 The next item of business this afternoon is a debate on motion 15279 in the name of Fergus Ewing on future rural policy and support in Scotland. I would encourage all members who wish to contribute in this debate to press their request to speak buttons as soon as possible and I call on the cabinet secretary, Fergus Ewing, to speak to and to move the motion. Presiding Officer, we are 78 days from Brexit and yet we still do not know what sort of Brexit we face. What is clear is that none of the Brexit options are good for Scotland's rural economy. All are problematic for sectors such as farming, food and drink, agriculture, forestry and fisheries. This Government maintains that the best outcome for Scotland is what we voted for to remain in the EU. The least bad option is membership of the single market and the customs union, but a no-deal option. Peter Chapman Does the cabinet secretary not accept that this was a UK-wide vote and the UK decided to come out of the EU? One of the differences between my party and his party is that we believe that the people of Scotland have the right to determine their future. I believe that other parties subscribe to that principle. It is astounding to me that the Conservatives prefer to ignore the views as expressed by the population of Scotland in that vote, a clear no, a clear remain and clearly opposed to Brexit. We respect that mandate and we are doing our best to deliver it. Presiding Officer, a no deal would be catastrophic for rural Scotland and simply must be taken off the table. When we first debated Brexit's impact on rural Scotland in September 2016, I was clear that Scotland needed to get on with deciding her own future, and that is what we have done. We have worked to gather views and recommendations to inform policy and support, and I thank everyone who participated in that work, principally the agricultural champions and the members of the NCRA. We have listened carefully to what our stakeholders have recommended should change and we continue to do so. We have consulted on a plan to transition from CEP that sets out the most detailed proposals that exist in the UK. I am pleased, very pleased, that most respondents to our proposals in the stability and simplicity paper broadly support those proposals, which take us forward not until 2022, as some of the Conservative Government's proposals do, but into 2024, five years ahead, and I am determined to continue to take those forward. Our plan sets out for the first two years as much stability as we can provide. Beyond 2021, we will maintain the current landscape of schemes, but with changes to simplify them. We will also seek to free up resources to pilot new approaches that we want to implement beyond 2024. We have created an internal simplification task force and also appointed a panel of individuals and sector representatives to guide the task force's work and priorities. In particular, members of that panel have real live experience of how CEP schemes have operated and a significant stake in rural Scotland's future. Already opportunities have been identified to streamline current schemes. I can announce that the task force will, in addition, be asked to review the process for forestry grant applications to determine where we can make improvements. I have also asked for a review of the whole forestry grant scheme so that even more small landowners can access support to plant trees and create woodland. I am not going to ask Cabinet Secretary about forests, but what I was going to ask about in the context of the task force was the appeals mechanism for crofters and farmers who have fallen foul of that in the past. Will that be part of the task force's considerations? I think that Mr Scott raises a point that is raised by many members across the political spectrum that many farmers and crofters, including in Shetland, are very concerned about the overprescriptive nature of the CEP scheme, the very limited and restricted margin, permitted margin for error, the way in which alleged or actual infringements of the scheme are treated, the disproportionate nature of the penalties, which often seem to be far more swinging than anyone feels is fair or reasonable. I think that there is common ground on that. That is that the root of many of the farmers and crofters' discontent about the CEP rather than the EU itself, which in financial terms has been a good friend, particularly to the Highlands and Islands part of which Mr Scott represents. We believe that this is very important work, but creating the spoke policy for farming and food production requires very careful consideration. It is very complex, it is right that we give it that careful consideration. I was therefore happy to include the proposal from Mr Rumbles and the Scottish Liberal Democrats in our motion that we convene a group consisting of producer, consumer and environmental organisations to inform the development of future. Mr Rumbles thinks that it is right to involve the people of Scotland in the work that we do, not impose top-down policies from those benches. We think that it is right to involve stakeholders in policy-making, not exclude them. The written part of my speech says that I hope that all parties will support this action. How naive am I, Presiding Officer? Anyway, the motion also sets out key principles for future policy. Sustainability, simplicity, innovation, inclusion, productivity and profitability are core objectives. They are designed as a starting point rather than an exhaustive list, but I want to focus on the last profitability. We need to create policy and support for Scotland's rural economy, which allows it to succeed. One key driver and measure of success should surely be that rural businesses and sectors are profitable, that they create wealth for their owners and, perhaps more important, that they provide fair work beyond their own families where possible, create opportunities for wider supply chains and help communities in which they are based to flourish. Creating greater profitability in the sector will, in part, depend on future support. On funding, I have been clear that this Government sees a continuing role for direct support, particularly for farming and food production. Our definition of public goods must encompass, Presiding Officer, the multiple roles performed by farmers and crofters, food production and stewardship of the countryside and natural assets. However, policy needs to turn funding to turn good intentions into success. We believe that the UK Government is at risk of having overpromised and underdeliver in this regard. Those in favour of Brexit, including Michael Gove and George Eustace, with whom I have good workman relations—I will see them in London on Monday—have led us to believe that there might be more funding available post Brexit for rural industries if we voted to leave. That is what they said. They said that during the Brexit referendum, so they gave those guarantees. However, although those guarantees have been received, we are some way off delivery of them. I hope that the review of convergence funding, which is now at long last under way, will deliver the fair outcomes that Scotland's farmers are due. I remain hopeful that the UK Government will accept amendments to its agriculture bill, which provides a funding guarantee for the future. However, on-going uncertainty on funding is creating specific and very real-time issues. I want to turn to ELFAS. We should not forget that Scotland is the only part of the UK that provides additional support to our most marginalised farmers, especially in crofting on the hills and uplands. We continued the funding when England and Wales did not because it is needed. That is why we find ourselves in transitioning out of ELFAS without clarity on what we are transitioning to is so difficult. I want to provide certainty where I can. The less favoured areas funding for 2019-2020 will not fall below 80 per cent of ELFAS. I and my officials will continue to work with stakeholders to find options to achieve that. As I previously committed, any additional funding arising from the convergence review, which is now under way by Lord Bew, will be prioritised for this purpose. If there are sufficient monies, we will effectively reinstate funding levels to 100 per cent of ELFAS. I will also make absolutely clear that, in the future, the Government will continue to ensure that the most marginalised farmers and crofters receive additional financial support that acknowledges the difficulties under which they farm and steward our countryside. Of course, funding is not the only issue that we are having to fight for. As the legislative consent memorandum laid before this Parliament sets out, we have had to fight a rearguard action to keep Scotland's powers over farming and food production. I have sought to resolve those issues in the agriculture bill constructively with Mr Gove and I have been heartened by his willingness at least to consider those matters. On fundamental issues that he maintains are reserved, I and this Government are certain that those issues are devolved. DEFRA has sadly not budged and we have run out of time. Some continue to suggest that the best way to legislate for future rural policy is through a schedule in the UK's agriculture bill. That would be inappropriate, not least because the substantive issues over powers in the UK bill remain unresolved. I contend that it is this Parliament's job and role to develop, consider and pass the legislation that rural Scotland needs to underpin policy in the future. Indeed, I would suggest that this Parliament is best place to legislate for Scotland's rural needs and interests, not least because our legislative process is more transparent and more thoughtful. It also ensures that stakeholders and communities are fully engaged. I can testify that this Parliament can and does hold government to account and seek to arrive at a considered and compromised approach. John Scott, I thank you for taking the intervention, Cabinet Secretary. Can you put a date on when that bill will be brought forward in the Scottish Agriculture Bill, please? I cannot give a date at the moment. The timetable is to be fixed, but it will be brought forward in more than sufficient time for it being required. The purpose of the bill is primarily to provide the fundamental framework for continuance of payments to be made but also to allow changes in future policy post-Brexit should that occur. I will, of course, come back to the member and all members about the timetable and due course. The key point is that I can provide a 100 per cent assurance that it will be brought forward in more than sufficient time for Parliament to debate it in full and for it to be receiving consent and approval in time to do its job. There is no gemathe about that. This is what we do. This is what we are here for and this is what we will achieve. In conclusion, I very much look forward to the debate and listening to what all members have to say. I know that in Scotland we are proud of what our farmers and crofters achieve and those who are working in the wider rural economy produce great food. They provide the environmental stewardship that creates the scenery and the landscape that we enjoy and so many people come to Scotland to visit. They are at the heart of rural communities. It is impossible to imagine rural Scotland without farming continuing for generations and centuries to come as it has played an essential part in the history of Scotland in generations and centuries past. It is my privilege to champion their interests and I will do everything within my power to continue to do so and the motion that I move in my name marks the start of that process. I now call Donald Cameron to speak to and move the amendment in his name. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I refer to crofting and farming in my register of interests and also duly move the amendment in my name. I welcome the opportunity to discuss our vision for future rural policy and support in this important debate. Both the challenges and also the possibilities for rural Scotland are significant, particularly as we leave the European Union and it is our determination that we do right by our rural communities in this regard. I cannot let the reference to the Prime Minister's deal go unremarked upon. The fact is that there is the Prime Minister's deal or there is no deal on the table and that is why the SNP opposes no deal, they should support the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister's deal has the support of the National Farmers Union of Scotland but not the SNP and I know whose word I would prefer to take. As a Highlands and Islands MSP, I recognise and understand the challenges that rural parts of Scotland face. From concerns over, I will. I have with me Scottish farming leader and the clear slipper, the political first manager, the NFU, says that they need access to the single market and to remain in the customs union. Does the Prime Minister's deal deliver that? The NFU has been quite clear many times that they support the Prime Minister's deal as the best way of protecting Scotland's farmers. From concerns over long-term funding and farm debt, fewer younger people are looking to take on a career in farming and on-going battles that farmers face that get a fair price for their product from supermarkets. There are a lot of issues to tackle but there are also reasons to be optimistic about the future and the opportunity to design a new and bespoke system of support for our farms and crofters. It is one of them. I would like to address, Presiding Officer, some of the issues in our amendment. We refer to the UK agriculture bill, as did the cabinet secretary. We continue to believe that the interests of Scottish farmers would be best served by Scotland being part of this bill, just as Wales and Northern Ireland will be, to provide a framework for support payments to