 The next item of business is a debate on motion 16123, in the name of Donald Cameron, on supporting Scottish agriculture. I would encourage members who wish to speak to press their request to speak buttons, and I call on Donald Cameron to speak to and move the motion. I start by moving the motion and referring members to my register of interest in farming and crofting. Many members here will be aware that we had a similar discussion in the chamber about farming policy a couple of months ago, when, in fact, the Scottish Government's welcome, if belated U-turn on ELFAS payments, dominated that debate, as did arguments about the UK and the Scottish agriculture bills. For the record, we continue to believe that Scotland should be included in the UK bill and that, by rejecting an offer to extend to Scotland powers in that bill, the SNP is failing Scottish agriculture. We did not get as much discussion on the specifics of a future support system as many of us would have liked. That is just one reason to bring this debate today, and I make no apology for that. In addition, while Brexit is in the forefront of many people's minds, that is no reason, in our view, for the Scottish Government to delay setting out their thinking on agricultural support. Leaving the EU and the common agricultural policy provides us with a unique opportunity to rethink how we support farming. Almost three years have elapsed since the vote to leave the EU, and, in comparison to England, Wales and Northern Ireland, we have had precious little detail or leadership from the Scottish Government. I will briefly, yes. Cabinet Secretary for Agriculture and the Islands, I do not accept what he said. However, do the Scottish Conservatives have any specific policy of their own with regard to the future of financial support for Scottish agriculture? I look forward to setting that out right now. Likewise, the continuing round of Government expert groups, task force advisory bodies and consultation exercises, should not prevent the Government from providing details. However well-intentioned those groups are and however well-qualified the people who contribute, we now need to see concrete specifics from the Government. The fact is that Scotland's agricultural community remains firmly in the dark about the SNP's plans for support and what it wants to achieve for farmers, crofters and land managers. Unlike other parts of the UK and Scotland, we have had little direction, lots of posturing and no real action. That is why we have brought forward this debate today, to set forward our plans for supporting Scottish agriculture. If the SNP will not set out their vision then we will. I look forward to contributions from across the chamber. I think that we can build a consensus around several of the points that are made. There is an overlap with many of the principles that many of us share. Our starting point is that any support system must not create friction with the internal UK market by far our biggest market and of crucial importance to our farmers and crofters. Our focus is on practical and simple support that farmers can access easily and quickly. We want Government to support environmental measures, new technologies, new entrants to farmers and flexibility for those in farming, as well as those who wish to exit the sector with dignity. Scotland's unique landscape poses challenges and opportunities that we will embrace. Above all, Scotland's farmers deserve an ambitious programme of support and encouragement that will ensure that our rural communities capitalise on the opportunity that we now have. As our motion states, we believe that there are several key principles that must be adhered to. They are as follows. First and foremost, we believe that food production and productivity must be at the heart of future farming policy. If the Scottish Government is to achieve its ambition of doubling the value of food and drink from £15 billion to £30 billion by 2030—an ambition that we share—Scotland is some of the finest food and drink products in the world. It is important that we create the conditions for the sector to thrive and for producers to maintain the supply of high-quality goods. We believe that in order to ensure that growth does not come at a cost to producers, we must do all that we can to guarantee that our farmers and crofters get a fairer return for their products. We propose working with the UK Government to widen and strengthen the power of the groceries co-deducator so that our food supplies are treated more fairly. We would also look to work with the UK Government to ensure that better and clearer food labelling helps to build brands and delivers better prices and hence drive up sales and productivity. Given that, last year, total income from farming fell by 8 per cent, with productivity falling for the third year in a row, we want to reverse those worrying trends. Another important step is to encourage and incentivise farmers to invest in new technologies such as GPS-targeting input systems for arable farms and new weighing systems to make farming and crofting smarter and more efficient. Secondly, we believe in regional differentiation. There must be a recognition that Scottish agriculture has unique circumstances, with 85 per cent of land classed as less favoured. The remoteness of many of our farms and crofters often drives up costs and makes it more difficult to transport livestock. The NFUS has said that any sudden loss of support to less favoured areas could render many hill farms and crofters unsustainable. We too believe that a tailored Scottish system should deliver a menu of targeted options that are designed to regional and sectoral needs, as opposed to a one-size-fits-all approach. A key component of a future agricultural policy, thirdly, is environmental protection. We must recognise our commitments to protecting the environment and reducing our carbon footprint. I want to put on record my admiration for the many things that farmers and crofters already do to reduce carbon emissions voluntarily, from planting hedgerows and trees to improving animal health and diet to cut methane output. We are already seeing this challenge being taken seriously by the sector. We agree with the NFUS that there is huge potential in having a suite of environmental measures that offers real but practical choices to every farm and croft. We think that we need to promote the environment specifically as one of the key priorities for farming policy and assist those in the sector with what they are already doing. Fourthly, we believe in simplification. Having seen the chaos caused by the Government's inability to deliver cat payments on time, it is clear that any future support system must be different. It should be easier to access and apply for. It should be simpler to administer and be able to deal with genuine mistakes and errors. We believe that there must be a clear distinction between minor and major non-compliance with proportionate penalties in any given case. We should aim to reduce bureaucracy and there should be fewer but better targeted inspections. In short, removing many of the burdens that exist and delivering a system that supports our farmers and crofters instead of working against them. Fifthly and lastly, we believe that the future of Scottish agriculture can only be guaranteed by encouraging the next generation to enter it. We have to be able to attract new entrants so that we can ensure that farming and crofting remains sustainable and productive, making it easier to work in the sector, offering new opportunities to develop new skills, promoting diversification of business, and flexible working. As I said earlier, it is making it easier for those who want to leave farming should they wish to. It is vital that we equip farmers with the skills and training to drive up productivity while also supporting complementary enterprises that those in the sector are undertaking alongside farming. A large part of that will come down to how much we invest in education, research, development and innovation, but it also acknowledges the role of advisory services. In addition, we support a rural network to raise awareness and provide a link with innovation. I note the various motions and the amendments to the motion. I sympathise with the elements of both the Government and the Labour amendment, particularly Rhoda Grant's comments on rural poverty and repopulation. I am very sympathetic to that. I wonder whether it is suitable for agricultural support funding to specify and promote those particular things. In conclusion, we have laid out some of our ideas. We will actively work with the Government to see those come to fruition, but we do that in the absence of any real concrete ideas from the SNP. Let me end with some questions, though without any great expectation of answers. What system of support can farmers expect going forward? Will it be easier to use? What specific support will the Government offer to encourage farmers to cut carbon, attract the next generation and drive up productivity? Do they believe that we should recognise regional differences and tailor support to the unique needs of farming and crofting? What is the Government's position on capping of payments and the length of any transition period, and when can we expect to see a Scottish agriculture bill? Our agricultural communities rightly expect concrete proposals to be able to plan for the future. The Scottish Conservatives are willing to make that case. Now is the time for the SNP to do so, too. Thank you, Mary Gougeon, to speak to the move amendment 16123.2. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I very much welcome the opportunity to debate the support that we give to our farming and crofter sector, because it is one of the iconic industry that not only forms part of our diversarial economy but is an absolutely integral part of our economy as a whole. However, I have to take serious issue with the motion that is being put forward by Donald Cameron today for a single reason. That is quite astonishing and glaring omission, because the one thing that Donald Cameron fails to mention is the single biggest threat to farmers, crofters and rural economy in Scotland as a whole. That is Brexit. We are only 23 days away from exit day. We still have no idea whether we are leaving with a bad deal or a truly catastrophic no deal. That is something that the UK Government belligerently refuses to rule out. That belligerence translates into recklessness—a reckless failure to give certainty on the future funding arrangements, a reckless inability to rule out tariffs on our most valuable exports and a callous recklessness in refusing to give certainty to the EU citizens who live and work across our rural, coastal and island communities. That is why, as a Government, we have made our position clear. We will continue to support farming and crofting through payment of cap support this year and next. We have set out our proposals for stability and simplicity and a clear five-year plan to see the industry through the transition following the UK's exit from the EU and beyond. Scotland is the only part of the UK with such a detailed transition plan. Our commitment to that work is already being put into effect by the simplification task force, which first met in December and met again on 13 February. Further, on 10 January, with a Lib Dem amendment, we, as a Parliament, agreed to convene a group of producers, consumers and environmental organisations to inform and recommend a new bespoke policy on farming and food production for Scotland. The quite simple fact is that, while we are taking those concrete steps in Scotland south of the border, the UK Government takes us ever closer to that Brexit cliff edge. However, as if the persistent threat of a no deal Brexit 23 days from the EU exit was not enough, we still have no clarity on a number of key issues that are affecting our rural economy right now. The UK Government has said that it will continue to commit the same cash total in funds for farm support until the end of the UK Parliament term, but we still do not even know what that farm support means. Not all of pillar 2 funding is guaranteed, putting at risk investment in forestry and also leader, which has played an integral role in empowerment for local rural communities for over 25 years. I spoke at an event in Parliament just last Wednesday to recognise the massive impact that leader has had in our rural areas and opened a leader-funded community hub in my home city of Breakin on Saturday morning, one of four projects in Breakin alone. The Tory motion is shamefully silent on those questions over future funding and implications for our wider rural economy. In the two and a bit years since the referendum, we have had just one statement on the detail of the shared prosperity fund. There was due to be a consultation on that last year, but we are still waiting. What exactly will that fund? Who knows? We also need to recognise the very real and immediate threats across the whole rural economy. Farmers, fishers and seafood producers will be hit harder than anyone else. If the UK does not receive third country listings from day 1, we would lose access to 96 per cent of our export market for lamb. If we get that listing, sheet meat would see tariffs of around 40 per cent and we can expect the same tariffs across red meat. The EU is also a key market for seafood exports, accounting for 77 per cent of all our overseas seafood exports. It will be particularly badly hit by non-tariff barriers, such as the need for export health certificates, which would see a fourfold increase in administration for the salmon industry alone, costing an extra £15 million a year. No word of that in the Tory motion. People right across our food supply chains are being forced to spend from the tens of thousands to millions of pounds to prepare for a no-deal Brexit—a situation that may never happen, but which the UK Government refuses to do. Above all that, what lies at the heart of all of that are people—the people who work on our farms, on our crofts, in the abattoirs, in processing and in those jobs that keep our rural economy going—the nurses, the social care workers, those in hospitality—and a large number of those are EU citizens. In the north-east, 70 per cent of those who are working in fish processing are EU citizens, 95 per cent of those in abattoirs. How will a rural economy continue to function without the people who sit at it's very heart? However, that is not just about the economic imperative behind the free movement of people. We are actually talking about people's lives. I would love to hear what the Tories have to say to my family, to my friends and to the hundreds of thousands of other families who are affected by the hostile environment that their Government has created, people who now have to apply for the right to stay in Scotland, many of whom have only known Scotland as their only home. John Scott. Most of not all of the problems that you outline are happening on your watch, minister. This is going to do with Brexit. They are happening on your watch now. Answer that. So the threat to EU citizens is happening on our watch when it's policies that are pursued by the Tory Government in Westminster. That's happening on our watch. Your policies are absolutely abhorrent and I have absolutely nothing to do with them. As I say, it's affecting my family and it's affecting hundreds of thousands of other families right across the country right now. In this Parliament on 10 January, we were able to achieve consensus around our shared approach to future rural policy. Compare that with the approach taken south of the border. With 26 ministerial resignations over Brexit since last year, the most recent of which was George Eustice, the agricultural minister. Such a little faith does he have in his own Government's policy direction. That is why I will take absolutely no lectures or lessons from the Tories when it comes to rural policy. The Scottish Government will continue to do what it has always done. Stand up for our farmers, our crofters, our fishermen, the fish processors, EU citizens, our rural and island communities while working collaboratively to build policy for the future. I therefore move the Government amendment in my name. Thank you. I now call Rhoda Grant to speak to and move amendment 16123.1. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Two months ago, we had a similar debate and an attempt to try and provide our crofters and farmers with an indication of what will Scotland's priorities for agriculture be post Brexit. We appear to be no further forward. I can't disagree with either the Conservative motion or the Government amendment to it. I would have hoped that the Government would have used theirs to provide more detail. Yes, Brexit has caused this uncertainty, but the Scottish Government simply cannot wash its hands off it. It is for the Government to govern, regardless of the circumstances that they find themselves in. It is for them to steer the direction of travel for our farmers and crofters and to give them the information that they need to plan for Brexit. The Scottish Government simply cannot carry on as was. The mood of this debate has been unhelpful so far, rather than trade insults across the chamber. The Scottish Government must use this opportunity and this debate to provide an outline of its plans. Our current system is very biased towards production. It allows farmers who could run profitable businesses without support to receive the reliance share of the support available. The top five recipients of single-farm payment in Scotland receive more than the bottom 3,500 recipients combined. Sadly, 45 per cent of farms make an income equivalent to less than the minimum agricultural wage, with 23 per cent making a loss. That is why this is about poverty. Those businesses are arguably offering more by the way of public goods and they receive the least by the way of funding. I said all of this a month ago and I want to hear what the Scottish Government has done since then. As a result of what was said in that debate, how is the Government plan to ensure that public money is used for public good rather than personal gain? Our amendment sets priorities for an inclusive system that directs the investment to where it is most needed and tackles rural and food poverty and supports repopulation. The Scottish Government has two opportunities to lay out its future policy. It has an agriculture