���˿���

I will now open up to questions from colleagues.

Indeed. It is just that the word “revolution” evokes chaos and stuff like that, which I am a bit concerned about. I always think that it is a lot easier to reach a goal and complete a task if you have a deadline. If you do not, it is much harder, because there is never any date by which delivery has to happen.

I will allow other members to come in with questions. The first will be Jamie Halcro Johnston, to be followed by Ross Greer.

That is a matter of real concern. In paragraph 23—this has been touched on by Mr Scott—you say:

“EU Exit means Scotland no longer has long-term certainty of funding. HM Treasury have provided yearly allocations for the current UK Parliamentary term, however, there is no funding commitment from 2025.”

You also say:

“Agriculture requires future funding certainty”.

Given that there has been no commitment beyond 2025—this parliamentary session—where are we in providing certainty through the financial memorandum and the bill for Scotland’s agricultural sector? There has already been a knock to the funding for the next financial year. What is the likelihood that that will be exacerbated? I know that you have not got a crystal ball, but what are your concerns about that? What are the likely parameters should we not see a commitment beyond 2025?

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.