 The next item of business is a statement by Fergus Ewing on protecting Scotland's livestock. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of his statement, therefore should there be no interruptions or interventions. I would encourage members to wish to speak or ask questions in fact to press their request to speak buttons now. I call on Fergus Ewing. Presiding Officer, those of us who were in Parliament in 2001 will probably never forget the devastating impact of the Footh and Mouth outbreak that year. It engulfed Dumfrieson Galloway and the Borders and significantly affected rural communities all across Scotland. That outbreak had a profound human impact. It ended generations of farming by some families. It haunted communities. It left fields bare and barren. There was a significant economic cost to over £8 billion UK-wide, according to the National Audit Office. All of these costs are one in which we should do all that we can to avoid repeating. The 2001 Footh and Mouth's disease outbreak taught us lessons about how to better protect the health of Scotland's livestock. We have not suffered such a debilitating outbreak of notifiable disease since, but that cannot and should not make us complacent. We must have in place the best possible measures to minimise risks to the health of our livestock. That is why, Presiding Officer, that from 1 January 2017, the system known as CTSLinks is being replaced by Scott Moves to record careful movement data in Scotland. I previously announced this in response to a parliamentary question on 22 September. I now want to provide more detail for members on why we are making this change and what it involves. First, we must do all that we can to protect Scotland's livestock from the threat of notifiable disease. That requires ready access to accurate information for all cattle movements. Second, we must be able to control any outbreak of exotic disease effectively and efficiently. Again, the ability to trace animals between locations is a key. Such data enables us to deploy our resources to where they are needed. It also allows a proportionate approach to be taken to restricting movements and thereafter to lifting those restrictions. The longer it takes to trace livestock movements and disease, the greater that an outbreak spreads. The CTSLinks system has served Scottish keepers well, but it had deficiencies. It only required the location and movements of animals between linked holdings—for example, a number of farms owned by the same family—to be recorded in the on-farm holding register and not reported centrally. The system only required cattle movements between non-linked holdings to be reported to a central database. In recent years, the use of CTSLinks has been common practice. There are now 3,000 cattle holdings sharing 7,000 CTSLinks. That means that we lack information about the movements of an increasing number of Scotland's cattle. Yet, this is information that farmers and the public would rightly expect government to have available in the event of a disease outbreak. The third reason to change the system is that there is no legal provision for the use of CTSLinks in European legislation. Their continued use poses a risk of disallowance to the Scottish Government of around £2.5 million initially and over £800,000 per annum thereafter. Moreover, CTSLinks is a 20th century process when we need a 21st century system that best utilises technology and is more efficient for farm businesses to use. Currently, farmers and crofters are required and expected to keep manual records. Cattle tag numbers must be written and rewritten to keep records up to date. It is a burden on farm businesses' time and resources. The ScotMove system addresses all those issues. It is a further development of the well-proven database hosted by ScotEID, which already has robust traceability systems in place for BVD control. ScotMove enables livestock keepers to central record all cattle movements within their business. Eventually, all cattle—indeed, all three major livestock species—will be traceable on the same database. This data will enhance our capacity to respond to a disease outbreak or other emergency. ScotMove will also allow information to be shared along the supply chain to the benefit of farm businesses, from farms to abattoirs and consumers and from abattoirs and markets back to farms. Moreover, moving from a paper-based to an online system means that it is more efficient and effective in the longer term. That development will also contribute to our ambitions for efficient public services through enhanced digital delivery. In this context, ScotMove is a good system, enabling regulatory requirements to be met, whilst also potentially adding value to all parts of the supply chain. I want to reassure members that the development of ScotMove has been informed by the views and the experiences of the livestock sector and is supported by key stakeholders and industry leaders. The switch from CTS links to ScotMove does not mean substantive additional workload for most farmers. Cattlekeepers will record the same information as they do now, but in a different way so that it is available centrally. The ScotMove system has been designed flexibly to allow for business development and change. Locally and nationally in Scotland, we will be able to analyse changes in the way that individual businesses operate, the land they use, the leases they take, the acquisitions they make and the diversity of their activities. I want to reassure those in the sector concerned about cross-compliance. To ease the change over from the old CTS link system, I already announced in September that we are taking a soft landing approach during 2017 to encourage farmers to use the new system. I also want to be clear that this new system is needed and will be beneficial to Scotland's reputation for quality meat. The ScotMove system recognises the economic value in a livestock and farming business as well as its location. The livestock sector is an integral part of Scotland's rural economy. Farm output of cattle, sheep and pigs is worth £1100 million to the Scottish economy and the poultry sector is close to £170 million. We have built an international reputation