Seòmar agus comataidhean

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

I am grateful to Fergus Ewing for that intervention. Believe it or not, in 11 minutes, as somebody who is involved in the sector, I do not have time to cover everything. Otherwise, I would have got more into diversification and the opportunities that there are. I certainly agree with Fergus Ewing’s points. Such a move would be a real opportunity.

Much has been said in debates on this subject about farmers being asset rich but cash poor. It is already a job with inconsistent financial returns. Costs always seem to go up, but yields and prices can fluctuate widely. In some years, we make a modest profit; in other years, we do not. There is an old farming joke about the farmer who wins the lottery and is asked what he is going to do with the money. He says that he will keep farming until it is all gone.

I turn to our amendment to the Scottish Government’s motion. Governments working together requires commitment from both sides, and our amendment calls for just that. The Scottish Government and the UK Government should work together to deliver the ring-fenced multiyear funding that we—and, I think, SNP members—want.

Our amendment recognises that, in Barnettising agricultural funding, Labour has broken with more than 50 years of certainty. It has ended a social contract that recognised the vital role that farmers play in producing food and as stewards of the countryside, and that rewarded that with some stability.

Our amendment calls on the Scottish Government to ensure that all agricultural funding is allocated to the sector, not diverted for use in other portfolio areas. That has not previously been the case. Although the First Minister has repeated the commitment that £46 million of funding will be returned to the agriculture budget, there is still no commitment on when that will happen, and it is disappointing that the cabinet secretary has not committed to a timescale today.

Given the growing pressure on the farming sector, a longer, more concrete commitment from the Scottish Government is needed to protect rural budgets from having much-needed funding siphoned off to plug gaps in other parts of Government spending. Farmers are also worried about the next Scottish budget and what future Scottish policy holds. They see money being taken from rural budgets, including the £46 million that I just mentioned, the £80 million that has been lost from the rural affairs budget overall and the cuts to pillar 1 payments and the less favoured area support scheme. They have seen the impact of the Scottish Greens in government, and they fear what the Greens might extort from a minority SNP Government that is desperate to pass its budget.

Farming has got harder in the past few years—costs have risen and there is more form filling and box ticking than ever before, but there is still pressure to keep costs as low as possible. Despite efforts to become more efficient and meet increasingly stringent environmental targets, farmers, particularly those of us in the red meat sector, feel more under attack than ever.

Many farmers feel that they are not a priority for the Government, and it is hard to argue against that when, in Orkney, nearly £8 million has been spent on a stoat eradication scheme but only a few thousand pounds has been spent on efforts to combat the damage that geese do to farmland in the islands. That is before we start talking about the challenges in relation to access to land; encouraging new entrants to farming; vital local infrastructure, such as abattoirs; and reliable ferries to get products to market. The Scottish Government has responsibility for all those thing but, too often, has been found wanting.

The previous Conservative UK Government delivered multiyear ring-fenced funding, as well as the largest-ever round of grants to support agricultural funding. Labour promised a new deal for farmers, but it has delivered a raw deal that threatens the future of the sector. Anger is at an all-time high, while confidence is low. Those protesting in London and in Kirkwall this morning, as well as those who will be outside this Parliament next Thursday, are not just fighting one bad policy by one bad Government; they are fighting for the very future of farming. Scottish Conservatives will always stand with them, because we will always be on the side of our rural communities and those who live and work in them.

I move amendment S6M-15508.2, to insert at end:

“; recognises that ring-fenced agriculture funding has been delivered by previous UK administrations for over 50 years; urges both the UK and Scottish governments to work together to ensure certainty for Scotland’s farmers, crofters and rural stakeholders by delivering multi-year ring-fenced funding for agriculture, and calls on the Scottish Government to ensure that all agriculture funding is allocated to the sector and not diverted for use in other portfolio areas.”

Will Jim Fairlie take an intervention?

