 Felly, rydw i'n gallu gwirionedd y chymdeithas ac mae wir wedi gwilio ar yaniau gwirionedd, a yr adeg Lord Slith, yn ei ddylun ar y cyddiad. Rydw i'n nhw rydw i'w rhai i'r hyn o'r Llywodraeth a'r oedd yn chi'n gwneud gwirionedd, ac rydw i'w rhai i'n gwirionedd o'r hollewyr cymdeithas, rydw i'n gweld i'r byw i fath o gwirioneddd, cyn fyddai gydig i'n mergynnau'r gymaint? The final item of business today is a member's business debate on motion 58, in the name of Jim Fairlie, on the impact of Scottish agriculture of tariff-free trade deals. This debate will be concluded without any questions being put. I would ask those members who wish to speak in the debate to please press the request to speak buttons now. I would call on Jim Fairlie to open the debate. I officially welcome you to your new role, finally at the chance to do it. Last week I met up with the National Farmers Union of Scotland at their invitation to discuss their concerns over the proposal for a tariff and quota-free deal currently under negotiation between the UK and Australian Governments. Their briefing paper contained the following, and I quote, NFU Scotland endorses the commitment that UK farmers should not be undercut by unfair competition and believes that trade deals that include the complete elimination of tariffs across agricultural sectors would seriously impact the farming and the rural communities that it supports. As the UK enters into negotiations for new trade deals with our trading partners around the world, it is important that sensitive sectors are considered. The culminative impact of complete market liberalisation in future trade deals could be devastating to rural economies that are reliant on the industry and the jobs that it brings. Once the precedent has been set, it will prove difficult to avoid in future trade deals. I have subsequently spoken with representatives of other various trade industry bodies, including the Scottish Tenant Farmers Association, the Institute of Auctioneers, the Scottish Association of Meat Wholesalers, the Scottish Crofters Federation, the Scottish Butcher's Federation, the Scottish Beef Association, the Scottish Blackface Sheep Readers Association and the National Sheep Association of Scotland, as well as numerous farmers in my constituency and across the country. Their excitement at the opportunities of this and future deals to be negotiated are palpable, said absolutely no one who understands or cares about this sector. In the very late 1800s and early 1900s, farming in this country was almost decimated as America opened up and transport became quicker, easier and cheaper. Grain and meat prices collapsed as the UK Government opted for the liberalisation of markets. As those prices collapsed, many tenants simply packed their carts and headed for the towns to try and find work, but the government insisted that cheap food was the priority, so land abandonment, land degradation and rural de-population was commonplace. The farming sector did not recover until during and after the Second World War, when the Government realised that the German U-boat attacks on merchant ships were going to starve Britain into submission. The infrastructure that was needed for an entire industry had simply been decimated by years of inactivity and loss of skillset, which meant that the country had to reinvent its agricultural ability in order to feed itself. Thankfully, the farmers and the land girls faced up to that challenge and did exactly that. There has been a support system in place ever since and the technological advances have been revolutionary, which has seen agriculture in Scotland resume its place in Scotland as the engine room for Scotland's rural economy and the bedrock for our fastest growing sector, the food and drink sector. Despite the protestations of Liz Truss and the Herald, the very survival of the industry is now being jeopardised by the trade deal being proposed with Australia in exactly the same way that the American and Canadian liberalisation deals did almost 100 years ago. The spuriousness of her arguments that we in the SNP are holding in the street back are laughable. We hear about the benefits. I appreciate the member's intervention. Can you give us an indication of when the SNP Government is going to come forward with an outline on the plans for future rural support? The SNP Government is coming forward with a plan for future rural support after they have taken all the information and all the reports that they are going to get from the five working groups that have been set up to help tackle our climate emergency. The spuriousness of her arguments that we in the SNP are holding back in the industry are laughable and I will repeat that point because we hear the benefits to the whisky industry and how that will help. How many family farms will benefit from a 5 per cent reduction in tariffs on whisky to Australia? At hazard, there will be very, very few, if any. So it is clear that the Tories are now going to try and make this out to be an SNP grievance-mungering anti-Westminster rhetoric debate. In reality, it is not just the SNP that are like, it is not just the SNP and I like to thank those Labour and Green members who have signed this motion. Nor is the concern limited to the trade bodies that I have already mentioned. I have also been contacted by the World Wildlife Fund who are gravely worried about the implications of this deal and the UK Government's determination to offshore its own environmental obligations. I quote, In a crucial year for climate and nature, a substandard deal with Australia would make a mockery of the UK Government's world-leading plans to support sustainable farming and green global supply chains. A good go on, their report is really damming. Last week in this chamber, Kate Forbes challenged Murdo Fraser on the devastation that this and future trade deals would have on the sector. His response spoke volumes, because he cited South Ayrshire Council requiring public procurement bodies to reduce meat consumption by 75 per cent. If that's the best you've got, I'm afraid you really don't understand what's going on with the industry. To pick up his point, the real threat is that if this deal goes through and it is followed on by all the other surely prepared deals, we should be looking at recommending no meat products going to the menu for our children that have been imported from any of the hormone-injecting intensive feedlot system countries that Westminster are currently falling over themselves to do deals with. The total value of sales in the public procurement sector is worth £150 million. That's a substantial amount of money, and I get that. It's one that I will be working with the Scottish Government on to improve even further. Please do, Stephen. The problem that the SNP has is that you have fundamentally a party that is opposed to free trade. Tell me, tell me, tell me, tell me one example of the SNP voting for a free trade deal with anybody in any Parliament. Give me one example. I'll give you a wee bit extra time for the two interventions. Thank you. The EU. So, and let me just point this out. And let me just point this out to you, Mr Kerr. You had your moment. Please just let me point this out. The total value of sales in the public procurement sector Excuse me, could we have less chat across the chamber, please? Sorry, I couldn't hear myself for the wrap. I appreciate Mr Fairlie, just carry on. The total value of sales in the public procurement sector, and I'm referring back to Mr Murdo Fraser's response last week, is £150 million. Now that is a