for quality and excellence, which adds significant value to the rural economy. We must do all that we can, both to protect and also to enhance that reputation. The ScotMove system provides for accurate provenance and tracing, which are key to the quality-assured Scotch brands that apply to beef, lamb and pork. If we were to follow the system being rolled out in England, we would have different holding sizes for cattle compared to sheep and pigs, which would add unnecessary complexity. The shift from the CTS system to ScotMove, which takes place on 1 January, is about changing from an outdated local recording system to a modern national system that harnesses technology and is sufficiently flexible to grow with businesses as they adapt, innovate and develop. Fundamentally, it is about creating a 21st century national traceability system covering all cattle to better protect the health of Scotland's livestock against the risk of disease. That traceability will give us the tools that we need to effectively control an outbreak of a notifiable disease and will also help to maintain and enhance confidence in the provenance of our livestock and of our quality meat. That helps to protect livelihoods, businesses, communities and jobs in Scotland's rural economy. Presiding Officer, for all of these reasons, the shift to ScotMove is the right move to make. Thank you. The cabinet secretary will now take questions on his statement. Members who have not already done so may press their request-to-speak buttons now, and I intend to allow around 20 minutes until decision time, in fact. I call on Peter Chapman at first hand. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Once again, I refer members to my register of interests relating to farming. I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for advance sight of his statement. Back in September, when I raised the issue of the new cattle tracing system with him, he was incredibly dismissive of NFUS concerns, saying that reported concerns were, and I quote, unspecified. If the cabinet secretary had been properly engaging with NFUS and farmers worries, he would know that reporting movements in a 48-hour window will be challenging. Why won't his plan taken to account normal working hours? He surely can't expect farmers to be tied up in paperwork all weekend, trying to keep up to date with his government's new IT systems. He must surely realise, with just a few minor tweaks to the rules, that the move to the new scheme can be much more manageable for farmers, therefore increasing compliance and massively reducing the risk of heavy-handed and disproportionate penalties for farmers. So I say to the cabinet secretary, why can't he extend Scott Moose's reporting window to three days and bring it into line with the cattle tracing system rules? First of all, the premise that Mr Chapman makes that I haven't engaged with the NFU is just quite simply wrong. It's false, in fact, and the record shows that, and I'm happy to share details of the meetings that I've had. As it happens, I'm meeting with the NFU tomorrow as well after the Parliament closes as it happens, so I do take exception to assertions, which are just false. I really wonder whether that serves anybody's cause in this place. Moreover, if Mr Chapman had really studied this, he would have ascertained that, on the working group that we had to look at this issue, this very serious issue indeed about how we prevent the huge spread of a disease, a disease which we saw in 2001 decimated the rural community, that the NFU were on the working group and supported the business case. Now, yes, they had some concerns about the timing of things, but he didn't mention that they were on the working group. Would it not have served his cause not to portray a selective version of the facts? I think that it cannot. Why are you only allowing keepers 48 hours to notify moves when Scott EID have four weeks to register additional holdings? Well, the Scott EID office are, Presiding Officer, processing most applications for additional holdings registration within her day or two. It's only those that are more complicated, and some are extremely complicated, particularly some farms that have multi-linked holdings. They are extremely complicated, and they take more than a few days. I think that the last point that he raised—I'm trying to answer all the points that he raised in between the snidery—was about penalties. He didn't mention that we have made clear, and he knows this. We have said that we want there to be a soft landing. In fact, I read it out in my statement again, so that foreign issue breaches farmers will not be penalised. The purpose is not to punish anybody. The purpose, Presiding Officer, is to implement a system where, if there is an outbreak of a dreadful disease, we know where hundreds of thousands of cattle are. The current system, I'm afraid, does not give us that security, as well as being legally required, as well as being necessary to avoid disallowance. We need to provide a system in this country where we act on the advice of the chief veterinary officer, not poo-poo it, disregard it and make snide comments of that sort. Rwda Grant. Given the Scottish Government's track record on IT systems, can I ask if they have tested the system to make sure that it is fit for purpose? Is the cabinet secretary confident that the system will work properly? He will also be aware that large parts of rural Scotland, impacted by the new system, do not have access to broadband. How can farmers who cannot access broadband, or indeed whose broadband systems are down, report movements in good time? Rwda Grant again raises some practical and sensible questions. Obviously, that is one of the first matters that I raised in the early days of discussion of those issues. We are confident that, because the system already works in other respects, it will be made to work in this respect, too. The development and delivery costs, incidentally, are relatively modest at £125,000, including VAT. They have been delivered on time and within budget. Precisely to satisfy myself of this, I took the opportunity in the last week to see for myself how the system works at a demonstration at Sochton. It