 The next item of business is a debate on motion 3416, in the name of Fergus Ewing, on the future of funding for rural development. Can I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request to speak buttons now? I will call on Fergus Ewing to speak and move the motion. Cabinet secretary, 13 minutes please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The devolution of most rural powers in 1999, together with access to billions of pounds worth of funding through EU membership, gave Scotland's Parliament and government key tools with which to support our rural and coastal communities. The now clear intention of the UK Government to take Scotland and all of the UK out of the EU and out of the single market means, Presiding Officer, that rural Scotland does face a very uncertain future. I want to set out in today's debate what Scotland should rightly expect from the UK Government and to seek cross-party support and agreement from Parliament how to best protect Scotland's rural interests. We, myself and my advisers have had fruitful discussions with other parties. I am pleased to say that those fruitful discussions have enabled us to be in a position to support later this afternoon both the Labour and the Liberal Democrat amendments. Let me say at the opening of the very first rural debate of the new year that I shall seek to work with people in other parties in this chamber on the key matters that we face. That, Presiding Officer, is my new year resolution. We shall see how it goes. We all heard it, we will hold you to it. I am sure that you will, Presiding Officer, and rightly so, so we will see how it goes. I hope, too, Presiding Officer, that we can also agree on this fundamental point that devolution has been good for rural Scotland. It has enabled this Parliament and successive devolved Administrations to focus our time and our energy on key rural issues, and all those issues have benefited from having control over policy and legislation underpinned by public funding within the context of a wider EU framework. Indeed, much of the development undertaken in rural Scotland in the last 18 years has only been possible through EU funding support. Around 4.6 billion euros on the common agricultural policy between 2014 and 2020 alone. At the same time, EU membership has enabled us to protect our precious natural environment and contribute to our climate change ambitions. Now, we are losing that with nothing in its place. No guarantee of funding beyond Brexit, simply a promise of policy to come, and a plea for trust to deliver a better brighter deal for rural Scotland. The fact that there is no plan for Brexit is no excuse for there being no plan on what will be done to replace EU funding and CAP, including the Scottish Rural Development programme and the European Maritime Funding programme. Today, Michael Russell is representing this Government at the Joint Ministerial Committee on UK Negotiations. Next week, I and Rosanna Cunningham will meet with counterparts from all the UK Administrations to discuss rural and environmental matters. Those discussions are essential as we negotiate the difficult months and years ahead. We have been promised treatment as equal partners, and we will hold the UK Government to that promise and enter into all discussions about the future for rural Scotland in good faith. However, we can be forgiven for adopting a degree of scepticism if we consider the actions of this UK Government or rather its inaction on commitments made on rural funding, in particular in relation to the CAP funding review. So far, DEFRA has failed to carry out the full review of the UK allocation of agriculture funding. Yet George Eustace, with whom I have a workman-like relationship, promised such a review would be concluded by the end of last year. Yet the review has not even begun, far less be concluded. If CAP is to end, why is the review needed? One very good reason is that it will highlight the stark difference in payment rates per hectare between Scottish farmers and farmers in the rest of the UK. For example, English moorland farmers receive around 65 euros per hectare, whereas Scotland's poorer settlement means that our moorland region 3 farmers receive only around 10 euros per hectare. Even on better quality land, English farmers receive around almost 38 euros per hectare more than Scottish farmers. At present, there is no level playing field north and south of the border. I hope that we would all agree that livestock and arable farmers doing the same job in different parts of the UK should receive comparable levels of payment within devolved systems, but English, Welsh and Northern Ireland farmers receive payments that Scottish farmers can only dream of. That is not the only example of the UK Government treating Scotland unfairly. I remain dissatisfied with the current constitutional arrangements pertaining to sea fish following the UK Government's refusal to include the power to raise a Scottish seafood levy in the Scotland bill. To me, repatriation of the near £2 million sea fish levy raised here in Scotland makes perfect sense. The UK Government's inflexibility in this matter is all the more surprising when you consider, Presiding Officer, the devolved nature of fisheries policy and the parallels between the sea fish levy and the red meat levy are striking. Once again, Scotland's legitimate request for greater influence on how money paid by Scottish farmers is utilised to promote their interests has until recently been rebutted by the UK Government. While some progress has been made on the levees in the short term, and I have sought to encourage good relations with UK counterpart ministers, none of those examples augures well for our future relationship on funding should the UK Government seek to take over that from the EU upon Brexit. Aside from the unanswered question, will the UK match EU funding post Brexit, there are key unresolved issues between the Scottish and the UK Government where Scotland's rural fishing and farming communities are, we believe, not getting a fair deal. At our farming conference in the new year, Andrea Leadsum appeared to suggest that funding for rural development should be fundamentally changed. The UK Government has guaranteed the continuation of direct payments in farming until 2020 and structural fund payments, which includes farming fisheries, forestry, rural development and environmental funding up to the point of an EU exit. That, so far as it goes, is welcome, but there are outstanding issues that must be addressed. Support for less-favoured areas is crucial for Scotland, with 85 per cent of our farming land class as less-favoured compared to only 15 per cent in England. The UK Government has yet to guarantee that funding for applications in 2019, let alone beyond that year. EU funding is vital for the continued viability of the sustainability of Scotland's rural economy and communities. Beyond Brexit, UK ministers are signalling a major shift in how such funding might be determined and allocated in future. They are also suggesting that there might be a UK-wide scheme with the UK Government apparently in charge. However, we have caused to be wary of such an approach when we are still asking the UK Government for the full £190 million of CAP convergence monies, which UK ministers top-sliced for their own purposes money, which is rightly Scotland's, to support our farmers and our crofters. Surely there should be repatriation with power over policy and funding, and indeed the monies themselves, transferring directly to Scotland and not passing through Westminster. On that, we agree with the Labour amendment in terms of repatriation of powers. In the document Scotland's Place in Europe, we have made very clear our position in powers. Those should be repatriated from Europe to Scotland. Powers on rural policy, which are still reserved, should be transferred, where additional powers are required to enable us to support our rural economy more fully, for example on immigration, should also be devolved. Moreover, discussions on powers over policy should be based on mutual respect for the current constitutional settlement on those islands. It is hard to see any evidence of that respect when we only learn of UK ministers' intentions courtesy of a question-and-answer session at a conference. Yet there is a strong case for stability and certainty in the short term at least. Rural Scotland now faces three different but very serious threats. First, loss of labour through the UK view on immigration. Second, loss of access to the EU single market. Third, loss of financial support. Let me take one specific example of that. Currently, EU funding not only supports the production of the potato on farms all over Scotland but also supports crucial research and development into seed potatoes. That has enabled Scotland to become a world-leading producer of seed potatoes, exporting our knowledge, expertise and tatties to other EU states and beyond. Currently, we pay no tariffs for such exports. Further, our application of EU regulations guarantee the provenance of our seed potatoes, enabling their export internationally. Potato producers to whom I have spoken see that those regulations, far from being red tape, are proof of quality and compliance and that those regulations are necessary to maintain access to those vital export markets. That is a very important issue for my constituents. Is the cabinet secretary aware that some of the more northern states in the United States such as Idaho, which have similar climatic advantages in growing seed potatoes, are poised to exploit any lacuna in our ability to be able to supply seed potatoes to export markets and that the danger is not simply local but global? I have always found that one of the distinct advantages of taking an intervention from Mr Stewart Stevenson is that it tends to be an educative process. That is no exception, because I think that he makes a point of which I am unaware but is a very salient point indeed. It is two points that there are many growers of potatoes and other produce ready to step into the breach and in a world where there are tariffs in the future, then they will see the commercial opportunity so to do. There is a very clear commercial opportunity and all over the world those growers of various types of produce, including potatoes, will see an advantage for them. Of course they will, and they cannot be blamed for that. Therefore, that is an extremely important point and it is illustrative of just one of the several serious risks. I have not deliberately in this debate started to express all of this in hyperbolic ultra-rhetorical terms but simply set out the facts in a calm, reasoned manner. So, going back to the humble tatty in the remaining time, at every stage of the process there are people employed and engaged in growing, harvesting, storing, researching, developing, transporting, selling, preparing, trading of potatoes. Many of them are Scottish but many of them are for the EU and we want them to be able to stay here and continue to give of the work of this country. I will move fast forward to a conclusion, Presiding Officer. I am very much looking forward to this debate. I hope that it will be shed more light than cast heat. The priority for all of us is clear to do all that we can to protect rural Scotland's interests in the times of uncertainty. I can reassure you and all members that I will continue to work tirelessly towards those objectives. I move for the motion in my name. Thank you. I never thought I would hear lacuna and potato in the same sentence what I have today. I call Peter Chapman to speak to and move amendment 3463.3. Mr Chapman, please, eight minutes. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I refer members to my register of interest and I also welcome the new cuddly Mr Ewing. We have just heard the cabinet secretary's concerns over the future of rural development in the years to come. Unfortunately, it is typical of this SNP Government to respond to everything that the UK Government does as another sign of impending doom for Scotland. It is, I have to say, incredibly disappointing that Fergus Ewing can it and will not recognise the opportunities that we have before us. There is a huge prize to be won for Scottish and UK agriculture in the ability to design our own system, one that caters specifically for our farming sector. We need a policy that is simpler and easier to access. We need a policy that delivers support to those farmers who are producing our food and not supporting slipper farmers. We need a policy that drives innovation, the uptake of new technology and delivers an efficient and profitable industry that respects and enhances our environment and has high animal welfare standards at its heart. For the last 20 years of the CAP, each review has seen a reduction in the pot of money available for farmers and an increase in complicated red tape and bureaucracy. The minister cannot look at that information and seriously expect that it would have been any different going forward. Across Europe, budgets are under pressure. With CAP being the largest spending item on the EU's balance sheet, it was never realistic for CAP spending to be maintained when southern European economies are struggling so much. Fortunately, going forward, the UK economy looks in much better shape to deliver the support that agriculture needs. We need to argue strongly with one voice that agriculture receives roughly the same level of support after 2020 as it is receiving now. The future prosperity of agriculture demands nothing less. The member will, I am sure, be aware that Scotland gets 16.4 per cent of the support in the UK that is given to agriculture. Is he arguing for that proportion of support to Scotland to be maintained, or perhaps, because of the lower acreage payments that are in Scotland, increased