 The next item of business is a debate on motion 17304 in the name of Fergus Ewing on the impact of Brexit on Scotland's food and drink. May I ask those who wish to speak in the debate to press the request to speak buttons and I call on Fergus Ewing to speak to and move the motion. For up to 12 minutes, please, cabinet secretary. Presiding Officer, I am pleased that the Parliament has set time today to discuss the implications for Scotland's food and drink industry of the United Kingdom leaving the European Union, and specifically the catastrophic impact that there would be where we to leave without a deal. The reason why that is important is because the food and drink industry will be one of the sector's most adversely affected by Brexit, threatening the economic growth of industry and even worse, undermining its ambition to double its value to £30 billion by the year 2030. Our food and drink industry is both economically and culturally vital to Scotland. It is one of the largest employers. It sustains jobs in some of our most fragile and rural communities. It is underpinned, of course, by our farming and fishing industries, primary producers producing and providing markets for the raw material that harvest, cultivate and catch. Increasingly, it is also becoming the bedrock of our tourism offer. It is why people enjoy marvellous holidays in our beautiful, constantly sunny countryside, as we see today. It continues also to be the star on the international stage, with our whisky and seafood being exported to more than 100 markets across the world. The stats speak for themselves, exports at record levels of £6.3 billion, up 78 per cent since 2007, sales of Scottish brands across the UK market, 37 per cent since 2007, investment by Scottish businesses, up 72 per cent since 2007 and the birthrate of new businesses, up 86 per cent in the past eight years. I can share the news that the latest turnover statistics, measuring the overall value of the industry in monetary terms, were published. Those show that turnover in Scotland's food and drink sector is now at record levels. Turnover for 2017 was valued at £14.8 billion and an increase of £836 million on the previous year. What a tremendous tribute to all those who work in the sector helped by the continued and substantial support from the Scottish Government. Indeed, since the EU referendum result in June 2016 alone, the Scottish Government has provided £90 million worth of grants to the industry through our EMFF and FPMC programmes, supporting more than 600 projects, the length and breadth of the country. The support has given businesses the confidence, even in the face of uncertainty, to invest and grow their ambition, their workforce, their product range, their productivity and their reputation. It is our reputation in Scotland, founded on provenance, quality and heritage, that I believe makes Scotland stand out from the crowd. Success in those markets has been hard earned. It does not come easily or overnight. It requires substantial effort to build a customer base and even more effort to maintain it in the face of stiff competition globally. For some sectors such as seafood, the supply chains are finally honed to ensure maximum speed and efficiency, which are facilitated through trading arrangements that are built up over a number of years. Last month, however, we came perusly close to jeopardising all of this. As members know, the European Council has extended the UK's membership of the European Union until 31 October. That extension rescued us from the nightmare scenario. Had that not happened, the impact in the food and drink sector would have been catastrophic. There would have been severe disruption of our supply chains in position of punitive tariffs, loss of markets, complex and costly non-tariff barriers, including the requirement for export health certificates, but, thankfully, we were spared that. However, as things stand, if an agreed way forward is not found soon, the risk of a no deal will rise again with the potential of more money, time and effort being wasted. Of course, the UK Government could remove that risk now by making it clear that, if the only alternative is a no deal, it will revoke article 50 instead. That is in its gift. Until that happens, the Scottish Government will continue to do all it can to support the industry prepared. Over the past six months, we have worked extensively with stakeholders from across the industry to seek to minimise the damage if we crashed out. Today, I want to update members across the chamber on that work. I spoke earlier about the success of the industry and, at the heart of that success, I contend, is our trading relationship with the EU. Last year, over two thirds of our food exports went to the EU. Seven out of 10 top export markets are in the EU. The EU is the largest market for Scotch whisky. 64 per cent of seafood exports go to the EU, with the majority relying on just-in-time supply chains across the channel. France alone accounts for a quarter of red meat exports. Our seafood industry is heavily reliant on EU nationals, many of whom have made a life in Scotland and, indeed, in Grampian, over 70 per cent of the workforce are from the EU. The reason why the implications are so severe is that the food and drink industry is significantly far more important to Scotland's economy than it is to the rest of the UK's, particularly England. Our food and drink exports are four times more important to our economy than they are to the economy in England. Seafood exports account for 58 per cent of our overall food exports, and that compares to seafood exports from England accounting to only 6 per cent of their food exports. The seed potato industry, which exports over 30,000 tonnes annually to the EU, is unique to Scotland. Therefore, the cumulative impact of leaving the EU without a deal is estimated to be a £2,000 million loss of sales for Scotland's industry. Those figures are calculated by the industry using the UK Government's economic projections. I have conveyed that to the UK Government. Indeed, I wrote to Mr Gove on 19 February, setting out 10 very clear and practical asks, such as guaranteeing continued protection in the EU for our iconic products that hold protected geographical indications, PGIs—absolutely essential to high-quality Scottish produce—negotiating market access both to the EU and third-country markets, facilitating frictionless supply chains by allocating space on the Government-funded ferries for seafood and other time-sensitive products, seeking a delegation from the EU to avoid the need for export health certificates, estimated incidentally to cost the industry up to £15 million per annum extra, financial support for livestock producers, particularly sheep farmers, likely to be completely shut out of export markets because of the impact of tariffs. Despite those and other compelling arguments that I conveyed in person, Mr Gove's response, sadly, was non-committal. Edward Mountain Cabinet Secretary, thank you for taking an intervention. I believe yesterday at the evidence session that Michael Gove gave to the Wreck Committee when I asked on the problems facing the sheep industry, he said words to the effect of, I am waiting for the Cabinet Secretary, Fergus Ewing, to come to me and we will listen to all his proposals. Have you gone to him with specific proposals and could you lay them out for us so that we can understand them? Fergus Ewing Well, not only have we gone to him to discuss an appropriate compensation scheme, we have had several discussions about this face-to-face around the table, and that includes a compensation scheme on a head-age basis, which would provide an element of compensation to hill farmers in Scotland. I am pleased to say that there is an element of a parent agreement, but there are no proposals specifically from the UK Government. Indeed, the minutes of the devolved administration UK Government meeting that discussed Brexit costs will record the fact that Mr Gove undertook on behalf of the UK Government, confirmed in the minutes that were not challenged at the subsequent meeting that I also attended, that the UK Government will meet all the Brexit costs. However, when we came to discuss how and who would pay for the compensation scheme for our sheep sector—absolutely essential—the paper that was submitted by the UK Government said, and wait for it, that each devolved administration must pay its own costs. I am glad that I am able to thank you for the opportunity, incidentally, Mr Mountain, to set that on the record. Obviously, I do not wish to make any comment that could be construed as partisan or party-political, Presiding Officer, but I do feel that, when I am challenged there, I should respond to set the record straight. I am delighted to have been given that opportunity from Mr Mountain. Meantime, while we receive warm words but no action from the UK Government, we will continue to work and support the industry through our Food Sector Resilience Group, which we convened back in December, represented on the group of organisations from across the industry and wider supply chain, including retailers, grocers, wholesalers, haulers and the public sector. We have undertaken a range of work to minimise the impact. It is very important because this is hard work carried out thousands of hours by civil servants that could have been spent on many other things to take our rural economy forward, diverted because of a no deal and the need to deal with it and prepare for the worst whilst hoping for the best. It included developing sector plans to identify and pursue a range of actions for each sector, working with industry to develop a tailored risk-based approach to meet EU requirements for export health certificates, scoping out options for alternative supply chains, including the feasibility of air freight, undertaking a detailed assessment of infrastructure around export capability, identifying alternative market opportunities in international markets using our excellent network of 14 in-market specialists, extensive engagement with retailers to scope out potential for increasing their Scottish sourcing in the event of disruption of export markets, development of a new online advisory service prepared for Brexit and many other things. I have sought to give a lead on all of these matters, and I have done much of this work with hard working officials myself and will continue to do so, including on Monday next week. Despite all of those efforts, we know that many businesses were not as prepared as they might be. I will come to a conclusion. I think that taking the intervention did take up some of my time, so I will just conclude briefly by saying that our view is the best way to break the deadlock, is for the UK to put the issue back to the people, with an option to remain in the EU. I believe that Mr Rumbles may expand on that theme further, and we are shoulder to shoulder with Mr Rumbles and his colleagues on that matter. In the interim, we are doing much in Scotland to support the exciting sector. We are doing the day job. The future is positive. The figures show it. If we do not jeopardise this because of the political agenda of the London Government, then the food and drink sector will continue to thrive and prosper as it richly deserves. In my haste to try and get the cabinet secretary to correct a statement he made, which he was unable to do, I failed to declare that I have an interest in a farming partnership before I spoke. I know that the member is aware of that, but I just wanted to put it on the record, Presiding Officer, so that I have not misled anyone. It is on the record, Mr Mountain. Donald Cameron, to speak to and move amendment 17304.1 for up to seven minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Can I move the amendment in my name and also refer to my register of interests in farming and fish farming in there, and also the fact that I am a non-executive director of Murray Income Trust, which is a publicly listed company with food and drink investments. I welcome the opportunity to talk about Scotland's food and drink industry, and I want to pay tribute to the sector. It is one of the bastions of the Scottish economy, and it is, of course, highly significant. In that sense, I agree with the cabinet secretary in terms of the warm words that he spoke in support of that sector and the people that work within it. As the Highlands and Islands MSP, I know only too well the importance and value of the products that we produce, both locally and nationally, and the important jobs that come from the industry that support many people in the region and beyond. Food and drink is Scotland's largest international export industry, with a manufacturer of food and beverages accounting for exports worth £6 billion, or thereabouts, according to the latest figures. The industry's overall value is, as we know, worth around £15 billion, and we have long supported the Scottish Government's ambition to double that to £30 billion by 2030. That is proper, right and achievable, but, unlike the SNP, we see Brexit as an opportunity to aid that ambition. Undoubtedly, the Brexit process is proving to be challenging, but we want to see a deal pass that respects the referendum result and allows us to trade with other countries, boosting our own goods in the process, while maintaining trade and positive co-operation with our friends in the EU. The existing withdrawal agreement would allow us to do that, and it is clear from the wide support that it commands from across the Scottish industry that this is the most preferable outcome, which respects the votes, an outcome that would allow us to grow our burgeoning food and drink sector. Let me remind the cabinet secretary what that sector said of the deal. The Scotch Whisk Association, who talked on behalf of an industry with an export value worth £4.7 billion to Scotland, said, and I quote, on balanced the draft withdrawal agreement and accompanying political declaration, stand up well against the Scotch Whiskie industry's Brexit priorities. The NFUS said of the deal that, while not perfect, it will ensure that there are no hard barriers on the day we leave the EU and will allow trade and agricultural goods in UK food and drink to continue throughout the transition period, largely as before, this opportunity needs to be taken. Perhaps the cabinet secretary thinks that they are wrong. Of course, we agree that a no-deal Brexit should