substantial amount of money, and that is one that I will be working with the Scottish Government to see how much better we can do to improve that, and to see how much more we can get into the public sector. I absolutely take that on board. But that figure is completely dwarfed by our total grocery sale figure of £12 billion in annual spend in Scotland. So there is no way that the public procurement sales are going to solve the pain of destroying our own domestic market with foreign imports now that they have destroyed the relationship with the biggest single market in the world. And let's take that a step further. If Liz Truss wants to talk about the great trading opportunity that we've been given as a result of their Brexit, our pre-Scottish Brexit red meat sales to the EU in 2019 were worth £87 million. Our red meat sales to Australia in the same year were £142,000. So in other words, we'd need to do over 600 Australia-sized deals just to match what we previously had. And to describe that as a major opportunity is utterly laughable. I know that Scotland's farming community can thrive and meet its climate change targets with the kind of support that the SNP Government is offering. I know that ambition 2030 is not only hugely ambitious, it's an achievable ambition because of the fantastic co-operative nature that has been built in the sector since 2007 when Richard Lochhead introduced to Scotland's first national food policy for Scotland, first one in Europe. And I know that our hospitality sector's got a fantastic future if we continue to build on the reputation we have taken decades to build. And I know that we continue to improve the health of our nation and our children by ensuring that they are fed the very best that we can grow and deliver. And let me point out right now, 90 per cent of red meat is currently served in schools is Scotch. Mr Billing, could you please bring your mark so close? Yep, I'll bring it back close. I also know that all of this can be destroyed at the stroke of Boris Johnson's pen signing trade deals that will take us back to the early 1900s. This Parliament and everyone in this chamber, including yourself, Mr Kerr, should make sure that we do everything in our power that he doesn't get the opportunity to destroy what we have worked so hard to build. Thank you. I next call Finlay Carson to be followed by Colin Smyth. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I would like to welcome to you to your post. It's a bit like wishing people a new year. I don't know how long you traditionally keep on welcoming people, but I certainly do that. I'd like to welcome the minister to this debate as well on our new post. I thank Jim Fairlie for bringing this very topical important issue to the chamber. I declare an interest as a member of the NFUS and someone who's been involved in the farming industry most of his life. Agriculture undoubtedly holds a critical role in Scotland's economic and environmental wellbeing, employing more than 67,000 people in rural communities like my own in Galloway and Western Friess. Scottish farmers are responsible for the delivering of the highest quality food for the Scottish and the wider UK market and a reputation for producing finest beef and dairy products continues to grow worldwide. Agriculture presently generates £1.3 billion for the Scottish economy, demonstrating just how critical this sector is to all of us. I work on the opportunity to recognise the Scottish farmers' commitment towards tackling climate change while protecting habitats and wildlife through sustainable innovation, management and their careful stewardship, something that they have championed for many generations. Naturally talk of an Australian free trade agreement has sparked fears within our farming businesses, much of which has again been fuelled by the scaremongering of the SNP. While the NFUS and others are engaging in discussion, I would like to make some progress, thank you. While the NFUS and others are engaging in discussions with the UK Government on this issue, it seems that once again the SNP would rather make political points rather than seek to work with all partners to get the best deal for Scottish farmers. You picked up on it. What hypocrisy, when an SNP-controlled council suggests that it would reduce meat consumption by 75 per cent? Those types of misguided messages will have more impact on Scottish farming than any trade deal. I will. Julie Martin. I thank Finlay Carson for letting me in. I would just like to ask him in terms of collaboration if the UK Government has fulfilled its promise to have a commission that would engage with farmers before they signed any trade deals. Finlay Carson. I am quite surprised that the member does not recognise that the trade and agriculture bill is a process that comes between the negotiation of the trade deal and before it goes through Parliament. That is absolutely there and will be part of the process. The fact of the matter is however that none of the trade deals that we are signing around the world will undercut farmers here or more importantly compromise our high standards. The UK Government has already made it abundantly clear that hormone beef from Australia is banned and will remain so under any trade agreement. It is not the case that a free trade deal will override our standards, far from it in fact. They are principally about tariffs and quotas, not about chlorinated chicken. I was waiting for that to come up, but it may still do. It is not going to be shipped in from America. It is a complete non-starter because our imports have to meet our existing world-leading quality and standards. It is unlikely that Australian products will threaten farmers here, especially as it has currently unused lamb quota. They could sell us more right now, but they are not doing so. Particularly, and a lot of it is to do with, in many cases, the costs are higher in Australia to produce lamb. You consumers also have a strong belief in the buy Scottish buy British approach. With 81 per cent of beef sold in supermarkets such as Alde co-op morrisons, all offering 100 per cent British beef. 0.15 per cent of Australian beef exports are currently UK bound. That compares to 75 per cent that finds its way into the Asia Pacific markets. The prospect of flooding our markets is slim. Given the fantastic track record of QMS, it is increasingly likely that premium cuts of Scottish meat and lamb will find its way on to Australian plates. Exporters here will have the opportunity to expand into the growing new markets in Asia and Pacific. The deal has yet been inked with Australia, but instead of striking unnecessarily fear among Scottish farmers, perhaps the UK that the SNP Government would be better concentrating on its efforts in helping farmers. It would have to be very brief, Alice Rowland. Briefly, can he clarify what he means by other striking fears in the hearts of Scottish farmers, when are the Scottish farmers themselves, through the NFUS, who are expressing those fears? Thank you for the intervention. I believe that you are jumping the gun, because I am unaware of any trade deal that will be detrimental to our farmers. We are already reinforcing the opinion that the SNP is the party of no deal. Alongside my colleagues and the Scottish Government and the UK Government, I am going to continue to consult closely with the farming industry to address our concerns to make sure that they benefit from greater opportunities. It is vitally important that we protect our iconic Scottish produce. I will scrutinise, along with others, the potential agreement