 The next item of business is a statement by Fergus Ewing on common agricultural policy convergence monies due for Scottish farming. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of his statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions. I would urge members to wish to ask a question to press their request-to-sweet buttons now, and I call on Fergus Ewing. Once again, I find myself raising the matter of the common agricultural policy convergence monies with you here in this chamber. That is because Scottish farmers are still owed around £160 million sterling in common agricultural policy funding, funding that the UK Government has thus far failed to release or even acknowledged. Let me remind Parliament what this dispute with the UK Government is all about. Under the current CEP, the UK will receive an extra £190 million of funding over six years for direct payments due to a process known as external convergence. That process was put in place by the EU to redistribute payments more fairly across the EU. Europe said that all countries receiving less than 90 per cent of the EU average payment rate per hectare would reduce the gap by a third by 2019. In addition, all member states are guaranteed to achieve at least €196 per hectare by 2019, which will benefit the Baltic states in particular. The UK only received extra money—convergence money—under this process because of Scotland's very low payment rate per hectare, indeed one of the lowest in the EU at the time. Scotland's average per hectare rate at €130 per hectare was only around 45 per cent of the EU average, although every other country in the UK was above the EU's 90 per cent threshold for triggering a convergence uplift. That means that the UK would not have received one penny extra in CEP funding had it not been for Scotland, zero extra funding, and yet the UK Government of the time decided not to pass all the convergence money to Scotland where it was earned. In fact, we only received just over 16 per cent of the extra money, which is around £30 million. The UK Government decided to divvy up the convergence money, along with the rest of the CEP budget, based on historic subsidy allocations. How can that be fair? It is not, Presiding Officer, what the EU intended. It means that Scotland will have the lowest per hectare payment rate of any country in the EU by 2019, as we are overtaken by the Baltic member states. The EU clearly intended this extra convergence money to go to those farmers who received the least, but that purpose was subverted by the UK Government, who held on to the money simply because they had the power to do so. I do not need to tell you, Presiding Officer, that wrongly holding on to someone else's property is well recognised in criminal law. In this case, the withholding of funds could be done simply because the UK's member state receives the money and has complete control about how it is allocated. You could say, Presiding Officer, that this is the great rural robbery, but let me be clear. I am not looking to Wales or Northern Ireland to stump up the cash. Our case is not—repeat not—against farmers in England, Wales or Northern Ireland. It is directed entirely at the UK Government. They and they alone use the money for purposes for which it was not intended. Nor is our case anything to do with the impact of Brexit. It is entirely separate from Brexit. It relates to our claim against the UK Government and not against the EU, and now it is for the UK Treasury to repatriate the monies that Scottish farmers are due. After all, Presiding Officer, if the Treasury in London can find £1,000 million to do a deal with the DUP, £160 million should be a drop in the ocean for them. It certainly is not a drop in the ocean for our farmers. In my view, it is essential to sort this out before any Brexit, so that if any decisions on post-Brexit funding are based on previous allocations, Scotland's benefits from the correct figure, including the entire convergence funding. The fact that the UK Government has so far failed to come up with the extra £160 million is not due to a want of trying on our part. My predecessor and I have had numerous exchanges with UK ministers both in writing and in person. Back in 2013, my predecessor Richard Lochhead garnered cross-party support and welcome support for the Scottish Government's calls for the full convergence uplift to come to Scotland. The issue was also raised with the Prime Minister at the time, David Cameron, by our very own Alec Salad. One concession that we were promised by the then DEFRA Secretary of State, Owen Paterson, was a review of the UK allocation of CAP funds in 2016. Brexit happened and that review never materialised. Since I took office, I have called for the promised review and raised the convergence issue with David Mundell, George Eustace and Andrea Ledson. I raised the issue again at my very first meeting with Michael Gove at the Royal Highland show earlier this year. In fact, there have been so many exchanges with the UK Government over the past four years about the convergence monies that, quite frankly, it is hard to keep count. However, despite past promises by George Eustace and Andrea Ledson to review the UK allocation of CAP funding, nothing has happened. As I have said before, the review is important because it will highlight the vast discrepancies in payment rates per hectare north and south of the