as a proportion of UK agriculture support? I am basically saying, as I said, that we must argue for roughly the same amount of support as we have been used to in the past. It is time for the SNP to accept that we will not be members of the EU after 2019 and to start planning for the future after Brexit. Starting that process will require a clear set of objectives. It will need guiding principles that inform the policy throughout. There are serious concerns about the ageing population of farmers, for instance. A definite sign that more needs to be done to encourage new entrants. That is why I am so angry at the lack of funding for the young farmer's start-up scheme. I know that over £5 million out of a pot of £6 million has been spent in year 1, and that recognises how important the fund is. The scheme should be operating throughout the SRDP period from 2014 to 2020, but how can it, when most of the money has already been spent? I therefore urge Fergus Ewing to allocate additional money to the scheme to help new farmers into business. It is also vitally important that new entrants gain access to all support payments from day 1 of their starting to farm. Sadly, that does not happen now, and it is a great disadvantage to young folk starting. The objective for Scottish ministers should be clear—a system built to work specifically for our agricultural industry. Of course, the last thing that anyone in rural Scotland wants is totally different systems on each side of the tweed. That would distort competition too much. There needs to be a UK framework, but a framework that allows for unique Scottish interests to be catered for without creating, in any of US's words, significantly divergent agricultural policies across the UK. That is why my colleagues and I are calling for the SNP Government to engage with DEFRA's upcoming consultation. The Secretary of State and her team have started to set out what they see as their priorities for the future of farming south of the border, but, as yet, we know nothing of Scotland's plans. The UK Government will seek to scrap the three-crop rule, cut back on red tape, simplify rules and abolish absurd regulations around, for instance, what makes a hedge a hedge. They are also committed to encouraging innovation and efficiency and reducing Government inspections through the increased use of technology such as aerial photography. The minister should not be using Parliament's time to make political points against Westminster. He should be figuring out what regulations Scotland's farmers can do without and help us to become more efficient. Of course, we know that the Government is not focused on making our farmers more competitive. That is why I have had the right to the cabinet secretary on our overprescriptive greening regulations, for instance. As he will be aware, the unnecessarily strict management rules are holding Scottish farmers back compared to their competitors in England. I remind the cabinet secretary that he has already promised to look at our greening rules and make them fit for purpose, so why does he not get on with it? To take an example in finding peas, limited harvesting dates combined with the SNP's own two-crop rule are making this potentially attractive option almost irrelevant in Scotland while English farmers face no such restrictions. That is not by any stretch of the imagination that the SNP is only failure on managing the rural economy. As we well know, there are still on-going issues with 2015 cap payments with many farmers still waiting for pillar 2 money as a knock-on effect from the catastrophic handling of pillar 1 payments. Not only that, but the SNP is at least a month behind where it should be on 2016 pillar 1 payments. Farmers usually have expected to have full payment in early December. Here we are in mid-January, with many farmers having received at best an 80 per cent loan or, indeed, nothing at all, and little prospect of payment of the 20 per cent balance before June of this year. Is it any wonder that, for two years in a row, the total income from farming has fallen? From 2014 to 2015, the Scottish Government recorded a fall of £110 million—about 15 per cent—in real terms. On the back of those shocking figures, I failed to see how anyone could be surprised that the finances of the Scottish farming community are in a perilous position. Farm debt has never been higher, increasing by nearly £200 million to a record £2.2 billion, while the SNP failed to deliver cap monies. Nearly 50 per cent of farmers are not making enough money to earn the minimum wage, and worse still, 20 per cent of farm business posted losses in 2014. We need to take a hard look at the problems that we have seen grow over the last two terms in government. I hope that this debate is a genuine attempt by the Cabinet Secretary to start the debate about how our future support for Scottish agriculture might look, and not another attempt to drive division and mistrust between here and Westminster. I move the amendment in my name. We all welcome both our Government's commitments to funding rural development around current lines until 2020, and that has provided producers and communities with a degree of stability going forward. That said, we know that farming and crofting all involve long-term planning, so three years does not buy a lot of planning time, so this commitment is at best a staving off panic. Therefore, it is right and proper that consultation and discussions as to what takes place beyond 2020 begin now. As is with all discussion about Brexit and the implications, the constitutional question rears its head and too often overshadows the issues that we should be concerned with. Agricultural policy is devolved within the parameters of our status in the EU, and therefore, going forward, there will be parameters for the whole of the UK set by trade deals and WTO rules. Therefore, it is right and proper that the UK Government represents the needs of all our farming communities in these negotiations and to do so they need to talk to them. We believe that devolved Governments have a role in the negotiation of trade deals too, and the UK Government would be negligent if it ignored the knowledge and expertise held by them. What we are clear about is that the changes to the rules that we trade by should not be used to claw back devolved powers—indeed, quite the opposite—where powers and decision making are repatriated, it follows that those powers should come to devolved Governments. We put down our amendment today not because we disagree with the direction of travel of the Scottish Government and its need to be involved. However, our motion sets a more positive tone if both our Administrations are to work together for the good of our rural communities. We surely need to lead with a positive approach. That is not the time for party political or constitutional squabbling. Our farmers and crofters cannot be pawns in those political games. With that explanation, therefore, let me turn to what should be the substance of this debate. I think that what strikes fear into the hearts of most of our producers is the New Zealand example. New Zealand has often used as an example of what can happen if subsidies are removed with people pointing up their profit to a bull farm enterprises now. What they do not point out is the number of small farms that went to the wall and the impact that that had on rural communities, and we really do not want that. Therefore, we need to start discussions about what we want and need from our farming communities. Very obviously, the first goal is the aim of food production. We need food security. Leaving the EU and following the currency fluctuations, it makes imports more expensive and therefore imported foodstuffs more expensive. Should we therefore be looking to be more self-sufficient? Our producers will also be looking at exports. A low pound makes their exports more attractive abroad, albeit that, if there are trade tariffs in place, that could be offset. If we end up with trade tariffs, they will be in place going forward where the value of the pound may stabilise depending on the economic feature of our country. The market will always find its place. The role of Government intervention is to deal with the problems that it creates and to ensure that we are secure. Therefore, we need to look at food production for the whole market. There is also a suspicion that farm subsidies are used to fuel the profits of supermarkets who, in turn, pay heavy dividends to their shareholders. That cannot be right, given that, at this moment in time, too many people are living in food poverty. The fact that people in our country, in Scotland, are living without enough food to eat is a disgrace. Any future farming subsidy regime should have the elimination of food poverty built in to its foundations rather than being tagged on as an afterthought. What I find utterly bizarre is that, in a country whose biggest net export is our fantastic food and drink, we have farms and crofts that cannot make a living and they have neighbours who cannot afford the food that they need to eat. Food poverty is not inevitable. It is either for producers or consumers. We can choose to end it and we need to use the future subsidy regime to do that. We also need to look at the needs of rural communities where many of our producers are based. We need to find a balance between food production profitability and the need to support those rural communities. The EU recognised peripherality and the difficulties faced by remote rural areas in a way that neither of our Governments do or indeed have in the past. We know the way that the EU rules were interpreted and led to them having less of an impact on peripherality than they could have had, but that is in the past. We must learn from those mistakes and make sure that if we are putting public money in that there are public benefits and one of those benefits is community cohesion and population retention. Environmental benefits and protection are also things that public money should be supporting. We look at climate change and we have seen that emissions from farming have hardly changed. We need to use public funding to help that to happen. However, we also need to recognise that many of our land managers actually mitigate against climate change by planting trees and land management activities that make the country set a place for all of us to enjoy. Those are balances that need to be struck. We all know that there is not a money tree to shake, but we also know that without public support food production and indeed the community supported by those producers is likely to fold and we cannot afford that either. That is the time we need to take a holistic view of what needs to happen in the future, how both our Governments can support that and what trade deals we can make to enhance it. The Scottish Environmental Link has called for a commission of stakeholders to be put in place to look at this. I tend to agree that it might be something that the Scottish Government takes to other Governments in the United Kingdom to set up a commission jointly that stands and also one that stands for each of the devolved nations. It is clear that all stakeholders need a voice in this process and we will therefore be supporting the Liberal Democrats amendment tonight. Presiding Officer, there are huge challenges that we face, but we also have the opportunity to take a long, hard look at what we need to do for the good of our producers and what they need from their Governments and also how we fix historical problems, too. Let's not miss the opportunity by wrangling. Let's grasp it, let's make a real and lasting difference to how we deal with food production and eliminate fuel poverty in the future. Please move the amendment. Thank you very much. I call Mike Rumbles to move and speak to him. Move amendment 3463.2. Mr Rumbles, seven minutes please. United Kingdom is impending withdrawal from the European Union is to bring to an end. Nearly 40 years of rural development funding under the common agricultural policy. Since the vote to withdraw from the European Union last June, much has been said about the lack of information from the UK Government in particular about the future level of this funding now, there will be no actual obligation to deliver it. It will be entirely up to the UK and the Scottish Governments between them to decide both the level of funding and the way that funding will be delivered. The only thing that is certain about the situation is uncertainty. Although funding is secure until we leave the EU, nothing is certain after that. It's surely the task of both the UK and the Scottish Governments to act responsibly here. Too much is at stake for our rural communities for any blame game to take hold about too much or too little funding or indeed how that funding is to be allocated. That's why I'm pleased that Fergus Ewing has indicated support for my amendment to his motion before us. I've been suggesting gently and I must admit not so gently sometimes since September that it is essential that a group be set up to examine options for designing a new system of delivering public money for public good in our rural economy. As the Liberal Democrats spokesperson for rural development, I've been in discussions with various stakeholders over the period since the vote to leave the EU in June. I'm particularly taken with proposals from both Scottish Environment Link and the National Farmers Union of Scotland. Both have come up with practical suggestions for ways for future funding post 2020. The NFUS says that we need to agree the correct policy direction and also secure the necessary budget. Indeed, I quote from their paper, the real prize. The real prize will be a future policy framework, which is simplified and suited to Scotland's unique landscape and needs and allows the primary producer