I, too, am pleased to be working with Rhoda Grant and Fergus Ewing. The 2015 redesign of healthcare in Strathspey and Badenoch required the closure of two hospitals and an upgrade of two general practitioner practices, including the Grantown practice. The non-completion of the Grantown medical centre, which was the final piece in the jigsaw, will leave this Government and NHS Highland without one shred of credibility in Speyside. I ask the cabinet secretary to reflect on that when he makes his decision.

I have had two treats in two weeks: I had a chance to talk about muirburn and wildlife management last week, and I have the treat of talking about agriculture this afternoon. I refer members to my entry in the register of interests. I am a member of a farming partnership in Morayshire. We grow barley and vegetables, and we produce pedigree cattle. I am in that partnership with my wife, and we receive subsidies as a result of being in it.

My family has farmed for three generations, and we take it very seriously. I am sad that we are where we are today, and the reason why I am sad is that we could have been here two years ago if the—I believe—strange deal that was done between Mike Rumbles and Fergus Ewing, who, sadly, has left the chamber, had not been allowed to happen. The Conservatives wanted this policy to be in place by 2024, but the deal that was done between Mike Rumbles, of the Liberal Democrats, and the SNP allowed the policy be put back until 2026. This is not where we should be; we wanted the policy earlier, and I am sad that we are not there. However, we are getting closer, and I accept that the bill is a step towards an agricultural policy.

I have looked carefully at the proposed legislation and, although I do not like framework bills, I understand the need for a framework bill in this situation. I also understand the need to move forward. It would have helped if the cabinet secretary had told us about some of the proposals that she will moot after the bill has been passed, so that we can see what the bill is all about and what it will bring in.

Farmers are desperately nervous, because the last time we went through a review was under Richard Lochhead, and it was called, “The Future of Scottish Agriculture”. As a result of that, we had the project assessment committee—PAC—review and we ended up with a complete rewriting of the agricultural subsidy scheme, which was a disaster because it had not been costed. Richard Lochhead did nothing to find out where the money would go or to understand the outcome of what he proposed. Consequently, some farmers who were not doing a huge amount of farming got a lot more subsidy than those who were doing a lot of farming.

I would have liked to see the policy come forward, because I want to understand how the Government will ensure that farmers get properly rewarded for their high-quality food. Make no bones about it, what happens at the moment is that, if farmers grow barley, for example, the people who buy the barley look to see what subsidy the farmer will get from the Government per acre, deduct that off the price that they are prepared to pay for a tonne of it, and farmers end up with a profit of about 5 per cent. That is not where we want to be. We want to be rewarding farmers for public good, not rewarding the people who are consuming their products. A careful balance is needed.

I looked at the bill and at the evidence carefully to try to find a definition of “sustainable and regenerative agriculture”—what does that term mean? To me, it is just three words grouped together without a definition. I am told that it is going to be defined, but we are being asked to pass the first stages of a bill on something that we do not know the meaning of, That seems bizarre. If the cabinet secretary would like to stand up and define sustainable and regenerative agriculture, I am very happy to give way. I see that she does not—no, the cabinet secretary does want to intervene, so I am happy to give way.

My final point is on CPD. This Government loves to make sure that everyone is trained and I refer people to section 27(3), which gives a whole range of reasons why farmers need to go through CPD. I can support that if ministers would do the CPD training as well, because I think that, if it is good for farmers, it is good for ministers.

Presiding Officer, I know that I have run out of time. I will just say that I am supporting the bill at stage 1 but I want to see a lot more clarity from the Government, because the bill is seriously unclear at the moment.

No. I am sorry, but I cannot give way. [Interruption.] I did say “housewives”. If that is the point that you are going to make, I will say that anyone can do the shopping; it is the basket that counts. [Interruption.] It is very difficult to conclude, Presiding Officer, when I am being barracked by somebody in a sedentary position.

I try to read everything, even if it comes out just before we are discussing something. I try to read the response to the committee—if it is circulated to members. I have watched the route map change on a daily basis, and I am not sure that I am any clearer.

I want to pick up on three specific points and I will have to do this carefully and quickly. I understand the need for capping, but we need to be careful that we are not capping support when it is linked to environmental projects and improvements because, if we do that, we will get even further away from the environmental targets that we are setting out to achieve.

I understand why people want to talk about increasing—

I just want to clarify whether the member was suggesting that we stop whisky production in Scotland. Did I mishear that? That is what I thought that the member said. I am sure that he cannot have meant that.

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

I assume that, tomorrow, the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee will get an update from the yard on what is happening. In advance of that, I ask the cabinet secretary, what is the actual delay to vessel 801 and what are the actual extra costs? What are the delays to vessel 802 and the extra costs there? She must know, because she said that they are unacceptable. Can she tell us?

That is just what the member said.

I accept that there is a need to make sure that there is a careful balance here, but what we have seen in the past few years is money being paid under the farming scheme to charities that are not actually farming. That is the kind of thing that I want to get away from. I would like to see farmers being rewarded for farming and also being rewarded for doing environmental schemes.

I am very keen on animal welfare, and I make the point to members that, in Scotland, we have some of the highest standards of animal welfare in the world. I am rightly proud of that, and that is where we should be. However, those animal welfare standards do not cut across when housewives and people are buying meat in the shops. They look at what is often the cheapest cut of meat and will buy meat that is—