Jim Fairlie
Scottish National Party · Scotland
“The Scottish Government recognises the challenges that certain plant and animal species pose to agricultural businesses and is supporting farmers to manage those impacts.”
“Will the Government also commit to implementing a more pragmatic licence application scheme for the removal of species where the impact on business and other conservation species or habitats is clear? Jim Fairlie: As Amanda Lindsay points out, there is a management scheme.”
“The Scottish Government remains committed to that work. Indeed, in September, in the Scottish Parliament, I hosted and chaired a constructive round-table discussion on alternative farrowing systems with representatives from the Scottish pig industry, animal welfare organisations and academia.”
“Therefore, we will be working closely with the UK Government and other devolved Administrations on the delivery of the programme. This is a draft Official Report and is subject to correction between publication and archiving, which will take place no later than 35 working days after the date of the meeting.”
“I welcome Joe Fagan to the chamber. The Scottish Government is committed to supporting agriculture, food production and our food and drink sectors in a fair manner. In March, we published our first rural support plan, outlining support for the next five years and providing the clarity, certainty and opportunity to plan.”
“At column 3, paragraph 3— Original text— I point out to the member that we are doing this in concert with the UK Government. There is a joint consultation ongoing as we speak, and I have confirmed with Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs ministers our agreement to do that joint consultation.”
The complete record
Every one of 663 lines we hold for Jim Fairlie, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 14.
“It is coming up with ludicrous solutions to an important issue, and it does not deserve that power. If we agree to any of amendments 149 to 151, it will be stripped of that power and others will be encouraged to do a far better job. I move amendment 60A.”
“I will not go through all the issues that we have previously articulated in the chamber and at committee, but when an organisation is telling people to hire a cherry picker to go up on a roof in order to take a picture of a nest where seagulls have laid their eggs, and to take a photograph with that day’s newspaper to confirm that that is when the nest and the eggs were there, that is ludicrous. When, at a summit hosted at its headquarters, NatureScot is advising people to walk down the street waving their arms—I will not do the actions; I will keep my hands in—or to draw googly eyes on pizza boxes to deter the gulls, that body no longer deserves trust and respect or to enforce and apply those licences. I know that time is moving on, but I believe that it is important that NatureScot is finally stripped of its power to issue the licences.”
“I use the word “ludicrous”, in particular, because that is the minister’s assessment—the minister has said on the record that NatureScot’s determination of some licences has been “ludicrous”. If the Scottish Government, including the minister in charge—who, as he said, has the ability to revoke that power—thinks that NatureScot is coming up with ludicrous decisions, it should be stripped of that power. It is as clear as day that there is a conflict of interest when NatureScot is, on the one hand, in charge of conserving bird numbers and, on the other hand, the authority that determines whether or not someone gets a licence to control the bird numbers.”
“We need to know how much money is being spent in total and where that money could and should be coming from. Amendments 149, 150 and 151 are all alternative amendments, by which I mean that I am offering three different alternatives for bodies to consider licences to control gulls. That could either be Scottish Government ministers, local authorities or a totally different body that Scottish ministers come up with. Whichever the Parliament chooses will be better than the status quo. The minister says that he does not trust NatureScot to make those decisions. I absolutely do not, either. It has been a complete and utter failure. Time after time, NatureScot has come up with ludicrous reasons for refusing licences.”
“I have done a lot of work with the business improvement districts in Inverness and Nairn, and Lucy Harding and Lorraine McBride have explained how much money they have to spend week after week, month after month and year after year on tackling the menace of gulls. That money is a BID levy that businesses pay. It should be used to promote the local economy and the businesses in those BID areas, yet a lot of it has be spent on measures to protect properties and people from gulls. Therefore, amendment 148 is important. The minister mentioned the £100,000 funding that the Scottish Government proposed in October at its gulls summit in Inverness, but that is a drop in the ocean compared with what individuals, businesses, BIDs and councils currently spend on gulls.”
