Meeting of the Parliament 19 November 2024
Being in government presents both the opportunity and the challenge of making choices that have the potential to change people’s lives and livelihoods. Making such choices means that ministers bear an awesome responsibility, individually and collectively. Among much else, it demands that we must understand the impact of those choices as fully as we can. It is regrettable that the new UK Government appears to have failed to embrace that approach and, perhaps worse, appears to be ignoring that basic tenet of governing. Worst of all, when those who are affected by a Government’s choices believe that their outcomes will be very different, the least that it can do as a Government is to listen, reflect and perhaps offer to reconsider its approach.
The fact that huge numbers of people are marching on London today to make their anger and anxiety known suggests that the new UK Government has got this one badly wrong. The unnecessary worry, stress and concern that the UK Government’s budget of 30 October has caused up and down rural Scotland is testament to such a failure. I will put it very simply: this is unacceptable. It is unfathomable that the UK Government made choices without publishing or even undertaking impact assessments on its budget proposals. We are left with the conclusion, which I am sure is shared by our farmers, crofters and rural businesses, that they were entirely arbitrary decisions.
Agriculture and rural development have long been fully devolved to Scotland. That was the case even before the Scottish Parliament was reconvened. Indeed, that devolved policy status is what allowed Scotland to keep the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board when Thatcher abolished the wages boards for all other sectors. However, in the UK autumn budget, we saw that choices had been made without any engagement or consultation to change budget allocations and reserved taxes—changes that will impact very directly on those devolved competences.
Our limited experience of the new UK Government appears to be demonstrating that it is no better than the old one. Labour is not listening to rural Scotland any better than the Tories did. Worse, perhaps, is that, if the Prime Minister’s remarks at the weekend are anything to go by, Labour does not appear to care about the alarm and worry that it has caused thousands of families and households here in Scotland.
What all of that makes clear is that Westminster is not working for rural Scotland. There is still time for change, of course. Funding decisions such as those do not need to be imposed; they can be arrived at collectively, after meaningful engagement with not just other Governments but key stakeholders, too. That is especially needed when, as a result of the choices combined, we will see Scottish farmers paying more to the Treasury, with no guarantee that they will get any of that back in fair future funding settlements.
To say that I am disappointed that the chancellor made the announcements with absolutely no discussion with the devolved nations or consideration of the net effect of the decisions is really to undersell my concern. I know that the colossal contribution that agriculture makes to the Scottish economy, fuelling our rural communities and making our world-class food and drink sectors possible, is well recognised across the Parliament. That that contribution is not seen as being so critical elsewhere leaves me with no option but to conclude that, at best, rural Scotland is treated with indifference by this UK Government.
I will take our crofting sector by way of an example. Crofting plays a significant role in the sustainability of many rural and island areas, with over 33,000 people living in crofting households across the Highlands and Islands. Our crofters undertake a wide range of activities and, without the relevant assessments and analysis, it is impossible to gauge the impact that the policy could have on them. In preparation for crofting law reform, officials engaged extensively with key stakeholders to ensure that the proposals that we put forward for consultation would meet the sector’s needs and command a good measure of consensus. That was then promoted through public events while the consultation was live. The process is also supported through a wide range of impact assessments.
The proposals that the UK Government announced, in stark contrast, came without warning to our rural communities. How could the changes that are being imposed through inheritance tax relief have been seen coming when there was no consultation on them?