Justice and the Law Officers
Good afternoon. The first item of business is portfolio questions on justice and rural affairs and the environment. In order to get as many people in as possible and as many questions answered as possible, I would be grateful for short and succinct questions and answers.
Chief Constable (Meetings)
To ask the Scottish Government when it last met the chief constable, Sir Stephen House, and what issues were discussed. (S4O-03491)
I regularly meet the chief constable and other senior officers from Police Scotland to discuss keeping people in Scotland safe. I last met the chief constable on 22 July and most recently met Deputy Chief Constable Iain Livingstone on 13 August.
Policing in Scotland is performing excellently. Crime is at a 39-year low, violent crime is down by almost half since 2006-07 and homicides are at their lowest level since records began. The risk of being a victim of crime is falling and confidence in the police is high and rising.
I thank the cabinet secretary. The recent armed police controversy has confirmed the lack of any meaningful accountability to the Scottish public by Police Scotland. When will Police Scotland introduce a national crime mapping initiative to increase transparency and start tackling the issue of defective accountability to the general public?
I believe that the armed policing situation will disclose effective accountability. Derek Penman, in his capacity as HM inspector of constabulary in Scotland, was at the Justice Committee yesterday and has indicated that there will be a review into matters, and the Scottish Police Authority has also indicated that it is investigating them. This Parliament set up that situation to ensure that there would not be ministerial control or direction of the single police service. There has to be operational independence. Equally, in a democracy—especially with a single service—we have to ensure appropriate accountability. That accountability, which is enshrined in statute, is provided by the Scottish Police Authority and HMICS, along with myriad organisations, including the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner.
Mental Health Nurses (Police Stations)
Yes. Jackson Carlaw made an appropriate point. We all know that people who present at police stations, sometimes as victims but often having been detained as perpetrators, may have underlying mental health issues. They might have clear mental health issues; sometimes those issues are masked by drugs or alcohol and sometimes drugs or alcohol have exacerbated the situation. Clearly that is a drain on the resources in police stations, but those people have a health problem that requires to be addressed.
It was appropriate to ensure that, in dealing with the issues directly, we separated the NHS from the police. The member is quite right that there is a significant drain on resources, especially given that police officers are not necessarily trained to deal with people with mental health issues, and police stations are not the appropriate places for them.
I give the member the complete assurance that that is the situation. When my colleague Alex Neil became the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing, one of the first meetings that he and I had was with the chief medical officer and the chief constable of the new Police Service of Scotland.
We are aware that both services are required to take action. It is in the interests of both services to work together, as well as being in the interests of the individuals and the communities that are affected by them. The problem cannot be solved solely by law enforcement; it has to involve a partnership with health.
To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on police stations having mental health nurses assigned to them, similar to the pilot exercise being carried out in England. (S4O-03492)
Responsibility for healthcare in custody has transferred to the national health service. A lot of work has been undertaken across Scotland on providing forensic nurses in police custody suites, culminating in the NHS establishing regional networks in April 2014. That work has proved extremely useful in providing quick and appropriate clinical care for a range of people in custody, including people with mental illness.
Evidence from extensive research and from pilot work in NHS Tayside, in partnership with Police Scotland, which is looking at improving how we respond to people who present in distress, shows that people seek a more compassionate response and are likely to achieve a more positive outcome when they receive such a response.
Work to improve how services respond to people in distress is being taken up by the suicide prevention strategy implementation group, whose membership includes representation from Police Scotland.
I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for that encouraging response. The police have been thought to spend between 15 and 25 per cent of their time dealing with suspects with mental health problems. Many people have been detained in police cells who would be better served by some sort of psychiatric intervention. I am grateful for the cabinet secretary’s comments. Clearly, he agrees that early mental health intervention when a person first reaches the police may well reduce reoffending and save all manner of resources by diverting them away from costly prison sentences. I understand that he said that responsibility for healthcare has been diverted to the NHS, but is he personally backing such developments and initiatives?