be made. We take sucker from the fact that the clear preference of the NFU is to have a Scottish schedule in the UK bill, as it says, in order to offer certainty and stability sooner rather than later. It is described as a belt-and-brace approach and it is a matter of great regret that the SNP appeared to be more concerned with putting nationalism ahead of the interests of Scotland's farmers by refusing to engage and take up the offer of a Scottish schedule in the bill, because such a schedule will not restrain our ability to create a bespoke Scottish system via later Scottish legislation. In terms of the wider aspects of the UK bill, while I think that many of the principles and ideas articulated by Michael Gove in relation to agriculture in England deserve consideration, such as the principle of public money for public goods, we on these benches are committed to a definitive Scottish support system that addresses the unique nature of farming here in Scotland. In relation to ELFAS, our amendment also mentions the reduction of ELFAS payments and the effects that they will have on livestock farming. The fact of the matter is that, only a few days ago, the cabinet secretary suggested that ELFAS payments would drop to 40 per cent of current levels over the next two years. He has today clarified his position in, I have to say, a screeching U-turn under intense pressure, because cuts to ELFAS, regardless of when they happen. I have made clear countless times, including from where I stand, that I am determined that ELFAS should not go below 80 per cent. The press release to which I refer simply alluded to the fact that the European Union at the December council meeting, which I attended and where I made representations to Commissioner Hogan directly at a meeting, decided to lift their proposed reduction from 20 per cent to 40 per cent. That is modest improvement, but it is not enough. That is crystal clear. I have always made that as clear as I have today. Nevertheless, cuts to ELFAS will have a catastrophic impact on Scotland's hill farmers and crofters. They have nothing to do whatever with Brexit, and to pretend otherwise is to play politics with farmers' livelihoods. The NFUS has been clear about ELFAS. Andrew McCormack has said that, ELFAS payments provide a vital financial boost to those who are trying to forge a living out of some of the hardest land in the country. Much darker were the words of the chair of the Scottish Crofting Federation yesterday, Russell Smith, who said that reducing ELFAS support to 80 per cent sends out a very negative message, but we can live it. To then cut it to a mere 40 per cent will be ruinous. I am quoting what he says, being told now that this vital support will be reduced to 40 per cent next year is a slap in the face to us in the less favoured areas and indicates failure on the part of the Scottish Government. Looking forward, as he designs the new support system, I urge the cabinet secretary to ensure that those farming on the 85 per cent or so of Scottish land classified as less favourable are properly supported. This moment in time provides him with the perfect opportunity to mitigate the effects of the damaging cuts that he is making to ELFAS payments. In terms of future support, let me strike a more consensual approach. We agree with much of the Scottish Government's motion and we will pledge to work with the cabinet secretary and others across the chamber and the many interested parties across Scotland to help to devise a support system fit for Scotland's farmers. We agree that any future support must ensure that farmers are able to continue to deliver the high-quality produce that makes up Scotland's natural larder. We agree that the new system must be simpler, must create stability and must reward active productive farming. We agree that profitability is central. We welcome the opportunity to include producer groups, consumer groups and environmental groups in assisting with the formulation of a bespoke system, but like many others we are wary about the creation of yet another expert group. We have a task force fatigue over the past two and a half years. Since the Brexit vote, we have had countless councils, committees, task force groups of advisers reports, all well-intentioned, but yet another Scottish Government committee or grouping is the last thing that we need, especially in the absence of any detailed policy from the Government. I want to turn to some of the things that we on these benches have specifically proposed, which we feel will help our rural communities to flourish. First and foremost, I want to pay tribute to our farmers and crofters, who are, after all, the custodians of our countryside. I know how hard they work, and I am always conscious of the decisions that we as politicians make and what kind of impact they will have on our farming communities. I have written to the cabinet secretary and stated that we believe that food production must be at the heart of future farming policies. Scottish food and drink sector is world renowned and the promotional efforts of both the UK Government and the Scottish Government should be commended, not least because we know that our food and drink sector is looking to double its worth from £15 billion annually to £30 billion by 2030. We think that that can be achieved, but we believe that farmers should be incentivised to deliver the necessary raw produce that is required to make this ambition become real. Our farmers and crofters do exemplary work in looking after the natural environment. In Scottish Environment, Link argued that food production is part of a fair, healthy and sustainable food system. I am pleased to see, for instance, that we have Scottish rural action led by Emma Cooper and Fiona Thompson, who have been here all week in a stand in the Scottish Parliament, promoted by my colleague Finlay Carson, who wants to promote the importance of engaging with Scotland's rural communities more widely. We also believe that, for that to be a stable future in farming, we need to look at ways of encouraging the next generation of farmers to get involved. Organisations such as the Scottish Association of Young Farmers already carry out important work in encouraging new entrants, but we think that we need to make farming more flexible so that new farmers can pursue other income streams while also maintaining the farming side of their business, thereby making farming a more attractive prospect for new entrants. Above all, we need a system that allows farmers to improve their farms rather than punish them for non-compliance. In conclusion, we want to see a proper support system in place that is tailored to Scotland, one that is easy to access and does not burden farmers with unnecessary bureaucracy. We want to see our food and drink sector grow. We want rural communities to reap the benefits of that growth. We are willing to work with the Government to achieve those aims, but the SNP needs to come forward soon and present a clear and detailed policy proposal so that Scotland's farmers and crofters have clarity as to what the future holds for them. Our crofters and farmers have been looking for an indication of the direction of travel for agriculture or support post-break, except for some time, and hopefully today we will bring them some of the clarity that they seek. The Government motion, while there is little to disagree with, lacks ambition for a rural community and takes little notice of the particular disadvantages that affect those on the periphery. The motion is about preserving the status quo rather than showing ambition for our farming and crofting communities. I can understand that, in turbulent times, the status quo appears attractive. However, I believe that we need to grasp that opportunity. More than ever, we need to grow rural economies, and agriculture remains a driver for that. The motion does not recognise the need for more remote rural areas that have higher costs due to distance from market and suppliers to receive more funding. Neither does it mention the disadvantage of climate and poor soil quality that puts those in the industry in some parts of Scotland at a natural disadvantage. Elfast was designed to mitigate those disadvantages. However, when the EU proposed a new scheme to assist areas of natural constraint, the Scottish Government did not move from Elfast to an ANC scheme. Although we welcome the cabinet secretary's assurances today, there must take some responsibility for the cuts of 80 per cent in Elfast, now being faced by our most marginal farming and crofting businesses. We must learn from that that the status quo is not always best. Our current system is very biased towards large-scale production for some farmers who could run profitable businesses without support and receive the lion's share of that support. The top five recipients of single-farming 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. It is those businesses that are arguably offering more by way of public goods that receive least in the way of funding. Public money must be used prudently to address those issues. Therefore, a new scheme must recognise public benefits as well as food security. The scheme cannot operate in a silo. It has to fit with wider Government policy, which is why we have been calling for a good food nation bill. We have fantastic produce that is world-renowned and yet many of our people are malnourished. Therefore, what we want from our farmers and crofters must be the basis of the new scheme. Although the key principles of sustainability, simplicity, innovation and inclusion productivity and profitability are laudable, they do not take into account our right to food. Many of our children are growing up in poverty, storing up problems for future generations with their health service, and it also affects the life chances and lifespan of those children. Farming and crofting are also economic drivers, as well as food producers, and yet much of the profitability is lost to those communities by very long food chains, building in costs that are eaten to profits. Local procurement could cut costs to the public sector while supporting the local agriculture industry, allowing farmers and crofters to sell direct to large public bodies is a potential that we have never fully recognised. We need to encourage co-operative working between individual businesses that would allow them to compete and ensure a supply of goods to those organisations. Those enterprises will need support to get off the ground, but, given co-operation lies at the heart of many of our agricultural communities already, with the use of things such as machinery rings and, indeed, the management of common gracing, it is not an alien concept to them. However, current schemes, especially environmental schemes, work against the method of co-operation. We have to recognise that agriculture also played a part in keeping people in those communities providing work and economic benefits. If we are to halt depopulation and turn it around, we must maximise the impact of the industry by keeping secondary processing within those communities, too. We speak about diversification, but we should also catch that in terms of maximising the benefits that agriculture brings to rural communities. We agree with the Scottish Government motion where it calls for fair funding. That recognises that Scotland, with its large rural areas, provides a greater share of the UK's agriculture and should be funded accordingly. The UK Government appears to have accepted that argument, but we must work to ensure that it comes to fruition. Therefore, we cannot support the Conservative amendment today that removes that part of the Government's motion. Our preference would also be for a Scottish agriculture bill to protect the devolved settlement. We welcome the commitment to that by the Cabinet Secretary. However, we must also work to replace other EU funding that went to rural communities. For example, the leader programme initiated innovative working that helped to underpin many of those communities. Turning to the Green amendment, like ours, it highlights the needs for schemes to encourage good environment practice. Current schemes, as I mentioned, lock-out co-operator working, ignore steps towards carbon sequestration. That is a disincentive and we must use support to help to offset emissions from the farming sector, emissions that will continue but can be offset by carbon sequestration. We recognise that uncertainty prevails and the impact that that has on the agriculture sector. We believe that we have an opportunity to build a policy and strategy that supports our farming communities going forward. Given the challenges that the future holds, it is important to strengthen the sector and protect it now. I move the amendment in my name. I now call Mark Ruskell to speak to you and move the amendment in his name. Like other members, I welcome the opportunity to debate the future of rural policy and funding today, but it has been a long time coming, with only 78 days to go, allegedly, until we leave the EU. We are still behind other parts of the UK in deciding what will replace the current common agricultural policy. However, I had hoped that today's debate we could find consensus and begin to move forward with this urgent process. My amendment seeks to place the climate emergency at the heart of our rural support policy, because the future of farming, perhaps more than any other sector, is in doubt if we fail to urgently take action. Of course, it is not just our domestic industry that is at stake, but our entire globalised food supply chain. The NFUS said in this Parliament recently that it did not believe that climate change was a top priority for the Scottish Government—their words are not mine. We need to see that change and for a greater recognition that profitable farms are also low-carbon farms, which can maintain strong market advantage on quality