be avoided, and we agree with the industry that it does present a risk. However, we are not proponents of that outcome. We want a deal, we support the deal on the table, the only deal that the EU has said is on the table. The reality is that other parties, such as the SNP, who have wanted Brexit to fail from day one and are risking no deal becoming a reality—I do not have time, I am afraid. What really great with those benches is that one of the greatest threats, the growth of food and drink, is of course the SNP's recent announcements relating to a second independence referendum. That is the reality. Independence threatens the UK single market, which accounts for around 60 per cent of Scottish exports. Not only that, but the UK market is three times more important to Scotland than the EU market. The SNP's plans for an independent Scotland to quickly ditch the pound in favour of a new Scottish currency would put our food and drink businesses at significant economic risk. We are shortly going to waste valuable parliamentary time on legislation for such a referendum that just one in five Scots want to see in the next two years. Time which could be spent debating food and drink policy. Time which could be spent debating a good food nation bill. Time which could be spent debating a Scottish agriculture bill. So Ilba Fitts, the SNP, to come here and preach about the dangers of Brexit when the policy of independence would wreak havoc on Scotland's food and drink sector. Yes. Alasdair Allan. I thank the member for giving way and listening to what he has to say about what he feels is the agenda of this Parliament being overtaken by constitutional matters. Is he aware just how little time the United Kingdom Parliament has been able to devote to any subject other than Brexit in the last few months? Of course Mr Allan would prefer to divert attention from the lack of ambition that his party, his Government, show in this Parliament. That lack of ambition is clear today. A pattern has emerged when it comes to a Brexit debate. It is simply a smokescreen to hide the failure of his Government to come up with anything novel or radical when it comes to policy. The NFUS director of policy said recently of the Scottish Government's agriculture approach that there is no vision. He said that we have not got a clue at the moment. That is a pretty damning indictment in my view. If we are to succeed in delivering an even more successful food and drink industry, we need to drive policy from the point of view of farm to fork, ensuring that each stage of the process is properly supported where appropriate by Government and tailored to specific needs. I will take the intervention, sorry. I was not sure how many minutes I had, Presiding Officer. Not many. Alex Rowley. Last year, last summer, the fruit farmers in particular but the farming industry found it very difficult to be able to recruit workers. Given the box visa scheme that is being proposed from the Government and Westminster, what needs to happen in order to ensure that workers are there this year and that we do not have fruit rotten in the fields? I can give you up to eight minutes, Mr Cameron. I am very grateful to the Deputy Presiding Officer. My answer to Alex Rowley is that I hope that the UK and Scottish Governments can work together on a system that will help seasonal workers. Of course, there is a pilot at the moment and that there is a step towards that. I hope that that succeeds and we obviously hope that that expands. If we are to succeed in delivering a more successful food and drink industry, we have a great opportunity. We have an opportunity to grow that sector and tailor policy to benefit Scottish producers and Scottish businesses. We and others across the chamber are still waiting for a good food nation bill. We are very sympathetic with the Labour amendment and the Green amendment in terms of what they say in this regard. WWF Scotland has said that such a bill would help Scotland to navigate this period of change and tackle the multiple environmental, social and economic challenges of the Scottish food system and harness the opportunities. On that very subject of our excellent unique produce, it is important to recognise the work that is going on to protect some of our most iconic brands. The Scottish Fishermen's Federation in March said that leaving the common fisheries policy will enable us to elevate the UK on to the world stage as a sustainable seafood harvesting and marketing nation. Those are all important steps that give many people involved in our food and drink sector confidence going forward. Deputy Presiding Officer, there are many opportunities for our food and drink sector going forward. The Scottish Conservatives believe that if we get Brexit right, this can be a critical part of plans to grow the sector. However, we are deeply concerned that this could be a missed opportunity if the SNP Government continues in its attempts to prevent a Brexit deal. We believe in our food and drink sector, and we know that it can thrive even more with the right support and if we grasp the opportunities ahead. I call on Rhoda Grant to speak to and move amendment 17304.2 for six minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I, like others, want to highlight the economic benefit of the food and drink industry to Scotland, and there is no doubt that Brexit looms large over the industry. An old deal Brexit would be a disaster, and that prospect is causing uncertainty and concern. Import tariffs would lead to higher prices in the supermarkets and shops and delays at the border. Depending on the level of tariffs, it could lead to a shortage of certain kinds of food, unless the cabinet secretary said that putting exports at even greater risk. We must do everything that we can to ensure that we do not have a no-deal Brexit. I would ask the Scottish Government that it does everything in its power to ensure that that does not happen. It needs to set aside its constitutional wrangles, stop using Brexit as a lever for independence and work for the best interests of the Scottish people. I have read in the papers recently that Andy Riff 2 was the First Minister's top priority. How sad when engulfed by the chaos of leaving a political and economic union that she simply looks to adding to that chaos by leaving another? If Brexit is bad, independence would be four times worse. We already see with devolved tax and benefits the difficulty that the Scottish Government has in putting in place the system that could deliver that. Those powers are being handed back to Westminster. How much more difficult to unravel the whole of the United Kingdom? Annabelle Ewing. I am most grateful. I had thought that the title of today's debate was the impact of Brexit on Scotland's food and drink. I would have thought that the member would be able to seek to support the many, many important businesses in her constituency who would be crying out for the voice to be heard, who work in the sector on this important debate. Rhoda Grant. Indeed, and stopping the break-up of the United Kingdom actually assists the food and drink producers in my constituency. Excuse me, Ms Grant. I won't have shouting between benches, please. It's not acceptable, Rhoda Grant. I simply ask that the Scottish Government use their devolved powers in order to put us in a better place and come what may. Firstly, it's simply wrong that in a rich country we have people who are going hungry. Children suffer from diseases and malnutrition that our parents' generation thought they would never see again. The Scottish Government has power to legislate for a right to food. It's a human right, so let us legislate to enshrine it in our laws. That will enable us to ensure that no one goes hungry and enable us to hold ourselves and the Scottish Government accountable when they do. The scourge of malnutrition and obesity could be dealt with and unnecessary chronic health problems and pressures that it will store up for the NHS in the future. We also need to face up to climate change. It's a climate emergency and we're agreed on that. We hear that agriculture is the biggest contributor to climate change. However, we seldom hear about what it sequestrates. There's no credit for the forestry, our farmers and crofters plant or indeed the grasslands that they manage. Both those activities sequestrate carbon. We hear that they should get rid of livestock, sheep and cows. However, no cognisance has taken that those animals protect the very grasslands that sequestrate more carbon than forestry. Livestock also predicts biodiversity and it's already suffering because of the lack of stock in the hills. The Scottish Government must, as a matter of urgency, draw up a new subsidy scheme that helps farmers and crofters work to sequestrate more carbon and greenhouse gases. We simply cannot go on with the schemes that we have if we're going to meet the targets that they have set. Soil management is not only good for the environment, but it's also good for production. It's a win-win to help climate and make farms more productive, but it too can be expensive for crofters and farmers to do, so we need a scheme that recognises that and helps them with those costs. It'll be too late to meet the interim targets if we delay devising the new scheme until post 2021. While there is uncertainty surrounding Brexit, we cannot simply sign up to climate change targets, declare a climate emergency and then simply do nothing to deal with that. Our farmers and crofters are seeking leadership from the Scottish Government. They need a measure that takes account of greenhouse gases that they produce but also a measure that counts what they sequestrate so that they can move to net zero. We need subsidy payments that reflect that, along with the other public goods that agriculture provides, and public money for public goods. We need to set a direction of travel that gives producers a clear indication of what they can expect help for in the future and what they cannot. While we need to seek reassurance about a no-deal Brexit, and yes, staying in the EU is the best way to support the status quo, however, we have had a referendum and we need to try to honour the democratic will of the people. That said, I don't really believe that people voted for the chaos that we now face. Therefore, we need to find the best outcome possible. Governments cannot alone overturn the will of the people. If they seek to do that, they need to go back to the people to give them the final say. However, we need to consider that a majority vote may still vote to leave, so we need a reasonable deal in place to prevent further crisis before we take that step. My reasons for campaigning for remain are exactly the same as they are for campaigning to stay in the United Kingdom. Our food and drink sector, as well as the country as a whole, are better served as part of a larger alliance that allows trade and assistance to flow, be that the EU or the UK. A good food nation, taking account of environmental issues, farmed to fork agricultural support, health, hunger and a comprehensive subsidy scheme that would not only give reassurance to the food and drink industry in a time of upheaval but also set a direction of travel that we want for the country. I think that that is the direction that we must go and I move the amendment in my name. I call on Mark Ruskell to speak to and move amendment 17304.3. Six minutes, please. I can also welcome the opportunity to debate today the impact Brexit will have and, in many cases, is already having on our food and drink sector. In leaving the EU, we stand to lose economic benefits but also much, much more. For two generations now, Scotland's food system has been defined by European regulations, policy levers and funding streams underpinned by the common agricultural policy. Greens have long been critical of the cap, but hard-won reforms over the last two decades have at least succeeded in ensuring that every country in Europe directly supports agri-environment measures that have led to the production of much greener food. The strong European consensus is that the future of our food system and the future of our environment are inextricably linked. I doubt that we would have achieved this unanimity without the driving force of the European Union. Greens, of course, would argue that this needs to go further and that climate change and environmental protection should be at the very heart of our farm support system rather than stuck on the fringes. Whilst the UK has been embroiled in the never-ending Brexit row, the rest of the EU has been considering just that. The current round of the cap finishes next year and from 2021 will have a new revised system. Scottish MEPs should be around that table negotiating a united European approach to addressing the climate crisis and providing a strong future for farming communities, but instead they have been disempowered by UK Government and sidelined from the process. Greens from across Europe, however, have been participating in bringing together 10 priorities for the future of the cap, which include harmonising agricultural policy with health, environment and climate change targets, a fairer distribution of cap subsidies to support our small and medium-sized farmers, a refocusing on extensive rather than intensive food production, and a comprehensive public goods audit for all public funding and investment. The majority of parties in this chamber have said that they want to remain in the EU, and that means that we should be having parallel discussions right now about what a cap for the climate emergency should look like, whether we end up being part of it or not. As my amendment makes clear, if we act now, we can turn a crisis into an opportunity for Scotland's food and drink sector. Public attitudes towards the food that they buy, cook and eat have shifted radically in the past few decades, with an increasing understanding of the environmental impact of our diets. The number of vegans, for example, in the UK has quadrupled since 2014, with concern for the environment and health top reasons that people give for changing their diet. Many more people are looking to make more gradual changes, with 35 per cent of British consumers reporting having meat-free days throughout the week. The recent UK climate change committee report worked on the assumption that we would see a 20 per cent reduction in meat and dairy consumption in the coming