Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will be quick and, like other members, I am grateful to the minister.

Will the minister confirm that every one of the applications that were rejected will have had some sort of human oversight?

I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests as a partner in a farming business and an applicant to the future farming investment scheme.

I congratulate Liam McArthur on bringing the debate to the chamber and on providing members with another opportunity to raise concerns about what is a major issue for many farmers and crofters in communities in the Highlands and Islands. The future farming investment scheme promised much to those communities but, unfortunately, as we have already heard today and as has been raised here many times by me and by colleagues such as Douglas Ross, Tim Eagle and others across the chamber, its development and implementation were flawed.

Those flaws, which I am sure that Scottish ministers would prefer to call “challenges” or perhaps “teething problems”, were baked in from the very start because, as is far too often the case, the Scottish Government failed to consult properly or to listen to the concerns of those who know best: our farmers and crofters.

Since the rejection emails started hitting inboxes, including that of our business in Orkney, which I mentioned, the Conservatives have tried to get the answers that individual businesses and our wider agricultural sector have sought, the simplest of which is on what basis applications were rejected. We need to know that because we need to know how to apply better when the next scheme comes around.

Those of us in the farming community know that farming throws up many variables. We recognise that harvests fail, livestock die or are injured, and fuel and other costs go up. Some of the challenges that we face, including the family farm tax and increases in employer national insurance contributions, to name just two, are beyond the control of this Parliament, but Scottish ministers have a great deal of power to change things for the better and, in this case, the Scottish Government fell short.

As I mentioned previously, my Conservative colleagues and I have tried to get the answer that the sector wants. As Douglas Ross said, both he and I have tried to bring transparency to the FFIS through legislative amendments, but the SNP and others have combined to vote those down. We are bringing back those amendments, along with others on the subject, at stage 3 of the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill next week, and I urge members of all parties, and certainly those who want to stand up for our farmers and crofters, to support those amendments.

Only yesterday, during rural questions, I asked the minister—or tried to ask the minister—to what extent the process had been automated. I did not get a clear answer, so I will ask him again now and I am happy to take an intervention if he is happy to make one. Although the minister stated that artificial intelligence had not been used in the verification and eligibility process, we know that an Excel-based program was used. I want to know whether applications could be deemed ineligible, and therefore unable to progress to the formal assessment stage, despite having had no human assessment whatsoever. I would be happy to take an intervention from the minister.

I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests as a partner in a farming business and an applicant to the future farming investment scheme.

I congratulate Liam McArthur on bringing the debate to the chamber and on providing members with another opportunity to raise concerns about what is a major issue for many farmers and crofters in communities in the Highlands and Islands. The future farming investment scheme promised much to those communities but, unfortunately, as we have already heard today and as has been raised here many times by me and by colleagues such as Douglas Ross, Tim Eagle and others across the chamber, its development and implementation were flawed.

Those flaws, which I am sure that Scottish ministers would prefer to call “challenges” or perhaps “teething problems”, were baked in from the very start because, as is far too often the case, the Scottish Government failed to consult properly or to listen to the concerns of those who know best: our farmers and crofters.

Since the rejection emails started hitting inboxes, including that of our business in Orkney, which I mentioned, the Conservatives have tried to get the answers that individual businesses and our wider agricultural sector have sought, the simplest of which is on what basis applications were rejected. We need to know that because we need to know how to apply better when the next scheme comes around.

Those of us in the farming community know that farming throws up many variables. We recognise that harvests fail, livestock die or are injured, and fuel and other costs go up. Some of the challenges that we face, including the family farm tax and increases in employer national insurance contributions, to name just two, are beyond the control of this Parliament, but Scottish ministers have a great deal of power to change things for the better and, in this case, the Scottish Government fell short.

As I mentioned previously, my Conservative colleagues and I have tried to get the answer that the sector wants. As Douglas Ross said, both he and I have tried to bring transparency to the FFIS through legislative amendments, but the SNP and others have combined to vote those down. We are bringing back those amendments, along with others on the subject, at stage 3 of the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill next week, and I urge members of all parties, and certainly those who want to stand up for our farmers and crofters, to support those amendments.