border. The review would, for example, highlight that DEFRA can afford to pay hill farmers in England around €65 per hectare whereas we can only pay ours around €10 per hectare. Even taking into account the upland sheep scheme, a coupled support scheme not used elsewhere in the UK, it only brings payments to our hill farmers up to around €35 per hectare. Although it is not directly comparable because the CAP is implemented differently in Wales and Northern Ireland, farmers there fare even better than English farmers on average. I recently raised the issue again with Michael Gove at a multilateral meeting on 25 September. I can tell members that Michael Gove agreed to a meeting to discuss the convergence issue, which I welcome. That meeting has now been arranged for 6 November, and I am hopeful that we can find a satisfactory resolution. Helpfully, our stakeholders have also been on the case. A joint letter signed by seven of our key stakeholders was sent to Michael Gove on 11 September. It mirrors the Scottish Government's position on convergence. Although it was sent over a month ago, I understand that it has still not had a reply. That is our case. I am determined, Presiding Officer, to get a fairer deal for our farmers, especially those most disadvantaged. It is a clear matter of principle. It is not just about repatriation of the convergence funds that the EU plainly intended for our farmers, farmers who receive the lowest payment rates per hectare in the EU. It is also about setting a baseline for future agricultural funding. Unless the UK Government acknowledges that Scottish farmers were poorly treated in this last CAP round, how can we rely on them to treat our farmers fairly in future? I am grateful for the strong support that has been given to the Government's position to date by members from across the chamber, and I trust that I can rely on all members continuing support on that matter. Peter Chapman, before by Rhoda Grant. I refer members to my register of interest regarding my farming business. I thank the cabinet secretary for a prior site of his statement. Let me be clear. We in the Conservative benches are still supportive of the fact that this money should have come to Scotland. I have personally raised the issue with David Mundell and I led some George Eustace and Michael Gove over the past 18 months or so since coming to this chamber. The cabinet secretary will perhaps be aware of the letter from Alistair Jack MP for Dumfries and Galloway dated two days ago, asking for a review of the convergence money issue and signed by all Scottish Conservatives of MPs. That was well received by Michael Gove, and I am now very hopeful of a successful outcome to this question. I hope that the cabinet secretary welcomes that. That is a prime example of how more Scottish Conservatives of MPs are making a real difference. What did yours do? Absolutely a prime example of how we can make a difference. They are working hard and have had real clout in Westminster. However, a lot has happened in the last three and a half years since this debate on convergence, including Brexit. It is now far more important to look forward. We have a cabinet secretary obsessed with the past rather than look forward. He wants power over agriculture in Holyrood, but not the responsibility to make policy. My question is what is the cabinet secretary doing to chart a way forward and to design a system of support for Scottish agriculture post-Brexit? Brexit gives us a perfect opportunity to design a better system. When are we likely to see what that looks like? In order to be as generous as possible, it is important to say that I welcome the fact that the Conservatives plainly recognise that £160 million is due to Scotland. I welcome that. I think that people who are watching this are not involved in the cut and thrust of politics will want to see this Parliament continue to exert pressure, which thus far has yielded this apparent, incipient or expected commitment from Michael Gove four years too late. Nonetheless, the pressure from this Parliament has apparently delivered a change of heart by Michael Gove. If so, that is welcome. If somebody takes somebody else's money, that is wrong. That is what has happened here. Scottish hill farmers have been shortchanged to the tune of around £14,000 each. If you were a hill farmer, what would you have to say about that? To answer the questions, as I should, not that they are directly related to the topic, but to answer the questions, of course we have set out a vision for Scotland's future of agriculture, providing high-quality food, continuing to steward the landscape and get the credit for that that perhaps they do not often get. As we have clarity that the Brexit years will implement the pre-EU referendum promise, the post-Brexit funding will be at least matched and that the around £500 million that Scotland has received yearly from the EU will be continued. How can you work out a plan without knowing what your budget is? Please join with us to get those assurances that I have been seeking since the day that the referendum vote took place. Rhoda Grant, to be filled by Stuart Stevenson. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I also thank the Cabinet Secretary for a Prior Site for a Statement. I reiterate Scottish Labour's backing for the Cabinet Secretary's bid to have those funds repatriated to Scotland. He is right in saying that this money was received by the UK to deal with the low average payment rate that is received by Scottish farmers. As a statement, he says that the EU wants member states to guarantee at least an average payment of €196 per hectare by 2019. The Cabinet Secretary is also aware that many hill farmers and crofters receive only a fraction of this amount despite farming in some of the most challenging areas of Scotland and many of them facing the additional costs of working on our islands. If he is successful, and I sincerely hope he will be, will he guarantee that additional funding will go to those who need it most to deal with their relative disadvantage within Scotland? First of all, I thank Rhoda Grant and the Labour Party for their support. That is much appreciated. I genuinely think that the support that is exhibited here today will help me to further exert pressure, which now seems to have brought about a change of approach by Mr Gove, but it is not enough just to have a review, a report. That report, incidentally, must be an independent report and there must be an engagement between the two Governments about who does it, what the remit is and a quick timetable for resolving something that has gone on. I think that all of us would say for far too long, but I genuinely welcome the fact that there is support today. I would also pay tribute to all the stakeholders who signed this letter, which I think played a significant part in gaining this concession, albeit four years too late, that something must be done about that. That money is intended for those who need it most in Scotland's rural communities, and therefore to those rural communities it surely must go. In terms of the fact that that money should have been coming to Scotland for the last several years since the beginning of the seven-year period, it is money that should have been received in 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19. It is not just as easy as that to reconstruct what should have happened had the money not been, as I would see it misappropriated by the UK Treasury. I give Rhoda Grant my commitment. I will do my utmost to ensure that all or as much of that money as possible goes to our rural communities that need it most and for whom it was plainly intended by the EU. Stuart Stevenson, to be followed by John Scott. Has the cabinet secretary seen the November edition of Scottish farming leader? On page 9 it states, NFU Scotland has always been clear that Scottish policy makers must be empowered to utilise the future agricultural budget to develop policies and tools that are fitted to Scotland's unique agricultural characteristics. Is the UK's long-run failure on convergence monies the irrefutable evidence of their total inability to promptly act in Scottish farmers' interests and illustrates perfectly why we must resist the Tory's attempted policy grab post-Brexit? There are several excellent rhetorical questions there and I agree with all of them. I did actually see the article referred to. Let me just give one concrete example about why it is essential in practice for power over agriculture not to be grabbed from Scotland. If it was not for the fact that we have had a Scottish Parliament and a Scottish Government and I give credit to the previous administration as well on that, I think that we would easily have lost the ability to have a less favoured area scheme. I say that because my understanding is that other parts of the UK have dispensed with the scheme in England the dispensed with it seven years ago. If England was to set Scottish hill farming payments, would there have been any for the past seven years? I think that that is a very concrete illustration, a practical illustration of the absolute need to avoid the power grab that we believe that some down in Westminster are intent on pursuing. John Scott is followed by Keith Forbes. I declare an interest as a hill farmer and I agree with the cabinet secretary that external convergence funding should have been given to Scotland in 2013 and therefore welcome the suggestion in today's telegraph that an inquiry into this matter may be undertaken by death. In the spirit of reciprocity, will the cabinet secretary now also consider holding an inquiry into the cost and governance of the failed Scottish cap IT payment system, as the sums of £160 million to £180 million are similar in both cases, yet the cost to the Scottish taxpayers through the IT and business change programme is in fact greater than the loss to Scottish farmers? A political point, but not a question related to the direct subject itself. Keith Forbes. What does the cabinet secretary think of the Tories claiming credit for first breaking a promise to review the convergence uplift funding and suggesting that all the money had been spent to my colleague Ian Blackford and then starting to crunch the gears into a U-turn? In the midst of that noise and mess, will the cabinet secretary ask for an unequivocal guarantee from Michael Gove when they meet that the review will happen? Yes, I will make my third direct simple straightforward request to Mr Gove face-to-face. Will you give Scotland the money due to Scotland back? I will ask him that for the third time. I think that Keith Forbes makes an excellent point, and it is a very nice point, because if I make a promise to you four years ago and I fail to implement it year after year and