A TORY MSP has been criticised for using “unparliamentary language” after calling a minister a “hypocrite” during a committee meeting.
During a meeting of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee on Wednesday morning, convener Finlay Carson claimed that Rural Affairs Minister Mairi Gougeon was “hypocritical” for seeking clarity from the UK Government about the funding arrangements for Scottish agriculture.
The Scottish Government is set to introduce a new Agriculture Bill to parliament later this year, which will change the way the country’s agricultural industry is funded.
Farmers currently receive funding via the same rules that applied when the UK was a member of the European Union.
This is set to end some point after 2025 when the Scottish Government will bring in its own bespoke funding system.
However, Gougeon told the committee that there remains uncertainty surrounding the amount of funding which can be expected from the UK Government for agriculture in Scotland in the coming years.
When asked by Carson what her “specific ask” of the Treasury regarding the agricultural budget was, she said: “Well, we’ll essentially be asking for our fair share of funding going forward because we’re already facing a shortfall in what we were promised on the back of Brexit – that agriculture funding would be replaced in full, which it hasn’t been.
“We’ve got a £93 million shortfall so we would at least be expecting that [to be reinstated], if not more.”
When pressed by Carson over what specific figure the Scottish Government would be asking for, Gougeon said that it was a conversation that needed to be had with the UK Government but that her requests for a meeting to discuss it had repeatedly been disregarded.
READ MORE: Scottish economic growth outpaces UK’s in latest figures
George Burgess, the interim director of the Agriculture and Rural Economy Directorate in the Scottish Government, who was also giving evidence to the committee, added: “I would simply say, it’s probably not the best way to begin a negotiation by broadcasting what your starting point and your fallback is."
But Carson claimed that it was “hypocritical” for Gougeon to ask for clarity when the Scottish Government refused to state when £33 million of agriculture funding, which was deferred during last year’s Emergency Budget Review, would be spent on the sector.
The Scottish Government has previously said the money will be spent on the agricultural sector in future years.
“It’s a bit hypocritical if you can’t tell us about the £33 million shortfall never mind any other shortfall,” said Carson.
Gougeon replied: “That’s not hypocritical at all and I think you’re confusing points which aren’t remotely related.”
SNP MSP Alasdair Allan then raised a point of order, claiming that Carson was using “unparliamentary language”.
Carson added: “I would suggest the position on the £33 million isn’t unlike the uncertainty we get going forward [with UK funding of agriculture in Scotland].”
Gougeon said it wasn’t an appropriate comparison.
“I would disagree with that,” she added.
“Because £33 million will be returned to the portfolio and must be spent in the portfolio.
“Whereas, we don’t know what funding will be allocated to the portfolio or how much we will get or when that will come [from the UK Government]”.
Carson was later pressed by SNP MSP Jim Fairlie over whether his use of the word “hypocritical” was unparliamentary.
Carson replied: “I think the term hypocritical is not necessarily unparliamentary given what we were discussing.
“I think it was a hard line of questioning, I’m comfortable with that."
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel