Official Report 796KB pdf
The final item of business this evening is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-20387, in the name of Liam McArthur, on the future farming investment scheme. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
I invite members who wish to participate to press their request-to-speak buttons, and I invite Liam McArthur to open the debate.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament acknowledges that the Future Farming Investment Scheme sought to provide farmers and crofters with funding to help them buy new machinery, improve efficiency or reduce emissions, and was targeted towards islanders, new entrants, young farmers and tenant farmers; understands that Orkney businesses initially received only 3.48% of total funding, and Shetland 1.88%; notes with concern reports that fewer than one in 10 small farms and crofters across Scotland received funding, with many small farms from the Highlands and Islands to Aberdeenshire, Argyll and Bute and the south of Scotland also missing out; believes that much of the communication around this scheme has caused confusion, and indeed anger, among those in the agricultural sector; expresses deep regret that, while demand for the scheme was high, so few small, island and young farmers were successful, despite seemingly being from priority groups, and notes the calls on the Scottish Government to provide further clarity on how the funding for the scheme was allocated, as well as to publish its review on the Future Farming Investment Scheme, as committed by the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and Islands on 10 December 2025.
17:01
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 would like to question the member on that point. The stated intention was not specifically about young farmers, islanders and new entrants; it was about the specific policy intent that was set out in the briefing. We have achieved that with the limited pot of money that we have put into the discretionary scheme. Does the member not accept that?
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 thank Liam McArthur for bringing this debate on the future farming investment scheme to the chamber. In this context, I will defer to members who have much more in-depth knowledge of the sector than I have, but I note that I have had not one email on the issue from a farm in my constituency, although I expect and hope that I will get some emails after making this speech.
Post-Brexit, other funding mechanisms have had to be established for the agricultural sector. In that context, the FFIS was a capital grant scheme for farmers and crofters that offered up to 100 per cent funding for equipment such as handling systems, feed trailers and so on. It was a competitive scheme that prioritised new entrants, young farmers, and small and tenant farms, with applications generally being made via the rural payments portal.
I will go through some statistics. The scheme opened for applications on 14 July 2025 and closed on 22 August that year. The indicative budget allocation started at £14 million, but it increased to over £21 million because of high demand. I note that 7,852 applications were received and that, after sifting for eligibility and verification, 4,462 met the criteria for assessment. Of those, 1,794 applications were ultimately prioritised and offered a grant. Overall, about 42 per cent of applications did not pass one or more eligibility or verification checks. I looked at the Government’s website, which provided information on applying to the scheme and guidance on how to apply, and I note that the 42 per cent figure does not distinguish between applications that failed on eligibility, those that failed on verification and those that failed on both. Separation of that data would help us to determine whether the guidance needs to be revised.
I note from the answer to a freedom of information request that artificial intelligence was not used to determine eligibility. By the way, I thank Liam McArthur for advising that “AI” has a different connotation in the farming community. I must not get the two things muddled.
Because of the high demand and disappointment, there was quite naturally a sense among those who were rejected—they may be right; I do not know—that allocations may not have been fair. I found the minister’s answer of 4 December to Liam McArthur’s question in that regard most helpful. I will quote it briefly, given the time:
“priority status alone did not guarantee funding; investments also had to demonstrate strong alignment with scheme objectives and deliver measurable outcomes.”
He added:
“Many applicants from priority groups applied for standard items of agricultural equipment, mainly for general livestock management, which, while not deemed ineligible, when assessed against other capital investments did not demonstrate strong delivery against the scheme’s objectives.”—[Written Answers, 4 December 2025; S6W-42129]
There followed a detailed list of items supported and the cost to the fund.
What is missing—perhaps the minister will provide an explanation—is a breakdown by parliamentary region and more detailed data on new entrants, farm types and so on for both successful and unsuccessful applications. I do not think that that would breach data protection even if it was broken down to actual farms. That information may be available, but I have not been able to find it.