“If local councils across Scotland are going to hike up council tax—as is very likely, because of the budget settlement that has been proposed by the SNP; indeed, the SNP representative for finance on the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has said that it is a very bad budget for local government—and if local councils are going to be spending the increased money that they get from local residents on projects to protect buildings, individuals and communities from gulls, we should know how much that is. In my local authority area, Moray Council, it is tens of thousands of pounds. We should know how much is being spent in Perth and Kinross—the minister’s local authority area—and all around Scotland, up to the islands and down to the Borders. We need that important information. It is not just local authorities that are affected.”
“If amendment 60A is not successful, amendment 60 will not be worth the paper it is written on. I urge members to vote it down so that we can go back to the stage 2 amendment that was agreed to by the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee. I turn to my other amendments in the group, starting with amendment 148 on the gull management fund. The minister said that there is no need to assess how much local authorities are spending on gull management, but I think that there is a big need, because taxpayers’ money is being spent on protecting buildings and people from the menace of gulls.”
“Information is not numbers; it could be just, “The gull population has changed a little” or, “It has changed a lot”, but we would not know what the gull population was. With a survey, we will have raw data that we can use to ensure that we make the best possible decisions with the best possible information. I will give way to the minister. Jim Fairlie: It does not matter. Douglas Ross: Maybe the minister has accepted the argument. We are making progress at last. I urge members to vote in favour of amendment 60A—I think that that is the amendment that we will come to first—which simply urges, asks and requests the Government to do a survey of the population of urban and coastal gulls, because we know that, at the moment, NatureScot is taking decisions and determining licence applications without the data and information.”
“I am sorry if SNP members do not like that, but I note that they tend not to dissent when it is their conveners who use their casting votes in that way. Jim Fairlie: Will Mr Ross take an intervention? Douglas Ross: I will finish replying to the minister’s first intervention before taking a second one from him. On the second point, which was about wanting up-to-date and reliable information and data, I note that that is what I want—and that is what we had with the amendment that was agreed to at stage 2. What we would have with amendment 60 is a watered-down alternative, because it seeks only to “provide information about the gull population in coastal and urban areas”. That is very clear in proposed new subsection (2)(a) in amendment 60, minister.”
“However, if the position of the member is that he wants to get the kind of reliable data that we need in order to put proper gull licences in place, I would say that having a five-year structure with named species is exactly how to do it. The proposal that was brought forward by Mr Ross is simply unworkable. Douglas Ross: I will address both those points. First, as the convener of a committee, if I use my casting vote in favour of an amendment, that is still the committee’s view. There might be those on the committee who disagree with it, but regardless of whether it is a Conservative convener, a Labour convener, a Scottish National Party convener or a Green convener, their casting vote in favour of an amendment means that the committee is in favour.”
“That happened because there was clearly interest in the issue across the political spectrum, and the only party opposing the amendment was the SNP. We had support for my amendment at stage 2 from the RSPB, which urged members of the committee to support it, because it agreed that we need reliable data and up-to-date information. I am bitterly disappointed that, rather than respecting that decision and working with the amendment that was passed by the committee, the Government is trying to override it in the chamber at stage 3. Jim Fairlie: There are a couple of points there. The first is that the committee was very evenly split and the division was won on the deciding vote of the convener—I could be wrong on that, but I think that that was the case.”
“Douglas Ross: I will speak at length on this group of amendments, because I am glad that we are getting the chamber back to issues that are within the devolved competence of this Parliament. I will start with amendment 60. Yesterday, in response to a point that I made, the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy complained that issues that had been decided at committee were being brought back at stage 3. Well, here we have an issue that was decided at committee in a way that went against the Government. The Government did not gain enough support at the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee to vote down an amendment on this issue, and the amendment was agreed to. The Government lost the vote.”
“NatureScot already collects and publishes gull licensing data, including data on the number of licences issued, the permitted numbers and the return of data for the lethal control of adults and chicks. That information is already publicly available, albeit that it is currently integrated into the wider annual licensing data set. Furthermore, the definition of a gull, as currently drafted, lacks clarity. It is too broad and does not work for the intended purpose of the amendment. For those reasons, I cannot support the amendment and I ask the member not to move it. I move amendment 60. The Presiding Officer: I call Douglas Ross to move amendment 60A and speak to all amendments in the group.”