and the trade deal that has yet to be signed. I am confident and have been reassured that the Trade and Agricultural Commission will ensure appropriate safeguards are in place and any UK free trade deals. The member is about to conclude. Thank you. If you support the UK's broad objective in promoting free trade, share my belief that the UK Government and the UK Government free trade deals can open up significant new exporting opportunities for the farming community. I echo the words of the Secretary of State for International Trade in relation to the potential Australia drill to welcome an agreement that will give strength and the ties between our two great friends and democracies bound by a shared belief and free enterprise, fair play and high standards. I now call Colin Smyth to be followed by Liam McArthur who will join us remotely. Thank you very much Deputy Presiding Officer and congratulations on your new role. I also thank Jim Fairlie for bringing this motion forward today and also take the opportunity to welcome him to the chamber and his first member's debate. Jim Fairlie's motion rightly recognises the importance of Scotland's agriculture sector and therefore the importance of any on-going trade negotiations. Scottish agriculture is the heart of our world-class food and drink industry and beyond its economic value it's central to the viability of the sector. The needs of the sector therefore must be an integral part of any trade deals and any deals should also meet the future ambitions we should have for the sector. At a time we need to continue to derive up standards, to cut emissions to use land more sustainably to improve animal welfare we can't have those ambitions undermined by any trade deal. When the UK Government's agriculture bill was passing through Westminster they claimed there was no risk to standards. Fears from the sector were dismissed when it was added to the bill by Labour. The proposed trade deal with Australia will be the first test of whether the UK Government's warm words on supporting agriculture sector were simply that just warm words. The rumour deal with Australia with no quotas, no tariffs, no real safeguards will have a devastating impact on the agriculture sector if agreed. More than that it would signify a willingness to sell out agriculture not just here in Scotland but across the UK to have an expectation for future trade deals. No wonder the sector has been absolutely united in its condemnation. NFUS chief executive Scott Walker said in a quote, to be crystal clear an Australian free trade agreement with no tariffs or quotas on sensitive products will put some of Scottish farmers and crofters out of business and set a precedent that all other countries looking for free access to the UK market in the future will be desperate to replicate. I wonder if I can ask the member if all these fears are being talked up by the SNP and by him in his speech. If there was any truth to them why is it that Australia does not currently take up its whole tariff free trade in LAM? If we were about to have a tsunami of Australian LAM why are they not currently taking up the quota that they have which says tariff free? It doesn't add up these arguments but it really doesn't. I have to say that it's disappointing that Mr Kerr dismisses the comments that I've just quoted from the NFUS and I'll quote another comment here from Donald McKinnon chair of the Scottish Crofting Federation that said that unbridled access to markets would be and again a quote catastrophic for crofting and hill production maybe Mr Kerr dismisses that as well. I wonder about the UK farming round table who called for the UK Government to stand up for UK farmers in its negotiations to fully liberalise tariff lines in these sensitive sectors should be resisted and should demands for excessive quota concessions which would have the same effect. The sector has been very clear Mr Kerr and it has been unanimous about the damage a deal of this nature would do to Scottish agriculture and I believe agriculture in Scotland deserves better than being simply a bargaining chip sold out at every step of the Brexit process. UK Government needs to listen to the warnings that are coming from the sector itself, deliver a deal with the necessary safeguards in place to protect local producers and protect our world class standards. These trade negotiations are of huge importance to Scottish agriculture and also to our rural communities but it's not the only post-Brexit challenge the sector faces and although this is a hugely important subject it's maybe a bit disappointing that the first debate on agriculture in this session is a member's debate on what is a reserved issue when the sector is the responsibility of this Parliament and the Scottish Government we are not going to get the opportunity to debate any time soon. In particular the challenges the sector faces over the lack of clarity and what changes the Scottish Government will make to agricultural support during the transition period which is already underway much less the long-term plans to replace the common agricultural policy. The report by the farming and food production future policy group appears to be lying somewhere that it was supposed to be published. We don't know when, how or even if the recommendations of the farmer-led groups will be taken forward and it's unclear whether the crofting bill abandoned last term will go ahead this term. The clock is ticking towards the end of the transition period and the sector needs answers so I hope the Scottish Government will make it a priority in this term to give Parliament and more importantly Scotland's farmers and crofters those overdue answers soon and in providing those answers I hope it will ensure that Scotland's farmers sector is an integral part of a post-Brexit, post-cap, post-pandemic green recovery that delivers a sustainable future for our rural communities. Thank you. I next call Lea McArthur who is joining us remotely to be followed by Michelle Thompson. Thank you very much. I know this evening's debate is heavily subscribed so I will keep my remarks brief. However given the fundamental importance of agriculture to the Orkney community I had the privilege of representing for 15 years. I couldn't let this opportunity pass without offering a few thoughts from an island perspective. Firstly, I add my congratulations to Jim Fairlie on securing this first member's debate of the new session and thank him for choosing to focus on a key issue facing our farming and crofting sectors at the moment. I also warmly congratulate my friend Mary Gougeon on her well-deserved promotion to the Cabinet Secretary and wish her all the very best and to working with her across a range of issues. There can be few communities as heavily reliant on agriculture as Orkney which remains economically and culturally shaped by the sector. It's a major employer and source of income to the islands but also a huge success story in terms of the reputation Orkney's farmers have earned for high quality local produce beef, lamb, she's all part of genuinely world-class food and drink sector. That reputation has been founded on high standards of animal welfare and environmental impact which involves a willingness to innovate and constantly look at how things might be done better. But it's a commitment that comes at a cost. It should not, it cannot be done on the cheap and it is a commitment that should be matched by those seeking to compete with UK producers in the UK market. Sadly, as NFU Scotland pointed out, the risk is that UK farmers could be undercut