Seòmar agus comataidhean

We move on to questions from Paul O’Kane, who joins us online.

As members are content that they have asked all the questions that they wanted to ask, I will ask the witnesses whether there is anything that they want to add before I bring the session to a conclusion.

As no one wants to add anything, I will suspend the meeting briefly to allow for a changeover of witnesses.

We move to questions from Paul O’Kane.

Thank you. Tess White has indicated that she would like to come in.

I associate myself with the remarks of my colleagues Christine Grahame and Emma Roddick. They rightly called out the ways in which successive UK Governments have completely let down our rural communities, and particularly our agricultural sector.

From my time on the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, scrutinising the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Bill, I know how much parliamentary time and energy is spent on mitigating the policies of faraway Governments—policies such as Brexit, which Scotland did not vote for and continues, overwhelmingly, to oppose. However, successive UK Governments, which are out of touch with the needs of Scotland’s rural economies, press on regardless, in the full knowledge of how doing so harms the livelihoods of farmers and crofters and the sustainability of our rural communities. The motion for debate uses the word “disappointed”, but I go further: it is a dereliction of responsibility, and it must be called out.

Scotland’s rural economy is about much more than agriculture. Our fishing communities and tourism and renewable energy sectors each play a significant role in the rural economies of our coastal communities such as those in Banffshire and Buchan Coast, which I represent. Those industries rely, as farming does, on sound governance, predictable funding and policies that reflect the realities of life. However, the UK Government’s budget ignores those basic needs.

It is deeply troubling that, in preparing her budget, the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not engage with the Scottish Government or consult rural stakeholders. Such exclusion not only undermines the principles of our devolution; it disregards Scotland’s distinct needs. If ever the argument of local decision making and Scottish independence needed to be made, we need look no further. For example, the approach to the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Act 2024, which was shaped by extensive consultations with farmers, crofters and other rural stakeholders, ensured that the legislation was fit for purpose and was wholly supported. Consulting those whom policy affects most is not just a courtesy but a necessity.

I contrast that with the UK Government’s budget process, which ignored the voices of those who know best—the people who live and work in Scotland’s rural economy—by Barnettising funding, introducing new family farm taxation that will make succession planning increasingly difficult, and, ultimately, putting our food security in jeopardy.

Scotland’s geography—its large land area given its population—needs a funding model that is designed specifically for its challenges. The UK Government’s decision to break that link will threaten rural livelihoods and undermine efforts to combat depopulation in remote areas. The NFUS was right to call it

“devastating to the vast majority of farms and crofts.”

Like our farmers and crofters, our fishers are caught in the storm of neglect. There was one broken promise after another from the Conservatives and, now, the Labour Government’s continuation of Brexit is dealing them another blow.

Our flagship industry is being denied the support that it needs and, in particular, the human resources that we need to process fish to be ready for market. That decision endangers the future of our coastal economies and the preservation of vital marine resources. I have repeatedly called on the UK Government to devolve powers to the Scottish Parliament so that a rural visa pilot scheme might be introduced to address labour shortages in rural areas. That call has been ignored time and again.

The knock-on effects of Westminster policies that have been made in London extend beyond agriculture and fishing. Reduced certainty in funding stifles rural innovation and discourages investment. The overarching uncertainty that has been caused by year-on-year settlements worsens financial uncertainty for rural Scotland.

That is why decisions that affect Scotland should be made in Scotland, and why we need independence. The UK Government must understand that rural Scotland is not an afterthought but a hub of innovation, resilience and potential. To ignore that is to undermine Scotland’s entire economic ecosystem.

The UK Government must urgently conduct and release comprehensive impact assessments on how exactly the budget affects Scotland’s rural economy. Transparency is non-negotiable. Reinstating the link between funding and land mass is essential to safeguarding equity and sustainability. It is imperative to establish formal mechanisms for intergovernmental consultation on policies that affect devolved areas. Scotland’s rural economy requires solutions that are crafted with local input and expertise.

I urge all members to support the cabinet secretary’s motion. Scotland’s rural economy should not be a policy afterthought. We must demand that rural proofing is at the front and centre of all decision making.

We should be endeavouring to improve the supports that are available to disabled students throughout their time in higher education. What steps is the Scottish Government already taking to ensure that students with additional support needs are encouraged to remain in education without compromising access to critical financial support?

Good morning and welcome to the 24th meeting of 2024, in session 6, of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee. We have received no apologies today.

Our first agenda item is a decision on taking item 3, which is consideration of today’s evidence on the Aarhus convention, in private. Do members agree to take item 3 in private?

Members indicated agreement.

We move to questions from Tess White.

If members are content that they have asked everything that they would like to, and unless the panel members have anything to add, I thank our witnesses very much for their time.

That concludes the session with our first panel. We will suspend briefly for a changeover of witnesses.

You stated in the same response that the UK

“report will detail significant progress towards addressing concerns previously raised by the Compliance Committee.”—[Written Answers, 17 October 2024; S6W-30377]

Can you explain what that “significant progress” will include and what changes will be made?