Air Weapons and Licensing (Scotland) Bill (Stakeholders)
To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with stakeholders about the Air Weapons and Licensing (Scotland) Bill. (S4O-03493)
The Air Weapons and Licensing (Scotland) Bill is a wide-ranging bill that covers a variety of issues and licensing regimes. It creates new licensing regimes in relation to air weapons and sexual entertainment venues. It amends the existing regimes in relation to alcohol, metal dealers, taxis and private hire cars, and public entertainment venues. It also makes amendments across the range of licensing regimes under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982. That has all been informed by consultation and engagement with the relevant stakeholders.
I continue to receive representations from many constituents in the Highlands and Islands who believe that the proposed new legislation on air guns is disproportionate and will prove costly and impractical. Given that 87 per cent of those who responded to the Government’s consultation opposed the plan, that air guns are already regulated by law, with more than 30 offences on the statute book, and that offences involving air guns have fallen by 75 per cent in recent years, where is the Government’s hard evidence that the new legislation will have any effect on the tiny percentage of people who will always seek to misuse air guns in a criminal way?
The member is correct that the misuse of air weapons has, thankfully, been falling. However, such misuse is forming a greater proportion of firearms offences than ever before, so although we have a safer Scotland, we still have a legacy of tragedies—not least involving those who have seen their children slain by air weapons or animals that have suffered due to air weapons. Over recent months, I have attended events with the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which is deeply concerned about the harm that is perpetrated on animals due to the misuse of air weapons.
The case has been proven: there is a requirement for legislation to ensure the safety of our citizens and to ensure that licences are available for those who have a legitimate reason to use air weapons—in particular, those involved in pest control and those whom Mr McGrigor will know and represent in the farming and rural community. A regulated licensing regime protects not just the general public from the misuse of air weapons but those who correctly and legitimately should be able to have them under such a regime.
The bill also has a section on metal theft, which was tackled in England and Wales last year through the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 2013. In my area, there has been a spate of thefts of drain covers and other metal. Is that indicative of a general rise in such criminal activity, and are we witnessing a transfer of criminal activity to Scotland as a result of our more lax legislation?
The member raises an interesting point. It was a matter of concern for many of the utility companies when we discussed the issue with them. Thankfully, that scenario has not arisen and action is being taken under the task force that is chaired by the British Transport Police but operated effectively on the ground by Police Scotland.
There are those who seek—as part of serious organised crime groups—to make money by harming communities through robbing from utilities, which poses great danger to communities. That is why appropriate action is being taken by the Parliament, with the bill going to committee later this year.
Thankfully, because of the vigilance of Police Scotland, we are not seeing any tourist traffic—if I can put it that way—of criminals in that regard. However, the police are ever vigilant to that possibility and remain in discussion with all the stakeholders, in particular the utility companies.
Question 4, in the name of David Torrance, has been withdrawn. A satisfactory explanation has been provided.
Cashback for Communities (Glasgow)
I had the great pleasure of announcing in Dennistoun yesterday a further £1.5 million in funding for Scottish Sports Futures as part of the further expansion of cashback for communities over the next three years.
We continue to hit criminals hard in their pockets through the use of proceeds of crime legislation, which has resulted in the recovery of more than £90 million in the past 10 years.
Since I announced the cashback scheme in 2007, more than £74 million of nefarious cash has been stripped from criminals and ploughed back into communities across Scotland. Glasgow’s young people and communities have directly benefited from more than £5.3 million of the cashback investment through a wide range of sporting, cultural, youth work and community projects, which have created more than 160,000 opportunities and activities that simply would not have existed without cashback.
I welcome the recent announcement of £1.5 million in funding for Scottish Sports Futures from cashback for communities, which the cabinet secretary outlined. That funding will be distributed by local partners in my region, such as active east.
I commend to the cabinet secretary the work of the Gladiator weightlifting programme for young people in Easterhouse, which has not so far accessed such funds locally but which I hope will benefit, given that it offers diversionary activities and sporting pathways to success for young people in a deprived community. In the months ahead, will he visit that excellent project with me to see the excellent work that it does?