by unfair competition resulting from trade deals struck by the UK Conservative Government that include the complete elimination of tannas across the agricultural sector. That in turn has implications for our efforts to tackle climate change, improve habitats and protect wildlife given the farming sector's management and stewardship responsibilities. Implications too for the prosperity and even viability of many rural and island communities across Scotland which are so dependent upon farming. The focus, understandably, has been on the trade deal struck between the UK and Australia. The concern is as much about the cumulative impact that a succession of such deals might have on jobs and incomes within the sector. Once the precedent has been set, it will be difficult to avoid such tannas-free access in future trade deals. Yet, with the same token, we are a way to make clear the need for those exporting to the UK to meet the same stringent welfare that we demand of our producers. That could help in setting a more positive precedent. It would certainly reduce the risk of our farmers and crofters being undercut. Meanwhile, as NFUS explained in recent deals with Japan and Canada, include tariff relief quotas which trigger safeguard clauses that are above certain thresholds and this is particularly relevant in sensitive sectors of primary production. So there are options available. In closing, Presiding Officer, on the theme of meeting animal welfare standards, can I ask Mary Gougeon to update Parliament today or ahead of the summer recess on the latest situation with regard to future plans on regulating live animal transport? Proposals issued for consultation by the UK and Scottish Governments earlier this year caused real concern amongst the farming communities in Orkney and Shetland. Monthly, as framed, the proposed restrictions would have closed down the livestock industry and that, on the basis of no credible evidence that the highest animal welfare standards are not already being made. meantime, can I thank Tim Fairlie again for allowing Parliament this opportunity to debate such an important subject and look forward to hearing the contributions from other colleagues as well as the Cabinet Secretary in response. Thank you very much indeed. Thank you to Liam McArthur who kept to his time. I make no further comment. Before calling the next speaker I wish to advise that, as a result of the number of members who are wishing to speak in this debate, I am minded to accept a motion without notice under rule 8.14.3 to extend the debate by up to 30 minutes. I now invite Jim Fairlie to move a motion without notice. Moved. Thank you Mr Fairlie. The question is that the debate be extended by up to 30 minutes. Are we all agreed? I now would call Michelle Thomson to be followed by Emma Harper. Thank you. Presiding Officer, as with lunch free trade is never free. It can bring benefits, but we must not be blind to the costs, complexity and potential threats. In principle, I support a free trade given that it can drive economic efficiency and productivity and reduce the likelihood of wars by creating economic interdependence. It can even reduce political corruption as powerful interest groups have less scope for manipulating trade policies to serve their own ends. With the proposed Australia trade deal, there are many potential hazards. Many of those have been powerfully stated by my colleague Jim Fairlie. I anticipate that my other colleagues will definitely deal with the issues around environment, our ambitions for climate change, food security and standards, animal welfare concerns, the specific nature of Scottish farming, the paltry contribution that the deal brings to UK GDP at 0.2 per cent, the lack of consultation or the impact on rural economies. What I want to focus on today is the fact that the financial environment within which our farming businesses operate could be changed significantly both as a consequence of Brexit and subsequent new trading arrangements whether based on free trade or not. I want to talk to Scottish farm businesses with loans or overdrafts. Commercial lending for businesses is vastly different to lending for ordinary consumers. For a start, it's not regulated. That means that commercial contracts with banks are treated in law as a contract among secos. Secondly, most people and many business people are of the mistaken view that the servicing of the debt in the form of regular payments is sufficient but most banks reserve the right to call in a debt at any time of their choosing, regardless of whether the debt is being serviced or the business is profitable. Any change in circumstances and fundamental changes to the marketplace by a trade deal is certainly one that can be used by banks to call in loans that can have a catastrophic consequence for their business. We know from recent experience that banks in the UK have a blemished record of serving small and medium-sized enterprises. Post-2008, there were many small businesses that had their bank loans called in, owners were sequestrated and they lost their livelihoods. What is worse is that the UK Treasury and the Tory Lib Dem Government at that time worked with what was the Royal Bank of Scotland to identify businesses that could be pushed into financial distress and then asset strict. Other banks had similar approaches and justifies their actions based on changed business circumstances such as changed valuations. I beg to suggest that trade deals also change circumstances and valuations. I simply ask has any consideration therefore been given to the possible attitude of banks to the farming community sector? Given the current high lending to agriculture has a UK Government carried out any form of due diligence to assess the exposure of SME farming businesses to the actions of the banks. I doubt it. My final point is this. Few people understand what it means to be a farmer in your community. We have farming in my husband's family. Your standing, your family history, your fundamental identity. Scottish farmers could be looking down the barrel of huge changes brought by a Government Scotland didn't vote for implementing a Brexit policy Scotland didn't vote for pushing for a trade deal without protections and consultation that could do untold damage. I started my speech and I'm finishing now by saying free trade is never free. It is precisely because of that that we must ensure that Scotland's farming businesses are not unwittingly sacrificed on the altar of Tory Government incompetence. Thank you. Thank you. I will call next Emma Harper to be followed by Beatrice Wishart, who is joining us remotely. Emma Harper. Rictopamine, Cloxicillin, butylated hydroxy, anisol. Those are just a few of the chemicals that I'm concerned about with any trade deal. Those chemicals have been banned across the EU since 1981 on health grounds with restrictions also placed on imports of hormone treated beef from third countries. Rictopamine is a growth hormone used to make cattle, turkeys and pigs leaner before slaughter and the use of dairy in the USA dairy industry uses it to increase milk production. Cloxicillin is a veterinary antibiotic growth promoter used in Australia and banned for use in the EU. And butylated hydroxy, anisol, BHA is a toluene-based antioxidant used in the USA in many products from crisps to sausages and it's known to be a carcinogen and it's banned for use in the EU. Presiding Officer, I welcome the opportunity to speak in this vitally important debate and congratulate colleague Jim Fairlie on securing it. I'm concerned about the impact