 The next item of business is a debate on motion 9146, in the name of Finlay Carson, on behalf of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee on future agricultural policy in Scotland. I invite members who wish to participate in the debate to press the request to speak buttons as soon as possible. I advise members that we are very tight for time, so I will be enforcing the time limits pretty robustly, and with that I invite Finlay Carson to open the debate around nine minutes, Mr Carson. I'm pleased to open this afternoon's debate on behalf of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee. The committee is holding this debate as part of its pre-legislative scrutiny of the Scottish Government's proposal for future agriculture policy. The purpose of this work is to inform the committee's consideration of the Scottish Government's agriculture bill, which the committee expects to be introduced sometime later this year. It's vital that we set the right direction for Scottish agriculture for the years ahead, and we need a strong agricultural sector to provide us a secure and sustainable food supply and to maintain our high standards of food production and to help tackle the twin emergencies of climate change and biodiversity loss, and by doing that ensure that our rural communities are viable and supported. To achieve those aims, any new agricultural policy needs to provide our farmers, crofters and other food producers with the support, investment and equally important, the clear direction that is needed for a just transition towards a more sustainable future. The Scottish Government launched its consultation on its proposals for a new agriculture bill in August last year. Those proposals centred on a new farm payment framework to replace the common agricultural policy following EU exit, and payments under that new framework will be subjected to a greater conditionality with regards to nature restoration and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. In February this year, the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and Islands shared with the committee a route map for agriculture reform that sets out a high-level timescale for a transition towards its future support framework. While that information is of course welcome, a common thread running throughout the evidence heard so far by the committee has been the concerned voice by food producers and other agricultural stakeholders about a lack of information and detail from the Scottish Government about what a new agricultural policy actually intends to achieve and how we will achieve it. The committee would therefore welcome any further information from the Cabinet Secretary today about the Government's proposed future agricultural policy and more clarity on the timescales for when the agricultural bill will be introduced to Parliament. The committee began its pre-legislative scrutiny in February this year, and so far we have had evidence from a considerable number of individuals and organisations representing farmers, crofters, land managers and many other players in the food supply chain in Scotland. I would like to take this opportunity to thank every one of them who gave evidence to support the committee's work. The committee took a thematic approach to its evidence gathering on what a future farm payment system should look like. We heard evidence sessions on climate change, mitigation and adaptation, on nature restoration by diversity loss and on resilience within the food production supply chain. We also heard from a broad range of groups and organisations who have been involved in developing and who will be at the heart of implementing a new agricultural policy. Those include the farmer-led climate change groups that were reported in 2021 and the Agricultural Reform Implementation Oversight Board. Key industry bodies engage with committees such as NFUS Scotland, Quality Meets Scotland and the Agriculture and Horticultural Development Board. We also heard from organisations focused on the role of agriculture in addressing climate change, including Nature Scott, RSPB, the Climate Change Committee and Farming for 1.5. All witnesses without exception recognised the urgent need to reduce emissions from agriculture in order to meet our challenging net zero goals and to tackle the worrying decline in biodiversity. The capacity for future payment schemes based on conditionality for emissions reduction was explored. Although a payment scheme was the best vehicle to achieve that, there were concerns about the potential impact on agriculture of some of the measures suggested, particularly the reduction in livestock numbers to meet methane reduction targets. NFUS Scotland and Quality Meets Scotland, as well as the farmer-led groups, were concerned about the loss of the critical mass of livestock numbers, which could lead to the decline of the food production supply chain in Scotland as it became less sustainable economically. As NFUS stated, the critical mass is key to maintaining our processing capacity and our ability to produce high-quality food, which is going to be the bedrock and the mainstay of Scotland's economy going forward. Quality Meets Scotland also warned and I quote, the big problem that we face is the loss of critical mass in the red meat sector. If we lose animals and primary producers—and that is farmers—we will not have enough animals to make the rest of the supply chain viable. That would have a negative knock-on effect and significantly undermine the sustainability of farming and rural communities, particularly in less favoured areas, which have considerable limitations with regard to alternative forms of farming. Failing to consider and adequately scrutinise unintended consequences of future agricultural policies, including the impact of conditionality, could jeopardise the primary aims of a future policy. That policy is focused on growing more of our own high-quality food, more sustainably in Scotland. There was real support for the sectoral approach to emissions reduction based on land use. In particular, farming for 1.5 years suggested that some sectors and area production must be focused with baseline biodiversity and emission targets, while others should focus on nature restoration and the sequestration of carbon. It was suggested that a future farm payment system should incentivise farmers to meet baseline targets, while also rewarding those who have already made progress towards sequestration and biodiversity restoration. Area-based payments were highlighted as being subject to conditionality to support by diversity restoration, with farmers and crofters receiving payments based on outcomes and, crucially, on-going practices that would lead to desirable and positive outcomes. There was also support for whole farm plans and professional development and training for farmers and land managers. NatureScot pointed out that farmers could adopt more regenerative agricultural systems in highly productive areas rather than having to set aside land for tree planting in order to promote biodiversity. Controversially, as we have heard, the Climate Change Committee advocates a reduction in livestock numbers and the expansion of tree planting in agricultural land, although that approach was not supported by many of the other witnesses that we heard from. The committee will continue to scrutinise the Government's proposal for future agriculture policy and ensure that it delivers for Scottish agriculture and rural communities. I hope that the evidence that we have already heard and what we will hear today and in future sessions will be taken seriously by the Government and reflected in new policy development. I look forward to members' contributions to this debate and I am sure that my committee colleagues will find it useful to hear the views of other members from right across the chamber on the proposals for the future agriculture policy and what we need from an agriculture bill. I welcome another opportunity to set out the Scottish Government's approach to future agriculture policy for Scotland. I really want to thank the committee for bringing forward the debate and for the work that it has undertaken through its pre-legislative scrutiny. I will give that assurance that I take that evidence seriously and that it is due consideration as we move forward. Indeed, I am glad to see that the committee, through its motion, supports our approach and, of course, will gladly support the motion. Our vision for agriculture is a positive one. We published our vision for agriculture in March last year, setting out how we will transform support for farming and food production in Scotland and our aim to become a global leader in sustainable and regenerative agriculture. That vision has farmers, crofters and land managers at its core. They are the stewards of our countryside and it values their contribution to help feed our nation. However, we all accept that how they continue to do that and are supported to do that needs to change in the future. The vision therefore recognises that land management will change to address climate change and biodiversity loss and that there are challenges as well as opportunities in that for farmers and crofters. Many are already leading the way and they deserve to be acknowledged for farming to produce food sustainably in ways that actively benefit both nature and climate. Our vision makes clear that we will continue to support farmers and crofters directly so that they can capitalise on support and that there is a just transition. It also makes clear that there is a duty owed from our nation to support our producers, promoting sustainable and regenerative agricultural practices and ensuring our world-leading climate and nature targets are realised. That is a journey and it is not solely about the destination. How we get to that destination is critical and we have to bring everyone who wants to be involved in agriculture in the future along with us. I and this Government remain committed to working with and listening to our industry and all who have the interests of a vibrant and successful rural Scotland at heart to achieve the objectives in our vision and co-design is at the centre of all that we do. Yes, I will. I appreciate the cabinet secretary giving away. You talked about the destination but does the cabinet secretary appreciate how important knowing what that destination is to farmers that are already putting actions in place to tackle climate change and biodiversity? That clear indication of what the destination is is equally important as how we get there. I agree with that as well, which is why we have tried to provide as much information as we possibly can and tried to set out that clarity by publishing the route map and giving an indication of that future direction by the list of measures that we have published as well. I will come on to that. As committee members will know, we are already well on our way to delivering a different support system in the future. We began a national test programme last year, commencing track 1 of that in April. More and more farmers and crofters are now undertaking carbon audits and soil analysis, with nearly 1,000 claimed for the first quarter of 2023. We have consulted on our proposals for a new agriculture bill, which, as the committee motion highlights, I intend to introduce to the next parliamentary year. The agri-environment climate scheme continues to invest in projects that protect the environment and mitigate the impacts of climate change, with 680 rural businesses sharing more than £14 million in the 2022 round. In February, I announced a new payment scheme to improve the health and welfare of sheep and cattle. In March, I announced a new pilot fund to support small producers to become more resilient as part of our commitment to grow local supply chains. It is right that we prepare for change and adapt our approach, but at a time of insecurity and uncertainty, with farmers, food producers and suppliers all facing huge inflationary costs as households are too, it is just as important to make sure that support reaches them timiously and efficiently. I am proud that the SNP Government has achieved this and that we have reached the target of providing 70 per cent of our expenditure by the end of December last year, three months ahead of previous performance. Every year, we are providing £420 million in support through basic payments and greening payments. We are also continuing to provide additional support to those farming in less favourable areas, those who arguably need support the most. Of course, our approach of continuing direct support now and in the future is in stark contrast to what is being developed in England. It is worth saying again and again that this SNP Government in Scotland, no matter what happens in Westminster, will maintain direct payments and maintain that support for our nation's food producers. What will change is that we will expect farmers and crofters to do more to