and public goods delivery. Government ministers have previously said in the chamber that a net zero target for the farming sector is not possible because of the emissions inherent in our food production. However, that misses the point of net zero and the need for whole farm accounting. I would like to make it clear that, with regard to achieving net zero emissions from agriculture, I am talking about emissions on a whole farm level, with farmers being credited with the positive carbon sequestration effects of well-managed farmland, as well as the carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide emissions caused by farming practices on the other side of the balance sheet. Is it now the Green's policy that every single sector has to be zero greenhouse gas emissions? Previously, I thought that the Green's policy was that Scotland had to be, which is quite a different thing. Mr Stevenson will know through our deliberations in the Environment, Committee that every single sector needs to play it part. Farming and transport, agriculture and transport are two sectors that need to work very hard. He will also be aware of the enormous carbon sequestration potential from land management in Scotland. I am sure that we will continue the discussion in the Environment, Committee as we work on our climate change report. Current emissions accounting puts agriculture in one silo and land management in another. It does not reflect the reality of whole farm systems. Farming and land management are perhaps the only sector in which we cannot only talk about reducing emissions but also the carbon banking side of the balance sheet. That needs to be at the ambitious heart of a national plan for achieving a net zero carbon economy. Until now, we have relied on voluntary methods, such as the farming for better climate programme, which is good, but those have had limited uptake and the reduction in emissions from the sector as a whole has stagnated in the last 10 years. Resourcing remains poor. The Climate Change Committee again heard that there is only one full-time equivalent in the Scottish Government dedicated to that huge agenda. It is clear that voluntary measures are not going to deliver the transformation in farming that we need on their own. Farm assurance schemes, while worthy, will always be limited in ambition if governed solely by their investing membership. It is time that we use the most powerful non-punitive measures that we have and directly link farm support to action on climate change and the delivery of other wider public goods. That means embedding the principle of a net zero target into our farm support scheme and financially rewarding farmers for actions, such as reducing reliance on industrial fertilisers while building soils as healthy carbon sinks through agroecological farming and agroforestry. Many of those approaches, as well as the essential work in climate change, of flood management can be rolled out on a catchment-wide scale. That needs co-ordination between farms, as Rhoda Grant has already alluded to. Without that co-ordinated delivery work, we will not see the scale of knowledge transfer and action that can actually make the difference on the ground. A net zero target is the backing of civil society, with 50 organisations writing an open letter last year to the Scottish Government calling for a target for carbon neutral farming, including Community Land Scotland, the Organic Growers Alliance, Scottish Crofters Federation and Scottish Land and Estates. Just last week, if I have time, I will take Mr Scott. John Scott. Thank you for taking intervention, Mr Ruskell. Notwithstanding what you say, would you accept that, nonetheless, it is the advice of the Climate Change Committee that a net zero target is not achievable for the whole of Scotland, and particularly not for agriculture as well? Mark Ruskell. As Mr Scott knows, there are complexities in the way that the inventory in relation to agriculture is assessed. I would welcome the UKCC's advice on that. Of course, the Government has requested advice, so let's see what it comes back with in April. We may be in a very different place on that. Let me quote the National Farmers Union president, Minette Batters, who told the Oxford Farming Conference recently that our aim must be ambitious to get our industry to net zero across all greenhouse gas inventories by 2040 or before. This is not the Green Party, this is the National Farmers Union speaking. She recognises that it will not only fulfil farming's duty to the environment but help build our reputation as a world leader in climate friendly food production. For those of us who see Scotland's place as firmly within the EU, of course it can be hard to talk about opportunities that may come from Brexit, but seeking alignment with the common agricultural policy does not have to mean clinging to the status quo, either. The cap is changing, with plans well under way for reform post 2020. We can guarantee that climate change and the Paris agreement will be at the heart of the new cap. The IPCC warned us last year that we have only 12 years left to make the necessary changes to avoid catastrophic climate change. That may be our only chance to change the direction of rural policy and funding in Scotland. We have to prioritise sustainable management of our natural resources and our climate, on which our entire farming system is based. We are the first and last generation of people on this earth who know both the scale of the climate emergency and how to fix it. We should act now or without any further delay. I move the amendment to my name. Thank you very much. I now call Mike Rumbles to open for the Liberal Democrats. I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Liberal Democrats in support of the Government's motion before us today. In a spirit of new year cheer, I put forward a positive addition to the Scottish Government's draft motion, which Fergus Ewing generously shared with me over the break. As he said, he has incorporated my proposal into the Government's motion, and I appreciate that. It calls on the Scottish Government to convene a group consisting of producer, consumer and environmental organisations to inform and recommend a new bespoke policy on farming and food production for Scotland. I have long argued in this chamber and beyond that if we are to establish an effective bespoke policy for the rural economy that works, then we need to ensure that everyone involved has a buy-in to it, whatever is produced. We will only get a successful bespoke new policy if we do indeed manage to achieve buy-in from producers, consumers and environmentalists. If organisations representing those interests can get around the table, can reach agreement, which informs and recommends to the Scottish Government a positive way forward, then we have so much of a better chance of succeeding in developing the right bespoke system for Scotland. I am a bit lost that I do not understand how anyone could call this a status quo situation. I am very pleased to see that Fergus Ewing is indeed willing to convene such a group. I know that producer organisations such as NFU Scotland, consumer organisations and environmental groups such as Scottish Environmental Link will be more than happy to participate, then we will be well on the way to achieving success in developing our new policy. I do not wish to be prescriptive, of course, as to which other producer, consumer and environmental organisations should be involved, because I think that it is only right that the minister himself needs to make that decision. I do think that it is important to acknowledge that, as political parties, we have our genuine differences. For instance, as a Liberal Democrat, I ffervently wish that we were not in this position of leaving the European Union and therefore a need of designing our own system of rural support. However, we are where we are. It is essential that, for future prosperity of our rural economy, we all make our best efforts to reach agreement across the chamber on designing the best bespoke system of rural support that meets the unique needs of Scotland's rural economy. This is where, if I may gently say to Donald Cameron, the Conservative amendment completely, in my view, misses the whole point here. Donald Cameron's amendment would remove the requirement for the Scottish Government to convene the group of producer, consumer and environmental organisations that need to come up with recommendations for our new bespoke system. It would remove the requirement for any real buy-in from those organisations. Fergus Ewing, our rural economy secretary, has an enormously difficult job to do here, and I want to see him succeed in his task. I am glad that the motion before us recognises the need to reach broad agreement from stakeholders, and I am sorry to say it, but if we were to accept the Conservative amendment, we would make it more difficult. I would like to see us put party arguments and party advantage to one side here. If we do, I am sure that there will be also a willingness for our producer, consumer and environmental organisations to do the same. The great prize is a bespoke and successful system of rural support, which will enable our rural economy to thrive. Is he hearing the same thing from stakeholders that he is asking us to put our party differences aside in talking about this? I absolutely concur that that is the message that I am getting, and I hope that everybody else is also receiving that too. In my view, there is no reason why every party in this chamber cannot back with motion before us tonight. There is obviously some discussion to be had about future frameworks for rural support across the UK. However, there should be no doubt that rural issues are devolved into the Scotland Act, and that is the Scottish Parliament that has the responsibility for legislating here. The fact that it is our responsibility to legislate for Scotland's rural economy is clear. However, that puts an even greater responsibility on our rural economy secretary, and equally on the UK ministers who are responsible for England, Wales and Northern Ireland to use their best efforts to reach agreement on how any future common frame would operate. Having a bespoke policy on farming and food production in Scotland, legislated for us in this Parliament and having an agreed UK wide common frame for rural support, is not mutually exclusive. We should not put up false barriers to reaching a commonly agreed framework, but it must be an agreed framework within the competencies of both our Parliaments and operated in a spirit of co-operation by both our Governments. It is a new year. I know that 2019 may bring division and difficulties between political parties to the fore on many issues. At the right moment and on the right issue, I will be party to that, too. However, on this issue of designing a new and bespoke system of support, for our rural economy, that works. The rural economy secretary has a really difficult task, as I said, ahead of him, and we all need to make that extra effort to ensure that we don't create false divisions between a simple for party advantage. We have a real opportunity to create a new bespoke system that works for the benefit of the people that we represent. If we pass this motion today, the rural economy secretary will have a clear way forward to create that successful new bespoke system. Thank you very much. We now turn to the open part of the debate. Members have six minutes. There is not much time in hand, I am afraid, or no time in hand. Gail Ross will be followed by Peter Chapman. When the cabinet secretary stood in this chamber last June and delivered a statement on the future of agricultural support post-Brexit transitional arrangements, he stated that one of the central conclusions of the agricultural champions report was that no change was not an option. He also cited the discussion paper published by the National Council of Rural Advisers, who said that now is the time to change what we think, act and operate to tailor bespoke policy frameworks. That date marked the start of a consultation to provide rural Scotland with stability and some sense of continuity when it comes to rural support payments. The Scottish Government launched a consultation, stability and simplicity, which focused on the arrangements that will need to be put in place in the period immediately after leaving the EU in March or whenever it actually happens. It asked what short-term simplifications could be made to help current claimants of CAP. It discussed how best to support and integrate agriculture into the broader rural economy. The consultation also asked how pilot projects might be developed and used to test different approaches, how to reduce the administrative burden, proposals to streamline and synergise some pillar 2 schemes and the creation of a transition period. I welcome the cabinet secretary's confirmation in his opening statement that we will commit to a five-year transition period, as recommended by the agricultural champions. However, if, as the motion says, we want to ensure key principles of a future rural support system that should seek to maintain flourishing communities, we cannot ignore the contribution that leader funding has made to our rural areas. Leader is part of the SRDP pillar 2 funding. In my constituency alone, in this tranche of funding from 2014 to 2020, it will invest £3.2 million on projects including farm diversification, electric vehicle training, road signage and many more. So far, 55 projects have been given a considerable boost in Caithness, Sutherland and Ross, with the added bonus of attracting other sources of funding, match funding and investment. To our small communities, the support from the EU cannot be understated. It has simply transformed the communities that have suffered decades of neglect from successive Westminster economic policies. The aim of leader funding is to