 The next item of business is a statement by Fergus Ewing, Cabinet Secretary in the Common Agricultural Policy. The Cabinet Secretary will take questions at the end of his statement, and so there should be no interventions or interruptions. I call on Fergus Ewing. Ten minutes please, Cabinet Secretary. Presiding Officer, for the whole of this Parliament's lifetime, farm policy in support in Scotland has been determined by the Common Agricultural Policy and part funded by the EU. There is no doubt that the year ahead will be difficult, which is why this Government has made clear, no matter what else happens, that farm and rural businesses will receive their current payment entitlements, not just in 2019 but in every year, largely as they currently are, until 2022. This commitment is at the heart of our transition plan entitled Stability and Simplicity, which sets out the most detailed proposals of any administration in the UK to provide certainty and stability on farm and rural support. I will return to this transition plan shortly, but I want to update Parliament on the progress that we have made in relation to this year's payments and in making improvements to our business and IT processes. One of our key objectives this year was to help more farmers and crofters to get online. We undertook a campaign around the SAF application window, offering support to help more customers to switch from paper based to online applications. Our approach has worked with the ratio of online to paper SAF applications increasing from 78 per cent last year to 88.6 per cent. In the coming year, we will continue to seek ways of further enhancing our business approach and payment system with a core purpose in mind, to improve our ability to make payments efficiently. Presiding Officer, we have achieved the target of 95 per cent of 2017 pillar 1 payments by the deadline of 30 June. We have now completed 99 per cent of basic payments greening young farmer payments and 97 per cent of both the Scottish suckler beef and upland sheep support scheme payments. We have started making payments on all 2017 pillar 2 schemes and are ahead of where we were at this point last year. Notably, we reached our 95 per cent land managers options payment target two months ahead of schedule. To ensure our most marginalised farmers and crofters receive their ELFAS support on time, in April we provided over 8,000 farmers and crofters with 90 per cent of their entitlements through the 2017 ELFAS loan scheme, worth over £53 million to them and the rural economy. Since then, we have completed processing over 89 per cent of full ELFAS 2017 payments. Furthermore, we are working hard to deliver all pillar 2 payments by the end of December and before then, if possible. We will of course continue to update the rec committee of our progress monthly. One thing that we hadn't planned for this year was the adverse weather, which has impacted considerably in farming in Scotland, but we have acted swiftly and I hope effectively to provide extra support. That includes the national basic payment support loan scheme to provide financial support early this winter for our farmers' crofters. Loan offer letters have now issued to over 14,500 businesses and we expect to begin making payments from early October. Eligible farmers and crofters will be offered up to 90 per cent of what they are due as part of the 2018 basic payment scheme. A similar scheme in 2017 delivered payments of more than £317 million to over 13,500 farmers and crofters and into Scotland's rural economy, and I expect this scheme to have similar effect. We know that there will be pressures on winter forage, so we have also sought and received approval from the European Commission to allow farmers and crofters flexibility in the implementation of the 2017 greening rules regarding ecological focus areas. We made arrangements to extend the planned beef efficiency scheme workshops and livestock nutrition this autumn to all farmers and crofters. With the potential disruption of Brexit looming, I want to give our farmers, crofters and land managers as much funding certainty as is possible. I am also determined that we continue to pursue our aims for this rural development programme. I can announce today that we will launch a further round of the Agri Environment Climate scheme early next year. Since 2015, the scheme has provided over £140 million of support for land managers to deliver environmental actions. We expect this round to allocate in the region of £40 million to successful applications in line with previous years. Anyone considering activity to protect and enhance their land assets and our environment through improving water quality, managing flood risk and mitigating and adapting to climate change should start preparing their funding application now. This certainty is in stark contrast with the lack of clarity on key funding questions from the UK Government. One of the most pressing is on what basis Scotland's future funding allocation will be made. That cannot be on the basis of the current low-rate per hectare, the lowest in the UK. Since 2013, the Scottish Government, with the support of this Parliament, has been trying to get this resolved. The failure of successive Tory Westminster Governments to honour its promises on convergence funding is problematic in two key ways. First, Scottish farmers have been shortchanged to the tune of £160 million. That amounts to around £14,000 for each hill farmer or crofter in this land. Secondly, it means that our farmers and crofters could continue to lose out in the future if those historic payment rates are