 The next item of business is a statement by Fergus Ewing on the repatriation of convergence funds owed to Scottish farming. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of his statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions. I call on Fergus Ewing for up to nine minutes, please. Presiding Officer, this Government, with the support of this Parliament, has been campaigning for many years for the repatriation of the EU convergence funds owed to Scottish farming. We have been united in our endeavour to achieve this, and I want to thank all of you across all parties for your support and efforts. There have, of course, been development since this issue was last discussed in the chamber, and therefore I want to update you on those. First, I thought that it would be helpful to set out the circumstances and history behind this issue. In 2013, the EU announced that a process of external conversions should occur between member states, as it considered that historic allocations of caps supported based on production levels in the 1990s and early 2000s were no longer meeting the objectives for farming and food production. As such, any member state whose average direct payment rate was less than 90 per cent of the EU average in 2013 would be awarded a convergence uplift to take them to at least €196 per hectare by 2020. England, Wales and Northern Ireland were, on average, already above the 90 per cent EU average convergence threshold in 2013. However, direct payments in Scotland were significantly lower on average at €130 per hectare, and were low enough to pull the overall UK rate below the convergence threshold. As a result of Scotland's low payment rate, the UK was awarded an uplift of €223 million of additional CAP funding to cover the 214 to 220 period. Despite the EU's rationale for convergence funding to narrow the payment grab across the UK, the UK Government chose to distribute the money across the UK Administrations based on the historic allocations formulae used for all other CAP money allocations. That meant that Scotland only received 16.3 per cent of the uplift, despite being the only part of the UK on average, below the EU's convergence threshold. There is no doubt that this was neither equitable nor within the spirit of the EU's aims for convergence. This Government tried to prevent it from happening. My predecessor, Richard Lochhead, co-responded furiously with his UK Government counterparts. The Parliament agreed unanimously to support the case for repatriation of convergence funding, all to little avail. The UK Government would not budge. On being appointed Rural Economy Secretary, I took up the cudgels and was determined, frankly, not to lay them down again until every avenue had been explored and every effort made to win Scotland's case. I brought the issue back to Parliament to secure, once again, the on-going support across the chamber in October 2017. In addition, I engaged stakeholders including NFU Scotland, Scottish Tenant Farmers Association, Scottish Land and Estates, the Scottish Beef Association, the National Sheep Association in Scotland and the Scottish Crofters Federation. They all agreed to work in partnership with us to press the case with the UK Government, and they did so. I want to thank them all for helping to keep this matter firmly at the forefront of UK ministers' minds. The UK Government might have imagined that the issue would fade away with the prospect of Brexit, but, if anything, that only served to underscore the urgency of the matter and, indeed, the necessity of resolving it. Therefore, I determined to raise this and raise this at every opportunity with the then DEFRA Secretary, Michael Gove. Whilst I suspect that I may simply have worn him down, Presiding Officer, I must in fairness convey my gratitude to him for finally agreeing in late 2017 to conduct a review. We might not have got, ultimately, the terms of reference that we wanted, with a focus solely on future funding allocations, a change in the planned terms of reference that I understand was made at the behest of the UK Treasury, but, under the chairmanship of Lord Bewe, there has been a review undertaken. I want to thank, firstly, the Scottish Government officials for their input to making Scotland's case robustly to the panel, and, secondly, I want to thank Scotland's representative on the BU panel, Jim Walker, for his sterling efforts on behalf of Scottish Farming, and for all the time that he has devoted to it. Jim has ensured that Scotland's case and voice has been heard, and he has applied himself to the task asked of him with customary gusto and tenacity. Frankly, we could not have asked for more. I understand that the review has reached its conclusions and I look forward to those being published. I do hope that the review panel has accepted Scotland's case as both substantial and compelling. Support has come from perhaps surprising quarters in recent times. Many may have been surprised by Boris Johnson in his campaign to be elected to lead the Conservative Party unequivocally promised to pay out the additional funding to Scottish Farming in 2020 and, again, in 2021. Although I do not intend to make a habit of it, I am happy on this singular occasion to say that I agree with the Prime Minister that we must make sure that Scotland's farmers get the support that they are owed. Where I would disagree with him is the idea that this historic injustice, to use the phrase that he deployed, was as a result of the CAP. The historic injustice was caused entirely by his predecessor Government. What matters at this point is that he is willing to put matters right, and therefore I welcome his further pledge, given to an SNP-MP in the House of Commons chamber, so to do. What concerns me is that subsequent exchanges with DEFRA and my colleague Derek Mackay with the Treasury have