Eastgate primary is being developed, and it is a fantastic focal point for the village, to the tune of almost £138,000. While Clashy Equestrian and Kerry Muir received £200,000 towards helping to tackle an undersupply in the local bunkhouse market, almost £20,000 went to support the development of Scottish artisan tea growers, a collaborative that works across a number of areas. Two glamping projects between them attracted support totaling £40,000. Inca village hall received £2,500 to develop a website supporting its role as a resilience centre. Ogovi vodka, one of several burgeoning food and drink businesses in Angus south, were awarded £125,000 for a visitor centre and tasting experience. East Haven Alive were awarded £4,000 to hold their Angus littering summit, which I was pleased to speak at. Muirhead and Burkhill millennium hall received more than £55,000 to support car parking improvements for the community. Tourism, community activity, food and drink, environmental projects, all things that matter to rural constituencies such as mine, all supported by leader. As I use Frecom hub in the millennium and Inca halls for surgeries and have worked with Ogovi vodka and the tea growers, I know just how important that support has been. However, as evidenced by the fact that Angus leader fund has now been to turn away applications, a continuing demand for such backing exists. A high take-up of leader funding is not just confined to Angus however, it is universally popular across Scotland. Through both direct funding and match funding, leader has injected a total of £223 million into Scotland's rural communities over the past 11 years. The sudden removal of funding structure of that magnitude would be devastating for communities, impactive on local facilities, infrastructure and, yes, ultimately, jobs. Just as farming needs certainty over funding post Brexit, so do Scotland's rural communities and businesses who are seeking clarity and assurance of what comes next for them. The UK Government of a duty is to step up and take serious action on behalf of those groups. While Westminster Conservatives have made passing comment on the construction of a new shared fund, it is unacceptable that Scotland's rural communities could be left with a serious gap in funding as a result of an incompetent negotiating team. The only option to avoid a potentially detrimental impact on communities and businesses is to ensure that a like-for-like funding alternative is in place by March 2018. As the cabinet secretary has made clear in his letter to the UK Government this week, Scotland must not in any way be worse off in respect to its funding allocations. I call Peter Chapman to be followed by Joan McAlpine. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I remind members of my register of interest as regards farming. I welcome this opportunity to debate the leader programme, which provides vital support for rural businesses and organisations. This programme is part of the EU CAP scheme that is delivered on that pillar 2. I intend to widen the debate out to cover all support for farming and rural businesses in general. I agree with much of what Marie Gougeon says in her motion. I believe that the leader programme has delivered excellent high-quality projects. It is unique in the way that funding is well targeted because local action groups are at the heart of deciding which projects get funding. Local action groups are made up of individuals, local enterprises and communities who understand their area and its needs and can therefore make wise decisions on which projects deserve support. They then guide the project through the application process and supervise it through to completion. In my region, there has been a positive impact for projects due to leader funding from the North Aberdeenshire local action group. One example meant that Adam Caravan, Park and Buchan are updating their existing facilities to include glamping pods, CCTV and Wi-Fi after receiving a £32,000 grant in leader funding. That is helping to attract more visitors to the area and to boost the local community. CC Powell limited an agricultural machinery dealership based in Banff to secure £100,000 of leader funding, completing their project to construct a store and a parts building and a retail outlet to secure their workshop needs. Upon completion in 2017, that has created new jobs in the area. Finally, in my own home village of Strichen, leader funding of over £15,000 will see the Strichen townhouse open to the public after refurbishment as a library, museum and archive. In a small village like mine, that will be a fantastic space to bring the community together. I have highlighted that leader funding is important for rural businesses, communities and activity groups, so it is a good scheme. However, the responsibility does not lie with the UK Government to put a new scheme in place. DEFRA have made it clear. I quote, We will maintain the same cash total funding for the rural sector until the end of this Parliament. That includes all EU and Exchequer funding provided for farm support under both pillar 1 and pillar 2 of the current CAP. That commitment applies to each part of the UK. The money is there. Michael Gove has made it abundantly clear that the Scottish rural support system will be designed and put in place by the Scottish Government to best suit Scotland's