used to determine funding allocations beyond Brexit. I welcomed the most recent promise from Michael Gove to review the situation, but I have been less welcoming of the unwarranted delay in getting that review under way. Let me be clear. I will not stop pressing until it is and Scotland is guaranteed a fair funding allocation in the future. We must also focus our resources on planning for the future. In June, I launched a public consultation proposing a five-year transition period for farming and rural support under the theme of stability and simplicity. The consultation closed on 15 August with more than 120 responses, and I thank all who responded. Those responses are currently being analysed carefully and a report will be published later this autumn. However, I can advise Parliament that we will get on with establishing a task force to produce measures that will simplify the farm and rural support payment system from 2022 onwards. The task force will be led internally and involve external stakeholders and contributors. Crucially, we want to ensure that the future of farming is represented through the inclusion of young farmers on the task force. I am acutely aware that we must also start to shape a longer term approach to future rural support. We have already had many thoughtful propositions and innovative ideas to work from, from stakeholders' organisations, from the Government's agriculture champions, from Professor Russell Griggs' greening group and, very shortly, from the National Council of Rural Advisers, whose final report is expected imminently. It is important that this Parliament is given an opportunity to contribute its views. I therefore undertake to discuss how best to achieve this with all parliamentary groups and to bring forward a motion that allows us to debate and, hopefully, agree the principles to underpin Scotland's future farm policy. We all face an uncertain future. The prospects, especially if there is a no-deal Brexit, are not great. That is why, in our programme for government, we committed to providing as much certainty and stability in the short term, in the term of five years, as we can. This year, we have focused on improving our approach to CAP, not least to make payments more efficiently. We have made significant progress and we will continue to seek to do more in the coming year. By the end of this year, not only will the vast majority of farmers, crofters and land managers have received their 2017 CAP payments, but most will have received 90 per cent of their 2018 basic payments, too. In all, we have paid more than £500 million into Scotland's rural businesses and economy, demonstrating clearly this Government's determination to deliver for rural Scotland. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues raised in his statement. I hope to allow about 20 minutes for questions after which we must move on to the next item of business. Those members who wish to ask a question, please press your request-to-speak buttons now. First, I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of his statement and I refer to crofting and farming in my register of interests. I had looked forward to his statement because I thought that, at last, we might begin to see some detail of a system of support for Scottish agriculture. It is with a sense of deep frustration that I listened to the cabinet secretary again failing to outline specific policies in that regard. Instead, on the back of the several reports, expert groups and consultations that we have already had, we now get the announcement that we will get on with establishing a task force. That can only mean further delay. I listened with disbelief to the accusation that there has been a lack of clarity on behalf of the UK Government when it comes to funding, when the real lack of clarity lies at his door and when Scotland is getting left behind amongst other nations in the UK when it comes to the future of farming support. Let me be clear that we welcome the progress that has been made with payments this year and the various commitments in relation to mitigating poor weather and pressures on winter forage. We continue to want to play our part in assisting with the creation of a new support system and are more than happy to meet with the Scottish Government. Given the absence of an agriculture bill in this year's programme for government, when will we see primary legislation in this Parliament to mirror the UK agriculture bill, or will he continue to keep Scotland's farmers and crofters in the dark? I am pleased that Mr Cameron recognises the progress that has been made. I had expected that he might welcome the announcement of around £40 million for the X scheme that I have made today, which I know some of his colleagues have advocated quite rightly so. I welcome the prospect of working together, as I have already said. I am afraid that I do not accept the premises that underlie the questions, and I particularly do not accept that we have not set out a plan. We have set out a plan for five years. In fact, this is the most detailed plan in the UK. The documents produced by DEFRA do not say what is going to happen. They say what they are going to stop doing. Interestingly, the Scottish Farmer of 22 September, whose editorial asks Mr Gove this question, does Mr Gove really think that British farmers and especially Scottish farmers can survive without financial assistance for producing food? The UK Government is proposing to scrap direct payment and direct support for farmers for food production. I profoundly believe that that is wrong. I very much hope that this Parliament will