Christine Grahame makes a sensible suggestion. If the minister does not commit tonight to providing that information, will she support my amendment to the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill, which seeks to ensure that the information is provided?
I have to be honest: I have not even looked at the amendments to that bill, so I cannot give an answer to that now. However, I will be interested in them.
We all know that, with any grant scheme, demand is likely to be underestimated, but the demand underlines that this is an excellent initiative. I accept that budgets are constrained, that this is only one funding mechanism for our farming community and that the initiative was bound to have teething problems—in my experience, most initiatives generally do. However, I am looking for more clarity, more data breakdown and another look at the guidance, which seems to have taken a lot of people out of applying.
Another thing that is required is an assessment of the benefits to the farm or croft—I know that there will be an audit—to confirm whether the criteria need tweaked. It is public money, and we need to see whether it is being well spent on the very worthwhile objective of supporting the small farms and crofts, and particularly new entrants, that are so essential to Scotland’s domestic and export needs.
17:14
I congratulate Liam McArthur on securing the debate and on the work that he has done on the issue since concerns arose about the FFIS. I agreed with almost everything that he said, bar one point. He said that we normally hear from those who have been unsuccessful. That is, indeed, normally the case but, ironically, I have heard from a number of people who could not believe that they had been successful. They were quite shocked by that because they had read about the problems and because others had commented that they had not been successful.
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.
That is entirely fair. I have certainly heard from a lot of people who have lost out, but others have been surprised by their success.
We are supportive of the scheme. I want to see money going to our farmers, crofters, tenant farmers, young farmers and new entrants, but something has gone wrong here, given that 42 per cent applications were ineligible. When a scheme attracts 7,582 applications and almost half of them are thrown out before they are even considered because they are deemed ineligible, something has gone wrong. That is why, during general question time a couple of months ago, I asked the minister whether he raised concerns when his officials told him, “We have had this number of applications, with this many having been successful and this many having been unsuccessful—and, by the way, we could not even consider half of them because they were ineligible.” That should raise serious concerns that should be at the very top of the minister’s list when he looks into the issue, because there is something that must be corrected for future schemes if so many people were ineligible.
I think that the member heard me say that perhaps we have to look at the guidance—although it is not the only thing—because part of the issue might be that it was not robust and did not have the clarity that was required. We should not have that amount of failure. We might predict other reasons for the situation, but the guidance should certainly be looked at.
I agree with that. However, the minister gave us the reasons why applications were ineligible, and when I sent those reasons to constituents, they were very confused by them. For example, the wrong numbers—numbers that were automatically input into the system—should not have caused applications to be deemed ineligible.
Although I do not have a lot of time, I want to stress to the minister and to anyone who is watching the debate remotely or who is looking back at the Official Report that Liam McArthur is right to say that we are looking at this after the horse has bolted the stable. However, we still have an opportunity, on Tuesday 27 January. I lodged an amendment to the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill at stage 2 to get the very information that Christine Grahame is looking for. We need a breakdown so that people can see where they went wrong—whether it was their fault that they did not meet the criteria, whether they were ineligible and so on. They also need to get feedback. My amendment was voted down by Scottish National Party and Green members on the committee. I will bring the issue back at stage 3 so that the whole chamber can consider it, but I believe that it was voted down partly because, at the time and as Liam McArthur’s motion says, we were promised a review by the cabinet secretary. That review is certainly not answering the questions that I and my constituents have, so I will proceed with my amendment on Tuesday 27 January to compel the Government to provide that information, because people are looking for it.
People are concerned about the amounts of money that were spent on the scheme. Many of them had hoped to secure funding, and although they accept that not everyone can be successful, they are struggling to accept the reasons behind their application not being successful when they can see that so many people missed out on the opportunities presented by a scheme that was supposed to help them. I hope that the minister will consider urging SNP members to support my amendment next week.
Finally, we have to look at the number of people involved in judging the applications. We were told, categorically, that no artificial intelligence was used to look at the applications, but the Scottish Conservatives know from the response to a freedom of information request that only six core staff looked at the applications, aided by perhaps another six support staff. They looked at them over the course of a month, which works out at about 10 minutes per application. I am not sure that we can guarantee that only humans looked at the applications if only 10 minutes were spent on each one.