years. Whilst giving evidence to the Eclare Committee on Tuesday, the committee admitted that this was a very conservative estimate based on the consumer patterns that we currently see. There is no need for a big push for behaviour change to achieve that 20 per cent, because people are already making that change at the moment. The report, however, said that a 50 per cent reduction in meat and dairy consumption would make a net zero target more achievable. Even that would still see people eating more meat and dairy than is recommended by public health guidelines. If we are all to eat according to the model recommended by Public Health England, we would see a total reduction of meat and dairy consumption by more than 80 per cent. However, my point today is that we should not look to fight against those recommendations and the growing consumer trends that they reflect, nor should we see them as a threat to our food and farming sector. We need to embrace the opportunities. Scotland's climate and land means that we can produce carbon-neutral meat and dairy, and there is clearly an appetite for highly sustainable ethical food. Imagine the opportunities both at home and globally if we were able to say eventually that all Scotch lamb and beef was carbon neutral. However, that will require significant change and investment, mainstreaming techniques such as holistic pasture management to lock up more carbon in our soils, incorporating more trees on our farms and not just as patchy wind breaks, but as integrated silvo pasture systems. Like it or not, it will mean reducing herd densities and switching to more extensive farming. The reward, though, is a premium price for a desirable sustainable product and more land and resources to invest in growing climate-friendly plant-based foods. Other countries have recognised that already. Ireland's origin green is a successful scheme that highlights the most environmentally sustainable food that their country has to offer and accounts for 90 per cent now of their food and drink exports. I believe that it is time for Scotland to adopt a similar approach. I hope that our future lies firmly in the EU, but whether we stay or not, it will be the climate crisis and our ability to respond to it, which will determine whether Scotland's food and drink sector thrives or just survives in the years ahead. The final part of my amendment today is a reminder to the Scottish Government, which Donald Cameron and Rhoda Grant have given. Of what the chamber agreed last September, we all know that the cabinet secretary inherited his role as champion of the good food nation bill, but all opposition parties here recognise the desperate need for a joined-up food policy, one that brings together multiple strands from health to land use to social policy. Parliament expects primary legislation this year, so the Government really must deliver soon. I move the amendment to my name. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Food and drink is at the very heart of our culture and traditions in Scotland. Generations of farmers and thousands of European Union workers contributed to our world-class food and drink sector, particularly in my own region of the north-east, building it into the genuine success story that it is today. As we have heard, food and drink is vital to our rural economy, bringing much-needed employment and business opportunities to families and communities all over rural Scotland. However, our producers are on the front line of the greatest threat to our economy for very many years, and I do not say that lightly. We have just heard from the cabinet secretary that Brexit could cost our farming, fishing and crofting sector some £2 billion a year, and I astonished that the Conservatives do not think that that is a major threat. There is no doubt that a no-deal Brexit would be catastrophic for our rural economy. Having questioned Michael Gove on this just yesterday, it is quite obvious to me that he is inexplicably relaxed about a no-deal Brexit. The man in charge of agriculture south of the border refused to confirm to me that he would do everything in his power in the UK cabinet to argue to avoid it all costs a no-deal Brexit. Quite frankly, it is astonishing to me that the Conservatives have failed to rule out a no-deal Brexit. We will be supporting the Scottish Government's motion today. I am very pleased to say that we support it absolutely. As far as the amendments are concerned, I want to say that the Liberal Democrats prefer the Government's motion as it stands. It properly reflects our position. We are the only party in this chamber that wants to stay in both our unions. Make no bones about that, both our unions. Therefore, we will not be supporting any of the amendments, as all of them in our view dilute the message that we want to set out from our Parliament. By far the largest market for our food and drink remains the rest of the UK. 61 per cent of all Scottish exports are destined for the rest of the UK. Cheap, low-quality imports from countries outside the European Union would undermine all the good work that our producers have done, not to mention endangering our progress towards green and sustainable land use. For that reason, our food and drink industry's reputation for quality must be protected. Scotland's food exports are sold across the European Union, and the removal of the common European Union framework could seriously impact on our trade. On top of that, in the minister, the cabinet secretary already mentioned it, non-tariff barriers with the EU could cause administrative delays that would be particularly detrimental to our trade in fresh produce. In addition, we are now seeing how important non-UK nationals are for agriculture and our wider food and drink industry. It annoys me intensely how the UK Government is just ignoring that. Whilst the UK Government has allowed two and a half thousand visas for migrant workers, the National Farmers Union of Scotland has reported that the number of vacancies left open this year will be a staggering 10,000 across the UK as a whole. What will happen to our food growers if those jobs cannot be filled? The answer is simple—thousands of tonnes of food rotting in the fields because of the lack of workers. That is a deliberate policy of the Conservative UK Government. Currently, one-third of the current Labour force across Scotland's food and drink sector comes from the EU countries. I fail to see how those numbers can be replaced without free movement across the continent. I know many of my colleagues who sit on the rural economy committee and believe that it is important to have free movement across the continent, but they seem to be silent in this debate. No-deal Brexit would write off some of our best producers and damage many rural communities. Until now, the Scottish food and drink industry has been going from strength to strength, assisted by the Government, and we have a duty to support it. There is more that the Scottish Government could do to mitigate the damage of Brexit on our rural economy. I have said many times in the chamber that I want to see a bespoke system of support for Scotland with continued financial support for the foreseeable future, and I know that the Cabinet Secretary is making progress on that. However, as long as Brexit and the threat of a no-deal remains on the table, the UK Government and Conservative MSPs in this chamber who support it have a great deal of responsibility and a great deal to answer for the damage that will be first upon our rural economy. However, I want to end on a positive note from our perspective. The Liberal Democrats believe that the continued success—and it is a huge success—of our food and drink industry, as the motion before us says today, can best be achieved through continued membership of the European Union. We move on to the open debate. Speaking of five minutes, please, Bruce Crawford, followed by Peter Chapman. Thank you, Presiding Officer. It is now nearly seven weeks from the date that the UK was originally expected to leave the European Union. In many of us in this place simply cannot believe that we were close to the precipice of economic catastrophe as we became. That being said, even through this very day, the UK Government will not categorically rule out leaving the EU without a deal, despite the fact that even its analysis says that such a scenario would severely hit the Scottish economy. As we see in the media reports, the Tories are intent in putting this country through the ringer of despair yet again by attempting to resurrect Maize Deal from the dead. They have learned nothing from the months and months of purgatory that they have put our citizens through and they are holding them in as well as our businesses. It is clear that Westminster is incapable of finding a resolution. I agree with the minister. It is time for the cabinet secretary to let the people decide. Before I get tempted into too much of the European election mode, I better move on. Excluding oil and gas, in 2017, we exported £14 million of goods to the EU, a 13.3 increase on the previous year. The EU remains our fastest-growing trading sector. Of course, our biggest export success is the food and drink sector. Recently, as of March this year, we learned that the Scotland's overseas food and drink exports had increased by £293 million in 2018, up 4.9 per cent, to an impressive record high—a record high—of £6.3 billion. The EU remains the destination as the cabinet secretary said for two thirds of our food exports. Despite those impressive figures, I am pleased that the Scottish Government has shown its determined to grow our export business even more, with an ambitious growth plan that aims to increase the value of exports from 20 per cent to 25 per cent of Scotland's GDP over the next 10 years. A trading nation, a plan for growing Scotland's exports, sets out how Scotland can add around £3.5 billion to GDP and create 17,500 jobs. In the face of the EU's exit uncertainty, the trading nation gives us a clear signal of Scotland's ambition to remain an open, progressive nation, where our business can trade in global markets, particularly in food and drink, and there is extra support in this plan for the food and drink sector. However, it should make no mistake that the growth, trade and aspiration will be undermined by the threat of leaving the European Union. Those who support crashing out of the EU without a deal tell us that they want the UK to trade with the rest of the world, as if that will happen by some sort of magic wand. However, there is one very good reason why we have built a single market with our closest international neighbours. That is because they are our closest international neighbours. Having a single market with your neighbours just makes it so much easier and much more sense for fresh products such as Scotch lamb and beef or Scottish salmon. It is clear that any tariffs that are applied to those products for sale in the EU would have a devastating impact for the Scottish farmers, including those in my constituency. Moreover, the UK Government's planned abandonment of the freedom of movement of people presents a real and present risk to our food and drink sector. EU immigrants make up an incredible contribution to the sector, all the way through from the farm gate to processing to marketing to retail and right through to the hospitality businesses. Scotland's economy needs that constant stream of inward migration from our neighbouring countries, but that is being threatened by the UK Tory Government. Another important area that I briefly want to touch on is protected geographical indicators through the European Union. I want to put on record my gratitude to my colleague Emma Harper, who has raised the issue time and time again in this place. PGI's are the best way to ensure that products local to specific locations in Europe do not suffer from competition, from cheap copycats, as suggested by my rumbles, or much lower quality and non-existent provenance. That status ensures the integrity of Scottish products bought and sold across the entire European single market and throughout the countries that have trade deals with the EU. Of course, the only real way to protect EU protected status for Scottish products is to remain in the European Union. If I could be so bold, the best way of ensuring that we remain in the EU is to vote for the SNP in next week's European elections. Peter Chapman, followed by Annabelle Ewing. I thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I register an interest as a partner in the farming business. In the Brexit referendum, I voted to remain. Nevertheless, as soon as I heard the result, I was committed to making it happen. Unfortunately, we all underestimated how difficult it would be, and as of now, if we have obviously not left and we don't know what deal will gain parliamentary support. I want to leave with the only deal on the table, as do the NFUS, the Scottish Whiskey Association and, virtually, the whole business community, but uncertainly abounds. Most of us agree that we do not want a no-deal Brexit, so let me be clear. The only sure way to avoid a no-deal Brexit is to vote for the deal on the table. Our food and drink industry is a vital part of our economy. Since 2007, we have seen the industry grow 44 per cent to £14 billion. Our exports are up 56 per cent, worth £5.5 billion, and food and drink has grown at twice the rate of the rest of the manufacturing economy. That is a great success story for Scotland. To be honest, it is no surprise that our food and drink industry has grown at this rate, as we have such a diverse, natural environment and some of the best farmers, business people and fishermen in the world. Scotch, whisky, is around a well. Considering that we heard that 70 per cent of our workforce in the food and drink industry is from the EU, does he believe that it is worth keeping free movement of people to help our food and drink industry? Peter Chapman We do not need free movement, but we need to allow the people in it to grow our economy. That is exactly what we will achieve. Where I was, Scotch, whisky is around 80 per cent of our food and drink. It is not just Scotland, but the UK is the largest net contributor to our balance of trade. This is a premium product that is sought worldwide and is growing in volume year on year. The SNP obsession with independence means that it would like us all to forget that our biggest and