agree with me that such support, as well as support for the environmental role, is absolutely essential for the sustainability of our farming. As the Scottish Farmer argues—and they are frankly in a position to argue with some authority—as to the question about publication of the bill, I attended a further meeting with Mr Gove and other UK ministers. In fact, two meetings a week ago last Monday I made the point that the current UK agriculture bill unfortunately impinges upon devolved powers in three respects. I did so despite the fact that we received a copy of the final bill on the eve only of its publication, but notwithstanding that, we have received very strong advice that the UK agriculture bill conducts a power grab over significant devolved powers. That is completely unacceptable to us and we will continue to seek to reason with Mr Gove to amend the bill accordingly. Colin Smydd. Thank you to the cabinet secretary for advance sight of his statement. Today's statement is telling more for what it doesn't tell us than for what it does tell us, although I welcome any progress in payments, in particular in relation to ELFAS. Will the cabinet secretary say exactly where the Government is with progress in relation to pillar 2 payments, given that the most recent update earlier this month showed progress in some schemes as low as 30 per cent, and there will be some skepticism over his claim payments will be delivered by December. The cabinet secretary also announced that there will be a further round of the agri-environment climate scheme, which is welcome, but will he tell us when applications will open and whether there will also be a further round of the food process and marketing and co-operation grant? Finally, the cabinet secretary says that he now wants a debate on long-term reform, but he does not accept that this is a debate that should have happened a long time ago. The clock is ticking towards Brexit, and what the sector wants is clear, detailed proposals from the Government for support for the rural economy, and they want that sooner rather than later. I thank Mr Smydd for the answer, and to answer his questions directly, across pillar 2 as a whole, we have now paid 81 per cent of claims and 70 per cent of total anticipated value. I continue to provide rec with details of every single payment, but I am very pleased that progress has been significantly improved from last year. Secondly, when will Akes be open? It will be open early next year, and I repeat the opportunity that we welcome a submission for this scheme, which has been undersubscribed in the past. Thirdly, the food processing and marketing grants I will revert to Mr Smydd about that. There is still some funding left, and I will check the position, but again I would urge those who wish to make applications to contact my officials with regard to that. With regard to his final point, I respectfully disagree. I repeat that our plan set out for the next period of five years stability and simplicity is one that has received a broad welcome. In particular, the fundamental tenet of the plan is to continue to provide certainty and stability by continuing so far as we can with the current schemes as is, and schemes that support farmers in producing high-quality beef and lamb, things that I thought were self-evidently beyond party politics as an objective from this Parliament. There are no other plans in the UK. There is no plan. There is health and harmony, which sets out what they will not do, i.e. continues to support farmers with direct payments, but it does not say—as indeed the Scottish Farmer pointed out—how much funding there will be. Read the Scottish Farmer. I mean, there are lots of farmers over there. I suggest that I recommend it to you guys. Just the last point that I would make, we have set out a plan for five years. It is difficult to know what the plans of the UK Government are for five months, or even five days. I have 11 members who want to ask questions. I have 11 minutes, so I can only get anywhere with your assistance, and that is to everyone in the chamber. I call John Finnie to be followed by Mike Rumbins. Obviously, I welcome the £40 million for that great environment scheme and oppose any power grab. Cabinet Secretary, we welcome your finally committing to the Scottish Parliament and drafting the principles of Scotland's future farm policy. You mentioned in your statement the various bodies that were put in place to look at this now, dating back several years. Was it not within the remits of these groups to develop sound principles for farm policy? If not, what was the purpose of them being constituted in the first place? I thank Mr Finnie for his support for the 8th announcement, which will make a substantial contribution to carrying out vital environmental schemes throughout the country, as, indeed, it has. I am very pleased that we share common ground on that. As far as his comments about those who have been appointed to guide us and us all in relation to the future of farming policy in Scotland post Brexit, if Brexit happens, and who knows, frankly, about that. Those who have been doing that have not been doing it for several years, with respect, as Mr Finnie says. They have been doing it at the express behest of this Parliament. It was an emotion as amended, I think, by Mr Rumble's amendment, that required or called on the Scottish Government to appoint a group of people who would have the remit of considering these matters. That is exactly what we have done. We did exactly what Parliament asked us to do. That report will be published imminently. I am extremely