Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Wednesday, December 12, 2012

Official Report 791KB pdf

---

Portfolio Question Time

---

Justice and the Law Officers

Question 1 has been withdrawn. I have received an explanation from Mark Griffin that I am satisfied with.

---

Prisoners (Father and Child Visit Contracts)

2. To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on prisoners being issued with contracts for father and child visits. (S4O-01589)

As with all questions regarding the operation of the Scottish Prison Service, I have asked Colin McConnell, the chief executive, to consider the question. He has advised the following. When offenders ask for bonding visits, they are advised of the provisions that will be applied. The offender is asked to sign a form acknowledging that they understand the process. That is not a contract.

I have with me a copy of a contract that is given to prisoners in Shotts prison, which clearly states that father and child visits are a privilege and not a right. That is in direct contravention of article 9 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Through answers that were given to parliamentary questions in April and June, the previous and current SPS chief executives have given conflicting statements on whether such visits are a right or a privilege. In September, I received a letter from the current chief exec, in which he stated the reverse of what he told me in June. Can the cabinet secretary clarify exactly what is going on in Scottish prisons?

I can clarify exactly what Mr McConnell said to Mary Fee. I understand that the contract to which she refers relates to HM Prison Shotts. The use of the word “contract” is misleading. It is a colloquial expression that is used only in HMP Shotts, whereby visitors are asked to agree to abide by various criteria to allow them to participate in the scheme.

I understand that Ms Fee wrote to Colin McConnell, the chief executive of SPS, about the issue in September. In his reply of 27 September 2012, he advised that it was entirely incorrect that parent and child visits or, indeed, any visits should be removed as a punishment, as advised in this case.

It is quite clear—this is central to the revised guidance that will be given—that the rights of the child are paramount, as is recognition of prisoners’ rights to have a family life under the European convention on human rights. The criteria for accessing the scheme will be presumed inclusion, although regard will be paid to any child protection issues as part of the relationship policy. For the avoidance of doubt, the chief executive of SPS has recently reminded governors that removal of bonding visits should not be used as a punishment.

In those circumstances, I hope that Ms Fee will accept that, given the assurance that Mr McConnell has given her, the reminder that he has sent to governors and my assurances on behalf of the chief executive.

Question 3, from Michael McMahon, has been withdrawn. I have an explanation with which I am satisfied.

---

Gun Crime

4. To ask the Scottish Government how it will continue to address gun crime in light of a 50 per cent reduction in firearms offences over the last five years. (S4O-01591)

The latest figures are encouraging, but too many offences in Scotland still involve a firearm, which is why we will be creating a licensing system for air weapons.

I will continue to press the Home Office to devolve legislative powers on all firearms to the Scottish Parliament. Discussions will continue with the police and the gun lobby, as well as with other stakeholders, to ensure that we can make our communities safer.

That is welcome progress, but we must go further. I note that 38 per cent of all firearms offences in 2011-12 involved air weapons, which are particularly prevalent despite the campaign for their restriction since the murder of Andrew Morton in the Glasgow region in 2005.

What additional information can the cabinet secretary give us about the timing of any consultation to restrict the use of air rifles in Scotland now that those powers are contained in the Scotland Act 2012?

I thank the member for asking that question. I established a Scottish firearms consultative panel in November 2011, and it has been examining the practicalities of licensing air weapons, which I consider to be the best way to combat their misuse. Addressing the firearms issue is a manifesto commitment of the Scottish National Party, which forms the Scottish Government.

The matter has been raised with me personally by Andrew Morton and Sharon McMillan, who tragically lost their young son. We have given them a commitment that action will be taken to ensure that no more tragedies occur, and that we will address the other difficulties around the misuse of air weapons, whether those relate to children, animals or any other aspects.

On that basis, I confirm to Mr Doris that a consultation on the proposals will be launched on Friday.

Can the cabinet secretary tell me what proportion of gun crime is currently carried out with weapons that are legally held and properly registered? Would that figure underpin my view that the current firearms legislation is fit for purpose?

I do not think that the current firearms legislation is fit for purpose. In all the investigations that we have carried out with experts and the police, including the police south of the border, it has been recognised that the firearms legislation is difficult to understand. As I recall, there are around eight acts of Parliament that make up the legislation, together with some seven significant amendments, some of which appear to be mutually contradictory.

