Plenary, 11 Dec 2008

Meeting date: Thursday, December 11, 2008

Official Report 712KB pdf

---

Question Time

---

SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE

---

Justice and Law Officers

---

Fiscal Fines

To ask the Scottish Government what progress has been made in discussions on the retention and distribution of fiscal fine moneys. (S3O-5231)

Discussions are on-going with the Treasury as to the retention of fiscal fine moneys in Scotland. We want those funds to be retained in Scotland and put to good use in Scotland to help the justice system to deliver benefits for the people of Scotland.

I urge the cabinet secretary to pursue those discussions vigorously. In those arguments with the Treasury, will he press his case on the basis that the funds should be used to benefit the communities that have suffered as a result of the actions of criminals?

Absolutely. We want to ensure that the communities benefit. Clearly, in some instances, the funds are used to ensure that the wheels of the court service run. However, I support the general ethos that the member expresses, which is that fines, levies or compensation orders that those who commit offences against our communities are forced to pay should be used to compensate those communities in some shape or form, whether through the bureaucracy that enforces justice or, more particularly, by making those communities better and alleviating their problems.

I agree with the sentiments that the cabinet secretary has expressed. Will he, in turn, agree with me that, in light of the derisory levels of payments of fiscal fines, a rather greater priority might be to ensure that the fines are collected?

I assure Mr Aitken that the fines are in the process of being collected. Many have been paid. I do not recognise the reference to "derisory levels of payments".

A system is in place. The fine has to be intimated to the individual, who must have an opportunity to decide whether to accept or decline it. Thereafter, the individual has a period of time in which the payment can be made. That process must be gone through.

I assure the member that we will seek to ensure that those who are given fines are forced to pay. If they do not pay, the whole system will be brought into disrepute. Matters are being dealt with, and the new system of fines enforcement officers is being rolled out, which will ensure that we enforce justice.

Before we come to question 2, I repeat what I said at First Minister's question time this morning, which is that the supplementary questions on the matter that is about to be discussed should relate purely to the efficiency of the organisation that is involved.

---

Grampian Police

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it agrees with Grampian's chief constable that the proposed closure of Aberdeen's forensic laboratory and fingerprint service will not lead to an improved service to Grampian Police. (S3O-5241)

There has been no decision to close the Aberdeen laboratory. The provision of police forensic science services is an operational matter for the Scottish Police Services Authority.

There is a pressing need to invest in modern police forensic science facilities, which is why this Government is funding a new forensic laboratory as part of the Gartcosh crime campus project and why I gave approval in May for the SPSA to proceed with a new forensic laboratory in Dundee. I asked the SPSA to engage in fresh consultation on the delivery of forensic science services to the north and north-east of Scotland and to let me have further advice. That consultation is on-going.

Exactly. Six months ago, the minister accepted the SPSA's plan for a new-build resource in Dundee, and, thankfully, told it to think again about the proposal to close down the Aberdeen laboratory. The SPSA has now come back with a consultation that is aimed only at closing the Aberdeen laboratory. Best practice for consultations is to offer options for people to respond to. Will the minister ask the SPSA to withdraw the flawed consultation paper and consult properly on options for the future, including the option of keeping the Aberdeen laboratory open?

I can only reiterate what I have said: there has been no decision to close the Aberdeen laboratory. The matter is under consultation, and we should allow that process to proceed. Equally, this is a matter for the SPSA. In that regard, and in the light of remarks that were made earlier to the First Minister, we should be clear that Grampian's chief constable sits on the board of the SPSA—

And is opposed to—

Mr Rumbles.

The matter is one for the SPSA, and we should allow it to proceed. We should also bear in mind the fact that a new chairman has been appointed. We should trust him to consider the matter, and allow him and the board—which includes Grampian's chief constable—to make a decision in due course, whatever that decision might be.

The cabinet secretary is, of course, responsible for the SPSA. Is he aware that Northern Constabulary will be affected by the proposed closure of the Aberdeen forensic laboratory, and that it has apparently not been consulted at all on the proposal? Does he not consider it to be vital to consult properly not only Northern Constabulary but the staff, who not only oppose closure but are offering real and effective solutions?

