The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-5655, in the name of Sarah Boyack, on the future of Scotland's organic farming.

I was keen to secure a parliamentary debate on progress on the organic action plan. The Parliament was keen to support that plan in the first session, and I give credit to Robin Harper for pushing the issue up our agenda then. I wanted to restate the Executive's continuing commitment to organics and to enable colleagues in all parties to air their views about how we can progress and to add insights from their work as members in their constituencies and regions.

Will the minister also pay tribute to the many farmers in Scotland who, while they are not certified as organic, nonetheless use responsible farming methods and produce good and healthy food?

Obviously, I pay tribute to them. Environmentally friendly conventional farming can make a strong contribution to our country's biodiversity and landscapes. I acknowledge its importance and its contribution. Environmentally friendly conventional farming is one of the issues that we want to progress through the new land management contracts, by which we can further encourage environmental stewardship in the conventional sector.

All members know about the strong demand from our constituents for organic produce. Last year, estimated United Kingdom sales of organic produce increased by more than 30 per cent to £1.6 billion. The Soil Association estimates that Scotland's share of that figure is £140 million and growing. The demand is prompting supermarkets to increase their organic ranges and encouraging the expansion of farmers markets, box schemes and other local food initiatives.

This debate is taking place in fair trade week. Consumers are expressing a preference for produce that brings social and environmental benefits to producers in developing countries. We all know that consumers are increasingly keen to buy food that they know has been locally produced or that meets fair trade standards.

From the Executive's perspective, organic farming brings several benefits. It provides a range of environmental benefits and contributes to Scotland's reputation for producing good-quality food in an environmentally friendly way; it minimises the use of non-renewable resources; it avoids pollution by minimising the use of artificial fertilisers and pesticides; it aims to build up soil fertility by enhancing the natural biological cycles in the soil; and it demands high animal welfare standards. Studies over the years have shown that organic farming brings significant biodiversity, pollution control, energy efficiency and soil protection benefits.

As my colleague Christine May said, environmental standards are rising in the conventional farming sector. Organic farming plays an important role in setting environmental standards for farming and demonstrating the benefits that farmers can gain by providing produce that meets the growing demand for high-quality, environmentally sustainable food with an assurance about its standard and the farm in Scotland from which it came.

Many members will be aware that converting to organic production can be a difficult and expensive process, and that the market returns in that relatively small and segmented market sector can be variable. Therefore, our agricultural industry requires support to achieve the benefits that organic farming can provide. That is why I was keen to have this debate today. Our third annual report on the organic action plan gives us a good platform to debate how far we have come during the past few years and enables colleagues to think about where we should be going next. It is not enough for the Executive to say that it supports organic farming; we have to think through the mechanisms and take a sustainable approach. We also have to help farmers to respond to the challenges that they face, and remember that conventional farming faces similar challenges as we move towards modulation and common agricultural policy reform.

There are things that the Executive can do. We can help farmers to get over the initial hurdle of organic conversion, when costs are higher and returns will not come for two to three years. We can help the industry to identify and tackle weaknesses in the supply chain that prevent producers from accessing the market—smaller producers often face such difficulties. We can also provide advisory and research support so that farmers can make the transition to organic production as easily as possible.

We expressed our commitment by including two specific undertakings in our partnership agreement. The first was to implement the organic action plan to develop the infrastructure that is needed to increase Scotland's share of the organic food market and the proportion of organic food that is available in Scotland. The second was to increase the finance that is available to farmers who wish to convert.

In the run-up to the 2003 election, we saw a dramatic increase in the area of organic land in Scotland, but that concealed deficiencies in the operation of the organic market and the infrastructure that was needed to deliver to consumers. For example, it led to large quantities of organically reared livestock that could not be sold into the organic market ending up on the conventional meat market at lower prices.

After consultation with a wide range of industry stakeholders, and pressure from this Parliament, the organic action plan was developed. I would like to take that set of stakeholders into the future, to ensure that people continue to work together and think not just about the Executive's agricultural policies but about our general policies on food and drink, so that we can take a joined-up approach to supporting the organic sector.

It is fair to say that we now have the conditions in which Scottish producers can meet 70 per cent of the demand for indigenous organic produce. That is double the percentage that pertained before the organic action plan existed.

Will the minister give way?

I will finish my point first.

Of course, if we look behind those figures we can see that most sectors meet more than 70 per cent of demand, particularly the beef, lamb, table birds and fish markets. There are, however, other areas where we need to do better, particularly the fruit and dairy product markets, where we still have to reach 70 per cent.

We have significantly increased the amount of finance that is available to enable conversion. Further rate rises were introduced in 2005—as much as fourfold in some cases—and we are now spending significantly more on the organic aid scheme. A record £11.7 million was committed in 2006, which is double what was committed the previous year.

However, we need to do a lot more. I hope that this afternoon's debate will focus on where we should go next, whether that is promoting good quality and local food, working with and supporting farmers so that they can get to markets and market their goods, or ensuring that we support projects that link our primary producers to processing so that they can access new markets. We also have to think about the food service sector, so that we can help producers to gain access to it, particularly through public procurement and access to markets in schools and hospitals. A lot more can be done on that, and we should look to the East Ayrshire procurement pilot scheme to see how we can do that while staying within European rules.

The agenda is an exciting one. We have made progress by working with the industry. We have a lot to do, and the new Scottish rural development programme will help us to work together to take the organic action plan forward. I am keen to hear members' views on the future and, in moving my motion, I would welcome the Parliament's commitment to continue to support the organic sector to enable it to meet the aspirations of Scottish consumers who want local food that is produced in an environmentally sustainable way.

I move,

That the Parliament acknowledges the progress made to date in implementing the Organic Action Plan; welcomes the increasing consumer demand for Scottish organic produce, the contribution of organic producers in improving the availability of good quality local food at local markets and the contribution of organic producers to sustainable development, and commits to continue to support the organic sector in the future.