needs. He has been absolutely clear that he does not wish to become involved in that part, that, apart from agreeing high-level rules and regulations that we need to protect our internal UK single market. If Marie Gougeon wants to lead her scheme in place post Brexit, she needs to lobby her own Government ministers to come up with a plan. It is their responsibility and in their hands. Instead of this SNP Government planning for Brexit to fail to further their own political aims, they need to start listening to our rural communities and get on with the job of governing. Fergus Ewing, who is sitting here listening to this, must start giving some guidance on the new system of support, which our farmers and rural communities expect and deserve. Right now, he is failing them. John McAlpine, followed by Liam McArthur. I, too, would like to congratulate Marie Gougeon for securing tonight's timely debate on the leader programme. There has been a lot of attention paid to EU funds in recent years, given the Brexit situation. A lot of focus has been on the pillar 1 of CAP and common agricultural payments, but leader, as has already been said, is part of the pillar 2. It might be less well known in urban parts of Scotland, but it is equally important. Marie Gougeon and others across the chamber have laid out what leader is, so I will not go over the same ground. In Dumfriesen and Galloway, where I live, I wanted to draw attention to some particular projects. Leader has invested in excess of 10 million in communities across the region over the past 20 years. Leader funding has been invested in projects such as the Wigtown Book Festival in Scotland's booktown, which gives year-round support to literacy events in the region. Spring Fling, which is probably the biggest open studio event in the UK, the Dumfriesen and Galloway arts festival, which is another year-round festival, has put the region on the map as a leader in creativity. Those projects contribute greatly to the economy of the region. It is the initial investment by leader that has allowed those initiatives to grow and leave the region funding from other sources. Dumfriesen and Galloway received a shot of 5.6 million for the current leader programme, and half of that funding comes directly from the EU, with the Scottish Government match funding the other half. That was the third-largest allocation across Scotland, and since its launch in September 2015, it has supported 42 projects with grants in excess of 2.6 million. Those include community-led initiatives such as the Spyrrch Hall project near Dunsgwr, a small village, allowing the local community association to rebuild the village hall, which was destroyed by fire in 2013. It also supports rural business sectors such as the ninefold distillery project. The micro distillery will be set up in a renovated stone farm studying building on the dormant estate, increasing the diversity of income to the business and bringing new and skilled employment to rural Dumfriesen and Galloway. Importantly, in the year of young people, a leader funds a number of initiatives that support the youth of the region, including the bridge to employment, which helps young people with additional support needs into the world of work. The project aims to establish an alternative post-school progression route for young people in the Spyrrch area and other very rural areas. Those young people mostly have autism spectrum disorder. They have already gained national qualifications but require additional support to take the next step into work. Another project for young people is the upland creative network, which provides a platform in which people can consider employment opportunities in the creative industries. There are simply too many projects to mention in a four-minute speech, but I hope that that gives a flavour of the importance to leaders. In just one corner of rural Scotland, it has an enormous impact and the potential loss of this funding has been a recurring issue. It has arisen in several occasions in the European Parliament Committee, which I convene. I spoke in the continuity debate last week when we were discussing the timetable, and I quoted from my committee's report on the future of Scotland's relationship with the European Union and the fact that we said that powers that were devolved under the Scotland act should come straight back to this Parliament. It is important that that clause in the report also said that those devolved powers should come back accompanied by a funding mechanism that results in no detriment to Scotland. That is very important because we know that the cap funds Scotland gets far in excess of its population share of the cap funds. Despite what Mr Chapman said, we have not been given any indication as to how the UK Government plans to replace the shortfall in the funds. Are we going to go down the route of the Barnett formula? I am afraid that I do not have time. Are we going down the route of the Barnett formula? If we were, we would have an enormous shortfall in the amount of money that we receive. The UK Government has still given no indication as to the answers to those questions, and I have today written to the Secretary of State David Mundell to try to get clarity on those issues, because time is ticking. I have Liam McArthur, followed by Tom Arthur. Thank you very much indeed. I congratulate Mari Gougeau on her