bill and a good food nation bill. If they were truly ambitious, there would be one bill encompassing both and making the connection between support and outcomes. We have fantastic produce that is world-renowned, yet many of our people are malnourished. Therefore, what we want from our farmers and crofters has to be the basis of the new farming support scheme. Central to that is a good food nation bill. I am grateful to Rhoda Grant for giving way. Does she agree with me that the opportunity exists here to expand the great food that she talks about into our schools and hospitals, where only 16 per cent of the Government-controlled procurement contract currently comes from Scotland? Indeed, I agree with that. I am just going to come to that so that I can finish making this point and come along to that, because I think that that is a point that has to be made. We agree with the principles of sustainability, simplicity, innovation, inclusion, productivity, profitability and they are all audible, but we also want a right to food. Too many children are growing up in food poverty, storing up problems for future generations in the health service that they will have. It also affects their lifespan and their life chances. Farming and crofting are also economic drivers, as well as food producers, but often the profitability of the industry goes to those who are in a long food chain between field and fork. We need, as Brian Whittle said in his intervention, to find ways of tackling that, because rural poverty could surely be tackled by shortening that food chain and keeping the wealth in our communities. Looking at local procurement could cast costs to the public sector, while also supporting our local agriculture industry. Allowing farmers and crofters to sell direct to public bodies is a potential that we have always talked about in this Parliament, but we have never realised. We need to encourage co-operative working between individual businesses that would allow them to compete for those contracts and ensure the supply of goods. However, we also need to make sure to look at ways how small producers on their own could access that. We need enterprises to support them, get them off the ground and help them to work towards being able to procure to the market. The new schemes must also recognise that co-operative working is really important and must encourage it rather than discourage it, which the current schemes often do at the moment, not recognising things such as equipment rings and, indeed, common greasants, which are fundamental to rural farming and crofting. If we are to halt depopulation and turn it around, we must maximise the impact on the industry and make sure that secondary processing also remains in communities. We recognise the uncertainty that prevails and the impact that that is having on our agriculture sector. We need an indication of what the future holds, and we believe that we have an opportunity to build a policy and strategy that supports farming communities going forward. Mark Ruskell will open for the Green Party. Once again, we are debating a motion on farming policy that fails to address the crisis that climate change poses to our farms, our coastlines, our communities and future generations in Scotland. During the debate in the chamber on 10 January, I made it clear that the Greens cannot support any future farm support system or farming policy, which does not have addressing climate change as a core principle. Our position has not changed on this matter. I lodged an amendment to that debate, calling for agriculture to play a key role in addressing the climate emergency that we currently face and for farming support systems to be used to develop a net zero emissions sector in Scotland. The cabinet secretary at that time failed to speak to my amendment once in that debate, so I am still unsure as to why the Government voted against it, but an explanation of why the Government is so opposed to climate change mitigation forming such a core principle of our farm support system would be welcome from the minister today. I know that I am not alone in my frustrations on that. The Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee this week published our stage 1 report on the climate change bill, which included the following observation from the report. The area where divergence from the UK Climate Change Committee advices most apparent is in relation to agriculture policy. In the most recent climate change plan, the CCC recommended an approach that was subsequently rejected by the Scottish Government without an explanation provided to justify the decision. In its most recent report, the UK Climate Change Committee also noted that, and I will quote again, not all our recommendations have been implemented. In the agriculture sector, ambitions for emissions reduction have been further scaled back from the draft plan. The body established a specifically advised government on its climate change plan has made it clear that we are going in the wrong direction and we are ignoring their advice. Eclare's climate bill report goes on to recommend that, and I will quote again, the Scottish Government gives urgent consideration to the agriculture sector and that, adopting a holistic approach to emissions accounting, recognising the activities across the sector that play a positive role in reducing emissions, such as a forestation, peatland restoration and highlighting the opportunities that can arise by developing new rural support mechanisms that encourage that. I am looking ahead at John Scott here. He will recognise those words and he is nodding very sagely there in the corner. The recommendation from the Parliament Committee makes it clear that we are not heaping undue blame on the agriculture sector for emissions as some would accuse us, because agriculture is both a cause and a solution to climate change emissions. By leaving out climate change from our discussions of agricultural support, we are denying the fundamental role that the industry can play in mitigation and shutting off a potentially valuable source of funding for our farmers. We are also denying the farming sector the chance for a just transition and again it is something that was discussed on a number of occasions in the committee evidence with agriculture specifically singled out for its vulnerability. A just transition will not come about by ignoring the difficult conversations. We have to recognise a wide range of approaches that are currently in the sector and make sure that we are not just promoting but financially supporting the best examples of low-carbon farming in Scotland. The answers are out there in the industry already. Initiatives like the Nature-Friendly Farming Network, established by farmers themselves, are leading the way in low-carbon sustainable farming. I find incomprehensible that they should not be rewarded for their approach to climate change in our future farm support system. We are working towards a position where I hope that most of us in this chamber would agree to the public money for public goods approach to subsidies. What bigger public good is there than being part of the solution to climate change and helping Scotland to achieve net zero emissions? I would like to thank the Conservative Party for using its debating time in the chamber today to raise the important issue of our rural economy. Unfortunately, I believe that Donald Cameron, while having I am sure the best of intentions, fails to recognise what has to be the way forward for our rural economy. In his motion, he calls on the Scottish Government to set out its position regarding the main elements of a future support system for farming. No, if it did, that would be to ignore what our Parliament decided on 10 January. Can you imagine the uproar in this chamber if the minister did this and decided to ignore the will of Parliament? This Parliament decided in a vote after our debate that the way forward for the Government would be, I quote, conven a group consisting of producer, consumer and environmental organisations to inform and recommend a new bespoke policy on farming and food production for Scotland. That is what Parliament decided. That has to be the way forward if we are to design a new bespoke system of rural support that has buy-in from all our stakeholders. Indeed, the Government's amendment today would have contained a reference to this commitment, but I agree to logic myself as an amendment to the Government's amendment. Unfortunately, the Presiding Officer decided not to call my amendment, so because of that, we do not have an opportunity to vote again to reconfirm Parliament's and the Scottish Government's commitment here. I do not question the Presiding Officer's decision. Perhaps he felt—maybe I am assuming something—that Parliament did not need a vote to reconfirm what we have already decided. I absolutely accept that. However, I am sure that the Cabinet Secretary will, during his summing up, update us on the work that he has been doing to establish the group, so that we can indeed see that work is under way to recommend a bespoke system that will actually work for Scotland. I do not wish to be unkind to Donald Cameron, but the Conservative call for the Government to outline the new