There is a desire for an overarching review in order to consolidate the firearms legislation. We wish to undertake that. Action has so far not been taken by the Home Secretary. It is clear that many of the worst problems that we face in our communities come from weapons that are used illegally rather than by those who seek to use them more responsibly.

We must deal with two matters. Law enforcement officers will deal with those who use firearms illegally and seek to perpetrate crimes, serious or otherwise. We have a significant problem in Scotland with air weapons, and we stood on a commitment to address that. I have commented on the matter and given assurances to the parents of young Andrew Morton, and we will seek to deliver on that commitment.

There are clear differences between the abuse of firearms that occurs in our communities and some of the more significant crimes, but both those behaviours are unacceptable, and we, as a Government, will seek to take action. We can address only one particular aspect at present, and address it we will. I continue to urge the Home Secretary either to take action or to give us the powers to allow us to do so in order to ensure that we get comprehensive and credible legislation that is fit for the 21st century.

---

Community Service Orders

5. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to promote the use of community service orders. (S4O-01592)

We have improved community sentences. Last year, we introduced the new community payback order, which gives our judiciary the option to impose a clearer, tougher, more flexible and more effective sentence than the community disposals that it replaced. That has been backed up with additional funding, which has given local authorities £4 million to support the unpaid work element of the CPO.

We have implemented new targets for starting and completing unpaid work, and funded the fast-track pilot in Glasgow that resulted in more than 90 per cent of offenders in Glasgow starting unpaid work within 24 hours of being sentenced. We have also created a new law that gives communities a say in the type of unpaid work that they want offenders to do.

Collectively, those measures demonstrate that we are committed to following an approach that has effective community sentences at its heart.

I thank the cabinet secretary for that response. He will be aware that, on a number of occasions both inside and outside the Parliament, I have asked whether those who are serving a CSO might be allowed to undertake work to allay flooding conditions throughout the west of Scotland. What action is the Scottish Government taking to ensure that such community service orders are undertaken in the west of Scotland? Will he consider once again encouraging the use of CSOs in dealing with the inclement weather conditions over the winter?

We certainly encourage that, and I have seen matters such as snow clearing for myself, whether in the west of Scotland, the east of Scotland or elsewhere. I am aware of the particular matter that Mr McMillan has raised, and we are perfectly comfortable that that is the type of work that can be carried out so long as there is no danger to the health and safety of all those involved, whether they are carrying out or supervising such sentences. However, we leave such matters to the local authorities, which are the bodies charged with dealing with the issue, although we have put in additional funding through proceeds of crime money and through providing additional day support.

Perhaps Mr McMillan might care to speak to the local community payback teams to see what work can be carried out and to give those suggestions to them. Certainly in my experience, if communities in the east of Scotland or elsewhere make suggestions of work that they want done, the community payback teams are keen to ensure that, where possible, they carry out such work, whether that is clearing snow, addressing difficulties in graveyards or, as is sometimes the case, just litter picking. Community service orders are about making those who have damaged our community do some hard work to atone for their difficulties and make our communities better places.

As the cabinet secretary may know, the number of community service orders for 2010-11 stood at 5,940, of which some 1,932—more than a third—were breached. The number of community service orders also stands at the same level as for 2006-07. What steps will the cabinet secretary take to ensure that such orders are properly enforced and are not seen, in the public’s eye, as a soft option?

They are not seen as a soft option. Enforcement has to come through the shrieval bench or whatever bench imposes such orders—normally they are imposed by the shrieval bench. It would be fair to say that breaches for minor matters may result in the court simply remitting the sentence back, although usually the court will make quite clear the basis on which the sentence must be done. From discussions with the shrieval bench and with the Sheriffs Association, I know that individual offenders can sometimes cause great frustrations. That is why, as a Government, we are quite clear that a community payback order is not optional but obligatory. If such an order is imposed by the court, it is meant to be done; if it is not done, the court has the failsafe—and will have our full support wherever this is felt necessary—of simply remitting people to a custodial sentence. However, we believe that good work is being done, and we usually have the best results where there is close co-operation between the community payback team and the shrieval bench working together on successfully ensuring that people do their work and that our communities are improved.

