Chamber and committees

I am grateful for the cabinet secretary’s support for my amendment 70.

To take her back to amendments 46 and 47, she referred to the policy memorandum as a basis for rejecting those amendments. However, the bill clearly says that one of the topics is

“the condition or extent of any habitat”,

not the condition and extent, as the cabinet secretary said. On that basis, will she reconsider her position on my amendments 46 and 47?

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

I have three amendments in the group. Amendments 46 and 47 seek to separate the target topic of habitat condition and habitat extent into two distinct topics. I am concerned that the bill allows for one or the other to be sufficient to meet a target, rather than requiring both to be so. That would mean that the condition of a habitat could decline while the extent grows or that the extent could shrink while the condition improves, and those situations would still satisfy the target.

I lodged similar amendments at stage 2, which the Government could not support due to the inclusion of the phrase “conservation importance”. The Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy stated:

“I understand why Ms Villalba lodged amendments 19 and 20, but I am concerned that they would have the effect of narrowing the target topic by restricting it to habitats of conservation importance ... The term “conservation importance”, which is used in the amendments, would limit the scope of habitats in that target topic and, in turn, the available set of indicators that could be used to set targets against. On that basis, I ask the committee not to agree to amendments 19 and 20.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, 19 November 2025; c 16.]

I therefore did not move those amendments at stage 2. Instead, I have worked on them to remove the phrasing that was highlighted and I have brought them back at stage 3, where I hope to receive Scottish Government support for them.

Amendment 70 addresses some of the concerns that I expressed at stage 2 about ensuring that, if there is a need for a new independent review body to be appointed to monitor the Scottish Government’s progress on targets, appropriate safeguards are in place. Accordingly, amendment 70 seeks to add some additional qualifications to the power in proposed new section 2G(4) of the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004, so that any new body must be an independent public body or office-holder.

Although I understand that there is no intention at this time for that function to be carried out by anyone other than Environmental Standards Scotland, it is important that we, as a responsible and forward-looking Parliament, future proof the power. The restrictions seek to place appropriate limits on the powers of any future Government by ensuring that the crucial independent review body function may be carried out only by an independent public body.

I put on the record my thanks to Scottish Government officials for working constructively with me on the wording of amendment 70, and my thanks to the legislation team for their support on amendments 46 and 47. I look forward to hearing the cabinet secretary’s response, particularly with regard to amendments 46 and 47, and I urge all members to support all my amendments in the group.

The cabinet secretary said that the amendments are not necessary because their provisions are already covered in the bill. Condition and extent are covered as a target topic, but they are covered together. The bill refers to “condition or extent”, not condition and extent. That suggests that, when targets are set for a habitat, it will be either the condition or the extent that will be assessed. With my amendments, I aim to separate out those two distinct features of a habitat.

I think that it is the cabinet secretary’s intention to have targets for a habitat’s condition and its extent. That would ensure that we would avoid the example that I outlined when I spoke to my amendments, whereby there could be a habitat that improves in condition and declines in extent but still technically meets the target.

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