not confirmed that the £160 million that Scotland is owed will be transferred. My intention today is to encourage this Parliament once again to unite in calling on the Prime Minister to make good his promise and to do so swiftly. Further, I hope that I can secure support in affirming, as we did in a debate earlier this year, that agriculture is a devolved competence. It is a policy responsibility that we have been dealing with for two decades now, and that we send a very clear message to the Prime Minister, to DEFRA and the Treasury, and to anyone else in the UK Government who needs to hear that message. If we receive the £160 million that is owed to Scottish farming and future allocations as pledged, all the funding comes and comes without strings, there can be no attempt to bind or to determine the way in which the funding is to be used or disseminated. That, Presiding Officer, is this Parliament's responsibility. I want to reassure members on this Government's intentions should we receive what we have been promised. I can announce today that I have secured the agreement of my colleague Derek Mackay, the finance secretary, that all additional convergence funding received will be ring-fenced for agriculture. That is only right and proper, given its origins and its purpose. That is what this Government will do. I understand that people want to get on with spending that funding, but I would caution that we have yet to receive any funding and that we cannot spend, Presiding Officer, warm words. Today, I hope that we can come together as a Parliament and focus on the final part of the six-year-long campaign to ensure its success and delivery of the funding owed to Scottish farming. In doing so, Presiding Officer, and in moving towards closing, I would offer the reflection that this Parliament is often at its best when it can act together and support with one voice a campaign to repatriate money that plainly is in the interests of our farmers and our crofters, who face very real and pressing challenges in the short and medium term, as all of us know. Therefore, Presiding Officer, I urge all colleagues in all parties to use their opportunity today to reaffirm their party's support for the repatriation of the convergence funding owed to Scottish farming in the hope and belief that our collective efforts will shortly result in success. Scotland's farmers and crofters deserve no less. Mr Ewing, the cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues raised in his statement, and I can allow around 18 minutes—very prescriptive today—for questions, and then we will move on. I declare an interest as a partner in the farming business. I thank the cabinet secretary for prior sight of his statement. We all agree in this chamber that this EU convergence fund should have come in its entirety to Scottish agriculture. There has always been cross-party support for this stance. The cabinet secretary recognises many of the organisations that have made the argument, but he neglects to mention the 12 new Scottish Conservative MPs that were elected last year, who have also been working hard to achieve a successful result. The Prime Minister has promised to deliver the fund to Scotland, and we will hold him to account on that promise. However, given the complete lack of planning by this Government for future agricultural support, when this money is delivered, how does the cabinet secretary propose to spend it? Let me say that it will not be acceptable to spend this money on any one sector of Scottish agriculture. It must be delivered right across all sectors, and not just used to plug a hole in LFASS payments created by this Government's inability to plan ahead. Can the cabinet secretary promise that he will not use it to do just that? Fergus Ewing. I think that I did discern that support there for the campaign in a positive start. Therefore, I welcome that. I welcome that politicians elected representatives of Scotland have supported this campaign. In all seriousness, I think that when we can act together, that helps to deliver results. I hope that that will be the case on this occasion, and that is why I am approaching the debate in this way. As to the disbursement of the money, let me make one thing clear. If I promise to you that the cheque is in the post, your reaction, I suspect, may well be one of scepticism. The cheque is not only not in the post, it is not yet signed, and it is not written yet. Therefore, it is premature to start spending money that we have not got. I think that that is a pretty solid message that every farmer in Scotland would understand. However, I have already given the absolute assurance that Mr Mackay, who I have consulted on this in the formal way that is absolutely appropriate in government, has confirmed that this money will be used and used solely for Scottish agriculture. I think that that assurance, which I have announced today, is very welcome. Lastly, Mr Chapman used the phrase, plug the hole in elfast funding. That is not correct. There is no hole in elfast funding. The problem is that the rules that are attached to elfast mean that the payments may have to go from 100 per cent to 80 per cent next year. That is something about which I have indicated previously my determination to do what I can to maintain income for hard-pressed farmers, our hill farmers and elfast farmers, who I think are perhaps those who need it most. I fully intend to make good that promise. It would help, if the UK can make good its promise, and that would allow us to provide a real boost to agriculture at those challenging times. Colin Smyth, I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of his statement. Labour fully supports all efforts to end the convergence fund in justice and give Scotland's farmers what frankly is rightly theirs. We should remember that it was as a result of Scotland's