system that we need is a, typically, if I may say so, paternalistic approach. They seem to want the Government to tell our producers, consumers and environmental organisations that the Government always knows best, simply ignoring buy-in from our producer, consumer and environmental stakeholders. It is a recipe for failure—a recipe for failure, if we went down that route, that he wants us to go down. That is why today the call from the Conservatives must be resisted once again. Donald Cameron tried that approach during the debate on 10 January, and Parliament said no then. Unfortunately, Donald Cameron repeatedly misses the point here, and he is back again with very much the same motion. Turning to the Labour amendment, we will support the amendment, but we have to be careful of not pre-empting the work of the producer, consumer and environmental organisations that are forming the new group. As I said in the debate on 10 January, in designing a new and bespoke system of support for a rural economy that works, the rural economy secretary has a difficult—it is not going to be easy—a difficult task ahead of him, and we must make that extra effort not to create false divisions, because I think that is what is happening—create false divisions between a simply-for-party advantage. Even now, I would call on the Conservatives to engage with this inclusive approach, because I said in this chamber in our debate in January, and it is worth repeating. The great prize is a bespoke and successful system of rural support that will enable our rural economy to overcome the real challenges that it faces and to thrive. Surely, is not that what we all want to see? Thank you, and we turn to the open part of the debate. I call Edward Mountain to be followed by Alasdair Allan. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I would like to refer members to my register of interest in that I am a partner in a farming business. Presiding Officer, someone who has a farm, who comes from a family that is farmed for three generations, and someone who has spent 12 years of their professional life offering advice to farmers, I believe that it is right that I have strong and informed views on farming. I believe that farming is a long-term business, and long-term businesses do not always mirror the patterns of normal businesses. Surprisingly enough, they do not mirror the patterns of an election cycle of a Parliament. Farmers have to plan 10 years in advance to ensure that the huge capital costs that they are required to make in their businesses are well invested. Preparing for the future is everything, and being able to predict the future is all-important. That is why, Cabinet Secretary, farmers up and down the country are getting more and more frustrated with your lack of forward planning and your lack of a long-term vision for Scottish farming. The Cabinet Secretary will no doubt always point to his stability and simplicity document. I believe that you waived it earlier. Well, my question to you is, what workable comprehensive plan has 46 questions? If I went to my boss when I was working in private practice and said, here is a plan with 46 questions, I do not think that he would have given me a fair win. I believe that it is quite simple in what it says, but it offers no certainty, and it certainly offers no vision for the future. Farmers are not seeing enough progress, Cabinet Secretary, and that is what we Conservatives are now calling on the Scottish Government to get on with. Too much analysis, Cabinet Secretary, can often lead to paralysis. First, let's look at one of the points that we have talked about, and that is productivity. Scottish farms for far too long have plateaued, barley yields per acre have hardly increased in 20 years. We need to be far more progressive in the use of our new technology from using smart or digital technology to boost crop yields to investigate how we can improve resilience through plant and animal breeding. Secondly, we now have an opportunity with the new system as we develop it to really recognise the differences between the lowlands and the highlands, and whether that future policy must do that. Clearly, there is a difference between the productivity of the alluvial coastal and riverine plains to the primary habitats and the upper slopes of the hills that we have. One policy can never suit all, as we have seen in the past, and we must make sure that we lay out what we want to achieve from each of the habitats that we have across Scotland. Thirdly, we believe that farmers are indeed the custodians of the countryside. We all benefit from the landscape that our farmers maintain and have produced over hundreds of years. We agree that the principle of public money for public good must be the heart of future funding. Fourthly, we believe that the current funding system is far too complicated. We have stressed time and time again that the penalties for areas are too stringent. Frankly, if the Government's agencies have been fine for their errors in delivering agricultural support in the same way that farmers are for trying to receive it, they would be bankrupt. Here is an idea for you, Cabinet Secretary. You asked for them. We could simplify the system by using the many assurance schemes that are currently in place to form the basis of the information checking that goes on farm. That would cost less because farmers are paying for it, they would be more efficient and perhaps would result in a decrease of the demand for the staff that you have, which I believe are in the region of 750 staff to implement that scheme. Finally, Cabinet Secretary, we have got to secure future farming careers. I see that the timing is tight, but I would make this comment. I believe that we have got to the situation on land reform that we are not seeing new tenancies created. There are no new tenancies because of this legislation. We have older farmers, less land to rent, less income to farmers and greater reliance on subsidies. That all points to our failures. I believe that farmers have been left in the dark for too long by this Cabinet Secretary, who is playing politics with farmers as he uses Bechtit to today introduce a Scottish agriculture bill or signing up to the UK agriculture bill. Cabinet Secretary, it is time for you to stop sitting on the fence. Farmers do not want you there and do not need you there. We want you to get back to backing Scottish farming and coming up with a plan that is fundamentally you have failed to do. I just encourage members to speak through the chair not to use the term you all the time. Crofting is a major part of the fabric of life in my constituency. The Western Isles are home to approximately a third of all of Scotland's crofts, with more than 6,000 island crofts spread out among nearly 300 townships. Crofting is closely connected to the way of life, the culture and even the language of the islands that I represent. There are some very real challenges facing the future of crofting. The age profile of crofters is older than the rest of the population. There remains a difficulty in attracting new entrants, something that is not helped by the occasional casually dismissive remark that crofters are, quote, people who have a couple of sheep in the back garden, a quote directly attributable sadly to the opposition benches in the past. However, the high levels of bureaucracy that are associated with crofting are a source of constant frustration. A recent survey showed that 95 per cent of crofters do not see crofting as economically viable without supplementing their incomes in other ways. It is worth mentioning therefore the importance of the less favoured area support scheme to my constituency. I thank the cabinet secretary for his commitment to finding a solution that will deliver funding under El Fas at approximately 100 per cent for this year and the next two scheme years. I like and respect Mr Cameron, not least for his knowledge of the subject, but today's motion fails, in my view, to take account of one other thing that makes crofters anxious at the moment. When people in my constituency say that they are talking about Brexit and the catastrophe that the UK Government is handling of it represents, Brexit, although some members have decided that it should not be brought into this debate, has added huge new uncertainties for crofting. A survey of crofters conducted in November by the Scottish Crofting Federation found that 14 per cent of respondents were confident about the future compared with 31 per cent who classified themselves as despondant. 