best export for food and drink is the rest of the UK. For example, 80 per cent of Scotch beef is sold into England. The UK's single market is over three times more important to Scotland than the EU's single market. Scottish exports to the UK are worth £48.9 billion against £14.9 billion in exports to the whole of the EU. I have no time, but, of course, those EU exports are important. If we vote for the deal in the table, which aims for frictionless and tariff-free trade, there is no reason why we cannot keep all those exports and grow them. We must also recognise that there are markets right across the world for our produce. America takes large amounts of our salmon, and the Far East is now a premium market for much of our shellfish to name just two markets. We should be debating making more of that happen rather than debating going back on a democratic vote. With the food and drink sector aiming to grow it to be worth £30 billion by 2030, we must continue to support our farmers, fishermen and salmon producers, who produce the high-quality food and the raw materials in which our world-renowned goods are based. I have said time and time again in this chamber that Brexit offers a prize to design a system of support that suits our farmers and our environment here in Scotland. However, this Government has made precious little attempt to seize that opportunity. Future support must also focus on our already strong animal welfare environmental standards, and we must never undermine those high standards by allowing imports produced under systems that are illegal here. Today's motion by the Scottish Government makes it abundantly clear that it does not respect the views of Scotland's fishermen. Continued membership of the EU would be a disaster for taking back control of our waters. However, today's debate has shown that taking back control is not a priority for this Government. It wants to maintain the status quo, stay in the EU and stay in the hated CFP. Try telling that to our fishermen in the north-east and see how that message goes down. Fishing matters to the Conservatives. We are the only party who recognise and are fighting to obtain the sea of opportunity that Brexit brings, and our fishermen know it. I know that many people here today have been left disappointed by the SNP's delayed and discredited promise to deliver the Good Food Nation bill. They could have used that slot today to bring that to the chamber and not use another parliamentary debate to scare longer about Brexit. It is clear that they only want one thing, and pushing for a chaotic Brexit is just another tool that they are cynically using to achieve it. Annabelle Ewing, followed by Colin Smyth. I am pleased to have been called to speak in the debate this afternoon and at the outset I would wish to highlight the important role of the sector in my constituency of Coutinbeath Indeed Maui, whom members may know in terms of its former name of Marine Harvest, has a salmon processing plant in Recife and employs 636 full-time equivalent workers. It accounts for around 11,200 tonnes of product sold and 165 million in sales. Far as the Scottish salmon industry is a wholist concern, the turnover is just over 1 billion and the gross value added is 365 million. International exports are worth in excess of £600 million and the EU remains the largest single regional market, with exports increasing year on year, up 22 per cent from Q1 2018 to Q1 2019. It is clear therefore that the Scottish salmon sector is a hugely important industry and hugely important to the Scottish economy. It is a premium product. It is an award-winning product and the industry in the sector has seen tremendous growth. However, the continuing Brexit uncertainty is casting a considerable shadow. Indeed, the Scottish salmon producers organisation has said and I quote, the Scottish salmon sector believe that a no-deal Brexit would be the worst outcome. The Scottish salmon producers organisation has also said and I quote, a no-deal Brexit would put barriers in the way of our biggest single export market jurisdiction and would present major new problems in getting our fish to European market. They have identified key problems in this regard, including non-tariff barriers. At present, export health certificates are not currently needed for exports to the EU, but in a no-deal Brexit, the possibility of there being requirements for anything up to 200,000 certificates per year looms very large. Where would we rustle up all the extra environmental health officers and vets that would be required? What would be the cost? We have heard that the cost has been estimated up to £15 million per annum extra. How would all that impact on the need to get the product to market in a timely fashion? Then we got on to transportation issues, another key concern for the salmon industry. With the prospect of total gridlock in the south-east of England, it should be noted that a delay of even just a few hours will make it impossible for fish to get from Scotland to France with one driver, given restrictions on driver hours. A delay of more than 12 hours will make it difficult to reassure customers that they will still be getting the fish fresh—a key consideration for the buyer. Although the French Seafood Hub of Boulogneu at Soumer has put arrangements in place to fast-track fish once cleared, it is the threat of the lengthy queues in south-east England that poses the real threat here. To date, the approach of the UK Government has been extremely unhelpful, having rejected the possibility of special lanes for hauliers of perishable goods, and the UK Government has also failed to provide any clarity as to whether new driving licences and permits will be needed and how many will be available. The situation is untenable, unacceptable and no deal must be taken off the table. That was called for in an open letter from the chief execs of various organisations, including Scotland Food and Drink, NFUS, Quality Meat Scotland, Scottish Salmon Producers Organisation and others. I quote from that letter, that there is no tolerance for no deal as an option. It must be rejected now. At the same time, the UK Government must alter its anti-EU immigration policy plans. If adopted, those plans would be extremely detrimental to not just the Scottish salmon industry, which relies on EU nationals but also to the in-star Scotland food and drink sector. Why does the Government not listen to the NFUS who have stated, and I quote, NFUS is very concerned by the obstructive position being taken by the UK Government in regard to the future immigration system after breakfast, or listen to the director-general of the CBI who said just this week that the UK's immigration plans do not work for Scotland and she called for flexibility. What does this anti-EU national rhetoric say to those EU nationals from the EU 27 who are currently employed in my constituency? What certainty can they have? What about their families? What about their plans to school their children and to see their wider families over the years? Why is the UK Government disrespecting those workers? A no deal Brexit is bad news for Scotland. A hard Brexit is bad news for Scotland. Indeed, any Brexit is bad news for Scotland. Scotland did not vote to come out. Scotland voted 62 per cent to remain in the EU. Scotland wants to be in the single market and customs union. Scotland is for you and in closing I would echo my colleague Bruce Crawford in calling on the people of Scotland to send that message loud and clear by voting SNP next Thursday at the ballot box. I was under the impression that we are not allowed to advocate people voting, but if it is part of the debate today, I will urge people to vote Labour on Thursday. As we have heard in this debate, the food and drink sector is vital to the economy and to the people of Scotland. It accounts for a fifth of our manufacturing turnover, which is some £14.8 billion a year, with exports alone worth more than £6 billion. The nearly 19,000 food and drink businesses employ more than 115,000 people directly and many more jobs through the supply chain, often in some of our most fragile rural economies. In my one-home region of Dumfries and Galloway, the sector is worth £1.2 billion to the economy, employing more than 9,000 people. As a local council, I had the privilege of launching the Dumfries and Galloway food trail, which invites people to eat and drink their way around it. The natural ladder of the region to discover that artisan food and drink is produced by some of the most passionate people in the business. Companies such as the cream of Galloway near the food town of Castle Douglas were David and Wilma Finlayer delivering an ethical pharma model that shows that there is an alternative to the export of live calves and along the way are producing some of the most amazing ice cream and cheese. Other such businesses are Locathor, which I had the privilege as a chair of Dumfries and Galloway fair trade steering group of a warden fair trade flagship employer status, which helps to deliver fair trade status to the region. The trail takes people behind the scenes at food and drink producers such as Annandale Distillery, which, after three years, is producing its first whiskey, a product that I can personally vouch for. The region boasts some of the busiest farmer markets, including at Dumfries railway station. We have some of the best food festivals and celebrations in the country such as the Stranraer Oyster festival, which celebrates areas culture and heritage, and Lockrines world-class oysters. As a result of the importance and potential of the sector, the local Labour-led council has just published a new regional food and drink strategy, which aims to double the value of the region's industry to £2.5 billion by 2030. As is the case across Scotland, that ambition is under threat as a result of Brexit, in particular a no-deal Brexit. 96 per cent of businesses in Dumfries and Galloway are small or micro-businesses, meaning that the impact of Brexit could put their very existence at risk. With everything from trading terms and tariffs to labour supply now uncertain, it is hard to overstate how damaging Brexit could be to the sector. Increased congestion at ports such as Cairnryan poses a serious threat to Scottish food exports, particularly for perishable products such as seafood, which rely on just-in-time delivery. The freedom of movement without a proper adequate replacement will weaken the workforce across the supply chain and leave in the common agricultural policy and common fisheries policy without any idea at all from government what will replace it leaves those at the heart of our world-class food and drink sector in a state of uncertainty. One of the key challenges for the Scottish food and sector industry is the potential loss of geographical indication status, which provides legal protection against imitation and is estimated to more than double the value of its products. From products such as Ayrshire Dunlop to Teavotdale cheese, many of our food and drink products benefit from that protected name status. It is particularly important to Scotch whiskey, which is by far our biggest export. The industry is worth more than £4 billion a year and accounts for almost three quarters of our exports. Retaining geographical indication status is therefore vital to Scotch whiskey, but the protected status of our products are under threat from Brexit and the consequential trade deals that may be negotiated in the future. Importance of food and drink goes beyond just its economic importance. It impacts on everything from health and environment to the fight against poverty, both here and beyond our shores. The nation that provides so much outstanding food and drink is to her shame that so many children in Scotland still go to bed hungry at night as a result of child poverty levels on the rise. Although our food and drink sector in Scotland has grown, so too has the tragedy that is food poverty. That is why, irrespective of the outcome of the current impasse over a future in the EU, we should be better prioritising the fight against food poverty, including in shining in law a statutory right to food and a good food nations bill that this Parliament has consistently voted for and which this Government needs to get on with delivering. I want to conclude with this point. The fight against poverty goes beyond our shores. Scotland is a proud fair trade nation and many businesses and consumers in Scotland support, and indeed trade fair trade products. If the UK leaves the EU, in the next few years we will see trade roles rewritten and new trade deals negotiated. That will mean big changes for us all, but for millions of farmers and workers in the world's poorest countries who rely on trading with us, it will be make or break for them. The fair trade principle of a fair price for a fair day's work therefore must be at the heart of those trade deals. If it is not, it will be yet another example of the damage Brexit that will do to the food and drink sector, both here in Scotland and across the world. Before I call the next speaker and, certainly before I advocate the chair, I would like to have a few words. I have heard rumblings and I have had some notes about what is seen as electioneering in the chamber. All I would say is that that has ever been this. We are all political people from political parties. I would suggest that, if you will excuse me, saying that we are all big enough and ugly enough to know what is sensible and what is not. We would ask that just everyone has a bit of care about being overtly blatant and recognising that we all have political things to say and perhaps we can all get on quite well with that. I now call Stuart Stevenson, followed by Rachael Hamilton. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I will look in the mirror and see if I fit the description that you have just used. Let me just say that I have a chair in a very small registered agricultural holding that is used for sheep, so that touches on the matter. We have a number of things in relation to the debate around the UK's planned departure from Brexit that have been put before us. Donald Cameron said that we have to vote for the deal that is available because it is the only deal. Of course, there is a reason that it is the only deal, because it is the only deal that Theresa May asked for. In a mansion house speech in 2017, she drew the red lines, which constrained the ultimate deal to be the deal that is before us. Of course, the deal that is before us is rather opaque, because the withdrawal agreement bill has not even been shown to the UK cabinet as yet. It will not be published until, I predict, after 23 May. The reason for that is that it will cause such internal chaos in the Tory party that Theresa May is trying to keep the publication of the bill as late as possible in the debate, because she knows that she cannot command the support of her party. In those circumstances, it is very hard to work out why anyone else should support the withdrawal agreement bill. The only record reference that I have is today from Sir Graham Brady, who is the chairman of the 1922 committee, who says— Point of order, John Scott. Stevenson addressed the motion, please. It hasn't last far. I think that Mr Scott has a bit of validity in what he has just said, if you could bear it in mind. Well, Presiding Officer, I did start with the word Brexit. I think that it was four minutes and 33 seconds before the Labour contribution did so, and it's core of what we are. I listened to what you said. Mr Stevenson, if you could address food and drink, I think that you would all be a lot happier. Well, until we see what the bill says, some of the impacts on food and drink are definitely not going to be clear. It is clear that being out of the single market and out of the customs union are very severe impacts on food and drink. Matters that were proposed a month before the mansion house street speech in December 2016. Presiding Officer, the whole issue of the future success of the food and drink sector is one that will be determined to a very large extent by what happens in relation to the departure of the UK from the EU. Now, with all in every single constituency, be it urban or rural, we've got important food and drink interests. I want to talk about just a very small company in my own constituency in that summer house drinks. They're a particular favourite of my wife's. She loves their lemonade in particular, and of course doesn't that touch on something, because we don't grow terribly many lemons. A lot of their drinks, of course, are entirely local products, lavender, mint that are grown locally, but the lemons are going to be an important thing. Who knows what the condition of the lemons she's going to be able to import and the price that Claire Rennie on the Rennie family farm is going to have to pay for them in future. It's worth saying that there's a lot of preparation associated with Brexit. We in this Parliament have been doing a great deal. There's a prepareforbrexit.scot website that's being established to help Scottish businesses. It talks of a number of the real issues for food and drink and for others. If your exporters are importers, there may be huge increases in costs. 53 per cent of UK goods generally are imported, and that includes many of the materials that are required by the food and drink industry. If you want to recruit, we've already heard about the fruit industry that cannot get people into the country. Michael Gove yesterday gave us no meaningful assurance that we'll be able to see people travel to the UK, and in particular to Scotland to harvest our excellent fruit and to continue to support our excellent fish processing industry. I brought the debate to the Parliament on the sea of opportunity, because leaving the CFP that the Tories took us into is something that will benefit the fish catching industry insofar as they can catch more fish. However, the economic benefit is denied us if our processing industry is unable to process the extra fish that are caught. Catching 50 per cent more fish and earning half the value means that it is worse off. Getting our processing industry in a good place is what we have to do. My three whisky distilleries, if we lose, as the Americans want in their negotiating position, to abandon the three-year in a warehouse position, that will devastate the quality product that earns so much for our food and drink industry. Richard Hamilton, followed by Gilruth. We've heard today that Scotland's food and drink industry has been such a success story for many years now, and the industry continues to grow and grow. We know that food and drink in Scotland is the largest international export industry, with a strong reputation whether it be for Scottish whisky or for fine Aberdeen Angus beef. Farmers are at the heart of food production, and, as we leave the EU, we have a fantastic chance to design and construct an agricultural support system that really delivers for Scotland. We have, in our own Scottish Conservative motion, recognised the need for change. A system that promotes environmentalism, as Mark Russell talks about, drives productivity, increases food production and ensures that farmers can innovate to be head of the technological curve. Under years of cap, farming has not necessarily had the chance to properly thrive. The one-size-fits-all policy has to suit farmers and producers from the Arctic Circle to the Mediterranean Sea and everywhere in between. The cap has taken us so far, but with rising farm debt and falling incomes, it is starting to ring alarm bells. We need a new system that continues to support and grow agricultural output, which in turn drives our food and drink sector further, which is the ambition of the Scottish Government. However, we have seen very little progress from this SNP Government so far. The SNP has left farmers in the dark by refusing to include Scotland in the UK agricultural bill. The SNP said that it would bring forward its own bill, but has not included it in the programme for government. Agriculture is devolved and will be devolved for many years to come, but the Scottish Government needs to get its act together and get that ball rolling on the bill. To top it off, it has closed the new entrance scheme, pulling up the drawbridge to new talent, which could have boosted our food and drink industry, and the SNP has effectively prohibited entrepreneurial-minded people from entering into the agricultural industry. That is quite astonishing that we hear the cabinet secretary routinely remind us that the average age of the farmer is 59. Scotland's food and drink sector is a welcome success, but its biggest threat is this Government and its lack of action. If we are to engage the next generation in food and drink and get this sector growing even further, this must start in schools. I have raised the issue before in the chamber when I called on the Scottish Government to consider introducing a national five qualification in agriculture. We need to see lessons to improve tackling food waste and educating children on provenance on their food. For far too long, there has been a disconnect between the classroom and the farmyad. In order to realise the potential of the food industry, we need to engage our younger generation. In my constituency next week, there will be the Board of Union Agricultural Society running their schools day, and it is an invaluable way of reaching to school children. I urge local authorities to take that on board right across the whole of Scotland. With our wonderful locally grown and high-quality food, it is no wonder that people, as many have mentioned today, are disappointed that the good food nation bill has been ditched. It would have bought tremendous benefits to this industry and could have offered potential to Scottish farmers to put themselves at the heart of local procurement. Scottish schools are currently spending more than £1 million sourcing meat from outside of Scotland, including hundreds of thousands of pounds on chicken from Thailand. When it comes to that in particular, we need to see local authorities offer more contracts to local producers, not only to boost the economy but to reduce food miles and tackle climate change. Imagine children learning about locally produced and ethical food in the classroom, visiting the farm and enjoying it every day in the canteen. Would that not be fantastic? It is entirely possible if the SNP would just bring back the good food nation bill just for the sake of the children but also to tackle the rising obesity levels and the much-needed stimulus for the rural economy. Scotland's food and drink sector is an integral and extremely valuable part of our economy, but it could be much more. We have a unique opportunity to grasp the significant opportunities that Brexit will bring. We must place Scottish products on an international stage and we have this opportunity to build a tailored farm support system that encourages better farming practices and puts farmers at the centre of driving innovation and productivity in their businesses. It is the farmers at the end of the day who we must thank for producing the excellent raw ingredients on the Scottish success story. We should also commend on tropinuralism, the determination and the hard work of Scottish producers who never fail to amaze us in their constant pursuit of exciting new products. In Scotland, we rightly pride ourselves on our world-class food and drink sector. We are worth billions. We have set ambitious targets to double growth by 2030. Hueski and Salmon are our two biggest exports, the production of both of which employs many people in my constituency. No-one knows if we are to leave the EU with a deal. No-one knows if we are to leave the EU or not, such as the mess that the Westminster Government has made of the negotiations. There is no doubt that, in every sense, whether we leave with a deal or not, Brexit is the biggest current threat to our rural areas, our tourism and our food and drink sector. We have thousands of small and medium-sized businesses and producers and a worldwide reputation for excellence. Within that sector, we have products that have been given special EU protections, as Bruce Crawford has already mentioned, the PGI status. Those indications that are protected in the EU represent an agricultural food or drink product with deep local roots, whose protection under EU law has generated significant value for its producers in both the local and national economy. Products such as Scotch whisky, Scotch beef, Scotch lamb, Orkney cheddar and Arbroath smokies. In the event of a no deal, the UK Government has stated that existing holders of protected status should prepare to reapply to the EU for protection and the use of the EU logo. That is significantly different from the previous position, which sought to reassure current holders that their status would be maintained and protected irrespective of our future relationship with the EU. Yesterday, the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee questioned the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Michael Gove, and I asked him about that specific issue. I asked him if that would incur costs and if so, who would pay for them? He replied that the UK Government would cover any unnecessary costs, but what unnecessary costs are remains to be explained. Industry body Scotland Food and Drink has stated that a no deal Brexit would be catastrophic for the sector. Chief Executive James Wither said, and I quote, that any form of Brexit is a backward step for the Scottish food and drink industry. At best, it will hit our ambition to double the industry's turnover by 2030, but if it is a no deal Brexit, it will pull the rug from underneath the business. Presiding Officer, a no deal Brexit is unthinkable for the sector. Just at the start of this year, as Annabelle Ewing has said, industry representatives from Scotland Food and Drink, the Food and Drink Federation, Scottish salmon producers organisation, Quality Meet Scotland, Scottish Bakers and the Scottish Agricultural Organisational Society wrote to Theresa May to implore her to take no deal off the table. She refuses to do so. Westminster Government's own projections say that that will result in an estimated annual loss to the industry of £2 billion. That is a sector that relies on migrant labour. Research by Skills Development Scotland has said that the food and drink sector will need to fill 27,000 jobs by 2022, but that is before the impact of Brexit, which will have a significant effect on the availability of the labour. Another question that was put to Mr Gove yesterday was how are we going to fill those positions when the immigration proposal from Westminster is that, in the future, people coming to Scotland to work here will need to be earning at least £30,000? Unfortunately, Mr Gove's response was less than encouraging. He said that he recognises that we need people for the sector, but the Westminster pilot project, which is lauded on the other side of this chamber, has fallen woefully short of providing the amount of workers that is needed for that sector. Although it is encouraging to hear that he has raised the issue with the Home Secretary, there was no reassurance that the concerns and needs of the Scottish food and drink sector will be taken into account. We need control over our own immigration policy. There has been nothing, despite what others will say, that has been as divisive as Brexit. The sooner we can get a certain day for our people, our business and our economy, the better. I call Alex Rowley to be followed by Alasdair Allan. I just wanted to declare an interest. I am not a farmer, I am not a food manufacturer, but I have an interest in a business that sells food and drink. That is fine. Alex Rowley to be followed by Alasdair Allan. The potential impact of Brexit for the food and drink sector is huge, be it on trade, inward investment, labour and employment or policy and regulation. Brexit is not just a concern for UK food producers, but also for any food manufacturer, EU or non-EU, serving the UK market. With more than 50 per cent of food currently being imported into the UK, there is no definitive blueprint as to what any new trade and relationship would look like. Even if we were to get a deal through Westminster, it would take years to put that detail in place. That is why the only comment that I would make on Donald Cameron talking about an independence referendum, the only comment that I would make is that I do not believe that we would be in any position the next year to be able to have any type of referendum other than a second EU referendum, because we would need to find a way forward and put all those regulations etc in place. The fact that we are dependent in this country or the UK is dependent on 50 per cent of our food being