As Rachael Hamilton has said, we will support the Government’s motion, because we recognise the damage that the Labour budget is doing. Will the minister support the Conservative amendment to the motion? If not, what is it that he disagrees with? Is it that we call on the Scottish Government to work with the UK Government to ensure

“certainty for Scotland’s farmers, crofters and rural stakeholders by delivering multi-year ring-fenced funding for agriculture”,

or is it that we call on the Scottish Government to ensure that

“all agriculture funding is allocated to the sector and not diverted for use in other portfolio areas”?

Which of those calls does he disagree with?

I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests, which sets out that I am a partner in the family farming business of J Halcro-Johnston and Sons and that I am a member of NFU Scotland, Scottish Land & Estates and the Royal Highland and Agricultural Society of Scotland.

I am pleased to open the debate for the Scottish Conservatives. I was disappointed that circumstances meant that I was unable to speak in last week’s debate, in which the Parliament sent a clear message to the Labour UK Government that it should drop its damaging family farm tax.

Opposition to the budget is growing. Labour’s plans will make it harder for farmers to pass on their farms to their children, and they risk seeing some family farms being split up or sold off entirely. Labour will claim that the tax will hit only a handful of the largest farms, but it is increasingly clear that it has not done its homework properly. Figures on the number of farms that will be impacted vary, but the Country Land and Business Association estimates that some 70,000 farms across the UK could be affected. Comparing the UK Government’s data with Scottish farming figures suggests that more than 12,000 farms in Scotland might be impacted. Despite Labour’s protestations, farmers who are assessing their own situations are warning that the impact will be considerably greater than Labour ministers claim.

It appears that even the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which was kept in the dark about the changes until the night before the budget, has recognised some of the issues and made efforts to soften the impact of the changes—efforts that have been blocked by the Treasury.

This new tax burden, on top of other rising costs and tightening margins, threatens the sustainability of many Scottish farms. Maybe that is what Labour wants—family farms to be broken up to pay the new tax burden. Only last week in the chamber, Rhoda Grant said:

“If this policy has an outcome of ensuring that land holdings are smaller ... it will have a wider benefit for society as a whole.”—[Official Report, 13 November 2024; c 28.]

In the past few weeks, senior Labour figures have called farmers rich and privileged. They have said that farming

“is an industry we could do without”

and that we do not need small family farmers.

The UK Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who represents a seat in greater London, said that farmers need to

“learn to do more with less”,

clearly ignorant of the fact that we have been doing that for far too long already and with tightening margins. One Labour peer even downplayed the importance of domestic food production by sharing a tweet that claimed that we import enough food to keep the country fed—so much for Scottish Labour’s 2024 manifesto commitment that food security is national security. If the Covid pandemic taught us anything, it was surely the need to build more resilience in our economy, and that should start with food. The NFUS is clear that Labour’s budget threatens food production.

Labour simply does not understand Scottish farming or seem to care about the damage that it risks doing to our rural economies. It certainly does not appear to understand the anger and fear that its budget is causing the farming community. The changes to agricultural property relief were only one part of this dreadful budget. Farmers will be impacted by the reclassification of double-cab pick-up vehicles, by the changes to the national living wage and national insurance and by increased tax on fertiliser.

Sarah-Jane Laing of Scottish Land & Estates was quite clear. She said:

“The cumulative effect of these measures threatens the immediate viability and future sustainability of thousands of rural businesses across Scotland.”

That is why farmers are so worried and so angry, and it is why, this morning, farmers from across the United Kingdom, including my colleague Tim Eagle and Conservative MP colleagues, attended the protests in London—protests that I cannot be at but which I fully support.

Last year, Keir Starmer told the NFU that

“Losing a farm is not like losing any other business, it can’t come back.”

Last weekend, as Prime Minister, he hid from those who were protesting in Cardiff because they are worried about the risk of losing their farms. He refused to look them in the eye and tell them why he has backtracked on that position and betrayed them. This morning, farmers have taken their protests to the gates of Downing Street. Keir Starmer will not be able to hide from them today.

However, it is not just in London where farmers are gathering. This morning, farmers and supporters in Orkney rallied at the auction mart in Kirkwall. Those who gathered included people in the sector who were there to protest the impact of Labour’s policies on the sector, but they also included people who are not farmers who recognise agriculture’s vital role in rural communities such as Orkney.