impressive strike rate in securing members' debates and following her hen harrier debate recently. I thank her for picking another that has a real resonance with my Orkney constituency. I can also pay tribute, as Mari Gougeau's motion does, to all the leader staff, including Fyllis Harveys, Orkney Annans Council and the local action groups across the country that put in such a colossal amount of work. Looking at the Orkney lag members, it pays testimony to the talents of a wide variety of individuals who give up their time to assist in this process, facilitating co-operation, supporting individuals, rural-based enterprises and communities across Scotland, the UK and indeed Europe. The tragedies of Brexit are manifold. I still believe that it is an act of self-harm on an epic scale. One area in particular where our participation in European integration over the decades has borne quiet but very profound dividends is in relation to rural development and wider structural funding support for our peripheral areas. It existed prior to us joining the common market in the mid-70s, but it was given impetus and ambition thereafter. With just over 12 months to go before Mrs May decides to pull the ripcord, sadly, what is to follow in terms of rural development, as in so many other areas, is yet unclear. For those of us representing rural and island communities, that is deeply concerning. Mari Gougeau has already spelled out how, over the past 25 years, leader has had the Heineken effect in community development across Scotland. In Orkney, it includes support for SMEs and social enterprise, as well as farm diversification. Orkney's crucial tourism, cultural heritage, crafts and food and drink sectors, community services and facilities, Orkney's natural environment and sustainable energy, as well as development of our fisheries sectors. In each of those areas, an array of initiatives from innovative fisheries-related research to skills training to improving access to natural heritage and tourism sites has been supported. All have benefited from leader and from the collaboration in genders with other partners, the council, the HIE, community councils and others. It is not to say that looking forward that improvements cannot be made. I think that there is an opportunity at this point to consider what works well, what needs to be preserved and what is perhaps in need of reform. I know from personal experience of watching my wife wrestling with the requirements of leader as part of a thankfully successful application for funding to allow the expansion of the Orkney fossil and heritage centre in Burry. That this can be a bureaucratic nightmare, and I seem to recall how using language it was a good deal less parliamentary than that, but it is true that potential applicants can be put off engaging with the programme. We need to bear in mind who actually is the target beneficiary. Many community groups are run by volunteers in their spare time. Bear in mind, too, what is the desired outcome from the funds that projects coming to fruition and leaving a lasting legacy within their communities? I think that there is scope to simplify the application process and guidance, making them more straightforward and less susceptible to constant change. To ensure also that penalties for errors are proportionate rather than punitive, a more intuitive IT system for applications and claims, which does not require leader staff to reset passwords, which is not always easy at evenings or over weekends when many applications are being put together. It also allows applicants to print off applications for discussion at committee meetings or attention by treasurers, which is not currently possible. We must continue with the grass-roots-led approach, which locally agrees strategies and decision-making on applications. Again, there is scope for more local control both over budgets and reallocation in response to changed local circumstances. Food for thought is about how we improve leader in future, but it is not in any doubt whatsoever that the need for this sort of support will remain whatever emerges from Brexit. I thank Mary Gougeon again for allowing the debate to take place. I look forward very much to seeing what Orkney-related topic she goes for next time. I thank my friend and colleague, Mary Gougeon, for securing this important debate on liaison, interaction and development on economic rural, otherwise known as leader. Leader is, of course, a community development scheme with funding by the European Union that has benefited many communities across Scotland, including in my constituency of Renfrewshire South. The Greater Renfrewshire and Inverclyde local action group, which is responsible for the delivery of leader in my area, takes in Renfrewshire, East Renfrewshire and Inverclyde local authority areas of the 17 different settlements covered by the Greater Renfrewshire and Inverclyde lag, seven fall within my Renfrewshire South constituency, Llechwynock, Kilbarcon, Howwood, Brookfield, Llynyd, Uplimwr and Neuston, with the Cree against area of Houston also included. The social and economic diversity of those areas reflects the wide range of communities that benefit from leader. With more than £2 million of funding, the Greater Renfrewshire and Inverclyde lag has been supporting jobs and initiatives within Renfrewshire South, such as the tag-and-tag project