imported should also, I believe, ring some alarm bells. A no-deal Brexit may mean higher prices for food shortages to ensure that Scotland's people are protected from the worst effects. Surely we need a good food nation bill enshrining the right to food. I would have to say to the cabinet secretary that he really needs to start to pull together where we are heading in terms of a good food nation bill. Scottish Labour supports Scotland's food and drink strategy ambition 2030, but the continuing uncertainty over Brexit will meet the target challenge. I know that James Withers, the chief executive of the Scotland Food and Drink, made a comment where he said that any form of Brexit is a backward step for the Scottish food and drink industry. At best, it will hit our ambitions to double the industry turnover by 2030, but if it is a no-deal, it will pull the rug from underneath the businesses. When I hear Conservative members after Conservative members declare an interest in being farmers and working within the food industry, I cannot, for the life of me, understand why they would defend the Government and Westminster and the absolute shambles that they have made of Brexit and the uncertainty that they are. A few people have talked about the elections next week. My fear is that, this morning in a newspaper shop in Calty, when you are out camping and people are sick to the teeth, people are not quite sure who to believe. That is the fact about Brexit. The real threat here is a threat against democracy or the rise of the right, because politicians have told so many lies and got us into such a mess over the issues and threats that come from that. As Mark Ruskell pointed out, there is already an uncertain time for food and drink industry with climate change, biodiversity loss and public health concerns changing how we produce and consume food. Mark Ruskell pointed out that, in terms of the common agricultural policy, other countries in Europe, regardless of Brexit, are starting to work out what a new common agricultural policy will look like. I am not sure that, here in Scotland, we are, even at the starting line, when it starts to come into examining how we move forward and what a good food nation would look like. Over 200,000 children are in families that are unable to afford to eat healthily. Food banks are in communities up and down Scotland. Surely it is for the Government to bring forward legislation to enshrine the right to food so that everyone in Scotland can access food. Surely, in terms of climate change, when we see that agriculture accounts for 26.1 per cent of total greenhouse gases, how could we have a climate emergency when we are not addressing 26 per cent of the total greenhouse gas emissions coming through agriculture? Again, when I sat on the environment committee, I know that a number of farmers that were on that committee would say that the farming industry wants to address those issues. The farming industry wants to get best practice, but, again, I am not sure that the Scottish Government is at the starting line when we start to look at how we are going to address those issues. You are at the finishing line. You will have to sit down. I was finished, Presiding Officer, by simply saying that we need to get a good food industry in place. We often point out how food and drink are a significant part of Scotland's economy. We cannot say that too often, as a Parliament, we need to keep saying it until the point is more widely understood. Like other members, I will shamelessly mention examples of all this from my constituency. In the hailing and the near, the food and drink sector accounts for £18 million and gross value added to the island's economy. In many ways, the industry is closely related, of course, to the tourism sector in the Outer Hebrides, which was worth approximately £53 million in 2013 and has almost certainly grown considerably since then. Stormway Black Pudding and Harris Gin are among the best-known island products. Harris is soon to produce both whisky and pier 2. Lewis and Sun North Eust also have their own small distilleries. The western isles are famous for salmon, seafood, lamb and venison, as well as being home to a biscuit factory and many smaller food enterprises. Behind much of all of this, of course, lies crofting and fishing, making the overall impact of food and drink on the community much wider than I have mentioned. There are many challenges that the food and drink industry faces, not least of those being—I am sorry to have to mention this word so early on in the conversation—Brexit. The industry nationally has assessed that leaving the EU without a deal will result in the loss of £2 billion in sales annually, an assessment that was based on the UK Government's own economic projections. Moreover, the industry has said that businesses have already invested millions of pounds in time and money trying to mitigate and minimise the consequences of leaving without a deal. Even if the Prime Minister's bad deal were to go through, however, we would still be leaving the EU without any of the benefits for the food and drink industry that the EU single market provides. The shellfish industry in particular needs that market and has to be able to get live shellfish very quickly from the Outer Hebrides to Spain without waiting at international borders. Island seafood exporters already face enough obstacles, as it is, in getting their produce to continental markets in time. The very last thing that they need is the addition of further barriers to trade caused by Brexit. I should also say that non-tariff barriers are also a concern to the salmon industry. I would have serious concerns if Brexit has any effect on the diligent workforce that currently staffs much of our fish processing industry. Of those workforce, the majority, or many, are from other European countries, largely coming from Poland, Lithuania and Latvia, so demonstrating the dependence of the sector on its European workforce. Any moves to limit migration have the potential to seriously harm our rural and remote communities and will have a major impact on the future success of the food and drink industry. I want to mention a couple of things that have come up in the debate that I feel are relevant to the industry as it would practice or operate in the islands. Firstly, when it comes to the green amendment, I understand the motivations that lie behind it, but I would merely ask the movers of that amendment to understand that asking crofters in my constituency to move from livestock to arable is no small ask. Indeed, with only 8 per cent of Scotland's land mass really suitable commercially for arable farming, I respectfully suggest that that is quite a tall order nationally to achieve that. Specifically, on one other issue that has come up in the past few days, I would mention the fact that there is at least one other European member state who has shown a bit more interest in its farming community, namely Ireland, who has offered in the past few days €50 million by way of apology for the mess that Britain has caused with Brexit. I look forward to the United Kingdom Government offering a similar apology to our farmers and crofters here. Finally, as an EU member state, the UK participates in the EU's approach to protected GIs. Many others have mentioned the geographic indicators as an important feature. I could list all the ones that apply to the western isles I won't and others have mentioned the ones that apply elsewhere. I understand that the Scottish Government has written to the UK Government on a number of occasions over the past year spelling out the vital importance of those protected names. Finally, I hope that meaningful replies are being received from Westminster about that. Although I do not hold my breath on the Scottish Government's behalf over that. John Scott, to be followed by Joan McAlpine, Ms McAlpine is the last speaker in the open debate. I begin by declaring an interest as a farmer, a food producer, a pioneer of farmers markets and other interests in my register of interests. I also note, with regret, the gratuitously divisive and negative tone of the Scottish Government motion, which docks down the future of our food and drink industry. That Fergus Ewing's motion does so needlessly is a surprise to me because Mr Ewing is not an unreasonable man and is an arch pragmatist. He well knows that many of the concerns that he and his SNP colleagues have raised today are within his and their grasp to resolve, but he and they choose not to do so. By that, I mean that the many fears that he raises over that a no-deal Brexit could be resolved by voting for the Brexit deal negotiated by the UK Government with the UK. No, time after time we hear SNP MPs led by Ian Blackford, but driven by the First Minister dismissed the UK Government's proposed deal with the EU without ever offering any credible alternative, and Bruce Crawford reinforced that attitude again today. We know that the Scottish Government is not serious, perhaps in a moment, about wanting to help to create a solution to the many potential problems that are highlighted today by the SNP Government. As we on these benches realise, and certainly rural Scotland fully understands, that the SNP wants to sow only divisions and discord with a view to using Brexit to break up the United Kingdom. Mr Ewing. Cabinet Secretary. I have always respected Mr Scott's knowledge and appreciation and support for Scottish agriculture, and I will continue to do so. However, we have previously put forward alternative proposals for a Brexit deal, although we do not think that that is the preferred deal. We did so more than two years ago in setting forward an option that was ignored at the time, and we simply believe profoundly that Brexit is not the best way ahead in Scotland, but I agree with Mr Scott that I prefer debates to be in a reasonable, constructive fashion, and I just thought that it was useful to reiterate that now. Mr Scott, I will give you a time back. I thank Mr Ewing for his intervention. I am coming from Turnbray and the area. As I do, he will remember Bruce's strictures, if at first he does not, so he will try again. Because, Presiding Officer, the people who really matter in today's debate, the farmers, the processors, the retailers, the tens of thousands of people who have to live in the real world and whose jobs are at stake have all backed the UK Government negotiated deal. The National Farmers Union of Scotland has backed the deal. The Scotch-Whiskey Association has backed the deal. The Scottish Chamber of Commerce has backed the deal, as well as individual companies such as Diageo. Scottish Fishermen have backed the deal. Scottish Salmon producers do not want a no-deal Brexit, as is apparently almost advocated today by the SNP. History will remember and judge the SNP Government's unwillingness to compromise on its unwillingness to work with the UK Government to find solutions or offer meaningful ways of improving and sustaining the UK Government's negotiating position within Europe. On the other hand, the UK Government has guaranteed support to our farmers until 2024, but this SNP Government chooses not to believe this offer, as it knows that it cannot make such an offer to Scotland's farmers and crofters and land managers without the support of the UK Government standing behind them as the SNP Government, in the meantime, pursu independence. Similarly, the declaration by the First Minister of a Climate Change Emergency makes for a great headline, but the First Ministers know, as does her cabinet secretary, that the cost of meeting the targets suggested by the Climate Change Committee cannot be met as things stand by the Scottish Government without the UK Government and UK taxpayers providing the finance for the SNP Government's objectives. Even if the SNP Government refuses to offer anything positive in this debate, Scottish Conservatives know how important the views of our food and drink exports are and will remain in Scotland. With more than 60 per cent of our exports already going to the rest of the UK, that market will remain and grow unless the SNP Government deliberately sets out to make it harder to access. Our food and drink exports will continue to grow, particularly our whisky exports. Again, the UK Government has delivered practical financial support to this industry by freezing the duty on spirits at the last budget. On the other hand, the actions of the SNP Government are driving many producers, particularly red meat producers, to the wall and reducing the amount of basic produce available to our food processors to come even close to the food and drink industry 2030 targets using home-grown primary produce. Failing IT systems, rewilding of Scotland's landscapes and determination that farmers and landowners should be portrayed as not pulling their weight in the efforts to reduce climate change without making any effort to recognise the contribution that they make, all sends signals of discouragement to an industry that, under the SNP Government, is becoming less profitable and daily more indebted to high street banks. Parliament should today reject the divisive SNP motion, which is calculated to further talk down rural Scotland and Scotland's food and drink industry and accept the Scottish Conservative motion as the way forward. I call Joan McAlpine, the last speaker in the open debate. I think that it is instructive to compare and contrast Scotland's ambition for its food and drink industry with the chilling effect that Brexit poses. The Scottish Government aims to double the value of food and drink, as we have heard, by £30 billion by 2030. That is setting the bar high, Presiding Officer, but eating high is what we should be doing. We have made so much progress already. Our overseas food and drink exports have increased by 78 per cent, or £2.8 billion since 2007. However, all that progress is in peril. The EU, without a doubt, is Scotland's largest market for our food and drink. No, I will not. I will not have time. The area that I represent in the south of Scotland, the success of food and drink, reflects the national picture, and indeed more so because, as an agricultural area, the high quality of our natural produce helps to underpin many businesses, as has already been mentioned by Colin Smyth. Almost half or 48 per cent of Scotland's dairy herd, for example, is in Dumfries and Galloway, and almost one in every four cattle in the whole of