55 per cent of respondents were uncertain about citing Brexit and the potential knock-on effects on prices and support payments. We can only marvel at the blame-shifting exercise that is under way today in a motion from the Conservative Party. Given that we are now only 23 days from Brexit, we still do not know what kind of Brexit we are facing. We do not know what markets producers will be able to sell into. We do not know the rules that will govern them. We do not know whether the exports will face high tariffs. We do not know what kind of customs checks they may expect to face. Having dragged us, or in Scotland's case, the more appropriate word might be shoved us on to the cliff edge of a disastrous hard Brexit, the Tories have the sheer brass neck to turn around today and say that it is the uncertainty from the Scottish Government that is having a detrimental impact on farmers and crofters. There is a large body of evidence that shows that Scotland's agriculture sector would be worse off under every conceivable Brexit scenario. I ask members who so casually dismiss those concerns to support calls from those benches for the UK Government to guarantee that farmers and crofters will be compensated in the event of a no deal. Although I have focused on some of the risks that I will, I am grateful for that. Surely all of this uncertainty could be taken away if the SNP would vote for the withdrawal agreement? I hesitate to remind the member that his own party is not showing any signs at present of voting for their own deal. That remark can be taken really as a representative of the species of foolishness that it probably represents. Although I have focused on some of the risks that Brexit poses to crofting, I do so not because they are the only threats that are crofting far from it. I could happily spend an afternoon, but I will not be rating Grey Lag Geese alone. However, I mention those threats in conclusion because they are, at the latest, reckoning some 561 hours away. Ensuring that we provide the right support for agriculture and rural communities in the wake of Brexit is essential, not just for the sector and the communities that depend on it, but for Scotland's economy as a whole. Agriculture is a vital source of employment income in the rural areas and the foundation of a food and drink sector that is worth billions of pounds and countless jobs across the whole of Scotland. However, agriculture is also one of the sectors that is put most at risk by the utter chaos of the current Brexit process. During this time of uncertainty, we need the UK Government to take a no-deal Brexit off the table, but we also need more direction, detail and clarity from the Scottish Government on its long-term vision for the future of agriculture beyond five years. That brings together the many stakeholders within the sector. The last time that we debated this topic in the chamber, the cabinet secretary agreed as a result of pressure from Opposition parties to convene a group to develop in detail a new policy. However, as yet, we have seen little progress on this. The minister mentioned that commitment again today, but it still provided no detail. Given the urgency of this matter and the scale of the work to be undertaken by that group, the lack of progress is a deep concern. I accept that there are challenges caused by the continued uncertainty about long-term funding from the UK Government. I share the frustration of the Scottish Government on this point, but I do not accept that that is an excuse to delay developing in partnership with stakeholders far more detailed around proposals for a Scottish system. We should be making the case for the level of funding that we need and putting forward credible, detailed plans that show what a new Scottish system could look like in the long term. That system needs to incorporate the principles outlined in the motion, productivity, regional differentiation, environmental protection, simplification, research and education. A great deal of agreement exists across a range of stakeholders for those aims. There is also widespread recognition of the need to do more to support environmental sustainability in the sector, taking into account factors such as emissions, biodiversity and air and soil quality. Likewise, it is broadly agreed that payment should be set up in a way that better fosters a culture of innovation and entrepreneurialism in the sector by making funding available for measures intended to increase productivity and resilience. I will give a brief answer to that. It is a very quick question. In your vision for the future, do you foresee a reduction in the £50 million a year that it costs to administer the current scheme? Colin Smyth? I would certainly hope so, but it is interesting that that has risen in the last budget as well, which is certainly a matter of concern. We also need reforms to support a more equitable distribution of the funding that is available irrespective of the cost of running that system. The current emphasis on direct payments provides large and often wealthy landowners with a significant sum of money, while 45 per cent of farms generate income that works out below the minimum agriculture wage. Funding needs to be allocated more fairly and according to the principle of public good for public money. It should promote inclusive growth and a wide range of social benefits, as well as economic and environmental ones, and there needs to be support in place to compensate for natural disadvantages such as biophysical restraints and remoteness. ELFAS is currently a lifeline for many farmers and crofters, and the cabinet secretary must guarantee not only protecting against the up-and-coming 60 per cent cut, but also making it clear that it will be a source of support of that kind in the long term. Our future support system should also be used to improve support for animal welfare, for example, better incentivising those who make the choice to keep calves and culls together longer and supporting the rearing of male dairy calves instead of exporting them. There is growing concern that the live export of animals for fat and in slaughter does nothing to positively promote Scottish agriculture, and we should be bringing that practice to an end or the Government's claim to support the process of meat production close to where animals are born and reared is a worthless claim. There needs to be a clear commitment to a replacement for leader funding. Crucially, a new agricultural support system must also work to tackle the scandal of food poverty in Scotland. It is an absolute disgrace that children in Scotland still go to bed hungry in a country with a world-class food and drink sector. The new agricultural support system must help the sector to fulfil people's basic human right to food. I once again call on the Scottish Government to enshrine in law. This motion that we are debating today from the Tories feels a bit like Groundhog Day. I wonder if you remember that the Parliament acknowledges that future policy for Scotland's rural economy should be founded on key principles, including sustainability, simplicity, innovation, inclusion, productivity and profitability. That is very similar to the motion that we are debating today, but that was the motion that was put forward by the Scottish Government on 10 January, which includes a proposal from the Liberal Democrats, which Mike Rumble spoke of earlier, to convene a group consisting of producer, consumer and environmental organisations to inform. We debated that at length, but the Tories voted against it. In that debate, Cabinet Secretary for Rural Economy, Fergus Ewing, opened by saying, we are 78 days away from Brexit, yet we do not know the sort of Brexit that we face. What is clear is that none of the Brexit options is good for Scotland's rural economy. All are problematic for sectors such as farming, food and drink, aquaculture, forestry and fisheries. As has been said, we are now only 23 days away from Brexit, and it is very clear that nothing has changed. Everyone in this chamber, whether they admit it or not, knows that the real and present threat to the rural economy, the real detrimental effect is not some perceived inertia from the Scottish Government. The biggest threat to every sector in Scotland, including the rural economy, is being taken out of the European Union. Brexit will damage UK agriculture, regardless of whether we come out with no deal or, indeed, Theresa May's bad deal. Our farmers have no certainty that they will even have access to the European market at the end of this month. Sheep farmers with UK sheep meat exports were £390 million a year, nearly 90 per cent of which is destined for the European market now face the prospect of tariffs as high as 45 to 50 per cent being forced on them, devastating. Our celebrated food and drink sector that Colin Smyth just referenced, estimate that a no deal could lead to a loss of £2 billion worth of sales, and that is based on the UK Government's own economic projections. Fresh, chilled or perishable products that attract a premium for quality and freshness are seafood, our red meat, poultry, fruit, veg and dairy could be delayed and spoiled due to extended customs checks. Our red meat industry faces obliteration in the current export market due to the punitive tariffs, and the problem will be exacerbated if the UK adopts a policy of low or no tariffs or checks of equivalent imports—I am sorry, I do not have time—which could ultimately flood the market. What is going to happen to our precious PGI status? To quote from the NFUS discussion paper on a new agricultural policy for Scotland post-Brexit, it says that change is inevitable but change must be managed and not chaotic. But all we are seeing from Westminster with Brexit is chaos. We want to do things differently in Scotland and we will. The Scottish Government has already said that they are working on plans for future support. The cabinet secretary