---

Air Weapons (Licensing Consultation)

6. To ask the Scottish Government—notwithstanding the answer given to Bob Doris earlier—when it will introduce its consultation on the licensing of air weapons. (S4O-01593)

As I indicated to Bob Doris, we will begin the consultation on Friday.

Can the cabinet secretary advise who participated on the Scottish firearms consultative panel and what contribution they made?

I welcomed all the contributions. Those who sat on the panel represented: the police; the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service; the British Association for Shooting and Conservation; the Scottish Target Shooting Federation; the Gun Trade Association; the British Shooting Sports Council; the Scottish Air Rifle and Pistol Association; the Gun Control Network; the Scottish community safety network; the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities; and the Scottish Government.

I was grateful for all the input, much of which was from an expert basis. Clearly, there were sometimes disagreements around the table—

Will the minister take an intervention?

However, I thank each and every person who contributed for the efforts that they made.

It is not possible to accept interventions during questions. I call Lewis Macdonald to ask question 7.

---

Fiscal Direct Penalties (Non-payment)

7. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I also thank you for your gracious comments earlier regarding the point of order that I raised with you yesterday afternoon.

To ask the Scottish Government how many fiscal direct penalties have been discharged without having been fully paid since 2009. (S4O-01594)

Overall fine-collection rates are at their highest ever, and the Scottish Court Service is taking a robust approach to pursuing all outstanding fines. That gives a clear message to defaulters that there is no place to hide. Recent figures that were published by the Scottish Court Service show that 17,202 fiscal direct penalties have been discharged since 2009-10. The figures show that 6,694 penalties that were imposed in 2009-10 were discharged that year, with a further 5,756 and 4,752 discharged in the past two years. A discharge is often linked to an alternative punishment, such as a supervised attendance order. All decisions on discharges are taken by courts, in light of the facts and circumstances of the case.

The cabinet secretary will be aware that many alternative disposals do not apply in the case of fiscal direct penalties. Page 2 of the Scottish Court Service’s most recent quarterly fines report lists the fiscal direct penalties that have been paid for each financial year since 2009. Will the cabinet secretary confirm that the percentages that are reported in that official statistics publication for Scotland have been calculated only after discounting the 17,000 fiscal penalties that were discharged over the period, thereby giving an entirely false impression of the success rate in collection of fiscal fines? On that basis, will he confirm that fewer than half of the fiscal direct penalties that have been imposed on offenders since 2009 have been paid in full? If that is the case, does he agree that urgent action is needed to put that right?

The Scottish Court Service is taking the appropriate action. The report sets out the basis on which the calculations are made. As indicated, 78 per cent of fines that were imposed in 2009-10 have been paid or are on track to be paid.

However, there is clearly more work to be done. We would welcome further powers on the issue. Perhaps Mr Macdonald wishes to join me in once again encouraging the United Kingdom Government to give us and the Scottish Court Service the ability to access matters through the Department for Work and Pensions, which would make collection of fines much easier. However, so far, the UK Government has refused to give us that power. If matters were either devolved here or dealt with by the UK Government, I am sure that what Mr Macdonald seeks would be much easier to achieve for the people who do an outstanding job in seeking to collect fines with the current limited powers.

Question 8, from John Pentland, has been withdrawn. An explanation has been provided, with which I am satisfied.

---

“Shaping Scotland’s Court Service” (Ayr Sheriff Court)

9. To ask the Scottish Government what the impact of court closures, as proposed by the Scottish Court Service in its consultation, “Shaping Scotland’s Court Service”, will be on Ayr sheriff court. (S4O-01596)

The Scottish Court Service consultation document proposes that Ayr sheriff and justice of the peace court would continue to hear local civil, summary and sheriff and jury cases.

The cabinet secretary will be aware that the Scottish Court Service has proposed the closure of a number of courts near my constituency, including Kirkcudbright and Rothesay sheriff courts and the justice of the peace courts in Irvine and Kilmarnock. That will mean that the courts that remain, including Ayr sheriff court, will have to hear an extra 276 or thereby criminal cases a year. Does the cabinet secretary share my concern that the proposals will place great strain on our already busy courts, could lead to trials being delayed and might put access to justice at risk?

John Scott is right to raise the potential impact on Ayr sheriff court because, clearly, there will be no variation in its current work. However, Kirkcudbright sheriff court sits on a limited basis and the number of cases is restricted. There is the possibility that those cases might go to Dumfries or elsewhere. I can give the member the assurance that the Scottish Court Service has considered the issues, and that it does not wish to damage or jeopardise proceedings at Ayr. I encourage the member to speak with the Scottish Court Service if he has concerns about that. My understanding is that it has considered the issues and is certain that Ayr has sufficient capacity to cope. I am sure that the Court Service would be delighted to engage with the member.

---

Time Bar Reform

10. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with the Law Society of Scotland about reform of the time bar. (S4O-01597)

As part of a period of informal preconsultation discussion with a range of key stakeholders, the Scottish Government met the Law Society of Scotland on 5 March 2010 to discuss recommendations for the reform of the law relating to damages for personal injury that are contained in three separate Scottish Law Commission reports, one of which relates directly to the time bar in connection with personal injury actions. The consultation paper on the recommendations in the three reports will be published later this month and we anticipate that dialogue with the Law Society will continue after publication.

One of the anomalies in cases in which a person has inadvertently caused himself or herself to be affected by the time bar is the result of their being of a young age at the time of the crime. They might lay charges when they are mature but then, if they find that they are not yet strong enough to relive the trauma, they withdraw those charges. What steps is the Scottish Government considering to ensure that justice can be found for such people—particularly for those who have at a young age been victims of sex crime?

I am conscious of the time bar issue and how it relates to child victims of any crime. I assure Gil Paterson that the consultation that I talked about will invite views on time bar as well as other issues. We want to consider the consultation responses before we introduce any legislation. As the member knows, the matter is quite complex and interest groups will have the opportunity to contribute further at a series of events that we intend to hold during the consultation period.

---

Rural Affairs and the Environment

---

Aquaculture (Economic Value)

1. To ask the Scottish Government what its estimate is of the value of aquaculture to the economy, and the Highland economy in particular. (S4O-01598)

The Scottish aquaculture industry is a very important contributor to Scotland’s economy. In 2011, Scottish aquaculture production amounted to 170,000 tonnes, with an estimated farm-gate value of over £600 million. It employs approximately 1,800 full-time and part-time staff across salmon—including ova and smolt production—cultivation, shellfish cultivation and the cultivation of trout and other finfish species. Many companies now operate hatcheries, farms and processing facilities across Scotland.

Approximately 75 per cent of aquaculture production is generated in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, with around 1,300 full-time and part-time jobs within that industry being located in the region. Many communities now depend to a significant extent on the employment, investment and revenue that the aquaculture industry provides.

Aquaculture brings considerable benefits to my constituency directly through local jobs and indirectly through the supply chain of hardware and feed, for example. Does the minister agree that, although environmental concerns must be addressed, it is regrettable that extreme forms of environmentalism detract from genuine objections from local communities, and that we must balance preservation of the environment with the real benefits that such developments bring to remote and rural communities?

I certainly agree with that position. It is worth remembering that a regulatory framework is already in place and is working well, and that we have a successful aquaculture industry. However, the purpose of the Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Bill is to take us to the next stage and to ensure that, in the future, we continue to have in place an effective and proportionate framework that facilitates sustainable growth while taking into account the needs and concerns of all those who make use of Scotland’s marine environment.

I take on board Dave Thompson’s points, but can the minister clarify what sustainable development assessment was undertaken during the shaping of the Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Bill—bearing in mind the fact that sustainable development takes into account economic, environmental and social issues?

The bill is underpinned by a good understanding of the science that is involved in the aquaculture sector. I am sure that Claudia Beamish, who is well informed about these matters, is aware of the importance of looking at the ability of each catchment to sustain biomass and aquaculture production. I gave evidence to the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee on the work that the Scottish Environment Protection Agency is doing with its autoDEPOMOD software to look at the future sustainable growth of the sector, to facilitate a greater understanding of what can be sustained at local level and to consider what constitutes sustainable development when a planning application is made for additional biomass within a certain location.

---

Climate Change (Annual Targets) (Scotland) Order 2010

2. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will meet the remaining annual emissions targets set out in the Climate Change (Annual Targets) (Scotland) Order 2010. (S4O-01599)

The Scottish Government is committed to meeting our climate change targets. The order sets a series of binding successive annual targets to 2022. Our first climate change report on proposals and policies, “Low Carbon Scotland: Meeting the Emissions Reduction Targets 2010-2022”, or RPP1, set out the delivery framework for meeting the targets to 2022 and remains current.