Scotland can be found in the region. As has already been said, Dumfries and Galloway Council, which, of course, is led by an SNP labour coalition, recently launched a food and drink strategy and action plan for the region, mirroring that national ambition. The strategy is absolutely clear about the biggest threat to the growth of the region's food and drink, and that is Brexit. We heard why today from colleagues access to labour, geographical indicators, just-in-time production and trade barriers, but I wanted to focus on one thing that my committee has been looking at recently, which is causing me particular concern, and that is the effect of future trade deals on the food and drink sector in this country. We know that future trade deals, particularly with America, could result in a diminution of standards in terms of our food and drink industry and lead to the flooding of the market with poor-quality products. However, international trade experts, giving evidence to the Parliament's culture, tourism and European External Relations Committee, have made it clear that consultation at every level of government and across all sectors is absolutely essential in order to reach a suitable, agreed negotiating position that will protect economic sectors such as food and drink that have a strong geographical footprint. They are important to some areas of the country more so than others. The UK Government has still not outlined how it is going to include the devolved administrations in determining trade priorities. The record is not good on that in March. A unilateral decision was taken by the Department of International Trade in Westminster to unilaterally drop tariffs in certain key sectors of the economy in the event of a no deal, and that was ostensibly to ensure that we kept supplies coming in. For clarity, what it meant was that imports would not face tariffs, but our producers exporting would still face tariffs. The UK Government said that the sectors that it chose for this liberalisation were chosen because they were not considered to be vital areas of the economy, but one of the areas that affected was the dairy industry and the industry of huge importance, as I have said, to the south-west of Scotland. Currently, EU-most favoured nation dairy tariffs are on average 7 to 2.3 per cent. In the event of a no deal scenario, the UK Government is proposing to drop that to 0 per cent, but we have absolutely no guarantee that the EU will reciprocate. When we took evidence, Dmitry Gozobrinski, a former Australian WTO or trade negotiator, told the committee that it is entirely possible that, without adequate consultation and feeding, dairy was just not considered important enough to be included. We later took evidence from the trade minister for Scotland, Ivan McKee, and asked him how he had been consulted on the liberalisation of those tariffs. He told us that the night before the decision was announced, he was pulled out of a dinner with his officials up on Calton Hill and voiced down the line from Westminster. He explained that those tariffs were going to be made the next day. That is the level of respect and the level of consultation that the UK Government shows to the Scottish Government and, indeed, shows vital areas of economy, such as the dairy industry. If that is the way that the UK Government intends to proceed in the future, I have very great misgivings, not just for the dairy sector, not just for the food and drink sector, but for the whole of the Scottish economy after Brexit. Closing speeches in local Mark Ruskell to close to the green six minutes, Mr Ruskell. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. It is true to form that we are always going to divide over constitutional questions, particularly given that there is an election on next week. However, I will reach out to Donald Cameron and Rhoda Grant. In some ways, I agree with you. I believe that the Scottish Government needs to get on with the day job and deliver under the devolved powers that this Parliament has. It needs to deliver a good food nation bill with a strong right to food in there and tackle disadvantage and protect the environment. It needs an agriculture bill, an agriculture strategy and an environment strategy. However, it is important that the Government delivers that vision to show what this Parliament can achieve, even with the limited powers that we have. I believe that if we can show the people of Scotland what this Parliament can achieve with even the limited powers, we will build the case for this Parliament to have all the powers of a normal, independent country. In creating that inspiring vision of what we can be, we heard a number of members talk about the real leadership that is being shown by many people working in our food and drink sector. Colin Smyth spoke very passionately about the work of David and Wilmer Finlay at The Ethical Dairy. He is a tremendous food pioneer who has developed high welfare and highly innovative forms of organic farming. He is also incredibly productive producing products that are much loved within Scotland's food economy. Rachael Hamilton spoke very well about the link between innovation and environmentalism, absolutely, and the need to bring in new entrants into our food economy and our farming economy. That is what the Green New deal is all about. It is all about transformation, not just about transformation in the oil and gas sector, but about transformation in our food and farming sector. However, that needs an active state and an active government investing, taking innovation and driving it forward with the private sector. I recognise the challenges, particularly the challenges of the crossing communities, but there are strong opportunities to recognise the public goods that farmers in the uplands and crofting communities are already delivering at the moment. We just need to find a better way to support them through financial mechanisms and the market as well. There are ways forward here through innovation, through reducing stocking density, through valuing the carbon sequestration that can happen on common grazings, and we need to support that. What else did we learn this afternoon? We talked a bit about freedom of movement and we learned that Mr Chapman does not like freedom of movement, but he is a big fan of letting people into Scotland, so that is great. We heard from lots of others who want to let more people into Scotland as well, such as the National Farmers Union, who has pointed out that we have only let in 2,500 people into the UK as seasonal workers when we needed to have let in 10,000 people. Gail Ross spoke about that issue as well. It is quite clear that we cannot have a withdrawal deal based on only protecting one of the European Union freedoms. We need to defend freedom of movement, and that is why I would say perhaps comradely to the Labour Party that the Labour Party position on protecting a customs union but not embracing the single market is deeply flawed. You have only got to look at the issue of the food service sector, because we have talked a lot about trade in fantastic products that we will enjoy such as whisky and salmon and everything else, but, of course, the food service industry is hugely important. It is the biggest employer in the UK food supply chain. It employs 1.7 million people, and 40 per cent of people working in food services are migrant labour. That was a point that was highlighted by the cabinet secretary in Astralan in relation to seafood, but I think that also Alec Rowley raised the image of food rotting in the fields un-gathered at the same time as hungry children are having to wait outside of food banks in Fife. It is an utter disgrace. I think that we need to ensure that Scotland remains an attractive place to welcome European Union citizens. I was very proud recently to work with my friend Bruce Crawford and Ben Macpherson in organising a meeting in Stirling, where we really threw open the doors to European Union citizens. We had over 60 people come along from widely different backgrounds, talking about their experiences now, talking about just how hard it is to get settled status, the fact that you have to prove who you are, where you've been living, you have to prove your worth, you have to prove your citizenship. It's disgraceful, and this is no way to treat people. It's a hostile immigration policy, and many things worried me at that event. But what worried me, particularly in the context of this debate, is speaking to people who are working in the food industry, who are now thinking about voting with their feet and leaving this country. I think that that's absolutely disgraceful. We should be defending their rights all the way. Thank you very much. I now call Gorda Grant, who is with me for six minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Many speakers this afternoon rightly talked about the importance of food and drink to the Scottish economy. Some took that a step further and used it as an opportunity to name-check every food and drink organisation in their constituency. If I did that, representing the Highlands and Islands, I would have well exceeded my time in the debate this afternoon, so I won't suffice to say that we topped the tree with good food and drink businesses within the Highlands and Islands. Another major point of agreement in the debate was that nobody saw that a no-deal Brexit could be a good thing. Everyone has agreed that it should be avoided at all costs. That is because of the damage that it would do not only to the food and drink industry but, indeed, to all of our industries. If I can point to another point of agreement during the debate, that is the support of a good food nation bill. It seems to me that the whole of the Parliament supported it, and, therefore, there is no reason for delay. It would get a fair win through the Parliament, and I would urge the Scottish Government to bring it forward. It will be a complex bill, because if we are looking to simplify the whole food chain, then, of course, that will take time and discussion, but the sooner it can forward with proposals, the sooner that discussion can happen and the sooner that the Parliament and all parties can get round the table and add to that. The good food nation bill is backed by the co-op party of whom I am a member, but the food coalition has just made up of many organisations, such as NGOs and trade unions, and organisations that deal with people who are suffering from poverty. Colin Smyth pointed out that poverty is on the rise. 200,000 children in Scotland are brought up in families that I cannot afford to eat healthily. Rachel Hamilton talked about obesity, but all that is storing up problems for the future when we get diseases related to malnutrition coming back and poor health and life expectancy falling. We desperately need a good food bill that deals with all those issues. I will also point out the impact on Brexit on food and how that could further contribute to the hunger that we are already seeing in our communities. Therefore, we must have a good food nation bill. It must be a Government priority, and it must enshrine a right to food. The other issue that people were genuinely agreeable about was climate change. Everyone has signed up to the emergency that climate change presents us with. Alec Riley and Mark Ruskell talked about a new cap and how the European Union is already looking at what needs to be in the post-21 cap scheme. We need to look at that, too, because whether we are in or out of Europe, we need to bring forward a scheme and we need to now be looking at what that scheme would be. We have not seemed to start to put a framework in place for that. Our farmers and crofters need to know what it will look like, and it needs to tackle climate change at the very heart of it. As Alec Riley pointed out, the new scheme has to be linked up to a good food nation bill, because the two things work hand in hand if we are going to deal with climate change and food poverty. Colin Smyth raised an issue that nobody else raised, but I think that it really does require emphasising. That was the issue of fair trade. We pride ourselves on supporting fair trade, and we must ensure that it does not get lost in Brexit negotiations and does not lead to huge tariffs being put on to businesses and, indeed, countries where there are vulnerable producers, vulnerable workforces. We need to make sure that, while we are concerned for ourselves and the dangers that we face ahead, we must never forget to protect those who are weaker than ourselves in that situation. A number of speakers, Colin Smyth, Gail Ross, Bruce Crawford, talked about PGI, and that is an issue close to my heart, having campaigned for a long time over that protection for storm away black pudding. I certainly would not want to see that water down in any way, so any deal has to look at the protections that we already have. If we are trading with the European Union, those protections exist throughout the union and, indeed, further afield, if need be, to protect our excellence in producing food. A number of speakers also spoke about workforce issues. There are several concerns. There are concerns, obviously, about migrant workers coming in for the farming industry, and, indeed, very picking is a big issue. They need reassurance on that, because people need to know whether they are going to plant a crop, whether it is going to rot in the ground, or whether they are going to have the workforce to harvest it. There are also issues in our fishing community to talk about coming out of the common fisheries policy and how that is going to provide huge opportunity. However, we do not have people to process that fish, unless we invest in that workforce and make sure that that is in place. If fishermen in Shetland are telling me that there is no capacity in Shetland to do that processing, we need to look elsewhere in Scotland, because that is an opportunity for us that we should not miss if Brexit happens. In conclusion, our amendment is very simple. It adds to the Government motion about the importance of both our EU and UK markets and the need for a good food nation bill to simplify the food chain and end hunger and to have a subsidy scheme that takes us to net zero for the agriculture industry. I do not know how other parties can vote against it. I wonder how the Liberal Democrats will explain that to their members and how to urge them to change their minds when this happens. I