gave a statement in this chamber recently and outlined our plans. The minister also laid out in her opening statement that future support must be simplified. We all agree with that. It should support the whole of our countryside and, yes, the environment. It should reward good practice and productivity and stewardship of the land, but it should also measure carbon impact and biodiversity. Above all, it must be fair. It must support communities and it must work for everyone. To say that we are sitting back and doing nothing is just not true. May I begin by declaring an interest as a farmer, food producer and member of NFUS and welcome Donald Cameron's motion? However, before I move to the content of our motion, I want to raise with the cabinet secretary the spectre that was raised in last week's Sunday Times and by Gail Ross of 9 million lambs across the UK being unsailable into the EU market this year, with or without a Brexit deal, with potential losses of around £100 per head facing sheep farmers this year. Can I ask the cabinet secretary what plans he has to deal with this problem on behalf of the many sheep farmers in Scotland and therefore can I urge him to vote for the deal? On just asking this question of the cabinet secretary who I wish would keep quiet from the sedentary position that he occupies, Presiding Officer illustrates the point that I want to make that while we are discussing the future shape of rural Scotland here today, the much bigger question is how many working farmers will there be in our landscape at all in future. NFUS has declared their vision to be actively farmed hectares, but those landscapes require people in them to make them work. Too many livestock farmers cannot currently make a living, as demonstrated by those years' historic tiff figures, which may come as some surprise to Mary Gougeon and Gail Ross, sufficient to allow them to continue actively farming or environmentally enhancing our countryside. That is happening now and before Brexit. The Government continues to make life harder for those who are trying to make a living, with this week laying the instrument to introduce beavers as part of their project to great wilderness landscapes in Scotland. Siegel introduction, Redkite introduction, now beaver introduction are all active choices supported by the Scottish Government and all of which have a cumulative impact on the viability of our agricultural sector. No, I am afraid, I won't stir, I'm sorry. Presiding Officer, land abandonment is a current and real threat in Scotland, which could create wilderness on a scale not seen since the 18th century in Scotland, as well as cause the rural depopulation of those with the skills to produce and maintain the working and managed landscapes that we currently enjoy. In addition, computers that don't work have taken another £200 million out of Scottish farmers' pockets, and rural payment schemes that reduce or delay cash flows don't really help, and reducing elfast payments just makes a bad situation even worse. I know that the cabinet secretary is doing his best to support farmers, but those are some of the day-to-day obstacles that need to be overcome just to put food on the table before we can even start considering where we're headed. Of course, we need increased productivity, but productivity can't be achieved without profitability. Tiff figures again, cabinet secretary. Of course, we need environmental protections and enhancement on the delivery of public goods and climate change mitigation, but not if the delivery of those public goods helps to put farmers out of business. Simplification is long overdue and a new support scheme under proposed new Scottish legislation should seek to achieve that, and perhaps take a leaf from the Irish Government's book on how to do that. Education and knowledge transfer is absolutely vital, too, if our airs and successes are to be equipped in more sophisticated food production techniques at the same time as delivering on further greenhouse gas reduction targets. I hope that the cabinet secretary and Mark Ruskell agree with me when I say that being the world leader in climate change mitigation targets is not worth it if we drive farmers and food producers out of Scotland and are forced to buy still more of our own food from other countries in the world to reprise lost production here in Scotland. The huge success that has been Scotland's food and drink cannot be continued or sustained without the raw material to do so, and that is constantly reducing, particularly in the life sector, to the point where we will have difficulty sustaining the idea that the end product is derived from Scottish growing produce. Cabinet secretary, you know how important people are in our countryside and how important earth-last payments are to 85 per cent of Scotland's classified, less-favourite areas, and that is why existing payment rates must be sustained by commending Donald Cameron's motion. Let me respond to a couple of things that have come up in the debate. First of all, I share John Scott's concern about the Tayside beavers. I know that 550 of them descended from what we must remind ourselves were illegally released or escaped perhaps, but illegally released beavers. The Government is picking up the tab for someone else's illegal activity, and I wish that we did not have to do that. I want to pursue the point that Mark Ruskell made on climate change. John Scott and I, to a certain extent, will make common cause on that. What Mark Ruskell asked for in the context of how we do farming is a net zero farming sector, emitting net zero. That is something that can damage the whole climate change agenda to move the whole of an environment to net zero. It would be perfectly easy to move the human race to net zero emissions, for example. You would just remove all humans from the surface of the planet that you have achieved overnight. Of course, that is not what you are going to do. In asking net zero in farming, you are making a similar suggestion. Equally, I am really not good at time—do forgive me, I am really watching and I will be caught up, I am sure—but the real point is that we want net zero across all our sectors, but not in every sector. We want to spend the pounds to get to net zero where it is most effective. We also have to remember that farmers do not get enough credit for the efforts that they are making. The work that is done in forestry is not attributed to the farming sector, for example. We have days now where all our electricity comes from wind farms. Where are the wind farms? They are actually on agricultural farms, by and large, but not a single part of that climate change benefit is attributable to farmers in the numbers that we have. The bottom line is that we have to spend the money on climate change mitigation and reduction in the most cost-effective way. If putting it into farming is the way that we get the greatest reduction for every pound, we do it there. However, if it is more likely that we put it into insulating houses, if it is more likely that we put it into decarbonising our transport sector, that is where we should put it. However, if, for doctrinaire reasons, we decide that we put it into farming, where it may not be the greatest bang for our buck, we damage our ability overall to reach net zero on climate change. We need to be very cautious about those. Do forgive me, Mr Ruskell, the simplest views of a complex issue. I have one minute to go, Presiding Officer, so do forgive me, Mr Ruskell. We will have a chat afterwards. I come back to the core issue of farming and support for it, which is at the heart of the motion that we are debating. I found it somewhat baffling when Mr Cameron made his remarks and, indeed, Mr Mountain, as well. When I look at what the NFUS briefing to us actually says, it says, it is the view of the NFUS that stability and simplicity—the Government's document—effectively captured the recommendations from various expert groups appointed by the Government in recent years. It is almost to say that it has been a pretty good thing. It is not uncritical and absolute support. I would never expect that from farmers. However, it also says, it is the view of the NFUS, that if the steps to change approach were to be adopted, much of which is required by the way of future support, Scottish agriculture could be delivered with greater efficiency in terms of funding, process and outcomes. The farmers have got the message. They know where we need to go, and I look forward to continuing to gauge with farmers in my constituency and across Scotland on the many occasions that they present themselves. Indeed, I hope that this year at the Tura show once again to be sitting next to Mr Gove, and I hope that he will be able to account for what the United Kingdom Government has done in the period since 29 March. I am not holding my breath. Thank you, and we move to our closing speeches. I call Rhoda Grant on behalf of the Labour party. The debate improved with time, thankfully, and, hopefully, it has given the cabinet secretary some food for thought. A number of speakers questioned our amendment and why we would be looking to tackle food poverty and rural poverty in a debate about farming. I repeat again that 45 per cent of farms