That was another qualification but we got to the point that extra equipment might be needed after a full assessment. I take that point.

Emma Harper’s point was interesting. With her experience of nursing, we should be aware of what she was saying about being at home being a tonic to speed recovery and that it helps people to get through their illnesses better. There is general agreement among all other speakers on that.

I welcome the small but significant amount of progress that has been made in the hospital at home programme. However, patients still need to see some big ideas and big investment from the Government. We need to see sufficient kit to allow patients to go home, and we need to see sufficient care support to allow those people who have gone home to do so in the comfort and knowledge that they will get the best possible care. However, we have not seen the Government tackle the real problems of delayed discharges, long accident and emergency waiting times and the social care crisis. Until we see some fresh thinking on those issues, our hospitals will continue to run out of beds, despite this programme, because the Government has run out of steam on how to resolve those problems and I ask it to resolve them as a matter of extreme urgency.

I welcome that answer from the cabinet secretary, but my issue is in relation to patients in remote rural areas, where being able to see an orthopaedic surgeon is extremely useful, especially when a case is being reviewed, for example, after an operation. My constituents are concerned, having heard that NHS Highland will have to reduce its budget by £60 million, that this is one of the outcomes of that. I ask the cabinet secretary to urge NHS Highland to speak more fully with the orthopaedic department to make sure that it is taken along with NHS Highland’s plans.

What the industry did not want was to forever go forward—

John Swinney can wave his hand as much as he likes. I can see him doing it.

The industry wanted a clear direction, which we do not have.

Unlike the Government, farmers do not work from day to day. They invest for the future. They look five to 10 years in front, which is not what the Government has done. Let us be honest. Since 2011, the beef herd has dropped from 471,300 animals through a 12 per cent decrease to 430,400 animals. That decrease means that the Scottish beef industry is virtually unsustainable. We have seen the knock-on effect in the loss of abattoirs.

What are we looking forward to? As has been said in the debate, there are multiple demands on land—for the production of food, for trees, for agri-environment schemes, for rewilding and for access. We cannot do it all. We need to concentrate on the most important thing: food security.

My message is clear. Good agricultural land should not be taken out of food production. Trees are all very well in the right place, but we have not yet found a way of eating them. Nor, just by growing trees on the best agricultural land, should we export our carbon footprint.

We need a system that promotes food production yet delivers environmental benefits. We do not need a bureaucratic system that gets more civil servants, prevents food production and penalises farmers for small errors. We certainly do not want an information technology system designed by Richard Lochhead that costs £180 million and does not work. Neither do we need a system that precludes farmers from all environmental schemes. We do not need a system that has not been financially modelled to make sure that we understand where the money is going and whether it is going to achieve what we want it to achieve. We need a system that ensures that Scottish food—good, wholesome Scottish food—gets on to Scottish plates.

Farmers need more than the warm words that they have heard from the Government. They need a lot of detail and substance—and they need that in the bill, not in follow-up legislation.

My message to the cabinet secretary is therefore very clear: please do not be like Fergus Ewing, continuing to dither and delay. You must now be uncomfortable about sitting on the fence. Get over it and come up with a policy. Farmers are waiting. The industry is holding its breath. While you ponder and dither, the problem is that our industry suffers

John Swinney is right. Stability was wanted by the industry—

I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests: I am part of a family farming partnership and there should be no doubt that I gain subsidies in relation to that.

In my 40 years in farming, I have learned that farmers are incredibly resilient and will respond to Government directions, as they have done. Today’s debate was a chance for the Government finally to set out more detailed plans for Scottish farming. Has it done so? Why will it not do so? Does the Government understand the problem? Will it get off the fence?

Today has shed no light on that. I think that the Government is stuck on the fence and does not understand how to get off it. For example, we still do not know how much funding will be made available or whether the Scottish Government will ring fence it. We do not know whether all farms will be able to apply for all the new agricultural schemes or what conditions those schemes will set. Our farmers will be rightly disappointed and frustrated about this Government’s continued lack of clarity.

The Government seems to me to be a bit like the cow that I have chased on many occasions up the race and into the crush. It knows that it has to get there, but it will fight me every step of the way. It will kick, bellyache, move backwards and forwards and make one hell of a mess, but it gets to the crush in the end.

Farmers have been waiting for this policy to be declared since 2016. Let us not forget that it was this Government—with the aid of the Liberal Democrats, Mr Rennie—that allowed the policy to stretch out to 2024. If we had had our way, the mini agriculture bill in 2020, which Mike Rumbles supported, would have allowed the policy to be put forward in 2022. However, that was stopped by Fergus Ewing, who wanted, at that stage, to have more “stability and simplicity”—I believe that most farmers believed that to mean more dithering and delay. That bill kicked the can of farming subsidies down the road, and it has been kicked further ever since.

To ask the Scottish Government where the new acute general teaching hospitals will be built over the next 10 years. (S6O-02284)

The cabinet secretary will be aware that support is growing hourly for my petition to replace Raigmore. Given that there is such an appetite in the Highlands for a brand-new hospital, will the cabinet secretary agree to meet the board of NHS Highland and me to discuss that?

Thank you very much.

Before we go any further, I will check whether there are any declarations of interests.

I have a quick question about that. I have noticed that it has been said a couple of times during the meeting that the bus services in urban areas can be as good as you like, but if people who live in rural areas cannot get into the urban areas, urban services are pretty much useless to them. How are we going to take the rural areas along with the ambition if they lack the services?

Thank you very much. In that case, the next questions will come from Mark Ruskell.