Chamber and committees

Jim Fairlie will remember all the to-and-fro in the chamber with the finance secretary, who promised to return that £46 million. The SNP Government’s own finance secretary has acknowledged that that money has been removed, and so has the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands, Mairi Gougeon. Jim Fairlie is confusing his recollection with his Cabinet’s account.

I welcome the First Minister’s acknowledgement that we need to build more homes. However, with only 10 per cent of new affordable homes being built in rural areas, which account for 17 per cent of the population, it is clear that the Government’s actions to date have failed to address that urgent issue, exacerbating depopulation and driving young people out of their own areas.

The housing budget needs to sort out depopulation across Scotland but it is not doing so, because it is driving young people out of Scotland—moreover, so is the taxation policy.

Significant inequalities in mental health care for adults and young people continue to hit rural communities. Young people in the Borders are being let down today by the Government, as they were let down yesterday, last month and last year, as only 40 per cent of those referred to child and adolescent mental health services are starting treatment within the 18-week target. I am contacted daily by constituents who struggle to access mental health support. It is simply unacceptable that my and our constituents and residents across Scotland must wait until 2025 for the Government to fix its own problems.

I will conclude. I could say so much more, but let me just say that there was fantastic potential for rural communities and for the Government to deliver for them, but it has let them down.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

I seek your advice on Christine Grahame’s intervention earlier in the debate. She suggested that the Conservative-led Scottish Borders Council was responsible for an affordable housing supply underspend. That was incorrect. The council does not manage housing stock. That is managed by registered social landlords. The £8 million underspend reflected a number of development challenges that those RSLs had faced.

After previous uncertainty, the cabinet secretary confirmed in an answer to me in November 2023 that the Scottish Government was committed to providing the shortfall funding of £6.6 million to Creative Scotland for 2024-25. In my response, I described that as a U-turn on a U-turn on a U-turn, and it appears that we have another U-turn.

Cabinet secretary, I make a plea to you to be fair, transparent and open with Scotland’s culture and creative sector. At the moment, it is a hokey cokey.

Can the cabinet secretary outline what the Scottish Government’s statement means for the future of the Sandyford clinic? Will it be closed? Will it be relocated? Can she share a timeline for those changes?

Will she also confirm whether GPs were consulted on the NHS Education for Scotland transgender care knowledge skills framework?

There looks to be a move for the Government to continue to speak with the Association of Scotland’s Self-Caterers and those in the short-term let sector, in particular on reviewing the short-term let licensing scheme. Can the Government commit to that, following this discussion?

The SSI relates to the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 (Licensing of Short-term Lets) (Amendment) Order 2024. Scotland’s tourism sector is an incredibly important part of our economy, both locally and nationally. I draw members’ attention to my entry in the register of interests, which states that I am a director of a small hotel in the Borders. Tourism is also incredibly important to our rural, coastal and island communities.

Accommodation providers have been calling for the Scottish Government to reconsider the way in which it has approached its short-term lets licensing scheme since it was introduced, and we are glad that some of those calls have been heard. The amendments, which relate primarily to technical details, are welcome and show a willingness to listen to those who understand the sector best. Temporary licence exemptions and provisional licence grants for new STLs will help to relieve some of the burden on struggling businesses and allow the quality of Scotland’s accommodation to grow. Additionally, addressing the loophole to permit licences to be transferred to a new host will allow there to be less disruption for those who are visiting remote, rural and island communities where there may be fewer alternative places to stay. However, although the principle behind the amendments remains sound, they still do not go far enough, nor do they fully listen to the concerns of accommodation providers across Scotland.

Stakeholders such as Scottish Land & Estates have highlighted the lack of detail in the amendments, stating that although the increased engagement with the accommodation sector is welcome, a clarity shortfall is evident, which could lead to unintended consequences from the instrument, burdening even more businesses in the short-term let industry. The Association of Scotland’s Self-Caterers has said that the

“onerous dual licensing and planning requirements”

that go along with STL licensing are

“By far the biggest obstacle”

to its successful implementation, and the amendments do not address that.