deliver sustainable and regenerative farming and maximise sustainable food production in ways that actively benefit both nature and climate. Oliver Mundell, I thank the cabinet secretary for giving way, notwithstanding the different climate in Scotland that I will put to one side, I wondered if she would be able to set out in practical terms what conditions she is going to put on farmers in order to get her tier 1 payments. What is she looking for? We have set out in our route map that, in 2025, is when we will introduce that conditionality. Of course, the list of measures that we have published alongside that route map gives that sort of indication, but we will be making more announcements on that in due course. The journey that we are on is laid out, as I have just mentioned, in my previous responses to the points that were made by Mr Mundell and Mr Carson, the route map for reform that I published on 10 February. I am very grateful to the cabinet secretary for giving way. I wonder if the cabinet secretary acknowledges that, in addressing the point that Oliver Mundell has just made, there is a need to provide a long-term line of sight about the stability and the pattern of direct payments, because they will be critical to underpinning investment. Does she believe that she has adequate information available to her to provide at this stage any further clarity on that line of sight? Thank you very much. Unfortunately, we do not have that clarity. There is no certainty beyond 2025 as to what budget we will be receiving from the UK Government, and right now we only get that budget on an annual basis. Coming back to our route map, it sets out the timescales, providing clarity and confidence on key dates on those expectations, providing information on proposals and how we will help farmers and crofters to prepare for that change. Critically, the route map delivers on one of my key pledges that there will be no cliff edges in support for our farmers and crofters, and it also provides transparency of the timeframes moving forward. The work of Ariob to take the route map forward continues, and the next meeting will be in just over a week's time. I am delighted that Martin Kennedy, president of NFU Scotland, continues to co-chair that board with me. No, I do need to make some progress. However, no matter what we do in terms of designing, developing and implementing a new support and policy framework, we will do so with no guarantees, as I have already mentioned, and, indeed, no real indication of whether or not the UK Government will provide funding to help us to deliver our reform. We have already seen Scotland's short change following Brexit, and that has impacted on what we fund currently, although we have ensured that every penny and pound ring fence for rural funding is being spent there. However, unlike independent countries that are members of the EU that have funding security through the cap framework, we are reliant on annual allocations from the UK Government with no indication of what will be provided beyond 2025. Of course, I will continue to press Westminster for our fair share with multi-annual funding and complete autonomy over what we spend and how we do that. I will continue to press for the funding for our farmers and crofters and land managers who need to manage change and shift how and what they do. In drawing to a close, I want to reiterate this point that our farmers and crofters are already making that change happen. The farmers and crofters that I meet are willing to adapt and do things differently, and so many people already are. That has been reflected in the committee's evidence. We also have to ensure that the transition that we undergo is a just one that takes everyone who wants to stay in or move into farming and food production with us. That is my goal. We have that ambition, optimism and enthusiasm, and the talent and skills that we need here in Scotland to become that global leader in sustainable and regenerative agriculture. I welcome the support of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee and its members to do just that. I am delighted to be discussing agriculture again just one week after our debate on sustainable food supply. I also think that it is very important that we have the opportunity to speak. I am glad that my convener, Finlay Carson, has raised the significant issues that we have been discussing in the Rural Affairs Committee today. When the First Minister, Humza Yousaf, set out his priorities when he took office, I did express my frustration shared by thousands of farmers and crofters across the country at the lack of acknowledgement in agriculture that was given in his opening speech and the paper that he published. He may live in Dundee and represent Glasgow Pollock, but he said that he wanted to be the First Minister for all of Scotland, and it is the very first hurdle that he fell down on in his speech. He has not represented a fifth of the population that he said he would be representing. I would say that perhaps last week was an indication that the penny has finally dropped, ignoring the SNP communities at the peril and the warm words and the cold comfort when it comes to those charged with sustaining Scotland's food security. However, I want today to use my time to talk about the value of farming communities to Scotland's economy, environment and food security, and I will use some of the evidence that was taken during the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee during the pre-legislative scrutiny of the proposed agriculture bill. Excuse me, Ms Hamilton. Can you resume your seat a second? We have now had a build-up of low-level noise and grumbling from a sedentary position. If somebody wants to make an intervention, they can make an intervention. It will be up to the member whether or not they take it, but I will not tolerate conversations across the chamber or heckling from a sedentary position in the way that we have just seen over the last few minutes. Can we conduct this debate with respect, Ms Hamilton? Today's motion ends with a reference to agricultural roles of putting food on plates. For every debate that we have, for every committee session, for every evidence session, round table and meeting that we participate in in future agricultural policy, we must not lose sight of the fundamental function of farming. I am slightly concerned that we will not get detail on the conditionality before we actually get to the first stage of passing legislation, which is quite worrying with the lack of clarity, which is evident in some of the briefs that have been given to us today from Scotland and the States, from NFUS and from WWF. No one would deny the importance of the role of agriculture can play in Scotland's drive towards net zero, nor can we question the value of food production to our economy. As the president of the NFUS said in evidence to our committee, enabling our farmers to produce food for our plates must come first. The SNP Government, I hope, will recognise that, but placing strict conditions on more than half the support that is available to farmers and crofters would send a message that doing their jobs, producing top quality home-grown food for millions of people across the country and abroad, is no longer good enough. A Galloway farmer pointed out that the conditionality suits the committees of the Clean Fingered Climate Brigade, the forestry lobby, who are paid not to farm. It suits the new breed of greenwashing lads who will simply take advantage of the proposed tier 2 funding, and they would be paid to dispense with the inconvenient risks of farming and the economic activity that goes with it. For us on the Conservative benches, that simply is not good enough. We need to reward farmers for using the right land for the right purpose, and we heard that time and time again during the committee. Does the member not recognise and accept that the Scottish Government has acted as a committee to helping farmers to produce food rather than elms, which fell off a cliff and lost farmers by the droves? It is quite ironic that Jim Fairlie is asking me a question when he is in a coalition with the Green Party, with a Green partner, Ariane Burgess, who actually wants to push farmers from livestock farming to tree planting. She has been described by the SNP's partners as a tax amount to financial blackmail. A commitment to continue delivering 80 per cent of direct support would, in a second, would be a welcome step supported by the industry and its representatives to sustain jobs and livelihoods in the countryside, and the NFUS has been absolutely clear about that. I will give way to John Swinney. I am grateful to the member for giving way. In the Government's vision for agriculture, there is an explanation of the tiered support arrangement that is proposed and that has been consulted upon. Does Rachel Hamilton support that or not? That is where we are looking at John Swinney in terms of the pre-legislative scrutiny. There has been huge criticism of that. In fact, the Scottish land and estates have said that it is complicated and complex, and we do not know the conditionality. No, because I am answering John Swinney. They do not know what the detail of the tiers currently proposed in the four-tier system, so we have Green members wanting to remove support for farmers doing their jobs and being productive, but also doing the things that they do right now, which is meeting environmental objectives. We need to make sure that we are not supporting farmers and that we are not looking at a way of punishing them for what they do really, really well. I am laboring on this, but the tier system could have the unintended consequence of doing that if we do not get it right. We heard evidence from Jim Walker in March that farmers across the world are being supported to increase efficiency and reduce their emissions. Australia is producing carbon neutral beef, and just across the water, Ireland is moving in the same direction. Plans to do this in Scotland have been laid on a platter to this Government in the suckler beef climate scheme, yet those proposals were mothballed whilst farmers were left in the dark over their future. Ignoring the plan and failing to come up with any other solutions suggests to me and many in the farming community that future farm policy is simply not a priority. How long have I got, Presiding Officer? I can give you another half a minute. There is an important point that was raised again in one of the briefs today. It is quite awkward for the Scottish Government, but there is a shortage of capacity in the Scottish Government for rural affairs. There is no junior minister in the Cabinet Secretary's department, there is a lack of resources, and it is clearly hampering productivity within that department. Perhaps it was the case that Kate Forbes had a crystal ball, which told her not to take the path to petition. Farmers have been left out of the loop, they are crying out for clarity over the Government plans for agriculture and they rolled tractors on the lawns of this Parliament in protest. I will stop there, thank you. Thank you Presiding Officer. I am also grateful to the committee for bringing forward this debate on their pre-legislative scrutiny. The agriculture bill, a new support scheme, must enable the industry to achieve net zero targets and to reduce emissions and to produce food, because the road map has been welcomed at Lax detail. The evidence given to the committee has demonstrated that we have already lost out on crucial years to make headway. Farming and crofting cannot change quickly, so each delay means less innovation. From speaking to many food and drink suppliers at the event, I was lucky enough to sponsor here in Holyrood, it struck me that the industry are already ahead of the Government working towards 2030 net zero targets. They have used their own initiative and their own technology. What they need and what they are asking for is more detail of the bill and the new support scheme. They also need more comprehensive tools to assist them to go further. Many are frustrated by the lack of Government support towards achieving the net zero ambition. The Government must reward good practice and incentivise others to follow. A realistic audit of farming needs to be carried out to ensure that farming is credited with its carbon sequestration as well as its emissions. If not, we will get green lords buying up even more of our land, planting trees in the wrong places, while doing nothing at all to address their current emissions. Not a penny of public money should go to those who would sell carbon credits to enable polluting behaviour elsewhere. We must also recognise that our methods of farming grass-fed animals are much more environmentally friendly than those who mass produce in other countries. Therefore, it is senseless to discourage our farmers from rearing livestock to simply import more environmentally damaging meat from elsewhere. Transporting