increase support to local rural community networks, to build and modernise our wealth of knowledge and skills, and to encourage innovation and co-operation in order to tackle local development objectives. The funding is the embodiment of the community empowerment policies that are laid down by this Parliament. I, for one, am very grateful for the support from our European friends to invest in crucial developments. Meanwhile, in Westminster, we see the current progress of the agriculture bill, which will no doubt have a third reading in the coming weeks. While the Scottish Government is doing everything possible to support and integrate agriculture into the broader rural economy, it is frustrating that the UK bill still requires significant improvements to meet the aspirations of the industry here in Scotland. My SNP colleagues in Westminster have lodged amendments to that bill to replace current EU geographical indicators in future UK legislation and to protect the quality of domestic food supply by ensuring that any imported foodstuffs are held to the same standards as domestic foodstuffs. Those are only two examples that may seem simple enough, but, unfortunately, the Tory Government rejected both during the committee stage, so it will be interesting to see what approach is taken when the bill returns for a third reading. Is this simply another example of the UK Government abandoning our rural communities? There have been many suggestions as to what a new agricultural support system could look like that should be based on food production rather than land area. It may not even be an agricultural system. It could be a countryside system that encompasses all our rural commitments, including biodiversity, forestry and the wider environment. I will conclude with a quote from the Scottish rural Parliament's engaging Scotland's rural communities on Brexit's policy statement, and I reference here my register of interests as a member of the Scottish rural Parliament. They say that the EU brings a long history of support for peripheral rural and island areas, which has had a significant impact on the sustainability and development of rural and island areas. We need reassurance, through clear commitments, that the UK and Scottish Government will continue to meet the needs of rural people, places and enterprises. I welcome the motion and the debate today, and I am happy to say that the Scottish Government has pledged to meet its commitment to rural Scotland. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and let me start by declaring an interest as a partner in a farming business. This is a crucial debate at a time when the future of a farming sector has never been so uncertain. Farmers across Scotland are desperate for some answers as to what their future holds, and, quite frankly, they are watching with dismay and anger at the way many of our MSPs and MPs are putting short-term party politics ahead of our country's long-term prospects and prosperity. The outcome of Brexit is the big question on which all else hinges. If the deal negotiated between our UK Government and the EU is passed next week, then we have some degree of certainty of a way forward. If it is voted down, as appears likely, because both Labour and SNP MPs have their own party politics to pursue, then we are headed for uncharted waters. Many people don't want a no-deal Brexit, but the only sure way to avoid a no-deal Brexit is to vote for the only deal on the table. MPs of all parties need to reflect on that. This morning's letter from the four UK NFUs is a stark reminder that no deal could be catastrophic for UK agriculture. Fergus Ewing is well aware of the danger, yet he blithely follows the party line that the SNP MPs will all vote against it for their own narrow party political reasons, Presiding Officer, politics at its worst. Despite a plethora of various study groups set out by the Scottish Government, I remind Mike Rumbles of just how many we have already had. We have the agricultural champions, we have the council of rural advisers, we have the Scottish sheep strategy group, the beef strategy group, the fruit and veg group, the greg's greening report and another agricultural policy simplification task force. Yet, despite all those groups, we still have no vision and no idea where the SNP Government wants to take this industry. I haven't time, I'm sorry, Mike. I've only got six minutes. Indeed, I know it from the motion that this Government wants to convene yet another group. Fergus Ewing should already be the best informed minister in history with all this advice, but it looks much more like an exercise of kicking the can down the road rather than coming up with any decisions. Setting up another group reinforces my fears that the cabinet secretary has no idea how to proceed, if I can get a wee bit of time at will. In thanking Mr Chapman for giving way, could I not remind him that this document's ability simplicity sets out a clear plan for five years and a clear majority of respondents, including many farmers and crofters, support our clear plans for the next five years? What part of that does Mr Chapman not understand? I understand it fine, but what it really says is that the status quo will remain until 2024, and then we don't know what's going to happen after that. That's not nearly good enough. The big prize that's available from Brexit is the ability to design a system of support that's much better suited to the needs of Scottish agriculture than the cap could ever be. Yet, two and a half years on, there is no vision and no plan. The industry is also facing swinzing cuts to LFAS payments. Now, the cabinet secretary just confirmed— Sorry, no, I really don't have time. I've a lot to say. There is actually very little time, and it's up to Mr Chapman. No, I'm sorry. I would love to, but I have six minutes of a speech, and I really want to deliver it. The cabinet secretary has confirmed only yesterday that there will be a 20 per cent cut this year and a 60 per cent cut next year, but I hear what he says today. I absolutely welcome what he says today, but that was reported only yesterday. Anyway, LFAS money, we all know, is vital to support farmers trying to eke out a living in some of our most remote and hardest land. Bein no doubt, cuts to LFAS, even at 80 per cent, will result in bankruptcies and land abandonment. Now, as well as lacking vision for the future of farming, we are also lacking the necessary legislative structure. We are content that the Scottish Government has the legal basis to make payments under pillar 1 and 2 for the 2019 payment year, however we believe that legislation is necessary to make payments in 2020 and beyond. As things stand, that legal basis does not exist. The Scottish Government, unlike Northern Ireland and Wales, has declared that it will not take powers within the UK Government's agricultural bill. Therefore, the Scottish Government must produce a Scottish agricultural bill to ensure the ability to pay farmers and develop future policy from 2020 onwards. However, no mention of a Scottish agricultural bill was made in the programme for government, published in September, so hardly the sign of a government in control of events. Provided, this industry deserves better. We need to recognise that our farmers' first priority is to produce high-quality food, but there is no way that we can grow our food and drink industry to 30 billion by 2030 unless measures are put in place to properly fund this industry. Any new system put in place must be easier to apply, far easier to administer and targeted at the farmers producing the food that we need. The new system must also recognise that 85 per cent of our farmland is LFA and target extra support to those areas to maintain our high-quality red meat industry. It must also support a suite of environmental measures that all farmers can buy into simply. There can be no tension between productive agriculture and high environmental standards. Both must go hand in hand. Presiding Officer, this industry is at a pivotal point. Brexit negotiations are at a critical stage, creating huge uncertainty. On top of that, we have an SNP Government that is presiding over huge cuts to LFA's payments, an SNP Government that is even failing to put the necessary legislation in place to allow for future support payments, and an SNP Government that has no vision for what our future support should look like. In short, an SNP Government that is incompetent, tired, out of ideas and failing our farmers. Stewart Stevenson, to be followed by Claudia Beamish. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Let me declare that I have a joint ownership of a very small registered agricultural holding, from which my wife and I derive no income whatsoever. Let me start by agreeing with something that Donald Cameron said, and I suspect that the whole chamber can agree that we should demand that our farmers should be properly supported. The debate is, of course, about what is proper support. I always like to look at what the motions before us and the amendments before us are doing. The very first and obvious thing is that the deletion that is the very first part of the Conservative amendment, the first seven words that it deletes from the Government motion, including fully replacing all lost EU funding. We know straight away that the Conservatives are opposed to farming having the amount of funding that they currently get from the EU. It ill behoves Peter Chapman or anyone else on the Conservative benches to talk about funding, to talk about lack of vision, to talk about kicking cans down the road. When they start realities, the Conservatives are opposed to farmers having all the funding that they currently have under the scheme. That is a matter that we will have to account to farmers for. I will deal with the amendment first, if I may. I have not quite finished. The amendment also ends and calls on the Scottish Government to ensure that it has sufficient legislative powers. Well, if it has sufficient legislative powers, it will legislate, but the Tories are clearly suggesting that we do not have sufficient legislative powers and therefore cannot legislate. I know that the motion that is before us is in the name of an advocate. I have many interesting and informed discussions with him. I suspect that he just did not read something that somebody put in front of him to the end, because it makes no sense to suggest that we do not have sufficient legislative powers unless it is being suggested from the Conservatives that, as we have suggested, powers have been taken away. I will take Mr Cameron, but I will come back to Mr Chapman. The point is that, without being part of the UK agriculture bill, you do not have the belt and braces approach that the NFUS has said will provide clarity now. That is the lack of legislative power. Why do the SNP not agree with the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Administration that they too should be in the bill? I understand the point that has been made in the debate, but I have to go back to the words that are on the page, which are fundamentally different. I will now take Mr Chapman, if he wishes. I want to come back on the fact that we do not want to see agriculture fully funded in Scotland. Of course, we want to see agriculture fully funded. We support the convergence money coming fully back to Scotland. We have always been in that position and that has never changed. Mr Stevenson, we are very short of time. We have no spare time at all—six minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I was conscious of that when I did it. I wanted to be fair to the Conservatives because probably nobody else will be. The bottom line is that fully replacing lost EU funding is being deleted by the Conservatives. Let's move on from that, because enough has been said on that subject. We all accept that farming is a very important part of our economy, especially our rural economy. At Christmas, I was delighted to sit down and everything on the table had come from no more than 50 miles from home. I hope that that was the case for others, but that will not be the case if we do not get the kind of environment that is important. Let me just pick up on two points that I suspect others will not pick up. Looking at the National Council of Rural Advisers report and looking at some of the recommendations, some of the wider things beyond support from government, action 4B in that report, ensure equitable access to finance for rural communities and businesses, including a simplified grant system. That is great. However, when I pick up the Scottish rural action report that I got from the stand yesterday, it focuses, of course, on royal bank closers—a publicly-owned bank by the Government down south. If we take banks out of communities, it is going to be a heck of a difficult. It is not just about funding farmers, it is about the total infrastructure that we have. It also goes on at 8B to talk about micro-enterprises and encouraging women and young people. I very much support that. I think that that is an excellent way. However, the bottom line that I think the Conservatives, at Westminster in particular, have to think about is what is the effect of creating barriers between Scotland—the UK, for that matter—and one of our biggest markets in the EU. The National Farmers Union Scotland and others' farmers unions have called for frictionless trade. If we are not in the single market, we do not have frictionless trade. If we do not have free movement of people, as the ministerial statement before this debate highlighted, we are going to find it very difficult to start farms, not just strawberry farms in Fife, but raspberry farms in Fife. I once worked on one many, many donkeys years ago. That is to the very heart of the problem that confronts us. Yes, it is about farming director farmers, but it is about the total system. It is not looking terribly good. Claudia