Absolutely—that is why we should allow the SPSA to get on with the consultation. I recently met Ian Latimer, the chief constable of Northern Constabulary, and he raised no concerns with me. Vic Emery has been appointed as the chairman of the SPSA, and there are a variety of people on the board: not simply the chief constable of Grampian Police but the Labour convener of the Strathclyde joint police board and the chief constable of Strathclyde Police. We should trust in the wisdom, good judgment and integrity of those individuals to make a decision in due course, based on a proper consultation.

I can confirm that, last week, Highland MSPs met the deputy chief constable and the chief superintendent of Northern Constabulary, who both confirmed that Northern Constabulary had not been consulted on the proposed closure of Aberdeen forensic laboratory.

Question, please.

At the most recent meeting of the Grampian joint police board, the SPSA chief executive said that even if the majority of responses were against closure, that it would not be the SPSA's recommendation. Will the fresh consultation include Northern Constabulary and the Highlands and Islands, and will the cabinet secretary ensure that there is no fait accompli?

We live in what is sometimes described as village Scotland. I am remarkably surprised that those remarks should be made by Northern Constabulary. When we decided on a new police board representative for the board of the SPSA, we had to choose between Stephen House, the chief constable of Strathclyde Police, and Ian Latimer, the chief constable of Northern Constabulary. Mr Latimer, for who I have the greatest respect and whom I believe is an excellent police officer, has been dealing with other matters since Mr House was appointed. Members seem to be alluding to some sort of conspiracy, which frankly does not exist.

If there has not been any direct consultation, the chief constable or any other member of Northern Constabulary should raise the matter with the SPSA board. We should remember that when people are nominated and put on the board of the SPSA, they attend not as the chief constable of Grampian Police or Strathclyde Police, or as the Labour convener from Strathclyde joint police board, but as individuals who are appointed to represent Scotland and the broad community. I have faith in those individuals, so it is a matter of regret that some people should seek to impugn the integrity of those who sit on that board.

Question 3 has been withdrawn.

---

Property Registration

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will bring forward proposals to revise the procedures for registering a non domino dispositions of property. (S3O-5209)

The matter is presently in hand. The Scottish Law Commission is undertaking a comprehensive review of land registration, which includes consideration of new procedures for the keeper of the registers of Scotland to follow when a disposition a non domino is presented for registration.

I invite the minister to understand my amazement at finding that someone can register a claim for ownership of a property or land that is owned by someone else without the true owner being aware of the claim. Does he agree that in cases in which title may be unclear, the system is open to abuse? As part of the Scottish Law Commission's review, will the Government support the requirement for compulsory advertising of such claims, so that bogus claims can be challenged without the need for expensive court action?

The keeper advises me that the use of dispositions a non domino is relatively infrequent, amounting to 100 a year out of some 500,000 registrations. The recording of a disposition a non domino does not by itself, as I understand it, confer a good title: it has to be followed by a period of 10 years of possession without judicial interruption. Only then would the title be made good.

It is open to Mr Coffey's constituents, on whose behalf he has argued strongly for action, to raise—if they are so advised—court proceedings by way of an action of reduction in the Court of Session to challenge the disposition a non domino. However, his point is that the procedures need to be reviewed. The Scottish Law Commission is considering those procedures as part of its review of land registration, and his suggestion is worthy of serious consideration. I urge him to write to me in more detail and I will ensure that his suggestion is fully considered by the Scottish Law Commission.

---

Drugs Courts

To ask the Scottish Executive when funding for drugs courts is due to end and when a decision will be made on whether it will be extended. (S3O-5166)

The position of the existing drugs courts in Fife and Glasgow is due to be reviewed by spring 2009, against the progress of the summary justice reforms. The current funding period extends to March 2009, but further funding will be provided to allow time for the review process to be completed and informed decisions to be taken on future funding.