“Those solutions must work for the people who are living with the negative effects of gulls every day. Regardless, Mr Ross’s amendments are unnecessary and could undermine the clarity and operational effectiveness of the processes. Therefore, I urge members to oppose amendments 149 to 151. On amendment 152, in the name of Rachael Hamilton, as I set out in relation to a similar amendment at stage 2, I appreciate the member’s intention to improve transparency around gull licensing, but I cannot support the amendment. It is not clear in relation to the timeframes, the production of a report or how often a report should be produced. From the outset, legislation is not required to achieve the objectives of amendment 152.”
“I can understand why, in some circumstances, but I do not think that he has considered that, no matter who issues the licensing in relation to the management of gulls, they will always need to consider the health of the gull population and other sensitive conservation factors. For the sake of members in the chamber, I will reiterate what I set out at stage 2. Gulls are a protected species. It is not a conflict of interest that NatureScot must consider their species status; it is simply a part of the licensing process. I believe that NatureScot is best placed to hold responsibility for that licensing, because it has the data, knowledge and experience to issue and manage those licences. I remain committed to working together to find solutions that recognise the complexities around gull populations.”
“Ultimately, ministers do not require legislation to review and create funding schemes relating to the management of gulls, and it is for that reason primarily that I ask the member not to move amendment 148. 18:00 On amendments 149 to 151, in the name of Douglas Ross, I note that we are debating amendments that are identical to ones that we discussed at length at stage 2. As I set out then, ministers already have the responsibility to issue licences in respect of wild birds under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. That function has been delegated to NatureScot. Scottish ministers can revoke the delegation to NatureScot at any time without new legislation being needed. Those amendments are, therefore, unnecessary. Mr Ross has consistently been critical of NatureScot’s licensing approach relating to gull management.”
“As I set out at stage 2 in relation to Mr Ross’s amendment 260, I do not agree with the member’s proposals to mandate a review of spending on gull management efforts or the creation of a gull management fund. Following the gull summit in September, £100,000 has been made available to help local authorities to develop their gull management plans. That demonstrates that the objective of Mr Ross’s amendment 148 is being delivered, without the need for mandatory statutory requirements. A statutory fund would add rigidity and bureaucracy and would require governance and reporting structures that would divert resources from practical gull management, which I think that we are all looking for.”
“Amendment 60 sets out that a gull report will include information about the gull population in coastal and urban areas. I am not sure why the member has lodged amendment 60A, because I have set out that my focus is on delivering improvements to gull management and not on debating unnecessary amendments for the sake of doing so. We have committed to producing a gull report every five years, and we will use that information, alongside the data from the national seabird census and other counts, to inform decision making. We will provide information about coastal and urban gulls as part of that, so I urge members to vote against amendment 60A. I turn to amendment 148.”
“That includes making £100,000 immediately available to local authorities following the gull summit that we held in September, to support the mitigation of gull impacts. NatureScot is running a series of round-table meetings in the areas of Scotland that are worst impacted by gulls. It is working with people in those areas to offer support and advice on licensing options and other mitigation activities ahead of the next nesting season. That is only a small portion of the work that we are doing on gulls, and we will continue to consider what other actions might be necessary. I therefore ask members to support my amendment 60, which seeks to make reporting on the gull population achievable while still honouring the intent of the original amendment that was agreed to at stage 2, which Mr Ross mentioned.”
“That amendment was not the same as what the minister proposes, because his amendment 60 would delete what was agreed to by the committee. Does he accept that amendment 60 seeks information rather than gull numbers, and that there is a big difference between information on gulls and the number of gulls? Jim Fairlie: I take on board that Mr Ross was successful in having his amendment agreed to at stage 2, but there was still some confusion about what was being delivered. We could have tried to knock out the amendment completely and dismiss people’s views, but we did not do that. I said that we needed to find a way to meet Mr Ross’s aspirations and make sure that we had a workable solution, which is why I lodged amendment 60. We continue to focus on delivering improvements to gull management ahead of the next gull breeding season.”