is not providing the requirement of any additional burden on cattle holders. It simply requires information to be recorded in such a way as we know where those cattle are, and we have that information in the event of an outbreak so that we know where to send veterinary inspectors at the moment. We do not know that. That means that veterinary officers would have to go to every holding, every holding throughout the country where there are linked holdings, inspect cattle in every single holding, wasting their time, spreading the risk of disease. That seems to be what some Conservatives are advocating. If so, I think that that is the height of a responsibility. In relation to the impact on crofters, which I know is something that is dear to Rhoda Grant's heart, there is no change to the well-established rules around the movement of livestock in crofting townships. Cattle moving between the croft and common grazing do not need to be recorded on scot moves, and the township will be considered to be a single epidemiological unit. It is helpful to get that into the record for those constituents of hers. Some of mine, as in Venezuela, is a crofting county that may be interested in that. Stuart Stevenson, to be followed by Finlay Carson. Can I very much welcome the re-announcement confirmation of the soft landing approach of the transition from the CTS link system to scot moves? Given that the purpose of the soft landing is to encourage the take-up of the new system by farmers, can the cabinet secretary advise on what other steps are going to be taken to smooth the path and encourage early and meaningful engagement in the scot moves system for this important part of our farming infrastructure? There are several methods that we have adopted to do that. First of all, part of the purpose of having this statement is to draw attention to the importance of taking steps to ensure that, in the event of any other exotic disease outracking in Scotland, we have the most robust resilience systems available, and we simply do not have them available at the moment. We are required to do this under EU law, and we are still in the EU, and therefore we have to abide by the law. The most compelling reason is that we need to do this for common-sense grounds based on expert advice. It is important that we communicate this, because it comes into effect in 1 January, something that did concern me because that is not a day when people will generally be at work, but farmers have to work 365 days a year. We recognise that we have had a hotline available on 1 January. At my specific request, we have also taken steps to publicise this matter through the specialised press and the general press, and we will continue to do so. Plainly, we rely heavily on the excellent officials that we have in our Arpid offices, the 17 offices throughout the country, and the majority of which I visited. They, of course, will be extremely helpful, as will other experts in the Huntley office, in particular, in providing all advice, support and backup, especially in the early days of implementation of the new systems. Finally, it will be possible for those who are not on the internet, and I think that I failed to answer this question for Rhoda Grant inadvertently, to intimate information by paper, by post, by first-class post, by fax, or by telephone. We want to be flexible. We want to introduce this effectively. We do not wish to have a punitive regime, and I think that this event today in Parliament will help us to communicate effectively our purpose, the necessity of it, and how it is not something to be feared, but something to be embraced and supported. As an ex-farmer and businessman from Dumfussingalloway, directly affected by Footh and Mouth, myself and my colleagues all welcome workable, measured and appropriate intervention to avoid outbreaks like Footh and Mouth happening again. However, this Government has an appalling record on delivering working IT systems for Scotland's farmers, so the Cabinet Secretary will understand my concerns and that of the NFUS with regards to the relationship between the CTS system and Scots move. On the record, will the Cabinet Secretary agree to protect farmers from being penalised by IT foul-ups by opening only the timeframe when registering moves once the allocation from CTS to Scots moves has happened? I have said that, throughout 2017, the soft landing approach will be applied, and that is what will therefore happen. That will allow more than sufficient time, I think, for any initial teething difficulties or others to be navigated successfully for communication of the scheme to be provided. References have been made to the NFU, and it did support the basic argument of the need for this. I am pleased that Mr Carson says that he recognises the need for it before going on to the more characteristic tale of woe that we hear from the Conservatives day and daily. When the NFU saw this map, which shows the linked holdings and the movements of cattle all across Scotland and the obvious risks of what happens if there is an outbreak and you do not know where those cattle are, you do not really need to be an expert in epidemiology, a chief veterinary officer to see that, at the moment, there are hundreds of thousands of cattle that we do not know where they are. Therefore, I have no hesitation in the role that I have as the cabinet secretary responsible in accepting that advice, in supporting the NFU who recognise the need for this introduction and making this statement as part of a responsible method of ensuring that the need for this scheme and the way it operates is effectively and clearly promulgated to all concerned. Claudia Beamish, to be followed by Richard Lyle. The cabinet secretary has sought to reassure those in the sector concerned about cross-compliance. In his statement, the cabinet secretary states, to ease the changeover, I already announced in September that we are taking a soft landing approach during 2017 to encourage farmers to use the new system. Can the cabinet secretary tell the chamber if there will be a proportionate system of penalties after the first year and give a bit more detail about the support that farmers will get in the changeover