Chamber and committees

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.

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?