“It allows us to balance the need for good data with the need to deliver meaningful gull management and mitigation action. The reporting period will also complement other existing data that will be obtained from the seabird censuses. My amendment defines the species of gull that are to be included in the report. A report on the gull population with no definition of species is not workable. Amendment 60 provides clarity on how the report will be conducted. Douglas Ross: Does the minister accept that his amendment would delete what was approved by the committee at stage 2? I accept that Scottish National Party members voted against my amendment 261 at stage 2, but that amendment was agreed to after the committee had heard the arguments that the minister is making.”
“I thought that the clerks were doing our job for us and rushing Mr Ross. Amendment 60 relates to the requirement for NatureScot to “prepare and publish a report on the gull population in urban and coastal areas of Scotland.” We know that there are gaps in the data that is available to us. Surveying urban gulls, for example, presents more challenges. I appreciate that members desire to improve the data. However, I must stress that it is not feasible to deliver a complete survey of breeding gulls every year in Scotland without a significant resource implication, which would divert resources from practical gull management. My amendment 60 ensures that a report on the gull population is deliverable. Requiring a report every five years is more practical.”
“I move, That the Parliament agrees that the relevant provisions of the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill, introduced in the House of Commons on 14 May 2025, and subsequently amended, relating to clauses 1 to 5, 10, 11(2) to 11(5), 12 to 20 and the schedule, so far as these matters fall within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament and alter the executive competence of the Scottish Ministers, should be considered by the UK Parliament. 17:43”
“I considered the report’s conclusions and recommendations and provided a response to some of the recommendations, with a full response to be provided to the committee shortly. The Scottish Government therefore recommends that the Scottish Parliament gives consent to clauses 1 to 5, 10, 11(2) to 11(5), 12 to 20 and the schedule. Scottish ministers remain committed to constructive engagement and to supporting measures that could lead to increased production and the use of sustainable aviation fuel in Scotland. I therefore ask the Parliament to agree to the motion for legislative consent in relation to the aforementioned provisions contained in the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill.”
“Those discussions led to the UK Government amending the bill to include a requirement for the secretary of state to consult with Scottish ministers on three regulation-making powers, in clauses 1(8), 3(1) and 11(4), in addition to the existing consult provision in clause 10(1). I believe that the agreed statutory consultation mechanism offers appropriate reassurance and transparency, particularly given the early stage of development of the UK SAF industry. I welcome the positive and collaborative engagement between the Scottish Government and the UK Government throughout the bill’s development, particularly during the latter stages. I also welcome the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee's report and its recommendation that the Scottish Parliament consent to the relevant provisions in the bill, as set out in the motion.”
“The bill opens the door to future investment and green jobs, and it could bring significant economic benefits if the fuel were commercially produced at scale in Scotland. Including Scotland in the bill ensures that we remain competitive and that we do not lose out to other parts of the UK. The bill as introduced had no formal role for Scottish ministers, with the exception of a consult provision in clause 10. The Scottish Government had extensive engagement with the UK Government, at official and ministerial level, to dissolve the concerns around the regulation-making powers in the bill, which might be exercised for a devolved purpose in Scotland.”
“I welcome the opportunity to speak on the legislative consent motion for the UK Government’s Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill, which was introduced in the House of Commons on 14 May 2025. Scottish ministers strongly welcome efforts to boost the production and use of sustainable aviation fuel—SAF—and therefore support the overall policy intention of the bill. The bill lays the foundation for a UK-wide revenue certainty mechanism. It is an essential step towards making sustainable aviation fuel production commercially viable. The bill is designed to accelerate the domestic production of SAF and support the UK Government’s aviation decarbonisation strategy. SAF is one of the most promising ways of reducing aviation emissions and is therefore important in supporting the Scottish Government’s commitment to achieve net zero emissions by 2045.”