Beamish, followed by Gillian Martin. I am delighted to have the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I want to start by addressing some of the climate change challenges as it is part of my brief. Agriculture and related land use sectors are Scotland's second biggest greenhouse gas emitters, and yet they seem to be the sectors with perhaps the weakest leadership from the Scottish Government. The latest climate change plan asks for only a small 9 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and went against the recommendations of this Parliament's Eichler Committee and the UK Committee on Climate Change. Much more is indeed possible, but only if this Government improves the system in many ways and provides support and I stress advice that enables farmers to be both productive and environmentally conscious. This is not a false dichotomy, as many farmers already know, and it is great to see growing instances of knowledge, sharing and perception shifting in farms across the country. Many farmers are already adapting to support each other with best practice, and it has been clearly demonstrated by the recent lead on a ban on burning farm plastics, how this has been taken up. Let us also note that in England the NFU has called for net zero agricultural emissions by 2040, which is indeed inspiring. Farmers are amongst those in the front line of the global challenge, and we also rely on them and land managers to help us to reach net zero more easily by playing an increasing role in sequestration. The agriculture industry is on a longer journey than the decarbonisation of much big business or electricity, for example, and could be the sector that could benefit most from a just transition commission, with a long-term purpose that has set well beyond the two years that the current commission is set for. Climate-friendly farming is full of win-wins that can be shared between farmers, the planet and the public. NFUS has sent a briefing on climate change issues today, and I want to highlight some of those challenges and how they may be addressed in my speech. One such issue is that data that is held on agriculture emissions is flawed in relation to the agriculture sector, in my view, and does not recognise much of what farmers do on a farm basis such as peatland, restoration and forestry. Farmers have said to me that carbon audits do not fairly reflect their climate commitment, and I hope that the cabinet secretary will consider that in his closing remarks. The Government motion today calls for a togetherness of food production and stewardship of land. I agree with that holistic approach. Considering our land and food production as a public good is the right approach for a more sustainable farming system, and that principle could deliver benefits to local communities, wider society, the environment and, indeed, to future generations. That fusion of purposes should be intricate and intrinsic to any new farm payment in my view. What work is the Scottish Government doing to ensure that pillar 2 environmental payments are far more integrated as a priority rather than just an add-on? If it is our aim, then perhaps agroecology is a way to consider to achieve that. All farming and food production can sustain and restore the natural environment, not further deplete natural capital, either in Scotland or in countries where we import feed from. The Scottish Government has promised Scotland to be a world leader in green farming, but it still has a long way to go to promote and plan for this sort of model as the way that we do our farming, the way that we teach our farming in colleges, the way that we do research and the way that we design public support for farming. Has the cabinet secretary looked at models in other countries, such as in France, where they have a basic law on agroecology, which has been introduced? In that context, I want to turn our thoughts to the present agri-environment schemes and ask the chamber and, indeed, the cabinet secretary to reflect on the words of the vice chairman of the Clydesdale branch of the NFUS and an upland beef and sheep farmer from Crawford John in South Lanarkshire, Tom French. He says, I think that currently only a small percentage of farm businesses have achieved access to the agri-environment schemes in spite of many more wishing to do so. One of the main reasons for that is the lack of uptake, which is the work involved in preparing applications and the costs involved. Sometimes even small farmers feel an obligation to go towards a consultant to prepare their application and can spend around £2,000, as Tom French says, with absolutely no guarantee of success. Those measures and restrictions are very inflexible, and perhaps he goes on, the solution would be to guarantee entry to possibly a tiered scheme with entry-level measures for all businesses that they could access, should they wish, with management measures and restrictions. I stress this point drawn up in conjunction with individual farmers. With a sealing limit, I stress this point that he makes, a sealing limit on what any business could receive. I think that that would bring multiple benefits, he says, and also would enhance the green credentials of the industry. Farmers work often in isolation, in challenging weather conditions, as we know, and better advice and support are vital for sustainable development. As one of the Scottish co-op party group of MSPs, I have attended past Scottish agricultural organisation society conferences, and this year's conference is entitled Promoting Innovation. Opportunities for support for co-operative working are very important to farmers, and the EU, unfortunately, questioned the pillar 2 co-operation fund, which had to be abandoned. I hope that the cabinet secretary might, in his closing remarks, talk about the real place that there is for a future fund, in terms of the catchment levels for flooding and the collaboration that this leads. Gillian Martin, followed by John Scott. It would be very obvious from every speech that I have given in this chamber on the subject that I am a supporter of staying in the European Union, and I struggle to find any positives to Brexit. When it comes to the financial benefits of membership agriculture in Scotland's one of the main beneficiaries, those benefits will have been outlined many many times by various members in the last two years. However, we are where we are, and we must seriously contemplate and plan for a Scottish farming future that does not have access to the funding support that has been given to us as part of our EU membership. Questions still remain as to the replacement for that funding, but our current situation could give us a chance to at least start from scratch and build a new system that throws out everything about cap that was problematic and actively tackles the challenges that the land use sector is facing as we go through the 21st century and takes into account Scotland's particular diversity, particularly geographically. My understanding of farming support is largely there for three key things—to protect our domestic quality of food supply, to support the management of the land and the environment, and to help to support rural communities to thrive through job creation. Are we currently achieving all those things? I think that that is the question that we must ask ourselves as we debate what a new system should look like. Over the last week, largely, I have reached out to a number of my farming contacts, both professional and personal, and asked them a very simple question. What would you like to see in a new support system? I have also, at the convener of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee, been part of a great deal of discussion from various land use stakeholders on how the system can support farmers as they play their part in tackling climate change. Every opinion expressed in the remainder of my speech is reflective of the feedback that I have had from all those people. Very high in the list of feedback was a system that encouraged more new entrants into farmers and colleagues at the Scottish Rural Parliament in the Parliament this week have mentioned that to me. I have echoed quite a lot of the sentiments that Rhoda Grant had in her speech about the unfairness and the imbalance of funding between small and large farms. I was really encouraged to hear the cabinet secretary make the commitment today that smaller concerns will be treated more fairly than the cap system and dispense with the punitive penalties that cause so much stress and heartache for those with a tighter margin. A good few of my co-respondents mentioned the need for a funding system to also include start-up grants to allow minorities, young people and women to enter the sector. John Fyle, the chair of the National Sheep Association of Scotland and a neighbour of mine at City and Farm in Strelach near Newmaker, was very critical of the tenure system. Top of his list was a system that is based on business structure, paid out for farms that created jobs for people and discouraged payment for existence rather than activity. He said in his quote, "...we need a system that supports those with the most to offer, not the most to lose." He said, "...public money should be used for those who are investing in producing quality food for the nation, working to ensure the environment is left in better condition, those creating employment and protecting communities. Subsidy should be a stimulant, not a right that belongs to an individual regardless of activity." One of my go-to sounding boards on women in agriculture, Joyce Campbell, who farms in Gail Ross's constituency, said that active farming is key, as is membership of quality meat Scotland for those in livestock, for the guarantee of welfare standards. Day Tucker, who is also a highland sheep farmer, said, "...we have no excuse not to embrace change and those who do so should be rewarded. Support for protecting and preserving soils is a no-brainer. These are our national assets and they should be protected and enhanced for future generations." Farmers are one of our key temporary custodians of the land. Many people have made that point today, but their efforts, which benefit the wider environment, should be recognised and built into a funding system. We should be incentivising people to farm sustainably in business terms and in environmental terms. Those who are actively reducing emissions, producing quality food in ways that enhance and protect the environment, those who are actively encouraging biodiversity on their land, for example restoring, preserving peat bogs, those who are using areas of land for tree growth, alongside food produce, should be incentivised and encouraged. My correspondence also echoed many of the points that are already made in this debate about continuing leader funding, particularly Gail Ross has mentioned that, and recognising the responsibility that we have to the wider economic and community benefits that agriculture brings. Presiding Officer, the other points raised by my contacts could be summed up like this. Any new system of funding must at least match the volume that is currently gained by EU membership and tailored to the particular needs of Scotland, particularly those that are farming in the remotest places that have the most challenges. It must be simplified, it must not be close to new entrants, tenant farmers and small holders, it must reward and encourage knowledge exchange, good welfare practice, profitable, fair and innovative business models, and environmental sustainability. It must dispense with any mechanisms that encourage inactivity. Most of all, it must ensure that Scotland remains food secure and that all of us know that most of the food in our plate is local, of a high standard and has created jobs in our localities. Before I sit down, almost everyone that I spoke to said the same thing. They wanted all political parties to work together to really realise those goals. John Scott, followed by Emma Harper. May I begin by declaring an interest as a farmer and food producer and member of NFUS, and welcome this debate about post-Brexit Scottish agriculture and recognise for the first time in my lifetime we in Scotland essentially have a blank sheet of paper on how to shape a bespoke policy for Scottish land use in general and agriculture in particular. Some of the known parameters are available budgets, as promised by the UK Government until 2022, the current lack of profitability of Scottish farming, the need for Scottish agriculture to reduce its greenhouse gas emission to help to keep planetary temperature rise to a minimum. Having established some of the parameters that we now have to define our ambition and for me having spent much of my life farming and fighting for farmers and crofters livelihoods, as well as fighting for the preservation and enhancement of our landscapes, no one will be surprised to learn that my vision is for working landscapes, which builds on the any-of-you concept of actively farmed hectares and offers a more holistic approach to land use in Scotland. Because working landscapes self-evidently require people in those landscapes to work at delivering on food production, on forestry, on environmental enhancement, on tourism, on creating and maintaining our renewable energy systems, on maintaining our road and rail infrastructure and on building strong and integrated communities supported by strong and resilient rural businesses. So the first priority in this objective is the need for rural businesses to be profitable and indeed in the context of this debate on agriculture, farm business particularly need to become profitable for the production of livestock and red meat to continue in Scotland. Already there is barely enough livestock produced in Scotland to support our growing food exporting businesses and there are tens of thousands of hectares that used to carry livestock only 