The Scottish National Party very much welcomes today's debate. It has been a long time since we debated agriculture in the chamber. It was debated many times during the first session of Parliament, but the current Government—which controls more than 80 per cent of parliamentary time—has not brought the issue up all that often in the past few years.

I recently tasted a lovely dram of Benromach malt whisky, which was distilled in my constituency at the Forres-based Benromach distillery, which is owned by the Elgin-based company Gordon & MacPhail. Of course, it was a dram from the first bottle to be certified organic by the Soil Association. I know that other malt whisky distillers in Scotland, such as Springbank in Campbeltown and Bruichladdich in Islay, have also produced organic whiskies.

I was interested to note that Celtic Football Club was in the news yesterday because its restaurant is converting to healthy menus that will include organic produce. That has led to panic in the ranks of the club's fans, because the humble Scotch pie, which is eaten at half-time during matches, might now be at risk.

Those two anecdotes show that many people in Scotland are responding to the new demands of consumers, who are now insisting on more organic food. Therefore, there is huge potential for the sector to boom. As the minister said, sales of organic produce throughout the United Kingdom expanded by more than 30 per cent over the past year. That is a great sign. Consumers are now asking for more locally produced nutritious food that has a lesser impact on the environment. That provides the organic sector in Scotland with a massive opportunity.

As the original organic action plan stated, the production of organic food in Scotland meets many of the objectives of "A Forward Strategy for Scottish Agriculture". On the objective of producing food for the market, our organic farmers certainly produce food for a growing market. The objective of protecting the environment is also fulfilled by organic farmers. Another objective was that farmers should embrace change—organic farmers operate in a changing market. The strategy also included the objective of promoting human health and well-being, to which organic farmers certainly contribute.

This is an unusual debate, in that the SNP agrees with all the amendments that have been lodged by members of other parties. We do not even see anything to disagree with in the Executive's motion. It is an unusual circumstance that we should agree with the motion and all the amendments. We hope that the other parties will agree with the SNP's amendment as well.

However, not all is rosy. The subject of today's debate is the Government's "Third Organic Annual Report", which was published earlier today. It would have been useful to have had a bit more time to read the report in full and to discuss it with the industry before today's debate but, unfortunately, we got the usual short notice. Having had a quick look at the report, we have two or three points of concern that I will highlight in my remaining two or three minutes.

First, table 4 on page 10, which is entitled "Hectares under organic aid scheme agreements as at 31 March each year", shows that the total number of hectares included in the organic aid scheme declined from 342,142 hectares in 2002 to 126,746 hectares in August 2006. That represents a drop of 63 per cent, which is a pretty substantial decline in anyone's book. That must give cause for concern. I appreciate that the minister partly explained the reasons for that in her opening remarks, but perhaps she can provide further details in her closing speech on how the Executive intends to reverse that trend.

Secondly, table 5 on page 11, which is entitled "Applicants for organic aid scheme", shows that only 162 of the 314 applicants in 2006 were approved. Barely half of the applicants to the scheme were successful, which highlights the financial predicament that the sector faces because of the limited budgets that are available.

Is the member aware that the fact that applicants are not admitted to the organic aid scheme does not prevent them from going organic on their own?

I appreciate that, but I wanted to highlight the statistic, because it highlights the wider issue that faces farmers who are seeking financial support.

The situation is complicated by the on-going negotiations in Europe over the budget for the rural development programme, which is not yet settled. Given that the ability of the Government to provide more financial support to organic farmers and other farmers under the schemes will depend on the outcome of the Brussels negotiations, we need to ensure that such factors are taken into account.

Thirdly, page 29 of the report refers to the Soil Association's report "Market research study into the market penetration of Scottish organic produce", which highlighted further concerns. As the minister briefly alluded to, we have exploited only some areas of the organic market, but many more areas have potential. For example, the Soil Association report mentions organic eggs and organic horticulture. We also know that Scotland's arable sector has much more potential to meet the demand for organic produce. We need to ensure that we have a wide-ranging basket of organic produce rather than just the two or three areas in which we have achieved the target of meeting 70 per cent of indigenous demand in Scotland.

Finally, the Soil Association's food for life initiative, which is also referred to in the annual report, has led to an increase in uptake of school meals at the schools that were involved in the pilot project. That is good news. It shows that our schools want more local produce and organic food. We need to support that.

That brings me to the issue of public procurement. One of the main ways in which we can support the organic sector in Scotland is by using our massive public procurement budgets. If the Government wants to help to achieve the targets, it could, in part, use that public procurement opportunity. In the annual report, the Government states:

"many producers do not compete for public contracts as they perceive they will be unsuccessful."

You should be winding up now, Mr Lochhead.

It is clear that we have to send out better signals to the organic sector in Scotland. The sector needs to know that it can compete for public procurement contracts and that it has a chance of being successful. Public procurement is an issue that crops up time and time again in terms of promoting local food and giving farmers new economic opportunities. I ask the minister to address that in her closing remarks.

Finally, the new action plan, which the SNP will support in the next session of the Parliament, should examine communicating the message of organic farming to the buying public in Scotland and beyond. At the moment, we are getting mixed messages. A range of bodies certify organic farming, which is complicated and confusing. We should address that.

I also want to mention David Miliband, who put his foot in his mouth when he spoke about organic food, and the Manchester business school report.

Consumers deserve accurate and up-to-date information on organic food. That must be part of a new action plan. On that point, I will close, Presiding Officer.

Thank you.

I commend the SNP amendment to the chamber.

I move amendment S2M-5655.2, to insert at end:

"but believes that, as many of the targets in the current Organic Action Plan have only been partially met, it is time for a new updated organic action plan that encourages a more balanced basket of healthy, locally grown organic produce, and pledges to use public procurement to promote organic produce, to communicate the benefits to consumers and to minimise the bureaucracy associated with organic production."