grateful to all the members of the National Council of Rural Advisers, the agricultural champions Professor Russell Griggs, and the NCRA comprise people from all walks of life in rural Scotland who have a wealth of knowledge and experience. I sincerely hope that the recommendations when they are available will be taken seriously by all colleagues around the chamber so that we are able to reach some kind of consensus about the best path forward for Scotland's rural policy in the future. Mike Rumbles on 19 January 2017, it was my amendment calling on the Government to provide advice as to the principles and policies for rural support beyond 2020. That was passed unanimously, even the minister voted for it. However, the minister in his statement has just said, I undertake to bring forward a motion, which will allow us to debate the principles underpin Scotland's future farm policy. Deputy Presiding Officer, just how long is this taking? First of all, I commend to Mr Rumbles a good reading of the stability and simplicity document, which sets out a plan for five years—five years—about financial future. Speaking to farmers, what they say is that that is exactly what they want. They want to know where they stand, not for a period of a few months—which, of course, they do not know under the shambles or the burrach of Brexit policy in the UK—but for a long-sustained period where they can then plan for the future after that. Although I will respond formally, in due course, to the NCRA report and the 120 responses to the stability and simplicity document, I can say initially that there has been broad support for the fundamental plank of our document. It was Mr Rumbles—I mentioned it—that I gave him credit for the amendment. Sometimes, I think that Mr Rumbles does not take yes for an answer, which is a bit unfortunate. I am delighted that we did exactly what we all voted for in that motion to convene a group of people to do the work. For goodness sake, let us wait until the reports are published very soon indeed and have the debate after that. Surely that is the sensible approach. Maureen Watt, followed by John Scott. I apologise to the chamber for having to leave after my question. Cabinet Secretary, last Wednesday in this Parliament at the cross-party group on food, chaired by John Scott and attended by Peter Chapman and myself, Ian Wright, the chief executive of the UK Food and Drink Federation, painted a very bleak future for Scottish agriculture and for sheep farmers, in particular, as a result of Brexit. That is compounded, it would appear, from the comments of Carmen Hubbard and Newcastle University and Professor Wallace of University College of Dublin, by the proposals contained in the UK Government's agriculture bill. What reassurance is there of any, can you, Cabinet Secretary, give sheep farmers in Scotland, particularly those on the hills, will make a vital contribution to food production, but also to its landscape? That is less than a minute. That may be your question, but I did ask for people to be fair to each other, so let us just have questions, please, from now on. Cabinet Secretary. I think that what is right to raise this is extremely serious. We are absolutely committed to continuing to provide vital support to our hill farmers in Scotland. The ELFAS scheme is that which they currently hold most dear and is most significant. It is absolutely essential, and indeed there is a growing volume of evidence referred to that suggests that the impact of Brexit could be so great that it could result in modern-day clearances in rural and highland Scotland. It is extremely serious. Reports after reports, the national audit office, the Fraser of Allander report, Highlands and Islands agricultural support group, none of them are politically affiliated. All of them say the same thing, that the threat to our hill farming community in Scotland is very real indeed, and I do hope that the Scottish Conservatives will decide where they stand, on the side of the Scottish hill farmers, on the UK Government who plans to withdraw their direct support. John Scott followed by Stuart Seed. I thank the clearances of the farmer and the food producer. Farmers and crofters will welcome us to update on the further funding of £40 million for the ELFAS scheme, but it does little to help with all the problems that they are facing as they go into this winter, with annual feed shortages already looming, overdrafts growing to unsustainable levels and many upland livestock farmers and crofters actively considering whether they have a future in farming in the face of the constantly reducing profitability of the red meat sector. What immediate and practical financial help, different from years past, can the Government give to help this sector before many more farmers leave the industry and Scotland's rural landscapes become still more depopulated? Mr Scott raises a very serious point. I agree that the impacts of weather, both in the first and in the second part of the year, heavy rain and snow and then drought have been extremely severe. I am acutely aware of that as he is and having attended a great number of agricultural shows in the country. I had a number of lengthy conversations about farmers who were treating this very seriously, so we take that seriously as well. That is why, exactly why. It was actually after a meeting a group of farmers at the Black Isle show on the 13th of August, that I made the early announcement that we would bring forward to as early a date as possible the payment of the national loan scheme up to 90 per cent. Of course, that is money that is due, but getting that money as early as possible, I thought, was the most practical thing, Mr Scott, that we could conceivably do. Had it been possible to bring it earlier forward than the week commencing the 8th of October, we would have done so. The reason why we cannot do that is simply because the payments cannot be calculated until the Euro exchange rate has been calculated based upon a basket of figures in September, ending in 30 September. The earliest payment that we can make is the 8th of October, and I am hopeful that payments will start to go out then. Over 14,000 loan offers have been issued. 