Concern amongst industry over a lack of information and detail on future agricultural policy from the Scottish Government was a key point raised during a debate at Holyrood, last week.

The session was instigated by the Rural Affairs and Islands (RAI) committee as part of its pre-legislative scrutiny of agricultural policy ahead of the new agri-bill expected to be introduced later this year.

Opening the debate, Tory MSP and committee chair, Finlay Carson, argued for a strong agricultural sector to provide a secure and sustainable food supply.

Mr Carson said: “In February, the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands shared with the committee a route map for agricultural reform that sets out a high-level timescale for the transition towards the future agriculture support framework.

“Although that information is, of course, welcome, a common thread running through the evidence that the committee has heard so far has been the concern that food producers and other agriculture stakeholders have voiced about the lack of information and detail from the Scottish Government about what a new agriculture policy intends to achieve and how it will achieve it.”

Pointing to evidence given at committee by a range of industry and associated organisations, he said: “All witnesses, without exception, recognised the urgent need to reduce emissions from agriculture in order to meet our challenging net zero goals and to tackle the worrying decline in biodiversity.

“The capacity for future payment schemes based on conditionality for emissions reduction was explored.

“Although there was broad agreement that a payment scheme is the best vehicle to achieve that, there were concerns about the potential impact that some of the suggested measures – particularly the reduction in livestock numbers to meet methane reduction targets – might have on agriculture.”

Responding, Rural Affairs Secretary Mairi Gougeon said the Scottish Government was 'well on its way' to delivering a support system and highlighted actions the government has taken.

These included the national test programme, with almost 1000 farmers and crofters claiming carbon audits in the first quarter of this year.

In addition, the Cabinet Secretary said 680 rural businesses shared more than £14m in the 2022 round of the agri-environment climate scheme, while a new payment arrangement to improve the health and welfare of sheep and cattle was announced in February.

She said: “Every year, we provide £420m in support through basic payments and greening payments. We also continue to provide additional support to those farming in less favourable areas, who are, arguably, in most need the support.”

Highland Labour MSP, Rhoda Grant, said the Agriculture Bill and the new support scheme must enable the industry to achieve net zero targets, reduce emissions and produce food.

“Evidence given to the committee has demonstrated that we have already lost out on crucial years in which we could have made headway. Farming and crofting cannot change quickly, so each delay means less innovation.”

Ms Grant said what industry needed and what it was asking for was 'more details on the bill and the new support scheme.' It also needs more comprehensive tools to assist it in going further.

“Many are frustrated by the lack of government support towards achieving our net zero ambitions. The government must reward good practice and incentivise others to follow.”

Ms Grant also called for a realistic audit to ensure farming was credited with its carbon sequestration, as well as emissions. “If not, we will see green lairds buying up even more of our land and planting trees in the wrong places, while doing nothing at all to address their current emissions.

“Not a penny of public money should go to people who would sell carbon credits to enable polluting behaviour elsewhere,” she argued.

Speaking after the debate, Tory rural affairs spokesperson, Rachael Hamilton, described it as a 'missed opportunity' for the government to demonstrate support for the sector, with 'no new big ideas on farming coming from ministers.'

While this debate may have been worthwhile in terms of legislative process, it failed to shed much light on the situation for industry.

Perhaps the Deputy Presiding Officer, when trying to restore order in the chamber, inadvertently best described the debate when she complained about 'a build-up of low-level noise and grumbling from a sedentary position.'

In reality, it was political Groundhog Day, where the same people largely made the same arguments they have made before.

The fact is, at the time of writing, industry was still waiting, not just for announcements on policy direction from the Scottish Government, but the promise that results of the agri bill consultation, launched with great fanfare last year, would be published 'soon', or 'in the spring', looks to be increasingly on a shoogly peg.

There is no question the Scottish Government has had its troubles to seek. Covid saw the Civil Service circle the wagons to best utilise resource to deal with a sustained health emergency. The impact of Brexit on the ability of the UK Government to provide financial certainty beyond the short term is significant, although some at Westminster may want to reflect on just how that particular situation came about.

The fact is, however, that industry is right to become increasingly frustrated at a lack of policy progress from Holyrood.

Uncertainty about the hoops farmers and crofters will have to jump through to receive direct support is compounded by poor communication from government with the sector.