I welcome the publication of the "Third Organic Annual Report", which is a document about which I take rather a more positive view than the previous speaker did. I will explain why. The organic action plan was designed to cater specifically for a match-up in supply and demand, which is crucial to the future of the organic sector in Scotland.

The organic sector in Scotland is a success story, but it is not the only one. As a premium marketing strategy, organics are right at the top of the list of possibilities. That said, organics is not the only possibility. In Scotland, we are very lucky to have a wide range of environmentally friendly and welfare-friendly production techniques—many of which are very traditional—that are employed in the production of high-quality food that can, ideally, be marketed on a local basis. Those techniques are worthy of pursuit even if they do not meet the rigorous standards that are applied by the organic agencies. I welcome the fact that, even before I could get that out in the debate, Christine May intervened to make exactly that point. I agree with her on that.

If we are to have a successful organic industry, it is very important that Government continues to ensure the match between supply and demand. A moment ago, Richard Lochhead asked us to consider some of the figures in the report. I agree that they indicate that a large number of applicants are unlikely to be successful in the current year. However, it is important to ensure that those who have made the huge financial commitment to becoming organic farmers—and who, of course, have had Scottish Executive investment to support them in that conversion—are not faced with a flood of other organic produce. That would leave them unable to achieve the premiums in the marketplace that they sought to attract by becoming organic in the first place.

It is therefore essential that the Government takes a balanced approach to supply and demand. The figures that the Executive has published today indicate that it has almost achieved the target that it set out in 2003 to get the proportion of organic production in Scotland up to 70 per cent of consumption—a figure that would match that of non-organic production. The figures indicate that the organic action plan is achieving what it set out to achieve.

The table on page 54 of the Soil Association's "Market research study into the market penetration of Scottish organic produce" shows that only 50 per cent of market penetration of indigenous organic food has been achieved. The member is talking about the potential, not what is happening on the ground.

We are making radical progress. The danger in failing to match supply and demand is a collapse in prices. We have avoided that so far. In fact the Executive, particularly through its support of marketing, has managed to balance up the market significantly.

The minister mentioned the production of organic beef and its having to go into the non-organic market. In 2003, I remember debating the issue of organic dairy farmers getting no premium at all—they simply had to sell at the pool price. Following the adoption of a proper marketing strategy, organic milk producers in the north-east are now able to achieve that premium.

I hope that the minister will take into account a number of points. First, I realise that the problem of supermarket mark-ups affects almost every sector of agricultural production, but I believe that supermarkets are not only putting artificial mark-ups on organic products but, worse still, are importing and selling without making any distinction products from overseas that do not meet this country's rigorous standards for organic produce.

One major problem is that organic and other high-quality locally produced food is not available to the less well-off in our society. There is no reason why such produce should be so expensive, and wholesalers and retailers should be able to supply it at reasonable prices and still achieve a premium. In fact, if they had the will, they could make their margin slightly smaller to ensure its popularity.

The report is an indication that the organic action plan is striking the necessary balance, and my message to the minister is steady as she goes.

I move amendment S2M-5655.1, to insert at end:

"but also recognises the high quality, environmental and welfare standards achieved by most Scottish farmers using a range of traditional methods."

Our amendment echoes the terms of Sarah Boyack's motion on organic food fortnight, which was debated last September and called on the Scottish Executive to step up its support for Scotland's organic movement. I hope that Ms Boyack, in her ministerial role, will continue to show her support for the issue and will provide the leadership that has so far been lacking in the implementation of the first organic action plan.

We welcome the progress that has been made in implementing some elements of the action plan. However, the NFUS was right to describe last year's organic aid funding as "shocking", while the Soil Association used the word "dismal". An apparent improvement in the proportion of arable organic land has been achieved mostly because the overall land area has fallen. That has boosted the percentage of good land, but it is hardly something for ministers to highlight confidently in press releases.

This afternoon, the Executive trumpeted the increase in organic aid scheme and maintenance payment rates over the past four years. However, it again focused on details, and did not mention the fact that since 2003 the overall budget has remained static. As a result, last year, a third of applicants to the organic aid scheme for conversion payments and two thirds of the applicants for maintenance payments were turned down. The Executive is acting as a brake on further growth, rationing out payments from a tiny budget and keeping organic farming in a niche box instead of encouraging new entrants and paying existing organic farmers for the public goods that they deliver.

How will we make genuine progress on this matter in the Parliament's next session? First, we must ensure that the organic action plan does not simply get lost amid fears of reduced overall agri-environment funding. We must remember that only a modest increase in support is needed.

Expenditure on organic support is likely to total £5.5 million in 2007, which is the same as the figure in 2003. To set that figure in context, I point out that more than £388 million in single farm payments has already been paid out in 2006-07.

By how much would the Greens increase the organic support budget?

We think that about £23 million would meet the true demand. As for Mr Arbuckle's intervention on an earlier speaker, saying that people can farm organically without the organic aid scheme is like saying that people can farm conventionally without single farm payments.

Further expansion of support under land management contracts should be funded by increased modulation and should extend to all agri-environment measures, including both the organic aid scheme and the rural stewardship scheme. In that respect, I wonder whether in summing up the minister will give us a progress report on the Scottish rural development plan.

Organic farming delivers public goods to which the Executive is committed, such as biodiversity, sustainability and the reduction of food miles; moreover, locally sourced organic produce can improve our national diet. At the moment, there are weaknesses in the areas of research, advice, supply chain development, public communication and public procurement. In particular, page 22 of the organic action plan contains a promise to tackle procurement policies, but that promise has not yet been delivered in any meaningful way.

As other members have pointed out, rolling out the food for life programme will help to put sustainable, healthy food into Scotland's public sector organisations. After evaluating East Ayrshire Council's pilot scheme to introduce food for life standards for the procurement of foodstuffs supplied to primary schools, the Scottish Executive concluded that the pilot provided evidence of improvement in the quality of ingredients, a reduction in waste and a reduction in the distances travelled by foodstuffs. Such public benefits need to be supported and rolled out across Scotland.