food over even greater distances simply adds to the carbon already created. Global warming does not recognise borders, so we should not be cutting out emissions by simply raising them elsewhere. We also need to ensure that those who produce our food receive a fair wage for doing so. Our agriculture and food sector workers are often poorly paid. Those who produce our food are often those who rely on handouts and food banks. That is simply wrong, yet little has been done to protect and strengthen the rights of workers in the agriculture sector. Everyone wants affordable food, but those who produce it need to be paid fairly. Subsidies help, but they should not be used to line the pockets of middlemen who squeeze producers' profits. The Russian invasion of Ukraine has demonstrated our reliance on imports and how global issues impact on us. That all highlights the need for food and energy security. For agriculture, we also need security with animal feed and fertilizer. All those things are crucial to our survival. We also need to balance farming support and sector need. Scotland, in the past, has had a greater share of EU funding for farming, and we need to ensure that that is replicated going forward. We, in turn, distribute funding in a fashion that recognises that upland and island areas require more support. It is simply wrong that those with larger, more profitable farms receive the greatest support. Farming should also work hand-in-hand with nature. We all want to see a more ambitious approach towards nature restoration. However, concerns have been raised about how that was targeted and how, in the past, it disproportionately favoured large enterprises. A concern that smaller-scale farmers and crofters will lose out again because they cannot identify as many features on their land, even though their production methods are already much more nature-friendly. The Government needs to put forward approaches that benefit nature restorations in all sectors and in all farm sizes. The rural economy is dependent on farming and crofting, and small holdings are often disregarded, but they are the backbone of many communities. It baffles me that, time and time again, this Government does not seem to recognise that our rural areas are of high value to our economy. Without key infrastructure investment, ensuring that Government policies are effective and, most of all, that they work, they put the whole of Scotland at risk. Sometimes I am utterly frustrated that the Government cannot see this in a joined-up way, helping rural areas on one hand while damaging them on the other. We cannot address those things in isolation. We need Government policy that produces a rural strategy in which the agriculture bill and support systems play their part, a strategy that works for all of Scotland. That will be hard for some to take, but Mike Rumbles was right. It is controversial, but he was. The Scottish Government's climate change plan requires the equivalent of a 31 per cent reduction in agricultural emissions by 2032, compared with 2018 levels. It is no main feat, because, in the previous 29 years, emissions in the sector have only decreased by 13 per cent. We need to cut emissions over four times as fast as we have done so far. The clock is ticking, yet farmers, I am afraid, have been hangstrung by the lack of necessary details about the future agricultural support that will help them to deliver those reductions. I am getting to the punch line. No. My former colleague Mike Rumbles warned repeatedly about that. He warned that the uncertainty post-Brexit would be damaging. He badgered the Government, at the time, repeatedly, to get on with the job. Eventually, ministers agreed that they set up a working group, but even then the system was bedivilled by a lack of prompt decision-making, and that is why the cabinet secretary is feeling the pressure today. I am very grateful to Mr Rennie for giving way. One of the points—I agreed with quite a bit of the analysis that he talked about from Mike Rumbles about the impact of Brexit, because, pre-leaving the European Union, Scotland would have had access to seven years of certainty in agricultural programmes. I know that Mr Rennie and I occupy different constitutional positions, but he must accept factually that post-Brexit there is not from the United Kingdom Government as much certainty about future funding flows as there was in our membership of the European Union. Mr Rennie, and I cannot give you any of that time back, I am afraid. You cannot. No, that is a fair point, and we do need to get more certainty from the UK Government. Not just about the length of time, but what happens if the funding in England changes how that impacts on Scotland. We need some certainty from the UK Government. However, there is impatience, because I think that the Government here could provide more detail about the budget that we do know about, and that would help them to plan more for their future. So accept the longer-term point, but there is more detail required about the immediate future. There is impatience because it takes time to learn new skills and develop new practice as well. New equipment is expensive, as we all know, and it is compounded by high fuel costs, low farm gate prices, tight profit margins, volatile weather, wiping out valuable crops overnight, and lamb slaughtered by out-of-control dogs. Farmers that I speak to are up for change. They want to play their part in tackling climate change, enhancing biodiversity, as well as supplying good-quality produce. We could not do without them. We need farmers to play their part as they have the skills that we simply do not. Young people must see a future in making a living off the land, and it would be devastating if we were to see an exodus of those we entrust to nurture our future landscape. We need to make sure that we do not take them for granted. It is good that the Government, to be fair, has committed to continued direct payments, that there will be no cliff edge, that there will be an increased conditionality of direct payments from 2025, and that there is a national testing programme. However, there is damage being done because there is uncertainty on what precisely comes next. As the current environmental schemes come to an end, there is concern of those that I speak to that there could be in action due to the lack of new schemes and uncertainty on the new schemes. That is despite the fact that, under tier 2, there will be payments for good climate and biodiversity measures on the farm. However, that message has to be amplified. The minister needs to make clear that good climate and biodiversity work done today will receive a financial return in the new scheme. However, it is uncertainty about the proportions to be spent on each tier that is most damaging. Uncertainty can lead to indecision, which can lead to inaction. The national farmers union won 80 per cent of the £680 million agriculture reports to be allocated to tiers 1 and 2, the direct payments. It is not the status quo, as there will be increased environmental conditionality. Whereas the RSPB and other environmental groups want a higher proportion of that financial support to be directed to tiers 3 and 4, with their emphasis on competitive, targeted support. They have not explicitly set out a percentage, but the bar chart at the end of their briefing for this debate seems to indicate that that figure should be 30 per cent, as opposed to the 80 per cent of the NFUS, which is quite some gap. If I were the minister, I would want the models, I would want to understand what those different percentages would mean for the financial viability of farms, as well as our ability to meet our climate change obligations and the biodiversity. We need to see the detail because we need the farms to survive, but we also need to meet the climate change obligations that are set out at the beginning of my contribution. I hope that the minister will come forward with that kind of detail, so that we can fully understand the financial impact of those things. We might be able to give farmers more confidence and more certainty about the future, so that, despite what Mr Swinney says about the UK uncertainty over financing, they can get as much certainty as possible from this Government to plan for the future. We now move to the open debate. There is no time in hand, so any interventions will need to be accommodated in your time allocation. That is not an invitation to shout your interventions from a certain reposition if you are not allowed in. I call first Jim Fairlie to be followed by Oliver Mundell up to six minutes, Mr Swinney. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer, and I won't be taking interventions. This time last week, we were gathered in this chamber discussing the need for a sustainable food supply here in Scotland. I used my speaking time to call for a collaborative approach to the future of agriculture in Scotland, and I intend to try that approach again. I am very much welcome Mollie Rennie's approach to the debate so far. Every member in this debate recognises that Scotland is a world-class, world-renowned food-producing nation. Our global reputation is justifiably enviable, and the focus of the Scottish Government on enhancing that reputation and growing our food and drink sector is welcome and on-going. My constituency of Persia, South and Cunroshire has an excellent range of producers, and rightly it is those businesses that I am speaking about today. There can be no doubt that those folk producing world-class food need to be at the forefront of our minds as we consider our new policy, because without farmers there is no just transition. Members may have seen the creation of mulch on Twitter overnight, normally something to be celebrated, but not if that mulch is the product of coming from a long-established blueberry bushes that have been ripped up and shredded because the farmer can no longer afford to harvest or grow them. In my neighbouring constituency, I believe that Scotland's first blueberry farmer has given away his crop last year through non-viability and cheap imports and has also ceased to grow this wonderful, nutritious, healthy, benefit-and-food fruit. It is important that those fruits from Peru seem counterintuitive from an environmental perspective. That is a sad indictment of the power supermarkets with a toothless adjudicator have and a lack of labour that is befalling one sector, but is all too sadly affecting many others as well. We have got to protect our food producers. There has been a step in the right direction over the past few weeks where the message is getting through to Rishi Sunat's Government, and I very much welcome that he has written to farmers to assure them that the UK will take their view into account in any future trade deals. At the Food to Fork summit, he has made a welcome pledge towards a collaborative approach with the agricultural sectors going forward. However, I would again remind him that our cabinet secretary is responsible for agriculture should have been on the guest list to discuss these matters. It would have also made sense if the UK Government had made this commitment on trade prior to opening the doors to unfettered market access for exporting red meat power houses of Australia and New Zealand, which remains an undoubted set to the future of many of our farmers and related businesses. One more issue that I am sure we must also agree on is that our future policy needs all the funding worthy of its celebrated reputation. Despite new minister's representations from the Government and stakeholders like NFUS to the UK Government, there is still no multi-year funding agreed to allow farmers to future proof their business. 97 per cent of all agri funding comes from the UK Government and is a legacy of EU payments, and the proportionality of those payments must stay at current levels, not be barnatised and must have at least a five-year commitment. Without that guarantee, any policy that we produce in this Parliament, no matter how good or bad, will be of no value to the farming and food producing industry that we must do all we can to protect and grow, because without that support we will lose far more food producers like our blueberry growers in Persia and Aberdeenshire. A new Scottish agribol is undoubtedly being asked through a lot of heavy lifting, not only in food production but in environmental and biodiversity challenges as well. The farmers do not in any way shrink from that challenge. In fact, they will grab those challenges with both hands if we support them and do so. I believe that Mary Goodgen has got the message spot on by identifying that there is no conflict between food production and climate biodiversity obligations. In reality, they are intertwined. 