Chamber and committees

I thank the minister for his intervention, but, as the motion for debate points out, although, in theory, the scheme

“was targeted towards islanders, new entrants, young farmers and tenant farmers”,

in practice, it has failed to deliver for small farmers. In some areas, 93.9 per cent of applicants are rejected in the first place as irregular, without so much as an assessment. For the Inverurie and district ward in the north-east, fewer than 28 per cent of initial applicants received anything at all. Clearly, something has gone very wrong with the scheme.

Today’s debate is not about which geographical region is most deserving of the funding, nor is it about litigating failures of the scheme for the sake of it. What the motion quite reasonably calls for, which Labour supports, is for the Scottish Government to publish its review of the future farming investment scheme and provide further clarity on how the scheme’s funding was allocated.

As it stands, the mishandling of the scheme appears to be systematic instead of simply teething problems, as one member described it. It is an example of the Scottish National Party’s systematic approach to rural and island farming communities across Scotland. The SNP Government appears to be content to let big agribusiness reign at the expense of smallholders, islanders and young entrants. So far, the SNP has failed to support crofters and small producers in rural communities, and the millions of pounds given to big agriculture through the future farming investment scheme is only the latest in a long line of botched farming policies from the SNP, which repeatedly seeks to give financial handouts to large-scale industrial agriculture at the expense of smallholders and crofters. Just recently, under proposals on fruit and veg, the Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity wanted to limit funding to just three producers, which would have excluded small growers and crofters.

There is still time to change course. We must make the future farming investment scheme fit for purpose and fit for the future. That is possible, clearly, but the Scottish Government can and should go further. It could investigate the problems with the 3-hectare minimum threshold for agricultural subsidies so that all active land workers can make a decent living, regardless of scale, and so that we can boost home-grown short supply chain food security. By prioritising nature-friendly and regenerative farming, the agriculture sector can lead the way in mainstreaming environmental and biodiversity action.

17:24

The regeneration of Aberdeen’s Union Street has been hindered by poor planning from the start—an issue compounded by the outsourcing of the work by the Scottish National Party-led Aberdeen City Council. That resulted in the closure of numerous shops and small businesses and caused substantial disruption to the city centre, community and nightlife.

What representations has the Deputy First Minister had from Aberdeen’s SNP council leaders about any support that could be offered to them to get that city centre regeneration off the ground?

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer—I am grateful for the opportunity to take part remotely this evening. I congratulate Liam McArthur on securing cross-party support for his motion and thank him for bringing the debate to the chamber.

I start my contribution for Labour by paying tribute to the thousands of land workers, crofters and farmers, both in the North East Scotland region and across Scotland, who already do an immense amount to put food on our tables and to care for our natural environment and biodiversity.

Let us remember what the stated objectives of the future farming investment scheme were: to improve sustainability, to restore and enhance the environment, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to mitigate the effects of climate breakdown. In that context, it is hard to understand why the vast majority of the scheme has been allowed to go to big agricultural landowners and megafarms, or why the majority of the fund is going to parts of Scotland where land is favourable, with only a fraction going to less favourable areas. It means that the scheme looks increasingly like a missed opportunity to rethink where our farming funding should be going. In contrast, Scottish Labour believes that more should be going to smallholders, crofters, land workers and regenerative farmers, and to support for small and local businesses.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer—I am grateful for the opportunity to take part remotely this evening. I congratulate Liam McArthur on securing cross-party support for his motion and thank him for bringing the debate to the chamber.

I start my contribution for Labour by paying tribute to the thousands of land workers, crofters and farmers, both in the North East Scotland region and across Scotland, who already do an immense amount to put food on our tables and to care for our natural environment and biodiversity.

Let us remember what the stated objectives of the future farming investment scheme were: to improve sustainability, to restore and enhance the environment, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to mitigate the effects of climate breakdown. In that context, it is hard to understand why the vast majority of the scheme has been allowed to go to big agricultural landowners and megafarms, or why the majority of the fund is going to parts of Scotland where land is favourable, with only a fraction going to less favourable areas. It means that the scheme looks increasingly like a missed opportunity to rethink where our farming funding should be going. In contrast, Scottish Labour believes that more should be going to smallholders, crofters, land workers and regenerative farmers, and to support for small and local businesses.