30 years ago that no longer does and one can only conclude the pathway chosen by the Scottish Government is to create still more wilderness landscapes without people in them. Turning now to ELFAS and as a past convener of the NFUS hill farming committee I know how important ELFAS payments are to the 85 per cent of Scotland that is classified as less favoured area. So the 20 per cent reduction being proposed by the Scottish Government for next year which was proposed would go to a 60 per cent reduction the following year would have been completely unacceptable as these cuts would have driven many more farmers and food producers out of business and off their land. Cabinet Secretary there are no financial reserves left in many LFA farming businesses as you will be all too well aware following many years of declining profitability as demonstrated by your own TIF figures and blaming the cap of the European Union or the UK Government is not acceptable when it is apparently allegedly in your gift and at your discretion to maintain those payments at current levels and I welcome your commitment today that future payments will not fall below 80 per cent of current levels although a 20 per cent reduction will still be unsustainable and I hope you will make Lord Bew aware of this in your discussions with him and of course everyone accepts that we need more timber production now more than ever to support our timber processing industry but driving people off the land and leaving crumbling empty steadings, farmhouses and cottages is not the way to go about it. Cabinet Secretary creating your own hill and upland clearances is not what you want to be remembered for or indeed deserve to be remembered for so a balance has to be struck and people supported in our countryside with land use prioritised and this is a job for the Scottish Government using the tools at their disposal the most important one being the ability to disperse financial support to deliver on the rural objectives farmers and crofters have for many years now demanded that activity is a benchmark for the delivery of support and willingly accepted that this should also require the delivery of public goods at the same time and Presiding Officer this concept of delivering public goods should in future in my view apply not just to agriculture but to forestry to renewable energy production to housing and tourism grants and generally to all rural industries in receipt of public money as well in addition to help restore profitability collaborative working should be a government supported option to allow those who wish to work together to get a better return from the marketplace and again this concept of co-operation supported by SOS should apply to all Scottish rural industries be it tourism food or timber production or energy production better delivered locally better delivered further education provision and knowledge transfer in our rural areas is going to be required as well to both understand the new complexities of a post Brexit rural Scotland as well as understand and deal with the complexities of a carbon reduction and climate change across all the sectors mentioned and certainly the decision by SRUC to withdraw that capability from UWS air is amongst SRUC's poorest decisions yet and goodness knows they made many and another hammer blow to the air short rural economy and indeed should be reversed cabinet secretary in my view as you know turning out the government motion Scottish Conservatives remain to be convinced that we might benefit from yet another representative advisory committee being set up to advise the Scottish government on the content of a new Scottish agriculture bill surely enough advice has already been given to the cabinet secretary however what is important is that the cabinet secretary makes up his mind soon on the content of the new Scottish agriculture bill we will require the more so if there is not going to be a Scottish scheduled in the UK agriculture bill and get a document into the public domain for discussion. Presiding officer the next Scottish agriculture bill is at once in a generation opportunity to do so much more than just deliver agriculture support essential as that is and it's an opportunity that should be seized with both hands and the sooner the better. Emma Harper followed by Maureen Watt very tight six minute speeches please. Thank you Presiding Officer. I'm pleased to speak in this afternoon's debate about the future of our rural policy and support in Scotland. Since coming to this place as a new being in May 2016 I've been actively involved with our rural and our agricultural communities and since my election I've had the opportunity to learn from many experts from NFUS and SRUC to the Scottish Sheep Association and the Scottish Tenant Pharmacy Association and I'd like to thank them all for their willingness to engage and inform me about policy and issues across rural Scotland and even providing suggestions for changes that need to be made. In recent meetings with all of these organisations and indeed farmers across south west Scotland one thing has been clear Brexit is causing much concern, anxiety and uncertainty. I do not need to remind chamber that Scotland's farmers and rural communities receive valuable support from the EU and with a chaotic UK Government reluctant to provide clarity over future funding arrangements I'm pleased that we have a Scottish Government standing up for our rural communities our farmers and our agricultural workers. Prior to recess I attended the Scottish Rural Parliament hosted by Scottish Rural Action held in Stranraer and I'd like to mention some of the points raised by Scottish Rural Action in their annual report which I know many of the members across chamber will have read also. SRA are asking for both the Scottish and UK Governments for a commitment to equality for our rural people, our places and businesses in Scotland to ensure that they are not forgotten and are considered in any policy and decision making. This idea of not being forgotten has become a theme for me. Earlier this week I spoke in a member's debate in chamber about the need for further and major infrastructure investment in the south west of Scotland roads where many constituents say they feel forgotten. I therefore seek assurances from the cabinet secretary that our rural people, communities and businesses will be supported by the Scottish Government because they are crucial not only to our rural economy but to Scotland's economy. Another of SRA's asks, and in my view one of the most important, is the need for the UK and Scottish Governments to attract migrant workers as well as our families to come live and work and be integrated members of our communities. Those families help to keep our rural communities functioning. Their children attend our rural schools, they work in our farms and in our care sector and in our small and micro businesses of which we have dozens in the south west of Scotland and they add to our diverse and open society here in Scotland. However, their future has been put in question by a chaotic and out-of-touch Government that is imposing a salary of £30,000 cap on their tier 2 visas for EU migrants coming to Scotland. Many of those EU workers will not earn that amount of money. It is all very well that the UK Government has proposed a seasonal agricultural workers scheme, but Scottish dairy farms, of which 48 per cent are in the south Scotland region, are not seasonal. Those farms rely on 24-7, 365 days a year workers to milk cows and clean out the sheds and look after the beasts and carry out complex jobs such as artificial insemination even, as well as some supportive vet care. I would therefore seek assurances from the cabinet secretary that the Scottish Government is actively lobbying the UK Government to press for this unrealistic UK Government migrant salary cap to be scrapped. No, I do not have time actually, sorry. The green amendment proposes addressing agricultural emissions and this is an area that I am interested in as a former member of the Environment and Climate Change Committee. Just this morning, I met representatives from Biosell, Agri and Triset UK. Both companies are promoting products that help to improve the efficiency of remnants, efficiency of slurry processing and the promotion of soil health improvement products. I will be writing to the cabinet secretary to follow up from this meeting, as I would like the Government to be aware of and perhaps even support these types of products. Biosell and Triset are about innovation, sustainability and profitability. The Labour and Conservative amendments both talk about ELFAS support for sheep farmers as well as receiving ELFAS support. There is an additional economic consideration in that year on year we are seeing a rise in the number of attacks on sheep by out-of-control dogs, which is having a direct, navigative, economic and emotional impact on the farmers. I want to ask that all members get behind the consultation that I am about to launch in order to ensure that we get the legislation right for our farmers, because the consequences of livestock attacks can be traumatic and tragic for both the animal and the farmer. I am also extremely grateful for the fantastic support that I have been given over that work from many organisations, including NFUS, NSA, SRUC, Police Scotland, SSPCA and others. Finally, our rural economy is diverse. It is multinational. It is not just about one particular group. For example, from my time as an MSP, I have met deer farmers, beekeepers, chilli growers and even oyster farmers. I am pleased that the Scottish Government has published the most comprehensive Brexit paper on farming from any other Government or devolved administration anywhere in the UK. I urge the Scottish Government to continue to stand up for rural Scotland and to ensure that our agricultural sector continues to thrive, is attractive and welcomes all, regardless of their background or indeed where they come from. The last of the open debate contributions is from Moray Mott. Fortunatley, the opportunities that the debate presents have not been totally usurped by the shambles such as Brexit, which the Tories in this place continue to try to defend knowing in their heart of hearts that it will be catastrophic for Scottish farming. We all know that farming in Scotland is vastly different from the rest of the UK, not least because of the vast tracts of less favoured areas that we have in Scotland. A fact recognised in the motion and some of the amendments. That is why agriculture is a devolved competence and was prior to devolution. The fact that the Westminster Government has taken the powers over Scottish agriculture to itself is an outraged. I am very pleased that the cabinet secretary has announced today that there will be an agriculture bill presented to this Parliament, and I look forward to scrutinising it in the rural affairs and connectivity committee. The Tories during the debate have asked us to get involved with the current agriculture bill going through Westminster, but why should we, when we can have a bill of our own, and as Gail Ross has said, that they have not adopted any of the amendments put forward by our colleagues in Westminster? The UK agricultural bill will impose unwanted policies and rules on Scottish farmers in areas of devolved competency. For example, as drafted, it could affect the Scottish Parliament's ability to provide support for active beef and sheep farmers. The House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee is wholly damming of the agriculture bill as drafted. It states that the agriculture bill represents a major transfer of powers from the EU to ministers of the Crown by passing Parliament and the devolved legislatures. Parliament will not be able to debate the merits of the new agricultural regime because the bill does not contain even an outline of the substantive law that will replace the cap after the UK leaves the EU. At this stage, it cannot even be said that the devil is in the detail because the bill contains so little detail. Significantly, powers are exercisable indefinitely and without sunset clauses that the Tories in this place are always calling for. We are not convinced by the need for such extensive powers to be conferred on ministers indefinitely. In contrast, the ability and simplicity paper that was published in June last year set out this Government's detailed plan to minimise the potential disruption of Brexit on our rural communities. It is dependent, of course, on the UK Government honouring its commitments to replacing the lost EU funding in full, and we all know that our history on this is not favourable. We have a wealth of talent and ambition for our rural communities, not least demonstrated by the number of briefings that we have had for this debate today from so many organisations. They are brimful of ideas and recommendations to the Government for the future of our rural communities. As a farmer's daughter, I still remain convinced that the primary use of our land should be where appropriate and, as far as possible, this is sustainable food production. Although there is much that we cannot grow because of the temperate climate and, obviously, we will continue to have to import, there is so much that we can grow for our own use and to export to offset our import food bill. The growth in our food and drink production and export has been spectacular over the past few years and is based on the quality of the product, the purity of the environment in which it has grown and the ambitions of those in the sector. As the cabinet secretary said in his opening speech, he has listened to many, including the national council of rural advisers. Representing the health portfolio at cabinet 1, the day that they came to cabinet, I had the opportunity to hear their presentations of their findings to cabinet. I was blown away by the analysis, initiatives