Seòmar agus comataidhean

As one of the few people who has filled out one of the applications, if I was to fill it out again, I would still be doing it blind, essentially. I would not know the criteria for what I was doing. Advice to go to the RPID office is one thing, but it would not provide the information that we need about why our application was rejected. That is why it is so important that those who apply and are not successful get the information that they need so that any future applications can be made properly the next time around. At the moment, we are having to apply to these schemes blind, and that is why it is important that amendments 336 and 337 are supported.

Will you take an intervention?

I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests: I am a partner in a farming business. For full transparency, I point out that I am a partner in a business that made an unsuccessful application to the future farming investment scheme—which is fine—and I am a member of NFU Scotland, Scottish Land & Estates and the Royal Highland and Agricultural Society of Scotland.

Amendment 337 would place a duty on ministers to report to the Parliament on the operation of environmental farming schemes, including the future farming investment scheme and any similar farming scheme with an environmental focus that the Scottish Government considers to be relevant. The amendment aims to ensure transparency and fairness in the operation of programmes that Douglas Ross and others have spoken about and that play an important part in the Scottish Government’s work on improving the natural environment. More specifically, it would bring to an end the situation that arose earlier this year when ministers failed to provide the answers that the Parliament and the agriculture sector needed on the operation of the future farming investment scheme and how applications were decided.

The scheme followed a consultation with stakeholders that even the cabinet secretary appears to have had concerns about and a rushed launch that we now know was more about ensuring that ministers had something to announce at the Royal Highland Show. It left the sector confused and uncertain about the criteria for applications, which led to 3,500 applications being deemed ineligible from the outset.

Under amendment 337, ministers would have to report on the basis of awards to relevant schemes, the criteria for such awards and the performance of applicants against those criteria. They would have to provide basic figures on applications and some level of data on the characteristics of applicants.

Douglas Ross’s amendment 336 is similar but includes two additional requirements: that relevant stakeholders must be consulted and that, following publication of the report, information must be provided to unsuccessful applicants, including an explanation of why their application was rejected or found to be ineligible. I am sure that many of us who represent agricultural communities will have seen from their inboxes the anger and frustration of farmers and crofters who spent so much time putting in applications only to be told in an email that they had been unsuccessful. They did not know whether they were eligible or why they failed. Given that people in priority groups also failed to make successful applications while others did not, it is vitally important that clarity is provided.

Both amendments would address the fundamental problem with transparency in the future farming investment scheme that was exposed earlier this year. We all want the Parliament to be able to exercise its role in scrutinising the operation of the scheme and the work of the Government, but amendments 336 and 337 would also provide ministers with an opportunity to say to farmers, crofters and other interested parties across the agricultural sector, “We got it wrong, but we’re going to get it right next time,” and to make a fresh start, with a clear and binding commitment to openness and fairness.

Farmers and crofters want and need this information, and I urge members to back my amendment 337, Douglas Ross’s amendment 336 and the amendments in the name of Tim Eagle and Rachael Hamilton.

Some of us here might argue that the cabinet secretary would be better to direct his attention to certain other issues that we have been covering today and in previous weeks.

I probably did not make myself clear. Ahead of this session, were you steered at all by the Government or Government officials on some of the areas that you should be focusing on?

Did you receive further information from them or from other people within Creative Scotland on behalf of the board?

So there was information directly from Creative Scotland and also those two face-to-face meetings, at least.

Okay, thanks. I will maybe come back to that later.

I want to ask about regionality and how Creative Scotland delivers across the country. Do you have any more to say on that? I represent the Highlands and Islands and remote communities that sometimes feel a long way away from everywhere. How do you think Creative Scotland can improve how it delivers for communities like ours?

So, the suggestion is that there are more opportunities out there, but Creative Scotland is either not learning about them, or is not able to deliver on them.

Thank you for that.

Nick Leake, you represent the Government of the day and, depending on the desires of the Government of the day, there could be a more activist or proactive role. Obviously, one of the Scottish Government’s priorities—albeit maybe not one of the people’s priorities—is another referendum on independence. How does that fit in with the work that you do? How is that a driver? Have officials or the Scottish Government directly promoted that to you or asked you to push it? Where does it fit within your day job, as it were?

An area that is very important to my region is fishing, and there is obviously a relationship with the EU on fishing matters, which we are seeing at the moment. Do you have discussions with European colleagues on that? How do you work with the UK Government on what is a very important issue?