“Published in Edinburgh by the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, the Scottish Parliament, Edinburgh, EH99 1SP All documents are available on the Scottish Parliament website at: www.parliament.scot Information on non-endorsed print suppliers is available here: www.parliament.scot/documents For information on the Scottish Parliament contact Public Information on: Telephone: 0131 348 5000 Textphone: 0800 092 7100 Email: sp.info@parliament.scot”
“It was delivered at pace, with a streamlined application process in response to the long-standing calls for us to reduce administrative burden, and the lessons learned will directly inform what comes next. This Government is committed to supporting and investing in our hard-working farmers and crofters, and that is what we will continue to do in the future. The Deputy Presiding Officer: That concludes the debate. Meeting closed at 17:39. This is the final edition of the Official Report of this meeting. It is part of the Scottish Parliament Official Report archive and has been sent for legal deposit.”
“We will work with the sector to ensure that, if future funds are delivered, they are more targeted and that limited funding is directed where it delivers the greatest impact. I recall one particular conversation with a young farmer who quietly pointed out to me that, despite not personally having been successful, the scheme and the investment had been a positive development. There is also a need for industry leadership. When it comes to competitive grant schemes such as the FFIS, to put it simply, the fact that people can apply for support does not necessarily mean that they should. That is something that members across the chamber should reflect on. The scheme delivered significant investment in rural Scotland.”
“The outcomes reflected the strength of the planned investment rather than the geographical location. It is also worth putting comparisons in context, because Orkney farmers and crofters account for around 4 per cent of the 2025 single application form—SAF—applications. Comparing the number of awards in Orkney directly with Scotland as a whole, without reference to application volumes or eligibility, risks drawing misleading conclusions. Taken to its logical conclusion, that approach would suggest that the underlying distribution of farming business in itself is unfair, and it is plainly not. I genuinely recognise the disappointment felt by those who were not successful, and we are listening carefully to the concerns that have been raised.”
“Will the minister confirm that every one of the applications that were rejected will have had some sort of human oversight? Jim Fairlie: You are asking me a question about the technical details of each individual application. I cannot give you an answer to that tonight, because I do not know who was sitting behind the desk looking at them. It is important to clear up the misconception about the regional disadvantages. What made the difference was not location, but the type of investment proposed and how strongly it would deliver against the scheme’s core objectives. In Orkney, for example, around 30 per cent of eligible applications were supported, compared with a national average of around 40 per cent. The same approach applied in Shetland, and all applications were assessed on exactly the same basis, using the same scoring criteria.”
“Jim Fairlie: As I have just stated, we published the detailed assessment of the documents before Christmas, and folk who had successful or unsuccessful applications can go to that assessment and measure their own applications against it. I cannot say for certain what the number of failed applications was, but I know that there were a lot of failed applications because people did not put in the correct information, for a number of different reasons—and that goes across all the sectors. Jamie Halcro Johnston: [Made a request to intervene.] Jim Fairlie: Jamie Halcro Johnston wants to make another intervention. Will I get the time back? The Deputy Presiding Officer: Yes. Jamie Halcro Johnston: I will be quick and, like other members, I am grateful to the minister.”
“At the committee, I was certainly left under the impression that the cabinet secretary felt that applicants who had not been successful should wait for the review and see where they went wrong. Can the minister confirm or deny that any applicant will be able to look at the review and know why their individual application was not successful? During the debate, he has been contesting some of the figures. Does he confirm that one figure that he is not contesting is the 40 per cent of applications that were ineligible? That figure is extremely high. Is that standard with schemes in his department, or is it an outlier that should have raised alarm bells in the rural affairs sector?”
“Ahead of its publication, I had a very candid discussion with NFU Scotland to highlight the issues that were identified across applications, including cases in which previous capital support had not been declared. There were a number of examples where people did not put the correct information on their applications for the scheme, which is why they were declared ineligible. It is also important to clear up the misconception that there were regional disadvantages. The assessment and scoring criteria were applied consistently across Scotland. Douglas Ross: [Made a request to intervene.] Jim Fairlie: Yes, I will take Douglas Ross’s intervention. Douglas Ross: I am grateful to the minister for taking so many interventions.”