85 per cent of Scotland's agricultural land is considered a less favoured area. It is best uses for grazing of cows and rearing of lambs, which is not only essential to our food security but protecting soils and habitats, giving habitat for species while being keenly focused on reducing harmful emissions and harmful greenhouse gases. Farmers agree and will actively pursue regenerative farming practices because, in reality, they always have done. Particularly in the upland and semi-upland areas, all farmers want to farm responsibly and they will do so provided that does not ultimately drive them out of business. The future of rural communities is therefore absolutely dependent on that F-word funding. I very much hope that there is a spirit of collaboration in the air. My call is to the Tory Benches and Labour Benches to work with the Government. It is clear that the Lib Dems are going to. It is not good enough to politicise or bypass the collegiate and productive processes that will make this policy work. We need to get this right. What would be extremely helpful is if the Tory Benches get the message about funding across the UK ministers that that multi-year funding has to be guaranteed. Refusing to send invitations to the Scottish ministers for Dignan Street's Farm to Fork summit was a mistake, but I know that the cabinet secretary has written a letter highlighting that there must be co-operation. The letter states that Scotland only has a fraction of the powers, levers and funding that we need and that the UK Government is holding many of those levers to help to sort many of the issues such as immigration funding and others impacting the agricultural sector. We need meaningful engagement with the UK ministers about that. I quote from the letter. It is extremely important and incumbent on us to work together constructively to support the food and drink sector able. I am quite sure that everyone would agree with that. I think that the perfect starting point would be that the relevant ministers come to our rural affairs committee at the earliest possible opportunity to show that they are willing to play their part in this process. This is not a competition between Governments or constitutional ideas, but it is here and now and a matter of urgency to ensure a successful agricultural policy here in Scotland. Presiding Officer, another week, another debate on agricultural policy. No disrespect to the committee, who I know are trying hard to be proactive in place of a lethargic and unenthusiastic Government, but in my view we have been debating rather than doing for far too long. If this Government put half as much time and energy into striking a partnership agreement with our farmers as they do on maintaining the Bute House agreement, our rural communities would already know where they stand. Our farmers need and deserve clarity as well as the whole heartied support of the Scottish National Party Government. It is time to get off the fence and get behind food production and to back the people with the expertise and understanding when it comes to protecting our landscapes and our environment. I will give way to the cabinet secretary. In that case, I would ask if the member would welcome the commitment from this Scottish Government to maintain the direct support for our food producers to ensure that that continues in Scotland, unlike his colleagues down south, who have removed that vital support for their farming industry. I welcome that, but not when it comes with unknown conditions, as I will come to in my speech. Not when it comes from a Government who is happy to raid the agricultural budget here in Scotland when it suits them. Not when it comes from a Government who is willing to be partners with a party who wants to carpet our country in trees and push our farmers off their land. It is time for this Government to get off the fence and to get behind food production. Today is the perfect opportunity. Back to the NFU's call, tell us that 80 per cent of the funding in future will go to tier 1 and tier 2. Tell us today what you are going to expect from farmers to get their payments. We get interventions on all the smart points, on attack points in the UK Government, on attack points on Brexit, but when it comes to the things that are in the Scottish Government's control, we get silence, sloping shoulders and abdication of responsibility is just not right. Rather than having our agricultural philosophy dictated by fringe groups who have never set foot outside the central belt, this Government should take on board the wise council of farmers. Unlike the Scottish Greens, our farmers understand that we cannot have sustainability while exporting our emissions and importing poorer-quality produce from the other side of the world. I was told when I previously mentioned at Avocados that that was stereotypical, but, like southern hemisphere wine, there is no doubt that they travel some distance in order to sustain hard-working Scottish Government ministers. We need to get behind home-grown produce, home-reared produce. We need to make it a priority to ensure that there remains room for farming in all parts of our country, particularly in our uplands, which, as I have spoken on previously, are under a real threat from both forestry and industrial-scale wind farms, which often see peat and important watercourses disturbed. Instead of asking our upland farmers to make way for intensive commercial forestry, we should be championing their role in managing the landscapes and the natural environment, as well as the important part that they play in sustaining our rural communities. Indeed, if we were serious about tackling climate change, we would be making it easier for such farmers to access grants to plant low-density native trees and hedgerows on their farms. Some might say that they are the right tree in the right place. Rather than chasing after cash cows and quick fixes, this Government should be pushing back against the demonisation of our farmers. They should be calling out the many myths that are bandied about and asking themselves why, in a country like ours, we want to turn our back on this important sector. Red meat is not evil. It is produced to exceptionally high standards, and it is something those who claim to be stronger for Scotland should be proud of. Dairy is not evil. It provides many families with nutritious and affordable food. Farmers far from being the climate change problem are part of the solution. While they might be an easy scapegoat, in my experience farmers are full of ideas when it comes to tackling climate change and biodiversity, they just need to be freed up and supported to do it. That matters in the context of this debate, because without the continuation of direct support we simply would not have agricultural activity on a meaningful scale in many parts of our country. We must remember that as new schemes take shape because we cannot afford to make it too difficult for farmers to meet eligibility. There are real concerns among farmers in my constituency that conditionality will be placed on future tier 1 payments. What will they be asked to do in return for payment? Will it be worth claiming at all? There is a growing suspicion that the cabinet secretary in this Government may be looking to put onerous and unworkable burdens on our farmers in order to sell the concept of continued direct payments to NGOs and the professional climate lobby and, of course, some of our own Government colleagues. As a parliamentarian, I am anxious about being asked to pass a framework bill that does not spell out exactly what our farmers are going to be asked to do to get their hands on their own money. Will the cabinet secretary ask her in her speech, but maybe she can tell us in the summing up some practical examples of what she envisages? I also, as I close, want to put directly to the cabinet secretary the NFU's call that a minimum of 80 per cent of future funding should go into tier 1 and tier 2 payments. Is this the Scottish Government plan? Yes or no? It seems like a straightforward ask and it is a chance for the SNP to prove critics wrong, demonstrating that farmers matter more than Lorna Slater or Patrick Harvie. I know that I would rather have food on my table every day than the presence of the Scottish Greens floating round the cabinet table. The phrase pre-legislative scrutiny inevitably always becomes a slight contradiction in terms, because, as expected and in line with the Scottish Government's plans, there is not yet legislation in detail for the committee to scrutinise, as others have pointed out. However, it would be difficult to legislate in detail at this distance, as many others have pointed out, not just from my own party, without some clearer indication from the UK Government about the financial envelope in which the Scottish Government would be expected to work. Given the enormity of the legislation coming, it is right that we look at the issues facing rural Scotland as a committee. Agriculture policy in the future will need to balance, as others have said, the requirements of ensuring that agriculture is a profitable activity, that it is done in a way that meets our aims on biodiversity and carbon reduction, strengthens rural communities and ensures food security and public health. There is, of course, an environmental context to the legislation and a consensus amongst most people, including the farmers that I know, about the need to tackle biodiversity loss and the threat to habitat that has often been associated in the past with the more intensive forms of farming. I thank the member for giving way, and I am sorry for not taking his intervention. Given that he says that there is a widespread consensus on why he feels that it is necessary for the Government to dictate to farmers what it will have to do in order to access payments. I do not think that the Conservatives can, on the one hand, say that the legislation is slow, and then say that there is too much legislation. That is a difficult point for him to make, but it is well done for trying nonetheless. Around a quarter of Scotland's total greenhouse gas emissions comes from our agriculture sector. However, it is also one of the sectors that are most affected by climate change at the same time. Flooding, drought, extreme weather, increased pest and disease risks are all conditions that crofters and farmers face and have to adapt to in the coming years and decades. I would like, as usual, to focus briefly on some of the issues of that kind and others that face my own island community but, indeed, that face agriculture in less favoured areas more generally. In those areas, agriculture is very far from intensive. The most immediate threat, and others have alluded to that, is that agricultural activity falls below an activity level that makes whole agricultural communities and local economies difficult to sustain. There may well be a re-examination going on globally of levels of meat consumption. However, when we look at the 85 per cent of Scotland's land mass that is classified as less favoured area, we also need to recognise that much of that land has very limited capacity to be used for anything other in economic terms than grazing livestock. Indeed, livestock can help to create biodiversity, and particularly on the west coast can be used as part of conservation efforts. That is not to say that we should not encourage diversification, but we need to accept facts, not least the facts, that grazed landscapes are necessary habitats for some of our rarest bird species, at least in the context of non-intensive forms of agriculture. Crofting and upland farming hold out models for such non-intensive activity, and yet, as any hill farmer or crofter will point out, they are not currently where the balance of agricultural payments currently lie. If anything, the crofting landscape faces under utilisation rather than over exploitation at the moment, and that is partly because of a regime of support that sees half of crofters gain as little as £1,400 a year in agricultural subsidies under the present system. I hope that that is a question that the Government will, indeed. I really appreciate Alasdair Allan's commitment to livestock farming, particularly for crofters, but the conditionality aspect may prove detrimental to crofters because, if livestock farming cannot give evidence that they are increasing biodiversity and the rest of it, they are going to be out of pocket with this conditionality. I thank them for that question. I think that the point that I am making is that many forms of livestock agriculture can demonstrate that they are working with the environment but do not presently get rewarded for that. Some of the questions in the crofting counties, at least, are difficult to separate from the need for crofting law reform. One example of what I mean is the existing right of veto for a single shareholder in a common grazing. That can sometimes make it difficult for a community to invest in environmental schemes or indeed any other collective form of activity. I am looking at running out of time, am I? I will say that a crofting law reform bill controversial is that it will inevitably be helpful