to take more back from the marketplace, enabling farmers and crofters to become more resilient while delivering at the same time for the market, for consumers, for public good and for the taxpayer. Scottish Environmental Link agrees that we need to retain funding for agricultural and rural development, reshape the way in which it's given to farming businesses and thereby renew Scottish agriculture. They say that the key to this is the creation of a commission chaired by an independent person that, within a short timeframe, would be tasked with getting agreement on a set of policy principles, the principles upon which Scottish agricultural policy frameworks could be based. Can I just finish the point? I'll come back to Mark. That has formed the basis of my amendment to the Government's motion today. If Parliament votes for this at decision time, which I believe it will, then the Scottish Government will set up an independent group of relevant stakeholders to provide advice to them on the principles, the very principles and policies that should underpin the design and delivery of an appropriate system for rural development funding post 2020. Mark Ruskell, thank you for giving way. Would you see a role in here for the Scottish Land Commission, given its unique role as an independent adviser? Mr Rumbles, we see a role for every person and body that feels that they have something to contribute here. I think that we should be inclusive rather than exclusive as far as we can possibly be. Everybody has got something to contribute, I think, here. This is a really radical change and opportunity that we have. We haven't had for 40 years. In my view, this has to be the most sensible way to proceed. I would have hoped that all parties in the chamber—and I mean all parties—could have supported this amendment, regardless of whether or not they support the whole motion in its final form. 2020 might sound as though it is a long way off. However, our rural businesses and stakeholders need to have as much certainty over the future of rural development funding as they can have. We know only too well that there are huge numbers of stakeholders who are reliant on this funding for their very livelihood. The last thing that we need are people or organisations digging their heels in and being unwilling to compromise about where limited funds will be. Those will not be unlimited funds where they are directed. It is really important that as much agreement as is possible is reached among stakeholders about the principles of how those limited funds will be distributed before the next set of discussions take place on the actual level of funding. It is absolutely essential that agreement is reached among stakeholders that we have a system designed to ensure that the public money that is to be invested for public good is invested in a way that meets the needs of our rural economy. If I may, Presiding Officer, I would like to turn to the Conservative amendment. It is a pity, I have to say to Peter Chapman, that we could not have found a situation where all parties could have agreed on the way forward here. It is such an important issue that we should, on this issue, have been together. It is interesting that even the Scottish land and estates, reading their briefing paper, are disappointed that the Conservative amendment removes the clause in the Government motion, which happens to regret that the UK Government has not provided its fair share of funding. Even the Scottish land and estates recognise that. I will not say too much more about that, just to make the point. I would say again to Peter Chapman that he knows that there is no fear or critic of the way in which the common agricultural policy farm payments have been rolled out than myself, but today should not be about CAP payments. It is about trying to get agreement on the way forward for a new system of rural development funding. We agree on support with Labour's amendment, especially where it says that powers are repatriated from the EU, that they should be devolved in line with the 1998 Scotland Act. Should we have to say that? I just cannot believe that that would not happen. It would really be unacceptable if that did not happen, and I think that Parliament should speak as one voice here. There is much work to be done in conclusion, Deputy Presiding Officer. Fergus Ewing, as the minister responsible for this process, has a huge task ahead of him. I want him to know that the Scottish Liberal Democrats will support him in this endeavour of designing a new system of public support for rural Scotland, because the aim of having a successful and vibrant rural economy post-2020 is an aim that we share. Thank you very much. We are now going to move to the open debate, very tight six minutes to have a minute. Can I remind members who have intervened, the request of sweet buns go off to get pressed them again? I call Emma Harper to follow by Finlay Carson. I remind members that I am the parliamentary liaison officer for the cabinet secretary, Mr Ewing. Securing the future of funding for rural development in Scotland has always been an important issue. However, against the backdrop of this week's confirmation that the Prime Minister is indeed determined to rip us out of the single market, it has taken on an even greater sense of urgency. Rural Scotland accounts for 98 per cent of the land mass in Scotland and nearly a fifth of the population a resident there. Future funding for rural development, as the motion is titled, is more than what the definition of a hedge is. Membership of the EU is worth billions to the rural economy, much more than the £4 billion received in EU funding. Permanent and short-term migrants add considerable value when they come here to work in the agriculture, tourism and food and drink sectors. The issue of EU nationals working in the food supply chain and the uncertainty surrounding their future is a real concern. A concern Theresa May continues to fuel with her red, white and blue rhetoric. Those are skilled workers whose departure will do real damage to the economy. While rural Scotland is a beautiful place to live and work, there are stubborn pockets of deprivation, a result of a combination of factors such as remoteness and an agent population. Rural communities and the UK as a whole have benefited immensely from EU funding, and it is time that the Westminster Government acknowledged that, as well as the impact the removal of that money will inevitably have. To Tuesday's announcement by Theresa May was devastating, the hard Brexit for which we are now headed will be especially cruel to our rural communities. It represents a two-pronged attack that will see them simultaneously stripped of EU funding, while the industries underpinning their economy will be effectively denied access to their biggest market by prohibitive tariffs. Currently, Scotland receives 16.5 per cent of the UK's cap funds. From 2014 to 2020, Scotland would have received around €4.6 billion under cap from EU, £477 million of which is delivered via pillar 2 funds for rural development. In the lead-up to the referendum, pro-Brexit campaigners insisted that all agricultural funding would be protected. We were told assuredly that Westminster would equally redistribute that silver bullet of £350 million a week, it would allegedly save from no longer funding the EU. To quote the farming minister directly, the UK Government will continue to give farmers and the environment as much support or perhaps even more as they get now. Earlier this month, both the Secretary of State and the Minister refused to confirm that funding would match the current levels beyond 2020. Likewise, the Scottish Secretary David Mundell promised to, and I quote, ensure that Scotland gets the best possible deal and that that deal clearly involves being part of the single market. However, yesterday, he appeared to give up on membership of the single market completely. When asked by a BBC presenter, aren't you a Scottish secretary to defend the interests of the Scottish people in the cabinet, he astonishingly replied, no. Of course, it is not just the agricultural sector that is set to lose out. In Scotland, EU funding has helped to support the roll-out of superfast broadband, business development, housing investment and improvements to infrastructure. For five years, I have listened to my colleague Joan McAlpine speak about the importance of securing nuts-two status for the south of Scotland. The Scottish Government had approved plans to amend current boundaries, which could have made the region eligible for an uplift of £840 million from the EU. The prospect of the south of Scotland now missing out on that transformative amount of funding is bitterly disappointing. That is £840 million that the south of Scotland folks will never see, £840 million that could have made a real difference to their lives. That is now in jeopardy. To listen to the Brexit cheerleaders at Westminster and in this chamber even, you would believe that in the EU it has contributed nothing tangible to the rural communities that we represent. EU funding has made a huge difference to Dumfries and Galloway and its removal has serious implications. Local projects are currently being funded by grants from the European Social Fund—no, because I want to proceed, so thanks. Local projects are currently being funded by grants from the European Social Fund for Employability, £7 million. The European regional development fund is worth £1.4 million and the leader programme is worth about £6.1 million. Those grants alone support the jobs of some 50 staff directly employed to deliver those schemes. Many more partners rely on this and other funding to support employment. Those jobs are now in jeopardy. Will the Tories at Westminster, who have caused this mess, commit to replacing that money? That is really the reality of Brexit. There is no doubt that our exit from the EU and the loss of funding opportunities will hinder our efforts to create a sustainable future for Scotland, but the EU referendum result does not reduce our desire to protect Scotland and the rural economy. The SNP Government will exhaust every avenue to create conditions under which Scotland will flourish. There can be an absolutely no question of the UK Government attempting to reserve powers currently devolved to the Scottish Parliament. They have proven 100 times over that they cannot be entrusted with the task of protecting Scotland's interests. I welcome the opportunity to speak in this afternoon's debate on the future of funding for rural development, which gives members from all sides of the chamber the chance to raise the profile of our rural communities and highlight some of the excellent work that goes on in them. I also welcome the cabinet secretary's new year's resolution and look forward to holding him to it. Unfortunately, Emma Harper gripe and grievance as crept in again, and it seems to be the order of the day from the Government benches. It is a pill that is really wearing thin. We need to forget about what is happening in the past and get on with the job of getting the best deal for Scotland in the future. We must not allow the Scottish Government to use the spokescreen of Brexit to avoid getting on with the job of getting the best deal. Earlier this week, the UK Prime Minister, Theresa May, set out a clear and credible plan ahead of triggering article 50 by the end of the month. In her speech, Mrs May was very clear in her commitment to delivering a Brexit that works for the whole of the United Kingdom. That is why the Scottish Government is fundamentally incorrect when it claims that it has been sidelined and ignored. It should stop its rhetoric and political gesturing and get round the table to help to secure the best deal from the negotiations, because that is what our rural communities deserve. As has already been mentioned, leaving the European Union means that we will have the ability to deliver a system that best meets the needs for those who work in our agricultural sector. Brexit allows the UK to design a new system support from first principles. We have the chance to address the priorities that we have in Scotland to support and reward efficiency and innovation, promote sustainable production, ensure habitat and species protection and require primary producers to consumers to work in a sensitive and correct way to ensure that the supply chain is fair from primary producers to processors and consumers. Stuart Stevenson Thank you very much. By the way, I agree with the great deal of what I am hearing from the member. However, he talked about collaboration between the Scottish Government and the UK Government and indeed Welsh and Northern Irish. Can he tell us one thing, one thing only, that any of the devolved Administrations has successfully got the UK Government to change its policy on in relation to negotiation? Finlay Carson I think that I will leave that to the Scottish Government to tell us because they are the guys that are sitting round the table. We have just started negotiations and I would like to think that, unlike in the past, our cabinet secretary has been able to go down to London and do the best thing for the Scottish rural economy. The NFU in Scotland has considered that this is a real opportunity to design and implement a new system that is appropriate to Scotland's unique circumstances and farming systems and will create environmental protection, innovation and profitability. That will be one of the real prizes of those negotiations. In a speech at the start of this month, Andrea Lidson correctly pointed out that, for far too long, a bureaucratic system that tries to meet the needs of 28 different member states has only held farmers back. Post-Brexit it will be for the Scottish Government to decide what the priorities will be in terms of funding for the Scottish agricultural