at Clyde Murshill regional park near Llechwynock. Through the use of satellite tags, the project allows children to track the movements of lesser black-backed gulls and barn owls using geographical information system technology. Previous projects in Renfrewshire have included supporting community groups and the restoration of a historic building. Analysis of the 2007 to 2013 programme highlights a number of other positive impacts, including the creation of over 150 volunteering opportunities, 130 training places, the safeguarding of 13 jobs and the creation of an additional three jobs. Just as important as the resources that are made available is also the way in which decisions are taken, the Greater Renfrewshire and Inverclyde lag's local development strategy for 2014 to 2020 was developed following extensive engagement with the local communities in Linwood, which was new to the lag area. A consultation meeting was held with members of the community, representatives of local groups and key agency stakeholders, which generated a range of ideas for projects that would meet the needs of the local community. It is telling of a range of communities that benefit from leader because Linwood is not what one would normally associate as being a rural community. In East Renfrewshire, the council undertook an online survey of interested parties, and such engagement means that the programmes of local action groups are effectively co-designed, contributing to our shared ambition to further empower our communities. It is clear to me that my constituents in the Renfrewshire south have benefited from leader, both in resources provided and in the opportunity to play a greater role in shaping their communities. Sadly, all of that is now under threat because of Brexit. Along with the majority of my constituents, in 2016, I voted to remain, yet now we stand to see communities in Renfrewshire south undermined by the potential loss of programme site leader, just as we see our local and national economies threatened because of fanatical hard-right Brexit ideologs in the UK Government and a few in here, too. If the UK Government is going to inflict this Brexit catastrophe upon us, it will have a duty to start setting out how it will compensate my constituents in Renfrewshire south and in many other communities across Scotland who currently benefit from leader. They have had nearly two years to get their act together on Brexit. The UK Government better start coming up with answers and better start coming up with them fast. Colin Smyth, followed by Stuart McMillan. Thank you to Mary Gougeon for tabling her motion. Along with Tom Arthur for explaining the leader acronym, which saves me trying to do it badly, this debate provides a great opportunity not only to highlight the excellent community-led work that is being supported by leader programmes across Scotland, but I also hope that it begins the discussion on how we ensure that this work and the best possible rural development support is maintained, whatever the final outcome of Brexit is. As we have already heard, leader funding provides support for a whole host of vital work in all our constituencies and regions. Inclusionally, it is led at a local level. It means that the specific nature of the projects can vary widely, but in doing so, leader provides local solutions to local problems and opportunities. That is the key to its success, as I have seen in my own South Scotland region. In the current round of funding, almost £23 million has been allocated to local action groups in Ayrshire, Dumfries and Galloway, the Scottish Borders, Tynesg and South Lanarkshire. As a councillor and chair of Dumfries and Galloway Council's economy committee, I had the privilege of being a member of the local leader programme, local action group, and I saw at first hand the real difference that the programme made in my home region. It is a programme that supports a whole host of innovative community projects in Dumfries and Galloway, such as Exercise to Happiness, which is working with local football club Grayston Rovers to create a service for people with mental health problems, and the Care Campus initiative at the Crichton in Dumfries was a new model to provide housing, social and community support with access to care for older people will be tested and developed. Rural enterprise projects such as Crafty Galloway are also being supported, which works across the food and tourism sectors to create a Crafty Galloway menu and Gintour and support for the whole front page initiative that created a multimedia community interest company to ensure that Estelle and Liddelldale advertiser continues to deliver news to the local community for many years to come. The Scottish Borders project ranging from youth work to tourism to skills development are funded by the leader project. For example, the Music Shack project, which allowed young people to learn, play and record music together, and the Seven Steins marketing project, which promoted the hugely important mountain biking opportunities for the region. An Ayrshire leader funded and enabled the Ayrshire rural transport network to employ a community transport co-ordinator to develop transport and carac, and the Drung and Challenge us project, a community and employability initiative, targeted at unemployed young people, used arts to develop self-esteem and teach