low cap support payment per hectare that the UK was awarded the convergent uplift in the first place. We urge the UK Government to set a date for the publication of the view review as a matter of urgency. The cabinet secretary will know that those who receive the lowest level of support are Scotland's hill farmers and crofters. We will ensure that those funds will be used for convergence, and that means that hill farming and crofting will be prioritised in any allocation of support in the future. Fergus Ewing I welcome support from Colin Smyth and the Labour Party. I genuinely welcome it. Across the chamber, I hope and expect that that will be the case. Let us be quite clear about that. If we argue amongst ourselves all the time, it makes it more difficult to achieve things for Scotland. What gets me up in the morning is doing good for Scotland. In this case, writing a wrong, which has existed for six long years, I think that Colin Smyth makes a very good point that many of those who are in the greatest need are those who are farming in our marginal uplands, our hill farms and our island areas. It is right, therefore, that they should benefit from the convergence monies if, indeed, the promise is implemented by the Prime Minister. I think that we agree in principle that that is the case. Forgive me, Presiding Officer, but I want to see the colour of money in the bank account before we announce decisions about how to spend it. We will move on to open questions. If we have succinct questions and answers, we should get through them all. Emma Harper is followed by Edward Mountain. I thank the cabinet secretary for his continued pursuit of the convergence monies issue. Can he explain a wee bit more about what the BUE review was set up to do? Will he join me in calling for the Secretary of State for Scotland to urge his cabinet colleagues to write this wrong? The terms of the reference of the BUE review were originally to look at why it was the case that the €223 million was not applied to Scottish farmers as was intended by the EU. Indeed, that was the intention of Michael Gove, as discussed in the 6 November 2017, and discussed again in February 2018. However, the Treasury appeared to have intervened and altered the terms of reference. Instead of looking at what happened and why it happened and why UK Government ministers took the decision that they did not to provide this money to Scottish farmers, and what advice was given to UK ministers? Instead of that, the BUE review's remit was solely to look at the forward two years and the convergence monies that are expected to be available for those two years. Whilst we welcome that limited remit, it does not really implement the promise that Owen Paterson first made six years ago. Edward Mountain, followed by Stuart Steedons. Thank you, Presiding Officer, if I remember to my register of interest. In a rare moment of agreement with you, cabinet secretary, I agree with you that the convergent money should have come to Scotland and they will. Will the cabinet secretary therefore please guarantee to the farmers that were disadvantaged by this historic injustice that they will be top of the list when it comes to making sure that the situation is right? Fergus Ewing. I welcome that statement from Mr Mountain and all members who are supporting this case and are being followed through and the payment is being made. I, too, hope and I expect that the payment will be made. It is very serious. It is a real opportunity and it is one that I intend to make the most of. In direct responses question, I think that those whose land was such that they were farming land, which was of the low average per hectare, are those who should be included in those who are entitled to benefit from the convergent money plainly. There is a lot of solid work that will need to be done to make sure that we do just that. I also think that those are, as Mr Smith has said, among the people who need help most. I met many of them, for example, at the Lochaber show just a couple of weeks ago with my colleague Kate Forbes. They are having a tough time—a tough time—as our farmers throughout parts of Scotland, where farming is a tough, tough existence and job. I am determined that they should benefit from this convergent money once, of course, in our bank. Stuart Stevenson, followed by Rhoda Grant. Can I welcome the comments from the Conservative members that indicate that the money would come to Scotland? Does the cabinet secretary share my concerns that the decision-making power as to how it may be distributed might be retained at Westminster? In the light of remarks from the new Secretary of State for Scotland about their taking control over spending money in Scotland, is it simply a new minister being naive or is he being mendacious? I do not think that I am going to stray into talking about mendacity today, if I am saying of course that you may be pleased to hear. However, I have some concerns. There have been suggestions—a number of them—and I will not go into them all if there is not enough time. There may have been or may still be some intention to try to attach strings about how the money is deployed should it be repatriated. That would be entirely wrong. It would be a breach of devolution. It would be a predation of our powers and we would not be willing to accept such conditions. I hope that reason will prevail, however, and that will not be the case. I have also indicated clearly that there is a reasonable common ground about the main thrust about how the lion's share of the funding should be deployed. I, too, support efforts to get those convergence funds back to Scotland and the cabinet secretary's indication that it will be directed to those in most disadvantaged areas. Can I ask if the cap IT system would be able to distribute the funds, especially if they are to be distributed