Does the minister share my concern that that short timescale leaves a damaging question mark over the drugs courts in Glasgow and Fife, which means that many of those who are employed by the courts will start actively to seek work elsewhere? Crucially, there is time for only a cursory review of the drugs courts, which will risk not giving them the chance to show their true worth. Will the minister actively look for continuation funding that gives a decent amount of time for those issues to be addressed? Will he, as a matter of urgency, bring an end to uncertainty, so that a review to decide the future of the drugs courts can be held under fair conditions?

The evaluation of the Glasgow and Fife drugs courts was published on 30 March 2006. The previous Administration decided that funding should continue until next March. The evaluation report stated that offenders

"who completed their Orders had fewer convictions in the 2 years after being made subject to an Order than in the 2 years immediately before."

It added:

"there was widespread support for the Drug Courts both from those working within them and from other criminal justice professionals."

Those professionals included sheriffs sitting in other courts. However, it was less clear that the outcomes of orders made by drugs courts were better than the outcomes of drug treatment and testing orders made by ordinary sheriff courts.

This Government strongly supports DTTOs, which have proven to be effective and are a key part of our drugs strategy "The Road to Recovery". We look forward to building on that work with the DTTO pilot that is being rolled out in Lothian and the Borders for lower-tariff offenders. We want to ensure that every court in Scotland has an appropriate device to provide people with a road to recovery, that is, DTTOs, which, at a cost of £10,000 each, cost substantially less than sending people to prison at a cost of £35,000. We will consider carefully a further evaluation of drugs courts, but we will do so in the light of the proven success of DTTOs and the fact that we have already rolled them out to every sheriff court in Scotland.

---

Alcohol Sales (Under-18s)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will ensure that the police or prosecuting authorities automatically notify local licensing boards of any prosecutions concerning the sale of alcohol to under-18s. (S3O-5163)

The police automatically notify local licensing boards of any reports that they make to the procurator fiscal about offences concerning the sale of alcohol to under-18s. I will ask my officials to consider whether the procurator fiscal could automatically notify local licensing boards of any prosecutions that arise from such reports.

I invite the minister to write to me clarifying whether he believes that all police authorities are fulfilling that obligation and how, in practice, those measures might be strengthened in the future.

I think that I made matters clear. The police automatically notify local licensing boards. If that is not happening, I am more than happy to investigate. It might be more appropriate for the member to write to me, and I will seek clarification from the relevant police authority. My understanding is that notification happens automatically. If there are problems, I am more than happy to correspond with or to meet the member to ensure that notification happens. As I said, I will discuss with the Crown whether there are measures that would, without causing any huge logistical difficulties, ensure that matters go further down the pipeline, so to speak, and that boards are kept informed.

---

Fatal Accident Inquiry

To ask the Scottish Government when a decision will be taken on whether the death of Irene Hogg, former headteacher of Glendinning Terrace primary in Galashiels, should be the subject of a fatal accident inquiry. (S3O-5216)

Investigations into the circumstances of Irene Hogg's death are almost complete. The procurator fiscal at Jedburgh anticipates being in a position to report the matter to Crown counsel for their consideration early in 2009.

I am grateful that there is now a date. I have no doubt that the Solicitor General will share the concerns of Irene Hogg's elderly parents and her brother in Australia that the matter should be resolved as soon as practicable.

I am grateful to Christine Grahame for her interest in the matter. A meeting has been fixed between Irene Hogg's brother, the local procurator fiscal and the pathologist. I understand that that is the only outstanding matter prior to the reporting of the death to the Crown Office for the consideration of Crown counsel.

Question 8 has been withdrawn.

---

Scottish Islamic Foundation (Meetings)

To ask the Scottish Executive when ministers next intend to meet with Mr Osama Saeed or other representatives of the Scottish Islamic Foundation and what subjects are likely to be discussed. (S3O-5175)

There are currently no plans for ministers to meet Mr Osama Saeed or other representatives of the Scottish Islamic Foundation. However, Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon recently addressed an SIF event in Glasgow.

The cabinet secretary will be aware that the Scottish Islamic Foundation received a very substantial grant from the race, religion and refugee integration funding stream. Can the cabinet secretary confirm whether any ministers were involved in any discussions whatever with Mr Saeed, or with anyone from the Scottish Islamic Foundation, prior to that allocation being made? If so, which ministers?