sector and rural development. We must start that hard work now. My only worry about that is whether they are capable of delivering it. One only has to look at the Government's shambolic track record and management of the current cap payment systems and you have presented with a catalogue of failures. Let's not forget that, as a result of this SNP Government's minshandling of the system, farmers that led and bred to Scotland were left worried about their cash flow and the knock-on effect in Scotland's rural economy left it on the brink of collapse. Only last week the NFUS called for a step change in the cap system, IT system, which continues to affect pillar 2 schemes and millions of pounds from 2015 schemes are still to enter farmers banks account, a ridiculous situation. Farmers want certainty and that is exactly what the UK Government provided them with when the Chancellor of the Exchequer guaranteed that all pillar 2 payments signed before we leave the EU will be guaranteed for their lifetime and pillar 1 payments are guaranteed to 2020. That welcome announcement provided farmers with an important assurance that they are going to be financially supported throughout the negotiations as the UK leaves the EU. It's time that the Scottish Government started to be optimistic about our future post-Brexit. We are going to be presented with a unique chance to start from scratch and come up with our own support system, which will be within the deal that the UK negotiates with all areas of the UK. Such a system has the potential to support a rural economy in a way that the current system simply does not allow. In their briefing, the NFUS outlined a number of potential measures, including incentives to improve efficiency and productivity and initiatives to promote and assist collaboration, schemes to prevent environmental damage and enhance environment and more support for new entrants and developers. To conclude, we on these benches are ambitious for Scotland's rural communities, less red tape and a unique Scottish system with more control over our priorities. Scotland's rural communities need a Scottish Government ready to embrace these opportunities and to be open-minded and imaginative about how to deliver it. The UK voted to leave the EU and we now need to do the right thing for Scotland. I welcome the opportunity to work with Mr Ewing and help him to keep his new year's resolution. Thank you. Please remember that we are tight for time. Highlands and Islands has been transformed by European support over the years. A place for roads, bridges and other important infrastructure has been built with support from the European community and then the European Union. Indeed, if you were to take the North Coast 500 route, which is largely in my constituency, you would see a multitude of EU flags on signs at the sides of roads and on bridges built by European funds. That is just one legacy of the EU that we will have, but unfortunately that potential has now been lost. That is not a gripe nor a grievance, it is a real and tangible worry. Education, agriculture and renewable energy are sectors that throughout the years have greatly added to the economy and society of rural areas. Those three sectors have benefited and continue to benefit from European co-operation and support. In terms of education, I have said so in this chamber before that the decision to wrench Scotland from the EU could not be clearer. The University of the Highlands and Islands will be worse hit than any other university in Scotland. 35 per cent of external funding for UHI comes from the EU, so that means that there is a potential cut to UHI of more than one third of its budget. That is a figure that should make everyone in this chamber pause for thought. It is not just funding that will be lost to UHI. Pan-European academic co-operation such as the Horizon 2020 scheme, which UHI has been playing a leading role, is a chance to swap ideas on and find solutions to a range of issues, including carbon reduction and offshore development. It is also set to go as a chance to participate in the Erasmus Plus programme, which for decades has given both students and lecturers a chance to interact and collaborate with colleagues across the continent. Those benefits of the experiences are intangible and we will be poorer for it passing. There has been great investment in UHI over the years from the EU. In fact, the EU has been at the heart of the UHI since it has started. Indeed, it is a great shame to see it end this way. I have real fears, as do the members of the UHI, for the ground-breaking and excellent work that it has achieved, especially in the ERI, the Environmental Research Institute in Thurso. Moving on to farming forestry fisheries and the food and drink sector, the situation, in my opinion, could not be more stark. Those are key players in many rural areas and in those sectors that receive the greatest support from the EU. As Emma Harper already said, more than £4 billion is worth of funding from 2014 to 2020. That tells its own story. It helps to create jobs. It underpins communities. It also creates landscapes where the land is used, which helps with the ecology, as well as putting food on our table. In short, it allows people to live, farm and contribute in our rural areas. European support for farming cuts across the whole industry, whether it be arable fields to sweeping hillsides, but beyond 2020 the future is uncertain, and rightly people in those communities are concerned by what will happen. No, thank you. As I have mentioned, there are many schemes to support farming. One such scheme, which helps, is the less favoured area scheme, or ELFAS. That comes under pillar 2 of CAP, and it is directed at those people who farm on marginal lands and turn marginal and they turn of marginal profit. They are our crofters and hill farmers. ELFAS land accounts for 85 per cent of the land mass of Scotland. The funding for ELFAS is more than vital to those areas, and it is critical. The great worry for me and others is the fact that, as the cabinet secretary said, the UK Government has not committed to funding for applications in 2019. That is only two years away. That situation is something that Fergus Ewing has brought up with the UK Government, and I add my voice to that today. One of our greatest exports that we have is food and drink. A hard Brexit could threaten much more of our export to the EU, which is our closest and biggest market. The food and drink industry directly employs around 116,000 people, and many of those are in rural areas. One question that needs clarity is that of the agricultural sector and how the funding will go forward from the arable farmer to the hill crofter. Those people help to influence the biodiversity of many rural areas, and they create the communities that are so important. The CAP system, although it is not perfect, has helped to protect that way of life for many years, and it is important that whatever post-Brexit it may bring, there needs to be a way to allow this way of life to continue. Renewables is another sector that has received sustained backing via the EU and helps to deliver high-quality jobs in rural areas. Whether it be the Beatrice offshore development, which has received hundreds of millions of support and is due to create hundreds of jobs in construction and maintenance, or the recent money to help to develop the major entitle energy scheme. If we are serious about supporting our rural areas, if we value them, we need to recognise that they have been immeasurably improved by funding and support that the EU has given over the years. It is incumbent on the UK Government to listen to and work with the Scottish Government to make sure that post-Brexit our rural communities get the help that they need and to make sure that they are not left behind following the loss of major funding streams that our exit from the EU will cause. In my opinion, the best solution for the future of rural funding is remaining in the EU. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Today, with the laying of the draft climate change plan, I want to start by focusing on that issue. Agriculture-related land use accounts for 22.8 per cent of Scotland's total greenhouse gas emissions, although it must be recognised that the 1990 agricultural emissions from 1990 have decreased by 25 per cent. We can all acknowledge that, as the third heaviest-submitting sector, improvements must be made in the greening of our farming sector appropriately, and I use that word advisedly, appropriate to Scotland. Furthermore, it seems that Scotland will not meet the biodiversity targets for 2020 and is ranked in the lowest fifth of all countries analysed in the intactness index. Amid the uncertainty of the future of CAP, I am concerned that any further progress may falter. Our farmers are not only the producers of food, they also act, of course, as custodians of our land. Seventy-five per cent of Scotland's land mass is used for agricultural production, and the sector directly employs 60 to 3000 people. Limiting global warming is a responsibility that we all share, but we must respect that the farmers' shoulders can be expected to bear a brunt of this, and it is unreasonable to demand and expect those business owners and rural communities to act in the public interest without providing them with proper support in the transition. There are brilliant examples of positive changes that farmers can make, and I commend the nine monitor farms in Scotland, some of which are in my region. By sharing knowledge, these farmers have improved their own sustainability and profitability and shared that with others. It is paramount that agricultural workers are bought with us in the forefront of the green shift, and Scottish Labour will fight for farmers' rights, yes, rights in trade negotiations, rural policy and in securing a just transition. In future, I see a strong and sustainable Scottish agriculture sector, food production and climate mitigation fully integrated. Even before the Brexit vote, Scotland spent the second-least amount on agri-environment schemes from the cap pillar 2 per hectare in the EU. As we are faced with an opportunity to reconsider the agricultural subsidy regime, I urge the Scottish Government to link the two with the bottom-up approach. I want to take the opportunity today, briefly, to specify three aspects of our rural economy to emphasise the necessity and benefits of support for rural Scotland, leading to and beyond 2020, in the context of my opening remarks. The first is the need for more support for the organic sector and for continuing consideration by the Scottish Government of the benefits of agri-ecology. In my own region of South Scotland, I have been welcomed to whip me organic several times by the owners, Pete Ritchie and Heather Anderson. Their commitment to organic production shows, along with other organic producers, what is possible, and I also applaud the soil association's contribution. In relation to climate change, the research institute of the organic agriculture states that the main mitigation potential lies in the capacity of soils to sequester CO2 through the building of organic matter. That potential can be realised by employing sustainable agriculture practices such as those commonly found in organic farming methods. Of course, good soil husbandry is essential across the agriculture sector, and many farmers while not in receipt of organic certification manage their soils and wider businesses for a better climate and for biodiversity. Those who do not must be supported and, I argue, expected to do so, not least because they are in receipt of public money. Secondly, I stress the need for support for innovation. In order to develop new systems and build confidence, support is essential post-Brexit—sad, as though I have to say that last bit. I use the example of agroforestry, or silvopasture, depending on whether speaking in today's debate or next Tuesday's on forestry. The Forestry Commission Scotland recognises the significance of agroforestry. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation states that agroforestry's mixed-land use approach makes it a tailor-made example of how the agricultural sector can contribute to the global effort to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Significantly, the UK Committee on Climate Change has stated that a new policy was required to address barriers and awareness to agroforestry. Thirdly, I want to highlight the continuing importance of the co-operative models in rural Scotland as a member of the parliamentary group of Scottish co-operative party members. The Scottish Agricultural Organisation Society does a terrific job in supporting co-operatives across rural Scotland. James Graham, their secretary, states that farmer co-operatives are self-help businesses that add to the development of both economic and social capital in rural Scotland, investing and employing in areas where PLC businesses will not. The EU pillar 2 grants assist investment and access to facilitation of co-operatives and community groups and are essential. They are food processing, marketing and co-operation grant scheme and the knowledge transfer and innovation fund and leader. We must protect those or similar funds. I hope that those three examples stress the need for continued Scottish Government support across rural Scotland together. We can bring a healthier and more equal society as highlighted by Rhoda Grant, my colleague, and a stronger rural economy. Thank you very much. Let me start by drawing members' attention to my extremely large three-acre registered agricultural holding, from which I receive no income whatsoever. I am an MSP for an intensely rural area of Scotland, dependent on farming and fishing, albeit that we have other industries as well. I welcome Peter Chapman's response to my intervention that we will be guaranteed a minimum of 16.4 per cent of agricultural support that there is in the UK. However, let us give a little bit of context to that, because we might perhaps consider whether, in the light of a tweet from George Eustis on 4 January, he said that subsidies post 2020 will be no more subsidies for farmers post 2020. I am not much encouraged that 16.4 per cent of nothing is quite what, probably Peter Chapman, certainly myself, had in mind. George Eustis said earlier, and before the referendum in 26 May, that we would have as much support or perhaps even more once the referendum was out of the way. I accept, by the way, that we are dealing with where they are. Do forgive me, I am going to take the Tory spokesman first, if I may. The member makes a point that he feels that there will be no support. I do not accept that in any way shape or form. I have had meetings with Andrew Eustis and George Eustis, and none of them said anything of the sort that there would be no support going forward after 2020. I know my opposite number in the Tory benches as an honest and straightforward man, and I am very pleased to hear him say that, but I can only repeat that George Eustis tweeted on 4 January. Putting it in 140 characters, I accept, can sometimes eliminate meaning, but the specific words that he used were no more subsidies post 2020. I invite, in a spirit of collaboration, the member to make further communication with his political colleagues and establish whether the meaning has been eliminated by the words that he would actually use. We have all been quoting from various sources—that is what we as politicians inevitably will do—and the NFUS has properly been quoted as an important player in that particular policy area. Clare Slipper, yesterday, in her blog following the Prime Minister's speech, said that NFUS Scotland wants barrier and tariff-free trade, as well as the freedom to set our own appropriate rules for farming. I accept that the objectives that the Prime Minister laid out in her speech are ones that I do not find terribly difficult to agree with, by the way, because they are probably the objectives that, in the current circumstance, we would all think are proper. The difficulty lies in what confidence we may or may not have in an ability to achieve agreement with 27 other countries in the delivery of something that supports the objectives. I do not think that we have time for my six minutes—rather less than that now—to explore what that means, but we have to have better relationships in Europe. I genuinely hope that the UK Government draws upon all the devolved ministers who have an interest in this to be part of a collegiate team who are individually going and engaging with different countries across Europe. I have attended more than 20 EU councils of one sort or another, and in that environment I used to have the particular countries that I, as a UK representative, had responsibility for that. That is a good model going forward. By the way, that was under the Labour Government and the Conservative Government, so I know that it can work. It needs to work again if we have to get the kind of result that we want. Fundamentally, for Scotland, the money that comes in the EU is very significant for farming, of course, but the leader programme has been enormous help to people in my constituency, 64,000 recently, to McDuff Scout Group, 4,000 for the Northeast Preservation Trust, for working portsoil, 9,500 for portsoil players and 90,000 for Scottish Enterprise for Development Project in the Banfery. I am sure that other members will make their own references to local circumstances. It is important that we are able to continue to support our rural areas, because it is not simply, of course, a matter for rurality. The quality of life in rural areas is important to attracting in professional support that will often be working in urban areas. Therefore, there is a benefit to supporting rural areas that is translated into a benefit in urban areas. We are not clear that the Prime Minister at the moment has the same kind of priorities that we are expressing across the political divide in this chamber for the rural economy. When the Prime Minister talked about the benefits of not achieving a result between the UK and the 27 EU, she was talking about the disadvantages for the EU members. There are, of course, substantial disadvantages for the UK, and in particular for Scotland as well. I wish her well, but I have relatively limited optimism. Wales is doing well. We are on the same page as we are, and I hope that we can support at the end of tonight all of us the motion that we have as amended by Labour and Liberal. I hope that the Tories will do that. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I would like to refer members to my register of interests. I will say at the outset that I will take some interventions, especially from those members that refused me interventions if they feel that they want to, but if they could let me get a little way in to what I am going to say before they do so. Before I look forward, I would like to look on the past and reflect a wee bit on that so that we can understand where we want to be post 2020. For those in this chamber and those who were involved in farming or agricultural policy in 1992, you will remember the excesses of that time. There were lots of unwanted mountains—mountains of butter, mountains of beef, mountains of cheese to name but a few. Then there were a predictable intervention, and I am glad that I allowed you, so I will not allow you back in later. There were lakes, lakes of wine and lakes of milk. Not that any of us saw them, but we knew that they existed, and we knew that they existed within the EU. I am pleased to say that those unwanted mountains are now a thing of the past, and that came about because of the McSherry reforms. Those reforms were needed because the common agricultural policy was built purely on dealing with food deficits, and it boosted productions beyond the needs. In 1991, just to put that into context, we were sitting on 3.7 billion equies of goods—too much, which were really beyond even us in Europe shifting to the rest of the world. Let us take out some other interesting points at that stage. 50 per cent of all the community farmers were over 55. It was accepted by all that the cap budget based on intervention was out of control. There was not enough work done to improve the environment. Farming lacked new entrants. Rural development had been limited to the primary farming sector. Policies had been driven by a lack of understanding on interdependence between countries. Farms with the necessary capacity needed to become more competitive, and support for farmers had been driven to inflating food prices, which remained artificially high. Those details were taken for the Commission of the European Communities report dated 1 February 1991. My view is that, 26 years later, with massive subsidies having been paid to farmers, many of the comments are equally valid today as they were then. I have already taken one comment from you. I will take them from other people in a moment. I would like to mention two other facts that seem to slide many commentators by. First, I have looked back to 1992 and referenced back to today. Although there have always been winners and losers, the level of farm payments to farmers has always been on a downward direction of travel. Secondly, whatever scheme has been introduced by the EU, there has always been an effort made to fit all. I stress all of Europe, set aside and the three-crop rule about two examples. The past was not always perfect. Looking to the future, I find the Government's motion tonight a bit depressing. Not every glass is half empty, but some glasses can be half full. That is reflected in what Scottish fishermen believe. It is not all doom and gloom. I believe that we can design a system that looks to the needs of the UK in the same way that the current system looks to the needs of the EU. By agreeing—this is a critical part—a UK framework and ensuring that controlling the exact details and implementation in Scotland is retained by the Scottish Parliament as it is now, we can be assured with careful negotiation that the Government gets the best deal. For those of you on my right who might find that a difficult concept to understand, what I am suggesting is working together as part of a team with negotiations, with consensual agreement, with a light touch, something that I think we can do. However, what of the future? Let me tell you what I think it must be and I am going to give you three quick examples if I may. It must be simple to administer, cutting red tape, ditching complex computers, be received by those that the scheme is targeting and deliver public good while protecting the environment. Let me be clear before I am accused of wanting to cut basic payment supports—I do not, and I believe that farmers and the rural economy need support. I have taken intervention, as no one else has. I wonder if the member, and he may well agree with me on this, would agree that there are also social objectives associated with supporting rural economies that perhaps were very strong, particularly in the early days of CAP. We have to get them right, we have to get the right balance, but there are also social objectives beyond simply farming. You have less than a minute, Mr Mountain. I am just going to say that I absolutely believe that rural support is not just for farmers. It is for achieving things for the countryside and for the countryside as a whole. I was going to add at that stage that I probably know, as well as anyone else in this chamber, the importance of support to the rural economy. I would like to say now, as I am coming to the last moments of my speeches, that I do not know all the answers, but together I believe that we can work them out. What needs to happen now is that all stakeholders need to get together in Scotland and work with the Cabinet Secretary and decide what Scotland needs. We then need to engage with the UK Government. At my recent meetings with Andrea Leadsom and George Eustice, they have made it clear that that is exactly what they are waiting for. As I have said before in the chamber, farmers can do people who will respond to what they see in front of them. I welcome the opportunity to work with the Cabinet Secretary as he offered to do at the beginning of the debate to take rural subsidies and support for Scotland forward. I call Willie Coffey to be followed by Mark Ruskell. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I will try to get this under the six minutes at your request. I am very pleased to be able to contribute to the debate on funding for rural development Scotland and to offer the chamber a perspective on this as a nature, the MSP. According to the Scottish Rural College's very detailed and recent publication Rural Scotland and Focus, rural areas make up about 98 per cent of the landmass of Scotland. They are home to over a million of Scotland's population and have one third of its registered small and medium-sized enterprises, with about 50,000 businesses in total. The publication offers an important perspective on the rural economy, with many contributions for farmers and small business owners, and I commend it to colleagues in the chamber. Ayrshire and the south-west of Scotland, in particular in Dumfries and Galloway, plays a huge part in the agricultural economic landscape of rural Scotland, with 80 per cent of Scotland's dairy herd and nearly 800 specialist dairy farms being located in that wonderful part of our country. It is important therefore that the potential consequences of the changes that are certain to come in rural development funding and their disproportionate impact in the south-west of Scotland are fully considered and debated. I am grateful to you for the briefings that we received from the NFU Scotland over the last couple of days, one just before the Prime Minister's announcements this week and the other just after it. They provided a useful and focused summary of the main issues of concern. In particular, they described the potential decimation, as they put it, of Scottish agriculture if a future funding arrangement post Brexit does not mirror current arrangements, where 16 per cent of the UK's total cap funding comes to Scotland, but potentially under a possible Barnett funding arrangement, that could shrink to just eight or nine per cent. The UK Government, I think, must give a clear commitment to maintain that support now at this current level and remove what is perhaps one of the greatest concerns for our farmers. With 85 per cent of Scotland's land designated as less favoured, but the converse being true in England, NFU Scotland also argues that a devolved agricultural policy solution for Scotland is likely to be necessary. None of this needs to wait until the outcome of negotiations with the EU—all it takes, I think, is for the UK Government to give those commitments now. However, speeches from UK ministers before the EU vote were full of promises that farmers would get as much support there perhaps even more than they get now, but now we hear that there will be no more subsidies after 2020, and only this morning we get no assurances that farm payments will not be cut after 2020. Food and drink producers in Ayrshire and Arran are renowned for quality and their products are in demand throughout Europe and right across the world. We have exceptional beef, lamb, pork and game, world-class fish and shellfish, the Ayrshire Tati that was mentioned by the cabinet secretary, award-winning Dunlop cheese, wonderful ice creams, handmade chocolates, craft beers and distinctive whiskeys and Musgeal milk, and only last week another world award for browning's now-famous steak and scotch pies. All that contributes to Scotland's reputation