A lot of questions remain. I hope that we get some answers from the minister in summing up. As I said, I will come back to the issue again on Tuesday.
I call Mercedes Villalba, who joins us remotely.
17:19
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.
On Mercedes Villalba’s point about big landholders, does she not recognise that big landholders in arable places have every bit as much to add to our biodiversity targets and the other targets that are part of the scheme, if not more, given the scale that they work on? That is vital to ensuring that Scotland is a leader in sustainable and regenerative agriculture.
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
I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests as a partner in a farming business and an applicant to the future farming investment scheme.
I congratulate Liam McArthur on bringing the debate to the chamber and on providing members with another opportunity to raise concerns about what is a major issue for many farmers and crofters in communities in the Highlands and Islands. The future farming investment scheme promised much to those communities but, unfortunately, as we have already heard today and as has been raised here many times by me and by colleagues such as Douglas Ross, Tim Eagle and others across the chamber, its development and implementation were flawed.
Those flaws, which I am sure that Scottish ministers would prefer to call “challenges” or perhaps “teething problems”, were baked in from the very start because, as is far too often the case, the Scottish Government failed to consult properly or to listen to the concerns of those who know best: our farmers and crofters.
Since the rejection emails started hitting inboxes, including that of our business in Orkney, which I mentioned, the Conservatives have tried to get the answers that individual businesses and our wider agricultural sector have sought, the simplest of which is on what basis applications were rejected. We need to know that because we need to know how to apply better when the next scheme comes around.
Those of us in the farming community know that farming throws up many variables. We recognise that harvests fail, livestock die or are injured, and fuel and other costs go up. Some of the challenges that we face, including the family farm tax and increases in employer national insurance contributions, to name just two, are beyond the control of this Parliament, but Scottish ministers have a great deal of power to change things for the better and, in this case, the Scottish Government fell short.
As I mentioned previously, my Conservative colleagues and I have tried to get the answer that the sector wants. As Douglas Ross said, both he and I have tried to bring transparency to the FFIS through legislative amendments, but the SNP and others have combined to vote those down. We are bringing back those amendments, along with others on the subject, at stage 3 of the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill next week, and I urge members of all parties, and certainly those who want to stand up for our farmers and crofters, to support those amendments.
Only yesterday, during rural questions, I asked the minister—or tried to ask the minister—to what extent the process had been automated. I did not get a clear answer, so I will ask him again now and I am happy to take an intervention if he is happy to make one. Although the minister stated that artificial intelligence had not been used in the verification and eligibility process, we know that an Excel-based program was used. I want to know whether applications could be deemed ineligible, and therefore unable to progress to the formal assessment stage, despite having had no human assessment whatsoever. I would be happy to take an intervention from the minister.
You had your answer yesterday.
I did not have an answer yesterday, which is why I have asked again today.
I am disappointed that the minister will not answer that question, because it is one of the concerns of farmers and crofters, not only because their applications may have been rejected solely by a computer program in that instance, but because the same thing might happen again in the future. We want clarification of that.
I do not doubt that the FFIS was conceived with good intentions, and we know that a great many farm businesses expressed an interest, but the volume of rejections and the lack of any transparency about why applications were rejected has left a legacy of resentment, anger and frustration in our rural communities. The cabinet secretary has said that the FFIS is
“a powerful example of what can be achieved when we come together”,
but I am not sure that the sector feels at all as if we are working together with the Scottish Government. For many farmers and crofters, the scheme is yet another example of what happens when ministers and their officials at St Andrew’s house or Victoria Quay in Edinburgh rush out policies that they have not properly consulted on. It has become just another example of a policy created here in Edinburgh that fails to meet the needs of the rural and island communities that I represent.
