Seòmar agus comataidhean

That was a valiant attempt at deflecting the question that I raised, but it was not clever enough. I know that you are very pernickety, Mr Ross, and that is a good thing—

Deputy Presiding Officer, “gull management fund”—I have waited years for those three words to cross my lips.

I want to speak about amendment 148. I know that my colleague Douglas Ross is keen on accuracy in the chamber, so I will ask some simple questions. Perhaps he could respond to them during his summing up.

Subsection (1) of the section that amendment 148 would insert would require

“an analysis of the total annual spend”

to be undertaken. What would be the cost of doing that?

Subsection (3) of that section would require

“a fund (to be known as ‘the Gull Management Fund’)”

to be established. That would need to be sufficient for local authorities to mitigate

“the impact of gulls in the local ... area”

and to respond to

“the consequences of gulls in the local ... area”.

How much would that cost?

Subsection (5) would require

“an annual review of the operation and use of the Gull Management Fund”

to be undertaken, and, under subsection (6), there might require to be

“an increase in funding for the Gull Management Fund.”

I know that a fund of £100,000 would not be enough, because the member has already said so. I will be happy to take an intervention on my comments after I make my point. It is important that the financial memorandum that accompanies the bill suits what would be done under it. That is critical, because we are talking about public money. However, I do not know what impact amendment 148 would have on the financial memorandum.

I will take it a step further. It is too late for him now, but had Mr Ross brought this as a member’s bill—it would have been quite a good idea for such a bill—he would have been required to have a financial memorandum to accompany it.

My problem comes when things are being asked for at stage 3 and there are costings involved. I require the member—not on the face of his amendments, but in his submissions to the chamber—to present the costings that will be required to be provided by the Government.

I rise to speak on amendments 24 to 26, in the name of John Mason, who made a persuasive argument regarding the St Kilda sheep in particular. However, I also note Edward Mountain’s comments, which are significant.

John Mason and I would argue that the St Kilda sheep should be considered not as wild but as feral, given that their ancestors were a domestic flock. However, I note that the National Trust for Scotland, which is the responsible body and owns the animals, has noted that there is an issue with their welfare. I also note that the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission is now paying attention to that particular issue. In those circumstances—and there may be other failings in the amendments—it might be premature to import them into this particular bill. I note that John Mason may, subject to what is said in reply, consider them to be probing amendments, but I thank him for bringing the issue to the attention of the chamber, and I hope that we make progress on it.

Calling it Stanley didnae make it any easier for the bird.

Anyway, on amendment 171, I am generally not supportive in principle of embedding mandatory reporting in primary legislation. That could be a matter for committees and MSPs to pursue through parliamentary questions and, in this instance, with NatureScot. However, Rachael Hamilton raises some very important points. I am interested in the distribution and efficacy of funding, too. In the main, the references in respect of funding are to SSRS, or Saving Scotland’s Red Squirrels, but the group in my part of the Borders—not the central Borders—is called the Red Squirrel Forum for South Scotland, which is in much the same position as Rachael Hamilton’s group, in that it is composed mainly of volunteers. The forum comprises 17 groups, but I am not sure whether they operate within the ambit of the SSRS. The questions that my Borders colleague raises are reflected in the questions that have been raised with me.

It might interest members—heaven knows if it will, at this late time of night—that 1,000 red squirrels were spotted last year just in Tweeddale, so they are not just in the Highlands.

I am very interested in the relationship and the funding arrangements between SSRS and the various little organisations of volunteers, and in how that funding is tracked to see how effective it is. I do not think that the Government or legislation has a place in that; I think that it is a matter for NatureScot, which disburses quite a bit of the funding, to audit and track the money and see where it is going. I cannot support amendment 171, but I very much support the sentiments within it.

To ask the First Minister, regarding the proposed expansion of wind turbines, battery storage facilities and pylons across the Scottish Borders, whether the Scottish Government has carried out an assessment of the potential cumulative impact on the wildlife and the landscape, in light of the importance of tourism to the area. (S6F-04609)

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.

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 thank the First Minister for his answer, and I hope that there is progress. To give some context, I understand that there are 30 sites in the Borders operating more than 440 turbines, with three more being built and others being applied for. To add to that, the SP Energy Networks project—the cross-border connection—will require, as I understand it, 400 pylons to take Borders-generated energy to England. That will, without a doubt, impact on the beautiful landscape and on communities. That application, like the other applications—notwithstanding what the First Minister has said—seems to me to be taking segmented parts of the impact in isolation, and not considering the cumulative impact. That cannot be fair when communities are certainly left getting absolutely nothing out of this but an industrialised landscape.

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

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?