as a world-class producer and exporter of quality food and drink. It accounts for about 30 per cent of Scotland's total exports compared to about 7 per cent of the UK and represents a turnover for us of about £14 billion, employing over 100,000 people. This sector is utterly crucial to Scotland and is our biggest export to the EU, worth about £2 billion. Unless the UK Government can get a deal agreed with the EU within two years after the Brexit button has been pressed, which many say is unlikely, the whole sector could be facing a disastrous period where tariffs are reimposed and access to the wider market, even beyond Europe, is restricted or at worst closed off. What a scandalous and unnecessary situation for Ayrshire and Scottish food producers to be facing. One very important area, not just for the rural economy, is whether the UK is also intending to walk away from the European digital single market. While the territories are planning their escape from the single market itself, it surely makes no sense whatsoever to walk away from further integration of digital services across Europe. The digital single market is worth about €415 billion to the whole European economy and will offer €11 billion in savings for consumers shopping online. Are we to walk away from that too? In June of this year, when data roaming charges for mobile phone users in Europe are finally flattened out, are the territories going to triumphantly bring back roaming charges for millions of people in the UK who will still go on holiday to Europe after Brexit? I can see that going down like a lead balloon. Rushing towards a conclusion, living and working in the rural economy was never easy, but this unnecessary and uncertain future being imposed on many of our Scottish farmers and food and drink producers is surely one of the most unnecessary acts of political folly we have ever seen. No matter how the Brexiters try to dress up as a golden opportunity, the harsh reality is that timescales here are nigh on impossible and Scotland's key agriculture, food and drink sectors face the grim prospect of a return of tariffs and restricted market access. As usual, the Scottish Government will do what we can in our powers to predict our producers from the damage to come. However, if the signs are not good, I have no doubt that Scottish people will exercise their right to steer that different course that offers them a better and more secure future. Funding for rural development and agriculture is a recognition of the vital role that is played by land managers and communities in protecting, preserving and enhancing the natural environment that is so vital to our identity and our livelihoods. That is why it is vitally important that we maintain rural development funding during this constitutionally uncertain time. The repatriation of powers from Europe to Scotland and the devolution of additional powers, as called for in today's motion, will go some way towards protecting Scotland from the hard Brexit announced by the Prime Minister this week. However, the starting point to build a progressive future for our rural communities that we need has to be a commission that looks at a fundamental question, what are we trying to deliver from farming and what are the tools that we need to achieve this? Such a commission needs to be broad, it needs to be cross-sectoral and independent and this work cannot be delivered by a single part-time industry succondment here or even a sector champion there. Thankfully, this Parliament has just approved such a body with the status and the remit to deliver, the Scottish Land Commission. It has never been a more important time for this commission to come into being and focus on this critical question. Its independence, its expertise on delivery of public interest and its connection with vulnerable agricultural communities makes it uniquely placed to lead consideration of this question, marshalling fairly all those with a stake in our farming future. There is a lot of reform to consider, Presiding Officer. For example, during the current SRDP round, it has been delivered through 14 different funding schemes. Those schemes themselves are administered by five different government departments and agencies. It can be a complex and bewildering process, especially for new entrants and small family-run farms. While the farm advisory scheme should go some way towards addressing this, there are more important improvements that can be made. There are now growing calls, for example, to establish an agency that not only sets out the vision and values that we have for future Scottish agricultural sector, but it takes on the task of administering payments and support in a joined-up manner. A Scottish Food and Farming Agency could take the form of a non-departmental government body, bringing together farmers, land managers, environmental NGOs, researchers and representatives from rural communities to ensure that our vision of a good food nation is delivered. The creation of a national agency would not necessarily mean greater centralisation of rural development policy and funding. Rather, that could be used to facilitate greater participation in rural development through local decision-making panels and regional distribution of specific funds. Let me give you an example of that. The leader programme has been one of the major success stories of the SRDP due to deliver over £80 million of funding during the current cat phase through the local action group model. That supports local rural communities to identify the challenges that they face and to support grass-root solutions. In my region, as Stuart Stevenson has already alluded to, a diverse range of projects have been funded by leaders since 2007. We have the five rural skills partnership, the Balchwydder Community Broadband Company. Although those projects address very different aspects of rural life, they have provided direct employment for local people and are addressing the need for skills and infrastructure that have helped people to find employment, set up businesses and contribute to thriving rural local economies. Other aspects of current SRDP funding would benefit greatly from local decision-making that a national agency could facilitate. For example, rural enterprises could collectively establish their own training schemes through knowledge transfer and innovation fund that provides training close to home, which addresses specific needs in their area. Or regional farmers' co-operatives, which Claudia Beamish has already spoken about, could get support from the local decision-making board to submit a competitive and viable bid for example for public procurement. Co-operative models still play a central role in the delivery of rural and farming policy in other parts of Europe, including in France, where they have adopted a world-leading agroecology model for farming policy. I believe that there should be a key method in delivering a future rural development policy that understands and meets the needs of our remote rural communities. Let me turn briefly to subsidies, because while we remain committed to keeping Scotland and the European Union, we are not naive to the failings of CAP. We would urge the Government during this time constitutional crisis to continue to engage in the debate taking place in Europe about the future of CAP. In particular, the principle of direct payments according to land area contained in pillar 1 has directly contributed to the consolidation of farms into ever larger units, and it has pushed the price of land up beyond the reach of many local people across Scotland. Since area-based direct payments were introduced in 2004, land prices across the UK as a whole have tripled, and the UK Government has persistently refused to introduce measures permitted by the EU to taper payments for larger farms. The winners under the system are clearly not rural communities, but the richest landowners in our society. The Queen herself received over half a million pounds in single farm payments last year. Unless it undergoes radical reforms, the principle of direct area-based payments is not something that we could support in any future subsidy system. The job of protecting Scotland's rural interests starts with building a progressive vision of our land and the communities that need to thrive on it. I believe that the Scottish Land Commission is the right body to marshal that vision. The last of the open speakers is Mary Evans. I took part in the debate at the tail end of last year on the impact that leaving the European Union would have on the rural economy and primarily focused on the importance of funding in that debate. During the whole EU referendum debate, the one thing that I found particularly frustrating was the lack of focus on the extent to which EU funding underpins so many different services and diverse projects locally and nationally that are absolutely vital to our economy and to our society. That is why I therefore welcome the Government's motion today, because while we now know or we have a better idea of what the Westminster Government's negotiating position will be, for the better or for the worse, depending on where you sit in this chamber, we need to continue to fight for fair funding for our rural economy, as well as for the devolution of additional powers so that we can really best protect the interests of all of rural Scotland. However, I would like to start today by setting out the context and outlining exactly what is at stake during this period of negotiation by looking at my constituency. Aberdeenshire Council actually published a report, a very interesting report, that went to the policy and resources committee today about their EU referendum position, which actually very helpfully illustrates this information and very clearly outlines what Aberdeenshire needs to see from any negotiations with the EU. I urge any north-east MSPs in particular, if they have not had a look at this report, to do so. The report outlines in terms of fishing that Aberdeenshire is Scotland's foremost fishing area. The region accounts for 56.4 per cent of all fish landed into Scotland by value, and, together with Aberdeen, it provides 31 per cent of Scotland's regular fisheries employment. Moreover, since 2010, the quantity of fish landings in the north-east has increased by 23 per cent and total employment by 5.4 per cent. When it comes to agriculture, Aberdeenshire has 26 per cent of the national arable land total, despite having 9 per cent of overall land. The sectors of forestry, fishing and agriculture between them employ around 6,000 people. Those sectors, which will receive around £4 billion of EU funds, are absolutely vital to our rural and wider economy, and the continuation of EU funding is crucial for the continued viability of those areas. However, as has already been highlighted today, it is not just those sectors directly that benefit from rural development funding, but our local communities and local community groups through schemes such as LEEDAR, which has already been highlighted by a few other members today. Again, in my constituency, the funding amounted to £2.8 million for South Aberdeenshire for the current funding period and £2.7 million for Angus, and that excludes the extra moneys that tend to be levered in on the back of that. Funds such as this have had a huge impact and continue to have a growing impact in our local communities, helping a huge variety of different projects. There is one example that I am particularly keen to highlight to members today. It is one that is not quite in my constituency—I hope that Graeme Dey does not mind me going into his territory in Angus South—because that is the point where we go from farming, fishing and forestry to rock. By rock, I do not mean the geological variety, but the kind that comes with lightning bolts, guitars, drums and loud vocals. This was a project in Carymure with DD8 Music, a community organisation with the aim of working with young people. Through LEEDAR, they were able to find premises that they turned into a recording studio, providing them with a base and a completely new and exciting facility from which they have been able to build and build as an organisation. DD8 Music now organises one of the main festivals in the north-east of Scotland, which I hope that you have all heard of, Bonfest. What is Bonfest? I might hear you cry. Bonfest is the celebration of Bon Scott, the legendary ACDC vocalist who was from Carymure in Angus and which attracts rockers and fans of which I am a huge one from all over the world. Last year, the event attracted 5,000 visitors with an economic impact of £403,000. I warmly extend an invitation to the cabinet secretary and any other interested members to Bonfest this year, which takes place from 28 April to 30 April. Angus LEEDAR, in particular, is looking at other innovative ways of working, including Angus Council's crowd funder platform. It is the first of its kind anywhere in the UK and the brainchild of business manager for funding, policy and projects at Angus Council, Shelly Haig. The crowd funder project was nationally recognised with a gold award at last year's COSLA awards and further recognised at a UK level, gaining a nomination at the Guardian Public Service Awards in London. There have been 15 projects that have so far levered in over £400,000. LEEDAR is looking at ways in which it can work hand-in-hand with participatory budgeting and wider community empowerment to truly transform our rural communities. For that work to continue and projects like this, we need to know that funding is in place for that to happen and the policies behind it need to be right. If the nature of the policy or funding is to change, those involved in all those different sectors that I have mentioned today need to be involved. The farmers, the fishermen and those who helped to design and deliver those rural development projects on the ground. We need to retain and protect specific financial support that is vital to those pillars of our rural community that I have outlined today. I am proud that we have a Government that is continuing to fight Scotland's corner on that and who will continue to try to get the best deal for our farmers, our fishermen and all those in our rural communities. We now move to the closing. Speeches and time is very tight, so no more than six minutes, please, Mr Rumbles. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. It's been a very good debate, the nine contributions that have been in the open debate particularly. If I just concentrate, I think that I'd like to respond to some of those. It started off a little bit rockily, I have to say, with first Emma Harper and then Emma Harper attacked the UK Government, Finlay Carson attacked the Scottish Government and I thought that we were going to go down that route and I'm glad to say that we didn't. If I could just gently say to both Emma Harper and Gail Ross that it would be very helpful if members could take interventions because it actually creates a better debate. Otherwise, we would just get a series of statements from people and I think that it would really be helpful if people did that. Gail Ross, I thought it was very important when she mentioned 35 per cent of funding for the University of the Highlands and Islands come from the EU and she said that it's not a gripe, it's a reality and there are real issues about this. Claudia Beamish talked about, she wanted to focus on the opportunities that any new system gave for aiding or environment and that's a legitimate, entirely legitimate approach to take. I have to say to Stuart Stevenson, I always, I do like Stuart's contributions as well as many other members, I know, but I do think he was rather unfair to Peter Chapman. I even was about to intervene on him at the point because I thought, well, you know, as important as Peter Chapman is to this Parliament, I don't think it's fair to Peter to hold him responsible, personal responsible for guaranteeing that the UK Government will deliver 16.4 per cent of the share of the subsidy that we normally get. So I thought it was a little, a little hard on Peter. On Edward Mountain, of course. Yes. Peter Chapman. See that I am very grateful for Mike Rumble's support for my position. Mike Rumble. As you say, stick together, there we are. Edward Mountain, I thought, would give a very good speech and after asking people to take interventions, refused one from Stuart Stevenson, but he did come back, he did come back and take another one. He talked about mountains, Edward Mountain talked about mountains, butter, cheese, et cetera, and pointed out that the past wasn't always as rosy and it's an important point that he made. And he talked about all stakeholders needing to get together and that was the very point I'm trying to make in the amendment that I'm putting forward tonight and I hope the Conservatives will feel that they will be able to support it. Willie Coffey pointed out that he talked again about the 16 per cent of the UK cap payments but under Barnett we might only get 8 per cent and that is a legitimate and a very important point to iron out. Mark Ruskell talked about the importance of the Scottish Land Commission and Vary Evans was a very good contribution as well, although I have to say I'm not o fe with really her identification of that down at Carymure. Can I just say that I think this debate is already about to some extent about we receive more in funds or do we receive less in funds than we currently receive in cap payments? I really do believe that this is obviously important. I do actually think that it's put in the cart before the horse. I certainly believe and we believe in the Liberal Democrats that it's absolutely essential that we focus on getting the agreed principles of any future monies right so that the Scottish Government can allocate them when it gets those funds through and however whatever level it comes through at appropriately and properly. If we don't, if we just talk about whether the money is enough or it's not enough or we plead special cases, if we don't all come together from right across the chamber for the good of the Scottish rural economy and agree the principles on which this funding will be delivered, we're going to get it wrong and we're going to cause real divisions out there in the rural economy. I really do genuinely feel that it's important to get the principles right, otherwise people will defend their own patch. I'm not going to take the whole of my allocation because I know that time is short but those are the points that I wanted to make. Much appreciated Mr Rumbles, thank you. I call Rhoda Grant up to six minutes please. Thank you Presiding Officer and I'm glad that we had this debate because times tight and many of those decisions need to be made sooner rather than later to give comfort and security to our rural communities. I'm a little disappointed that members can't unite tonight around certainly my own and Mike Rumbles amendment because I think it sets a more positive tone and I'd urge Conservative colleagues maybe to reconsider that. However, I think that what we are united around is that we need to support our rural communities going forward, farming, fishing and also the many other activities that members talked about that need support to make sure that our rural communities thrive. Fergus Ewing opened the debate and he rehearsed some of the challenges which again some of his members did as well and we are very aware of the challenges but that in our mind means that there is a greater need for closer working and to try and put our differences aside and work for the good of our communities. We know that the movement of labour will cause challenges to farms. We hear about a point system that won't work for low skilled migrant farm workers and while we need to protect their working conditions which are often poor we also need to make sure that they're able to continue because our farming community is dependent on them as they are of the work that they do in Scotland and indeed the rest of the UK and Europe. We also need access to the single market. It's really important for our farmers and producers that that happens. I was interested to hear about the Tati and indeed with the exchange between Fergus Ewing and Stuart Stevenson I could see a say the Scottish Tati campaign starting but hopefully it won't come to that and I maybe make that comment a bit too flippantly because it's really important that we protect those suppliers that have markets beyond Scotland and the UK and make sure that they not only for the benefit and I think this is where we have to sell this to the rest of the EU because it's not only us that benefit from that trade they also benefit from receiving our high quality produce. Financial support was also mentioned Gail Ross talked about UHI and others talked about financial support for farming and fishing and indeed rural communities. I think it's important that we reiterate the need for that support. Fergus Ewing talked about agreeing with us on repatriating powers and that was very welcome and I think to be honest most people in the in this Parliament will agree to that but he also talked about how we then distribute funding for farming and rural communities throughout the UK and I think I made clear in my speech that we need a much fairer distribution because our geographical disadvantage compared to the rest of the UK we would not be again having a level playing field across the UK where farmers receive similar amounts and maybe even fight for a bit more for it because our disadvantage is greater but at the same time that will require us working with the UK government very closely and maybe seeding some power so we need to be careful what we're asking for and how we go about achieving those aims and those are things that we need wider discussions on. Peter Chapman used his speech to talk about the horrendous issues with Capp and I think everybody agrees that that has been a huge problem for our rural communities but maybe this wasn't the time for it. I think we'll have those debates again and I'm sad to say I think there will probably be more problems than that has already been before it's solved and I think we can discuss those and indeed hold the government to account on that at that time. He also talked about red tape and he's right but we also have to remember that a lot of that red tape didn't come from the EU, it came from our own governments, a gold plating domestic policy. Mike Rumbles' amendment, which we have said we will support, I think is good and he talked about how wide that commission had been, talked about the work of the NFUS which we totally agree, I mean their briefings are coming in, I was going to say daily but more often than that and they've already started thinking about those things, they need to be involved as do the NGOs, as do the Fishermen's Federation consumers and producers and that's why I would have a slight disagreement with Mike Ruskell because he talked about the land commission doing this. I think the land commission have enough to deal with things like farm prices that he spoke to in the debate. Land ownership in Scotland is way wrong, we need to focus on that and the land commission's job needs to be doing that while we need another commission to look at the way forward and with a wider base of stakeholders. Claudia Beamish, my colleague, rightly talked about all the environmental issues and I was depending on her doing that because I only touched on them, about farming, about organic farming, forestry and indeed co-ops and how pillar 2 funding helps co-ops in community groups from brewers to chocolatiers and the like and indeed leader funding which is so important to many of our communities. Presiding Officer, I hope that this debate has sent a clear message to colleagues in the UK Parliament. We need to be part of future negotiations on trade deals and the parameters that are set for our food producers and rural communities. We need to be clear that new structures don't cause further poverty to either producers or consumers and while we recognise the challenges going forward, we also need to make the best of it in order to protect those that we represent. I call Maurice Golden up to seven minutes please, Mr Golden. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. This has been an engaging debate with some interesting contributions. Fergus Ewing started things off speaking about some fruitful cross-party discussions, not with ourselves but with other parties. He also followed that up with a new year's resolution to work across the chamber and I feel that it is appropriate to point out that just 8 per cent of people successfully achieve their resolutions. I do look forward to seeing the cabinet secretary at Bonfest, however, as suggested in a slightly bizarre contribution from Mary Evans. Moreover, the cabinet secretary spoke about a repatriation of powers and indulged in some quantum theorising over possible futures of points also made by Emma Harper. However, let's look at what the UK Secretary for the Environment said. It is vital that we start planning now for life beyond 2020 and that the UK Government was committed to supporting British farming in the short and long term. We welcome those words and recognise that leaving the EU presents us with the opportunity to design a rural development system that is fit for purpose and will cut red tape and bureaucracy. We would prefer to work with the UK Government to ensure that we have a system that not only works for Scotland but that works better for Scotland than the current system. Rhoda Grant made some interesting points, particularly around food production and food poverty, but particularly on the amendment, I would firstly think that it is important to point out and note that the Scotland Act 1998 was drafted while we were a member of the EU and therefore devolving further powers in line with the Scotland Act is misleading. Secondly, the priority should be on getting the best deal for the UK, getting powers repatriated and then we can consult on what powers should go where. Stakeholders such as the NFUS are not clear as to what powers should be devolved and squabbling between devolved administration and Westminster will just distract from the important job of getting the best deal for the whole of the UK. No dissatisfaction of the UK gets a good deal, but I encourage the member to consider whether, in seeking a deal of a particular character, there is intrinsic value in that reflecting particular needs of Scotland, for that matter, Wales and Northern Ireland as well. Therefore, it is not just about listening by the UK Government to the devolved administration, it is about acting on concerns that may be brought forward. Perhaps privately, by the way, we may not hear about it, but genuinely changing what is being done, not waiting until the deal is done, but making sure that there is a contribution at the deal from the devolved administration. Maurice Golden I agree with the member that we have to recognise concerns and I believe that the UK Government will do that in a positive manner. I like Mike Rumble's amendment to establish an independent stakeholder group to provide more certainty across the sector and his contribution, highlighting a more simplified system, was also welcome. Gail Ross spoke about the impact of EU funding in her constituency and I recognise those concerns, but it is also worthwhile noting that the UK contributes tens of billions of pounds of year to the EU, yet only receives around £8 billion and does not come back. We also had mention of unwanted mountains, although I am not referring to my colleague Edward. Mark Ruskell, I thought, made a