then four years later, I make the same promise and I expect you to fall down with gratitude. Does that not display a certain kind of misperception of reality by the Government down in London? I do have to say, and this is really for Mr Gove's benefit, would it not be better that you respond to the democratically elected Scottish Government on what you are planning to do rather than make your decision known through the organs of the daily telegraph, no matter how esteemed that organ may be? It is a matter, surely, of respect and lack of respect that, having raised that point again and again with Mr Gove directly, courteously but very firmly, that this Parliament, that this Cabinet Secretary, has not had the courtesy, even of a phone call, to indicate something that apparently is in the offing and is leaked by the daily telegraph. David Stewart is followed by John Mason. Labour supports the Cabinet Secretary's attempts to repatriate the conversion funds from the Scrooge-like fingers of the UK Treasury. We all want a fair deal for our hard-pressed farmers. Does the Cabinet Secretary share my view that we need to get the deal sorted out immediately, otherwise we will not have a fair basis for future agriculture funding post-Brexit? Finally, has the UK Government breached EU audit requirements because of their behaviour on this issue? Again, I welcome the support from the Labour Party. I agree that successive UK chances have resembled Scrooge, not just the recent ones, but I will move on swiftly from that. The fact that the money has been withheld for so many years causes additional difficulties about how we can safely disburs it under the very exacting and demanding EU rules. In other words, the delay has not only been wrong in principle but, in practice, may well cause significant difficulties in relation to our absolute desire to make sure that the money goes to its intended recipients, albeit several years later. It raises a very good point, and it is one that I am happy to look into further and revert to the House in due course, no doubt. Does the cabinet secretary agree with me that clearly the UK Government does have sufficient money to pay £160 million, because it has managed to find £1 billion for Northern Ireland? It is absolutely correct. As far as I am aware, the £1 billion that was paid to Northern Ireland was not paid because there were any legal or moral obligations so to do, my understanding is that it was paid in order to secure the political support of the members of the DUP in the House of Commons. By contrast, the sum of money, £160 million, is money that was intended by the EU for Scotland and Scotland alone. Therefore, what Westminster has chosen to do is a grubby deal of £1,000 million, where there is no legal obligation to ignore tear-up breach and misappropriate money that they were due to pay to part of the UK. Can I thank the cabinet secretary for advance copy of his statement? Although his intent was to secure the support of Parliament behind the Government's position, I am at a loss to understand why a motion is not being put forward for debate and a vote in this chamber. Scotland's uplands may be economically marginal, but they have the potential to deliver repopulated communities, regenerated habitats and landscapes and even protect households from flooding. Those are public goods, which Michael Gove has championed. If the cabinet secretary is successful in delivering Scotland's fair share of the funding, will he commit to using it to deliver public goods that are now slipping off the table due to Scottish Government cuts to the SRDP budgets? No, I do not accept that last point. The reductions to the SRDP, as Mr Ruskell knows, is because we met. I agreed to the meeting and I met in my office with him, and we went over that. As I understand it subsequently, he has acknowledged that, because our budget has been reduced by Westminster, we have had to make consequential cuts and reductions. Of course, we are nonetheless maintaining substantial payments to farmers and, in respect of environmental matters throughout the country. As far as a motion goes for debate, let me be quite clear, if we need to have debate after debate to get this money back for Scotland, so be it. We will bring these debates to Parliament and eventually we will succeed. Mike Rumbles will be followed by Gail Ross. Does the cabinet secretary recognise that the real prize in this process is to ensure that Scotland receives 16 per cent of the UK's share of agricultural support in the future rather than the 10 per cent that might be used under the Barnett formula? Surely he recognises that, with Brexit, he needs to build bridges and not use such inflammatory languages, which may be seen as undermining the 16 per cent level of funding for the future. From 18 years in his place, most of which Mr Rumbles has been present with me, I can say that he is not unfamiliar with inflammatory language. However, he nonetheless makes a serious point, and that serious point is that I have been arguing for every day since the EU referendum vote, where Scotland, let's not forget, voted the entirely opposite direction to remain in the EU. I have been arguing every day that the UK must confirm that the promises made by the Brexiteers, including Andrea Ledston, George Eustice and Michael Gove during the EU referendum campaign, all of the EU funding—£500 million a year—would be