“Jamie Halcro Johnston: 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? Jim Fairlie: Jamie Halcro Johnston has clearly read my notes, because that is literally in the next paragraph. We published a detailed assessment document before Christmas, and it sets out clearly how applications were verified, scored and ranked. That material is publicly available and provides important context for understanding the outcomes of a highly competitive scheme.”
“However, the failure rate that Douglas Ross spoke about must give us pause for thought regarding whether the funding that was available was as well targeted as it might have been. The risk in the robustness of the response that the minister has given is that it does not necessarily give the impression that the Government is reflecting on what went wrong with the scheme, and that does not give the farming community confidence that those lessons will be learned and applied in future schemes. Jim Fairlie: I dispute the point that Liam McArthur has just put to me. Earlier, right at the top of my speech, I said that we are taking all the lessons from the scheme and that we are learning from them. In anything that we do in the future, those lessons will be very much at the forefront of our minds.”
“It is also important to correct the claim that fewer than one in 10 small farms or crofts were supported. That figure is incorrect, and it arises from confusing the total applications with eligible applications. In reality, around 30 per cent of eligible farm and croft applications were supported. It is important to be honest about the application quality. Across the scheme, a significant number of verification issues were identified where responses could not be confirmed against rural payments and inspection division records, or the investments were not described clearly enough to be able to support a decision to make a grant. Liam McArthur: The minister is putting forward a robust defence, which is what I would expect him to do in those circumstances.”
“It was also useful to hear him give an example of why an application failed—a single application was made for seven items when they should have been broken down into individual ones. I know that, in his answer of 4 December, the minister gave some examples to Liam McArthur of why some applications failed, but why not publish them, so that the next set of applicants—if there is another scheme—will see the things that do not apply and why those applications failed? Jim Fairlie: Christine Grahame raises some fair points, but I will touch on a lot of them as I go through the rest of my speaking notes. Standard farm equipment might be valuable to an individual business but, in a highly competitive scheme, it does not score nearly as highly against the scheme’s objectives as other planned investments do.”
“Capital investments were assessed on their ability to deliver the scheme’s objectives, which were to improve business efficiency and sustainability; to protect, restore or enhance the environment; to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate the effects of climate change; and to deliver wider public good. Investments that performed strongly across those criteria scored higher than the ones concerning more general items of farm equipment. Christine Grahame: It is not in dispute that the scheme is a good idea, but one has to appreciate that there have been difficulties in relation to the ability of applicants to understand where they went wrong and where they went right. It seems that the minister is looking at gathering some regional data, which is good.”
“We have the basic payment scheme, the voluntary coupled support scheme, the less favoured area support scheme, the crofting agricultural grant scheme—the list goes on, and that is all in stark contrast to the car-crash policies that were introduced by the previous UK Government and that have been continued by the current Administration. Direct payments in England are being phased out, falling to a meagre £600 in 2026-27. Put simply, things are absolutely better in Scotland. The future farming investment scheme was a discretionary and highly competitive grant scheme. No farmer or crofter was automatically entitled to a grant. Although we identified priority groups, that was not a guarantee of funding, as I have said before. Applications still had to be eligible and planned investments had to deliver against the scheme’s objectives.”
“We worked with the industry and stakeholders, which resulted in an investment of more than £21 million, supporting 1,750 farmers and crofters across Scotland to improve efficiency, productivity and the environmental performance of their businesses. That investment is expected to stimulate more than £30 million-worth of economic activity across rural Scotland, benefiting local chains and local rural businesses. Let us get some perspective. The funding was an additional investment, sitting on top of the most generous non-competitive direct support package for farmers and crofters anywhere in the United Kingdom. I am proud of this Government’s record of supporting and investing in our crofting and farming communities.”
