Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you for that.

In paragraph 95 of our report, we raised concerns about the affordability and sustainability of the social security budget, which is growing inexorably. I am not making any comment as to whether that is a good thing or a bad thing; I am just looking at the finances. One thing leapt out at me in your response. You said that

“the Scottish Government will ensure that there is budget cover within the overall Scottish Budget envelope”

to cover social security. Is the Government saying that the social security budget is sacrosanct in that, regardless of how demand grows—or reduces—the Scottish Government will meet it?

Flexibility is, therefore, important. One of the things that the local authorities in my constituency raise with me directly is inflexibility in teacher numbers. We know some of the politics behind that, but North Ayrshire Council has 1,000 fewer pupils than it had four years ago and now has a ratio of one teacher to 12 children. It says that it is madness to spend additional money on new teachers when it already has more than enough teachers. It would rather spend the money on educational psychologists, support staff and so on, which it cannot afford to do because it is forced to spend the money on teachers.

That issue is also affecting other local authorities across Scotland. The money may be ring fenced for education, but local authorities should surely have the flexibility to decide the appropriate way to spend it locally.

RSPB Scotland has around 80,000 hectares of land, much of which has agriculture activities on it. It has said that, historically, the CAP performed poorly

“in terms of directing spend appropriately and offering best value for public money”.

It has said that, if we take the bill forward, we should look at cost benefits, that there have not been any alternative approaches, and that it has

“seen nothing from Scottish Government that suggests such cost-benefit analysis of a range of reform options has ever been undertaken.”

As I have mentioned a couple of times, it looks like a steady-as-she-goes financial memorandum, rather than an opportunity to make significant changes and to look at where we get the best value for money. What work is being undertaken to ensure that we get the best bang for our agricultural buck, given the commitments that we need to fulfil in the years ahead, not least with regard to the climate?

I appreciate that, but this seems to be a case of “steady as she goes”. Is there no thought about how those administration costs could be reduced so that more money could be invested directly in agriculture itself or in innovation for climate change reduction? It seems to me that there is an excellent opportunity to make changes to reduce bureaucracy and to improve efficiency and delivery. I am a bit disappointed that we are just keeping the money the same and that there seems to be no ambition to reduce that by even 5, 10, 15 or 20 per cent. The overall budget for the next financial year has a 4.5 per cent reduction, but there seems to be no consideration here of a reduction in admin costs.

If so much is unclear and is still being worked on, how did you come to the figure of £61 million?

That concludes questions from the other committee members. I have a couple of questions to wind up.

First, on subsidies, paragraph 68 of the financial memorandum says that

“those who deliver sustainable regenerative farming will benefit the most. In future, support will be focused on food production, actions that support nature restoration and reduce greenhouse gas emissions in a way that is economically and socially just”

and by

“maintaining base payments with conditions that all farmers, crofters and land managers should be able to meet if they choose”.

In relation to everything that I read out in the first sentence, the words “if they choose” almost mean that it is a case of, if they do not want to do it, they do not have to. What incentive will there be to ensure that farmers deliver on what the Scottish Government is seeking in relation to improved food production, better climate action and so on?

Okay.

My final question is with regard to an issue that no one has brought up before, which is the national test programme. The financial memorandum states that the programme

“will support and encourage farmers and crofters to learn about how their work impacts on climate and nature, including offering financial support to carry out carbon audits, soil testing and nutrient management planning, establishing a clear baseline and options for action for all who participate.”

At this point, I declare a constituency interest. Given that 19 per cent of greenhouse gases from Scotland are agricultural, is the Scottish Government looking at introducing the food additive Bovaer in relation to greenhouse gas reduction? The additive is being developed by DSM in Dalry, which is in my constituency.

DSM was opened by the previous First Minister on St Andrew’s day 2022, with £100 million private investment and £12 million from the Scottish Government. The additive will reduce methane outputs from sheep and cattle by 20 to 30 per cent. However, I see nothing in here about farmers being incentivised to use such an additive, which is already being used in many areas. Indeed, the Dalry factory can provide the product worldwide. It is a huge success. DSM chose Dalry over 35 other locations worldwide for its production—I am delighted that it is in my constituency.

We are targeting methane reduction, but I do not see anything about such a product, which would be less than 3 per cent—just over 2 per cent—of the agricultural bill, but could deliver phenomenally in terms of greenhouse gas reductions through agriculture. Will there be encouragement and financial support for farmers to use it?

I thank Mr Kerr and his team for their evidence, which has been very helpful.

We will consider in private the evidence received and any steps that we may wish to take next in relation to the scrutiny of the financial memorandum.

It is less than 9 per cent.

So it is not right. It is a bit off to have a financial memorandum with such an obvious error, I would have thought.