at least matched. If I make a promise, I will do my best to deliver it. I am calling them to do the same thing. They have not done that yet, but perhaps this exchange today may focus their minds further, in particular that of Mr Gove. Gail Ross is fulfilled by Edward Mountain. Does the cabinet secretary agree with me that the time for reviews has passed and that having been promised two reviews on this issue in the past, the UK Government just needs to get on with delivering the £160 million owed to Scottish farmers and crofters? I think that I'd answer that in two parts. Yes, the money is due to Scotland. Having been in this place for 18 years, I have not come across any case that has been more clear-cut than this. The money, quite simply, was due to Scottish farmers. There is no doubt that even the Conservatives today have a good grace to say that they recognise that is so, and I welcome that. Part 1 is that we do not need a review for this. Send the money to Mr Mackay, Mr Hammond, you have got the money, you paid far more to the Ulster Unionists, and we want our money back. Part 2, however—to be fair, Rhoda Grant and Dave Stewart have recognised that—is that, for the future, we must recognise that the essential unfairness that was recognised by the EU in relation to the lowest-rate per hectare being paid to Scottish farmers must be seen as part of any post-Brexit negotiations. That is where the report and review must come in to look at the basis for a future deal that reflects the fact that caused the EU to give £190 million intended for Scotland in the first place. I would like to refer members to my register of interest in that I am a partner in a farming business. Let me say at the outset that I, my party and my colleagues in Westminster agree that this convergent uplift should come to Scotland, and we are actively working on that as the Cabinet Secretary has accepted and has been confirmed in the press today. I personally have met with Andrea Ledeson and I have had two meetings with George Eustace—sorry, to press Scotland's case in relation to the convergence uplift. Cabinet Secretary, to save you raising your blood pressure, let me ask you a very simple question. The payment is due from 2014. Will the Cabinet Secretary confirm that the money should be paid direct to Scottish farmers without siphon or modulation and paid under pillar 1 payments, not pillar 2 payments, and not delayed by an incompetent computer system? No matter how frustrated and irritated I may have felt privately about meeting Andrea Ledeson, Michael Gover and George Eustace. I think that I have always managed to get their name right. I put it to you very simply. If Mr Hammond wants to get on the phone to Mr Mackay this afternoon and say, look, this money is due to Scotland, can I put the check in the post? Mr Mackay says, well, probably you send it by backs. After that, if the money can go directly to the farmers, of course it must go to the farmers. Of course it must go to the farmers that are due to it. If that happens, that is exactly what we will do. Provided, of course, we are able to do that within the legal regime, because I have already alluded to the matters that David Stewart has quite properly raised and which no Government can ignore. Emma Harper Thank you. I remind chamber I am PLO to the cabinet secretary. The cabinet secretary has set out the sorry and tawdry history of betrayal of this funding. Would he agree that it is interesting that Mr Jack managed a press release deadline ahead of his statement, even though I wrote to all 13 Conservative MPs almost six weeks ago? Would he agree that we should also now be focusing on the future as well? John Swinney Yes, I would agree with both of those propositions. I would just perhaps turn the screw a little bit, if I may, by pointing out that the only precedent that I can think of that remotely approaches this convergence money issue of £160 million due to Scottish farmers was the Scottish bus group pensioners issue, where there was a deal reached between the UK Government and the Scottish Government. I did not think that it was a good enough deal, but there was a deal reached, so I must recognise that. It is the only precedent that I can think of here. Therefore, the money now due to Scotland must be paid. If it is not paid, then it will simply taint any negotiations that take place, because there cannot be good faith in those negotiations unless the UK Government delivers to Scotland money that is plainly due to Scottish hill farmers. John Swinney Thank you, and that concludes our statement. I thank all members of the contributions. The point of order from Mr Scott. John Swinney Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I wish to raise the point of order and again declaring an interest. I can ask you if it is appropriate for a Scottish Government minister well acquainted with the use of legal terms to refer to the UK Government's action as robbery when the UK Government acted entirely within the relevant UK, EU and Scots law, notwithstanding the fact that I agree with the sentiments of the cabinet secretary's statement. Is this appropriate parliamentary language? John Swinney Thank you, Mr Scott. In this case, the cabinet secretary clearly had a strongly worded statement, but it was deemed parliamentary. We move on to the next item of business. We'll just take a few moments for members to change seats.