and is needed in resolving some of those questions. I also hope that it will be part of the solution to dealing with the increase in speculation on croft tenancies. Last month, an offer was made on a croft tenancy, not a purchase of the croft, just the right to become the tenant. A croft tenancy in Harris, which was marketed for more than £200,000 beyond the financial reach of virtually anybody who is a crofter on Harris. We are in the perverse situation where crofts are underutilised but over commodified at present, and I look forward to measures to deal with that. On the wider picture and the funding landscape that we began by looking at today, we need clarity from the UK Government about the financial envelope in which Scotland can act, and I look forward to seeing that. With that, I will conclude my remarks. Dr Allan, I now call Richard Leonard to be followed by Karen Adam up to six minutes. Can I remind members of my register of interest and say at the start that I am not going to be taking any interventions because of the time constraints? When Labour was elected to power in 1945, a section of its manifesto was entitled Agriculture and the People's Food. In a rallying cry to the electorate to win the peace and to face the future, it declared, our good farmlands are part of the wealth of the nation, and that wealth should not be wasted, and so it went on to promise our food supplies will have to be planned. Never again should they be left at the mercy of the city financier or speculator. Well, I have to report to the people who elected us that three quarters of a century later it looks like we are going to have to fight that same battle all over again, because what we are witnessing at the behest of this SNP green government in the name of carbon credit schemes is farmland being sold off once again to city finance houses, spivs and speculators. A new form of extractive capitalism has dawned. It takes the shape of corporations like oxygen conservation, highland rewinding, broodog, Aviva, standard life, all joining what this government freely admits is a class of landowners and landlords set up through trusts, through limited companies and a growing number through offshore interests. That there is no regulation of these carbon offset schemes means that there is nothing to stop better yielding farmland being taken out of production. It's simply left to the invisible hand of the market and a rigged market at that. Carbon offset tree planting is being used to tranquilise the conscience of the wealthy. It is being used to pardon the world's richest corporations for carrying on with their greenhouse gas emitting activities when they should be reducing or ending those activities altogether. It is a racket. Of course, because this is Scotland, they are buying up estates alongside some of the stolen lands of our antiquarian Scots noble families. There is a great deal of secrecy when it comes to the farm payment system about who benefits and who pays. But just a few years ago, through an FOI, it was revealed that among the chief appropriators of public money for farming and forestry in Scotland were some rather familiar names. The Duke of Becloom, the Viscount Cowdery, Lord Morton, the Earls of Murray, of Rosebury, of Seafield, who all do extremely well out of the Scottish farm payment system as well as out of the Scottish class system. So much so that the RSPB has recently calculated that the top 1 per cent of farm owners in Scotland accumulate 10 per cent of all farming support. The top 20 per cent hoover up almost two thirds 62 per cent of Scottish Government farming support, but simply too much public money is going into the private pockets of Scotland's already wealthy corporations and estate owners and not nearly enough is going to give a helping hand to our tenant farmers, small holders, to our crofters and to our farm workers. So when the cabinet secretary in her ministerial forward to the Scottish government's vision for agriculture writes that Scotland's farmers, crofters and land managers are vital to our ambition to make our nation fairer and greener, of course they are. But what about the 67,000 farm workers aren't they part of the vision? Aren't their futures critical if Scotland is to be not only greener but fairer too? Of course the retention of the Scottish agricultural wages board is welcomed by the Farm Workers Union Unite, but it is to this government shame that the level of earnings is not even set at the real living wage, that as a result there lingers such extensive in-work poverty in our countryside. Land, capital and labour are all critical factors of production generating rent, surplus profits and wages. But I say to the government today you need to stop rewarding the first two factors at the expense of the third. I say that the rich are only so rich because the poor are so poor. So let me finish with some suggestions. We need to consider the front loading of farm payments, the removal of minimum acreage requirements for funding on the one hand and the introduction of caps on payments, maximum subsidies on the other. We must have the courage to understand that because millions and millions of pounds of public money is being spent we do have the leverage needed. Of course we do to bring about a just transition that we can bring about the radical reform of land ownership that it is within the powers of this Parliament to reform, to redirect and to redistribute agricultural support and to make it conditional that farm labourers, including migrant workers, get a real living wage, work shorter hours and are rewarded with secure and useful work and let's reclaim the earth as a common treasury. The poet Wendell Berry once wrote, The soil is the great connector of lives, the source and destination of all. Without proper care for it we can have no community, because without proper care for it we can have no life. The topic that we are discussing today is about so many things, our land, our communities, our food, our culture, our heritage, our security, our climate, in short our past, present and future. In the lead up to this important debate today I spoke to a number of farmers from across Scotland and asked them about their concerns, their hopes and the challenges that they are facing. I also asked them for their thoughts on future agricultural policy and throughout my contribution today I'm going to share their words with the chamber. The picture of these farmers painted was a diverse one. They very kindly shared with me what they needed to thrive and grow. They also told me what they thought the Scottish Government should do to provide the fertile soil in which their prospects and hopes could be realised. What was clear in every conversation that I had was that, with Brexit, the pandemic and now rising inflation and energy costs, this period has seen some of the most challenging times the sector has ever faced. Of the catalogue of failures delivered to a rural economy, Brexit was by far the one that came up most in my conversation with farmers. Cameron Ewing, a farmer in my constituency told me, can we wind the clock back? It is the biggest mistake the country has ever made. Without independence we cannot reverse Brexit, but I note that the Scottish Government is working with our agricultural sector to help them through the damage that Brexit is doing. Our farmers and crofters are resilient if supported and we are determined to support them. Over the coming years, as we transition from the European Union's cap payment system to support framework, we will have something that realises the vision for Scotland to be a global leader in sustainable agriculture. Farmer John Brims told me that he would like to see more attention paid to the future financial stability of our agri food sector in line with what the European Union set out to do, and he is right. Scotland's farmers are the backbone of our nation, producing the food and drink that ends up on our plates. The resilience of our food chain relies on the stability of our agri cultural sector. Perhaps, if we around the chamber could use any influence that we have to pressure the UK Government to provide that future funding certainty, amongst all the chaos that Tory UK Government has brought upon the agricultural sector, it can surely, at the bare minimum, provide that for some penance. Food production, nature and climate concerns and animal welfare are not conflicting priorities, and all can be done to reach a collective aim. Farmers know this more than most. As custodians of our natural heritage for centuries, they know the land intimately. That much is crystal clear in the conversations that I had this week, and that is why I want to see a future agricultural policy that empowers farmers, which boosts the Scottish brand and which helps ensure food security. The new animal health and welfare payment is one example of what the Scottish Government is doing to support and fulfil our collective vision for agriculture, and throughout that, we will reward farmers who take an active role in improving the health and welfare of the animals that they keep. Farmer Cameron Ewing told me that most farmers are doing what is required anyway. I do regular soil analysis. I have a health scheme for livestock. I have no problem at all meeting the requirements, as long as it is simple and easy to do and as long as it is not a consultant's charter. I and other farmers will have no problem at all in meeting the requirements. That appeal for simplicity was common to every conversation that I had this week, and it is vital that we provide farmers with that simplicity, not just to avoid unnecessarily birding them with further costs and bureaucracy, but to foster good mental health and create an environment that entices the next generation of farmers to take up the mantle. As a member of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, we have been taking a great deal of evidence from a wide range of stakeholders on issues facing agriculture, and there is a general consensus that mental health is a major issue. There are many depressed farmers and anxiety and loneliness is widespread. The farmers that I spoke to cited financial uncertainty as the major cause of poor mental health, and that has very sadly, in some cases, led to them taking their own lives. Our future agricultural policy in Scotland should take heed of that, and I ask the Scottish Government to please give that due consideration. We also must do more to encourage young farmers to enter the sector, according to NFUS. The average age of farm staff is approaching 60, and worldwide, this average age is rising at an alarming rate. How do we solve that? Farmer John Brim told me that, for younger farmers to come in, they have to see it as an industry with a future. Whatever is inactive must not close the door in our food production. We have a moral duty to maintain our productive base and not whittle it away or put it at risk. That base could be needed by other countries in future who will be affected by climate change. I want to conclude by saying that the desire to provide and to be a good neighbour perfectly sums up our farmers, and I look forward to further scrutiny of the agricultural bill when it is presented to committee. I hope that we can all work together to ensure that it will be enabling and not burdensome so that we can ultimately support our providers to feed our nation in a sustainable and environmentally-sensitive way. I thank the many expert witnesses who contributed to our rural affairs committee's comprehensive process of evidence gathering on agricultural policy. Everyone in this debate will recognise that we are having this debate at a time when we are deep in a climate and nature emergency, and that is the context in which we must consider everything that we do in this chamber. We now have a very rare opportunity to set a new course by designing a payment framework that will align agricultural activity with our national response to climate and nature crisis. We must get the incentives right to make what is right for the planet right for farm businesses and livelihoods, too. I have a number of examples, as well, such as Karen Adams. I spoke to farmers. An organic sheep farmer in rural Persia told me that they are dedicating a third of their land to nature recovery. Their aim is to allow small numbers of cattle, pigs and ponies to range freely over the area, creating a mosaic of dynamic habitats through the animal's natural behaviour. However, in order to claim the basic payment, they are obliged to keep internal fences that put up barriers to wildlife. That payment criteria runs directly counter to their aim to increase biodiversity, an aim that should be encouraged, not blocked by those types of funding incentives. A crofter in Sutherland who could not get basic payment support to create the highland's first plant protein crop because of the requirement to keep livestock in their payment region, runs counter to what we need to do to