thoughtful contribution, but new agency powers for the Scottish Land Commission is something that we would struggle and find it very difficult to support. However, I want to focus the majority of my remarks today on the opportunity that regenerative agriculture presents for Scotland. Before that, it has to be pointed out that it is disappointing that we stand here again debating Brexit no longer that the SNP can tent with Brexit Tuesdays, but that it is now shoehorning it into other debates as well. I think that the focus of the SNP Government should be on matters important to the people of Scotland within the competence of this Parliament. That is why I welcome the contribution of both Peter Chapman and Finlay Carson, who highlighted the cap payments fiasco situation that is now not fully resolved. Claudia Beamish spoke passionately about organic farming and I agree with much of what the member said, but we will go one step further. Certainly with regenerative agriculture, it offers many opportunities for Scottish farmers and can broadly be defined as a combination of practices including permaculture, organic, no-till, holistic grazing and keyline land preparation. It will help to shift towards an agricultural model that helps the environment by improving the soil and encouraging biodiversity. That transition would also see economic benefits based on the reduction in fertiliser and pesticides alongside an overall reduction in agricultural related greenhouse gas emissions. I should point out that those regenerative practices will not fit the business model of every farm, but they should be encouraged. Some benefits of that practice include the removal of greenhouse gas emissions by acting as a carbon sink, decreased water usage and giving farmers better control over their cost base as inputs needed for a farm are generated by the farm itself. What do we need to do to embrace that change? We must educate farmers that are not familiar with those practices and maybe risk a verse or resistant towards them by making a strong business case. We must develop new skills, highlight and heighten consumer awareness, and a great example of those practices is the 4 per 1,000 initiative driven by the French Government. That Parliament must show the vision for our agricultural sector and look to maximise innovative opportunities going forward. I urge the chamber to support the amendment to the motion in the name of Peter Chapman. I call on Fergus Ewing to close this debate up to 5 o'clock, please, cabinet secretary. I've thoroughly enjoyed this debate and I was delighted to receive an invitation from Mary Evans to the Bonn Fest, something about which I must confess to have previously been ignorant about. After her contribution, I now understand that it showcases popular music in the post Frank Sinatra era. The debate itself raised a great many contributions, and I thank all members. I want to briefly reply to some points and then move on. I'm sorry that I can't reply to all, but if members really wish me to reply to any points, please do let me know, and I will work with them as per my new year's resolution. Mr Chapman pointed out to delays and cap payments. We'll discuss that on the rural committee next week under the chairmanship of Mr Mountain. This is the top priority for me and remains that to resolve. I undertake that to members. It uses up quite correctly an enormous amount of time and effort. I'm pleased that we have had some success of payments of 99.9 per cent, payments by value, by 15 October, in respect of the pillar 1 payments, and the loan scheme that is injected £267 million into the rural economy, which has been appreciated by farmers. However, that is not enough. I will not be satisfied as I said before until the whole system is back on track. I thought that it was sensible to start off by repeating that undertaking. I agreed with much that Rhoda Grant said about the importance of protecting rural communities, especially in the Highlands and Islands that she represents. I thought that Mr Rumbles made a very positive contribution. In relation to the setting up of the group, I was pleased to have had discussions prior to this debate with the Liberal Democrats, which were fruitful. We need to continue that close engagement with stakeholders and consider all the options. We will therefore heed the call made in the Lib Dem amendment, for which we will support tonight to establish an independent group and we will support the Labour amendment tonight. I hope that, as Mr Rumbles exhorted our colleagues and the Conservatives that we could reach a unanimous agreement tonight, but we shall see. It's clear that public funding for rural development is critical. We all agree in this debate that it drives forward our rural economy and that it protects and enhances our natural environment. We had excellent examples from Gail Ross about Erasmus, from Stuart Stevenson, Mary Evans and Mark Ruskell about leader from Claudia Beamish about the contribution towards organics and soil improvement. I thought that all those points were very well made, but we went wider than that. Mr Coffey made the point about the contribution that the EU makes to broadband and connectivity, which is so important now and is another extremely pressing matter for me. Many members, including Mary Evans, made the point about contribution to society beyond agriculture. To be fair, Mr Chapman of Smynton said that that was something that we know, too. I think that there is a consonance of objectives, but there remain serious doubts about funding. Whereas Mr Rumbles is correct, I think that we need to marshal, if you like, a set of principles around which we can coalesce. I think that we also need to have clarity about future of funding. I think that both go hand in hand. I don't think that we can go for one or the other. I do think that both are required. In my defence of the Scottish Government, I would point out that the vision for Scottish agriculture, which was launched by my predecessor, Richard Lochhead, went a long way to set out those principles. In accordance with my new year's resolution, I undertake to write to the spokesman with a copy of that document, which I think sets out very useful principles. That might then be the basis for further discussions with party-spoked people, which I am more than happy to have to discuss those important matters in the spirit of co-operation that I have suggested. There is a consonance of objectives. I think that we have been concentrating on pursuing opportunities, Presiding Officer, that perhaps there was a suggestion and perhaps it was slightly childish. I felt that we weren't pursuing those, but I can assure all members that it has been an absolute determination in my part to grasp all opportunities available in rural Scotland. That is why, Presiding Officer, I and various of my colleagues, including Mr Russell, Ms Cunningham and Mr Stewart, have led summits and meetings bringing together people on timber in the south of Scotland, on timber in the north of Scotland, on shellfish, on agriculture this Monday, on food and farming, and agriculture, Ms Cunningham, with the NGOs and the environment, myself in respect of rural development, with rural development parties, very shortly in respect of food and drink and manufacturing. The whole purpose of the activity is to galvanise effort to ensure that we grasp opportunities in rural development and working with all stakeholders. I am happy to work with all members and to grab all the opportunities that are available to us, but the concerns in the debate are, I think, threefold. One, future funding, two, access to markets, and three, immigration and labour policy. I think that it is absolutely correct that we pursue, first of all, the unresolved matters, the unresolved issues, prior to, if you like, clearing the way for the negotiations with the UK regarding the future of funding to replace CEP. Those three issues and I identified them are convergence funding, the sea fish levy and the red meat levy. The UK Government, to be fair, has acknowledged that those issues exist and that they are required to be resolved. I was said that I should get round the table with Ms Ledson and Mr Eustace. I have already been round the table with them. The trouble is, sadly, there was not really very much on the table. However, I am meeting with them next Thursday, the day after Burns night, and I will be pleased to discuss this again with Andrea Ledson and Mr Eustace, and we will be putting proposals on the table for discussion, setting out some of the principles, describing some of the circumstances that we apply. However, in conclusion, the key issue is this. What will replace the funding from the EU, upon which a rural community has depended and has thrived in many ways over the past decades? Contributions that we have heard of from throughout this chamber, from members across each party, including the Conservatives, what will replace that funding? Well, Mr Eustace, with whom I have a workman-like relationship, was very clear when he said in 26 May this year that leaving the European Union would pay an £18 billion a year Brexit dividend, which would allow the UK to spend £2 billion on farming and the environment. George Eustace before the referendum. Secondly, he said that the truth of the matter is this. If we left the EU, there would be an £18 billion dividend, so could we find the money to spend £2 billion a year on farming and the environment? Of course he could. Would we without a shadow of a doubt? I think that we should hold him to that pledge and promise, Presiding Officer, and next Thursday, when representing the Scottish Government, I meet him. I hope that I will be able to say that I have enjoyed the support of working cross-party with colleagues in the Labour Party, the Green Party and the Liberal Democrats, and it is never too late for the Scottish Conservatives, Presiding Officer, to come on board. Thank you. That concludes our debate on the future of funding for rural development. There are four questions to be put as a result of today's business. I remind members that, if the amendment in the name of Peter Chapman is agreed, then the amendment in the name of Rhoda Grant falls. The first question is that amendment 3463.3 in the name of Peter Chapman, which seeks to amend motion 3463 in the name of Fergus Ewing on the future of funding for rural development be agreed, are we all agreed? If we are not agreed, we will move to a vote, and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on the amendment in the name of Peter Chapman is yes, 30, no, 88, there were no abstentions, the amendment is therefore not agreed. The next question is that amendment 3463.1 in the name of Rhoda Grant, which seeks to amend the motion in the name of Fergus Ewing be agreed, are we all agreed? We are not agreed, we will move to a vote, and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on the amendment in the name of Rhoda Grant is yes, 88, no, 0, there were 31 abstentions, the amendment is therefore agreed. The next question is that amendment 3463.2 in the name of Mike Rumbles, which seeks to amend the motion in the name of Fergus Ewing be agreed, are we all agreed? We are not agreed, we will move to a vote, and members may cast their votes now. Someone did say no, but the result of the vote on the amendment in the name of Mike Rumbles is yes, 119, no, 0, abstain, 0. The amendment is therefore agreed. The final question is that motion 3463 in the name of Fergus Ewing as amended be agreed, are we all agreed? We are not agreed, we will move to a vote, and members may cast their votes now. Thank you. The result of the vote on motion 3463 in the name of Fergus Ewing as amended is yes, 88, no, 31, there were no abstentions and the motion as amended is therefore agreed. That concludes point of order, Gillian Martin, first. Of a point of order, understanding orders rule 1.6. This afternoon, during the questions to the Cabinet Secretary for Environment, Climate Change and Rural Affairs, Alexander Burnett asked a question relating to Government grants available for house builders. He did not declare that he is a director and chairman of a house building company, which is the north bankery company that has significant interest in house building in the north-east of Scotland. Given that this is yet another instance of Mr Burnett consistently using this chamber to deal with issues of importance to him personally, an issue that you may have seen in the Sunday post last week, can the Presiding Officer remind him that, if he is asking those kind of self-serving questions that he obeys Parliament's rules so that his constituents at least are made aware of the fact that he is doing so and then can draw their own conclusions? I thank Gillian Martin for letting me that she was going to raise a point of order. In this case, it is up to all members to make a judgment as to whether to declare their interests or not. Christina McKelvie. Presiding Officer, forgive me for not alerting you earlier to this, but earlier today, Ruth Davidson used First Minister's questions to raise an individual business rates case on behalf of the score group. It is my understanding that this company and its chairman have given considerable support to a number of political causes close to Ruth Davidson Hart, including Better Together and Scotland and Union. Can the Presiding Officer give members some guidance on whether it is appropriate for Ruth Davidson to use the weekly opportunity to hold the First Minister to account in advancing the cause of her Tory cronies and, crucially, provide, Presiding Officer, not declaring any interest? The political allegiance or otherwise of any organisation is certainly not a matter for me to rule on. That is not the point of order. Can I suggest that I close this decision time? I close this session of Parliament.