make an income less than the minimum agriculture wealth, with wage and 23 per cent operate at a loss. That is poverty. That cannot be anything other than poverty. Therefore, if we are looking at schemes going forward, we need to tackle that. It is simply wrong that people are making huge amounts of money out of the support available, and those 45 per cent who really need that help are not getting it. Therefore, if we are devising a new scheme, we need to make sure that the support goes to the right people. The same goes with food production and food poverty. At the moment, we are not, as we can see, paying some of the producers enough, but yet food is not affordable to our population. Those things are inextricably linked, and we need to make sure that, if we are looking at support, we need to make those links and make sure that the industry and the support that we put into the industry deal with those issues. Colin Smyth said that we should enshrine a right to food, a human right to food, and I believe in that. I absolutely think that that is something that we should do. If we did that, it would inform our policy going forward. It is the mainstay of our amendment, and I really hope that people support it, because it is incredibly important. A number of speakers, Mark Ruskell, Colin Smyth and Stuart Stevenson, talked about farming and the environment. I know that that is a big issue, and it has certainly been looked at at the Environment, Climate Change and the move to net zero. An issue that has come up in the debate, and I think that Stuart Stevenson spoke about it briefly, is mitigation. The farming sector mitigates a huge amount of carbon, something that they are not given credit for. When you look at the outputs from the farming sector, nobody looks at what they are sequestrating. We need to do that to encourage more farmers to take on-board sequestration and to reward them for the work that they do. We need to make sure that any new scheme is not competitive in this direction. I have heard so many people say that they cannot qualify for environmental schemes because it is competitive. How can a small farm compete with a large farm and tick the boxes that they can? John Scott talked about net zero, maybe forcing people out of business. We need to speak about that now, because we need a just transition. That means that we are not forcing people out of business. What we are doing is making sure that there is support available, because we already have too many air miles for our food. We need to look at local producers and local procurement to make sure that we cut the air miles from our food, which actually cuts carbon as well. Needless to say, the debate focused a great deal on Brexit, and that is not surprising. Mary Goodyne talked about the other rural funding Macleodor that we have no knowledge of what will be in place going forward. It would be really good if the Scottish Government looked at what it would prioritise in those schemes. The EU prioritises peripherality. We need our Governments to look at those things. Yes, they might be waiting to hear whether they have the money, but we need to make sure that the direction of travel is there so that people know what they can expect from future policy. No deal would be a disaster, as Colin Smyth said, but the backstop for farming is a disaster, because it includes fish and agriculture, and tariffs would become payable, so that would not improve the situation either. In conclusion, I can see that you are looking at me. Edward Mountain talked about land reform, and he talked about the lack of tenancies and the need to stop land reform. I would argue that that was a reason to push ahead with land reform, because if those who are managing the land cannot provide the tenancy, we need to put it in the hands of those who would manage it for the many, not the few. I am pleased that the Scottish Government has set out in our document stability and simplicity, in which we consulted last summer proposals for a rural funding transition period of five years. That was a consultation document, and we listened carefully to the responses that we received. Those responses were largely positive and supportive. We are now therefore in a position that we have set out a clear five-year plan, which we believe would see the industry through the transition following the UK's exit from the EU, if that indeed does take place. I am delighted that we have had a positive response to that. I respect many of the farmers who sit in this Parliament, and I listen carefully to their advice always. I agree with much of the things that, for example, John Scott has to say about improvements in farming practice. The telling point in this debate is getting to the nub of things, if I may try to do that, Presiding Officer, as I do not sadly have enough time to answer all the various individual points. The nub is this, that this Parliament, in a debate just a few weeks ago, agreed on a certain path. It did so by an overwhelming majority—I think that everybody except the Conservatives, although if anyone in the opposition parties did not support me, please correct me—but everybody said that what we should do is proceed on the basis of the principles that we set out in that debate with an amendment that I was happy to accept from Mr Rumbles that we appoint a group of people to help guide us and provide advice as to the way ahead, after the five-year period is over, Presiding Officer, as to the long-term future. Now, having instructed me to proceed in that way, of course I respect the will of Parliament. Indeed, if I were not to do so, the Conservatives would, I imagine, be the very first to criticise me for ignoring the will of Parliament. I intend to do what Parliament asked me to do. I am happy to confirm the specific request that Mr Rumbles made that we are making good progress towards selecting a group of people and consideration with regard to the particular wording of the debate. I am happy to say that I will be announcing the composition of the group in due course as soon as we can possibly do that. There are practical matters about appointing people to serve on groups. We have to ensure that they are available and ready to do it. That takes a little time to do. I am proud that we have set out our five-year plan, but I asked one question of the Conservatives at the beginning of the debate. What is the Scottish Conservatives policy specifically on the future of funding, not just agriculture but rural policy as a whole? As far as I know, other than some abstract nouns and some desirable sentiments, there is no policy whatsoever. None of the Conservative members mentioned that at all. It may be that they support the vague proposals that are set out in Michael Gove's health and harmony paper, but they have not said that. I know why they have not said that. Michael Gove is proposing that all direct payments to farmers cease by 227 in eight years' time. I am happy to accept that clarification from Mr Cameron. Do you support that or not? It is your responsibility to set out what your policy is for your Government. If you read the document, you would say that we support direct payments for farmers continuing. Let me offer some advice to Mr Cameron. I have been doing advice for 40 years as a solicitor and then as an MSP. There is a time when you start to need to develop policies of your own and stop the endless negativity, carping and bickering. I can tell you that you will get absolutely nowhere pursuing your current approach. That does not cause me too much grief, Presiding Officer. I have not even asked for payment for that advice. I give it freely. Presiding Officer, I guess that I have not got much time left, but I find it quite staggering that the Conservatives should bring this motion to the Parliament. I will ignore that in one sense, because my job is to do my best for Scottish farmers. I am determined to do it. That is one of the things that I do every single day. I am pleased to inform Parliament that, over the past few days, we have issued 10,600 offers of loan to ELFAS recipients and that we intend to make payments to those who return their acceptance as soon as possible, and preferably before 29 March. We will be doing our job for Scottish farmers. The tragedy is that the Scottish Conservatives, through cowardice or through their duty to obey about which we heard yesterday, Mrs May, have said absolutely nothing about Brexit and appear to be quite ready to see Scotland go over the no-deal precipice. The rest of this Parliament believes that that is a profound and grievous error. Their approach is feckless and reckless. They have nothing positive to say whatsoever, and perhaps a period of prolonged silence would be their best course of action for a week or so. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I register an interest as a partner in the farming business. Today's debate has allowed an important conversation about the future direction of travel for Scottish agriculture. I have always said that the great prize Brexit offers is the opportunity to design a system of support better suited to the needs of Scottish agriculture and move away from the outdated cap system that simply has not been working for our farmers for many years. While I am glad that we have had this debate today, it is unfortunate that we on these Conservative benches have had to initiate it, because despite constant requests from everyone in this Parliament and the farming community for certainty on future direction, we only know that this Government intends to carry on with little change through cap rules until 2024. Cabinet Secretary, that is very disappointing and far too long a lead-in to the changes that it can and should be made much more quickly. The NFUS has said that Brexit is a golden opportunity for change. We have published our plans today and I commend them to everyone in the chamber. My colleagues have explained some of them today and it would appear that the cabinet secretary has not been listening. Nevertheless, I am glad to hear that we all agree that a farmer's first priority is to produce the high-quality food that we all enjoy. Efficient food production must be built on strong environmental and animal welfare standards. It is therefore important that a suite of environmental measures should be put in place that all farmers can join. Payment should be made for environmental outcomes that are simple to apply for, simple to implement and easily measured. I have always been vocal about my support of the Scottish Government's target to grow our food and drink industry to £30 billion by 2030. However, to double this industry, we must support and sustain the growth of our agricultural sector and the farmers who grow the raw materials from which our award-winning and world-renowned products are made. I had hoped that this would be a positive debate today, but, of course, my regression went straight into the usual SNP grief, grievance and scaremongering mode of a no-deal Brexit. Let me spell out to her and all SNP members here today. The simple way to ensure no deal is to vote for the deal. Listen to the NFUS, listen to the NFU England and Wales, listen to business. They want a deal that will give us certainty, give us tariff-free access to EU markets, allow our land to flow into Europe. The hypocrisy from SNP is breathtaking. Mary Gougeon also said that there was no certainty of funding. Let me explain to her that the UK Government has guaranteed support payments until 2022. This is more certainty than farmers in the EU have. They have little certainty given that our contribution to the EU will cease and support for agriculture will likely fall as a result. Mark Ruskell in his speech spoke only about climate change. Let me tell him that farmers are a major part of the solution of climate change rather than being the problem. Our document explains that we would encourage carbon sequestration and we will support more efficient use of inputs with targeted inputs, and we will support efficient livestock production. I thank Stuart Stevenson for his contribution to that part of the debate today. In answer to Mark Ruskell's question, which bigger public good is there than addressing climate change, the answer is that the bigger public good is feeding our population. Alistair Allan spoke about the importance of ELFAS, funding for crofting, and we fully agree. That is why we talk almost about ELFAS at length in our document and say that it should remain. Let me remind Gail Ross that there are challenges from Brexit, but there are also opportunities. We must leave with a deal, and we can and will leave with a deal, and SNP MPs can help that to happen. Will they vote for it? No, because they want a failed Brexit, and they want chaos to drive independence. I would like to make clear that whatever future policy this Government eventually adopts, I hope that today's debate has given them some ideas. I hope that they will come forward with new ideas soon for the continued support for this industry. Let me quote a worrying statistic. Last year, 82 per cent of farming profits came from support payments. That has nothing to do with Brexit. That is before Brexit even happens. That is on your watch. That staggering figure shows how important it is for the Government, both here and in Westminster, to provide farmers with certainty of future farm support and how that will be delivered. In the middle of February, the Scottish Government announced the creation of another new group to drive forward recommendations of the National Council of Rural Advisers. I have lost count of the number of advisory groups and consultations on future policy that this Government has formed, and yet there is still no clear idea of the desired key principles and structures. We, the Scottish Conservatives and Unionist Party, have published our desired key principles today to drive future agricultural policy. We do not have a team of civil servants to crunch the numbers and come up with detailed policy. That Government does, and it is time that it stopped kicking the car down the road and gave this industry a degree of certainty that it not only needs to plan ahead but which it also deserves. I support the motion in the name of Donald Cameron. Thank you very much. That concludes this afternoon's debate. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 1.6.1.5.0 in the name of Graham Day, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a business programme. Graham Day, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a business programme. Moved, Presiding Officer. Thank you very much. No one wishes to speak against that. The question is that motion 1.6.1.5.0 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are. The next item is consideration of business motions 1.6.1.5.1 and 1.6.1.5.2 on the stage 2 timetable of two bills. Graham Day, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a business programme. Moved, Presiding Officer. Thank you. Again, no one wishes to speak against the motions. The question is that motions 1.6.1.5.1 and 1.6.1.5.2 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are. Thank you. The next item is consideration of eight Parliamentary Bureau motions 1.6.1.5.3 to 1.6.1.5.9 on approval of SSIs and 1.6.1.6.0 on a committee meeting at the same time as Parliament. Graham Day, on behalf of those motions. Moved, Presiding Officer. Thank you very much. So, we turn to decision time. Can I remind members that if the amendment in the name of John Swinney is agreed, then the amendment in the name of Ian Gray falls? The first question is that amendment 1.6.1.2.2, in the name of John Swinney, which seeks to amend motion 1.6.1.2.2, in the name of Alison Harris, on early years, be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We're not agreed. We'll move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 1.6.1.2.2, in the name of John Swinney, is yes, 57, no, 58. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. So, the next question is that amendment 1.6.1.2.2.1, in the name of Ian Gray, which seeks to amend the motion in the name of Alison Harris, be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. We're not agreed. We'll move to a division and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 1.6.1.2.2.1, in the name of Ian Gray, is yes, 58, no, 57. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. The next question is that motion 1.6.1.2.2, in the name of Alison Harris, be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. We're not agreed. We'll move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion 1.6.1.2.2, in the name of Alison Harris, as amended, is yes, 58, no, 57. There were no abstentions. The motion as amended, is therefore agreed. The next question is that amendment 1.6.1.2.3.2, in the name of Mary Gougeon, which seeks to amend motion 1.6.1.2.3, in the name of Donald Cameron, on supporting Scottish agriculture, be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. We're not agreed. We'll move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 1.6.1.2.3.2, in the name of Mary Gougeon, is yes, 82, no, 33. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. The next question is that amendment 1.6.1.2.3.1, in the name of Rhoda Grant, which seeks to amend motion 1.6.1.2, in the name of Donald Cameron, be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. We're not agreed. We'll move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 1.6.1.2.3.1, in the name of Rhoda Grant, is yes, 88, no, 27. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. The next question is that the motion 1.6.1.2.3, in the name of Donald Cameron, as amended, on supporting Scottish agriculture, be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We're not agreed. We'll move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion 1.6.1.2.3, in the name of Donald Cameron, as amended, is yes, 82, no, 33. There were no abstentions. The motion, as amended, is therefore agreed. I propose to ask a single question on the eight parliamentary bureau motions. Does anyone object? The question is that motions 1.6.1.5.3.2.1.6.1.6.0, in the name of Graham Day, on behalf of the parliamentary bureau, be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. That concludes decision time. We're going to move on shortly to members' business, in the name of Gordon MacDonald, on Marie Curie's great daffodil appeal. I will just take a few moments for members to change seats and the ministers to change seats.