81 per cent of eligible claimants have had those loan offers. That is the most concrete thing that we can do. We have also had the agricultural weather panel meet regularly. We have provided very useful advice, as have the NFUS in its excellent campaign on these practical matters. There are other specific measures about which I undertake to write to Mr Scott, because I think that I am probably going a bit over my time. Let me say that I am taking this very seriously indeed. I do understand that it is not over yet, and more problems might come down the line early next year with animals that are not as well nourished as perhaps they should have been in ordinary circumstances. Stuart Stevenson, followed by Claudia Beamish. I declare that I have a small registered agricultural holding. I sat next to Michael Gove at the Tura show, and he promised me that the Scottish Government would be consulted on the UK agriculture bill and that the convergence review would go ahead. It is interesting to hear you sat next to him. I want your question. Can the cabinet secretary tell me if he has any information on who in the Conservative Government at the UK is blocking Mr Gove's very honourable promises that he made to me and to the rest of us? I am reminded of your comment that sitting side by side does not mean that he is on our side. I can tell you that I have sat opposite Mr Gove at numerous meetings and called upon him to implement the pledge that he himself made and made public, and it was welcomed by the Conservatives. Indeed, they claim credit for it, but he has not delivered yet. There is substantial support from stakeholders, including the NFUS, the Tenant Farmers, the Crofters Federation, and we are all supportive of the review, and I believe that we continue to support that review. The review must look back at what happened in the past in relation to our claim for £160 million that our farmers and crofters should have received, £14,000 per head that they had been denied, and it is essential to allocate in future Scotland's share of funding where Brexit will go ahead. The last point that I make is that, next year, 2019, when you compare the amount paid per hectare to farmers all over the European Union—we will include Scotland and the UK in this for the time being—the amount paid to Scottish farmers will be the lowest, not just in the UK, but in every single one of the 29 countries. That review is absolutely essential, and it is time that the Tories in London started to implement their promises, not to break them. Claudia Beamish Sorry, follow back. Angus MacDonald will have to be very brief. Thank you, Presiding Officer. As the cabinet secretary knows, agriculture is one of the heaviest greenhouse gas emitters in Scotland. Can he reassure the chamber today that future plans will tackle the issue, which was highlighted this week by the UK Committee on Climate Change, by having a just transition to agroecology with a clear advice and support system for innovation, which must play a big role in sustainable farming futures? I am happy to confirm that we will continue to encourage and, in some cases, require farmers to carry out measures that will contribute to reducing their carbon footprint overall. A great amount of work has been done, and I would like to acknowledge that. Sometimes, perhaps, farmers and crofters do not actually get the credit for the things that they do. In many cases, using less fertilizer, for example, can be good economically as well as for the environment. Carbon testing, for example, is mandatory in the beef efficiency scheme and other areas, as I understand it. The direction of travel is to encourage farmers to do even more. I am very happy to discuss the matter with Ms Beamish further, as I know that she takes a very close interest in it. Angus MacDonald, very briefly. The further round of agri-environment climate scheme funding is very welcome, however, those are long-term grants, as are those for tree planting. Can the cabinet secretary assure grant applicants about the long-term sustainability of their proposals and put it simply to get their grants post-Brexit? We would not launch the further round of aches or continue to encourage indeed forestry grant applications if we were not committed to paying people the grants over the long term. I welcome the commitment from the UK Government to continue the payments of the pillar 2 applications for a further year. After that decision, which was intimated to us only relatively recently, only then was it possible for us to make the announcement that we were, therefore, as a result, able to go forward with the X scheme. The answer to Mr MacDonald's question is yes. Thank you. I am sorry that that must include questions on that. I apologise to Peter Chapman, Alasdair Allan, Ian Grain, John Mason. It is in your hands to some extent and into the front bench, if you manage to get through all the questions. I must move on to the next statement and I am going to a straight on to it, so do not waste any more time.