 Rwy'n meddwl i'r next item of business, which is a debate on motion number 1669 in the name of Fergus Ewing on securing the interests of Scotland's rural economy following the EU referendum. Can I ask all members who wish to speak in this debate to press their request to speak buttons now? I call on Fergus Ewing to speak to and move the motion in his name. Presiding Officer, I believe that the risks of leaving the European Union are just too great. All the economic experts predict that the potential damage a Brexit would do to jobs, mortgages and the economy as a whole across Scotland is just too severe. Presiding Officer, those are not my words but those of David Mundell, and I could not agree more. In June, Mr Mundell and many Scottish stories agreed with this Government and others in this Parliament that the best way to protect the interests of rural Scotland was by protecting Scotland's place in Europe. Yet now, those same Tories are preparing to give away the significant economic and social benefits that EU membership provides for Scotland's rural economy, benefits worth billions of pounds between 2014 and 2020. That is not a price that rural Scotland should have to pay. The UK Government has removed the security from future EU funding, risking our economic prosperity in the ways that I will set out today. Yet not one Scottish Tory politician post 23 June has dared to point out to their London bosses the blindingly obvious risks to Scotland's rural and coastal communities that this failure to guarantee future funding represents. Worse, they all appear to have become, born again, Brexiteers. Presiding Officer, I want to put on record my appreciation for the EU funding guarantee provided by the UK Government to date, giving farmers and crofters certainty about their direct support. The pillar 1 support up to 2020 is a huge relief. The partial guarantee for Scottish rural development programme and European maritime and fisheries fund grants in respect of those grants signed and sealed by the chancellor's autumn statement also helps. I make those two statements to put on record. I welcome for those measures, but just as important is the additional guarantee provided by our own cabinet secretary for France to pass on all of that direct support in full. That is the sort of clarity and certainty that builds confidence. What Scotland now needs is the rest of its entitlement. Around £360 million in SRDP and EMFF monies is not yet guaranteed, the loss of which will have real life consequences for our rural economy. Let me spell out what that failure to provide this funding could mean. 40 fewer businesses receive investment through the food processing, marketing and co-operation scheme. 20,000 fewer hectares are supported for afforestation and woodland creation, and potentially up to 40 million fewer trees are planted through the forestry grant scheme. 88 fewer holdings are supported through the new entrance schemes for farming. Farmers and crofters entitled to ELFAS payments in average receiving around £12,400 less overall between now and 2020. However, as well as threatening vital funding for key rural development, Brexit has paralysed the UK minister's willingness and ability to address everyday policy matters. First, they have failed to respond to Scotland's case for devolution of £190 million of cap convergence uplift money. Second, they have refused to progress repatriation of £1.5 million of red meat levy monies. Third, they have refused to move or making similar changes to the sea fish levy and forced them to have failed to play fair by Scotland's dairy farmers in allocating the recent EU emergency support package. Moreover, excessive delay on other matters has become the norm. For example, a swap on monk fish quota took three months to conclude when it should only have taken three days. Defra is still sitting on the fisheries concordat, a cornerstone of domestic fisheries policy failing to put in place this vital agreement that allows us to manage our fisheries more effectively. Scottish fishermen are used to being treated unfairly by the UK Government, and other speakers in this debate will elaborate on that. However, I intend to work to get the best deal for our fishing and coastal communities. It is therefore essential that Scotland is not only involved fully in all UK negotiations regarding our future in Europe but also in all decision making, including on future fisheries management. However, the best way to protect the interests of Scotland's rural economy is by maintaining membership of and access to the single market and its 500 million people. The threat of a hard Brexit is undermining confidence in all rural sectors. Forty per cent of food and drink companies participating in the Bank of Scotland's annual research said that leaving the EU was the biggest challenge facing the sector. Almost a third of SMEs recently surveyed in the Highlands said that the outcome of the referendum on the EU made investing in their business less likely or subject to delay. The uncertainty that was made entirely in Westminster risks the forestry sector's £1 billion annual economic contribution because investment decisions in planting and processing require long-term stability and confidence. In food production, the potential loss of protection through EU regulations is vital to continue exports risks. For example, our world-leading seed potato sector is worth £100 million to Scotland. The EU represents the largest food export market for Scottish fish and seafood with £438 million or 62 per cent of total food exports being to the EU. Europe is the biggest market for our world-famous salmon, and the Scottish Whiskey Association is called in the UK Government for clarity to be provided regarding trade arrangements as soon as possible. The risks to those resources are very real, but they are not perhaps the most potent threat to rural Scotland's prosperity. That exists to our most precious of all resources, namely our people. Each bottle of whisky sold, every tree planted, each fish landed, every acre plowed and sown, every food product designed and invented, every breakthrough in animal welfare or plant health requires people. The lack of clarity about Scotland's future in Europe means uncertainty for Scots and for UK citizens now living in rural Scotland. The biggest risk is to those whom we have welcomed from across the water into communities all round rural and coastal Scotland and upon whom many businesses and communities depend. The right of people from other EU countries to continue to live and work in Scotland is not only a moral imperative that it is, born of our commitment to solidarity but also an economic necessity for rural Scotland. At risk without continued free movement of people are many of the 15,000 seasonal workers in agriculture, 30,000 permanent workers in food and drink, a fair proportion of the 25,000 jobs in forestry, 8 per cent of people employed by our fishing fleet and many of the thousands working in food and tourism, hotels, bars and restaurants all around Scotland. Without those people, Scotland's rural economy simply would not work. Meanwhile, seasonal employers are already worrying about prospects for next year. One agency about which I heard last week advised that the number of Europeans signing on to its books has dropped. There is no doubt— Yes, of course. You said earlier that David Mundell asked the question what would happen to the families who rely on jobs for their livelihoods linked to membership of the EU. Does the cabinet secretary know if the UK Government can now answer that question? Well, as with so many other areas, we are simply none the wiser. I mean, this is a debate, so I am very happy to hear whether the Scottish Conservatives are in favour of continued free movement of people, are in favour of continued membership of the free market and continued trade with the free market. However, I fear that I have a suspicion, and I hope that I am wrong. The chances of getting simplicity, clarity and straightforward answers from our friends on the Conservative benches today are rather similar to those of Ed Ball's being asked and invited to join the Bolshoi Bally. There seems to be some confusion on this side of the chamber. The question is not membership or not of the single market. It is not a binary proposition. The question is what level of access we will get to the single market and the terms upon which that access is negotiated. It is a matter of negotiation. Yes, cabinet secretary. Well, that was about as clear as mud, wasn't it? I do not know whether it was in binary or some other system, but I can tell you this. We are in favour of free movement, we are in favour of continued membership of the common market free trade arrangements, but we do not know, we simply do not have a clue what the UK Government's position is, but perhaps this debate will be an opportunity for Conservatives to dispel that confusion. Presiding Officer, there is no doubt that we do, therefore, face clear and present dangers. They are here and we cannot just ignore them. I have spelt out the numbers. They are truly frightening, but unlike the UK Government, which is neglecting its day job, I am getting on with mine. Presiding Officer, this Government is not prepared to wait for decisions to be made about Scotland's future. We are getting on with making Scotland's future. I am utterly focused on driving forward the rural economy, doing all that I can to inject confidence, consistency and certainty, as well as cash and sending a strong message that rural Scotland is and will remain open for business. We are on track to meet our ambitious broadband targets, providing vital 21st century infrastructure to support the rural economy. In last year, we have approved over £26 million worth of grants for forestry developments—a matter of some jocularity, apparently, to Conservatives—but something that those who are receiving them much appreciate. We are investing £20 million through SRDP in a new farm advisory service. We have invested £11 million in businesses, services and infrastructure in fishing, fish processing and aquaculture. Two weeks ago, I announced a national loan scheme worth up to £300 million for farmers and crofters injecting a huge stimulus into the rural economy this winter, welcomed by just about everybody in an unqualified fashion apart from the Conservatives. Next year, we will launch a national rural infrastructure plan to maximise the impact of investment and resources in rural communities. We will work with our partners to develop the national food and drink hub and I am hosting a series of summits with key rural and coastal businesses around the country with Mr Russell on shellfish back on Friday last week near Moffat on forestry, to learn from their views and to learn how best we grow the rural economy working with industry, academe and government together. Two things give me hope. First, the resilience, ingenuity, motivation and entrepreneurship of our people. Second, my belief that no government, not even the UK Government, would be so reckless, so delitory in their responsibilities, so ignorant of the threats facing the real rural world that they would fail to acknowledge the importance of access to markets worth £438 million for fishing and invaluable to our farmers and free movement of people. The UK Government must now, as we all do, recognise that the best way to protect our rural interests is by protecting Scotland's place in Europe, maintaining membership of the single market and access to the free movement of labour. I will continue to press UK ministers and I have written to them several times without substantive answer on any of the major points that I have raised today. I will continue to press them to do their job, to engage with us constructively and I hope that we, as Scotland's Parliament, can resolve to do all that we can to secure the jobs, the businesses, the investment and development dependent upon the economic and social benefits that the EU membership provides. I would say that we have had constructive discussions with the Greens about the terms and the wording of our motion and we have also had those with Labour colleagues and we will be accepting their amendment. In conclusion, we all want to do our best by those in rural Scotland. For that, we need to continue to have our positive relationship with our good friends in Europe and we need to have the continued goodwill of all of those EU citizens who give their life, their effort and their commitment to our country. I refer members to my register of interests in regard to farming. I note that Fergus Ewing is still preaching doom and gloom today and is still preaching division between Scotland and the UK Government. The Scottish Government has taken a courageous decision in holding this debate today, a courageous decision because its record on looking after our rural economy is simply abysmal. I think that it is fair to say that the whole chamber is aware of the litany of failures that this Government has been responsible for over the last decade when it comes to our rural economy. The Scottish Government has allowed this to happen because instead of focusing on running the country, it has been and is still obsessed by the idea of another independence referendum. I suppose that we should not be surprised when, in the words of the First Minister, independence transcends everything else. She said, and I quote, that the case for full self-government ultimately transcends the issues of Brexit, of oil, of national wealth and balance sheets. That is a shocking statement. It would shock unemployed oil workers in the north-east. It would shock all those waiting to hear what this Government will do to make the best of Brexit. It is a final admission that the SNP is not interested in running the country only in rerunning the independence referendum. While the Scottish Government ministers are talking up the prospect of another divisive referendum, what they should be doing is speaking up for all those who contribute to our rural economy. Those hard-working farmers, crofters and fishermen deserve better. Back in June, I voted for the main. I thought that it offered the best way forward for both Scotland and the UK. However, unlike the SNP Government, I have accepted the democratic will of the people. A clear majority across the UK voted to leave, and leave we must. Having said that, I also recognise that many opportunities exist from the EU referendum result. Opportunities that, if we embrace them enthusiastically, could reinvigorate our rural economy. From the highest hills down through our fairly lowlands and coastal towns, there is a path that we can take to strengthen our rural communities for the long term. I do not think that anyone that I have met in farming or fishing circles would claim that the EU is perfect. I certainly have never thought that. The EU is bureaucratic, undemocratic and bogged down by red tape, and a currency that is proving to be disastrous for poorer Mediterranean countries such as Greece, Spain and Italy. Does the member think that a country where more than half of its legislators are unelected, appointed for life and undismissable, is democratic? I of course refer to the House of Lords in the UK. That is a democracy that we have until we change it. We do not know, and you are speaking about uncertainty. There has been much talk of uncertainty following Brexit, but there would also have been great uncertainty for farmers, fishermen and crofters if we had remained in the EU. We do not know and we will not know for some time what the next cap system will look like, but we do know that year-in-year-out cap payments for farmers have been falling. Budgets are tight in the EU as well as here, and I am certain that less money will be available for European farmers in the future. Brexit offers an opportunity for the Scottish Government to reshape the way that it supports rural communities. It must be possible to design a better support system that is targeted at Scottish farmers and our unique problems rather than trying to accommodate 28 countries covering all of Europe from the Arctic Circle to the Mediterranean Sea. In that regard, could Mr Chapman answer me this? When David Cameron said that Brexit quotes would punish farmers, was he wrong? That remains to be seen. There is a negotiation to be done. If we get behind it, if you folks get behind it, of course there is a great opportunity ahead, but it requires the Scottish Government to get behind the system as well. It must be possible to design a better system. It must be. As NFU Scotland has pointed out, there is a real prize to be had from developing a new subsidy system. Nobody is saying that it will be easy. It will be difficult to get a support system tailored to Scotland's needs. The question is this. Will the SNP put in the legwork? Will they sit down with the industry? Will they sit down with farmers across Scotland who can see this opportunity? Will they sit down with the UK Government? Instead of banging on about the constitution, they should get on with the business of governing. Of course, it is not just farmers who need the Scottish Government on their side. Fishermen across Scotland, particularly those in my parts of the north-east, voted almost to a man to leave. Not so long ago, they would have trusted the SNP to speak up for them. They would have heard the comments of Alex Salmond, who, back in 2004, described the common fisheries policy as disastrous for Scotland's fishing communities. They would have felt that the SNP understood their concerns over, quote, Brussels's mismanagement. They may even have cheered when Mike Russell was appointed to Nicola Sturgeon's cabinet with responsibility for Brexit, as he had previously co-authored a book Grasping the Thistle, where he said that trade and not political integration should be a relationship with Europe. The further with which Nicola Sturgeon has attempted to deny the political and legal reality around the EU result, claiming that Scotland could stay in Europe shows a breathtaking contempt for fishing communities and a breathtaking lack of understanding of the real world. As former Cabinet Secretary Alex Neil has said, the EU has already made it clear that there will not be separate negotiations with Scotland until the after the UK-EU Brexit deal is done. When will the Scottish Government face up to the reality of our situation? If the Scottish Government were listening, it would have heard the Scottish Fishing Federation's views on this historic result. It would know that fishermen view this as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. It would know that fishermen value the chance to reinvigorate its coastal and island communities. It would know that fishermen see huge potential in getting back control of their