on Scottish agriculture of trade deals. I'm concerned about drugs used in animals. Yes, I will. Can I ask the member where exactly food and health and safety requirements are included in a trade deal or are they in other pieces of legislation which are embedded in legislation in the UK and for no part of a trade deal? Emma Harper? I can't believe that you even asked me about that. The trade deals that are being negotiated need to take stock of the processing and the production of the produce that will be shipped into this country. I think that it's I'm hearing Jitteron from the sidelines Presiding Officer. What I would like to do is talk about the growth hormones and antibiotics that are used in the production of American, Brazilian and Australian meat and that are deemed unsuitable for us here in Scotland by Food Standards Scotland. I will only give way if Finlay Carson can give me 100% guarantee that we will not have any produce coming into this country that will have any growth hormones or antibiotics in the food produce that's being shipped here in your trade deal Finlay Carson? Can I ask the member again where in any trade deal does chlorinated chicken or hormone beef come up? Those are dealt with in a separate manner altogether and don't form any part of the trade deal. If the member, from what she's saying, suggests it is, could you point me in any other trade deal where those conditions are applied? Emma Harper? I'm concerned that any conditions that will be applied for the trade deal would allow the door open to future trade deals which mean that we might have risks to our food supply chain. I know about antimicrobial resistance. I know the damage to people's kidneys because we are on the last line of antibiotics for people. So we really need to, maybe we should be asking ourselves why would these products be banned in the EU from 1981 if there were going to be issues that we should not be concerned about. That view is shared by the future of our prosperity in our industry and the health security of our nation. That view is shared by the National Farmers Union here in Scotland. Of course I will, Mr Fairlie. Jim Fairlie? Thank you for taking that intervention. Would the member agree with me that the real problem with this trade deal is that it will set a precedent for further trade deals and that the Americans have already stated that there will be no such thing as labelling. There will be no such thing as country of origin. There will be no such thing as any differentiation in the trade deal that they want to come forward with. So... Excuse me, Mr Fairlie. One speaker at the time with the parents on his feet. Sorry, say again. Yes, Mr Fairlie. Did you ask your question? I agree with me, but I'm very interested to hear that Mr Kea is telling us that they're not going to get a trade deal. We will hold them to account on that. Emma Harper. I'm very interested in what Jim Fairlie is saying. I'm also really interested that the Food and Drug Administration in America has an acceptable level of defects handbook which allows for a maximum level of produce like rat poo in their produce. We don't have the equivalent in Europe at all. I know that they're all rolling their eyes about it but why does the Food and Drug Administration in America actually have a book that tells us what acceptable levels of mites and dust and fly insect parts and mammalian excrecia in the food. This is what we are going to expect if we move towards these trade deals. The welfare issues I will close I'm just really concerned about the way that we move forward. I want to stand up for our Scottish farmers. I want to stand up for the safety of the food that we eat. We need to protect our farmers in Scotland unlike the Government in Westminster. Thank you. I am pleased to be able to take part in this member's debate. I am pleased to be able to take part in this member's debate dropped forward by Jim Fairlie and I thank him for doing so. Members will not be surprised that I will focus my initial comments on my own constituency, Shetland. Crofting and fishing are the traditional backbone of Shetland both economically and culturally. Agricultural businesses in the islands are often small, low impact and high quality. We should thank and support local food businesses for the high quality food they produce and continue to do so throughout the pandemic. The increase in the trade of sheep and cattle from the northern islands to the mainland indicates that the quality of produce and high welfare standards are trusted. Supporting rural local businesses is vital, especially post Covid, but they are often disproportionately hammered by Government regulation and the general additional higher costs of island living. The recent live animal transport consultations were a case in point and could have a devastating effect on the islands. In fact, some in Shetland expressed the view that the proposals could kill off crofting completely. The agricultural industry has high animal welfare standards and we want to keep it that way. Crofters and farmers are committed to sustainable innovation, management and stewardship. Shetland Wool Week is one such innovation. It celebrates Britain's most northerly native sheep, Shetland's textile industry and the rural farming community in the islands. Shetland Wool is a reputation for quality, strength and excellence from fleece to textile product. Wool Week has grown in the last decade or so to an internationally acclaimed event of exhibitions, demonstrations and classes drawing hundreds of visitors to Shetland from all over the world for one week in the autumn. It's a phenomenal success for the whole community. The NFUS briefing shows that the agriculture sector in Scotland employs over 67,000 people and is resulting in 1.3 billion to the Scottish economy. Sustainable food production not only has a positive impact on rural communities, it impacts across the whole country's supply chain. We cannot allow our crofters and farmers to be undercut by unfair competition and tariffs and imports must uphold high standards of welfare. My input to this debate may be brief, but I hope that that does not lessen the points I have tried to make about the significant contribution and the value to Scotland of the agricultural sector and the people who work in it. We must protect it. Thank you. I would next call Alasdair Allan to be followed by Paul MacLennan. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Can I first like others for bringing a debate to Parliament about this important subject so early on in his time as an MSP? For crofters in the agriculturally least favoured parts of Scotland, such as my own island constituency, people are very aware of the words of the former UK Tory agriculture secretary, Andrea Ladsam, when she said that it would make so much more sense if those with the big fields have the sheep and those with the hill farms do the butterflies. The UK Government seems to be convinced that ad hoc trade deals with individual countries are an adequate answer to that and an adequate replacement for the European single market, which, as Mr Fairlie rightly pointed out, was a vast free trade area from which the UK was to remove itself. Of course we all want in this situation, I will, yes. Because the member referred to an earlier intervention I made on Jim Fairlie, I asked him the question, I'm going to ask you. When we were members of the European Union, which trade deal that the European... Mr Kerr, could you please address your comments? Sorry, I beg your pardon. Which trade deal that the EU struck when Britain