process? Obviously, cross-compliance is the term used, as the member will know, to refer to a series of statutory management requirements and standards covering the environment, public, animal and plant health and animal welfare. Farmers must adhere to those in order to receive direct subsidies. The cross-compliance is necessary for farmers to qualify to do so, and they must comply with those rules. That is respected and understood. The purpose of the soft landing, as the member has supported, is to ensure that we do not have a penal regime being introduced when farmers are getting used to this new system. A year is a reasonable time to expect that that should take place. Where it is determined that a farmer has breached cross-compliance requirements, a reduction to direct payments of 3 per cent is expected for negligent breaches, that reduction can be varied up to 5 per cent and down to 1 per cent. However, as I stated, to encourage Scottish cattle keepers to use scot moves, negligent first-time breaches notifications and off notifications or recording requirements will result in a written warning rather than a financial reduction to a farmer's direct subsidy. The procedure will be in place for the whole of the next calendar year. Richard Lyle to be followed by Mark Ruskell. Thank you, Presiding Officer. As a member of the rule, affairs and connectivity committee, I welcome the cabinet secretary's statement. Will the cabinet secretary commit to reviewing the rules on standstill, which currently require livestock holders to hold animals on the land for 13 days before they can move them off again as part of the shift to the scot-move system? The chief veterinary officer has already agreed that this would be a valuable exercise. For the reason that the data coming forward from the new scot-move system over the next year will be of considerable value in reviewing the standstill regime. That is one of the potential benefits that the new regime may have. Mark Ruskell to be followed by Mike Rumbles. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I thank the cabinet secretary for advance copy of the statement. I certainly welcome the digitisation of public services, although I think that it has perhaps been a bit more of a bumpy ride than a soft landing so far in terms of the cap payments issue, but when the cabinet secretary went to Socton House you would have no doubt spent some time banging 12 digit codes into a computer and you'll recognise that the capacity for error within that is fairly large. So can I ask you in terms of the penalties that will apply and the kind of negligent first time penalties that may apply, what kind of support and advisory work will be undertaken with the farming community to ensure that those kind of technical issues are resolved? Cabinet secretary. Well I mean I think Mr Ruskell makes a fair and a kind of practical point and he's right. When I saw the demonstration of the system one sees that you know every animal has its own reference number and that's I think 12 12 characters so you know plainly accuracy is essential but I mean I would make the point that this is not new this is something that's understood and appreciated by those who hold cattle it's not that there's nothing new about the use of those identifiers in respect of the administration of the applications the IACS forms and the SAF forms and so on and so forth this is this is familiar territory and actually the operation of the system as I saw from the demonstration is it's really pretty straightforward in the practical terms provided one has digital capacity and I've already said that for those that don't have wrote a grant quite rightly and fairly made this point there are going to be alternatives available. The second part of his point is what about inadvertent errors well there is as I understand it and I'll just speaking from memory here Presiding Officer if I subsequently ascertain that this is wrong I will correct the record but that I mentioned earlier that there is a disallowance for negligent errors there is separate provision in the EU penalty regime for mistakes made which are of an inadvertent nature and that where our mistake is of an inadvertent nature then it is possible for a less penal a more proportionate less harsh and oppressive result to ensue and that is something I very much welcome as I think he does as indeed does Commissioner Hogan who has used a lot of his time and effort as commissioner to explore this issue and take it in the direction that the member and myself and I think every other member would wish to see. Mike Rumbles to be followed by Mary Evans. Can I thank the minister for an advanced copy of his statement. The minister highlighted the foot and mouth outbreak of 2001 and which of course started across the border in England and he is right to ensure that the risks of such devastating outbreaks are minimised. Under Scotland move Scotland will now have a different system of cattle movement management and operates in England. Does the minister really think that this is helpful in achieving his aim of minimising risk, especially when NFU Scotland specifically asked him that a similar system to that proposed in England be introduced by him here in Scotland. It's a very fair question that Mr Rumbles asks and he is right that the system is different in England. The proposal to remove CTS links in England and Wales contains complexity and developments that are at odds with accepted policy in Scotland. For example, registration of temporary land associations at field identifier level within 10 miles and use of temporary CPH numbers with no distance limit. The major difference in practice is, I'm sure Mr Rumbles is aware, that there's a 10 mile radius as opposed to the current five miles radius in Scotland. The 10 miles radius covers 314 square miles, 81,000 hectares, which is four times the area of the current five miles radius in Scotland. So there are already differences. Scotland has well established five miles CPH rules which have been in place for many years. I think it's fair to say that these rules are well known both to keepers and officials and they operate effectively across all livestock species and they have been subject