tackle the climate emergency. The UK Climate Change Committee, who came and spoke to us, made it clear that, while there is plenty of room to continue small-scale crofting with small numbers of sheep, livestock numbers must decrease overall in upland grazing areas if Scotland is to have any hope of meeting its climate change targets. So, farmers and crofters who want to reduce stock must be supported to do so. I will take an intervention from Jim Fairlie. I would like to thank Arran Burgess for taking that intervention. Would Arran Burgess have the same concerns that I did that the climate change committee used the word probably in their assessment of whether grass was sequestering enough carbon? I think that you are introducing something that was quite complex. It is something that we, as a committee, need to revisit. I will leave it at that, but I think that we need to revisit that. Professor Tim Benton from Chatham House told our committee that the market does not require reward farmers for being sustainable, so the payment framework must take that role on. The organic sheep farmer in Persia put it well. They said, at this time of biodiversity and climate crisis, it is vital that owners of less-favoured areas land should be offered a funded option to prioritise nature restoration in their land management. With that in mind, we should explore a new upland transition scheme open to all who currently receive headage payments. The scheme should provide those farmers and crofters with the same amount of income but come with new requirements. Requirements that ultimately bring about emissions cuts and allow areas of land to fully regenerate, whether through peatland restoration or allowing tall vegetation and trees to thrive and provide habitat for wildlife. To repeat, it is crucial that we get the incentives right to increase the resilience of food production in Scotland in the face of the climate and nature emergencies. The evidence session on resilience and climate change raised some critical points. Can I just check on how much time I have? I have two minutes remaining. First, that land management must take a landscape scale approach. Many of the key changes won't be made at an individual farm level. They'll be made at a catchment or landscape scale. So how will that be coordinated? As eminent soil scientist Professor Pete Smith stated, in the committee, the regional land use partnerships will play a vital role and we have to adequately finance those to allow farmers to collectivise and get together to make plans at a regional and catchment scale so that we can get a good co-ordinated change that allows a just transition for farmers and delivers public goods. I'll add that that's not just farmers, it's all landowners in the area as well as communities. It's clear that agricultural policy should be informed by the regional land use frameworks which will soon be published. We need policies and funding to support different actions in different areas, given Scotland's very diverse regions. For example, Pete Smith suggested that on the east coast policies should support a reduction in land use to produce animal feed so that we can make the most of those areas of land that are some of the most productive for producing fruit and veg anywhere in the world. Finally, the proposed tear structure must target funding better by strengthening conditionality and putting more of the budget into the higher tiers to reward farmers for providing public goods like carbon sequestration, good water quality, good air quality and biodiverse habitats. The stakes are high and we can't delay the policy and payments that we design now must be fit for the future as we help to make Scotland a global leader in sustainable and regenerative agriculture. I call John Swinney to be followed by Edward Mountain. In preparing for this debate, I looked with care at the official report of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee on its evidence taking on this exercise in pre-legislative scrutiny. I think that if you look at those papers, it takes a long time to read them because their extensive amount—I want to complement the Rural Affairs Committee on the exercise that it has gone through in gathering that information. I think that it demonstrates one fundamental point that my friend and colleague Karen Adam made, which is that there are a range of diverse views on how to proceed on this question. I think that the Rural Affairs Committee has done Parliament a service by essentially mapping out that range of different and distinctive views for us to try to resolve and address a way forward. I think that it illustrates the scale of the challenge that faces the cabinet secretary because what it demonstrates is that the careful work that has been undertaken by the Scottish Government for some time has been necessary to try to build a greater degree of consensus than ordinarily would be apparent in any of those deliberations because there are some very strikingly different views about how to proceed and Parliament and the Government will have to consider that. I think that the Rural Affairs Committee has contributed meaningfully to this process, and I think that the Government has responded to that by taking the necessary time and care to try to make sure that we have consensus. What I think that has left us is that I think that there is broad consensus that we want to take an approach that ensures that we have confidence in our food supply and that we have a sustainable agricultural sector, that there are adequate measures taken to tackle climate change and that the farming industry is involved and engaged, as much of it already is, in addressing biodiversity loss within our rural environment. Those are three absolutely fundamental priorities. I think that the exercise that the Government has gone through has got us to a strong position, and I appreciate people who would like us to be further on, but I will come on to say why I think that some of that is a bit challenging in a moment. However, it has got us to the substance of a really strong agricultural bill that Parliament can consider. That has been added to by two fundamental commitments that the cabinet secretary has given to Parliament in the course of her contribution today. First of all, that there will be a just transition. There has to be a transition. Everybody accepts that there has to be a transition. Some would like the transition to be more acute than others, but everyone accepts that there has to be a transition. The cabinet secretary has given a commitment that there will be a just transition. I think that that is a really welcome assurance to people who will be concerned. I will give way to Mr Whittle for a brief intervention. I am very grateful, Mr Swinney. Would he agree with me that, while we have been discussing it, our food producers and farmers have just been getting on with it, and we shall listen to them more? John Swinney? What has the committee been doing? What has the Government been doing? It has been listening to those people for ages. Why do we celebrate the fact that folk are getting on with it, rather than using that as an exercise in trying to attack the Government, which is at its most pedestrian as a parliamentary tactic? The second no—I am not giving way to Rachael Hamilton—on the second key commitment that the cabinet secretary has given is that there will be no cliff edges. That is a crucial assurance to people that this will be managed. This is a Government listening with care to rural Scotland and wanting to understand how the dichotomies and difficulties can be resolved. The Government should not be attacked for that, nor should the Rural Affairs Committee be attacked for doing that, which is precisely what it has been doing. I will give way to Mr Carson. I very much appreciate the member giving way, and I appreciate his words regarding the work that the committee has done up to now. Would you not agree with me that there are some concerns that, potentially, in a few months' time, we will have to agree to a bill without knowing what the conditionality on the bulk of the payments is? That is really concerning to a lot of our farmers. John Swinney? I understand that there is uncertainty out there, of course there is. However, there is also lots of other uncertainty. Let me—I have been rehearsing this point with my friend Mr Rennie in the course of this debate—pre-Brexit, we had seven years of certainty about agricultural support and investment. So far, we have annual commitments up until 2025. Mr Carson cannot tell me what stands the UK Government will take about the application of the UK Internal Market Act—Mr Carson, I am addressing your points, please forgive me. Mr Carson cannot tell me what the UK Government will do with the UK Internal Market Act in the design of our agricultural support regime, nor can Mr Carson tell me what they will do with the subsidy control act, either. Those are uncertainties that the cabinet secretary will have to wrestle with. I would point out that both of those pieces of legislation were resisted by this Parliament because we recognised them to be an incursion on our powers to decide an agricultural system that would suit Scotland. Mr Rennie should perhaps be occasionally drafted in to write the occasional sentence or two, because he came up with a really good sentence today, which I think summed it all up for me. Farms need to survive, but we need to take the climate action and biodiversity action that is necessary. That is the $64 million question that we are wrestling with, and I think that the evidence of the rural affairs committee, the careful listening of the Scottish Government and its cabinet secretary, is serving us well in taking the difficult steps to reconcile, in some cases, the irreconcilable to give us sustainable agriculture, which is what I want from my constituents in Perthshire North. I call Edward Mountain, the final speaker in the open debate. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I would like to make it clear at the beginning and refer members to my register of interest in that I am part of a family farming partnership, and there should be no doubt that I gain subsidies as a relation to that. In the 40 years that I have been farming, I have learned that farmers are incredibly resilient and will respond to directions by the Government and have done so. Today's debate was a chance for the Government to finally set out more of its detailed plans for Scottish farming. Have they done so? Why won't they? Do they understand the problem, or don't they? Will they get off the fence, or won't they? Presiding Officer, today has shed no light on that. I think that they are stuck on the fence, and I don't think that they understand how to get off it. For example, today, we still don't know how much funding will be made available and if the Scottish Government will ring fence here, whether all farms can apply for all of the schemes within the new agricultural schemes and what conditions those schemes will set. Our farmers, I think, will be rightly disappointed and frustrated by this continued lack of clarity from this Government. Now, the Government to me is appearing to be a bit like the cow that I chased on many occasions up the race to the crush. In no sense, it's going to have to get there, but it will fight me every step of the way. It will kick and it will bellead and it will move backwards and it will move forward and it will make one hell of a mess, but it gets to the crush in the end. Farmers have been waiting for this policy to be declared since 2016. Let's not forget that it was this Government with the aid of the Liberal Democrats, Mr Rennie, who allowed the policy to stretch out till 2024. The mini-agricultural bill in 2020 that Mike Rumbles supported would have allowed, if we'd had our way, the policy to have been brought forward in 2022. But that was stopped by them and stopped by Fergus Ewing, who wanted at that stage to have more stability and simplicity. But really, I believe that most farmers believe that to be more dithering and delay. That bill kicked down the line that was kicked down the road, the can, of farming subsidies. And it's been kicked further down ever since. Mr Swinney, I will take a brief intervention. I'm grateful to Mr Mountain for giving way. Does he not understand that the plea for stability itself, which the Government responded to positively, was made by the industry? Edward Mountain. You're right. Mr Swinney is right. Stability was wanted by the industry. What they didn't want is forever going forward. You can wave your hand as much you like, Mr Swinney. I can see you doing it. But what they wanted is they wanted a clear direction for the industry, which we don't have. Farmers don't work like this Government does on a day-to-day basis. They invest for the future. They're looking five to 10 years in front, which is not what this Government has done. Because what this Government has done, let's be