waters. It would know the huge prize in setting the rules in some of the richest fishing grounds in the world. That said, we cannot allow our vital fishing industry to be used as a bargaining chip in Brexit negotiations. I am glad to say that someone in the SNP does see this opportunity. Councillor John Cox and SNP councillor has recognised the opportunity for north-east fishing from Brexit and has spoken out. Now, colleagues across the chamber will have seen this welcome headline today in the times, and here is a German business chief saying that Brexit will boost Britain. That is a welcome headline today. When partners and allies on the other side of the channel see the opportunities that we have, why cannot this Government—why must it be so determined to make a failure of Brexit? I hope that the Scottish Government gets behind Scottish fishing before it is too late. This is a Government that is attempting to distract from the record of incompetence by issuing furious press releases about the constitution. Why is that? It is because the Scottish Government does not have a plan to improve our rural communities. It is not listening to the industry leaders when it comes to Brexit. It is not listening to farmers, fishermen and everyone else who make up rural communities on lack of services. It is not listening to hard working doctors in remote towns who are being let down by the Government's inability to get more staff in place. It is not listening to furious council taxpayer in the north-east of Scotland who will pay 47 million extra in council tax, only to see tens of millions of that disappear into the central belt. That is because the SNP Government has turned their back on rural Scotland. It has taken rural communities for granted for nearly a decade, and it simply is not interested if it does not live in the central belt. When it comes to the cap IT system, the SNP wasted millions of pounds on a system that still cannot deliver, a system that has starved farmers of money rightfully theirs and desperately needed, a system that means that 40 million of last year's money is still outstanding nine months on. When we see record levels of debt for Scottish farmers, the SNP do not have a clue what to do. Folks across Scotland, whether they be industry leaders, individual farmers or skippers, can see the potential from Brexit. They know that a better Government would seek to work positively and constructively with the industry, with key stakeholders and with the UK Government, so that we can all get the best deal possible. A better Government would be big enough to listen. A better Government would be focused on creating a strong Scotland, not organising another unwanted referendum. Rural Scotland needs a better Government, and the SNP has a great opportunity to deliver it. The question is this, have the ability, the talent and the will to deliver it. My colleagues and I will fight for that new type of Government every day so that our rural economy can have the leadership that it deserves and the future that we believe that we can achieve. I move the amendment in my name. I call Rhoda Grant to speak to and move the amendment in her name. We in the Scottish Labour Party have supported the Scottish Government's stance to get the best deal for Scotland from Brexit. Ideally, that would mean respecting both mandates delivered by the Scottish people to remain part of the UK and remain in the EU, to forge strong alliances, sharing resources and knowledge. The decision to leave the EU will damage the rural economy. We have seen how Europe deals with peripherality, seeking to remove barriers and create fairer trading conditions. This is something Governments in the UK and Scotland have not done, and neither have they appeared to learn the need for this from Europe. I cover the Highlands and Islands region, a region that has benefited hugely from European assistance. We built roads, causeways and provided training and support for communities. We benefited from cap payments and rural development funding. There are also those things that will undoubtedly hit rural Scotland hardest. We have seen, as a response to austerity, the centralisation of resources, pulling jobs and investment from rural areas and concentrating them in urban areas. That does not augur well as Brexit will undoubtedly lead to fewer resources, and that will disproportionately impact on rural areas by causing greater centralisation. If rural Scotland is to be protected, we need to embrace policies that deal with peripherality, recognising that to do business and provide services will always cost more in rural areas. Transport challenges cause problems as to the lack of economies of scale. Both Governments need to ensure that rural Scotland does not disproportionately bear the brunt of Brexit. Can I firstly turn to our amendment with regard to broadband? A huge amount of work is happening at European level to ensure access to broadband. It is no longer a luxury but a necessity. We have already had European regional development funding for our broadband roll-out, but much more will come in the future, again targeted at the areas that have most to benefit but suffer market failure. The market fails are in rural Scotland but also in urban areas of deprivation. Parts of the country seem always to be at the back of the queue. I note that the Carnegie trust has published a research paper on digital participation and social justice in Scotland, making exactly those points quite starkly. I was reading that earlier today. Applications for welfare payments are now made online, and the employment department looks for electronic job applications as proof of job seeking. To do that, you must be online, and it makes it difficult for those without access to broadband to comply, leading to benefit sanctions. It also makes it more difficult for them to seek work in the first place. Those areas also lose out with access to health and public services. Access to broadband would allow those services to be delivered to them much closer to home. We need to provide those services for all our populations, something that will be difficult to do without the help of our European neighbours. We have to note the impact of the EU on roaming charges, something that we will all see the benefit of, as big mobile phone operators will have to charge reasonable amounts for roaming. That is something that we stand to lose with exit from the EU and something that we need to fight to keep. I welcome the UK Government's commitment to protect cap direct payments until 2020, the Scottish Government's decision to pass that on in relation to farmers and crofters. It will give them some comfort. However, we need to look further into the future. We know that working the land is not a year-on-year business. It cannot easily adapt to change. Land use can sometimes take years to change. We need to use this breathing space to look at our policy for farming going forward post 2020. Many say that cap payments will be unaffordable in the future. We need to see whether that is the case. If it is, we need to start working with farmers and crofters right now, helping them to build secure and prosperous businesses for the future. When we look at the system that will succeed cap payments, we also need to re-evaluate the relationship between farming subsidies and making sure that everyone in Scotland has access to cheap and nutritious food. Therefore, the Government's legislation on food is required sooner rather than later. We already have families dependent on food banks. If food becomes more expensive, it will have a knock-on effect and an indeed impact on the nutrition and health of the nation. That is not just about farmers and crofters. It is about much wider society. There are also rural payments such as the SRDP, which have not had the same guarantees placed on them by either Government. I heard at the weekend that the leader programme is closing to new applications. That was in the context of rural transport for communities who are looking to build their own transport solutions due to market failure. That is devastating to rural communities who need to provide essential services and develop community responses to rurality. Given the amount of economic benefit that flows from the leader, we need to find a way of replicating it, guaranteeing funding going forward and ensuring that our rural communities do not lose out. Does the Labour Party believe, as we do, that the most helpful thing to end the uncertainty about leader and other programmes under the SRDP is if the UK Government were to confirm that the planned investment under the SRDP of the EU will be met in full by the UK Government? I think that we need that sooner rather than later, because funding streams are already closing off two years ahead of any proposed Brexit. That means that, in those two years, we will lose the benefits that would flow from that. It is important to give a degree of stability to those depending on that funding, because it will get much worse if we do not do that and we will lose out in services to our rural communities. Can I turn quickly to fishing as well? We know that the fishing community is keen on Brexit, and I hope that they will not be disappointed, but I fear that they will. I think that we all appreciate that annual fishery negotiations left a lot to be desired, and they seem to be more about exhaustion that led to agreement rather than good management. That said, negotiations with Norway and the Farrows make CFP negotiations look fantastic, and we do not want to have those types of brinkmanship negotiations happening for the whole of Europe. We stand to lose access to EU funding, both for the European maritime fisheries fund and for scientific funding. Our fishing community has been at the forefront of developing new technology and providing more focused fisheries and minimising by-catch, and we do not want to lose those advantages. Neither do we want to see vast differences in regulation because of Brexit. We are going to have to negotiate with the rest of the EU besides, and there are many pitfalls in that, so our fishing industry cannot expect anend to red tape straight away, indeed, if it can in the future. We all know that we have much to lose from Brexit, and that is why the majority of those in the chamber campaigned against it. Something that brought a different vote in Scotland, however, we are facing it and it is incumbent on all of us to get the best outcome for Scotland and, indeed, for the UK. We want the Scottish Government to be part of those negotiations, but that means that it needs to work as part of the UK. It is not simply good enough to use that as a platform to promote its own ambitions of independence. We need both our Governments working together to protect the Scottish interests. Nothing less will be acceptable to Scotland and the UK, and I move the amendment in my name. We now enter the open debate, called Richard Lockhead, followed by Dean Lockhart. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Clearly, the outcome of the Brexit debate will have profound consequences for rural Scotland, and anyone like me who has taken a close interest in the relationship between the European Union and rural Scotland for many years must start by acknowledging that, due to the deep flaws in the common fisheries policy and the common agricultural policy, it is understandable that many people believe that Brexit offers an opportunity to leave those policies behind them, even though I believe that it is not the interests of all Scotland to leave the EU. I have spoken to not-that-many farmers who voted to remain, and we all know that many people in the catching sector of the fishing industry voted to leave the EU as well. It is essential that we listen to their reasons and fully respect their informed views. We know that the EU's agricultural policy is clearly flawed because farming incomes declined despite billions of pounds of public investment being pumped into that sector, and we know that the common fisheries policy fails miserably sometimes to respond quickly enough to industry concerns and the biology overseas. However, there is no doubt in my mind that leaving the EU, compounded by the Tory Government's apparent enthusiasm for a hard Brexit, is likely to bring turmoil for all Scotland's economy and particularly for our rural economy should that come to pass. Yes, rural Scotland will adapt to the post of Brexit world, but that will take years, and in the meantime, our communities will pay a really heavy price because our economy will fall a long way before it begins to climb back. That means that jobs and incomes will be hit hard for many businesses and many families who will suffer in rural coastal Scotland and across the whole of the country. I hear that Brexit Tories keep telling us that it will be all right on the night. Our farmers are promised milk and honey and our fishermen cam seas ahead once we get control of our waters back into our own hands here in the UK and Scotland. However, like most things in life, it is not quite as simple as that. Firstly, our primary producers need markets for their products, for our magnificent seafood and for our lamb and so on. However, the focus of the Brexit debate so far in Scotland and indeed the UK in particular has been about maintaining access to our membership of the single market. What we absolutely have to focus on is the implications for rural Scotland of departing the customs union. That is what we need to hear more about and be more concerned about in this Parliament. The Prime Minister may be talking about ways of maintaining a deep trading relationship with the EU post-Brexit, but she has effectively ruled out maintaining the customs union with the EU by setting up the Department for International Trade under Liam Fox, which has got the specific aim of finding new markets. As I understand it, members of the customs union cannot often negotiate their own free trade agreements with the rest of the world, so it seems that Tories are now spiralling towards a hard Brexit and preparing to walk away from the customs union. A hard Brexit and departure from the customs union spells costs, bureaucracy for our rural industries, every nut and bolt or langoustine or craft beer exported to the EU will have to be the subject of new trade negotiations. I appreciate the importance of the points to make, but does he not accept that it is possible and indeed it is the status quo for countries to be members of the single market without the members of the customs union? I quote Norway as an obvious example. Well, you are either in the customs union or you are out it. If Scotland is taking out the customs union against our will, that will have enormous consequences for Scotland's exporters, particularly our food and drink exporters and our primary products. Of course, this is a debate about rural Scotland and these economies are very important to rural communities. I am also very concerned about the UK's track record of broken promises to many of our rural sectors in light of all the promises that are being made at the moment. Mr Chapman said that there is a danger that fishing will be used as a bargaining chip. The only minister that has been in the news recently who has said that it is possible that fishing in the UK could be used as a bargaining chip is the UK Conservative minister, George Eustace. Not only did the Conservatives betray our fishing communities when they took us into the CFP back in the 70s, it looks like now they are lining up to betray our fishing communities again in this time when they actually tried to get us out of the CFP and out of Europe, so the Scottish Tory party has to ensure that the UK Tory party does not betray our fishing communities once again. We are also promised that Brexit will enhance the powers of the Scottish Parliament. As we heard from Fergus Ewing in his opening remarks, there are more powers over many of our rural industries that could be devolved to the Scottish Parliament at the moment, but the UK Government takes the decision not to do that. Let's look at the post-Brexit scenario should that happen, and let's look at the supposed powers that will come back to Scotland. First of all, we hear a lot about Fisheries policy. At the moment, Fisheries policy is supposed to be devolved to the Scottish Parliament, but the fortunes of our fishing communities are decided through international negotiations. The UK Government conveniently deems international negotiations as a reserved issue because it is foreign affairs. That will continue post-Brexit, so the fortunes of our fishing communities that are largely dependent on the outcome of those international negotiations will still remain a reserved issue post-Brexit unless the UK Government is going to devolve foreign affairs, which I think is unlikely to the Scottish Government. There is also the issue of funding, which Fergus Ewing quite rightly has highlighted. Brexit will mean that the responsibility for funding many of our rural industries will pass from Brussels and the European Union to the UK Treasury in London. The UK Treasury in London's policy is to reduce funding for our rural industries, particularly direct farming, for agriculture communities. Therefore, Brexit means that the shield that is protected many of our rural communities up to now through EU membership with the UK's outvoted by other countries will be shattered and our rural communities will be exposed to decisions taken by the UK Treasury in London. That is a major threat to our rural industries. Food and drink is growing at double the UK average, which rather responds to the point from Mr Chapman that the Scottish Government is not protecting rural communities. We are growing at double the average of the UK sector. Issues such as protected geographical indication, which is protected food names, are very important to Scottish food and drink products. What is going to happen to that protection that has been built up over many, many years if we are out of the customs union and out of the single market and out of Europe? That is a real concern for many of the food and drink producers in Scotland at the moment. There is about £700 million worth of exports and salmon in some of our other major PGI products at the moment. That is why maintaining our on-going relationship is absolutely essential for Scotland's rural communities. I wish our ministers all the best in ensuring that the wishes of rural Scotland and the whole of Scotland are respected going forward and that it will maintain our relationship with Europe to protect the interests of Scotland's rural communities. Dean Lockhart, to be followed by Emma Harper. Mr Lockhart talked about further powers being transferred to this Parliament. We are still waiting to see how the SNP will use their