“A number of points have been made during the debate so I will say a couple of things before I actually get into my main notes. We give farmers the opportunity to select their own items. A farmer in Orkney entered seven items in a single-item claim, when, if that farmer had read the guidance, they would have understood that those should have been seven different claims. That therefore led to a rejection. Data for the agriculture scheme is not collected on a Scottish Parliament constituency basis, but we might be able to do something on that if it is going to give satisfaction to people and help them to understand what we were doing. We are taking lessons from the scheme that we put forward, but I say this: in delivering the scheme, the Scottish Government delivered a really good thing; the future farming investment scheme is a good thing.”
“That was the reassurance that I got from the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands when I raised the issue with her in the chamber back in June 2024. It is the commitment that I am seeking from the minister today, and I look forward to hearing his comments as well as the contributions from other colleagues in the chamber. 17:09”
“SRUC’s 2024 report, “Rural and Agricultural Development—Maximising the Potential in the Islands of Orkney, Shetland and Outer Hebrides” confirmed that it represents a larger share of economic activity than in mainland communities. At the same time, there are critical constraints, from higher haulage costs to a shrinking workforce. A thriving agricultural sector is critical for our island economies, but it also plays a profound cultural and social role. That means that agricultural funding and support, whether through competitive schemes such as the FFIS or statutory requirements such as EFAs, must take account of the direct consequences for, and the circumstances of, island farming, and recognise its unique importance to those communities.”
“The same report emphasised the clear policy overlap between those and the EFA objectives and recommended better co-ordination between the two to avoid duplication. Farmers are clear that the new greening options do not reflect what works for island farms—a concern that is supported by SRUC. Many of the measures are simply not compatible with Orkney’s grassland systems, and increased vulnerability to weather heightens the risks, and the costs and waste, that are involved for small businesses. Spending money on measures that will not work may give the illusion of progress, but it will do nothing for the environment while threatening the viability of farm businesses and prompting a reduction in the Orkney herd.”
“I suggest that a chance to demonstrate that lessons have been learned is to be found in future greening proposals. As the minister will know, and as I heard again last week from my constituents Douglas Paterson and William Harvey, ramping up ecological focus areas obligations from 5 per cent of land managed to 7 per cent will have serious consequences in an Orkney setting. The report by Scotland’s Rural College on greening in Orkney, “Changes to ‘Greening’ Support in an Orkney Islands Context: Ecological Focus Area extension”, which was published last year, confirmed that 35 per cent of Orkney farms are in receipt of funding for agri-environment schemes: the highest proportion, by some margin, anywhere in the country.”
“In other words, the business was entirely aligned with the stated objective of improving climate efficiency— yet the application was flatly rejected. My constituent said: “The results of the scheme belie its claim that it was targeting small islands. In the end, the whole application process turned out to be a waste of time for a small farm facing a lot of other challenges.” That sums up the problem with the scheme. It was devised in haste for political reasons to allow announcements to be made at the Royal Highland Show; it raised expectations and wasted the time and resources of farm businesses; and it will not actually achieve its stated aims. The minister must surely now acknowledge that fact, and the Government needs to learn lessons.”
“I know that I was not alone in seeing my inbox fill up, over a short space of time, with messages from constituents who were bemused at having had their applications rejected with no explanation as to why. The failure in communication simply intensified the level of anger that was felt. Orkney- based businesses received less than 3.5 per cent of the overall funding allocated; in Shetland, the figure was less than 2 per cent. By way of example, I was contacted by a farm business in one of the smaller north isles in Orkney, which had worked with Orkney College to prepare an application for livestock management equipment to improve the efficiency and sustainability of the farm, which is already signed up to two agri-environmental schemes.”
“The objective of improving sustainability and environmental efficiency is one that farmers in my constituency support and are already pursuing, and they are willing to go further in doing so. The high level of demand for the scheme demonstrates the appetite, not just in Orkney but across the country, for making greater and faster progress in that transition. The general feeling, while perhaps not a universal view, was that the FFIS could make an important difference. However, when the award announcements were made at the end of last year, the disappointment was only exceeded by the astonishment and confusion that was felt by those who had believed—with good reason—that they met most, if not all, of the key criteria.”