Seòmar agus comataidhean

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 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.

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 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 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.

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?

To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to encourage all cyclists to ensure that they are visible, particularly during the winter period, and that they comply with the requirements of the highway code. (S6O-05384)

To put down a marker, I am not demonising all cyclists, only a minority, although probably a growing one. There are far too many incidents of cyclists who do not have particularly effective rear lights—and some who have none at all—and they can be decked out from head to toe in black. On dark and often dreich evenings and mornings, some can hardly be seen until a motorist is almost on top of them and a collision just averted. I hear what the cabinet secretary says, but would she consider working with Police Scotland on a national campaign of “Be Seen, Be Safe” or “Be Safe, Be Seen” or “Be Bright, Be Seen” or “Do whatever you like, but, for goodness sake, be seen”?