As Sarah Boyack be aware, the Scottish Government’s approach to addressing our greenhouse gas emissions targets and the setting of our annual targets is informed by the work of the Committee on Climate Change. We remain on course to meet those targets, which were set on advice from that committee, for the period to 2022.

We are also working to ensure that the measures that are taken to reach the targets will be as robust as possible in the forthcoming RPP2, which is to be presented to Parliament early in the new year.

Even the Scottish Government admits that there is a gap between the emissions reductions that are expected as a result of current policy objectives and the meeting of our future targets. Will the new RPP that the minister mentioned include the policies in devolved areas that the United Kingdom Committee on Climate Change believes need to be rolled out, such as demand-side transport management, agriculture and land use?

Sarah Boyack is correct to say that it is an extremely challenging set of targets. It is worth the whole Parliament’s while to remember that they are the most challenging and ambitious targets anywhere in Europe, and that it is difficult stuff to do.

That said, the analysis to which Sarah Boyack refers and on which there has been coverage in the media, looks at going beyond what the Committee on Climate Change has recommended. Our efforts in Scotland provide more rigour and analysis, and are more up to date with regard to understanding the baseline position and the measures that are needed for us meet our annual targets. I hope that all members recognise the seriousness of the challenge that we face globally, and the ambition of the Parliament as a whole, which the Government is pursuing. It is a difficult challenge, but we will present in RPP2 our proposals to meet those more ambitious targets.

It is not at all challenging to set a target; it is challenging to meet that target. Given the failure to meet the first target, the Government is required to revise the RPP to show what additional action will be undertaken to make up the lost ground. By how much does the Government believe it needs to overachieve on the year 2 target in order to make up that lost ground?

I made the point in my ministerial statement on the subject of missing the target that we are focused on the long-term trajectory. I suspect that the pattern will be that we will have annual fluctuations above and below targets.

I know that Patrick Harvie has a strong interest in cumulative emissions—I accept that he has made a robust point, which he has made on many occasions—but I ask him to focus on the trajectory. We believe that we are on a trajectory to meet our longer-term targets.

In respect of the link that Patrick Harvie made between the missing of the target in 2010 and the implication for RPP2, I say that they are two distinct things. On missing the target, we are putting in place measures to ensure that we have enough contingency to meet our annual targets. At the same time, RPP2 will look at the period 2023 to 2027. It has involved some hard graft to look at exactly what is required to reach our targets in the longer term.

---

NFU Scotland (Meetings)

3. To ask the Scottish Executive when it last met representatives of NFU Scotland and what issues were discussed. (S4O-01600)

On behalf of the Scottish Government, I say that I regularly meet representatives of NFU Scotland to discuss a range of important issues affecting the farming sector in Scotland. Indeed, only last week I met a number of NFUS senior representatives while visiting a farm at Longniddry to see at first hand the extent of the impact of the recent bad weather.

I am aware that the cabinet secretary met the Hendry family at Wester Manbeen farm near Elgin this week to look at their organic dairy herd. What further help will the Scottish Government provide to dairy farmers in Moray and the Highlands and Islands to ensure that there is a future for milk production in the north of Scotland, given that the number of producers in those areas is at an all-time low?

The member is right. I did not meet the NFUS but I met some local farmers in my constituency earlier this week and it was a fascinating insight into the success of an organic dairy farm in Moray. I was very pleased to hear that at the moment demand for organic milk outstrips supply. That is a rather healthy sign, which is I hope an indication of things to come in the demand for dairy products, particularly in the organic sector, in Scotland.

As part of our work to support a sustainable dairy sector in Scotland, we are undertaking a review led by James Withers, the chief executive of Scotland Food and Drink. The review will consider how we can make more of the Scottish brand for dairy products and capture some of the more exciting export opportunities, particularly in Asia and other markets, all of which could add significant value to dairy production in Scotland, offer new economic opportunities and, I hope, give dairy producers confidence for the future.

If the voluntary recommendations on guidance, codes and data collection in the rent review working group’s report, which was published earlier this week, are not taken up widely across the industry, is the Scottish Government prepared to legislate to make them mandatory? Does the cabinet secretary agree that there is a strong case for a rent register to be mandatory from the outset?