honest, since 2011, we've seen the beef herd drop down from 471,300 animals today, where we've had a 12% decrease to 413,400 animals. That decrease means that our beef industry is virtually unsustainable in Scotland, and we've seen the knock-on effect in abattoirs and the loss of abattoirs. And what are we looking forward to? We're looking forward to, as we've made in the debate this afternoon, by multiple demands on land, demands for food to be produced on it, demands for trees to be produced on it, demands for agri-environmental schemes, demands for rewilding, demands for access. We can't do it all. We need to ensure that we concentrate on the most important thing, which is food security. So my message is clear. Agricultural land, good agricultural land should not be taken out of food production. Trees are all very well in the right place, but we haven't yet found a way of eating them. Nor should we do, just by growing trees on the best agricultural land, export of carbon footprint. So what we need to do is have a system that promotes food production and yet delivers environmental benefits. What we don't need is a bureaucratic system that gets more civil servants, a system that prevents food production, and a system that penalises farmers for small errors. And what we certainly don't want is an IT system designed by Richard Lockhead to cost £180 million that doesn't work. We don't need a system that also recruits farmers from all environmental schemes, and we don't need a system that hasn't been financially modelled to make sure we understand where the money's going and whether it's going to achieve what we want it to achieve. We need a system that ensures that Scottish food gets on to Scottish plates. It's good, wholesome Scottish food. Presiding Officer, I think farmers need more than the warm words that they've heard from this Government. They need a lot of detail, they need a lot of substance, and they need that in the bill, not on follow-up legislation. So my message to the Cabinet Secretary is very clear. Don't please be like Fergus Ewing and continue to dither and delay. You must now be uncomfortable about sitting on the fence, get over it and come up with a policy. Farmers are waiting, the industry is holding its breath, and while you're pondering and dithering, the problem is our industry is suffering. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Thank you. We move to winding up speeches, and I call on Mercedes Villalba. Presiding Officer, it's clear that we need to make changes to support our agriculture sector. Our current direct payment system is deeply unequal, with the top 20 per cent of claimants receiving 62 per cent of the direct payments budget, whilst the bottom 40 per cent receive just 5 per cent. We've heard today how the current direct payment system rewards intensive farming, often incentivising the least environmentally friendly land management choices. The current system effectively penalises those who are working hardest to serve the public good, so our new payment system must incentivise high-nature value farming and end-area-based payments that reward ownership at the expense of the public good, and it must provide as much certainty as possible for our food producers, because farming requires plans made years ahead, and our nature targets require the same forward thinking, neither of which is possible without clearer longer-term strategies to meet those goals. In 2019, over three quarters of the farming payment budget was paid exclusively on the amount of farmable land owned. This is a regressive system, rewarding land hoarding and often acting as a payment for those who need it least, and yet instead of ensuring that these large land holdings are being held and managed for the public good with responsible whole farm plans that demonstrate sustainable practices, we have payments that reward practices that are detrimental in the long term. We need our agricultural strategies to encompass the principles of land justice, diversifying our land ownership and tenancy patterns, and allowing more people to live and work on our land. The barrier for entry into agriculture is currently too high for too many, and land monopolies can only lead to agricultural production monopolies that harm us all. Just last week, we spoke in this chamber about food insecurity, not just as a nation but as individuals with more people than ever forced to rely on food banks, but we cannot begin to tackle long-term food security without a system that recognises the natural symbiosis between sustainable farming and nature management. We know that extreme weather costs farmers and, by extension, the public hundreds of millions of pounds each year, and farmers are often the first to be affected by the loss of soil quality and water scarcity, which then go on to affect us all. The empty shelves that we see in supermarkets and not just food that we cannot buy show us the food that our farmers can supply under our system. It should not be the responsibility of farmers to slash prices to inflate supermarket profit margins, nor should the public be expected to pay ever-increasing food prices while supermarket share prices soar. Both farmers and consumers need a fairer approach to pricing and distribution. For any Government hoping to get by on the status quo, I am afraid that the message is clear. We need Government intervention, we need a national industrial strategy and, yes, we need price controls. We have heard today about the deep flaws in our current payment system. We have heard about the lack of long-term strategy to meet biodiversity and emission goals, and we have heard of the regressive rewards for concentrated patterns of land ownership. Despite those challenges, we know that many farmers and crofters are going above and beyond to meet environmental targets and provide our food. We know that the public are more interested than ever before in eating local to support our producers and protect our planet. Let us use the power of this Parliament to support local and nutritious food production, to support fair pay for workers, fair prices for consumers and a universal right to food for us all. I am delighted to be closing the debate on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives, and I would like to add my thanks to the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee and their clerks for some great work that they have done on this report on bringing the debate to the chamber. In general, I think that it has been a really good debate and perhaps that is because it is a committee debate from a cross-party committee that there has been a little bit more consensual discussion than usual. I was struck very much by the last line in the committee's motion where they say that they want to ensure that the agriculture sector is a thriving part of the economy, which helps to tackle climate change, protects biodiversity and, most importantly, puts food on our plates. In that one sentence, they are asking our food producers to take on so much responsibility for such huge issues. They want us to feed us and we want to tackle the climate and biodiversity crisis, arguably two of the most important issues facing us today. Asking them to directly deal with those issues simultaneously, the Scottish Government are tying food producers' hands. There is a push to cut beef and sheep numbers, citing livestock greenhouse gas production. What the noisy minority fail to identify is that, although the global figure is high, predominantly from the factory farming techniques in the US, Far East and South America, our cattle and sheep are predominantly grass-fed. Surely that is the ultimate circular economy. They have a higher level of animal husbandry. In fact, what we should be doing is holding our farmers up to the world as exemplars on how to produce the highest-quality food in a sustainable and ethical manner. Instead, they are being vilified by those who understand little and want to push their beliefs on to the rest of society. It seems that, in all this virtuous signalling, they have forgotten that we need to feed our nation. We need to ensure food security. That is a circle in ACRs just cannot square. As the report highlights, unintended consequences of an attack on our red meat sector would jeopardise sustainability across the food chain. Many policies will play into the agricultural policy. We have discussed very recently food security and the climate and biodiversity crisis. We have also recognised the importance that the good food nation bill could have, which has dragged out for years and is currently a shell of what it should be. We have discussed public food procurement. Again, a measure has raised many times that could have been dealt with years ago. I know that the cabinet secretary is also supportive of that direction of travel, which I have to say is actually most frustrating to me considering very little has happened over the intervening years. Then there is a land reform bill, which could significantly cut across food production, given that the £3,000 hectare limit that is suggested would impact over 800 farms. We need to have a joined-up approach here and if we are going to develop legislation that supports our food producers to deliver on the Scottish Government's demands of them. Perhaps thinking a little out of the boxes required, so I wanted to put a little idea on the table for consideration. Rachel Hamilton spoke in her opening speech of a threat to our farmland, especially tier 2 proposals for greenwashing. In Scotland, we do not have a shortage of land, however, there is an increasing pressure on fertile farming land from the likes of onshore wind farms, land being bought up by companies to plant trees, as Edward Mountain mentioned, to offset that carbon and the likes. There seems to me to be a presumption that permission will be granted for those schemes. What if we do—of course I will, yes. I am just curious to think what threat there is from a wind farm to livestock production. Brian Whittle? What I am suggesting here is that there is too often a presumption that no matter what the value of the land to agriculture for the wind farmers, they just throw in so many applications in the planning phase and they are starting to take over agricultural land. If I could adjust, what if we designated our most productive land as land where permission is likely to be denied for those uses and we incentivised and supported our food producers to keep producing? What if we designated land for the development of onshore wind where permission is likely? Currently, it takes around 13 years from an application to get to build a wind farm, which is not going to help our biodiversity and climate crisis. We know where we want to develop the Caledonian rainforest, we know where our national parts will be. We discussed spatial planning for our seas. Should we be considering an element of spatial planning on our land? After all, we do that in urban areas. I know that I am flying a kite here, but when we consider land use and land reform in the context of food security and the environment, perhaps it is time that we need to be a bit more radical. Producing sustainable food and protecting the environment are not mutually exclusive. As many of us debate in this debate have said, those who work the land are the experts in both areas, as Oliver Mundell so eloquently highlighted in his contribution. They just need a legislative framework that enables them to innovate and the support from the Scottish Government to encourage delivery. Farmers plant trees and they get no reward. Farmers are investing in lowering their greenhouse gases and get vilified nonetheless. Farmers are moving to living hedgerows to biodiversity and they are planting, moving away from damaging chemicals. They are hamstrung by the Scottish Government's ideology over generating, which would support their efforts. In conclusion, we need an agricultural bill that supports our food producers in all that they do for us. It is entirely possible to produce legislation that enables all the goals to be realised. It is time to ditch ideology and start developing a framework of policies that are interconnected, that align and do not work against each other. Now, would that not be a breakthrough? As ever, I am really grateful to members for their contributions to the debate today. The continued success of our agricultural sector clearly matters to all of us. I think that that is reflected in the debate that we have had across the chamber throughout this afternoon. We all recognise the essential role that the sector has in driving the rural economy, in contributing to Scotland's food security, as well as in enabling the realisation of our world-leading climate and nature restoration outcomes. As I set out in my introductory remarks today, this Government has a positive vision for the future, one that has our food producers at its core, one that recognises the duty that is owed to them from our nation too, and