Meeting of the Parliament 22 January 2026 [Draft]
I know that we are in unusual territory, having a members’ business debate on a Thursday evening. Normally, it is a time when only us islanders are still kicking around, marooned in Edinburgh as a result of the last flight home having long since departed, so I am all the more grateful to the hardy colleagues from all parts of mainland Scotland for sticking around at the end of another very busy week to take part in the debate. I am also grateful to all those who signed my motion to allow the debate to take place.
In some senses, the horse has bolted when it comes to the future farming investment scheme. Towards the end of last year, like colleagues from parties across the chamber, I had and took various opportunities to raise serious and entirely legitimate concerns about the way in which the FFIS process has been developed, executed and communicated. Even so, despite all the oral and written questions, freedom of information responses and meetings and correspondence with the minister, there is still a need for Parliament to be able to debate what went wrong and how it can be avoided in future.
Given what we know—and it is fair to say that we still do not know everything—there is no doubt that the scheme was rushed in its development and poorly communicated and that it resulted in widespread anger and confusion among farmers and crofters across Scotland. It is true to say that the demand was always likely to exceed the available funding. Scottish Land & Estates estimates that only around 30 per cent of eligible businesses were likely to be successful. It is also true to say that, in such circumstances, we are always more likely to hear from those who have missed out than from those who have secured funding.
Even so, measured against the stated intentions that ministers set for the scheme, it is hard—indeed, I would say impossible—to sustain the argument that the FFIS did what it said on the tin and will make a meaningful difference in achieving its intended objectives.