What I can say is that all applications to the RRRI funding stream were scrutinised and considered for their match with Government priorities and value for money. They were considered according to the normal rules, which are required to be followed by all ministers of whatever Government.

If Mr Foulkes wishes to raise certain matters, he should feel entitled to do so. However, it is not appropriate for me to answer questions about matters that have not properly been put before us. We have no reason to believe that anything was done other than to support an organisation that seeks to support religious tolerance and harmony. If Mr Foulkes knows of matters that he believes to be inappropriate, he should mention them.

I should mention Mr Foulkes's outrage in the past regarding decisions by Government ministers, particularly by this cabinet secretary on matters concerning the British Transport Police. I hope that Mr Foulkes now retracts, and that he accepts that the British Transport Police were overzealous in their treatment of people from an ethnic minority population.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I asked a very specific question, with very serious intent, specifically about meetings between ministers and an organisation. The original question was about that. The minister's reply referred in no way to any meetings. I am absolutely sure that his brief contains—

I have to come in at this point, Lord Foulkes. I am afraid that that is not a point of order. Ministers alone are responsible for the content of their answers.

---

Liquor Licensing

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will provide an update on how the new liquor licensing laws are affecting businesses. (S3O-5159)

We are still in the transition period to the new regime, so it is premature to reach any conclusions about the impact of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005 either on the licensed trade or on the communities across Scotland that are affected by alcohol misuse. However, I am pleased to advise the Parliament that the Accounts Commission has agreed to consider the impact once the 2005 act is fully up and running. It is important that the licensing regime is fair to the trade and fair to the taxpayers who have, after all, been subsidising the current system for many years.

Yes, but does the minister accept that many small guest houses, bed and breakfasts and small retail units throughout my region of the Highlands and Islands—and, I dare say, elsewhere in Scotland—face crippling rises in licensing fees as a result of the Licensing (Fees) (Scotland) Regulations 2007, and that many of those businesses have either closed down or stopped serving alcoholic refreshments as a result? Given his Government's much-trumpeted desire to boost tourism in Scotland, what action will the minister take to stop even more tourism enterprises being driven out of business because of the level of the fees?

As Mr McGrigor knows, fees are set by local licensing boards. If he thinks that fee levels are causing concern, he should discuss them with the boards. Under the 2005 act, the Government has set the maximum fee that can be charged, but individual licensing boards must decide on the level of the fee. Not all licensing boards have—if I can put it this way—gone to the max; some have dealt with issues in other ways.

As a result of Government action to minimise the difficulties and hardship that small businesses face, there has been a substantial reduction in business rates and in the burden that small businesses must bear. I hope that the member acknowledges and welcomes that.

Yes I do, but we did that.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. During First Minister's question time and at the start of this afternoon's business, you quite rightly warned all members not to refer to issues that are before the courts and could be sub judice. Will you confirm that every member complied with your instructions and that, contrary to what the Cabinet Secretary for Justice implied, no member questioned the integrity of members of the Scottish Police Services Authority board in any way?

I am not aware that any member went against my ruling on sub judice—if that answers your point of order.

---

Rural Affairs and the Environment

---

Raptors (Poisoning)

To ask the Scottish Government what progress it has made in relation to preventing the poisoning of raptors. (S3O-5222)

Raptor poisoning is a crime that offends the Scottish public and disfigures our countryside. We are determined to see it consigned to history. We are fully implementing the recommendations in HM inspectorate of constabulary for Scotland's review of wildlife crime. We have built and strengthened partnership working between all those with an interest in countryside management, including by revitalising the partnership for action against wildlife crime. We are making encouraging progress in much of the country. However, we will not rest until poisoning ceases to be a problem anywhere in Scotland. We will use all the tools at our command to achieve that end.

Although it is encouraging that progress has been made, does the minister think that progress can be sustained, given the removal of powers under European cross-compliance rules? Does he agree that cross-compliance has been the most significant tool in his armoury for forcing change and driving out the cowboys and criminals who still think that laying poisoned bait is acceptable behaviour in the 21st century?