one that supports them to produce that high-quality food while also delivering for climate and nature restoration. The agriculture reform route map, which I published, sets out key steps towards the future coherent framework. Alongside that route map, as I have already mentioned today, I published an agricultural reform list of measures, and we will continue to test options through our national test programme. Yes, I will. I think that the Scottish Government are taking the mickey. Andrew Moyer, who is on the arable climate change group, said to our committee that the national test programme funding of £250 was just worthless. He has been investing in technology and reducing his fertilizer output for years at £1,000 worth of cost. What does the cabinet secretary have to say to him? Andrew Moyer is also one of my constituents, and I have been out to visit him on his farm and really welcome all the work that he is undertaking and that he is driving forward, which is why he is a valuable member of the ARIAG board that we have too. The national test programme is vitally important because it is about helping our businesses to get that baseline information. We already have the carbon audits, the soil testing, we have set out measures for animal health and welfare, and we are obviously looking to expand that programme as we move forward too. All of that, the list of measures that we have, is built on the actions that were identified by the farmer-led group processes, as well as academic research. All of it is underpinned by the principle that farmers and crofters should do what is right for their business. I will introduce a new Scottish agriculture bill this year that will provide the powers and the four-tier framework to deliver our vision for agriculture. It will be robust, adaptive and a coherent framework, and one that has been developed with our partners to help deliver our vision. I said earlier that this is a journey, and we are absolutely committed to making this journey with the industry, listening, learning, adapting and improving that as necessary again to deliver on our vision. I want to touch on a number of important matters that were raised throughout the process of the debate today. One of those that came through quite strongly and was mentioned by a number of members is the importance of our livestock industry. Of course, we know what the climate change committee spelled out in relation to livestock numbers and what they expected to see, or what they would want to see or what they think they need to see for us to meet our net zero targets. The Scottish Government is not considering a cull of livestock in order to cut emissions. It is not our policy to actively reduce livestock numbers. We know that we produce livestock well in Scotland, and there will continue to be a role for that into the future. That brings me to some really important points that Rhoda Grant made in her opening speech today in relation to just how well we produce livestock in Scotland, and the fact that we do not want to see simply the offshoring of emissions. It is something that I absolutely agree does not make any sense to us. As I say, we produce livestock well in Scotland, and we will continue to do that. I also want to emphasise to you that Scottish produce, which includes meat and dairy, obviously plays a hugely important part in our lives, both culturally and in terms of nutrition. I fully support our meat and dairy sectors, and I am determined to ensure that our agriculture sector is rightly portrayed in a positive light. That also brings me to another important point about our livestock industry and our livestock in general and how important they are. It was the points that Alistair Allyn raised in his contribution in relation to the importance of livestock for biodiversity, and he is absolutely right. On a visit to Islay, I saw where livestock were actively managing for chuff habitat. I have also been out on visits to see them in forestry and in trees, and hearing about their importance for hazel trees in particular as well. It is really important that we come to that realisation and that we all acknowledge that it is not a choice, a case of either or we need livestock to help us with the challenges that we face in relation to nature not at the moment, because I need to make some progress. I would say that our vision for agriculture and our agriculture reform programme route map makes clear our commitment to enabling the producers of high-quality food to deliver on those shared outcomes that we have for biodiversity recovery and climate adaptation and mitigation, and it is why we will continue to actively support those sectors going forward. That would also bring me on to some other points, because I think that it is really frustrating to see that it is continually undermined. I know that we touched on this last week when we had another really good debate in relation to agriculture and our food security, and when we touched on those vitally important points on trade. I do not want to see our sectors undermined, but unfortunately that is exactly what has happened in the trade deals that we have been signed up to so far with Australia and New Zealand that completely undermine our own production in this country and allowing unlimited imports, which again does not help to support our sectors. Another point that I would like to touch on that was again raised throughout the debate today is in relation to funding and budgets. There is no clarity and there is no getting around the fact that our work and planning is compromised by financial uncertainty. We remain in the position that Brexit means that we no longer have that long-term certainty of funding. The seven-year funding period that we used to be a part of, we no longer have that certainty for that period of time, so that is what I am afraid to take real issue with Edward Mountain's claims about day-to-day operation, because the HM Treasury have provided yearly allocations for the current UK parliamentary term, and we do not have any funding commitment from 2025. We do not have that certainty and the only certainty that we do have is a £93 million shortfall in our budget to 2025, because the UK Government failed to honour its funding commitments with no clarity beyond that. Even with that funding, I think that John Swinney made a really good contribution today and raised some really important points, highlighting the constraints of a subsidy control act that can hamper our policy choices and act that unusually included agriculture and scope, leaving us with less flexibility than we had as members of the EU. In closing, change is a constant that our farmers and crofters have always demonstrated creativity. I look forward to working with members of the committee as we introduce our agriculture bill. I now call on Beatrice Wishart to wind up the debate on behalf of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee. As deputy convener of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, I am pleased to have the opportunity to close the debate on the committee's important scrutiny of future agriculture policy in Scotland. First, I would like to echo the convener in thanking all those individuals and organisations who have offered evidence to the committee over the past few months. I also thank the members and the cabinet secretary here today for their contributions to this debate. Members' views and the views of their constituents will help to inform the committee's continued scrutiny of future agriculture policy and of the upcoming agriculture bill. There was a substantial level of agreement among the witnesses who gave evidence to the committee that changes needed in our agriculture policy. Using more conditionality in the payment scheme could encourage more sustainable farming practices in reducing emissions and increasing biodiversity, while also better ensuring that those working on less favoured land get the investment that they need. As a representative of an island constituency, I am hopeful of the potential for an agriculture policy to support farmers and crofters working on some of the least favoured areas, but I am also concerned that the risks posed to their livelihoods if they are not supported. Despite the publication of the Scottish Government of its vision for agriculture, the outline proposals in its consultation and the high-level route map for the transition to a new policy, there remains a concerning lack of detail of what a future agriculture policy will entail and what the agriculture bill will provide for. That is the view of the Scottish Crofting Federation, who told the committee that there are still some emissions that are particularly relevant to crofting. That includes detail on how common grazings will fit in and detail around payment structures, particularly on support to less favoured areas and on successes to the less favoured area support scheme. That concern about a lack of detail was also voiced by many other witnesses right across the spectrum of views heard by the committee, so I would ask the Scottish Government to ensure that it undertakes more engagement with food producers to understand and address their concerns in the agriculture bill. It would be appreciated if further information is published and shared with the committee as soon as possible. It is important that agriculture policy reflects and supports the role of crofters as land managers of less favourable land. Claire Simonetta of the farmer-led group for hill in upland farming stated that hill and upland farming and crofting deliver multiple public benefits from disadvantaged land. Although those businesses are disadvantaged in an agricultural sense and therefore rely more on income support, they are advantaged in terms of what they can deliver for public outcomes. If livestock is the greatest source of emissions from agriculture, it must be recognised that there are few alternatives to livestock grazing available for crofters and other managers of disadvantaged land to undertake agriculture in their area. NFU Scotland told the committee that a future policy must focus on payments that will incentivise and encourage farmers and crofters to drive productivity, drive efficiency and deliver for biodiversity and the climate. I therefore share the concerns of other members on the committee that a future agriculture policy needs to ensure that the whole food production supply chain is supported in Scotland. Ensuring that we support viable crofting would also ensure that biodiversity is supported. We heard from the Scottish Crofting Federation that many crofting areas are closely related to high-nature value farming areas. That includes common livestock grazing, which can be beneficial to both nature restoration and carbon sequestration in the soil. For that reason, both the Scottish Environment Link and Farming for 1.5 wish to encourage the Scottish Government to consider the concept of high-nature value farming systems and reward crofters and farmers who are already promoting biodiversity on their holdings through a new payment system. Before I close, I would like to highlight several points made by other members in this debate. Rhoda Grant suggested that industry was way ahead of the Government in its thinking and highlighted that the rural economy is dependent on crofting and farming. Willie Rennie, Karen Adam and others stressed the need for certainty, while Jim Fairlie emphasised the F word funding. Multi-year funding needs to be guaranteed. Other members talked about food security and health and giving wholehearted support to our farmers and crofters, many who are already doing now what is being asked of them for a just transition. In conclusion, a strong agriculture sector is vital for the economy of our islands and for Scotland as a whole. The committee looks forward to continuing its engagement with crofters, farmers and other stakeholders in its pre-legislative scrutiny and to consideration of the agriculture bill when it is introduced. I once again thank members for their contributions to the committee's debate today. That concludes the debate on future agriculture policy in Scotland. It is now time to move on to the next item of business, and I am minded to accept a motion without notice, under standing order 11.2.4, the decision time being brought forward to now and I invite the Minister for Parliamentary Business to move the motion. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I'm glad that I got here in time and moved. The question is that decision time being brought forward to now. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. There is one question to be put as a result of today's business, and the question is that motion 9146, in the name of Finlay Carson, on behalf of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee on future agricultural policy in Scotland, be agreed. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed. That concludes decision time, and I close this meeting.