transferable employment skills. Lanarkshire support from leader for Castlebank, Horticultural and Environmental Training Centre helped the Lanark community development trust to convert derelict buildings into community hubs from which training and volunteer opportunities can be delivered. The leader programme in Tynes includes work to transform Gilean village hall into a hub for cultural, leisure, sporting and educational activities, and a project called Seed to Soup, which allows young people to develop horticultural skills. I could spend the next hour highlighting the way leader funded projects are working across South Scotland to strengthen rural communities, boost their economies and improve the wellbeing and opportunities of the people living there, and I would still not scratch the surface. Therefore, it begs the question, how do we ensure that this invaluable work continues? There is no doubt that Brexit is creating huge uncertainty for many communities across rural Scotland, and the need to develop a replacement for the leader programme is vital. It is essential not only that the funding that is currently provided through the leader programme will be matched, but the character and focus of the programme is largely replicated. Yes, improvements can be made in the processes, but the overall principle must be maintained. As a motion notes, a report by the National Council of Rural Advisers highlighted the effectiveness of how the programme targets and allocates resources. The approach taken by the leader programme is incredibly effective and the emphasis on promoting community-led development and enabling local partnerships must not be lost. The clock is ticking and so far there has been very limited progress. Rural Scotland is not interested in the UK and Scottish Governments arguing that they want both Governments to work together to develop the support that is so important to Scotland's rural communities. Before we move on, Mr McMillan, there are a few people who still wish to speak, so I am happy to take a motion without notice under rule 8.14.3 to extend members' business by up to 30 minutes. I ask Mairi Gougeon to move that motion. I can ask members if they agree. The motion is there for agreed. We move on to Mr McMillan to be followed by Liam Kerr. Thank you very much. First, I want to congratulate Mairi Gougeon for securing this member's debate. I am not going to go over the ground that has already been covered about the leader programme. Suffice to say that it has been hugely beneficial to all of Scotland, but also to my Greenwick and Inverclyde constituency. Before I go on to talk about my constituency, there is one point to Peter Chapman. Peter Chapman in his contribution spoke about the programme being guaranteed. I have not been guaranteed until the end of this Parliament, but what guarantees has his UK Government offered to protect his cherished UK single market post this parliamentary term? I think that we all know the answer to that zero. There are two projects so far from the leader programme in my constituency that have been benefited from this. The first one is that they are given distillery. That is received £25,000. That is part of a package of funding. That is hopefully going to deliver some 50 new jobs in Inverclyde. The second is the Gurwick golf club. That is received £80,600. I want to talk about that in a moment, but I just want to touch upon their given distillery. First of all, their given distillery is also received just under £1 million from the Scottish Government food processing, marketing and co-operation grant scheme last November. It was the cabinet secretary who awarded that sum. This distillery will be Inverclyde's first distillery in decades, and it will certainly be a huge tourist attraction, as well as creating up to the 50 jobs locally. Their given distillery will be situated in the village of Inverclyde on the historical Argywin estate, which has historical links to King Robert the Bruce and also to Pocahontas. My colleague is a wee chuckle, and I'll explain why. Sir Michael Shaw-Stewart, who was the fifth baronet, married Eliza Farquhar, who was a direct descendant of the Native American Princess Pocahontas, who was one of the most significant figures in the early colonial history of America. The project will certainly help many of the cruise ship tourists who disembark in Greenock. Certainly last year, it was just over 106,000 people disembarked in Greenock, and over the course of the next up to 10 years, that figure is going to increase to up to 200,000 people. At the moment, many of them actually leave Inverclyde and go on distillery tours elsewhere, but when we actually have our own distillery, which is due to open in 2020, that means that many of these people will actually stay, and that money will then be regenerated within the Inverclyde economy, and that can only be a good thing. The second example is the Gwyrrwch Goff Club. I recently visited the Gwyrrwch Goff Club to see their new state-of-the-art development studio. Its total cost was £184,000, and as you can see, the leader funding is paid for by half of that facility. The Gwyrrwch Goff Club is performing well, but this new facility will actually bring in more people, and it will also bring in many people from outside Inverclyde who will then be spending some money within the local community. The project is really