Seòmar agus comataidhean

NFU Scotland seems to be fairly happy with the financial memorandum, but other organisations, such as the Landworkers Alliance, are unhappy. The Landworkers Alliance stated that the continuation of area-based direct payments constitutes

“an unacceptable use of public funds”.

As I talked about earlier, such payments represent a maintenance of the status quo and, one could argue, vested interests. What discussions is the Scottish Government having with organisations, some of which feel that they were not actively consulted by the Scottish Government, on how we can deliver the best possible outcome in Scotland’s agriculture and rural communities in respect of the Scottish Government’s objectives?

Thank you very much for that opening statement, which was very helpful. Most of my questions will be on the financial memorandum itself, as opposed to the submissions that we have received, although I will touch on those as well. Indeed, some of the submissions have informed the questions that I will be asking.

My first question is on the future support framework. Mr Scott touched on the fact that, as set out in the memorandum, although the bill does not provide details of the four-tier system,

“it is envisioned such a tier system will be utilised in the future and costing”

is

“therefore provided on this basis.”

The memorandum then says that the

“mechanism will provide a level of continuity”.

However, at the same time, you want to have flexibility. One or two of our submissions have said that there is a contradiction in that.

The SPA has said:

“Whilst not a registered social landlord, the SPA has undertaken to align itself, in principle, with the requirements of housing associations and local authorities and has committed to working towards achieving the Energy Efficiency Standard for Social Housing ... and the Scottish Quality Housing Standard ... for its housing stock.”

It seems unfortunate, therefore, that the police have been omitted from the SSI. If the matter is being considered further, when would we expect an SSI to come forward on that basis?

South Lanarkshire submitted a short but interesting contribution. It talks about the flexibility or the lack thereof in the SSI. It says that it is important to

“recognise the need to ensure clarity on what is exempt from the tax”

and suggests that

“it may be beneficial to consider some flexibility in this area, particularly as current grant conditions do not cover all property acquisitions a local authority landlord may require to make”.

It goes on to mention particular groups, such as homeless households and Gypsy Travellers. Where is the flexibility in the SSI for local government to take the necessary decisions on specific groups with regard to LBTT and the additional dwelling supplement?

For clarity, are you saying that, by 2028-29, it will be £7 million a year, or are you saying that it will be £7 million up to and including 2028-29?

I will move on to the Scottish Property Federation, which said:

“Tax legislation will rarely cover each and every eventuality and given the potentially high taxation burden of ADS we continue to feel that a power to enable a relief for exceptional circumstances, to be applied on the discretion of Revenue Scotland, could bring additional fairness to the ADS system.”

The Scottish Property Federation went on to say:

“there is something of a missed opportunity to address these wider concerns which we raise.”

What are your comments on that?

That is a matter of real concern. In paragraph 23—this has been touched on by Mr Scott—you say:

“EU Exit means Scotland no longer has long-term certainty of funding. HM Treasury have provided yearly allocations for the current UK Parliamentary term, however, there is no funding commitment from 2025.”

You also say:

“Agriculture requires future funding certainty”.

Given that there has been no commitment beyond 2025—this parliamentary session—where are we in providing certainty through the financial memorandum and the bill for Scotland’s agricultural sector? There has already been a knock to the funding for the next financial year. What is the likelihood that that will be exacerbated? I know that you have not got a crystal ball, but what are your concerns about that? What are the likely parameters should we not see a commitment beyond 2025?

The next agenda item is to take evidence from the Scottish Government bill team on the financial memorandum to the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Bill. We are joined by Scottish Government officials John Kerr, deputy director of agriculture, rural policy division; Mandy Callaghan, deputy director, agriculture and land transition; Karen Morley, head of finance, agriculture and rural economy directorate; and Ewen Scott, branch head, Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Bill.

I welcome you all to the meeting. We finished our previous item a lot sooner than we had anticipated, so I apologise for rushing you in a wee bit earlier than scheduled. I invite John Kerr to make a brief opening statement.

When will we have that? It feels like groundhog day for the committee. We keep getting financial memorandums and framework bills—I apologise for the generalised moan, and I know that this is the only one that is your responsibility—and we keep having to ask questions about future resources, how things will be funded and what the secondary legislation will look like. When will we reach a position where administrative issues are no longer, to quote your own financial memorandum, “unclear”?

Over what period? Is that £7 million extra revenue for the Scottish Government or less revenue for the Scottish Government?