existing powers. In our amendment to the Government motion, we have stressed the importance of securing jobs, incomes, businesses, investment and development in rural Scotland itself. That is why we, on this side of the chamber, will continue to focus on the opportunities available to the rural economy going forward and not share in the gloom and doom of the SNP. As Peter Chapman has already made clear, there will be challenges arising from Brexit and we will have to address those challenges. However, this Government's past and on-going rural economic policy has been far more damaging to the rural economy than any potential impact of Brexit. For example, back in 2008, the OECD published a review of rural policy in Scotland and, amongst its key findings, the rural economy in Scotland suffered from centralisation and a lack of local participation in rural policy making and also suffered from weak integration of rural, regional and sector policies. Unfortunately, rural economic policy in Scotland has not progressed a great deal in the eight years since that report. According to an Audit Scotland report published in July a couple of months ago, the Government's economic and development policy, at again I quote, is a broad high-level strategy that does not set out in detail how underpinning policies and initiatives will be implemented. Presiding Officer, with no coherent economic or development planning or implementation in place, it is no surprise that the rural economy has suffered over the last 10 years. Further examples of bad policy are set out in the Audit Scotland report, which notes that the Government has identified seven growth sectors in the Scottish economy, including two sectors that are vital for the rural economy, which are sustainable tourism and food and drink. However, Audit Scotland goes on to say that those growth sectors have now been prioritised by the Government for nine years, but the Scottish Government has not carried out an assessment of what has been achieved as a result of the support. In other words, after almost a decade in power, the Government has not reviewed the results of an economic policy introduced 10 years ago. It is clear that this is clear economic mismanagement, and it means that the current and changing needs of rural Scotland are not being met. Well, let's take food and drink. You have just heard Mr Lockhead say that the growth of food and drink has been twice that of England. I would say that in itself as a measure of success, and everybody in the sector says so. In sustainable tourism, I was tourism minister for five years and the sector is doing extremely well. Everybody says that. Does Mr Carson not realise that? I would suggest that success is despite and not because of Government policy. Let me just conclude that Audit Scotland also highlighted the widespread confusion over the full range of public sector support and funding that is available to businesses in rural Scotland. Audit Scotland highlights that public sector support is not well understood, and it goes on to state that the financial support that is available to the rural community is unnecessarily complex, a clear indication that business in rural Scotland is not getting the financial support that it needs. It is interesting that Mr Ewing mentions the food and drink sector. That is an area of opportunity that I will come on to. I highlight those issues today because they demonstrate that there are urgent issues that need to be addressed in rural Scotland, and it is within the powers of this Government to address those issues. They are independent of Brexit, and it is within the power of this Government to address those issues. Let me move on to the opportunities because it covers some of the sectors that Mr Ewing mentioned. The best way of securing jobs and developing business in rural Scotland is for the Government to take action. We have been highlighting to develop those sectors of the rural economy that can benefit from Brexit, and not just keep relying on subsidies that are coming from the EU. We have an example of that. Mr Ewing mentioned sustainable tourism and food and drink. Look at food and drink. The largest exporter in this sector, as you know, is Scotch-Whiskey. We met representatives of the SWA at the economy committee today, and they told us that there are significant opportunities going forward to increase exports of Scotch-Whiskey. One example was in South America, where there is massively increasing demand, but there is only one office of Scottish Development International covering the whole of South America. I look forward to hearing during the course of today, what actions the Government will take to exploit those opportunities. I am interested in what the member says. I wonder if he can advise us how many embassies or consulates of the UK have had events for Scotch-Whiskey for which they have not charged to commercial rate? Dean Lockhart? That is a very specific question. I do not have that information to hand, as I am sure you would expect. Let me conclude by highlighting that this Government must change its policies towards the rural economy. First of all, the Government's lack of detail in economic policy and the confusion over financial support that is made available to the rural business community needs to be clarified. As is highlighted by Audit Scotland, the latest example of unclear policy was the Scottish Government's announcement of the Scottish growth scheme, which was announced two weeks ago. A policy that has caused confusion not only in the rural business community but across the business community in Scotland. I will conclude now, Presiding Officer. There is much the SNP can do now to support the economy in rural Scotland. First, it has to stop scaremongering over Brexit, and then it must seize the opportunities that we and leading business organisations are highlighting. However, it is becoming increasingly clear that, after almost a decade in power, this is a Government lacking in vision, running out of ideas, it has got no new policies, and a Government unable to deal with new challenges and unable to grasp the very real opportunities that lie ahead. I am pleased to be able to speak in this important debate about how we can best secure the interests of Scotland's rural economy following the EU referendum. I represent South Scotland, where farming and food and drink, two of the sectors most likely to be impacted by Tory Brexit, play a vital role in providing employment and maintaining economic stability. Dumfries and Galloway has nearly a quarter of Scotland's cai, more than any other region in Scotland, and 16 per cent of Scotland's sheep just behind Galloway's neighbour, the Borders. Dumfries and Galloway is one of Scotland's top food-producing regions. The food and drink sector generates over £500 million a turnover annually and employs over 9,000 people. It has long been one of D&G's greatest strengths. The implications of this Tory Brexit are therefore potentially huge. 69 per cent of Scotland's overseas food and exports go to the EU, a third of Scottish whisky exports go to the EU, and 68 per cent of Scottish seafood exports go to the EU. Scotland's food and drink is worth £14 billion a year to the Scottish economy. Leaving the European Union will increase costs to businesses and reduce access to markets. The 60 EU free trade agreement, yes. Rachael Hamilton. The Bank of Scotland survey summarised that, despite current uncertainty, Scotland's food and drink sector is remarkably more confident compared with 12 months ago. 82 per cent predict an increase or a change in jobs forecast following the EU referendum. I just wondered if Emma Harper felt that the Scottish food and drink industry were actually uncertain by the EU referendum or positive. Emma Harper. Thanks for that intervention. Brexit hasn't actually happened yet. I think that that's something that everybody really needs to pay attention to. The Bank of Scotland are continuing to look at information next year. They're predicting that we'll have more, but it depends on what happens in the future. It's likely that the export of health certificates for our products that we are exporting to the EU are costing around £300 per consignment, and that will be required for all trade in the EU in meat, fish and dairy products. The UK Government must commit to upholding the standards set by the EU with regards to animal health and welfare to allow us to continue to trade. Finding ways of mitigating those costs for Scotland must be a priority for Westminster. I'm going to expand a little bit on what Richard Lochhead said with his comments about our protected food status. Having spoken to many in the sector since the referendum, including the Galloway Cattle Society, another issue that has been raised consistently is that of products with protected food name status. Scotland has several geographical indication or GI products that are absolutely vital to the success of our food and drink sector, including Scottish farm salmon, beef and Scotch lamb, and of course Scotch whisky. It's been mentioned already. It has been registered as a GI in many countries across the world, including the EU. Recently, I met the board to quality meet Scotland, and the importance of maintaining the origin of food labelling was stressed to me. The provenance of Scottish produce lends itself to further economic development opportunities, which we cannot be allowed to have diluted. The recent trend towards attempting to market uniquely Scottish products as they originate from the UK, rather than Scotland, is actually quite puzzling and even alarming. Recently, we have seen rebranding of Scottish strawberries and Ur haggis, the great chief of the pudding race rebranding as British haggis, and Scotch whisky rebranding as UK whisky. Let us be clear the strength and success of our food and drink industry nationally is that £14 billion makes for a potential target for Theresa May's government. Presiding Officer, it seems not only the job of the Tories to talk down Scotland, but also to drive down the economy of Scotland. Since 2014, no, in my last couple of minutes, since 2014, we have seen a sustained attack on Scotland's renewable energy, another sector that holds the potential for future economic benefit for the whole of Scotland. I strongly suspect that this has been done, at least in part, on the basis that we are Scotland to fully utilise our natural resources. It would boost our economy beyond the reach of Westminster and, in turn, place the future of the union at risk. The same cannot be allowed to happen to our food and drink sector, which is on track to hit a turnover of £16.5 billion by 2017. It is essential that products with protected food name status, such as Scotch beef, lamb and whisky, continue to recognise at home and abroad. Unfortunately, the future of geographical indications relies on a UK scheme being put in place and a negotiation agreement with the EU for those to be recognised. I do not want to see our agricultural sectors left at the mercy of the Tories at Westminster. The livelihoods of real people, my constituents, depend on it. It is patently ridiculous for those in the Tory seats, even by their standards, to demand that the SNP clean up the Tory Brexit mess. It was created by them and their Westminster colleagues. However, I know that the Scottish Government will do its utmost to mitigate the damaging effects of the muckled-sized midden that is the Tory Brexit. I say to the Tories quite emphatically in stark contrast to the shambolic state of affairs at Westminster, that Scottish Government has a plan. What we need from the Tories is urgent clarification on how the Prime Minister will deliver on her commitment to giving Scotland a full and equal say in the forthcoming negotiations and not just treat Scotland as window dressing. Lewis MacDonald, followed by Bruce Crawford. Thank you very much. We agree with the Government's motion today when it contends that rural interests are best served by protecting Scotland's place in Europe, maintaining membership of the single market and access to the free movement of labour. Those are important objectives, but the difference between membership of the EU and membership of the single market is greater for the rural economy than it is for Scotland as a whole. It is on that difference that I want to focus on today. Membership of the single market outwith the European Union does not involve being part of the common agricultural policy. It does not involve being part of the common fisheries policy, and not indeed does it guarantee a tariff-free trade in the produce of those sectors with EU member states. That debate therefore goes to the heart of some of the choices that we face in a way that poses real challenges to both our Governments. Theresa May will not say whether she will seek to negotiate continued membership of the single market. No doubt, because there are some in her party in favour and some against. Nicola Sturgeon's response has been to insist that membership of the single market is essential to protecting Scotland's interests and is therefore a red line issue in discussions with the UK Government. Membership of the single market means membership of the European Economic Area, which in turn requires the state to belong either to the EU or to EFTA, the European Free Trade Association. The EEA includes all the members of the EU and three of the four members of EFTA, Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein. If membership of the single market after Brexit is the objective, we need to be clear about how that works for those members of the European Economic Area, which do not belong to the European Union. That is why members of the European Committee visited Brussels in July to find out the difference for ourselves at first hand. We met the ambassadors to the European Union of two of those countries, Norway and Iceland, as well as the ambassador of Ireland, whose view of how it all works from a northwest European perspective was also valuable. The European Economic Area requires its members to follow a raft of policies that are decided by the European Union. It is not just a common market for trade. Some 10,000 pieces of EU legislation apply across the EEA. Those workers' rights, consumer rights and environmental protections all have the same legal force in Norway and Iceland as they do in Britain and Ireland. EEA member countries make contributions to EU cohesion funds in line with those that they would make if they were in the European Union itself. They pay for their membership of the single market. However, those countries are not subject to cap or the CFP, they are not parties to the EU Economic Area or, indeed, to the European Customs Union, they do not benefit directly from European structural funds and they are not represented in the European Parliament or on the European Commission or the council. Those exclusions are not incidental results of staying out with the European Union. Concerns about farming and fishing are precisely why Norway and Iceland did not choose to join the European Union as Britain, Ireland and Denmark had done, but chose to join and to form a single market with the European Union instead. For those countries, paying into the European Union while getting no payments back, being subject to EU law with no say in EU decision making, facing tariff barriers to their exports of farm produce and fish are all a price worth paying in exchange for membership of the single market in goods and services, freedom of movement for labour and for capital and the right to decide their own policies on agriculture and fisheries. The bodies that represent farming and fishing in Scotland have demanded that their sectoral interests should not be traded away as part of any future deal, and that they are right to raise their concerns. The Scottish Government has made clear over recent weeks that its key priority is for Scotland to enjoy the benefits of membership of the single market. Those benefits do not extend to all of the rural economy because the European Union does not demand free trade in agricultural produce or in fish as a price of membership of the single market, nor does membership provide access to European structural funds, funds that are worth, for example, £11 million to Aberdeenshire alone in the current funding period, which have delivered £25 million of funding for environment and energy projects in the city of Aberdeen over the past five years. There are a number of questions that I hope Scottish Government ministers will address at the end of this afternoon. I suspect Mr Russell will be closing the debate. First of all, how European markets for food experts can be secured, given that the single market does not encompass farming and fishing? If membership of the single market is, indeed, Nicola Sturgeon's one red line in discussions with UK ministers, what guarantees are there for Scottish farmers and fishermen that their interests will not be traded away in pursuit of that objective? If the answer to that question is that protecting farming and fishing is indeed a high priority, do Scottish Government ministers believe, like the Governments of Norway and Iceland, that those sectors are best protected outwith the single market as not been covered by any single market deal? Finally, what access can there be in future to European structural funds since access to those funds is not part of the deal that members of the single market outwith the European Union currently enjoy? Those questions, I believe, need to be addressed indeed by ministers in both Governments, and I hope that Mr Russell will make a start on answering those questions at the close of this debate today. Bruce Crawford, followed by Liam Kerr. Since the announcement of the result of the referendum on the UK's EU membership on 24 June, one thing remains absolutely clear. Scotland wants to maintain her place within the European community. That should be no surprise to anyone in the chamber, as Scotland reaches significant financial benefits from the EU, as well as numerous important rights and liberties that now stand potentially to be lost. However, I am pleased that at least the Scottish Government has given to itself to ensuring that our rural communities have their economic needs addressed and are empowered to generate their own economic growth and sustainability. The sustainability of Scotland's rural economy is not only vital for rural areas of Scotland but for Scotland's economy as a whole. In supporting our rural communities, successive Scottish Governments have benefited from much-needed EU funding. As we know, the common agricultural policy is the largest item of the EU budget, and Scottish farmers, including those in my constituency, receive around €480 million a year in direct subsidies. Scotland was set to