Organic food sales in the United Kingdom rose by a massive 30 per cent in 2005 and the indications are that that growth is likely to continue. Failure to meet such demand represents not only a lost opportunity for the environmental and health benefits of organic food, but significant lost business opportunities for Scottish farmers. We should move ahead by establishing organic farming as the centrepiece of food and farming in Scotland, and we should begin by producing a reinvigorated organic action plan in the next session.

I move amendment S2M-5655.3, to insert at end:

"and further commits to the production of a revised and strengthened organic action plan to include ambitious targets for increased land area and market penetration, prioritised support for the organic sector through land management contracts, grants and support for local supply chain development, including a review of barriers to further growth across the sector, an organic public procurement strategy adopting the successful "Food for Life" standards across the public sector, a communication strategy to engage with the public about the benefits of organic food and farming, strengthened advisory support and a review of SEERAD's research and development strategy."

I point out to Ms Scott that a fair proportion of the agriculture sector operates on an unsupported basis—the producers of pigs, poultry, potatoes and soft fruit are all highly market orientated and extremely progressive.

The big problem with any debate on organic farming is that there is a tendency for some people to regard it as the only true path. That opinion is fostered by trendy food writers and celebrity chefs, who tend to think that organic produce is all that there is in the world. I congratulate the minister on pointing out in her response to Christine May that a large proportion of Scottish agriculture is involved in conventional farming. I do not intend to move over to the Tory party, but Alex Johnstone and I are the only two members in the chamber who have had mud on our boots as farmers and I agree with him that it is important that conventional farming should be mentioned in any debate on agricultural produce.

Does the conventional farming that the member talks about use a lot of nitrate fertilisers? Is that a traditional form of Scottish farming? Can the use of such products be equated with organic activities?

Conventional farmers do not use a lot of nitrate fertilisers, although they use them. Organic farmers use copper sulphate solution, which is pretty noxious, on their potato crops. I have seen a flock of organic sheep that was carrying a heavier disease burden than would normally be the case if conventional shepherding were used. Not everything is beautiful in the organic garden.

As Richard Lochhead mentioned briefly at the end of his speech, last week academics at the Manchester business school produced a report that said that there was no certainty about how environmentally friendly organic farming was. Their exact words were:

"There is no clear cut answer as to whether purchasing an organic or a conventional trolley of foods has more or less impact on the environment."

It is important to remember that. Their finding that more land is needed for organic farming because, in general, it has lower production levels was already well known by all farmers and people who live by the land. The report also found that the carbon footprint of chickens that are produced by organic means was higher than that of conventionally produced chickens.

We should not get carried away with organic farming; it should be promoted as just another option for our agricultural industry. Let us not vilify the vast majority of our producers whose production is traditional, whose inputs are careful and costed, and who supply the largest percentage of the food that Scotland produces. Organic farming is an important and growing part of farming, but it is still only a small part of it.

Through the organic action plan, which has the twin aims of increasing both the acreage that is committed to the organic sector and the amount of organic produce that is grown in this country, organic farming has been well supported by the Executive but, as Alex Johnstone said, it is important that we keep supply and demand in balance because, ultimately, a premium needs to be achieved in the marketplace to compensate for the additional costs that are incurred in the system.

I agree with the positive sentiments in the motion and express my support for the organic sector within the wide range of agricultural production in this country.

I welcome the "Third Organic Annual Report". It seems a long time since I last spoke on the subject, when I supported the aims of Robin Harper's Organic Farming Targets (Scotland) Bill, but I recognise that the Executive has made steady and important progress.

My colleagues raised an eyebrow at my bid to speak in the debate. As a city MSP I am not well known for my expertise on farming, but in fairness I know quite a lot about eating—I certainly have more restaurants in my constituency than any other MSP; they can challenge me on that one.

Unashamedly, I want to talk about the farmers market in Partick, the politics of the food chain and where I think organic farming fits into that. I strongly support the Executive's organic targets, because I believe that there is a growing demand for that choice. Organics is more than a valid niche in the market; it is a legitimate choice for those who believe that food choice is instrumental to improving health. As other members have said, it is a question not of making a judgment on what is best, but of ensuring that choice is available and accessible.

Our task is to ensure that all consumers can make that choice. To that extent, I agree whole-heartedly with Alex Johnstone and Andrew Arbuckle about making the option truly accessible. Prices are still too high and organic food is still seen as an option for the wealthy. We must change that. It is not only the price that gives the impression that organic produce is exclusive; people just get the impression that it is not for them. We can assist in the process of change by continuing to support organic farming to make it rewarding and worthwhile to make the conversion.

In parts of the constituency that I represent, Glasgow Kelvin, a large number of people who shop for fresh produce value the small greengrocers and the fruit and vegetable shops. Partick market, which I mentioned, sells a range of produce that has been produced using different farming methods. Recently, I asked Andy Kerr to visit the market with me so that I could demonstrate the value of a small market that sells Scottish produce, which helps to reduce our environmental footprint. I also highlighted the contribution that the market can make to good health. The market was packed not only with local people, but with those who had travelled miles to come to the farmers market in Partick. They, too, are demanding a market of their own.

I cannot resist mentioning the pending application in my constituency for a huge Tesco store in the west end. That is giving people cause for concern, because they are worried that the small shops that provide them with fresh produce may not survive if such a supermarket is established.

Choice in the food chain is a fundamental right. The right to know how food is produced and what goes into it is a basic demand of most Scottish citizens, and it is growing. The Scottish Executive is helping citizens to make that choice by taking organic farming seriously. Therefore, encouraging and supporting organic farming have an important part to play. Food labelling must be easy to read and understand to allow consumers to make the choices that they want to make.