and sheer enthusiasm of the rural economy from Alison Milne co-convener of the group. One of their recommendations is recognising the strategic importance of the rural economy and mainstreaming it within all policies and decision-making processes. Currently, the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee is scrutinising the South of Scotland Enterprise Bill. As we know, it is the centre of Scotland's dairy production, yet it is not embedded as a potential for growth in that area by Scottish Enterprise, so the opportunities of the South of Scotland Enterprise Bill are there to be seen. In other recommendations, they dovetail into the document that they call for a rural economic strategy, putting the rural economy at the heart of the national economic plan, and it says that it is significant that the Scottish Government embraced the idea in its programme for government. The motion and the announcement today confirm that this Government is, as always, putting the interests of our rural economy at the heart of everything that it does. We now move to the closing speeches. Again, I would stress that I have no time in hand. John Finnie, up to six minutes please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I think that this has been a very interesting debate, and what could be more important at this time in the cabinet secretary sets us off by giving us the timeframe within which we are operating and the uncertainty caused by Brexit. We certainly aren't the Scottish Green Party welcome, the announcement of a Scottish ball, I think that's very welcome. Of course, it's not just policy, it's support, and that's an important factor. Like others, I'm very grateful for the briefings that have been, the many briefings that we've received. Scottish Environmental Link calls on the Government to set up a process, and indeed it's the process that's outlined in the Scottish Government motion and long championed by my colleague and the Wreck Committee, Mike Rumbles. I think that it's very important that we do have a group consisting producers, consumers and environmental organisations to inform and recommend a bespoke process. I think that that's very important. Environmental Link calls on us to help to deliver the sustainable goals, which Scotland was among the First Nations to sign up to. Having a look at the 17 sustainable, there's a number that are highly pertinent to zero hunger, clean water and sanitation, responsible consumption and production, climate action and life and land, and others have alluded to that. It's also part of the Scottish Government's national performance framework. Now, we have a climate emergency, and I think that it's important to say that. Among one of the briefings that we got, and indeed that briefing arrived at 1322 hours today, was from then in Fused Scotland. I'd like to quote from it the state that farmers and crofters are on the front line in experiencing the impacts of climate change, and I think that that's irrefutable. Agriculture is a source of green house grass emissions, and farmers and crofters are a big part in helping to tackle the collective challenge that we face. I think that that's a very honest assessment. Disappointingly, the first bullet point in the briefing is that a future emissions target of net zero for Scottish agriculture is unrealistic, as food production necessarily involves emissions. My colleague Claudia Beamish touched on that. Life is challenging, and we must push ourselves, and what I would like to commend in a spirit of consensus is the position adopted by the National Farmers Union south of the border when on 16 October. It has been touched on already, but it is worthy of repetition. The decision, the UN report warning that sea or two emissions must be stopped completely to avoid dangerous climate disruption, and we saw a green GB week that was designed to raise debate in society about how to tackle that. I'd like to quote from the NFU deputy president, Guy Smith. Last week's report from the intergovernmental panel on climate change, the IPCC, was a final alarm call from the science community. The rise in global temperature must be limited to 1.5 degrees. Farmers and growers have weathered extremes of cold, drought and flood so far this year, and we are ready to play our part in a global move towards net zero emissions. Everyone seems very happy that we have an evidence-based approach, and I'm not hearing anyone saying necessarily that we want more of the same. What's important going ahead is the very issue that, again, the cabinet secretary rightly challenged one of the speakers about, and that was the level of engagement. That's there, it's manifest in the motion, and I think it's important that everyone plays their part in that. Of course, it's not a level playing field. There are very great variations across our country, and I want to quote from a news release from yesterday or after today, that crofting must get support for disadvantage. That is the case, and we will support the Labour Party amendment, and I would align myself with some of the comments that my colleague Rhoda Grant made about the challenges that are faced in it. As I said, it's not a uniform situation. Public money for public goods, everyone seems very happy with that. I want to quote again from one of the briefings. The strongest justification for using public funds to support farming, crofting and forestry is that those activities can produce a wide range of environmental and social goods and services, public goods, that are not rewarded through markets. It is the relationship between support for the producer and the market that is very important, and it goes on to say that support to land managers should therefore be tailored accordingly. Again, I don't think that I've heard anyone say any different from that, because we're rightly custodians of public money with the decisions that we make here, and I think that it's very important that we ensure that those funds are dispersed sensibly and to the general benefit rather than individual benefit. Again, one of the principles that Indeed Environment, Link, talked about is the business-based and plan-led principle that would again be part of the evidence process. I would commend that. I hope that people would understand that the position adopted by the new South of the Border isn't one that's been adopted recklessly. They want to play their part. I would remind people what our amendment says. We insert the phrase, agrees that agriculture report is a key tool in addressing the climate emergency and emissions from agriculture and land use, and that future funding should help develop and net zero emissions farming sector in Scotland. I would hope that no one could take issue with that. I suspect that we are not going to be supported in that particular aspect. However, it's very important, as others have said, that in this very important issue of policy development in this very important sector, they will work as consensually as possible. Colin Smyth, up to six minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. That has been a welcome, if very long overdue debate. Getting support for rural communities right post-Brexit is crucial, not only to sectors such as agriculture but to Scotland's economy as a whole. Agriculture is a vital source of jobs and income in our rural areas, but it is also the foundation of a food and drink sector worth billions of pounds and countless jobs across all of Scotland. It is one of the sectors most at risk by the utter chaos of the current Brexit process. During this time of uncertainty, we need as much direction and clarity on the future as possible, which so far has not been forthcoming from either the UK or Scottish Government. I therefore welcome the commitment that the Scottish Government has given today to long-last agree to bring together a truly wide range of stakeholders to inform policy and the direction that is going forward. The clock is ticking towards leaving the EU and with it the common agricultural policy, and there are a great deal of ideas and agreement from many stakeholders on what our aims, priorities and direction of travel should be, from steps to change by the national farmers unions. Fergus Ewing is most grateful to Mr Smyth for giving way. Does he not accept and to be fair to us that this document stability and simplicity, which forms through the basis of this debate, provides clarity, financial certainty and the prospect of stability for the period of five years? In that respect, given that it is welcome from a majority of stakeholders in the consultation, that is something that all of us should be able to welcome. I welcome that, but what producers and rural communities want is long-term stability and a long-term vision for the future of rural support. Farming does not plan on the basis of one, two or three years, but plans beyond five years. We need to get the detail right beyond that five-year period. That is why I agree with the Government's decision to bring forward a group of stakeholders. The consensus that I think is out there from many stakeholders is important. It is also critical to providing farmers, crofters, food and drink producers in the wider rural community with the long-term vision and long-term stability that they need. As the cabinet secretary said in his opening remarks, one of the challenges to setting up the detail of our new system is uncertainty from the UK Government on funding. I share that frustration, but I do not think that that prevents us from making the case for the resources to meet the unique needs of Scotland's rural communities and agriculture sector and doing so by putting forward credible detailed plans showing what a new Scottish system should look like in the long term. A system that is evidence-based that better targets support those who need it most and that incentivises the change that we need to see. A system that promotes not only growth but inclusive growth, tackles deprivation in rural communities and helps to put an end to the scandal of food poverty. Direct payments make up the bulk of current funding and it is one of the areas where reform is needed most. Significant sums of money are given to large, often wealthy owners in such payments yet 45 per cent of farms generate income that works out below the minimum agricultural wage. Funding needs to be allocated more fairly and according to the principle of public good for public money, and a new scheme should have clear, coherent policy aims in any schemes taken forward. Labour believes that protecting some element of basic payments is important, but we need to move the emphasis towards targeted and conditional payments such as the ones that are currently paid under pillar 2. Those two sources of support should be integrated to provide a simplified and cohesive system and, over time, the proportion of funding that is spent on land-based payments should be reduced with a cap placed on the amount that an individual or a single organisation can receive. Additional agricultural payments should be focused on three broad priorities—redressing, natural disadvantages, promoting environment and social benefits and improving productivity. Redressing natural disadvantages such as biophysical constraints and remoteness is essential. A number of speakers have emphasised ELFAS, and as Jeane Craig, chair of the National Farmers Union in Clydesdale, has said, I cannot highlight enough the importance of ELFAS. The cabinet secretary needs to guarantee not only that he will protect against the upcoming 60 per cent cut but also that a source of support of this kind will be made available in the long term. However, a greater emphasis on social and environmental benefit is the key change that needs to be made to our support system. That means incentivising best practice and helping to fund measures that provide a public good. As Claudia Beamish stressed, supporting environmental sustainability in this sector, taking into account factors such as emissions, biodiversity and air and soil quality is also crucial. Likewise, improvements to the culture and conditions on farms and crops should be incentivised to underpin good working conditions and animal welfare, with a particular emphasis that grows ethical farming practices. There is also a need to improve productivity. Beyond agricultural support, a range of other vital schemes are currently provided through the Scottish Rural Development programme that needs to be replicated following Brexit. The new entrance scheme, which is currently closed for the foreseeable future, is of huge importance to the long term sustainability of the sector. As Rhoda Grant and Gail Ross stressed, the leader scheme is a vital source of support and funding for a range of rural projects and recreat an equivalent scheme for Scotland in the long term that is absolutely essential. Crucially, in the support that we provide rural Scotland, we need to see a greater emphasis on tackling poverty in Scotland, be it within rural communities where the problem can often be hidden or the scandal of food poverty across all of Scotland. As Rhoda Grant also said, the Scottish Government's lack of commitment to a good food nations bill with the right to food at its heart remains deeply disappointing. Finally, any new support scheme must put inclusive growth at the very heart to ensure that all areas of Scotland benefit from any new system. In concluding, Labour has pleased the Scottish Government at long last beginning the process of developing the details of a new rural support system and bringing a wide range of stakeholders together to help to achieve that in a consensual way. European funding may no longer be coming our way, but the case for additional support for rural Scotland is absolutely clear and has been stressed here today. Although the somewhat petty decision— You must close, please, Mr Smith. Although the somewhat petty decision by the SNP to oppose