receive around €500 million by 2020 in rural development funds. In future, any cuts to farm subsidies and rural areas from the UK Government will have a knock-on effect, not just on farmers but on ancillary rural economic activities that are dependent on farming. My constituency has a big rural population who have, in the past, secured significant advantage from the various EU funding streams. Thousands of my constituents have benefited from countless projects, thanks to those contributions from the EU. The EU-funded SRDP, for instance, has played a key role in my constituency by enhancing the rural economy, supporting agriculture on forestry businesses and protecting the fantastic natural environment that we have to offer. Take, for example, the leader programme, which I think we would have grant quite rightly raised earlier, within the fourth valley and lomond area, encompassing my constituency. Stilling constituency was allocated £2.7 million by the Scottish Government using CAP pillar 2 funding, which levered in an additional £3.6 million. However, the Treasury has only been able to guarantee pillar 1 funding until 2020 for farmers and crofters alike. However, where does that leave us with the funding for rural development under pillar 2? Just as the Tories are leaving EU citizens who have made Scotland their home in Limbo, so too are our rural communities across Scotland, who are likely to lose access to the vital schemes that they have enjoyed for many years. It concerns me and should concern everyone in this chamber what the negative effect will be from the loss of such funding to the agricultural industry and the many community projects that are supported from the EU funds. I mentioned leader earlier that leader has not only generated jobs and economic activity in my constituency, but it has played an important role in providing local groups on the ground with real practical help with the funding of projects to help local communities. The Barmaharpon Toon project, the refurbishment of Garganic community hall, or the funding of the jazz on the lost festival in Calender, are all some examples. With fabulous landscapes from forests and woods in my constituency, the ISRDB forestry funding still in council has been awarded over £340,000 during the last EU session for the woods in and around towns fund. The demise of leader would deprive local businesses and communities across Scotland of tools to play an active role in shaping their own future. Leader encourages innovation and responses to old and new problems and becomes a laboratory for building local capabilities and capacities. I am also privileged to represent a large part of Loch Lomond and Trossach's national park, as well as a number of other strategic landscape assets. Tourism and micro-business are the main economic drivers across the whole area, attracting large numbers of visitors from across the world, particularly during the peak tourism season. A large part of my constituency's revenue is based on the thousands of tourists who visit each month and spend their money in the welcoming and piscite picturesque rural villages. Funding from the EU has helped to ensure that those local villages receive financial support to enhance their offering to tourists and locals alike. It is therefore with deep regret that I consider the effects of the UK's exit from the EU that it could have on those types of projects in Scotland. Frankly, we need the UK Government to commit to supporting pillar 2 funding in full now before any further damage is done to the rural economy. Projects are already beginning to run into the sand and people are no longer committing themselves to the future. That is the effect that it is already having. That is not doom mongering as some of the Tories would. That is realistic on the ground. If you go and speak to people, you will find out that that is exactly what has happened. However, I have every confidence that my colleagues Fergus Ewing and Mike Russell will fully represent Scotland's interests in the upcoming discussions. It is vital that we demonstrate to Westminster and to our European colleagues how much we value the support that we gain from our EU membership. Scotland's farmers and rural communities cannot be let down by the UK Government unless we do all that we can in Scotland to ensure that the interests of all of our rural communities are fought for and fully represented in future Brexit negotiations. I will leave with one thought. I have heard a lot from the Tories about the SNP talking down Scotland this afternoon. That is effectively what you are being saying. However, it was David Mundell who said on 23 June in the Daily Mail that all the economic experts predict the potential damage a Brexit would do to jobs, mortgages and the economy and, as across the whole of Scotland, is just too severe. That is coming from the Secretary of State himself. There are a number of quotes, loads and loads of quotes from Tories, including your own leader here in Scotland, that have demonstrated how damaging Brexit could be. However, now you are running away from the reality that you have painted the picture earlier into some sort of fantasy land that you are now living in. As if all that did not exist, those comments were never made, and the Presiding Officer is telling me that I am coming close to my time anyway. I will just leave it at that. It is time that we all grew up and played the real game. Liam Kerr, to be followed by John Finnie. There is something very special about our Scottish countryside. Not only in itself, but also because it forms the basis for a rural economy, which generates billions of pounds every year. Our food and drink, whether whisky or salmon, ardiangos beef, storn away black pudding to haddock and chips, are celebrated and enjoyed the world over. Our sporting estates draw in millions of tourists a year, with tourism expenditure of billions of pounds, and they support vibrant and sustainable local economies. Despite that bright picture, the agricultural fisheries and sporting sectors are facing crises, which have absolutely nothing to do with the UK's democratic decision to leave the European Union or, indeed, as Emma Harper suggests, the Tories. The farming industry failed by a Scottish Government that has botched the delivery of cap payments so badly that the value of outstanding backgrounds to Scottish agriculture has risen to £2.2 billion. A fishing industry, already facing further regulation from Brussels on how they are allowed to fish, left in limbo by a Scottish Government that refuses to spend money on supporting an industry forced to pay for its own policing. Is it really a surprise that perhaps 95 per cent of fishermen voted to leave the European Union? Both groups are fed up with the empty promises and posturing of the SNP and both staged unprecedented protests outside the Scottish Parliament demanding to be heard demanding help. Our rural economy is so much more. Our sporting estates bring over £470 million to the economy and employ more than 8,000 people. Following the EU referendum, Scottish Land and Estates published a paper, the first paragraph of which states that exiting the EU potentially presents a unique opportunity to bring a new way of thinking about how to deliver safety, standards and environmental outcomes, while removing unnecessary and costly burdens on businesses and lead the world. The recent vote presents an opportunity to change specific EU regulations that work poorly for rural businesses, consumers and the countryside and which are holding back growth in the rural economy and environmental improvements. Stuart Stevenson Can he name three specific regulations that he would revoke? Liam Kerr I am surprised, stunned in fact, that Stuart Stevenson dares to intervene on the rural economy. We had a debate last week about the increase in council tax. It is an increase that will hit Aberdeenshire homes and families disproportionately. 41 per cent of families face an increase. No voice from the SNP was raised in protest and certainly not elected MSPs from the north-east of Scotland. That is a disgrace, Stuart Stevenson. Even if we leave out the considerable economic arguments on purely conservation and land management grounds, the estates of Scotland should be backed to the hilt and supported. However, this Government does not want to do that. Instead of providing assurance and positivity, we have land reform legislation that underlines the obsession with who owns what rather than how the land can be best managed, using ambiguous terms that remain ill-defined and open to misinterpretation—of course, something that we have heard before about SNP legislation. The scrapping of rates relief on our sporting estates could have a devastating impact on those businesses, making many unprofitable and forcing gamekeepers, their families and many other local trades out of work. Those are businesses that make a key contribution to rural tourism, local employment and the environment, attacked by reason of ideological prejudice. However, that debate is for another day. Bruce Crawford I wonder whether the member really realises that by strutting estates not paying rates, what they are effectively doing is making sure that local shopkeepers are subsidising their activity. Would that not be good for the Scottish economy in the whole term? Liam Kerr If Mr Crawford had been listening, he would have heard me say just at that point that that debate is for another day, and I will happily have it with him. However, we are talking about the EU and coming out of the EU. My point, Presiding Officer, is that this Government yet again is refusing to look at the positives, the opportunities to be taken from the UK's vote as our rural sectors and, indeed, Alex Neil would like them to do. The Scottish Fisherman's Federation and Scottish Association of Fish Producers organisations told us only yesterday that this is an unexpected but welcome opportunity to deliver a significant boost to investment and employment in our rural economy. It is quite clear that the biggest impediment to securing the interests of Scotland's rural economy is not the UK's democratic decision to withdraw from the EU, but is, in fact, this Government, obsessed with land ownership and independence, it delivers merely incompetence. Why not put all that aside and get back to the day job that they were elected to do? Sort the cap crisis, support our fishing industry and, once and for all, end this petty obsession with punishing our sporting estates? Accordingly, I commend the amendment to the chamber. One of the great mysteries of this chamber is when I'm running out of time, everyone talks over, and when I have some time in hand, everyone comes in, even with interventions, under the allotted request time. It's just to let remaining speakers know that there is a little bit of leeway available. John Finnie followed by, and maybe I shouldn't have said this until after this, Speaker Stuart Stevenson. The Scottish Game Party will be supporting the Scottish Government's motion tonight, and I never thought I would commence a speech by agreeing with Mr Mundell when the cabinet secretary quotes him saying that the risks are too great and Mr Crawford there outlines the remark that Mr Mundell said about the severity of the implications. Those implications aren't simply economic, they're also social benefits. My Highlands and Islands colleague, Rhoda Grant, talked about the infrastructure benefits that have come to the Highlands as a result of membership to the EU, and they're very apparent for everyone to see. The big question is what our countryside should look like. The view of the Scottish Green Party that our rural and coastal communities should be vibrant places. Lots of small communities owning, respecting and benefiting from natural resources, adequate housing, local schooling with a range of access to public services, and, for that reason, we will also be supporting the Labour amendment as a reminder of the importance of broadband. In a rural economy, 98 per cent of Scotland's land mass is rural, 18 per cent of its population, 16 per cent of its employment, 30 per cent of its enterprises and 40 per cent of small and medium enterprises. They are vibrant but fragile places, and their hallmark to rural communities, multiple job-holding, under-employment and seasonal employment, often linked to housing availability. As has been outlined by more than one speaker, sectors depend on migrant labour. We cannot deal with the uncertainty that Brexit has visited upon us. Membership of the single market is mentioned in the motion. It's not about access, it is about membership, and, likewise, the motion mentions freedom of movement. Certainly, the view of the Scottish Green Party that the Prime Minister should be spelling out her intentions to safeguard free movement of people, however likely that is, allow for a separate membership deal for Scotland, if necessary, and one that better reflects how we voted. The economic benefit to the United Kingdom of EU migrants is well documented. A few figures here from research from 2014 that, during the period 2001 to 2011, $22 billion more recently had an HMRC report. EU migrants made a positive contribution to the UK public finances of over $2.5 billion in 2013-14. That's a significant figure. It's a contribution, a positive contribution that's particularly and keenly felt in rural areas with agriculture, hospitality and social care, which is very important for a growing and ageing population. However, there is an opportunity to review and we should be reviewing our policies, regardless of what happens with the EU. We cleanly want to stay in the EU, it's not without its flaws. People have acknowledged that. I would give one other example, the very virulent anti-EU newspaper owner, Mr Paul Diker, resident of the Highlands Islands. He landed more than a quarter of a million pounds in EU subsidies for his sporting estate in Wester Ross and, indeed, another €13,000 direct-farn payments. The previous cabinet secretary for rural affairs opposed payments in floating estates, and I understand that he made representations to the EU, but it was said to be too loosely defined. I hope that that's a position that continues that the Scottish Government will pursue that. Grateful to the various organisations that have provided briefings. The Scottish Wildlife Trust, for instance, talks about four significant issues that will need to be addressed to achieve the best possible outcome for Scotland's natural environment. They talk about the future of environmental legislation and we know that the EU has been responsible for a considerable volume of quality legislation that has made the world a better place. Funding to support sustainable land management. It is an important issue and welcome to the land fund, obviously, and how Scotland achieves healthy seas. That is about sustainable fisheries management. It is about local fisheries management. It is also recognising that fish do not recognise international boundaries and that it will require international co-operation. They also say at the final of their four points, ensuring that Scotland remains at the centre of excellence for science and knowledge exchange. Perhaps rarely there was cross-party consensus on an issue that this impacts on. That was the agreement with post-study visas. It is very unfortunate that the UK Government did not pick up on that for Scotland at least. The Scottish Government recognises the importance of our rural communities. Natural capital is a key priority of the Scottish Government's economic strategy. The cabinet secretary talked about the potential loss of 40 million trees. That is with a well-known dip coming in our timber production. Greens would see a different emphasis, like smaller units of agriculture rather than the large agricultural businesses. It is only £350 million that supports the agri-environment schemes that are paid through the SRDP pillar 2. It is not just us that think those flaws that the recent Audit Scotland report on current cap programme confirms that view. It failures with the present scheme. Of course, it is understandable that there will be direct payments to support food production. It is obvious that benefits associate itself with that. However, Scots throw away 600,000 tonnes of food and drink every year, costing £1 billion. Agriculture and related land use contributes to 20 per cent of total greenhouse gas emissions in Scotland. However, on the rural economy and connectivity committee, we heard last week that there are steps being taken in respect of that. Intense farming has a significant contribution to pollution 2. We want to contrast the relatively small amount of money that is spent in agri-environment schemes through pillar 2, which incentivises land managers to deliver public benefits. That is improving, promoting and providing public access, creating new habitats, removing non-native species, expanding native species, planting native woodland, supporting conservation grazing and restoring peatlands. One of the briefings that I read was from the Royal Society of Edinburgh that talked about establishing a new framework for all the areas that are currently covered by the EU legislation. It said that it is a major task and that it questioned the staff resilience that would go with that. We rely very much on our staff and the various directorates. That is a huge challenge if we have to leave the EU. It is vitally important that the Scottish Government is fully involved in negotiations. As I understood it, unless other parties wish to say otherwise, they were charged with representing and protecting Scotland's interests in those negotiations, and certainly the Scottish Green Party wishes to see that continuing and are appreciative of efforts thus far. It is very clear that the impacts of Brexit are far-reaching and that there will be challenges for Scotland's natural capital. It is vital that we have vibrant and viable coastal and rural communities. It is very important that we determine how best taxpayers' money is spent to maximise the benefits and achieve sustainable land management. We want that to take place within the EU and within the single market. We want freedom of movement—that is a red-line issue for us—failing in which we will chart our own destiny. Thank you, Presiding Officer, for your confidence in the value of my contribution. Let me just start by saying that the Tories might be well advised not to try and fight previous battles. Mr Chapman referred to independence four times in the first two minutes of his speech, seven times in all. We have had one additional reference from Dean Lockhart. In the last week's debate, he made 15 references to independence. I am going to focus on the subject of today's debate because that is what matters to rural