important. The investment will certainly provide all-year-round facility for the local community. Children under 18 will be able to use it for free. Community groups such as the Scouts, Girls Brigade, Boys Brigade and so on will be using it for free. There is a partnership with the local Inverclyde Active Schools programme, and that is free as well. Recently, there have been partnerships with local groups working with adults with learning disabilities, and that has just begun. That is something that will benefit many people within the community too. The EU leader programme is beneficial to many communities, and I have just highlighted that for my constituency. I hope that, when Brexit does happen, the fund or a similar fund will exist. That is where I echo Mary Gougeon's comments from earlier on. The two final open debate contributions will be from Liam Kerr, followed by David Torrance. I congratulate Mary Gougeon on securing this debate, not least because she has achieved her endgame. During a conversation last week, she made clear to me when I said that I wish to speak how important it is to highlight the funding stream, acknowledge the good work and the types of work that is going on and ensure that all who need it can access it. I am pleased to try to help in that regard. The motion calls at the outset for Parliament to acknowledge the excellent high-quality projects that are being delivered by the leader programme. Many speakers today have done just that for their own area, noting just how vital the funding is to their constituencies. Some supplied us with concrete evidence, such as the very useful infographics supplied by the Cairn Gorms Leader to highlight the value of the funding to community-led local development in the Cairn Gorms. In my own region of the north-east, I should specifically like to highlight the funds for the Strathorn Riding School to develop and build an indoor horse riding and driving arena to provide facilities for a disabled group and an area for people in the community who share an interest in horses. As the funds for Aberdeenshire Highland beef and already successful local business to expand by setting up an on-farm butchery and an e-based shop to produce and market local beef, that is jobs, that is money into the local economy. The motion moves on to ask Parliament to note the solid and unique framework provided by leader, which creates local partnerships between individuals, rural-based enterprises and communities, enabling them to innovate, diversify and become more sustainable. That is true, and it is demonstrated by the refurbishment of Drum Oak Church projects. Using leader funds, the community is going to provide basic utilities such as drainage, kitchen facilities, toilets and broadband to the building. That will create a multi-purpose open plan area for the community groups that currently use it, which includes the beavers, the cubs, mother and toddlers, music group, a youth cafe and over 60s club and yoga classes. That is what community is all about. That is what partnership is all about, that is what leader is all about. At the conclusion, the motion calls for urgent clarity on what will replace the funding once we are no longer members of the EU and how money will be allocated. I think that that is a fair point. Those are vital funds and achieve a very specific and important purpose, but I am genuinely confused by the motion's call for clarity from the UK Government. Those funds are distributed by the EU under pillar 2 of the common agricultural policy. Under pillar 2, it is the Scottish Government which decides what projects it is spent on. The UK Government has made absolutely clear that the same level of funding will be provided by the UK as we have received from the EU under the common agricultural policy until at least 2022. Michael Gove has been clear that how that money is spent is the responsibility of the SNP Government. Surely it is for the cabinet secretary to, in Tom Arthur's rather overblown rhetoric, to get his act together to provide the clarity sought by the motion as to whether the SNP wants to carry on with a leader scheme or not. That is people's livelihoods, ventures, projects and indeed many aspects of the rural economy are at stake. Not in that time, thank you. Are rural communities and enterprises need assurances on what comes next for them? The motion is therefore correct to demand clarity, but I cannot help but conclude that that clarity should be demanded from the Scottish Government where apparently the onus in fact lies. The last of the open debate contributions is from David Torrance. I would also like to thank Mary Gougeon for bringing that motion to Parliament today to recognise the success of the leader programme. That debate is an important debate to have in this chamber as it relates to the welfare of our rural communities in the wake of Brexit. Community-led local development in rural areas is an important factor to continue well-being and development of Scotland as a whole. That is why today we recognise the leader programme for its great success in facilitating community-led development via partnerships between individuals, businesses and communities to produce projects that contribute to local prosperity. Our communities across Scotland have benefited as a result of its programme. According to SPICE, the leader programme is worth roughly £86 million over the current 2014-2020 period. Half of its funding is from the cap pillar 2 and the other half is from the Scottish Government co-financing. Millions of pounds have been provided to each of our 21 local action groups, funding that is a fuel of the projects that benefit our communities. In fact, the leader programme has funded over 14 projects since 2014. Those projects include the restoration of free, ecological and economically important estuaries, a programme that aims to equip young people with the knowledge, skills and supporting the creation of micro-businesses and employment. Apart from the campsite along the Fife coast-of-path, creating new green space and new jobs, expanding and renovating a busy working harbour, and the creation of a new long-distance road connecting small hamlets and enhancing existing paths. Those are only a few other projects that have been funded in Fife out of many that have seen success or are currently in the pipeline. There are 20 other local action groups across Scotland that experience the same success in local bottom-up improvements to rural communities, enhancing their lives of everyone involved. The leader programme has provided extensive accomplishments in increasing support to our local rural communities and business networks, building knowledge and skills and encouraging innovation and co-operation in order to tackle local development objectives. The projects that produce the programme's funding also attract people into the area, as well as visitors who utilise the developments. Thus, the grassroots approach empowers the people to improve upon their own lives and the lives of others. Yet, the unique programmes soon faces challenges as the United Kingdom succeeds from a European Union. The substantive funding that the programme receives through the rural development policy of CAP will disappear. As Brexit's looms even closer, we must look into the future in order to gain a sense of and act upon the implications of leaving the EU as for a leader programme. Over the current 2014 to 2020 period, leader acts expected to create over 550 jobs in rural areas and has already resulted in over 400 projects that benefit in rural communities across Scotland. When the CAP pillar 2 funding disappears, a leader programme loses 50 per cent of its funding. Looking into the future, we see potential for additional compliments through a leader programme, projects that manifest jobs and improve the quality of our life in our local communities. We can see Scotland continue to prosper by empowering local communities and giving them opportunity in richer lives and those of anyone who visits. However, that is only an option if we retain a leader programme with the same level of funding and support as we do presently. The UK Government must continue to support a leader programme and provide clarity as to how funding will be replaced after the United Kingdom leaves the EU. The social, economic and cultural benefits of the programme cannot be understated. Rural communities have been empowered to enrich local wellbeing, develop innovative projects and benefit the lives of communities, while building knowledge, skills and relationships between local businesses and individuals. We must sustain the programme for further success in our rural communities. In conclusion, I would like to once again thank Mary Gougeon for securing his debate in the chamber today and the volunteers and the participants in the leader programme for making the wellbeing of rural communities a priority. We need to continue to support the leader programme, building up rural communities via grass-roots approaches that are beneficial to those communities and Scotland as a whole. I now call Fergus Ewing to wind up on this debate. I warmly congratulate Mary Gougeon on initiating this debate and for the lively and informative way that she introduced it in her speech this evening. I have always believed that the French and France, the country of France, can lay claim to be the architects of much of the world's civilisation that we all enjoy. I had not known that they also were responsible for the leader programme and were indebted to Mary Gougeon, who of course has forged her own all the lines, as it were. It is very interesting that this is a French concept and it is an excellent one. This debate has had very interesting contributions from across the chamber with many examples of how leader has helped communities across Scotland. It has been an extended version of tales of the unexpected, of the unlikely, of the vibrant, the diverse in communities. Who would have thought, at least of my generation, sadly just on the wrong side of 60, that Scotland would be famous now for tea or vodka, as we heard from Mr Day, not what one immediately associates with the county of Angus, or indeed the Inverclyde would be famous for its distilleries, or that I was very surprised that Pocahontas made an appearance in this debate, but I suspect that I am not alone in that. The point is that all around Scotland people are doing different things. The beauty about leader—I think that Mr Chapman referred to this—is that it is a bottom-up programme. That is the whole point. It is not for me and it is not my duty to say what communities do. It is for them to decide. Of course, where I try to do that, communities will not be interested. The whole point is