Shopping has always been a political issue. My husband complains that I make it more complicated than it needs to be. I still boycott some products of certain countries, make healthy choices where I can, buy low fat and low sugar products, and there is a bit of organic produce thrown in. Shopping is definitely getting more complicated, but we have to make those choices easier for people because that is what they demand.

Recently, the fresh produce was moved around in my local supermarket—people are demanding more fresh produce, so frozen food is taking up a smaller section of the shop. The trends are changing, which is why the debate is important. The contribution that the Scottish Executive is making by having targets for organic farming is very important. I look forward to the fourth report on organic farming next year.

There has been a fair degree of change in the period of just more than four years since we last had a debate on organic farming—most of it has been for the better.

Having heard Andrew Arbuckle's less than enthusiastic support for organic farming, I understand why Iain Smith suggested, during a previous debate, that this debate should be truncated. He obviously wanted to avoid Liberal embarrassment, given that a Liberal minister is responsible for farming.

At the end of the debate, there is likely to be substantial consensus. We may come to similar conclusions for a variety of different reasons, but I suspect that we will all feel that the niche product that is organic farming—a niche product it is likely to remain more or less indefinitely—has an important contribution to make to farmers' profitability, to the good health of people in Scotland and, perhaps, if it is used in an appropriate way, to enable our children to better understand where their food comes from and make appropriate choices. Organic farming touches on many things beyond the farm gate.

The Executive's "Third Organic Annual Report", which I saw for the first time today, is interesting in its way. For example, it confirms that there are substantial problems in the pork industry. Under figure 6, it is noted that we cannot measure the amount of organic pork that is produced in Scotland. Because of the diktats of the processing industry and supermarkets, Scotland-produced pork goes elsewhere and we find it difficult to count it when it is returned for sale in Scotland.

The problem illustrates the fact that we must give further consideration not just to primary producers but to the chain from primary producers to the plate, which includes added-value processors who are able to deliver ready meals to appropriate organic standards. Ready meals are an increasingly important component of many people's diet—I plead guilty to buying them when I am in Edinburgh on parliamentary duty, when I cannot spend much time cooking, much as I would like to cook.

The report notes on page 8:

"The total of in conversion and fully organic land in Scotland has decreased by over 100,000 hectares".

However, the decrease has come about primarily because hill farmers have chosen not to remain registered as organic farmers, because of increased costs, which rather blurs our understanding of what is going on. It would be useful if the minister could enlighten our darkness on the matter.

Andrew Arbuckle talked about nitrates, which is an important subject throughout the farming sector. Were we to have a less blunt-instrument approach to our nitrate-vulnerable zones, we could farm in a more sustainable way in relation to nitrates. Instead of being driven by an arbitrary calendar that is probably appropriate in only one or two places in Scotland, seasons for spreading nitrates, which are largely a by-product of the milk industry, could be locally determined.

Will the member give way?

I am sorry, I am in the last minute of my speech.

I have difficulty with the claim that we are on target. According to the minutes of the 23^rd meeting of the organic stakeholders group, which took place on 4 May 2006, the point was made that

"Data collection is going to prove very difficult".

Can the minister assure us that we are making the progress that she claims we are making? I am always suspicious when we are told that we are exactly on target.

Like other members, I welcome the progress that has been made in moving organic produce up the agenda in Scotland and in taking the issue more seriously than has happened in the past.

I find myself in the strange position of agreeing with Alex Johnstone—

Is that why you are sitting behind him?

You can see that I am far enough away not to be part of your group, Jamie.

Like many members, I recognise the quality of what is produced throughout the farming sector in Scotland, whether through conventional or organic methods. It is important that we tackle issues that farmers face getting their goods to market and securing a fair price for them. Although this is not the subject of the debate, I hope that the minister will continue to consider the campaigns by dairy and beef farmers about the unfair prices that those key sectors of the Scottish agriculture industry receive from supermarkets.

The minister asked what lessons we might learn and where we should go from here. Affordability is a key issue for the organic sector. How do we ensure that organic food is not just the preserve of the better off and people who can put more of their disposable income towards the purchase of organic food? I have always been conscious that organic food is far more expensive than conventionally produced food. How can we make it possible for people at the lower end of the income scale in Scotland to choose organic food? If we accept, as many of us do, that organic food brings health benefits, we should ensure that those health benefits are available to those who are not so well off as well as to those who are slightly better off.

Members have mentioned public procurement. We must learn from the East Ayrshire pilot in schools and roll such schemes out throughout Scotland so that all our children and young people benefit from locally sourced produce, whether it is produced conventionally or organically, and can learn where their food comes from.

The Parliament's procurement practices are another issue. It is for all members, through our parties' representatives on the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, to influence those practices. Surely the Parliament should set a good example by using, labelling and marketing Scottish produce, including organic produce, far more effectively than we do in the Parliament's restaurant, the staff canteen and the public cafe at the front of the building. We must consider our role.

Andrew Arbuckle was slightly too negative about the role of organic farming, but I acknowledge the tensions that exist. I will highlight to the minister one example that was made known to me today. Farmers in my constituency have got together in a co-operative to sell their produce locally. They are trying to get their lamb into the local market through local shops and a farmers outlet, to ensure that people have access to lamb that is reared on the hills around them. What support can the Executive give to that sort of initiative, which is positive and well thought out and which ensures that farmers get a better deal for the food they produce and that people can access local produce?

I support the increased use of organic produce in Scotland. I look forward to hearing more from the minister about how we can make progress on the issue in the coming months.

I was a bit concerned, at the beginning of the debate, that it would be about motherhood and organic apple pie, albeit laced with finest Benromach malt whisky, but I am glad that some interesting issues have been raised during such a short debate.

One lesson that we can learn from the annual report that the Executive published today is about the need for statutory targets. Although such targets would not in themselves deliver change, they would force ministers to take action to make changes to try to meet the targets. One primary action that the Executive has failed to take in the past four years is set an adequate budget for the organic aid scheme.