The regeneration of Aberdeen’s Union Street has been hindered by poor planning from the start—an issue compounded by the outsourcing of the work by the Scottish National Party-led Aberdeen City Council. That resulted in the closure of numerous shops and small businesses and caused substantial disruption to the city centre, community and nightlife.

What representations has the Deputy First Minister had from Aberdeen’s SNP council leaders about any support that could be offered to them to get that city centre regeneration off the ground?

I thank the minister for his intervention, but, as the motion for debate points out, although, in theory, the scheme

“was targeted towards islanders, new entrants, young farmers and tenant farmers”,

in practice, it has failed to deliver for small farmers. In some areas, 93.9 per cent of applicants are rejected in the first place as irregular, without so much as an assessment. For the Inverurie and district ward in the north-east, fewer than 28 per cent of initial applicants received anything at all. Clearly, something has gone very wrong with the scheme.

Today’s debate is not about which geographical region is most deserving of the funding, nor is it about litigating failures of the scheme for the sake of it. What the motion quite reasonably calls for, which Labour supports, is for the Scottish Government to publish its review of the future farming investment scheme and provide further clarity on how the scheme’s funding was allocated.

As it stands, the mishandling of the scheme appears to be systematic instead of simply teething problems, as one member described it. It is an example of the Scottish National Party’s systematic approach to rural and island farming communities across Scotland. The SNP Government appears to be content to let big agribusiness reign at the expense of smallholders, islanders and young entrants. So far, the SNP has failed to support crofters and small producers in rural communities, and the millions of pounds given to big agriculture through the future farming investment scheme is only the latest in a long line of botched farming policies from the SNP, which repeatedly seeks to give financial handouts to large-scale industrial agriculture at the expense of smallholders and crofters. Just recently, under proposals on fruit and veg, the Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity wanted to limit funding to just three producers, which would have excluded small growers and crofters.

There is still time to change course. We must make the future farming investment scheme fit for purpose and fit for the future. That is possible, clearly, but the Scottish Government can and should go further. It could investigate the problems with the 3-hectare minimum threshold for agricultural subsidies so that all active land workers can make a decent living, regardless of scale, and so that we can boost home-grown short supply chain food security. By prioritising nature-friendly and regenerative farming, the agriculture sector can lead the way in mainstreaming environmental and biodiversity action.

17:24

Vast amounts of money awarded under the future farming investment scheme have been hoovered up by large agricultural landowners and mega farms—the kind of wealthy farms that can afford to use deer fencing, leaving smaller, less wealthy farms that cannot afford it even more vulnerable to deer overgrazing.

Given that two aims of the future farm policy are improving business efficiency and sustainability and protecting and restoring the natural environment, will the minister assure us that priority under the scheme will be given to farmers—

—who engage in sustainable deer management solutions?

According to research from the Common Wealth think tank, Scotland has one of the most foreign-owned economies in Europe. Dependence on overseas direct investment not only bleeds Scotland of the wealth required to fund our public services but pressures Scottish politicians, such as our First Minister, to appease foreign capital by lowering taxes, weakening workers’ rights and eroding environmental standards. Such reliance leaves Scotland vulnerable to dramatic geopolitical change, such as Trump’s latest tariffs. Given that threat, does the Deputy First Minister agree that what Scotland needs is not further private foreign ownership but a strong domestic industrial strategy?

Edward Mountain makes an important point. It is incumbent on all of us to keep campaigning and encouraging as many member states as possible to sign up so that we can have that international working, which is what is needed, because the ocean is common to us all.

Members will be aware that I have repeatedly raised the issue of the impact of bottom trawling on marine environments and have done so both in the chamber and with the cabinet secretary. That practice is damaging and destructive to both the marine environment and marine life but continues because it is an efficient way to catch bottom-dwelling species such as cod, haddock and shrimp. In common with a number of other practices that I have raised here, bottom trawling continues, despite being wildly destructive to the environment, because it delivers vast profit for a few vested interests. By strictly regulating bottom trawling in areas beyond national jurisdictions—which are, as I said, areas that for the most part have no environmental protection—the bill will have a hugely positive impact on marine life and will strengthen fish stocks in Scottish waters.

The cross-party consensus in support of the legislation is heartening and welcome. However, I take on board the comments by the cabinet secretary and the convener of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee regarding the need for intergovernmental and interparliamentary work. I make clear my support for open and honest communication at all levels in the interests of democracy and accountability, but I urge all members to support the LCM tonight.