to EU audit. Therefore, I think it's fair to point out in response to Mr Rumbles' question that the existing cattle holders are familiar with the already different system existing in Scotland and in Wales. Therefore, there are many practical reasons why the approach that we're taking is, we believe, the right one for Scotland. Mary Evans, to be filled by John Scott. I would ask members to keep the conversations to a minimum to the after decision time. Mary Evans. Thank you. The cabinet secretary mentioned in his statement one of the reasons why we weren't following the system that was being introduced in England. Can he provide more information on that and if there are any other reasons why we're not looking at that system? Cabinet secretary. Well, my previous answer was rather long, but to supplement that, Presiding Officer, I can say that if we were to move to a 10-mile CPH rule that would create more complexity and upheaval, it would be no use to the 65 per cent of keepers that use the CTS links, which are within five miles of the main holdings, nor will it be of any use to those island cattle keepers who send animals away to the mainland for away wintering. John Scott, to be followed by Colin Smyth. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and can I begin by thanking the cabinet secretary for the ran site of his statement and also the clear and interest of a beef and sheep farmer? And I'm pleased to note and welcome that the cabinet secretary is willing to be lenient in the enforcement of these new rules as they are introduced in 2017. However, the penalties that will be enforced for failure to register movements timuously after this grace period is over are apparently excessive, particularly for genuine and inadvertent errors. As the purpose is not to punish anyone, will the cabinet secretary look again at the cross-compliance penalties perhaps on a sliding scale relative to time, and will he again reassure Scotland's farmers that genuine errors will not be unduly punished? I think that Mr Scott raises a very reasonable point, and I'm glad that he appreciates the fact that we have adopted a soft landing approach where we have shown that we do not want to introduce a punitive regime, we want to introduce a successful effective regime that further enhances Scotland's reputation for producing a quality livestock and keeps us free so far as we possibly can of disastrous outbreaks of disease, which have caused so much damage, as Mr Carson quite rightly said, in relation to the past. In relation to penalties, of course, I would love to see a penalty regime, and I've referred to it already of the disallowance, and I've referred to the statistics already, which is more proportionate, less punitive, less harsh and less oppressive. And indeed, I, as he has, have taken up many, many individual cases over many years to seek to argue with my predecessors that they should not be penalised. All too often, the upshot was that there is no alternative but to pursue the fines, if you like, as effectively prescribed in EU law. I'm quite sure that the existence of that disproportionate penalty regime played a significant part in the thoughts of many people when they were casting in the farming community, when perhaps they were casting their votes in the referendum, because it's a regime that very few of us, I think, in this chamber have ever sought to defend. So I will look, of course, to see if there is any wriggle room at all in relation to what happens after the first year is over, and therefore the possibility of disallowance exists. I'm happy to work with Mr Scott to see if there's any means whatsoever to mitigate the penalties that are set out in the regulations precisely for the reasons that he sets out. I did say I would take Colin Smyth, so very briefly, Colin Smyth. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. As someone who saw the devastating impact on communities in Dumfries and Galloway of the outbreak of Foote and Mouth in 2001, I and more importantly local farmers fully understand the importance of robust traceability. But can I ask that the Cabinet Secretary how the Government will guarantee that no farmer whose animals have been moved more than four times around the same farm under linked holdings will be penalised at slaughter under the new system? I can absolutely assure the member that we will take every possible step that we can to ensure that farmers are not penalised for any breach of rules harshly or in a fashion that's unduly oppressive. I hope that I've made that clear in response to several questions. The approach we will take is to ensure the efficient operation of the scheme and not to impose a penal regime. Thank you. That concludes our statement on protecting Scotland's livestock. I apologize to the members. I wasn't able to call on. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 3229, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a business programme. I would ask any member who wishes to speak against the motion to press the request to speak button now. I call on Joe Fitzpatrick to move the motion. Thank you. No member has asked to speak against the motion. I will put the question to the chamber. The question is that motion 3229, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 3231, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a timetable on stage 1 for the Railway Policing Scotland Bill. Again, I would ask any member who wishes to speak against the motion to press the request to speak button now. I call on Joe Fitzpatrick to move motion 3231. Thank you. No member has asked to speak against the motion. I put the question to the chamber. The question is that we agree motion 3231. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The next item of business is consideration of Parliamentary Bureau motion, and I ask Joe Fitzpatrick to move motion 3233, on designation of a lead committee. That question will put decision time to which we now come. The question is that motion 3233, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, on designation of a lead committee, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. That concludes decision time, and I now close this meeting of Parliament.