In December 2005, in the Environment and Rural Development Committee, I asked the Minister for Environment and Rural Development, Ross Finnie, whether he believed that there would be

"enough money in the pot to deliver" his targets

"on organic farming and to get the required conversion rates for arable land and improved grassland".—[Official Report, Environment and Rural Development Committee Committee, 26 October 2005; c 2304.]

His answer was an emphatic yes; there was enough money—but, one year on, a third of applicants to the organic aid scheme and two thirds of applicants for maintenance payments were rejected. It was clear that there was not enough money in the pot.

We talk about the need for organic farmers to be competitive in Europe, but organic farmers throughout Europe receive maintenance payments. They receive those payments because they deliver a public good. It is important that we provide that competitive basis in Scotland, too.

Will the member take an intervention?

I need to continue, as I do not have much time.

The rural development plan in Scotland has a budget of around £130 million, so using £23 million of it would not make a massive impact, yet that is what we need if, by 2012, at least 10 per cent of Scotland's land area is to be organic. We do not want competition between agri-environment schemes such as the rural stewardship scheme and the organic aid scheme, so we must ensure that there is an adequate budget for such schemes in the next session of Parliament. That will need a minister who stands up for modulation. This is not about robbing Peter to pay Paul; it is about keeping the money in the farming sector but shifting the subsidy so that we create a new contract between consumers and farmers that delivers public good and what consumers want.

I was interested to hear Sarah Boyack set out her stall, albeit at the fag end of this second session of the Scottish Parliament. The Executive needs to be a little more honest with the figures in its press releases. Market penetration is described in a press release today as 70 per cent, but according to page 54 of the Soil Association's market research study into the market penetration of Scottish organic produce, it is only 50 per cent. I agree to a certain extent with Alex Johnstone's point about supply and demand, but we are not there yet; we are achieving only 50 per cent market penetration in Scotland.

Where do we go from here? We have had interesting contributions. As Karen Gillon and Richard Lochhead mentioned, the public procurement agenda has moved on immeasurably in the past few years—and there is the issue of supermarket pricing. We need to see fair trade in our supply chain—an aspiration that a number of members included in evidence to the Competition Commission's inquiry into the groceries market. As Pauline McNeill outlined, the supermarkets act as a complex monopoly and drive down the prices that are paid to farmers. We need to ensure that we have fair trade at home as well as in markets in developing countries.

Stewart Stevenson mentioned other key aspects that should be addressed in a future organic action plan, such as processing—and indeed processed—foods, and data collection. We need to move forward now. The centrepiece of any future organic action plan must be an adequate budget—something that the Executive has failed to provide. The organic action plan has been a farce. When she was the Environment and Rural Development Committee's convener, the minister sat there and heard Ross Finnie's answers. She knows that they do not add up. In the remaining time that she has as a minister, we are looking to her to make sense of the action plan. In the next session of Parliament, we are looking to a minister who can give meaningful direction to the organic sector. Organic farming is the gold standard for agriculture. It is what consumers increasingly want. It is what is good for our environment, good for our economy and good for health. We need more of it.

This has been a short debate on an important agricultural sector. I am sure that Sarah Boyack's restatement of Executive support for the sector will be widely welcomed; her clear-sighted appraisal of the issues in the sector and how they can be met even more so. We noted the organic dram recommended by Richard Lochhead, but perhaps we need to look a little more deeply at the statistics, some of which can be partly accounted for by the large number of farmers who are now reaching the end of their five-year agreements.

Alex Johnstone made pragmatic points about balancing supply and demand to avoid price collapse and validation of the credentials of imported organic food.

Andrew Arbuckle asked the other parties for a specific figure for what they would invest in organic farming. What is the Liberal Democrat figure?

As much as is needed, in light of experience. Shall I reply in writing to the member?

Although Eleanor Scott took a gloomy view of the statistics, funding allocation through the organic aid scheme has doubled since 2005. Andrew Arbuckle flew the flag for conventional farming and urged a realistic view of organic farming, while recognising that it is an important and growing sector that merits support. Pauline McNeill upheld consumer choice and consumers' entitlement to protection from overpricing and inaccurate labelling. It is good to be reminded that town and country are interdependent. I say to Stewart Stevenson that I prefer a Lib Dem reality check to some of the Scottish National Party's flights of fancy. The remainder of his speech was constructive, even if his personal food purchasing in Edinburgh is not.

The nitrate vulnerable zone regime is being argued as we speak, to arrive at a more sensible arrangement for the 15 to 16 per cent of the land area in Scotland concerned. We have avoided 100 per cent coverage, unlike countries such as Ireland. However, that is by the by.

Karen Gillon made the good point that we should lead by example. As a member of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, I take that on board. I totally disagree with Mark Ruskell about statutory targets, but I do not have time to argue the case on that. The budget was reduced because it was not fully taken up in previous years. If it has to be revised upwards again, it should be. The United Kingdom organic market has increased 10 times in the past 10 years, so there are clear opportunities for Scottish organic producers and processors, who will, I hope, benefit from the work of the new industry-led food and drink body recently announced by Ross Finnie—Scotland food and drink—which has been tasked with helping Scottish farmers to focus on what customers want and to meet market demand.

Organic food and farming can make a major contribution to key Executive environmental, sustainability and healthy diet objectives. The Executive has committed to continuing support for the organic sector, and I encourage the chamber to support Sarah Boyack's motion.

I declare an interest, as I have had a sheep and cattle farm in Argyll for some 30 years. I say to Andrew Arbuckle that, during that time, I have accumulated a lot of mud but, luckily, it has not all stuck.

The Scottish Conservatives acknowledge the growing interest in organic produce. We welcome new products such as the organic whiskies of Islay, Campbeltown and Moray, and the organic smoked salmon of Loch Duart. As David Cameron said recently, we need to take a balanced approach for a thriving agriculture industry, ensuring that both organic and traditional farming play a big part in providing our population with high-quality produce.