Only yesterday, during rural questions, I asked the minister—or tried to ask the minister—to what extent the process had been automated. I did not get a clear answer, so I will ask him again now and I am happy to take an intervention if he is happy to make one. Although the minister stated that artificial intelligence had not been used in the verification and eligibility process, we know that an Excel-based program was used. I want to know whether applications could be deemed ineligible, and therefore unable to progress to the formal assessment stage, despite having had no human assessment whatsoever. I would be happy to take an intervention from the minister.

[Made a request to intervene.]

To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on whether local authorities should increase council tax, reduce public services, or a mixture of both, to meet any gaps in local government funding as a result of the draft budget. (S6O-05406)

During stage 2 of the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill, the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands said that a review was being undertaken and that information would be published before the Christmas recess. Has it been published? Is that the update that happens to be on the FFIS website, or are we still waiting for it?

I will be quick and, like other members, I am grateful to the minister.

Will the minister confirm that every one of the applications that were rejected will have had some sort of human oversight?

This budget fails to deliver and is

“a very poor settlement for local government which fails to address the dire financial situation of local government.”

Those are not my words but those of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities resource spokesman and Scottish National Party councillor Ricky Bell, in a letter to Shona Robison.

In that letter, Ricky Bell highlighted council leaders’ concerns about the continued deprioritisation of local government and a further real-terms cut in funding over the coming years. I will therefore ask again if, as a result of the latest SNP budget—a budget that fails to deliver—my constituents in Orkney, Shetland, the Western Isles, the Highlands, Moray and Argyll and Bute should expect council tax increases, cuts to their public services or a painful mixture of both?

I did not have an answer yesterday, which is why I have asked again today.

I am disappointed that the minister will not answer that question, because it is one of the concerns of farmers and crofters, not only because their applications may have been rejected solely by a computer program in that instance, but because the same thing might happen again in the future. We want clarification of that.

I do not doubt that the FFIS was conceived with good intentions, and we know that a great many farm businesses expressed an interest, but the volume of rejections and the lack of any transparency about why applications were rejected has left a legacy of resentment, anger and frustration in our rural communities. The cabinet secretary has said that the FFIS is

“a powerful example of what can be achieved when we come together”,

but I am not sure that the sector feels at all as if we are working together with the Scottish Government. For many farmers and crofters, the scheme is yet another example of what happens when ministers and their officials at St Andrew’s house or Victoria Quay in Edinburgh rush out policies that they have not properly consulted on. It has become just another example of a policy created here in Edinburgh that fails to meet the needs of the rural and island communities that I represent.

Although I know that ministers will keep defending the scheme and their management of it, I hope that, at least behind the scenes, they will be humble enough to accept that some serious lessons must be learned from its failure to deliver what it promised for our farmers and crofters.

I did not have an answer yesterday, which is why I have asked again today.

I am disappointed that the minister will not answer that question, because it is one of the concerns of farmers and crofters, not only because their applications may have been rejected solely by a computer program in that instance, but because the same thing might happen again in the future. We want clarification of that.

I do not doubt that the FFIS was conceived with good intentions, and we know that a great many farm businesses expressed an interest, but the volume of rejections and the lack of any transparency about why applications were rejected has left a legacy of resentment, anger and frustration in our rural communities. The cabinet secretary has said that the FFIS is

“a powerful example of what can be achieved when we come together”,

but I am not sure that the sector feels at all as if we are working together with the Scottish Government. For many farmers and crofters, the scheme is yet another example of what happens when ministers and their officials at St Andrew’s house or Victoria Quay in Edinburgh rush out policies that they have not properly consulted on. It has become just another example of a policy created here in Edinburgh that fails to meet the needs of the rural and island communities that I represent.

Although I know that ministers will keep defending the scheme and their management of it, I hope that, at least behind the scenes, they will be humble enough to accept that some serious lessons must be learned from its failure to deliver what it promised for our farmers and crofters.