The intention of the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019 is that existing businesses should be protected but not impacted by retrospective planning considerations. I know that the ASSC is in conversation with the Minister for Business and the Minister for Public Finance, who has responsibility for planning, on the order. It will amend the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 (Licensing of Short-term Lets) Order 2022 and require STL guidance to be amended, as per Burness Paull opinion. More critically, it will require a new use-class order to be created for short-term lets. Existing operators would automatically be moved to that UCO. It should be a mixed UCO—residential and STL—to enable properties to revert to residential without the requirement for planning permission.

Furthermore, groups such as the Scottish Bed and Breakfast Association have, similarly, stated that 77 per cent of their membership have

“reported ... negative or extremely negative”

impacts on their business since STL licensing came into force.

The Short Term Accommodation Association has called for “a comprehensive review” of the short-term let licensing scheme to fully understand its impact on our vital short-term let sector, and Scottish Conservatives agree that that should happen.

I am running out of time, so I will stop there, but there is so much more to say. I hope that members will agree with the points that I have made. Although Scottish Conservatives agree on the points that have been addressed with the technical amendments, we will not be supporting the motion tonight—we will abstain, and I hope that other members will do so, too.

I thank Ariane Burgess for taking an intervention. Before we decide how we will vote on amendment 18, I want to be clear specifically what outcome would be achieved by adding the words “and between-farm”.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. Before I speak to my amendment, I wish to take this opportunity to thank the members of the bill team for their support throughout the passage of the bill. They have been incredibly thorough and efficient and I really appreciate their time. I say that on my behalf and on behalf of my colleagues on the Scottish Conservative benches.

Farmers and food producers deserve clarity about funding to allow them to plan for the future. Farm plans often work in multiyear cycles. Amendment 28 requires that support is provided through a multiyear financial framework and, where appropriate, ring-fenced funding. The amendment provides certainty and reassurance to farmers who want to plan and invest for their future. A commitment to multiyear funding has been consistently called for by farmers and producers, members across the chamber and key stakeholders.

The National Farmers Union Scotland notes that

“without the inclusion of this amendment, there is a risk that agricultural businesses will be restricted to annual commitments which could result in a diminishing or reduced ability to deliver high-quality agricultural produce as well as helping to tackle climate change and enhance biodiversity which are expected of them.”

Providing for a multiyear financial framework would represent a long-term commitment to Scottish farmers and food producers.

Amendment 27 is a redrafted amendment from stage 2, following discussions with the Scottish Crofting Federation. This amendment enshrines in the bill the provision that any future peatland restoration or agroforestry support schemes must be accessible to tenant farmers and crofters. That would help to remove barriers that tenant farmers and crofters often face when applying for support schemes. I look forward to hearing Ariane Burgess’s explanation for amendment 29 before I consider how to vote on it. As for a spoiler, I do support engagement with stakeholders.

I move amendment 28.

I completely understand that we need to ensure that we have United Kingdom provenance in our forestry supply chain.

However, the wording of amendment 29 does not take away from the fact that it is clear from communities and people who live in the relevant areas that jobs are not going to them. If we could steer some of those employment opportunities in our wonderful forestry industry and supply chain towards them, that would be another thing—but I am going off topic. That is not to say that I do not support forestry—I was at a recent industry event in the chamber, which was sponsored by Fergus Ewing. I just do not want to see a monoculture landscape.

On my amendment 28 regarding multiyear funding, I ask the cabinet secretary whether it would be okay if I were to ask the Scottish Government for a spending commitment before its budget announcement. The UK Parliament provided year-on-year funding across a session of Parliament, with a Bew uplift to support Scottish agriculture. It said that that was what was going to do and that it would not announce something before a spending review.

However, the Scottish Government using that ring-fenced funding for something else takes away from it. The Scottish Government deferred the funding and £46 million has disappeared from the rural affairs budget, which supports agriculture. The Scottish Government expects farmers to do the heavy lifting in its aspirations to meet net zero targets.