to those who are most in need? Yes, I am confident that the cap system and the operation of it would not be an obstacle to distribution of funds. I should say that those funds were intended to have been distributed over the period 214 to 220 over that seven-year period. It was not intended that the money would be distributed from 2019 onward. Therefore, we have to be very careful in examining the strictures of the cap system in terms of state aid, in particular, and the terminamies rule. We have to weigh up all that carefully. However, of course, the EU did intend that those who are most in need of this money should get it, and therefore I am hopeful and confident that we will be able to find a way so to do. John Finnie, followed by Mike Rumbles. Cabinet Secretary, I commend you and your predecessor's efforts on this in a roundly condemn the UK, the duplicity of the UK Government for its treatment of this. You talked in your statement and in applying about doing good and need, cabinet secretary, and you said that money would be directed to agriculture. Is there an opportunity to do good and address need by directing some of it to the crofting housing grant scheme, please? The crofting housing grant scheme is pretty much separate from that. I had not thought of that. Obviously, I am happy to consider any suggestions that I get, including from Mr Finnie, if he wants to write to me on that. I would say that, from memory, the crofting grant scheme has been extremely helpful to enable us to help several hundred of crofters throughout the mainland highlands, and particularly in the western alf's Dr Allan's constituency. I have been a forthright advocate and a determined deliverer of funding to do just that, but it is an interesting point, and I will consider it. However, I tend to think that my first reaction is that it is not quite what the convergence money was intended for. Mike Rumbles, followed by Alasdair Allan. I agree that those funds should be due to Scottish farmers and crofters, but the varied statements of our Prime Minister on so many varied issues might not be so very sound. Having asked for Lord Buw's review and the review having reached its conclusions, will the Scottish Government accept its findings when they are published, and does he expect the Prime Minister to accept them, too? I am hopeful that the findings will be admirable than the ones that we can support. I had the opportunity to give evidence to Lord Buw, and I thought that the response that I had from him and his team was very positive. I got the impression that he understood the arguments, and I got the impression that perhaps there was a tacit acceptance that the arguments, which are not very complicated, were accepted. I am hopeful of the results. I do not think that I can say in advance that we accept conclusions of a report that has not yet been delivered, but I am hopeful that the Prime Minister, who has made one of the most unequivocal promises that I have ever seen in 20 years in politics, will make good that promise. I hope and expect that that will happen and sooner rather than later. Alasdair Allan. The issue of convergence funding is, of course, not made any easier or fairer as the prospect of anodial Brexit draws closer, with potentially disastrous consequences for sheep and beef producers in the Western Isles. Beyond the very welcome loan scheme that is now under way, what else can now be done to provide some much-needed financial clarity for farmers and crofters as they make their plans for the future? Fergus Ewing. The position is that, on the loan scheme, in respect of the pillar 1 payments, at this time we have issued 15,570 offers worth 394 million euros. That is entirely separate from convergence. That is 95 per cent of the eligible population. After the first week, over 7,500 loan offers have been returned and I would urge all farmers and crofters in Dr Allan's constituency to return their offer as quickly as is possible. If they do so, the intention is and my expectation is that we will deliver payments of nearly 400 million euros if everybody accepts their offers within as early a period as possible, starting the first week in October. I would really like to praise the team of officials in Arped that have been administering the scheme. It is very complicated. They have done it now for a few years. It is money that farmers and crofters will receive before 31 October, before the possibility of a no-deal Brexit, and it is money that will go into the rural economy to pay bills, to pay bills of feed merchants, contractors and other supply chains in the agriculture sector. That is a very important piece of work. It is probably the main practical thing that we are doing to prepare to mitigate, as far as we can, the consequences of a no-deal Brexit. That concludes questions on the ministerial statement on repatriation of convergence funds owed to Scottish farming. Apologies to Donald Cameron, David Torrance, Alex Rowley and Richard Lyle for being unable to take the questions. We will move on to the next item of business. The next item of business is consideration of two parliamentary bureau motions. Could I ask Graeme Dey, on behalf of the parliamentary bureau, to move motions 18641 on committee membership and 18642 on substitutions on committees? The questions on the two motions will be put at decision time, to which we now come. I propose to ask a single question. Does any member object? No, that is good. The question is that motions 18641 and 18642, in the name of Graeme Dey and behalf of the bureau, be agreed or well agreed. We are agreed, and that concludes decision time. We will move on shortly to members' business, in the name of Claudia Beamish, on towards an independent Palestinian state. We are just going to take a few moments for members and the minister to change seats. A few moments.