Claire Baker raises an important issue. We have said all along that we would listen to the views of the tenant farming forum, which is currently considering the report that the member refers to. I have to keep an open mind until that cross-industry representative body tells me its views on how the report should be implemented.

If the member favours mandatory action in terms of legislation, I can give her comfort by telling her that I have an open mind on the matter at this stage.

In the cabinet secretary’s discussions with the NFUS, has the subject been raised of research into Neospora caninum, from dog faeces, which causes neosporosis in cattle?

I have to say that I cannot recall such a conversation in recent times. I am, however, aware that the issue of dog fouling on agricultural land is important.

The current legislation does not prevent the fouling of agricultural land by dogs, but I believe that the outdoor access code asks dog owners to be responsible when visiting agricultural or rural land. We hope that they take that on board.

I confess a limited knowledge of the issue. I would be happy to look into the issue that is raised by the member in order to understand it better and see whether there is a need for research.

In the cabinet secretary’s discussions with the NFUS, will he take up the matter of the inspection regime and the penalties that apply under the integrated administration and control system? At this point in the agricultural year, can he tell Parliament how many farms and crofts are being assessed for potential penalties under that regime, given the intense financial burden that that can place on farms and crofts?

Tavish Scott raises an important issue, and I know that his constituents have strong views on the sledgehammer-to-crack-a-nut approach that has been adopted by the European authorities in relation to the common agricultural policy.

We raised the issue during the on-going negotiations. As I have indicated previously, I am unable to give members any comfort at the moment that Europe recognises that the approach that is being taken is wholly disproportionate and could be interpreted as a disincentive to produce agricultural products. It should be addressed as part of the on-going negotiations. The Scottish Government, with I hope the support of the UK Government, is still pushing for that.

On the level of penalties, I can only refer to last year, when the level of penalties—in relation to the electronic identification of sheep, for example—was a lot less than people were anticipating. We have worked closely with sectors, including the sheep sector, to ensure that our approach is proportionate. We have to adhere to European regulations, but we will do what we can to be proportionate. We will continue to adopt that attitude.

---

Wet Soil (Assistance)

4. To ask the Scottish Government what steps it will take to assist farmers who continue to be affected by extremely wet soil conditions. (S4O-01601)

When I visited a farm in East Lothian last week and, previously, during a separate visit in September, I saw at first hand the difficulties facing farmers and producers due to the adverse weather conditions

I have been working closely with farming stakeholders to identify ways to support those affected. I have taken steps to ensure that support payments are made even more quickly than last year and to allow farmers more time to complete capital works under some of our grant schemes.

In the opening of the payment window, we settled around 78 per cent of all single farm payment claims—up 7 per cent from last year’s achievement—which resulted in £370 million of immediate support to around 16,200 farmers. That is down to the dedicated hard work of agriculture staff in offices across Scotland, who have been working overtime and at weekends at a time when European regulations have asked for more inspections to be carried out before payments can be made. It is a sign of their dedication and professionalism that they have broken last year’s record in order to help the cash flow situation in farms in Scotland.

Not for the first time, a question has been lodged and then overtaken by events. I note that, last week, the minister made several announcements relating to the spreading of slurry, including within nitrate vulnerable zones.

I have read the minister’s statement to the press, in which he says:

“staff have been able to work with farmers to avoid or reduce penalties”

and

“of the small number of farmers who have contacted us so far … most have avoided penalties completely.”

I worry that, although penalties have been reduced and most farmers have avoided them, that does not indicate that all farmers are able to avoid penalties. Will the minister give more information and tell me what farmers need to do to avoid penalties in these extremely difficult times?

I am working closely with officials to ensure that we can help and support farmers in and outwith nitrate vulnerable zones who are affected by the weather.

On the level of penalties, the fact that the vast majority of the farmers who have contacted us have been able to avoid penalties shows that we are taking a constructive approach.

I hope that Alex Johnstone is not suggesting that, because of the bad weather, there should be no penalties under any circumstances. If there is no relation to the weather, we cannot have a policy of imposing no penalties at all. We have a regulatory regime that must be adhered to, but we are doing our best to be proportionate and reasonable.

I will certainly keep an eye on the matter and I am happy to keep the Parliament up to date on the level of penalties.

