Chamber and committees

We now move to winding-up speeches.

16:27

I know that we are in unusual territory, having a members’ business debate on a Thursday evening. Normally, it is a time when only us islanders are still kicking around, marooned in Edinburgh as a result of the last flight home having long since departed, so I am all the more grateful to the hardy colleagues from all parts of mainland Scotland for sticking around at the end of another very busy week to take part in the debate. I am also grateful to all those who signed my motion to allow the debate to take place.

In some senses, the horse has bolted when it comes to the future farming investment scheme. Towards the end of last year, like colleagues from parties across the chamber, I had and took various opportunities to raise serious and entirely legitimate concerns about the way in which the FFIS process has been developed, executed and communicated. Even so, despite all the oral and written questions, freedom of information responses and meetings and correspondence with the minister, there is still a need for Parliament to be able to debate what went wrong and how it can be avoided in future.

Given what we know—and it is fair to say that we still do not know everything—there is no doubt that the scheme was rushed in its development and poorly communicated and that it resulted in widespread anger and confusion among farmers and crofters across Scotland. It is true to say that the demand was always likely to exceed the available funding. Scottish Land & Estates estimates that only around 30 per cent of eligible businesses were likely to be successful. It is also true to say that, in such circumstances, we are always more likely to hear from those who have missed out than from those who have secured funding.

Even so, measured against the stated intentions that ministers set for the scheme, it is hard—indeed, I would say impossible—to sustain the argument that the FFIS did what it said on the tin and will make a meaningful difference in achieving its intended objectives.

I am not sure that I do accept that. To some extent, time will tell, given the nature of the scheme’s objectives, but there is clear evidence, not only from those who did not make successful applications but from those who did, that it is difficult to see how the objectives will be met.

The minister might argue that the funding is now circulating in the sector—again, that is certainly true. However, at a time when finances are tight and the challenges that the farming sector is facing feel particularly acute, misdirected or poorly targeted support is something that farmers and crofters, and the country as a whole, can ill afford.

I am sure that we will hear shortly about examples from other parts of the country, but in an Orkney context, the experience of the FFIS reflects a wider failure of Government policy to fully recognise the needs and circumstances of those who are farming in island communities. That was not the initial reaction to the scheme, which appeared to prioritise island farm businesses, along with young farmers and the tenanted sector—all of whom, I would suggest, face specific challenges.

The objective of improving sustainability and environmental efficiency is one that farmers in my constituency support and are already pursuing, and they are willing to go further in doing so. The high level of demand for the scheme demonstrates the appetite, not just in Orkney but across the country, for making greater and faster progress in that transition. The general feeling, while perhaps not a universal view, was that the FFIS could make an important difference.

However, when the award announcements were made at the end of last year, the disappointment was only exceeded by the astonishment and confusion that was felt by those who had believed—with good reason—that they met most, if not all, of the key criteria.

I know that I was not alone in seeing my inbox fill up, over a short space of time, with messages from constituents who were bemused at having had their applications rejected with no explanation as to why. The failure in communication simply intensified the level of anger that was felt. Orkney-based businesses received less than 3.5 per cent of the overall funding allocated; in Shetland, the figure was less than 2 per cent.

By way of example, I was contacted by a farm business in one of the smaller north isles in Orkney, which had worked with Orkney College to prepare an application for livestock management equipment to improve the efficiency and sustainability of the farm, which is already signed up to two agri-environmental schemes. In other words, the business was entirely aligned with the stated objective of improving climate efficiency—yet the application was flatly rejected. My constituent said:

“The results of the scheme belie its claim that it was targeting small islands. In the end, the whole application process turned out to be a waste of time for a small farm facing a lot of other challenges.”

That sums up the problem with the scheme. It was devised in haste for political reasons to allow announcements to be made at the Royal Highland Show; it raised expectations and wasted the time and resources of farm businesses; and it will not actually achieve its stated aims. The minister must surely now acknowledge that fact, and the Government needs to learn lessons.

I suggest that a chance to demonstrate that lessons have been learned is to be found in future greening proposals. As the minister will know, and as I heard again last week from my constituents Douglas Paterson and William Harvey, ramping up ecological focus areas obligations from 5 per cent of land managed to 7 per cent will have serious consequences in an Orkney setting. The report by Scotland’s Rural College on greening in Orkney, “Changes to ‘Greening’ Support in an Orkney Islands Context: Ecological Focus Area extension”, which was published last year, confirmed that 35 per cent of Orkney farms are in receipt of funding for agri-environment schemes: the highest proportion, by some margin, anywhere in the country. The same report emphasised the clear policy overlap between those and the EFA objectives and recommended better co-ordination between the two to avoid duplication.

Farmers are clear that the new greening options do not reflect what works for island farms—a concern that is supported by SRUC. Many of the measures are simply not compatible with Orkney’s grassland systems, and increased vulnerability to weather heightens the risks, and the costs and waste, that are involved for small businesses. Spending money on measures that will not work may give the illusion of progress, but it will do nothing for the environment while threatening the viability of farm businesses and prompting a reduction in the Orkney herd.

SRUC’s 2024 report, “Rural and Agricultural Development—Maximising the Potential in the Islands of Orkney, Shetland and Outer Hebrides” confirmed that it represents a larger share of economic activity than in mainland communities. At the same time, there are critical constraints, from higher haulage costs to a shrinking workforce. A thriving agricultural sector is critical for our island economies, but it also plays a profound cultural and social role.

That means that agricultural funding and support, whether through competitive schemes such as the FFIS or statutory requirements such as EFAs, must take account of the direct consequences for, and the circumstances of, island farming, and recognise its unique importance to those communities. That was the reassurance that I got from the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands when I raised the issue with her in the chamber back in June 2024. It is the commitment that I am seeking from the minister today, and I look forward to hearing his comments as well as the contributions from other colleagues in the chamber.

17:09

I detect a frisson of excitement in the chamber.

16:13

The first item of business this afternoon is portfolio question time, and the portfolio is social justice and housing.

I can give you the time back for the intervention, minister.

The point that Douglas Ross makes is entirely valid. For the purpose of correcting the Official Report, I have also heard from people who fall into a similar category. However, it is still true to say that normally one hears from those who have lost out, rather than those who have gained.

Please resume your seat, cabinet secretary.

Mr Kerr, I have allowed a little latitude in the exchanges that have been going on between you and members on the front bench, but could you please desist?

Question 4 is in the name of Tim Eagle. Tim Eagle is not online, which is more than disappointing. We would expect an apology and an explanation for that.

That concludes portfolio question time. There will be a brief pause before we move on to the next item of business to allow front-bench teams to change over.