We farm in Orkney and have done so for too many generations to remember. We do not have a large farm. Excluding hill land, which is used mainly for wintering sheep, we farm about 400 acres. We employ three people, some on a part-time basis, and we contribute to the salaries of local contractors, seed suppliers, engineering companies, equipment sellers, builders, vets, hauliers, fencers, ditchers and drainage companies. We are a key part of our local rural economy.

Given my commitments here, I am not as active on the farm as I could be—and as, I think, my father would want me to be—but I have lambed, calved and been up in the early hours of winter mornings to cover the milking when needed. I know all too well how tough a job it is, especially for those who do it day to day and in all weathers.

The new tax burdens only add to the pressure on farmers, particularly those who are nearing the end of their careers, who are involved in succession planning and who now have increased concerns about how to leave their farms to their children.

I am sorry not to see Rhoda Grant in the chamber today. Her response to my colleague Fin Carson’s intervention last week, telling his constituent that he should

“put his affairs in order”,—[Official Report, 13 November 2024; c 26.]

was absolutely shameful. I have known Rhoda Grant for a fair few years now, and I believe that she misspoke. I do not believe that that is what she would have said to any of our constituents in the Highlands and Islands in a similar situation or in any situation in which Labour’s changes to agricultural property relief have impacted them. I would have asked her to reflect on that, and I would have been happy to take an intervention to give her the chance to clarify what she feels those who did have their affairs in order—until Labour, without consultation or, it seems, reliable assessment of the impact, changed the rules—should have done now.

I meet local farmers in Orkney regularly, both as a politician and as a friend and colleague. Confidence in farming—confidence in what the future holds—is falling. There is so much uncertainty about what future agricultural support will look like, how it will be delivered and the levels of such support. Labour’s raid on rural communities only makes the situation worse.

I recently attended a farm visit in Orkney that was organised by NFU Scotland. Members might think that a bit of a busman’s holiday, but the challenges that farmers face can differ widely, even on a farm that is very close to and very similar to my own. Some farmers at the start of their careers are growing their businesses. They are looking to invest in cattle, equipment or buildings—new buildings that meet modern standards for animal welfare or that can accommodate the size of vehicle that we now have to use. All of them are committed to building their family farms. They are committed to the sector, regardless of the hardships. They are committed to their local communities and the part that they will play in them. All of them are worried about what the future holds.

Will Jim Fairlie give way?

In many rural and island communities across my Highlands and Islands region, there is concern that reduced police numbers mean that more low-level crimes and incidents of antisocial behaviour are not being investigated. As a result, some individuals are less likely to report such incidents. Despite the best efforts of officers, many of my constituents who live in more remote communities feel further away from policing cover than ever. What concerns does the cabinet secretary have about the number of crimes and incidents of antisocial behaviour that are simply not being reported across rural Scotland? What would she say to my constituents about what they believe is a reduced police presence in their communities?

To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the impact of the reduction in police numbers since 2010 on Police Scotland’s ability to respond to all incidents of crime, including antisocial behaviour, within its responsibilities. (S6O-03952)

To ask the Scottish Government how it ensures that the most accurate and up-to-date science and data are used when making decisions that impact Scotland’s fishing sector. (S6O-03877)

After I repeatedly raised with the Government the issue of a derogation from catching squid, the cabinet secretary finally wrote to me in May, admitting that

“We have concluded that there is not sufficient evidence to support the immediate introduction of a derogation but there is also not sufficient evidence to refuse it”,

so no derogation was granted.

I recently met the industry to discuss other restrictions that were announced in May, which used data that was collected between 2016 and 2019 to restrict some larger shellfish vessels from fishing their traditional grounds. Both of those decisions, which impact on fishermen’s livelihoods, were made using old or insufficient data, and fishermen do not believe that the data reflect what they are seeing on the grounds. Does the cabinet secretary have confidence in the data that is being used to make these decisions?

On the crab and lobster fishing restrictions that came into force on 12 May, can she tell me when the assessment of the restrictions, which was meant to be concluded later this year but has been pushed into next year, will finally be published?