was a member supported one example of a free trade deal that the SNP supported? I hate to be unoriginal, but Mr Fairlie's example was the best one of all. It's the European Union and the European single market, which I just mentioned, were supported by us and inexplicably rejected by the member's party. In those circumstances we do want to pursue good trading relationships with other countries. It is significant that some of the countries that we seem now to be talking about pursuing those trade deals with would enjoy tariff free access when many of the countries with which we are most closely associated in the past would enjoy no such relationship in future. Crofters and farmers are entitled to ask what that means for them. What if any safeguards will the deals include for domestic agriculture? Concerns have been expressed about the country's market being swamped by cheap food imports. Otherwise, on another point why has the proposed trade and agriculture commission for examining such deals not as I understand it yet been set up? Are we really saying that countries in Europe which have broadly similar standards on animal welfare, the use of hormones and on environmental impacts, not to mention a minimum wage for farm workers? I am not entirely sure if the Conservatives are entirely signed up to that. Why should those countries pay tariffs while countries which may be unconstrained by any of those factors have tariff free access to our supermarkets? The point that I think that the Conservatives have missed in this debate is how could agriculture in Scotland in the long term compete for price in a situation of that kind without severely changing or compromising standards? We may well begin with Australia, but what do we do if such a deal is then reached with major food producers like Brazil whose environmental and other standards are so unlike our own as to raise even bigger concerns? If I may make some progress and the progress that I wish to make is to say that in this debate we've heard from the Conservatives that somehow others are planting fears in the minds of farmers. As it stands, this trade deal will cause serious issues to the future of Scottish farming and set a precedent for other trade deals which would further undermine the sector. But if they think that that is bad they may wish to look at what the Scottish Crofting Federation has said. We have a very high quality product that simply cannot compete in a market flooded with lower priced meat. That the UK Government is even giving consideration to that a completely unacceptable deal of that kind is despicable. I think that I'll just finish with the words of the Crofters Federation since they've grasped situations so much more clearly and more eloquently than our Conservative colleagues are regret to say this evening have. I now call Paul MacLennan to be followed by Jenny Minto. I thank Jim Fairlie for bringing this debate this evening. My constituency East Lothian is often referred to as the bread basket of Scotland. It has high yielding, high quality land and employs many in the county. Farming is the heartbeat of a rural community. East Lothian has over 180 farms with a mix of arable, dairy, pigs, upland farming, soft fruit and vegetables. There are thousands employed in the sector which supports direct farm work and there are many suppliers of feed, agricultural equipment and support services. In the last few years, farmers have had to deal with a disaster that is Brexit, which of course Scotland voted against and which our ministers were unable to even attend discussions. The meat and dairy sector supported the dramatic fall on EU experts in the first quarter with falls of 59 and 50 per cent respectively. Scotland's food and drinks team mothers said that there is no sugarcoating these statistics. They are grim. The EU settlement scheme is another disaster waiting to happen for the farming industry. Keeping good workers makes good business sense for farmers, says George Jameson, NFU education and skills policy manager. Knowledge, experience and skills are long-term investment hard to replace and is essential to modern farming. Then comes along the news of the proposed tariff free trade deal with Australia and that discussions are also under way with New Zealand. We have heard of the NFU tonight. That is another quote from NFUS President Martin Kennedy. Scotland's beef, dairy, sheep and grain sectors are particularly at risk and we believe that the deal should not risk the future viability of the farming sector. That trade deal, as it stands, will cause serious issues to the future of Scottish farming. Do you support the trade and agriculture commission as the NFUS do? Which sets out to ensure farmers do not face unfair competition and that our high animal welfare and food standards won't be undermined? Paul McLennan. One of the things that the NFUS has said is that there was no consultation on this deal with them at all, whatsoever. If we are talking about that, it is a proxy. There was no consultation with NFUS on that at all. Just moving on, NFUS Scotland called for the following four points to be considered in discussions. Recognised sensitive sectors of primary production. We have seen deals with Japan and Canada which include tariff relief quotas which triggered safeguard clauses above certain thresholds. Those should be adopted in future deals to secure the future of the sector. Continued sustainable food production and its positive impact in communities should be secured. Thirdly, uphold high standards of production. Imports must meet our high standards of production and trade policy and domestic policy should work to underpin those standards. Again, this is really important. Establish positive precedents that support Scottish farmers. Commitments in areas such as animal welfare and climate change will make it far easier to secure similar commitments to other parties in the future. Likewise, total market liberalisation will be hard to avoid in future deals if it is awarded to the first UK free trade agreement negotiated. Presiding Officer, in conclusion, consumers in Scotland already enjoy some of the most affordable food in the world produced to the highest standards. Scotland's voice is once again being ignored by UK Tory Government that frankly doesn't care. We cannot sacrifice rural employment. The prosperity of rural areas in East Lothian in Scotland and our high standards that should not be jeopardised for the sake of a face-saving deal. I will give this pledge to farmers in East Lothian. I am not going to sit back in much of Tony's damage to your business and our rural economy in the county. It's time that the Scottish can say that it has broke the silence and stood up for jobs in East Lothian in Scotland. I now call Jenny Binto to be followed by Julian Martin, who will be the last back-bench speaker in the debate. I welcome Mary MacAllan to her role as well. Farmers in Argyllun but are very concerned about the precedent that this hastily negotiated tariff-free trade deal between the UK and Australia sets. Agreed even before the trade and agricultural commission has been set up to scrutinise the economic impact of such deals. A deal that places consumers above producers. Farmers across my constituency work hard to produce top quality cattle and sheep. Farmers across my constituency are central to the communities that they live in. As Duncan McAllister, chair of NFU Argyllun the Isle, said to me yesterday that farmers are price takers, not price makers. Agree with me the statement by Dr Marita Yeager, who is a senior research fellow