to empower communities and to have a fund that enables that to happen. The leader programmes occur over a long period. The leader programme from 2007 to 2013, and the leader programme from 2014 to 2020. The first one encapsulated seven years, and the next one again seven years programme. I do not want to be political. Members' debates are not really supposed to be political, at least that is what I understood from the ancient days when I was making my first remarks in this place. I would say that we have to think long-term. What people and communities want is not to be political, but to have the knowledge that, when the programme ends in 2020, there will be a subsequent programme from 2020 to 2027. It needs to be long-term because it takes a long time to build up those projects. I am acutely aware of that, having recently visited one of the local teams in Murrayshire and meeting many of the people who are either employed or volunteering. My goodness we have a lot to thank 200 local volunteers across Scotland, many of whom here tonight who you admonished earlier on, there is no doubt that you have to do in your role. We owe a great thanks to the volunteers across Scotland for the enormous work that they have done, and they do it because they want to do it as part of their communities. The local action groups, as has been said by Mary Gougeon and others, perform a terrific amount of work on behalf of their communities. I do not want to get involved in the political arguments. We must find a way to see that the current leader programme when it comes to an end is replaced by another one. As far as I know, there has been no funding clarity on that from the UK Government, which is why I have written to Mr Gove to seek that clarity. It is indeed actually why, Presiding Officer, last Monday, when I was in Cardiff, meeting with Mr Gove, along with the other devolved administrations, I did seek further funding clarity. I hope that once the UK Government's trevies over their Brexit negotiations are eventually over that we will have that clarity. Leader is a fundamental part of the local delivery and empowerment of communities. As we have heard, it forms part of the SRDP, which helps our rural communities. I came aware of that yesterday morning at 7 o'clock at the Fraserborough fish market in Verruri later that day in providing a food and marketing grant. Mr Macmillan made reference to that programme of £4 million to help Scot beef set up in U-Abbitoir in Verruri, and this afternoon I was hosting a venison summit in Perth, where it is clear that venison should and will play an increasingly important part in the diet of the nation, as the most nutritious meat available, as I am sure members will know. The pillar 2 is designed in part to encourage all those other things. Mr Chapman is right that pillar 1 is for farmers, and I am a great supporter of continuance of support for our hill farmers and others who require it, but pillar 2 is designed to look at the wider community so plainly there is a need, a continuing need to do that. In leader, we have introduced targets for farm diversification, for rural enterprise alongside the co-operation target, and Mr Smith and Mr Chapman gave good examples of diversification projects and worthy projects. The aim is to encourage more diversified support to our rural communities. There are many examples from around the country of the types of programmes that there are, but I do not think that in the time that I have I will run through them. What I would say is that it is absolutely vital that we direct attention to supporting young people. Personally, I think that young people with additional needs should and I hope that they will receive whatever additional support they can in leader projects schemes. The statistics over leader are pretty impressive and they result in an enormous amount of funding being invested in Scottish rural communities, and that is a good thing. Several members have pointed out that funding has received additional funding brought in, being matched. For every pound, there has been an additional £1.43 of match funding. In that sense, it has been a highly successful project. I see that my time is coming. I would love to. I do not know, but I think that I could, if you are willing, Cabinet Secretary. Liam McArthur. Thank you very much. I know that the Cabinet Secretary has joined to a close. He started off by telling us that it was a debate littered with tales of the unexpected and he is absolutely right. One of those tales, I think, was about to emerge through the invitation that Mary Gougeon offered him to attend an ACDC-inspired music festival. I hope that, before concluding, he will put the chamber out of our collective misery by informing us that he will indeed be taking up that kind of offer. He has a wicked look in his eye, Cabinet Secretary. I must admit that ACDC was not my particular cup of tea, but perhaps you and I could enjoy some Leonard Cohen listening together. That might be better for the soul. In the conclusion, we need to see leader or something like it continue. I think that we are all committed to that. Therefore, in Scotland, I hope that, if we all work together, that is what we can and what we will do in years to come to build on the success that leader has delivered for communities all over the land. That concludes the debate and the meeting is closed.