Labour's recent amendment today suggests the usual barriers may exist at the top of the Scottish Government, Labour is committed to working with all stakeholders to ensure that the process that is debated today provides the change that is needed to deliver the ambitions of rural Scotland. Edward Mountain, up to six minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I would like to refer members to my register of interest specifically farming and to be absolutely clear and to avoid any dubiety, my family farming partnership receives payments under the current schemes, including ELFAS. I welcome this afternoon's debate, but I, like many others who understand farming, will feel let down with the slow progress that we have seen over the last year. I had hoped that the new year might herald a more constructive approach from the Cabinet Secretary and a time scale for a Scottish agriculture bill, but we do not seem to have heard that. I believe that he is still putting politics before farmers and sandbites before the rural economy. We have heard this afternoon from many speakers and, before I pick up on what they have said, I want to focus on two points—future policy and ELFAS. The cabinet secretary's views on Brexit are clear, and he makes them clear on every single opportunity. He has shown a lack of commitment, in my mind, to prepare rural businesses for the future, hiding behind numerous task forces and consultations and showing a lack of vision and leadership. If he holds up the simplicity and stability document again with its 46 questions in it, I will begin to wonder where the answers are. Let me contrast that when he deals with Scottish fishermen. There is no observational prevarication there, just the promise that he is going to get them, the very best deal under Brexit. That, to me, cabinet secretary, is shameless politicking. It has led him into a trap. It is a trap that he cannot implement any changes to the rural policy until he gets on and produces an agricultural bill in Scotland, and I urge him to do that. I do not believe, as we have heard from the speakers this afternoon, that there is any problem with the Belt and Basis approach of joining him with the UK agricultural bill. That shameless politicking, as I have seen it, has extended to the ELFAS payments. The cabinet secretary always takes time to remind me of things that I have said in the past. Let me remind him of some of the things that he said in relation to the importance of ELFAS. Cabinet secretary, for your benefit, here are the dates. On 21 June, ELFAS is vital for our rural economy and rural communities. On 13 September 2018, I have said to local farmers and NFUS members that we are absolutely committed to finding a way round to avoiding the 80 per cent reduction in ELFAS. On 31 October 2018, to the rural economy and connectivity committee, we have made it clear in stability and simplicity that reducing ELFAS payments to 20 per cent is unacceptable. However, those are the rules of the scheme, so we have indicated in our consultation paper that we will need to find a work round for the recipients. I am determined, he goes on to say, to find that work round. My officials are working very hard on the issue, and I think that it is within our reach. I hope that we are approaching the issue in a practical way. So, cabinet secretary, as to the work round for ELFAS for next year, what have you achieved? You have achieved a 20 per cent cut. That is £13 million out of the rural economy from the areas that probably need it most. Serious questions need to be asked, I think, while you have not found a work round to the problem and how you are going to find a work round for the further reduction that is looming at us unless you can find a way round the state aid rules, and I would like to hear how that is. That, to me, shows a complete lack of simplicity and stability from your policy. It is neither simple nor stable. Turning to some of the important points that have been raised by others, I think that Donald Cameron's point that no deal is not a good position to be in is a vital one to remember. If you do not want a no deal position, you have to look seriously at the deal on the table instead of writing it off at every possible opportunity. I agree with Donald Cameron that we should look at being part of the UK agricultural bill. There is no power grab—that is politics speaking. If you want to interrupt from a sedentary position, stand up and ask for an interruption. If not, Mr Brown, I suggest that you leave your comments until later. Turning to Rhoda Grant, I believe that she is right when she says that this Government's statement lacks ambition, but I also agree with her totally that public funding should be for the public good. I also agreed with what Mark Ruskell said this afternoon. Let's have a debate about the issue. I agree. I also agree with something else that he said in relation to net zero. Before we can get down to that, we need to identify all the farmers that are achieving already in the countryside to be able to identify how net zero can be achieved, because I think that farmers are undervalued for what they are achieving. The example was a perfect example given the peatland grant scheme. I agree with some of what Mike Rumbles says, but I have to say that, to ask for more talking shops, how many more talking shops do we need? I am sorry, I am in my last minute. When it comes to Peter Chapman, I agree with him that we need to get on with a new system, but we need to have a vision. I agree with Claudia Beamish that you are right when you say that farmers aren't given credit exactly the same as what Mark Ruskell said. I agree with Gillian Martin in which she says that we need a plan for the future. There are one or two other points that I agree with, but I would absolutely have to disagree with what Maureen Watt said. I am sorry. There are no bears hiding behind the trees. There are no power grabs by Westminster. In conclusion, we welcome a Scottish agricultural bill. Let's get on with it. We also don't see that there are any problems with being in the UK agriculture bill. We welcome your signpost U-turn on alfath. Let's work to get on with that. We don't need more consultation. It's time to get moving for agriculture, and if you can't do that, cabinet secretary, I suggest you move on. Can I just say before I call the cabinet secretary, have you noticed a tendency this afternoon to be speaking directly to other members or remarks should be directed through the chair? I call the cabinet secretary to close the debate. Less than eight minutes would be appreciated up to decision time, please. Well, possessed of a thick skin, I have enjoyed this debate, most of it, and we have had many thoughtful and informed contributions from across the chamber. I would like just to respond to some of them. Starting with Donald Cameron, yesterday, the NFUS wanted clarity in relation to what we were going to do on an agriculture bill. My announcement today gives that clarity, and that has followed the proper procedure of taking through cabinet permission for a Scottish agriculture bill and spelling out, in full technical detail, why that is required and that has been agreed. Mr Cameron says that he is in favour of a bespoke policy for Scotland. I welcome that, but he doesn't appear to want this Parliament to be able to legislate for it. Obviously, I disagree with him there. I do agree with him also that food production should be at the heart of our policy, but I would respectfully suggest that perhaps he should point that out to Michael Gove. Responding to Rhoda Grant, I am grateful for her support for fair funding and for having a Scottish bill, and I am grateful for the green support for that as well, which Mark Ruskell mentioned. I also agree with her that all lost funding should be replaced, and she was one of many speakers who referred to the importance of funds such as leader and forestry, rural priorities and aches. Those all serve different but very important functions, many of them to provide good environmental stewardship, and it is essential that we have them all replaced. So far, the assurances that Mr Gove has provided relate primarily to pillar 1 and farm support under pillar 2, but they do not relate to leader, forestry and other areas. That is troubling, particularly because almost all those pillar 2 programmes take several years to organise, some of them with multi-land owners, and therefore the lack of confirmation that funding will be available in relatively short order, in fact beyond 220 in some cases. It is not only worrying, but it is impairing investment and holding us back from doing good work in the environment, the likes of which Mr Ruskell, Claudia Beamish, Rhoda Grant, Gail Ross and others all quite correctly mentioned. On the good food nation, a consultation exercise is taking place right now. It is right that we consult people and I hope that members respond to that and we will no doubt come back to it. I agree that we should support collaboration amongst farmers, which was recommended by the agricultural champions. She highlighted that some CAP payments are very large, so there is a cap, but it is very high at the moment. In this paper, which I am very proud to brandish once again stability and simplicity, we set out a table which indicated the types of returns in the event of putting a threshold, a maximum, a ceiling, on the level of any individual recipient. We should consider that as the agricultural champions recommended and using that funds for other purposes. Mark Ruskell pointed out, and I think that Mr Finnie did as well, that the NFU president has supported the Scottish Government approach. I can assure Mr Ruskell that there is more than one official working in this, and my colleague Ms Cunningham has just arrived. Of course, we will continue to engage with Mr Ruskell and others on those matters. I have less time than I normally have, so I apologise to various other members who made contributions to debate. For example, I thought that there was an interesting contribution apart from the uncharacteristic political remarks, but there we are, so what. The remarks in relation to farming, I almost always agree with him, and I am sure that we can work together. I want to keep to last Mr Rumbles' contribution. I think that perhaps I am not the only person who felt that there was a slight difference in tone in his contribution from Mr Rumbles from some of his previous efforts. I have to say that the new Mike Rumbles is very welcome that his 100 per cent constructive contribution to today's debate was as welcome as it was somewhat surprising to all of us. Sincerely, I think that he made the point, and Gillian Martin made this point as well, that people out there in Scotland want to see us talk about the real issues about farming and, without doing so, in a way that is constantly bickering and backbiting. He wants that to be fair to Mr Rumbles. He did that today and I think that that is a very good sign for 2019 and a lesson for us all perhaps to follow. I will finish with one reflection that we have provided in our documents stability and simplicity a set of proposals that will take us forward for Brexit. We do not support Brexit, but as a responsible Government we have to prepare for the worst and every option that we are doing that. This document is the only document in the UK that has set out a series of plans for five years until 2024. I fully appreciate that some members are impatient to hear what policies we might be implementing in 2029, but I think that to be fair to ourselves and, indeed, the respondeas are more important to our consultation document, the farmers and crofters throughout the country who have welcomed it, welcomed the certainty and stability of our proposals of continuing to provide financial support to them in these most uncertain times. It does take Chutzpah to a new level into brazen effrontery to criticise us for not going beyond five years and 2024 when the Conservative Government can't tell us what's going to happen next Tuesday, so I have departed slightly from the consensual tone there at the end, but I hope that everyone enjoyed it. Thank you very much, and that concludes our debate on future rural policy and support in Scotland. We've turned straight to decision time. The first question is the amendment 15279.3, in the name of Donald Cameron, which seeks to amend motion 15279, in the name of Fergus Ewing, on future rural policy and support in Scotland. Be agreed? Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. We'll move to division. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 15279.3, in the name of Donald Cameron, is yes, 27, no, 89. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. The next question is the amendment 15279.2, in the name of Rhoda Grant, which seeks to amend the motion in the name of Fergus Ewing. Be agreed? Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. We'll move to a vote again, and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 15279.2, in the name of Rhoda Grant, is yes, 51, no, 65. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. The next question is the amendment 15279.1, in the name of Mark Ruskell, which seeks to amend the motion in the name of Fergus Ewing. Be agreed? Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. We'll move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 15279.1, in the name of Mark Ruskell, is yes, 24, no, 92. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. The final question is that motion 15279, in the name of Fergus Ewing, on future rural policy and support in Scotland, be agreed? Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. We'll move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion 15279, in the name of Fergus Ewing, is yes, 83, no, 27. There were six abstentions and the motion is therefore agreed. That concludes decision time. I close this meeting.