people in Scotland. Let me start by saying that the Scottish Fishermen's Federation is absolutely correct when it talks about the opportunities that are derived from Brexit. I have throughout my entire political life campaigned against the common fisheries policy. There is no change from this member of the Parliament. However, what we have to be absolutely careful about is that Westminster is not allowed to sell out interests of our fish-catching sector. Once again, as it did when it took us into the common fisheries policy, Tory Government did that. We cannot allow Tory Government to do that again. The National Farmers Union, too, I want to agree with. The National Farmers Union seeks common ground on major red lines, future trade agreements, agricultural support and labour in their industry. I hope that we can make progress in this debate and agree that it is important that our agricultural industries continue to have access to labour. It is fishing, it is agriculture. Scottish strawberries might be under threat if we cannot get people to come and pick them. However, on fishing, the issue of most concern to my constituents is control over our fishing grounds that is a must-win issue for fishing communities in Scotland and beyond. The chief executive of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations, which is roughly the English equivalent of RSFF, said in fishing news last week that the issues will be access to our boats in other nations' waters, foreign boats in ours. He is correct. In the murky waters of international negotiations, it seems that anything goes. Internal negotiations within the UK illustrate that. Generally, decisions are simply handed down from UK ministers. We have seen in the last year a delay over some of our monk fish swap that the cabinet secretary referred to, preference given to English whitefish trawlers, rewiting and Arctic God, top slicing of North Sea whiting from Scotland, handed to English inshore fleet and an allocation of an excessive amount of mackerel again to the English inshore fleet. In determining a UK position, there must be agreement from all the jurisdictions that are affected by the issue, not simply a position that reflects the needs of one. Scottish ministers are well used to representing the UK and agreed UK positions on the international stage. A quick look at my ministerial diaries identified at least five such occasions where I represented the UK, representing a UK position. Negotiations, of course, proceed in part along paths that are determined by the party on the opposite side of the table. That means that one has to have a minister at the top of his or her game to lead on negotiations. As it happens in Scotland, we have some of the best negotiation trainers in the world and I write in today's BAMFIA journal about their methods. If you want to read my comments, they can be read at negotiate.stuartsteamson.scot. There will be excellent, Mr Rumbles, well worth three. To give our industry confidence, we need a minister leading fisheries negotiations for the UK who has a bigger stake in the outcome than any UK minister is likely to have. It needs to be a Scottish minister. It is also likely to be good for UK fishermen outwith Scotland, as such a minister is much less likely to sell out fishing industries for some undisclosed trade-off as happened 40 years ago. Let's look at the position of Tory UK's Scottish Secretary, David Mundell, a rich source of quotes. In the present journal he said, the idea that we would go back to a position where we were entirely in control of our own fishing is not one that is realistic, sold out again by the Tories before the talks have even started just like the CFP and the Tories. Equally, we must consider the position of communities dependent on processing the bounty of our seas from the artisanal smoke houses and processors in small west coast and island communities to the large industrial processors in my constituency and elsewhere. For them, access to labour and access to market are vital. The EU is the largest fish market in the world, and it takes in particular premium products that have the highest margins and therefore contribute differentially to higher profits than other markets. Outside the single market, even when there is access to it, countries find it particularly difficult to export to the EU without cost and time penalties and without discrimination against particular fish species and particular food products. Without the many foreign nationals who work in fish processing, production must inevitably drop. We simply can't staff the factories in Bamshire and Buchencoast, in Fraserbury and in Fethyhead, in particular, without nationals coming from elsewhere. The UK Government is as opaque as ever in its plans. There is an emerging indication of what is called the hard Brexit, and others have made reference to that. However, that would hit fishing communities particularly hard and undermine the advantages derived from leaving the common fisheries policy. We have seen that the Tories are trying to cover their failures by referring to other matters. The issue that has really got us to the point that we are in is the blank sheet of paper that is the plan for Brexit—still a blank sheet of paper. Contrast with what happened in 2014, when there was a 650-page document able to be analysed and attacked, dissected, of the plans that there were. Let me close, by simply quoting the Austrian Empire's foreign minister in the 1800s, Count Metternich. Events that cannot be prevented must be directed. The Brexit cannot now be prevented. It is time for a wee bit of direction from the UK Government, and if they will not do it, we will tell them what to do. I very much welcome the opportunity that this debate gives to highlight the challenges that our rural economy faces in the post-EU world. Each time that Fergus Ewing has attended the rural economy committee, I have tried to raise the long-term interests of the Scottish rural economy with him, but each time he is either veered off of blaming the UK Government for its lack of planning on this or trying to avoid my questions at all. Indeed, at his last appearance at the committee, when I asked him if he would set up a team of civil servants to look at future funding for the rural economy post-2020, he seemed outraged that I had even the temerity to ask him such a question and he couldn't get out of the committee room door fast enough. Unfortunately, the minister, and we've heard it again today at his opening remarks, is obviously more interested in criticising the UK Government for its lack of openness and forward planning than getting to grips with the forward planning he needs to be doing for the future of Scotland's rural economy post-2020. Deputy Presiding Officer, if I can outline why I strongly believe that the Scottish Government is failing in its duty here, when the UK joined the common market, we inherited a common agricultural policy designed for German, French and Italian farmers. We did not join a system designed for British, let alone Scottish agriculture. We joined a very unsatisfactory system whereby whole sectors of our industry were left without farm support, and those with it were mired in bureaucracy. We all know about the bureaucracy in this field. Members may not be aware, however, that farm subsidies are allocated in a very strange way, but let me outline what I believe many people find strange about the current distribution of farm subsidies in Scotland. In 2015, while the average farm subsidy was £31,000, the average farm income was £23,000. That is an average loss before the subsidy of £8,000 of farm. The average farm is losing £8,000 a year. Over 38 per cent of our farms either made a loss or had incomes of less than £10,000, even with the subsidy. We can see how reliant some of our farms are on the EU subsidies and how many of our farms are at risk without them. However, those dreadful figures mask other figures that show that 5 per cent of our farms—that is one in 20—receiving the average of £31,000 in subsidies have farm incomes in excess of £100,000. There is huge variation here, and we are subsidising everybody in the sectors that receive it. Once we leave the EU, when we leave and we are leaving, those farm subsidies become entirely the responsibility of Scottish ministers. Agriculture is entirely devolved. I find it astonishing that Fergus Ewing, the responsible Scottish Minister, has not already sparked on this. I would love to give you that. What Mr Rumbles has completely failed to mention is that, while agriculture is devolved, the subsidy and payment mechanism for agriculture is reserved, because it comes from the CEP. Can he answer me that question? I have pointed out in this debate that pillar 2 funding has not been guaranteed by the UK Government and it has been mentioned by many members, although not by the Conservatives. Do the Liberals agree that the pillar 2 payments should and must be guaranteed by the UK Government before anybody can engage in proper budget-former planning, because we do not know what our budget will be? Mr Rumbles, you allowed the intervention, and I allowed it to happen. When Sunday's intervening, you should sit in your seat and not stand up to your response. That sort of intervention from the Minister is typical of his behaviour throughout the whole of this process. He knows, as well as everybody else that should know, that, while at the moment we are in the EU, those are reserved. However, they are not reserved because the EU will disappear and agriculture is entirely resolved. The minister in charge of Scottish agriculture is failing in his duty not to forward plan, even to come up with the options for what it might look like in the future. Not to do so to me, not to do so looks to me like the height of irresponsibility. We have the chance with an almost blank piece of paper to reform the system of farm support in Scotland. It is the minister's chance to design a new system suited to Scotland's needs post-2020, not to simply go on as before. We have become used to a lack of forward planning by Scottish ministers here. The shambles of farm payments, money that should have been paid out to farm businesses some nine months ago, still remain unpaid. Fergus Ewing is actually so lacking in confidence about this year's farm payments that he is boasting about giving 80 per cent to what farmers are due to them in December one month early. This will still leave the average farm business some £6,000 out of pocket, and this is something to boast about out of an average income of £23,000. I see the minister shaking his head, but he needs to face the facts. It seems to me that we have had an unprecedented shambles of farm payments systems from last year. We are continuing with that shambles this coming year, and that unless Fergus Ewing starts to put his thinking cap on and continue to have, we will have one shambles after another. It is particularly galling to think that, while he continues to criticise others—and we have heard all of that, many things do need to be criticised—but not constantly. I think that it is important that the Scottish Government takes its own responsibilities before casting aspersions on others. It is anybody's fault but his own. He fails to do the simplest of forward-planning exercises about how he wants to see the future of farm support subsidies post-2020. We have heard absolutely nothing about what the future he wants to see for Scottish agriculture. Absolutely nothing in this debate. We are only four years away. Is he seriously saying that he will simply carry on with a totally unsuitable system, or will he, even at this late stage, actually do some forward planning? For goodness' sake, minister, get a grip. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Rhoda Grant talked about broadband and the support offered to that infrastructure by Brussels. She also rightly pointed out that social justice aspects are absolutely key in providing better broadband and the access to roaming charges, reductions that we have seen as a result of EU policy, which has been very welcome in that regard. Mobile connectivity is absolutely essential to the economic prosperity of rural Scotland, and I am pleased that the Labour amendment highlights connectivity. I look forward to supporting it. On that subject, the cabinet secretary mentioned that he was still waiting for answers from a number of UK Government ministers. I am waiting for a specific answer on connectivity. Earlier this month, I wrote to Matt Hancock, the Minister of State for Digital and Culture, and asked whether the UK Government will be able to match the commitment of the EU to the roll-out of the next generation of mobile connectivity across Europe. In the State of the Union address recently, John Claude Yunker, the president of the European Commission, committed the EU to fully deploy the next generation of mobile technology, 5G, across the EU by 2025. By 2020, he said that the EU will equip every village in the city with free wireless internet around the main centres of public life. It is a hugely ambitious promise. An excellent example of the EU stepping in, where, in the past, the UK Government has singularly failed rural Scotland and, indeed, other rural parts of the UK. Telecommunications is an issue entirely reserved to Westminster, and earlier auctions of 3G and 4G licenses by the UK Government may have raised billions for the Treasury in awarding those licenses, but the operators were only asked to meet a certain level of per-head coverage. In the case of Scotland, that was set at 95 per cent for 4G, although when 3G was awarded to Scotland, there was no guarantee at all. In both cases, it was per-head coverage, which is not an effective marker for a rural area. We need geographical guarantees to ensure coverage outwith urban areas. It is the lack of those geographical guarantees set by the UK Government, which means that rural Scotland is the worst-served area when it comes to mobile connectivity of any part of the UK. Mr Younger's guarantee would have stepped into the giant knot spot that was created by successive Westminster Governments, and that is why I have asked Matt Hancock to fund 5G that we will now not get from the EU if Brexit goes ahead. I still do not take that as a fate of complete. If the Scottish Tories really cared about rural Scotland, they would demand answers from Mr Hancock as well. Jamie Greene I thank John McAlpine for giving away. I should be pleased to learn that I am meeting Mr Hancock next Sunday and be pleased to pass on any questions that you have for the minister. John McAlpine I welcome that, and I will send you the letter that I am still awaiting a reply to. I also like to go on to talk about farming since Peter Chapman focused on it at the beginning of the debate. I would like to quote something about my own south of Scotland region. For many of my constituents in the borders with farm businesses, the EU offers a critical level support through the common agricultural policy. In fact, nearly 40 per cent of the European budget is dedicated to the agricultural sector, and EU membership offers tariff-free market access for Scottish produce, with an export value of £5.1 billion in 2014. In fact, every business across the country should be aware of that. John Lamont, the MSP for Etric Rocksboro Berwickshire, a Conservative in this Parliament, is another example of what the Tories said before the referendum and how they now changed their tune after the referendum. Specifically on farming, I would like assurances as to how the common agricultural payment replacement is going to be distributed across the UK if Brexit goes ahead. We have been told that funding payments for farming will continue, but we do not know how that is going to make its way to Scotland. Evidence that the European Committee received from the Fraser of Allander Institute pointed out that Scotland's share of cap payment is at 18 per cent of the UK population, which is obviously well above Scotland's share of the UK population. How will a Tory treasury guarantee that funding? The Fraser of Allander gave us a gentle warning that, at the moment, the only way to transfer funds from the treasury to Scotland is via the Barnett formula, which, of course, gives us just a little more than our 9 per cent population share. It is certainly nowhere near the 18 per cent that we get from cap. Will the Tories today and their summing up guarantee that Scotland will get its current share of cap after Brexit, that 18 per cent of the UK population? My concern is that the record is not good when it comes to standing up for Scotland against the UK treasury. We all know observers of those matters know that the treasury has been trying to cut Scotland's funding by doing away with Barnett—it has wanted to do away with Barnett for years. During the fiscal framework negotiations, the treasury tried to put a £7 billion price tag on the new powers that this Parliament was promised. I am very pleased that the Labour Party eventually got behind the Scottish Government to stand firm and defensive of Scotland's interests during that debate. We held out, and it was the UK Government that blinked first. We got a guarantee that we would not lose that £7 billion. However, the Scottish Tories were absolutely no help whatsoever. They refused to stick up for Scotland. At one point, David Mundell said that £7 billion was us making a mountain out of a molehill. Does anyone really believe that the Scottish Tories will stick up for us when it comes to making sure that we get a continuing share of those payments? I very much doubt that they will. In fact, one of the leaders of the Brexit campaign—I am sad to say that—a Scottish-born Tory himself, Michael Bob, hinted at that. During the referendum campaign, when he talked about a fair union funding settlement post Brexit, we all know for many years that, when Tories talk about fair funding for Scotland, they do not mean more money. Britain is leaving the European Union as a result of the decision that was made on 23 June. It was not the outcome that I had hoped for or voted for, but as a democrat, unlike some of the members in the middle of this chamber, I respect the democratic will of the people. Since the referendum, much has been made of the fact that the majority in Scotland voted to remain, as they did in London and Northern Ireland. What seems to have been forgotten, though, is that more than 1 million Scots voted to leave. A large proportion of that vote came from the rural communities of Scotland—communities like my own in Galway and West Dumfries—who feel that they are not being listened to in Edinburgh, never mind in Brussels. That is why the real threat to our rural economy at the moment is not Brexit, but rather this SNP Government who is still in the first opening