at the University of Sussex. What she points out is wider than producers themselves. What is worrying and a much broader point is that the UK Government is pushing ahead with a trade deal without any public discussion about what trade policy and what kind of economy and what kind of national food production they are pursuing if there is any strategy at all. I agree with the member. Farming is more than just simply the food production, it's what it does for the community. It's going to the schools, it's supporting the health service, it's supporting the local shops, so yes it is much wider than just simply the food production. Living on isle, I am surrounded by land which is carefully cultivated and stewarded by farmers. This cultivation has been going on for centuries. The 1799 statistical account records the rearing of cattle is a principal object with the gentlemen of isle who have the merit of having brought the isle cattle to vi with the best of their neighbours at market. They are carried by drovers to Dumbarton and Falkirk and even to England. Isle a cattle remain a very high quality with yearlings being sold to the mainland for finishing. A sale at Bridgend March yielding up to £1 million. Highland cattle are established in the less favourable, moreland producing meat containing more protein and iron and less fat managed by farmers and their families who are so integral to the island's economy and community as they are the length and breadth of Argyll and Bute. There are 1,944 farms employing over 2,600 people in Argyll and Bute but with one quick signature this tariff free trade deal as Jim Fairlie's motion says could lead to potentially hugely damaging consequences for Scotland's most remote and rural communities. On Sunday I met Scott McClellan whose family have farmed Coherin on Isle for generations. His farm is possibly as remote and rural as you can get. Situated to top cliffs on the rugged west coast of Isle Scott farms a mix of sheep and cattle. The farm has a distinctive almost 200-year-old round-steading and what was Jim was saying farming has history and flourishes through continuity. If broken that continuity and effort and success may be impossible to repair. Scott told me that the Australian farmers have a couple of advantages over Scottish hill farmers scale and breadth of market. The Asian market will buy every cut of the Australian farmers' beast while Scottish farmers make their profit on the prime cuts as their little or no market for awful. He recognises that it might take time for the Australian agricultural sector to increase their sales to the UK market but his real concern is the much closer and bigger markets of the United States, Brazil and Argentina. This worry was repeated by Duncan McAllister. We don't know what the future will hold, he told me but cheaper produce will arrive in our supermarkets and sadly though people want to shop local they shop with money and not their hearts. Jim Fairlie's motion ends by asking that the UK government must take notice of the vulnerability of Scotland's agricultural sectors. That is wholeheartedly supported by the farmers of Argyll and Bute. I will finish by quoting a Scott who emigrated to the United States, the Reverend John Witherspoon, speaking in 1776 about American independence. He said in his heavy Scots bar, Sir, in my judgment the country is not only ripe for the measure but it is in danger of rotting for the want of it. Might I suggest that 45 years later this is now the situation in the country of his birth. Thank you. I want to congratulate Jim Fairlie on being the first MSP to secure a member's debate in this session on such an important subject. Not just for the economy of rural Scotland but for the public health and wellbeing of the people who live across Scotland both rural and urban areas. This is about the food we eat. That's about what our bairns put in their bellies. It's about as much as it is about the livelihoods of their parents and the communities they live in. It's also about the environment of the country that we live in as Mr Fairlie's constituency predecessor, Roseanna Cunningham, knew all too well in her role as Cabinet Secretary. For years, since Brexit, she argued vociferously as Cabinet Secretary that the food we eat is not grown here. We not only offshore our carbon emissions but we have no control on the welfare of the animals involved and the land management of Scotland which is key to us becoming a net zero nation becomes a real pressing issue because make no mistake not only are Scottish farmers the people behind the quality of our food they are the historians of the land and key to the health of that land our livestock welfare and our net zero ambition. Straight after the Brexit vote I need to make progress. I was at a tour of show meeting with NFUS colleagues and our politicians round table as we do every summer before a pandemic. The issue of tariff-free deals for countries like New Zealand, Australia, the US and South America were a hot topic then and we just had the snap general election where Tory MPs were voted in across my area and promises of a land of plenty for agriculture. The farmers of the north east were diluted even then Michael Gove was there, I remember and one particular farmer warned him that if the north east farming community had lent their votes this time but will betide them if they let farmers down. Well Mr Gove characteristically spoke lots of nice sounding words by way of response much like he did in Channel 4 news when he promised that Brexit would benefit farmers but his assurances were demonstrably untrue. This zero tariff trade deal on meat producers of Australia will rip the guts out of the livestock industry in the north east if it goes ahead and in much the same way that Alistair Allyn mentioned it will make him uncompetitive. Farmers are angry and rightly so that agricultural lobby group Save British Farming has relaunched itself in response to concerns over the impact of the Australia deal. Their chairperson said the deal is quote an existential threat to British farming Mark Kennedy has already been quoted in this debate Martin Kennedy from NUFS pointed to another worry and that has been mentioned again in the debate the lack of consultation with the sector he said The member talks about how we need to have confidence in farmers and the importance of food and climate change but the member will know in her time as a convener that Chris Stark raised concerns months ago about the lack of progress with the Scottish Government and the farming and food production future policy document was supposed to be published last June so is it good or is it bad for the farming community and the rural communities that the Scottish Government is still dithering over the future of rural payments Julie Martis The phrase what about you that comes to mind you've been given your instructions to defend this and I know you're finding this really difficult to defend this trade deal I know you're finding it but my goodness you're putting a right shift today well done but I'm not going to go into another topic altogether I'm going to continue to quote Martin Kennedy who says while some additional market access and tariff liberalisation is expected in post books at era all deals must be properly scrutinised and ratified to avoid any risks to the future viability of the farming sector without the promised statutory trade and agriculture commission in place prior to the deal being concluded sets a damaging precedence and Mr Carson seems to think it's in place but it isn't and the deal also