---

Green Investment Bank

5. To ask the Scottish Government what the environmental benefits will be for Scotland of the Green Investment Bank. (S4O-01602)

The UK Green Investment Bank is the world’s first investment bank dedicated solely to greening the economy. The bank is designed to provide financial solutions to accelerate private sector investment in the green economy by addressing market failures that affect green infrastructure projects—projects that are needed to help us to achieve the transition to a low-carbon economy.

The Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill, which is currently progressing through the United Kingdom Parliament, will enshrine the bank’s green purposes in statute. The Scottish Parliament passed a legislative consent motion on 18 September 2012 to agree to those green purposes.

Funding support from the bank could provide a wide range of environmental benefits through investments made in Scotland. The Scottish Government is working closely with the UK Green Investment Bank to help to secure that investment for Scotland.

The bank’s chief executive has promised to put together a holistic set of measures for the bank’s performance. I expect the bank to report in due course on the environmental benefits of its activities.

Last week, a Scottish Renewables report showed that investment in clean, green energy is set to break the £1 billion mark this year. Will the minister assure me that the Scottish Government will continue to give the industry the certainty that it needs to continue that unprecedented investment, rather than the infighting and uncertainty generated by the Con-Dem coalition?

Yes. Our policy of aiming to provide the equivalent of 100 per cent of Scotland’s electricity consumption from renewable sources by 2020 has provided such certainty. We recently committed to achieving a new interim target of 50 per cent by 2015 on the way to that target.

This year, we also launched Scotland’s renewable energy investment fund, which was capitalised with £103 million of Scotland’s fossil fuel levy moneys that were returned to Scotland. With an initial focus on marine, district heating and community renewables, it is deliberately complementary to funding offered by the Green Investment Bank, which the remaining £103 million of Scotland’s fossil fuel levy helped to capitalise.

---

Tree Planting (Prime Arable Land)

6. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with Forestry Commission Scotland and NFU Scotland regarding tree planting on prime arable land. (S4O-01603)

Our woodland expansion advisory group included representatives of the Forestry Commission Scotland and NFU Scotland, as well as other representatives of farming, forestry, conservation and communities. The group recommended that the focus of woodland expansion should be away from prime agricultural land but that it should be recognised that there are important opportunities for small-scale tree planting, for example, on field margins, along water courses or to improve the environment in and around towns. We have accepted that recommendation, together with all the others from the group.

The cabinet secretary is probably aware that, in my constituency, farmers are very concerned that tree planting is happening on prime arable land. Will he look into that in more detail, as it could prevent new entrants, who are essential for continued growth in the farming sector, from entering into farming?

I have recognised for some time that the matter is a concern of farmers throughout Scotland. That is why we set up the advisory group in the first place. Now, we have decided to accept its recommendations.

It is worth while putting the issue into context. Since 2006, Forestry Commission Scotland has purchased 44 farms and around 10,000 hectares. At the time of the announcement just a few weeks ago, we were committed to buying a further six farms in Scotland. That is a total of 50 farms, which is a small number in relation to Scotland’s 25,000 farms. So far, tree planting is complete or under way in accordance with the agreed plans on only 19 of those farms.

I recognise that the issue is important for many farmers, as it is for the Scottish Government, and I am confident that we have a way forward. The advisory group has pointed to ways in which Mr Robertson’s constituents can be much better consulted by the Forestry Commission. They will be consulted in the future through the establishment of local reference groups, which will include farmers from each region. There is also revised guidance for staff, and the undertaking of consultations and community engagement in relation to land use on farms is required.

Of course, we also have set up new starter farms within Forestry Commission Scotland. I hope that, as far as the future is concerned, the Forestry Commission will be creating new starter farms as opposed to preventing new entrants from getting into agriculture.

That—

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am not often called in rural affairs questions, so I do not know whether the situation is usual. I am certainly not challenging or criticising you, Presiding Officer, but we have reached only question 6. It appears that the questions have been very technical, and there have been long and technical answers. Would it be possible to consider putting fewer rural affairs questions in the Business Bulletin, as we have reached only question 6 and four members have not had a chance to ask a question?

If you had just waited 30 seconds, Ms Grahame, you might have heard what I am going to say.

It is disappointing that we have reached only question 6. I ask members to reflect on the length of their questions and the cabinet secretary and minister to reflect on the length of their answers. Perhaps next time we could make far more progress than we have made today.