Christina McKelvie makes an important point. Many people think that the use of cross-compliance rules has been one of the most significant steps ever taken on wildlife crime in this country and that the approach has brought defining moments in demonstrating the seriousness of the matter.

Of course, cross-compliance remains in place. The deliberate killing of a protected bird is a breach under the current cross-compliance legislation and will remain so under the new approach, because the link with article 5(a) of the birds directive will remain in place. That means that if a carcase is found and it can be shown that the bird was deliberately poisoned under the responsibility of a recipient of common agricultural policy payments, that will constitute a breach of cross-compliance.

The removal of the link with article 8 of the birds directive from cross-compliance legislation means that there might no longer be a breach if poisoned bait but no carcase is found. However, I stress that the use of plant protection products that are not approved under the Plant Protection Products (Scotland) Regulations 2005 (SSI 2005/331) will constitute a breach of cross-compliance legislation. That means that the use of carbofuran—the most common chemical that is used to poison raptors in Scotland—will constitute a breach of cross-compliance legislation.

Therefore, cross-compliance will continue to be one of the most significant tools in our armoury for the defeat of wildlife crime.

I was recently advised by wildlife crime officers from Lothian and Borders Police that because wildlife crime is classified as a group 6 crime, statistics are not recorded. Has the minister discussed or will he discuss with colleagues in the justice portfolio the reclassification of wildlife crime, so that its extent can be properly assessed?

Yes. I have had such discussions. Dr Murray is absolutely right to draw attention to the fact that we need to keep better and better figures on what is taking place in the countryside. I will continue to discuss with my colleagues the ways in which we can do that. More reporting—and we are having more reporting—will help police officers and others to realise the seriousness of the matter, as a result of which they will press for better classification.

While I am totally against the indiscriminate poisoning of raptors, what is the minister doing to address the on-going problem of introduced sea eagles killing and eating the lambs of crofters and farmers in the Highlands and Islands?

I have some reservations about linking the two issues under the question heading. Any linkage is utterly wrong. Of course, as Mr McGrigor knows, and has been told, Scottish Natural Heritage is conducting intensive work with crofters on the issue. We have made it clear that we are prepared to act once we have the information to hand. I treat the matter seriously, but it is not linked in any way to wildlife crime, and it should not be.

I urge the minister to redouble his efforts. Does he agree that it is easy to get the impression that we are moving backwards in terms of certain species and areas? Does he further agree that those who spend a lot of time and effort in introducing species such as red kites—or, for that matter, sea eagles—find that disappointing?

We should keep the sea eagle issue out of this. There is a continuing problem with poisoning in Scotland. I would be happy to redouble my efforts, but I think that we are running pretty much at full tilt as it is. It is important for Mr Morgan to realise, as many people in Scotland realise, that every effort is being made to ensure that such crime is rigorously investigated, prosecuted and punished. We will continue to do that.

The strong impression and fact that we have to get out into Scotland is that crime against wildlife is crime like any other and that it will be punished like any other crime. We are making progress on the issue. It is too early to look at the full figures for the year, but those for the first half indicate that bird poisonings have dropped. I want them to continue to drop. We will do everything to ensure that that happens. Progress is being made. I pay tribute to all the organisations that are involved in that.

---

Sustainable Development Commission Report

To ask the Scottish Executive how it responds to the criticism that is contained in the Sustainable Development Commission's second assessment report. (S3O-5161)

Sustainable development is at the heart of our commitment to sustainable economic growth. We welcome the Sustainable Development Commission's finding that our approach

"accords with good practice in sustainable development governance"

and the positive assessment by the SDC of so much that we are doing. We will consider carefully all its specific recommendations.

The commission has some interesting things to say about the concept of sustainable economic growth. For example, it says that

"there are clear tensions between GDP Growth and the other Purpose targets",

including those on sustainability. It goes on to express concern about whether

"Government will reconcile aspirations to increase GDP while reducing … emissions."

That is the view not only of the Sustainable Development Commission but, it would appear, of the Government's hand-picked advisers on the Council of Economic Advisers. The Scottish Parliament information centre provided me with a copy of the council's first annual report, in which it expresses concern on the matter and asks how the Government will relate its target for economic growth to that for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Is it not time for the Government to begin to redefine what it means by economic progress? Surely it should no longer be only about growth. If we do not do that, we will be left asking ourselves whether emissions or gross domestic product take priority.