called Edward Mountain to go to the Conservatives six minutes, Mr Mountain. I welcome today's debate, as I believe that it is given us on the bench. It is another opportunity to say how much we support Scotland's food and drink sector. We do have a vision to ensure that Scotland's food and drink goes on to achieve more of a success than it is already—a vision that we published in our new approach to Scottish Farming document some months ago. However, I say this. I believe that it is time that we have some vision from this SNP Government. To me, it has been sorely lacking, as the Cabinet Secretary knows, promises are often easily made but more difficult to deliver. Where is the good food nation that was promised back in May 2017? Where is the Scottish Agriculture Bill that was talked about over two months ago? Cabinet Secretary, there is nowhere to be seen. They are not even in your programme for government. It is no wonder that the farming and food expert are beginning to lose confidence in this Government. I do not need to remind the Cabinet Secretary that it was Johnnie Hall, the director of policy for NFUS, who stated only last week that, in many senses, there is no vision from the Scottish Government in terms of where it wants to be. I could not agree more. I agree with him and I agree with the farmers in the countryside. If we are to grow our food and drink industry, it is worth the £30 billion that we all aspire to be by 2030. We need to ensure that the Government has ambitions to match the ambitions of farmers and fishermen and producers across all of Scotland. Cabinet Secretary, I am calling on you, in my closing speech, to stop dithering and start delivering. That point was made by Donald Cameron and Peter Chapman, both who highlighted that the common fisheries policy has been bad for Scotland and that there were plenty of opportunities once we get out of it. They highlighted the fact that Scotch whisky is clearly supportive of a deal and an exit deal that has been put forward. They reiterated the statement that the Scottish Government lacked vision and that is what was being said in the fields across Scotland. I am afraid that I am very pushed for time and I may get an opportunity later. I believe, as does Peter Chapman, that farmers are optimists and that they always look to grasp opportunities. They have the highest standards of production, which is indeed what makes us and all food producers in Scotland world leaders. Rachel Hamilton made the point that camp does not deliver. It has not. I agree with her that it would be much more beneficial to bring farms to the classrooms to ensure that our children in the future generations—I am afraid that I am quite short of time—and I will see if I can in a minute when I come to your party's contributions. I believe that we should bring farms to the classrooms so that our future generations are educated. I also agree with her that we should be using more of Scottish produce in our schools. It is a subject that Benches have hammered home on every possible occasion, but we are still taking chicken from Thailand. That is not good enough. I also agree with John Scott on the points that he made. It is clear that the UK Government does have a vision that sees support going through it in its current state until 2024. The Scottish Government has not made that point. I want to try to pick a point where I agree with the cabinet secretary. I do not always agree with him, but here is a point that I agree on. It is the farmers who make our countryside worth visiting. It is their hard work and their success in shaping the countryside and the environment that we should be proud of. I asked the cabinet secretary why he is not prepared to see a schedule in the UK agriculture bill to support our farmers. I also heard from Bruce Crawford how he recognised the importance of a no-deal Brexit being not good for farmers. I agree. I also agree with him, as did Michael Gove yesterday, who stated that PGI's are very important. Michael Gove actually said yesterday that he did not see that there was any chance that that would be changed. I will make a point to the committee member. I have now got the official report of the committee that just came through on my phone, so I have read it out. Michael Gove actually said about a no-deal. He said that the UK could get through the initial turbulence that no-deal would cause. Do you agree with him? There is nothing like making an intervention late, Mr Rumbles. The intervention that I thought you were making on was PGI's, which is what we were discussing at the moment, which is what is important. As far as a no-deal Brexit, I have made my position clear that I believe that we should have a deal and that we should work hard to make it. It is up to every single party in the UK Parliament to compromise and to find compromise and to work together. I also believe that it was a pity when we were discussing this this afternoon that so much of people's speeches were not directed directly at farmers. Because my time is short, I want to pick up on a couple of points that Mr Ruskell made, which I think were very important. I think that we should never ever forget that farmers are doing an excellent job in the environment, and we need to recognise what they are doing and we need to encourage them to do more. I agree with him that this Government needs to get on with the day job. Now, Presiding Officer, because time is short, having a vision I believe is easy. Implementing that vision is where it gets hard, and it is proving too hard for this Government. I do not believe that it is good enough for the farmers. We need a good food nation bill, and we need a Government that will work forward to work out what is going to happen to farming, not next year or the year after, but in 10 years' time. We need to work together to help that industry, an industry that I believe I know well, an industry that thrives with innovation and hard work. Let us see the Cabinet Secretary and his Government rise to the standards that they set on innovation and hard work. Currently, at the moment, they do not. Thank you, Mr Mountain. I close with Colin Ferguss. Do you want to close with the Government and Cabinet Secretary until decision time, please? Thank you, Presiding Officer. There have been some very good contributions to this debate and I think that some other ones. I think that there is a majority consensus that the prospect of a no deal will be devastating for the food and farming industry and the wider food and drink sector. I think that there is a consensus about that. I do think that Mr Rumble set out the arguments very clearly and cogently. The figure that he quoted of the impact of Brexit of £2,000 million loss is, as I understand it, not a Liberal Democrat SNP figure that is based on UK Government's own modelling. In discussions with— Cabinet Secretary, sorry, I know that you are being polite, but could you speak to the microphone, please? In discussions with Michael Gove, who is nothing but unfailingly courteous and polite to everybody, he is recognised in speeches at his Oxford conference, in discussions with me and no doubt with many others, and perhaps the committee yesterday, I have the chance to read it, that a no deal Brexit would be devastating for farming and the rural economy. That makes it, to my mind, very frustrating that this devastatingly bad option for Britain is not removed from the table when there is the power to do so. I think that it is relevant to point out that the reason that it is not removed from the table is a kind of lever to force us, if you like, to go into what we might consider to be the Brexit fire pan, the frying pan, instead of the Brexit fire of a no deal option. I think that there is something pretty seedy about using that as a device, a device of allowing an option that you admit to be extremely damaging to remain on the table as a compulsor to try to persuade people to accept something that, as we would see it, is damaging, but not perhaps immediately so. I do think that that is an unusual, if perhaps unique feature in British politics. I cannot think of a parallel to that. There have been excellent contributions, and I apologise as always to those members who have asked me to deal with things, and I do not have time to do it. I do not agree with respect to Rachael Hamilton's view about new entrants, but I do not have the time to go over the stats. It would just use up all the time. I will write to Rachael Hamilton setting out the facts that show that, in Scotland, we have helped hundreds of young people as new entrants. I will set out the statistics and point out that we have done better. I am very sorry, but I do not have time to do justice to everybody. Colin Ross made the kind of speech that we were more used to hearing of examples from his region of positive contributions to the rural economy. I was pleased that he did so. Many other members did so of their constituents. I also think that Mr Ruskell made a very telling argument in his closing speech about the importance of freedom of movement. I entirely agree with Mr Ruskell. I do not think that I have uttered that phrase before, but there is always a first time. To be serious, he set out very clearly the conundrum about the plane desirability from economic, social and human level of maintaining the welcome that Scotland has given to people from other countries in the EU, and the apparent message that is being sent by the Brexiteers. Many members mentioned the importance of PGI's. I think that Gail Ross in particular did so, as well as Bruce Crawford and Rhoda Grant covered all of those, as did Dr Allen. Specific examples were given. It is easy to forget that PGI's for Scotland are massively more important than they are to any other part of the UK. Gail Ross made a point that I have not heard recently, but it is absolutely right that, initially, the UK Government seemed to be inclined to support the broad continuance of PGI's, but, of late, that message seems to have changed somewhat. I hope perhaps that we can come back to debate that in more detail. Much was made of perceived failings of the Scottish Government by the Conservatives. I do not accept that the picture is as black, as bleak, as depressing as they paint. I think that it does them an injustice to ignore some of the very positive things that are being appreciated by Rural Scotland and the Food and Drink sector. Supporting of trade shows in Dubai, Boston and the world's largest trade show, the Seafood Expo in Brussels, two regional showcasing events—an event in Glen Ew will be attending later this year—a further round of funding for regional food funding. In Scottish agriculture, we have made the loan payments of £241 million on 5 October last year, the earliest date that we have made it, and also in the UK, two months ahead, in many cases of receipt of payments by farmers elsewhere in the UK. I think that that is a positive thing. The impression that I get—I cannot divulge confidancies, but one or two Conservatives, not looking at anybody in particular, have indicated privately that that is appreciated by farmers. Why cannot they just tell the truth? It is not all bad. When I was a lawyer for 20 years before I came in this place, if I used some of the arguments that were so flawed, so fallacious, so unfounded and fact, you would be shot down by the sheriff in a nanosecond. It is only this partisan political argument that it seems to allow a complete ignorance and ignoring and perversion of facts. I would recommend— Just pause a minute. I know that you are in full flown. Grando it is. The level of little chitty chatty that is going on is rising and rising and rising. I am finding this very interesting, cabinet secretary, as we all are, so let's hear you. I strongly disapprove of chitty chatty. I commend and this is free advice from a solicitor and on-practicing tutorials. It is not being so negative. You are not getting anywhere. You are in an alpine crevasse of your own creation. What is happening is that you are in the crevasse. There is no rescue team. You are freezing to death. Your political prospects are frozen over. The Scottish Tories have discovered political permafrost. We are here to celebrate Scottish food and drink. I had a tin of Baxter's cream of chicken soup with some graham's butter on a Scottish morning roll. I have not yet had the opportunity for my second course, the Tannock's caramel wafer. It says here that more than 6 million of those biscuits are made and sold every week. I am proud of them all. We are here to celebrate them all. For goodness sake, let's be positive about Scotland, even the Tories. Thank you very much, and that concludes our debate on the impact of Brexit on Scotland's food and drink. We will turn straight to decision time. The first question is the amendment 17304.1, in the name of Donald Cameron, when it seeks to amend motion 17304, in the name of Fergus Ewing, on the impact of Brexit on Scotland's food and drink, be agreed? Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a division, and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 17304.1, in the name of Donald Cameron, is yes, 29, no, 82. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. The next question is the amendment 17304.2, in the name of Rhoda Grant, when it seeks to amend the motion in the name of Fergus Ewing, be agreed? Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. We will move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. On amendment 17304.2, in the name of Rhoda Grant, is yes, 14, no, 97. There were no abstentions. The amendment is not agreed. The next question is the amendment 17304.3, in the name of Mark Ruskell, when it seeks to amend the motion in the name of Fergus Ewing, be agreed? Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. We will move to a vote. Members may vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 17304.3, in the name of Mark Ruskell, is yes, 20, no, 35. There were 56 abstentions. The motion is therefore not agreed. The final question is that motion 17304, in the name of Fergus Ewing, on the impact of Brexit on Scotland's food and drink, be agreed? Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. We will move to a vote. Members may vote now. The result of the vote on motion 17304, in the name of Fergus Ewing, is yes, 76, no, 29. There were six abstentions. The motion is therefore agreed. That concludes decision time. I close this meeting.