Although I know that ministers will keep defending the scheme and their management of it, I hope that, at least behind the scenes, they will be humble enough to accept that some serious lessons must be learned from its failure to deliver what it promised for our farmers and crofters.
I call the minister, Jim Fairlie, to respond to the debate.
17:28
A number of points have been made during the debate so I will say a couple of things before I actually get into my main notes.
We give farmers the opportunity to select their own items. A farmer in Orkney entered seven items in a single-item claim, when, if that farmer had read the guidance, they would have understood that those should have been seven different claims. That therefore led to a rejection.
Data for the agriculture scheme is not collected on a Scottish Parliament constituency basis, but we might be able to do something on that if it is going to give satisfaction to people and help them to understand what we were doing.
We are taking lessons from the scheme that we put forward, but I say this: in delivering the scheme, the Scottish Government delivered a really good thing; the future farming investment scheme is a good thing. We worked with the industry and stakeholders, which resulted in an investment of more than £21 million, supporting 1,750 farmers and crofters across Scotland to improve efficiency, productivity and the environmental performance of their businesses. That investment is expected to stimulate more than £30 million-worth of economic activity across rural Scotland, benefiting local chains and local rural businesses.
Let us get some perspective. The funding was an additional investment, sitting on top of the most generous non-competitive direct support package for farmers and crofters anywhere in the United Kingdom. I am proud of this Government’s record of supporting and investing in our crofting and farming communities. We have the basic payment scheme, the voluntary coupled support scheme, the less favoured area support scheme, the crofting agricultural grant scheme—the list goes on, and that is all in stark contrast to the car-crash policies that were introduced by the previous UK Government and that have been continued by the current Administration. Direct payments in England are being phased out, falling to a meagre £600 in 2026-27. Put simply, things are absolutely better in Scotland.
The future farming investment scheme was a discretionary and highly competitive grant scheme. No farmer or crofter was automatically entitled to a grant. Although we identified priority groups, that was not a guarantee of funding, as I have said before. Applications still had to be eligible and planned investments had to deliver against the scheme’s objectives. Capital investments were assessed on their ability to deliver the scheme’s objectives, which were to improve business efficiency and sustainability; to protect, restore or enhance the environment; to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate the effects of climate change; and to deliver wider public good. Investments that performed strongly across those criteria scored higher than the ones concerning more general items of farm equipment.
It is not in dispute that the scheme is a good idea, but one has to appreciate that there have been difficulties in relation to the ability of applicants to understand where they went wrong and where they went right. It seems that the minister is looking at gathering some regional data, which is good. It was also useful to hear him give an example of why an application failed—a single application was made for seven items when they should have been broken down into individual ones.
I know that, in his answer of 4 December, the minister gave some examples to Liam McArthur of why some applications failed, but why not publish them, so that the next set of applicants—if there is another scheme—will see the things that do not apply and why those applications failed?
Christine Grahame raises some fair points, but I will touch on a lot of them as I go through the rest of my speaking notes.
Standard farm equipment might be valuable to an individual business but, in a highly competitive scheme, it does not score nearly as highly against the scheme’s objectives as other planned investments do.
It is also important to correct the claim that fewer than one in 10 small farms or crofts were supported. That figure is incorrect, and it arises from confusing the total applications with eligible applications. In reality, around 30 per cent of eligible farm and croft applications were supported.
It is important to be honest about the application quality. Across the scheme, a significant number of verification issues were identified where responses could not be confirmed against rural payments and inspection division records, or the investments were not described clearly enough to be able to support a decision to make a grant.
The minister is putting forward a robust defence, which is what I would expect him to do in those circumstances. However, the failure rate that Douglas Ross spoke about must give us pause for thought regarding whether the funding that was available was as well targeted as it might have been. The risk in the robustness of the response that the minister has given is that it does not necessarily give the impression that the Government is reflecting on what went wrong with the scheme, and that does not give the farming community confidence that those lessons will be learned and applied in future schemes.
I dispute the point that Liam McArthur has just put to me. Earlier, right at the top of my speech, I said that we are taking all the lessons from the scheme and that we are learning from them. In anything that we do in the future, those lessons will be very much at the forefront of our minds.