minute. This SNP Government who is stifled any ambition to deliver real and meaningful action in our rural communities and seem held bent on pressing ahead with a centralising agenda that will decimate valued local services. Only two weeks ago, the cabinet secretary came into this chamber and tried to promote the cap payment crisis as a good news story. However, everyone knows that this cap fiasco is set to continue. Let us not forget that the consequences of that have resulted in cash flow problems for the whole of the rural economy, when farmers are already suffering from low commodity prices, for example, receiving less money for their grain in 2015 than they did 30 years ago. That is additional uncertainty. It is a hammer blow for the vital Scottish industry, and the Government has still not managed to get a grip on the situation. Even last week, a member of the Dumfries processing team told one of my staff members that a local farmer would receive payment by the end of the week, only to be contradicted by another senior officer in Edinburgh who said that there was an, I quote, no chance of that happening if things were in too big of a mess. You really couldn't make it up. The repercussions that we know go much wider than just farming with local businesses being dependent on farms and our local tradesmen right through to our local grocery stores. The SNP cannot run away from the fact that their mishandling starved a rural economy of £400 million worth of investment. The blame for this crisis lies squarely at the foot of the Scottish Government, and they will be held responsible for their incompetency. Over the last few months, I have met some of Scotland's fishing representatives from Peterhead to Cacubrie, and they cannot be more optimistic and excited about the future. In the recent briefing paper entitled Scottish Fisheries Post Brexit, A Sea of Opportunity, the Scottish Fishermen's Federation talks about the unique opportunity to establish a more effective and reactive fishery management system, creating a fairer and more appropriate share of catching opportunities for Scottish fishermen, to direct any grant funding in ways more suited to Scotland than the EU currently allows, and to use Britain's new role in the world post-Brexit to explore new markets for seafood and rapidly expanding economies outside the EU. The opportunities are endless, Presiding Officers, but those ideas and opportunities will be wasted if the SNP Government continues to maintain such a transient position towards Brexit. So far from Brexit being feared in our fishing sector, it is being welcomed and embraced. Sadly, that cannot be said about the actions and policies of the SNP Government. In my constituency, I have been contacted by a number of local fishermen and businesses that are affected by the Government's ill-thought-out policies on restricted salmon fishing. As one gentleman put it, the restrictions signify a death nail for all west coast rivers and have already had an adverse effect on a rural economy with angling clubs, tackle shops, hotels and holidaylets that cater specifically for fishermen all reporting a disastrous year. As with many other policies that directly affect rural Scotland, the Government completely disregarded both the scientific research and the views of people working on the ground when it came to making up this legislation. As the Government prepares to bring forward a wild fisheries bill in this Parliament, I hope that the cabinet secretary will adopt a more reasoned and engaging approach to harnessing the knowledge of our local people to come up with a local river-based management structure and not the typical one-size-fits-all policy adopted far too often by the centralising Government. One way of giving a much-needed boost to the royal economy would be the designation of new national parks. A claim supported in a report by the Scottish campaign for national parks argues that areas such as Dumfries and Galloway, the Borders and the Hebridean Islands, the far north and west of Scotland could all benefit from the growth in their visitor numbers and larger tourism economy. Despite being more than 3,500 national parks across the globe, Scotland only has two. It would cost an estimated £7 million to establish a national park by the consequential economic benefits that we have expected to significantly outweigh that. At the recent election, the Scottish Conservatives recognised the role and importance of the rural Scotland to the Scottish economy. That is why the election that we committed to a south-of-Scotland enterprise would have been as social as well as an economic enterprise—the key difference between Scottish Enterprise and the Highlands and Islands today. Such a body would focus on delivering tangible outcomes for the communities in the south of Scotland. I would encourage the Scottish Government to look at this proposal seriously and demonstrate to the people of my constituency and across the south of Scotland that they realise that what is good practice and govern is not necessarily the best approach in gatehouse afleet. Scotland's rural communities deserve better. Rather than coming to the chamber today and disguising their failures through the prism of Brexit, the Government would have benefited from bringing forward real proposals on how it is planned to deliver for rural Scotland. The reality is that Scotland's rural communities have suffered most under the Scottish National Party Government, who fails to realise that one-size-fits-all approach does not work. Only today I receive correspondence from a new group set up to be a united voice for the riding of the marches, festivals and gallas in Dumfries and Galloway. That is partly being brought about by unreasonable policing requirements being imposed on rural events, all based on central belt good practice. One of our festivals did not go ahead this year, the Wicker Man, due in no small part to new policing requirements, depriving our area of hundreds of thousands of pounds of income. Can you wind up, please? Why doesn't the Scottish Government listen to rural communities? We have huge potential in rural Scotland, Presiding Officer, and a great opportunity has arisen to re-energise our rural areas. This Government needs to, in the words of Mike Russell, grasp the thistle and deliver for my constituents in the rest of Scotland. We are now getting close to not having any extra time. I might give you half a minute. I welcome the opportunity to take part in this afternoon's debate. It has been very interesting for me as someone who does not represent a rural region or constituency to listen to the contributions from members across the chamber. I think that what it brings home is not only the contribution that rural Scotland makes to the economy and to the life of people in those rural communities, but also the disastrous impact of the Brexit vote in rural Scotland. It strikes me, when I listen to some of the contributions from the Tory benches, that there is a bit of a lack of self-awareness. Looking at some of the weekend press coverage around how the Brexit campaign was conducted in the Tory party, you get a real sense that people were more interested in maneuvering for their own political positions than they were, considering the impact of the Brexit vote. Let's not go away from the fact that David Cameron brought forward the vote in order to try and quell internal critics from within his own ranks. It has been an absolute disaster not only for the country but for David Cameron's political career. Mr Lockhart, just very briefly to remind the member that the Labour Party in Westminster supported holding the referendum. Mr Kelly. In the campaign very strongly for our remain vote, if you look at the weekend press coverage, all you can see is people briefing, maneuvering against each other. It's quite clear that your party was splitting and they had taken their eye off the ball in terms of what was the impact, because what has been clear listening to the contributions is the impact that this has on the rural economy, the wider Scottish economy and on people's lives. If you take the point in the Labour amendment about support for the digital economy and support for broadband, that is one of the things that has really changed in people's lifestyle and business and industry in the last 10 years is the real growth in access to broadband and superfast internet. We know from the different contributions from Rhoda Grant and also from Joan McAlpine about the potential draining of EU funding to broadband access and we know how important that is going to be in rural areas. Only this week we saw a report from the Carnegie Trust on highlighting what a priority broadband access requires. If it is not given that priority, it can result in social exclusion for some individuals and communities. Because bearing in mind the layout of rural Scotland, there are a lot of isolated communities who have difficulty accessing broadband and accessing the internet. That not only limits those individuals in terms of their access to information and their enjoyment of lifestyle, but it also undermines the growth of businesses in those areas. There has to be a greater priority given to ensuring that that funding is secured going forward. It is similar to the arguments that have been made in relation to agriculture. Bruce Crawford said that of the impact of £500 million of farm payments by 2020, if we start to lose money of that magnitude, it will have an impact on the 66,500 people who work in the agriculture side of the economy. The other point from an EU perspective is the contribution that EU nationals make to the rural economy. It is written that between 5,000 and 15,000 of them contribute to seasonal work, many in fruit farms. I think that continued uncertainty about the future of EU nationals is not only no use for those individuals, but it potentially undermines the overall economy. The three examples that I have highlighted—the digital economy, agriculture and the importance of the role of EU nationals—shows the potential for a real undermining of the rural economy. That will affect the overall economy, as some of the members have contributed, on areas such as the food and drink certainty. What is needed in the debate going forward is that we need some certainty, particularly from the UK Government. We have had a summer of uncertainty and people not only deserve answers but deserve a proper plan going forward. It needs a good proper debate. That debate has been that. The SNP Government would be well advised to concentrate on the issues, as opposed to pursuing the dream of some of its supporters for an independence referendum. It has been interesting in recent weeks to see the likes of Kenny MacAskill and Alec Neill concentrate more on the issues and caution against charging towards an independence referendum. Others on those benches would be well advised to do likewise. I think that this is a very important debate. It emphasises the importance of the rural economy and the contribution that the EU makes. I think that moving forward, we need greater clarity and a bigger priority to this debate. Before I begin, I would like to bring the chamber's attention to my register of interests, in which I list being a board member of North Highland College. I will go on to speak about that now. I have been a board member since 2014, and we have had many discussions regarding funding, where it comes from and how it is spent. The North Highland College is a partner in the university of the Highlands and Islands. What we do know is—this is not scaremongrin, this is research—Brexit will affect UHI more acutely than any other university in the Scottish sector. EU funding represents 35 per cent of UHI's external income. Over £200 million in the past 20 years has been gained from EU funding. Therefore, Brexit will see a cut of 35 per cent to UHI's external funding stream. Loss of European structural funds will mean a proposed £19 million cut of additional student places funding, student support, curriculum development to meet business and public sector skill requirements. Cross-border EU finance collaborations such as the horizon 2020, which UHI has been playing a leading role in, will no longer be open to UHI. That will impact not just on the ideas and co-operation, but it will wrench UHI from a key international body for it was playing a leading role. Horizon 2020 is developing ideas on offshore development and carbon reduction, which are crucial to the economy of the north of Scotland. EU engagement has been at the heart of development of the UHI for the last 20 years, and support from the EU has been fundamental in developing an integrated system. There has been significant investment in teaching and research facilities, the information and communications technology that underpins this, and course development and delivery. You could say that UHI would not be as strong or as diverse if it was not for the unstinting support that it has received from the EU over the years. The award-winning environmental research institute at North Highland College has told me that it will lose two PhD studentships next year, which had already been allocated as part of a European funding package. At this point, some other EU organisations are wary of including them on any EU grant applications, as their status in the near future is unclear, to say the least. At the moment, financial impact is not being felt. Ongoing projects are still being funded, but this, Presiding Officer, is very much the calm before the storm. It is the next round of funding, or lack of it, that could see massive implications for this academic institution. Potentially, that could lead to a significant shortfall in funding, and they would struggle to maintain their current staffing levels. However, it is not only the UHI and the Highlands that relies on EU funding. Successive EU structural fund programmes have allowed for almost £1 billion of investment to the Highlands and Islands since 1990. The EU has been the principal driver in regional policy that has seen special attention paid to regions with lacking GDP compared with the EU average and or particular economic and social challenges. Inward migration from the EU has helped staff to get many crucial jobs in the tourism and food and drink industries in the Highlands and Islands, as we have heard from colleagues in the chamber. As well as increasing population in the area, which is vital in the Highlands and Islands, there are estimated to be more than 10,000 EU nationals working and studying and contributing to the Highlands and Islands. That equates to around 2 per cent of the population. What future for them post-Brexit, the UK Government will not say and shame that we are even considering using them as pawns in negotiations. The EU single market is worth £11 billion per annum to Scotland and is the main destination for Highlands and Islands exports. Retaining easy access to the single market is fundamental to the export competitiveness of businesses. Highlands and Islands Enterprise and regional partners are considering the future shape of regional policy. Although the responsibility for regional policy will not become clear until post-referendum negotiations progress, a continued focus on the specific development challenges and opportunities of regions such as the Highlands and Islands, backed up by appropriate resources, is necessary. In conclusion, I find it unbelievable in the times of forced austerity that the answer from the UK Government is to take even more away with a hard Brexit. This is not the best of both worlds that we were promised in 2014. Actually, it is the worst of all worlds. Brian Whittle followed by Richard Lyle and Mr Lyle with the last speaker in the open debate. What we have is an opportunity to scrutinise the health of our rural economy and part of that scrutiny should focus within our own borders and to our own potential actions. Our farmers and fishermen are among the most stringently legislated food producers in the world. Our farmers are charged with the custodianship of the countryside and our fishermen land world-class produce in the most testing of circumstances. However, they are not competing in a world where the playing field is even. For example, although we do not import meat from certain countries because of the way they develop their livestock, they still flood the global market with cheap produce, driving down the selling price. The Government imposed a blanket ban on GM crops, slamming the door on research that could have benefited our farmers and farmers from around the world. We ensure that they pay a living wage far higher than many of their competitors, our fishermen adhere to a very strict quota system, and the processing capabilities in Scotland have not been developed in line with production. We import milk from as far afield as New Zealand, and our farmers have to send their milk outside of our borders to get it processed. All the above would be acceptable if we then recognised the increase in cost of food production that those rules incur and ensured that the playing field was levelled for our farmers and fishermen. It would be acceptable if the Government, who imposes those rules, ensured that increased costs were mitigated against in the interests of fair competition. However, that is not the case here. Using freedom of information requests, a picture of where our Government department sources its food emerges, and the picture is one of inconsistency. There are great examples of best practice in regions where food is sourced locally and prepared on site, but there are also examples where food is purchased through third parties where its source cannot be readily identified and is prepared in a way that can affect nutritional quality. Take our hospitals, for example, where we would expect nutritional quality of food to be the first and most important question in the procurement process. It speaks to the patient recuperation and rehabilitation and therefore speaks to the time spent in a hospital bed. There are hospitals that source their local produce and prepare the food on site in their own kitchens. There are those who receive food that has been cooked off site, sometimes a significant distance away, flash frozen, transported to the hospital and then rehydrated and reheated prior to serving. Moreover, the source of the food is often unknown to the purchaser. The variance in daily cost per patient is a major concern for me with some health boards quoting £7.50 a day per patient while others quoting as little as £2.50 per day. There is no way that quality of produce can be universal with such a significant difference. There are reports of a high levels of wastage with patients pushing unpalatable food around their plates, leaving it uneven. Serving low cost, low