We have redefined what we mean by economic growth. That is why the concept of sustainable economic growth is at the heart of everything that this Government does. The member needs only to look at the raft of sustainable legislation that we have introduced and are bringing forward over the coming months. Among a host of measures, all of which have sustainable economic growth at heart, we have the proposed marine bill, the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Bill and the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill. Indeed, sustainable economic growth is at the heart of everything we do.

The Sustainable Development Commission has highlighted the potential tension that all Governments in the world have to address. We benefit from and welcome independent scrutiny of our policies to achieve sustainable economic growth. That is what we will continue to do.

Given the key criticism in the commission's report, how can we have confidence that Scotland will meet the 80 per cent carbon reduction target by 2050 if we do not have in place the short-term strategy that the commission identified that we need? Surely ministers must now identify specific carbon reductions across every portfolio. Ministers need to do that if we are to meet our 2050 target and get the early action that we all agree is needed.

I accept the premise of the member's point. Climate change is a big challenge that all members, all parties and all Governments will have to address in the coming decades. That is why Scotland's first ever climate change minister, Stewart Stevenson, has not only introduced what WWF and others described as the world's most ambitious climate change bill, but made a commitment to follow it up with the action that we all have to take to ensure that we achieve the ambitious targets by 2050.

---

Scottish Environment Protection Agency (Meetings)

To ask the Scottish Executive when it last met the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and what issues were discussed. (S3O-5187)

I and my officials have frequent meetings with SEPA. I have a wide-ranging quarterly meeting with the chief executive and chairman, I attend a board meeting annually, and there are special meetings on special subjects including flooding. Richard Lochhead met SEPA's chief executive on 8 October to discuss SEPA's contribution to the Scottish Government's economic recovery plan.

As the minister will know, concerns about climate change are increasing and there have been some unprecedented flooding events in various parts of Scotland in the recent past. What is SEPA's latest view on our state of readiness to meet current and future flooding threats?

We regularly review the state of readiness, as does the civil contingencies group in the Scottish Government. Last year, after the flooding in England and Wales, we took special steps to ensure that the eight regional groups felt that they were adequately prepared. The Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Bill gives SEPA an enhanced role, including not just flood alert activity, which is extremely important, but flood warning functions. Mr McCabe is right to say that climate change is producing new challenges in relation to flooding. I believe that the bill rises to those challenges.

---

Forestry Industry

To ask the Scottish Executive what discussions it has had with forestry organisations on the future management and financing of the forest industry. (S3O-5198)

After my recent discussions with leading representatives of the forestry industry about the impact of the current economic downturn on the sector, I announced a range of measures to help to ease the pressure on hard-pressed businesses. We also discussed the representatives' views on the consultation that I launched last month on climate change and the national forest estate. On 18 December, I will attend a meeting of the Scottish forestry forum to hear further comments on the matter from stakeholders who represent all parts of the sector—economic, social and environmental.

No doubt the minister's discussions will have made it clear, as he has done publicly, that the reason for leasing part of the national forest estate is to finance expenditure on climate change measures. Will he clarify whether the ambitions that are set out in the recently published Climate Change (Scotland) Bill are dependent on finance from the leasing of tracts of Scotland's forest estate?

We have just heard from Sarah Boyack a strong statement about the imperatives of climate change, which Mr McCabe also mentioned. It is important for members to consider any proposal that comes forward that could resource actions that would reduce greenhouse gases and make an impact on climate change. Forestry is one area in which that could happen.

Of course there is a relationship between these plans. Indeed, the consultation is designed to ask people for their views and to improve the proposals; alternatively, we might reach a stage at which we decide that we cannot take them forward. I encourage Mr Peacock—and every other member who has an interest in the matter—to consider the proposals seriously, to consider the imperatives of climate change, and to be ambitious and thoughtful about the changes that we will have to face.

In addition to understanding the commercial potential of forestry, the minister will appreciate that the national forest estate—including the Galloway forest park, which covers a huge swathe of south-west Scotland and reaches into the south of Ayrshire—also fulfils important environmental and social purposes. What guarantee can he offer that any leasing of parts of the national forest estate will not diminish the environmental and social benefits?

There are absolute guarantees that that will not be so, and they have been made obvious. In addition, the potential to spend up to £200 million on climate change measures within the forest estate would mean new jobs and new opportunities to enhance the environment. There are many positive things in the proposals.

I stress again that there is a consultation on the matter and that members' views are welcome. I hope that members will come forward with their views in a constructive and thoughtful way.

Does the minister agree that extending the community control of forests will aid the process of ensuring that more trees are grown and of tackling climate change which, as the Stern report has pointed out, requires investment at the earliest possible time? We hear calls for community control in other areas, but we could do with realising our forestry assets to fulfil our duty on climate change.

I can see why the latest issue of Am Bratach, the Sutherland magazine, carries a letter that says that Mr Gibson has a deep knowledge of Highland culture. It is clear that he has a deep knowledge of woodlands because he knows how important it is to plant new trees—[Interruption.] Jackie Baillie appears to question Mr Gibson's qualifications from a sedentary position; I am sorry that she does so, because Mr Gibson's qualifications to talk upon these matters are great. He knows that community ownership of forests has worked well in the Highlands and Islands. He knows that early investment in climate change measures is recommended by the Stern report. He is taking a forward-looking view. I am afraid that all that we hear from the Labour benches is carping and criticising. Labour members will be judged on their inability to engage with forestry and climate change or to think constructively. It is sad that they are backward looking in forestry as in everything else.

---

Environmental Projects (Fife)

To ask the Scottish Government what assistance is provided to environmental projects in Fife. (S3O-5219)

Environmental projects in Fife, and indeed throughout Scotland, are able to access a wide range of funds from across the public sector, including the INCREASE grant scheme, the Scotland rural development programme and the climate challenge fund. The climate challenge fund is focused on climate change, as we all should be.

The minister is well aware of the fantastic environmental initiative in Markinch in my constituency—the Bleachfield project—that has seen a former landfill site transformed into an environmental garden that can be used by the whole community. Does the minister agree that volunteers such as Jack Chalmers and the Milton and Coaltown of Balgonie community council should be commended on that project and that similar initiatives should be encouraged?

I do indeed and I had the pleasure of meeting Jack Chalmers and members of the Coaltown of Balgonie community council when I visited the Bleachfield site some weeks ago. It emphasised two things to me: one was that the role of volunteers is extremely important and the other was that communities should be ambitious for their area because things are changing and communities have to change with them—a message that I commend to others in the chamber.

---

Recycling Targets

To ask the Scottish Executive what the impact of the current economic situation is on meeting recycling targets. (S3O-5179)

Although the global financial crisis has reduced demand for some material that we recycle, it is important to continue to take a long-term view and work towards a zero waste Scotland. We are already recycling more material than ever before and local authority performance to June this year was over 32 per cent.

Taking account of the current situation, we will be working with local authorities and other public sector partners to ensure that Scotland meets the challenging recycling targets that I announced in January 2008.

I commend the minister on maintaining the pressure to meet recycling targets, but he will be aware that the current situation has led to a fall in prices for recycled materials and that, as a result, there are reports of increased use of landfill and reduced incomes for local authorities. Will the minister take steps to ensure that any reduction in local authority income is replaced or supported by grant from him so that there is no diminution of pressure on local authorities to meet their targets? Will he tell me what additional measures he will take to ensure that there is no increased use of landfill?

I thank the member for raising an important issue. The waste and resources action programme—WRAP—is still of the view that the current low prices for recycled materials are temporary. I am sure that we all hope that that is the case. SEPA is working actively with local authorities to address the problem. Although there is no evidence of a reduction in the collection of recycling, many local authorities are looking at storage and other measures to deal with what is, I hope, a temporary situation. It is important that SEPA and others work with them. I assure the member that we are paying close attention to the challenge facing local authorities as a result of the international economic climate, and we will continue to do so.