I believe that any nation—especially an island nation—should keep its barns full and never rely too much on imports. Not only is it wise to be self-sufficient in food; it is wise to use farming methods that encourage wildlife and help the environment. More and more, farmers are being requested to steward the countryside, and no group of people are better equipped to do that, but it is essential that they are given a fair field of play to continue to produce food—organic or conventional—for our nation and other nations. That is especially important in the light of predictions of global warming and climate change that point to countries in southern Europe becoming arid deserts. It is, surely, up to the northern regions—which, it is hoped, will still have the rain and water—to ensure that they are prepared to produce the food that may be needed for the whole of Europe and elsewhere.

Farming requires a long-term policy, and no sector more so than the organic sector. For example, for livestock farmers and crofters in the area of the Highlands and Islands that I represent to be persuaded to go organic, they need assurances that their store market products will gain a premium for being organic and that there is a buoyant market in which to sell. I spoke to United Auctions today. It told me that the deadweight price for organic lamb is 40 per cent above the price for non-organic lamb and that the deadweight price for organic beef is 35 per cent above the price for non-organic beef. That price is being paid to organic finishers, but many of the producers in the hills of the Highlands and Islands cannot finish their products. That is why I am asking the Executive for a long-term policy to couple primary organic producers with organic livestock finishers—it is vital if we are ever to inspire real confidence in a prosperous future for organic livestock store farmers.

Where better to grow organic produce than in the heather-clad, unfertilised hills of the Highlands and Islands, but as anyone who has eaten good Scottish lamb, beef or venison will know, it does not have to be labelled organic to taste delicious or to be extremely nutritious. Although we are prepared to support organics as a choice—albeit, dare I say it, a choice for the better-off among us—I am wary of demonising other types of production provided that they follow best farm practice. Like Karen Gillon, I would rather see Scotland's children eat local, healthy food and be thrilled by the unmistakable taste of freshly grown potatoes and other vegetables than get hung up on whether they are organically grown. Freshness is what really matters in fruit and vegetables.

Alex Johnstone is right to recognise the high quality and the environmental and welfare standards that are achieved by most Scottish farmers. Although I wish in no way to denigrate organic production, it should be pointed out that a recent report by the UK Government noted that organic milk production requires 80 per cent more land and creates almost double the amount of substances that could lead to acidic soil.

Nevertheless, bearing in mind the fact that we strongly support organic farming as part of a healthy agriculture industry, we believe that we should address the greatest concern among organic producers—the potential undermining of their produce and reputation by the presence of genetically modified organisms. We think that the Lib-Lab pact's line on GM is a bit of a fudge. They seem to be happy that the trigger point for GM labelling of a product should be a GM content of 0.9 per cent. The Conservatives do not believe that that properly protects organic farmers, especially as scientists tell us that they can trace the GM content of a product to 0.1 per cent. We have, therefore, taken the position that 0.1 per cent—not 0.9 per cent—will be the trigger point for GM labelling. We hope that that will be welcomed by organic growers and producers when we get into power.

We want to encourage organic produce but also to give consumers the choice when it comes to purchasing. We want to see local food economies. We especially want the Executive to lobby the European Union on the many benefits that can be derived from local procurement.

The experience of taking part in this debate, which is pitched in terms of increases and improvements in organic food, is positive and I want to add some more positive items and make it possible for us to see the way forward a little more clearly.

People find targets difficult to deal with, but recognising that it is possible to increase the basket of foods that are available is the first target that we can all agree on. We have plenty of organic beef, lamb, table birds and aquaculture produce, but horticulture, arable farming, eggs and dairy production could contribute a lot more to the organic market. We have to find ways of bringing more producers in those areas into the scheme. We could agree on such a target and I hope that the Government will set its cap at it to show that it is committed to ensuring that people can buy organic produce across the board.

Perhaps the answer is to have a target of 20 per cent growth ever year—that would be slightly less than the growth rate between 2005 and 2006, as the Soil Association has pointed out. Such a growth rate would lead to about 1,800 organic farmers instead of the 1,200 that there are at the moment, and it would represent about 8.75 per cent of farmers and around 12.4 per cent of Scotland's agricultural area.

Wales's organic action plan aims to increase organically managed land to 15 per cent, from 10 per cent, by 2010. If Wales can do 15 per cent, there is no reason why we cannot. The arguments about organic food being a niche market do not stand up. We must recognise that people can meet those kinds of targets.

I would like to reassure members, particularly Mr McGrigor, about tighter EU regulations. Yesterday, the European Parliament's Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development adopted a report recommending tighter proposals for labelling organic food. The report recommended that the regulations should be extended to the whole catering sector, including takeaways, canteens and restaurants, and that products such as wool, food wrapping, essential oils and food supplements should be included. That committee hopes that the European Parliament will accept its recommendations and I hope that members of the parties opposite me in this chamber will not water down the recommendations when they are debated in the plenary session of the European Parliament. The key aim of that report is to preserve consumer confidence.

Stricter standards for the use of plant health and veterinary products and stronger guarantees against contamination by genetically modified organisms are among the priorities of MEPs. When we talk about GMOs, we are talking about the dangers of having a sectorised agriculture policy. In this country, we have not dealt with separation distances between conventional and organic produce and between those and genetically modified produce. The consultation about that is critical. The future of organic produce and the saleability of conventional produce relies on our being able to prove that there is a low contamination rate. I agree with Jamie McGrigor that the Government has a challenge to meet in relation to achieving as low an infiltration of GM into food as possible. That is what the consumer wants.

More than 700 Scottish consumers answered the Food Standards Agency survey. We should be aware that healthy eating is their biggest concern, that they are concerned about fat, sugar and salt in food, and that most people want food labelling using a red, yellow and green system. As someone said downstairs, we could use brown to show that something is organic and perhaps purple if there is far too much GM in it. I am sure that people could understand a traffic-light system in labelling healthy food and that organic food should be towards the green end.

More and more people are eating out, so Scottish consumers are also concerned about being able to identify how fast-food outlets, restaurants and cafes maintain hygiene and the quality of their products. Our debate is about organic farming, and that can fit into restaurants' attempts to have the best quality and meet consumer needs.

Several members have mentioned competition for the small amount of cash that is available in the rural development programme. The rural stewardship scheme and the organic aid scheme should not be in competition; we must find means to support both. I hope that the minister will take on board the fact that, to achieve more for organics, the ministers with responsibility for health, agriculture and transport must all work together to ensure that people around the country who produce organic food can sell it to a growing market.

I want to echo the positive nature of many of the comments made by colleagues. In my opening speech, I was keen to be positive and upbeat and to give credit where it is due for the big improvements that there have been in the organic sector. I was not trying to say that we have delivered perfection; I was trying to get underneath some of the statistics and talk about some of the challenges in achieving the targets that we set. I was also trying to debate the way forward and consider where we might go next.

There have been some good achievements. There has been vastly increased support to farmers to enable them to convert to organic or to maintain their organic status. We have been particularly successful in awarding processing and marketing grants. We have awarded more than £10 million, but that has levered in an additional £56 million in investment.

We heard members—Conservative, Scottish National Party and Liberal—talking about the importance of working with farmers and, in particular, considering the processing chain so that we examine not just the primary producers but where they sell their produce. That has been a key issue in ensuring that we get the important match-up that Alex Johnstone talked about.

Karen Gillon's suggestion about farmers co-ops was important. When farmers can work together, they get a better price and the opportunity to share marketing costs. I am keen for us to enable farmers who work together locally to bid for major contracts. They clearly cannot do so on their own, but if they work together and we support them with grants and advice—through, for example, the Scottish Agricultural College's dedicated organic advisory and market information services—that would be a good way forward.

We have made a lot of progress in the past few years, and it has been interesting to hear colleagues reflect on progress in their local areas. One key question is where we go next in designing new organic support measures. They will clearly be delivered through land management contracts, and I am keen to consider with stakeholders—with input from colleagues—how best to target the resources to meet the needs of the organic market and ensure that the whole organic sector is addressed.

One interesting point made by several colleagues, including Mark Ruskell, is that we need to develop a range of organic produce. If we are looking at local produce, we need to ensure that different types of produce are available across Scotland.

The organic action plan has been an effective focus for the development and co-ordination of our support mechanisms. Given how the industry has developed in the past four years, I am very optimistic about our ability to work with it in future.

As for the amendments, I am happy to acknowledge, as I did in my opening speech, that conventional farmers can achieve high environmental and animal welfare standards. I have been impressed by the growing awareness of the contribution of farmers—particularly those who follow the Linking Environment and Farming principles. Much is to be welcomed in the conventional sector. However, I particularly wanted the debate to focus on organic farming, to enable the Parliament to support that. For that reason, I am keen not to support Alex Johnstone's amendment. However, I understand the principles that lie behind it.

Richard Lochhead's amendment starts from a false premise, so it would not be right to support it. I am keen not to overstate our success, but I am equally keen not to underplay it and to dismiss the success of the past few years.

Richard Lochhead's amendment asks us

"to minimise the bureaucracy associated with organic production."

Of course I am absolutely in favour of reducing bureaucracy—

Will the minister take a brief intervention?

No, thanks.

The bureaucracy that organic producers face stems from the need to be properly certified. In his speech, Rob Gibson gave us useful feedback from Brussels. It is important to have a level playing field. Consumers who buy organic produce want to know that it is organic produce. That means that, regardless of where produce comes from—whether it comes from the UK, elsewhere in Europe or further afield—we want to ensure that it is genuinely organic. That is why we have standards and need effective mechanisms to monitor those standards. I am sure that the certification bodies would not welcome calls from us to reduce the measures that they take to safeguard their organic standards. The consumers to whom Pauline McNeill referred want to know what they are buying and do not want to be sold short with weaker standards.

I have said that I am keen to work with the industry to ensure that the next organic action plan lets us move significantly forward. I reject Mark Ruskell's amendment not because I disagree with all its content—

Will the minister take a 12-word intervention?

No. I have done that before, and it was a big mistake.

I very much support much of what is in Mark Ruskell's amendment. Like the current plan, the new plan must be ambitious and must reflect many of the issues that colleagues have raised. However, I do not want to pre-empt that discussion with colleagues and the discussion that we will need to have with stakeholders in the organic sector, with people in the agricultural sector more widely, with people in rural communities, who have a role to play, and—crucially—with consumer organisations.

I am happy to take soundings from the organic sector about the Executive's future research policies, which I would be keen to examine. That involves challenges. As Andrew Arbuckle said, some inaccurate research that damaged the organic sector was published recently. It was not rigorous research, because it did not consider all the issues that needed to be considered.

On Monday, I attended an excellent conference that brought together local authorities and non-governmental organisations to consider what we can do throughout Scotland to reduce our carbon footprint. One way to do that is to promote the sourcing of much more local produce for our schools and hospitals and to enable smaller producers to compete. We need more marketing and we need to grow the sector sustainably.

As for the points that Karen Gillon and Pauline McNeill made about affordability, the best way to achieve affordability is for the public sector to work to create the market. That will enable organic producers and high-quality local food producers to compete for the public purse. The schools projects under hungry for success have been massively successful and the food for life programme provides another way to proceed. Hospitals also represent a huge market.

There is a challenge for the organic sector. My message is that the Executive is with that sector and supports it in meeting that challenge. The next organic action plan will have to be radical and ambitious and I hope that the whole Parliament will support it.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I seek your guidance on what the correct procedure might be when a report about which we seek to lodge amendments is issued after the deadline for our submitting amendments, as with the debate that has just concluded. Within the rules, how can we ensure that our amendments reflect what will be in a report that is issued after the deadline for submitting amendments has passed?

But the amendments are to the motion, not to the report.