quality food, of course, is a false economy. What patients need is a high quality nutritious food at a time when rehabilitation demands it, leading to reduced time spent in a hospital bed—exactly the kind of food that our rural economy consistently produces. Our schools are another example. East Dershire Council sources all their produce locally and can even tell you which farm in the area they get their eggs from. They even told me yesterday that they could name the hen that laid them, although I was not quite sure whether they were being serious. I am sure that the chamber would agree that the approach to feeding healthy local produce to our children should be applauded. I would have thought that it would have been the norm. If East Dershire can do that effectively, why can't all other areas? Finally, for the Scottish Prison Service, only a third of their food suppliers are Scottish-based. I am letting you continue along the line. It is sort of tenuous, tenuously connected to the amendment— Stick with me, DPO. Just. I will get there. Well, I am waiting with bated breath and that breath is running out. What this highlights is a governmental procurement process that is flawed and in need of a major overhaul. Squeezing budgets to a point where food quality is compromised in critical health areas is surely unacceptable. I will take it. Cabinet Secretary. I think that Mr Whittle is giving way. Has he heard of Excel? Is he aware of the work that they do? Does he appreciate that a great many businesses in farming—one of whom I met earlier today—recognise that Excel and its procurement policy ensure that, to a great extent, food produce is bought in Scotland from Scottish producers and Scottish farmers? Is he aware of any of that? Mr Whittle. As I said at the start of my speech, minister, I use the freedom of information across all of the health trust to find out exactly where everybody sourced their food, so I am only quoting from them, so I would ask you to do the very same as I did. It is an opportunity for government to support a rural economy, an opportunity to allow our rural economy to be a major solution in improving the health and wellbeing of our country. The answers lie in our hands. Join up the dots. I have heard time and again from this Government how their hands are tied by Westminster, how they are unable to act in the interests of Scotland because of Westminster, and if only they had more powers, they could have sought all our ills and woes. Do you know what I hear every time they peddle that line? Ineffective Government. Yes, a decade of an SNP Government, ineffective in its policies and ideas, unable to break away from a narrow narrative that keeps their minds closed to possibilities and their minds closed to opportunities. Let me tell you that it is getting old and it is time to change the record. This Government has it in its powers to be a much more solid supporter of the rural economy, the power to create a circular economy where the highest quality food produced by our farmers and fishermen makes it on to the Scottish dinner table, where the highest quality Scottish produce continues to be lawered across Europe and further afield. It is a big world out there, it is time to think big. Many of us did not vote for Brexit, but that is the will of the British people. This SNP Government needs to stop its—I am nearly finished, thank you—constant talk of doom and gloom, its constant pointing south with feined indignation and take its place at the negotiating table, accept its responsibility to the Scottish people, be a strong voice for Scotland, get the best deal for our rural economy and ensure that our farmers and fishermen can make the very best of the opportunities that now present themselves. My question to this SNP Government is quite simple. Will you finally accept your responsibilities and get behind our rural economy? Thank you. Richard Lyle, please. Can I have a begin my remarks this afternoon by sharing how much I have enjoyed listening to the various contributions by colleagues across the chamber in this debate? It has made me smile on some of the contributions. It is a pleasure contributing to this debate, particularly as a member of the Parliament's rural economy and connectivity committee. The result of the EU referendum on 23 June made so many things uncertain. In fact, there are only a few things that I think are certain. One, Brexit means Brexit, but we do not quite know what Brexit means. Some on the Tory benches who voted leave, and I am trying to find out who it was, have put their country in a position that is total chaos, non-action by the UK Government. Two, the people of Scotland unequivocally made clear their expressed desire to remain in the European Union, and I support my SNP Government in exploring every avenue to keep Scotland in the EU. Does therefore incumbent upon us all across this chamber now to work to protect the economic future of Scotland, and in particular our rural economy and communities that are particularly vulnerable to uncertainty caused by the EU referendum? I know that we are in those benches and I am sure that some others across the chamber are equally determined to do what it takes to make sure that the desire by the Scottish people to stay in the EU is recognised, respected and protected. Our rural economy benefits from a share of some £4 billion, received in EU funding and an estimate of £12 billion in food and drink exports over the period 2014-20. As well as the value from the contribution made by the tens of thousands of EU nationals who choose to live and work in rural Scotland, our membership of the EU cannot be understated, nor undervalued. In fact, the EU is Scotland's biggest overseas food and drink export market, and it is therefore essential that we continue to retain access to a single market of more than 500 million people. Not to do so would be disastrous. From access to significant investment for Scotland, supporting thousands of jobs and rural economies to the role of the EU structural funds in supporting important economic, employment and social priorities helped to grow Scotland's economy. The EU has delivered for Scotland, and let's not forget that. However, the UK Government and the Tories and Westminster have done nothing to address concerns or provide stability, the same cannot be said for this SNP Government. The SNP Scottish Government is providing certainty and building growth in Scotland's rural economies in these uncertain times through actions like connect local, the new £3 million advisory support service for food and drink sector, as well as the addition of a £250,000 good food nation challenge fund, a £50,000 support fund for the organic sector and over £3 million in grants to food and drink sector through the food processing and marketing grant scheme. NFU Scotland is calling upon the Scottish Government to confirm the continuation of committed spend for the less favoured area support scheme, 70 per cent of which is funded by the Scottish Government. Does Mr Lyle believe that that creates uncertainty within the agricultural community? Those actions are in addition to our work in investing in infrastructure to support rural economy growth investment through a capital investment programme and is highlighted in the chamber last week in ambitious goals for broadband with the Scottish Government making a commitment to deliver 100 per cent superfast broadband across Scotland by 2021. An ambition that is on track with the Scottish Government hitting a target of 85 per cent six months ahead of the schedule. The SNP will continue to provide stability and support those uncertain times, which brings me to my final area. In my remarks, the Scottish Tories are in with their new-found desire to be Brexit-ears. It is clear that the Tories have performed a U-turn over Brexit. Before the referendum vote, they made grave no, they made grave warnings over leaving the EU. Now it is the latest of what they are calling on the SNP to make Brexit work. Presiding Officer, it is clear that we in these benches will continue to be committed to protecting Scotland's place in the EU for our rural economy, for all our country and to continue to play our part as an outward-looking and active nation in the European community. Since 1 January 1973, the EU has continually been the Tory party's Achilles' hill. In fact, over the decades, the EU has totally occupied the Tory grandees. Edward Heath, Margaret Thatcher and John Major all had their problems with the EU. David Cameron finally threw in the towel, and I agree with Mr Kelly, must be the first time ever, by promising a referendum to head off the UKip. I am sure that Mr Cameron now regrets what he did—he paid the ultimate price. It allowed the anti-EU Tories out of their box. They have cast us down the long road of Brexit. I, for one, will not forget what they have done to Scotland. The member said in his last minute. I will never forget nor forgive, and I am sure neither will the Scottish people when the reality sits in it. There is a phrase that there are none so fervent as the recently converted and that, to my mind, sums up the Tory's contribution to this debate. It seems to me a leap of faith to go from campaigning to remain to embracing Brexit. James Kelly made the point that we are in this position for a party political expediency rather than what is good for our country. However, we must all seek to try and mitigate its effects as much as we can. Would the member not agree with me that, rather than being converted Brexiteers, as we have been suggested, are we not just providing a voice for the 1 million people that actually did vote for us to come out of the EU? Ms Grant? What I do not understand is how you are speaking for them today, but I did not agree with them several short months ago. It seems quite strange that you can move your position so dramatically in such a short space of time. My colleague, Liz Donald, made a really good contribution today. He was laying out the options that we faced and raised a number of questions, some about fishing and farming, their access to markets in Europe but not access to payments and whether or not they would have access to those markets without tariffs. That is something that we need to try and find out answers to as we look at our farming and fishing industries that are dependent on European trade going forward. We also need to look at the payments that we will be required to make to the EU if we are to access a single market. That will tell us what the balance of payments we will have left as a country to distribute to people like our farmers for cap payments. All those things need answers. They are very important questions, but we are struggling to come to terms with them. We also need to set out priorities for what, if any, dividends will be available to us financially. Leave campaigners made the point that any dividend from leaving the EU would go to the NHS. We know that health is dependent on much more than the NHS. It is dependent on diet, it is dependent on access of services. To send all the money that would have gone to our farmers and rural communities directly to the NHS would place a greater burden on the NHS and create more problems than it solves. To that extent, I agree with Mike Rumbles, because we need to plan, we need to set out priorities, given the timescales that we face. That is very difficult to do, because, as we talk about the subject, a number of people have raised different issues in different organisations of benefit from European funding. How do we unpick it all? How do we put it back together in a way that mitigates the impact on our rural communities? With farming and fishing, we stand to lose access to the European markets. We know that our shellfish and indeed our lamb, the bulk of their market, is in Europe. We need to see how we can protect their interests and those trading partnerships. Both those industries are dependent on migrant workers. James Kelly mentioned five to 15,000 people as migrant workers in those areas. Berry pickers are crucial to the farming industry. Some of those jobs are very seasonal, where we cannot employ people year-round, so we are dependent on people travelling across Europe, doing different harvests in different countries. We also know that Eastern European workers are the backbone of our fish processing industry. Again, we want to keep them where they are, providing for our local economy. John Finlay also mentioned what we had not talked about before, jobs and health and the care sectors, which are dependent on European workers coming in. Indeed, the GP shortages that we have been talking about most recently, many European GPs are coming to Scotland to provide care for our citizens there. We need to provide certainty to our European migrants who have made their lives in this country and who have put their routes down there. We need to provide them with certainty that they can stay, but we also have to provide Scottish people working in Europe with the same certainty that they are not going to be disrupted by this. In rural Scotland, the population is a number one threat to our local economies. We need to look at ways of repopulating our rural areas and keeping our young people. We cannot do that if we are turning away those who have come to live there. We also need to collaborate with our European neighbours. That has been very successful. Gail Ross mentioned Northern Highland College and UHI, which have benefited from that funding. Things such as the Northern periphery projects put shared knowledge with countries in similar rural areas. They have a lot more in common than urban areas in their own country. A point made by Finlay Carson when he was talking about a south of Scotland enterprise that would deal with rural issues there. A number of members picked up the issue of broadband, and I am really pleased about that, because I think that that is crucial. Broadband is crucial to the rural economy and, indeed, the way in which we deliver services. We stand to lose funding from Europe. We have already benefited from that, but we also stand to lose the focus on a level playing field that Europe provides to us. We need to see how we can replicate that. We will lose the knowledge that partnerships that we could form with other European countries facing similar geographical disadvantage and difficulties in getting connectivity out to the more rural areas. We need to see how we can still forge ahead and make those partnerships work so that, at least if we miss out on the funding, we do not miss out on the knowledge that they can bring us. A number of people mentioned PGI status. Emma Harper went into some detail on that. That was not difficult to obtain. I was involved in the campaign for PGI for Stornoway Black, but it took years to attain, and it protected that product throughout Europe. We need to find ways of protecting, especially the foodstuffs that have become so iconic to us. If we are out of Europe, that protection will fall. I can see that you are trying to catch my eye and speed me up slightly. I will draw to a close somebody by stating that the Scottish Labour Party will always pursue what is in the best interests of Scotland. With Brexit, that is inextricably linked to what is the best outcome for the rest of the UK, and it means that our Governments have to work collaboratively for all our benefits. That is not where we want it to be, but we must seek to protect the interests of our people. We welcome the debate on the Scottish rural economy in Brexit. Indeed, it is good to see that some parties are not afraid to have a debate on Brexit, but believe it or not, not everyone who lives in rural Scotland is a farmer, or a fisherman, or a forester. Many are, of course, but our perception of what rural Scotland is is often clouded by the funds, grants, subsidies and quotas that often dominate the discussion, and rightfully so, and much has been said about that today. The cabinet secretary talks about his worries on future access to a single market in the EU, whilst his party campaigns to leave Scotland's biggest trading union, the United Kingdom, which is worth four times more. The cabinet secretary talks about future ELFAS payments, but failed to mention in his speech about the £10 million of ELFAS payments that are outstanding from this year. Richard Lochhead made a very pertinent point, and that is that we do have to listen to the reasons why so many sections of our rural economy voted to leave the EU. We do have to have a look at the CAP system, and as my colleague Peter Chapman said, there is the potential to design a scheme that rewards farmers, not impoverishes them. The Scottish Government has a bit of a cheek today to come to this chamber and call a debate on the rural economy post Brexit, when it has failed our farmers so dismally pre-Brexit for the last nine years. But do not just take my word for it, let us look at the facts. A common agricultural policy IT system, which so far is 160 per cent over budget, CAP payments, which are months late, with full payments yet to be received, and almost half of Scottish farmers are failing to make enough money to pay themselves the minimum wage. Farm business income is at the lowest levels in six years. This is a Scottish Government that took 18 months to fill the position of chief scientific adviser, a land reform act that undermines property rights. We are indeed in uncharted waters, there is no doubt about that. We should remember that we are, however, having a debate about something that has not happened yet, about negotiations that have not started yet. We do not know which words will form the act that repeals, retains or reinvents the many thousands of laws, rules and regulations with which the EU governs. We have no crystal. I shall. Given the indication that that will all operate via the royal prerogative, is he now announcing that the Westminster Parliament will have a debate and a say in what is happening on Brexit? I think that the Westminster Government is doing the right thing by exploring all options, and all options will be considered. That is why I said that some laws may be repealed, retained or reinvented. That is the right thing to do in this situation. We have no crystal ball here today, Mr Stevenson. The purpose of a debate such as the one that we are having should be about laying ideas on the table. If the Scottish Government seriously wishes to have a positive debate about the future of rural Scotland, then I applaud it. However, if its purpose is to engineer a scenario whereby they decide that independence is the only and inevitable solution, I fear that they are missing the point completely of any upside that Brexit might present. The underlined tone of the Government's motion today is one that is not open to idea sharing, and given that 38 