Meeting of the Parliament 19 November 2024
I am more than happy to address that point. The member is well aware of where that funding came from. It was from underspends on demand-led schemes. It did not come from farmers’ pockets and it therefore did not have that detrimental impact. We do what we will always do, which is to protect the interests of our farmers and crofters.
How could the changes have been seen coming, given that the then shadow environment secretary, Steve Reed, stated explicitly before the election that Labour had
“no intention of changing APR”?
I make no apologies for repeating my words of last week’s debate, because the message is unequivocal:
“this Government wants a tax system that supports rather than hinders orderly succession planning and the transfer of land to the next generation of custodians.”—[Official Report, 13 November 2024; c 23.]
However, that is not what the new UK Government has done. Although I welcome the fact that future funding allocations will be a Scottish Government decision, I have to emphasise that baselining the funding allocation on 2018 and removing ring fencing for agriculture must necessarily add to pressures.
Many have noted that funding is now firmly and exclusively in the hands of the Scottish Government, following the baselining. To an extent, that point is correct, but it must be recognised that the Scottish block grant is significantly affected by decisions that are taken by the UK Government. That means that the grant’s overall size is a product of any changes to public expenditure that are made by the UK Government—which now includes the funding that was previously ring fenced for agriculture and rural development.
The Scottish Government is committed to maintaining direct payments and ensuring that there are no cliff edges in support.