came as a surprise to Menett Batters who said that the wholly irresponsible for the Government to sign a trade deal with no tariffs or quotas on sensitive products which therefore undermines our own domestic economy and businesses it appears that the answer to my farming constituent was a couple of years ago who warned Mr Gove is now much clearer you cannot trust the Tories with Scottish agriculture Jim Fairlie is quite right to bring this to the chamber and I'll stand with him, my colleagues and Scottish farmers to demand that this vital part of our economy and the health of our food and land is protected Presiding Officer Thank you and I would now call on Mary McCallan as Minister to wind up the debate and it's certainly a point of order Mr Gove I'm sorry, I admitted to say that the start of my speech that I was still a member of the NFU despite the fact that I no longer farm so I just wanted to put that on record Thank you Mr Fairlie that's now on the record and I would advise the chamber that this is Mary McCallan's first speech to our Parliament Thank you very much Presiding Officer like others I'd like to begin by congratulating Jim Fairlie on securing this important member's business debate well done to him for so widely consulting with Scotland's agricultural stakeholders something that has been sadly a miss from the UK Government's approach I'd also like to thank all members who stayed to contribute tonight from all corners of Scotland and from all parties except from the Tory's benches who are voicing their concerns I'd like to declare an interest in this debate as someone who lives on a beef and sheep hill farm and whose partner has lived and worked there for over a hundred years Presiding Officer, if you will allow me seeing as this is my first speech in the chamber as a newly elected MSP I'd like to briefly mention my constituency from Elvenfoot in the south to East Kilbride in the north I do believe Clydesdale is the most beautiful constituency in Scotland and of course one of the things that makes it so is its natural environment and the ample agricultural land which as my colleagues Jenny Minto and Gillian Martin have pointed out is so dutifully tended by our farmers We know that this is a key part of our tourism offer but of course we principally value Scotland's farmers and crofters because of the work that they do producing healthy, delicious food which has an international reputation for high animal welfare standards and environmental standards and which is increasingly produced by our sustainable methods Before moving to trade it is important to reiterate the context that we are working in here and the extent to which Scotland is suffering because of it Scotland's farmers cannot export seed potatoes to the EU there are restrictions on importing honey bees there's problems exporting meat and the historic trade of goats and sheep between Scotland and Northern Ireland has ended without notice I'm afraid as my colleague Paul MacLennan pointed out this is evidence enough that the UK Government do not support Scotland's farmers but just as they were content to let down Scotland's fishing industry on trade it seems they are preparing to do the same on agriculture because make no mistake any tariff free trade deal will have a devastating effect on Scotland's farmers and producers Presiding Officer let me be clear this government deeply regrets that we are being taken out of the EU against our will and it's our intention that we should rejoin as an independent nation despite this we do accept the need to develop free trade agreements in the meantime the government want to see increase, including with Australia it's our 14th largest export market valued at £680 million in 2018 we're keen to go further and we've committed to increasing Scotland's trade to 25 per cent of GDP by 2019 but these gains they must never come at the expense of our farmers our food producers and our precious natural environment and world leading climate ambition as Michelle Thomson points out the UK government's own scoping assessment concluded that a UK-Australia FTA would benefit overall UK GDP by a mere 0.02 per cent and that whilst Brexit will lead to a contraction of UK GDP of 4.9 per cent both over 15 years so it's no wonder that we are questioning why the UK are pursuing this and calling on them to explain how they will protect sensitive sectors and all the jobs and livelihoods that are connected with that and we're not alone in this this is not as colleagues in the Conservative benches are suggesting SNP scaremongering the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive have also voiced their concerns so have Scotland's farmers and environmental groups and like Liam McArthur I'm concerned about the precedent this sets for future agreements it's a great concern to the Scottish Government that we have been denied involvement in these crucial negotiations we have consistently made the case for a guaranteed role for this Government and this Parliament in all stages of development of trade agreements UK ministers have repeatedly refused to accept that we have a legitimate interest in these matters our engagement is limited to what the UK Government chooses to share with us this doesn't include the detail of tariff and market access offers and what is on and off the table we've had no information about safeguards for the industries that will be affected by these proposals decisions on agricultural tariffs and quotas they cut across all areas of devolved competence and have direct implications for our economy as colleagues across the chamber have pointed out so eloquently this evening it's unacceptable that we're not fully involved and it's unacceptable that the UK internal market act which this Parliament rejected could prevent us from upholding those high food and animal welfare standards that we in Scotland are so renowned for at present the Scottish Government and the farming community believe that there are no meaningful safeguards in place to stop our farmers from being undercut by cheaper lower standard products and Finlay Carson earlier on raised the point with my colleague Emma Harper about how standards have a role in trade deals he knows or I would expect him to know that you can include equivalence mechanisms in trade deals but that's not being done or at least we do not know if it's being done and as Colin Smyth pointed out your party in government disagreed to amendments to legislation which would have enshrined the protection of standards in trade deals you refuse to do that the Scottish Government has been consistently clear our view is that all imports of Australian agri food must be produced to equivalent standards of Scottish production and that any increase in imports must be managed by tariff rate quotas our farmers and our world leading climate action demand this, it must be a priority not simply agreeing a deal for political reasons which we know is not financially valuable we will continue to liaise with devolved administrations and the farming sector and press for an urgent change in position to take government again today to firstly respond to my colleague cabinet secretary for rural affairs letter of three weeks ago to which we've had no response and I call on them to rethink to protect farmers across the UK to prioritise our natural environment and to engage with us so that the Scottish Government and members across this chamber can do what we were elected to do which is to represent the people of this country and to build a future for Scotland which is based on our values and priorities