per cent of Scots voted to leave the EU, I do not think that it is representative of Scotland or accepts the democratic will of the people of the UK. I am grateful for giving way. Can I ask one simple question? Do the Scottish stories believe that EU citizens living and working in Scotland are welcome here and should continue to be welcome here and be permitted to stay here? I have not heard anyone say that people in Scotland are required to leave. No one has said that. Has anyone heard anyone say that? No. I absolutely think that people who have come to make Scotland their home make a valuable contribution to Scotland, and I welcome that. Emma Harper talks about Tory Brexit. We have heard that word used a lot in the last hour, so she may be surprised to learn that there are not 17.4 million Tory voters in the UK last time that I checked. Indeed, polls suggest that about a third of SNP voters backed leave. Are they now Tories too? Instead of finger wagging at Westminster, we, the Scottish Conservatives, have set up our own advisory group to look at the risks and opportunities of Brexit, a frank informed discussion. It counts expertise such as Gavin Hewitt, former chief exec of Scotch whisky and Sir Eden McMillan, former director of CBI among its membership. Much has been said in this chamber today about fisheries. Let us remind ourselves of the three key asks of the SFF that Brexit provides the opportunity to one, the power to establish a more effective and reactive fisheries management system in our waters, two, fairer and more appropriate shares of catching opportunities for the industry in our waters, and three, identifies opportunities that include the freedom to explore new markets for seafood. Mr Stevenson raised some valid points that our two Governments have to have a complex discussion on the future of fishing in the UK to get a deal that works for fishermen on both sides of the border. The rural economy is about much more than agriculture. It is about connectivity in all its forms, roads, rail, ferries and internet access. Rural grant makes an important point about rural broadband. It is not a luxury, it is a necessity. The rural economy is also about how we manage our land, environment, biodiversity, energy, uplands and flood prevention. Mike Grumbles is right, where is the vision on this? Where is the forward planning going on in the Scottish Government on Brexit? I would like to conclude my speech by saying that unlike the Scottish Government, we do not want Brexit to fail. We instead come to this debate with ideas on the rural economy. The Government's motion today fails to take responsibility for its actions over the last nine years in government. Unlike the Scottish Government, we have ideas on the rural economy, and let me share some. To give planning exemptions to allow retiring farmers or new entrants to build a home or an agricultural land, opening the Scottish land fund at Long Leases, investing an additional £5 million every year to the Community Broadband Scotland scheme, supporting a safe expansion of agriculture, establishing new national parks. Our amendment respects the democratic result of the UK. I think that it is time that the Scottish Government gets on with making a success of that result for the whole of rural Scotland. I now call Michael Russell to close for the Government. Minister, you are till about 4.59 please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I thank the chamber and at least some members for their contributions this afternoon. As I made clear in the debate last week, protecting Scotland's relationship with and placed in the European Union and all its economic and social benefits is the Government's explicit priority. The idea of these debates is to look to get ideas and thinking about how we take this issue forward. That is one of the reasons why I intend to contribute to all of them. Those ideas, if I can say to Jamie Greene that start, have to be things that require Brexit to happen. Not one of the things that Jamie Greene listed requires Brexit to happen. That is rather revealing about the nature of the contributions that we have had from the Tories—the Tory myths, which I shall come back to later. I cannot think of another portfolio that is more heavily entwined with the EU than this one, whether we are talking farming, forestry, fisheries or food. The EU membership delivers significant economic and social benefits to Scotland's rural and coastal communities. I know that because I represent one of the most rural of those communities. Scotland leaving the EU as a result of the outcome of the referendum will put at risk rural jobs, investments, exports, businesses, projects and services, just as predicted by a succession of Tory spokespeople during the referendum. The rural economy is crucial to driving forward the economy as a whole, just as the role of the EU in rural communities is deep-rooted and mutually beneficial. We have known that for the entire 40 years that we have been members of the EU. Most importantly, and I was struck this afternoon in supporting Fergus Ewing in this debate, we have known that at a crucial time in our rural history when, in 1992, after years of effort to Madame Ecos, Fergus Ewing's mother secured objective one status for the Highlands and Islands. In five years, between 1994 and 1999, £241 million came to the Highlands and Islands, present-day values almost a billion. She knew that that investment was crucial for the future of rural Scotland, just as MEPs after her knew that. Just as MSPs here know that. It seems very strange that the Tories now take a very different position, a very destructive position, because objective one used facts to drive forward vision. The Tories this afternoon have used myths to hide their lack of vision. They may laugh, but I will give you four reasons why that is so. The first of the one is the myth that farming is, in some sense, in crisis and disaster because of the actions of this Government. That is not true. Of course, there are always problems in farming and there are always problems in the rural economy, but that has progressed steadily since this Government came to power. Secondly, the fact that fishing, the myth that fishing is guaranteed prosperity by Brexit. No, the people who regarded fishing as expendable throughout the whole process of EU negotiation were the Tories and now the fishing community will see that they will be regarded as expendable by the Tories again. Thirdly, the myth that the Tories speak for rural Scotland. I wonder if they have looked at their opinion polls lately. The SNP at 50 per cent, the Tories at 21 per cent less than Margaret Thatcher got in Scotland. Finally, the myth that Brexit is full of promise. Where is the beef? Where is the evidence? Where are the facts? I think that it is shocking that, instead of working with rural communities to consider and address the issues, they want to bluff and bluster in the macabre-like hope that something will turn up, ignoring the damage that is being done now. The right approach, the approach urged upon me when I took this post by the Tories, was to take a practical, careful consideration of the facts. Here are some facts. The loss of non-guaranteed funds, cap pillar 2, 320 million, EMFF, 58 million, structural funds, 400 million, that accounts to £778 million. Please, Mr Lockhart. Thank you very much for taking the intervention. Does Mr Russell not see the irony of the SNP expressing grave concern about leaving a union with Europe that supports Scotland to the tune of millions of pounds, while at the same time campaigning to leave the union with the rest of the UK that supports Scotland currently to the tune of £15 billion? Minister. I think that, as I disagree with the latter part of your premise, so greatly there will be no meeting of minds on that. I am happy to give you a lesson in constitutional theory should you want one, but the reality is that the EU's support for Scotland was crucial, and indeed those people who argued against independence claimed that the only way we could stay in the EU was by voting no. Please. You just said that the EU is crucial to the wellbeing of Scotland. Do you recognise that being part of the UK is also crucial to the wellbeing of Scotland in that we have a £1,600 per person bonus because we are part of the UK? I do not recognise the bonus, but I am open and inclusive. I want to make sure that we deal and trade with the whole world, and I want to deal and trade with the UK and with Europe. I do not want to be cut off from Europe, which is exactly what the Tories are telling us to do. The Tories could be part of the careful consideration of alternatives, looking at possible solutions and making sure that we are understanding what is taking place. They could be part of that, but for the third debate in a row they have walked away from that. I do hope that, before we get to next week's debate, they will begin to think about how they can contribute to ideas rather than simply be slavishly loyal to their masters in London who do not know where they are going and do not know what is happening. I want to comment on a couple of things within the debate that are important. The first is the contribution from Lewis MacDonald to ask for some specific responses. I think that he made some interesting and vital points about EEA countries outside CAP and CFP. It is not impossible to do that, of course, but the reality is that we need the four freedoms in order, for example, to staff a whole range of activities within our rural sector. So we are not in precisely the same position as those countries, but it is worth having that debate. This is what these debates are about, and bringing those ideas to the table and discussing them is very important. Equally, pillar 2 funding is vital for some of our rural development, and if we cannot have pillar 2 funding, then we are going to be lacking an important component in what we are trying to do. Of course. I am very grateful, given that the committee has just made around the options that might lie before us. What is it, when he is talking to UK ministers about continued access to the single market, what is it if it is not the model of the European economic area that he is putting on the table to discuss? Minister? There is no table. Therefore, I am not putting anything on the table to discuss. Those discussions and negotiations have not yet started. The Tories are laughing at that. They could encourage their colleagues in London to start the discussions tomorrow. I am ready, but they do not appear to be, but the reality is that when we have that discussion, then, of course, there will be issues to put on the table. Those have to include the type of things that you are raising. Other contributions today were very important, too. I thought the contribution from Gail Ross struck home, and it certainly struck home with me, because I represent a constituency in which we have the SAMS, the Scottish Association for Marine Science. It is facing, too, a cut of over 30 per cent in its research income. The reality is that, in rural and highland Scotland, those types of jobs are absolutely vital, and for them to be cut out is a real problem. We have a number of other contributions that I would like to have time to go through, but I do not really have it. Dean Lockhart, I will mention, because he kept talking about the issues to do with food. He said that there would be no assessment of the food policy, and the food policy was a disaster. When he was challenged on it being a disaster, he said that it was a real disaster. We could not explain why. Here are some facts on the food policy. Turnover up 24 per cent, now £14 billion. This is since 2008, the year in which you quoted, that exports up 39 per cent are now valued at £5 million. The sector is growing at twice the rate of the UK sector. Retail sales of Scottish food and drink brands are up 38 per cent. 4.8 million support from the public sector support food and drink export plan, £47 million funding for 170 projects through our food processing grant schedule. You could have looked all those things up. No, one moment, I have got some more to finish with. However, Mr Kelly raised some interesting points on food and drink, which he did not raise. The food sector is very concerned about the lack of certainty from the UK Government. It is estimated that 30 per cent of the sector are EU nationals. As well as the current workforce, the sector is very concerned about future immigration policy. You could have looked that up as well. Mr Whittle could have looked up a few things about food too. 41 per cent increase in Scottish produce served across the public sector since 2007. Over 70 per cent of suppliers are Scottish. Since 2013, 200 per cent rise in the level of Scottish beef served in school and a manifesto commitment from the SNP are readily available to do more. Those are just some examples of facts that could have contributed to this debate. However, although we had facts even from Mike Rumble, so I disagreed with the facts, at least we had an effort to contribute facts. We had facts on the labour benches, but we had none from the Tory benches at all. I make a genuine appeal to the Tories as they come to consider that. If, as the front bench wants us to be serious about the prospects for Scotland, we want to encourage Scottish businesses and industries to do well, then the first thing that we do is to get the facts. We go out and look for the facts. We do not simply—oh, Mr Whittle. I would just like to let the minister know that I spent the whole summer with freedom of information across the whole of the education system and across the whole of the hospital trusts. The facts that I put on the table are absolute and accurate, so just standing there and telling me that you have facts does not make them true. You do not actually seem—maybe we do not actually have those, but never mind the reality is that you do not seem to like the facts that go against your preconceived notions. He does not seem to like the facts that say that Scottish Government policy is working and working well, so I do not think that Mr Whittle should be so selective with his facts. He should spend less time on FOI and more time trying to find out the truth. Finally, let me say this, I want every part of this chamber to try and contribute to the case that we have to build in Scotland. We have a hard job to build that case, and debate after debate in this chamber we are trying to open up and explore the issues that we are required to take into negotiation. I would benefit from the Tory party if it were to come to this table and give some facts and some thoughts. What we will not benefit from is the bluff and blusters that I have said there, the macabre-like hope that something will turn up—no, not even you, Mr Lockhart, are going to turn up on this occasion—something will turn up. That is not the basis for a policy, that is the basis for defending those people who have got us into this mess in the first place. The colleagues of the Tories in London who have made this mess, the Tories should help us to clear it up. So far, they are not even trying. Thank you minister. That concludes this afternoon's debate. We now move on to the next item of business, which is consideration of motion number 1645 in the name of Clare Adamson on standing order rule changes mandatory committee remit. I call on Clare Adamson to speak to you and to move the motion. The Standards Procedures and Public Appointments Committee is proposing a set of rule changes relating to mandatory committee remits. On 13 June this year, the committee wrote on behalf of the parliamentary bureau about the establishment of committees. The parliamentary bureau expressed its wish to establish a committee structure that remits reflecting cabinet secretary portfolios. It stated that it was committed to the subject matter, covered by the current remits of the mandatory committees, as set out in standing orders, but wished the remits of a number of them to be expanded. The bureau proposed that the remit for the finance committee should be expanded to include constitutional matters. The remit of European and external affairs committee should be expanded to include culture and tourism. The Public Audit Committee remit should be expanded to include post-legislative scrutiny. The Equal Opportunities Committee remit should be expanded to include human rights. The remits of other mandatory committees would remain unchanged. The SPPA committee proposed rule changes that will allow the Parliament and a motion of parliamentary bureau to make those changes in response to requests from the Equal Opportunities Committee. We also proposed that its name be changed from equal opportunities to equalities. Finally, we proposed an extension to the remit of standards procedures and public appointments committee in order to allow it to play a role in the implementation of the Lobbings Scotland Act 2016 and to ensure that the Parliament's statutory responsibilities under that act are met. I am pleased to move motion S5M-01645, in my name. The First Minister will put a decision time to which we now come, and there are four questions to be put as a result of today's business. I wish to remind members that, if the amendment to the name of Peter Chapman is successful, the amendment to the name of Rhoda Grant falls. The first question is that amendment 1669.2, in the name of Peter Chapman, which seeks to amend motion 1669, in the name of Fergus Ewing, on securing the interests of Scotland's rural economy, is agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. The Parliament will therefore vote, and members may move. Castor votes now. The result of the vote on the amendment in Peter Chapman's name is as follows. Yes, 31. No, 87. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. The next question is that amendment 1669.1, in the name of Rhoda Grant, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. The Parliament will vote, and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote is as follows. Yes, 83. No, 35. There were no abstentions. The amendment in the name of Rhoda Grant is therefore agreed. The next question is that motion 1669, in the name of Fergus Ewing, as amended, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. The Parliament will move to a vote, and members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion 1669, in the name of Fergus Ewing, is as follows. Yes, 83. No, 35. There were no abstentions. The motion as amended is therefore agreed. The next question is that motion 1645, in the name of Clare Adamson, on standing order rule changes, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. That concludes decision time. We will now move to members' business, and I will take a few minutes for members to change their seats.