During stage 2 of the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill, the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands said that a review was being undertaken and that information would be published before the Christmas recess. Has it been published? Is that the update that happens to be on the FFIS website, or are we still waiting for it?
Jamie Halcro Johnston has clearly read my notes, because that is literally in the next paragraph. We published a detailed assessment document before Christmas, and it sets out clearly how applications were verified, scored and ranked.
That material is publicly available and provides important context for understanding the outcomes of a highly competitive scheme. Ahead of its publication, I had a very candid discussion with NFU Scotland to highlight the issues that were identified across applications, including cases in which previous capital support had not been declared. There were a number of examples where people did not put the correct information on their applications for the scheme, which is why they were declared ineligible.
It is also important to clear up the misconception that there were regional disadvantages. The assessment and scoring criteria were applied consistently across Scotland.
[Made a request to intervene.]
Yes, I will take Douglas Ross’s intervention.
I am grateful to the minister for taking so many interventions.
At the committee, I was certainly left under the impression that the cabinet secretary felt that applicants who had not been successful should wait for the review and see where they went wrong. Can the minister confirm or deny that any applicant will be able to look at the review and know why their individual application was not successful?
During the debate, he has been contesting some of the figures. Does he confirm that one figure that he is not contesting is the 40 per cent of applications that were ineligible? That figure is extremely high. Is that standard with schemes in his department, or is it an outlier that should have raised alarm bells in the rural affairs sector?
As I have just stated, we published the detailed assessment of the documents before Christmas, and folk who had successful or unsuccessful applications can go to that assessment and measure their own applications against it. I cannot say for certain what the number of failed applications was, but I know that there were a lot of failed applications because people did not put in the correct information, for a number of different reasons—and that goes across all the sectors.
[Made a request to intervene.]
Jamie Halcro Johnston wants to make another intervention. Will I get the time back?
Yes.
I will be quick and, like other members, I am grateful to the minister.
Will the minister confirm that every one of the applications that were rejected will have had some sort of human oversight?
You are asking me a question about the technical details of each individual application. I cannot give you an answer to that tonight, because I do not know who was sitting behind the desk looking at them.
It is important to clear up the misconception about the regional disadvantages. What made the difference was not location, but the type of investment proposed and how strongly it would deliver against the scheme’s core objectives. In Orkney, for example, around 30 per cent of eligible applications were supported, compared with a national average of around 40 per cent. The same approach applied in Shetland, and all applications were assessed on exactly the same basis, using the same scoring criteria. The outcomes reflected the strength of the planned investment rather than the geographical location.
It is also worth putting comparisons in context, because Orkney farmers and crofters account for around 4 per cent of the 2025 single application form—SAF—applications. Comparing the number of awards in Orkney directly with Scotland as a whole, without reference to application volumes or eligibility, risks drawing misleading conclusions. Taken to its logical conclusion, that approach would suggest that the underlying distribution of farming business in itself is unfair, and it is plainly not.
I genuinely recognise the disappointment felt by those who were not successful, and we are listening carefully to the concerns that have been raised. We will work with the sector to ensure that, if future funds are delivered, they are more targeted and that limited funding is directed where it delivers the greatest impact.
I recall one particular conversation with a young farmer who quietly pointed out to me that, despite not personally having been successful, the scheme and the investment had been a positive development.
There is also a need for industry leadership. When it comes to competitive grant schemes such as the FFIS, to put it simply, the fact that people can apply for support does not necessarily mean that they should. That is something that members across the chamber should reflect on.
The scheme delivered significant investment in rural Scotland. It was delivered at pace, with a streamlined application process in response to the long-standing calls for us to reduce administrative burden, and the lessons learned will directly inform what comes next. This Government is committed to supporting and investing in our hard-working farmers and crofters, and that is what we will continue to do in the future.
That concludes the debate.
Meeting closed at 17:39.
Air ais
Decision Time