I would be happy to do that, subject to diary commitments. I do not know the organisation, but I appreciate Mr Doris’s testimonial for it. As I said, I was delighted to travel to Dennistoun yesterday to see the good work, which will continue. I am aware of the outstanding work by Glasgow Clyde College and Scottish Power, by Street Soccer Scotland and by Action for Children, and a recent investment has been made in the Celtic FC Foundation.
Glasgow is benefiting not simply from cashback support but from the community organisations that cashback supports, which do a remarkable job. I would be delighted to meet the organisation that Mr Doris mentioned, just as I have met many other organisations. In particular, I was delighted to meet Scottish Sports Futures at Dennistoun yesterday.
Given that a recent assessment costed organised crime in Scotland at £1 billion a year, while this year’s assessment of recovered assets stands at about £8 million, does the cabinet secretary have a programme in place to recover more assets, so that cashback can benefit accordingly?
Yes. The Administration established at an early juncture the serious organised crime task force to ensure not only that we minimise, address and tackle serious organised crime but that we take the assets of such activity. That is part of the on-going strands and the four Ds.
We always seek to improve. That is sometimes done by changing legislation here or, when there are reserved aspects, by changing it south of the border. The desire of the Government—ably supported by the Solicitor General for Scotland, who leads the civil recovery unit—is to maximise the harm to organisations that would cause damage in our communities.
To ask the Scottish Government how it supports community organisations in the Glasgow region in using funding from the cashback for communities programme and other money seized under proceeds of crime legislation. (S4O-03495)
Data Legislation
We know that the cabinet secretary is dissatisfied with the process of the legislation. Is he content with the content of the legislation?
No. The debate south of the border has been about how we were being rushed into the legislation. I do not have the precise quotations in front of me, but that view straddled the chamber in Westminster, from David Davis on one side to Tom Watson—I think—and Diane Abbott on the other, all of whom expressed concerns about the situation that they faced in terms not only of the timescale but of what they were being asked to sign up to.
I reiterate that the Scottish Government recognises that such actions require to be taken by Governments in the interests of protection not only of our citizens, but of citizens in other jurisdictions, whom we are obliged to protect. It is a matter of balance; there might be disputes south of the border about where the calibration is set, as there may very well be in future years in this chamber. However, we remain convinced—even Patrick Harvie is convinced, I think—that some change will need to take place.
We need to ensure that we have the appropriate legislation and the appropriate checks and balances. That is what is causing concern not just in this Parliament but south of the border.
To ask the Scottish Government what consultation it has had with the United Kingdom Government regarding the implementation of legislation relating to data laws. (S4O-03496)
As I made clear in the statement that I made to Parliament on Tuesday 5 August, the Scottish Government was not consulted on the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill.
If the cabinet secretary had full powers over the issue, how would he deal with it?
There must be greater discussion. We have made it clear that the matter is for Parliament and not for me as an individual, or us as a Government. Views in Parliament differ; when I made the statement, Patrick Harvie of the Green Party was clear about where he saw the balance being struck. There is a balance between protecting individual citizens from intrusion and protecting the wider community from harm that individuals might perpetrate. As an Administration, we have always made it clear that the powers are necessary, but we must ensure proper scrutiny. We must protect the individual’s rights and balance that with the community’s needs.
I give George Adam the complete assurance that the issue will be for Parliament as a whole to decide. There will be proper investigation and review, and there will be discussion with appropriate stakeholders—not just the police, but those who speak for citizens’ rights.
A major concern south of the border in Westminster was how we will, when we bring in such powers, ensure democratic scrutiny and oversight in the years to come. The legislation is one thing, but on-going supervision of things that will by their nature be covert and secret must be satisfactory to those who represent the democracy.
Justice-related Buildings (Innovation)
To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on the need for innovative thinking when planning new justice-related buildings. (S4O-03497)
The responsibility for justice-related buildings lies with the relevant bodies, but it is clear that we should work together to find ways to continue to provide for the people of Scotland high-quality facilities that represent good value for money. The sheriff court in Livingston has shown how justice and related services can work together to provide an integrated service.
Although the question is about buildings, access to justice is not only about buildings, but about how we can take advantage of digital technology to provide our services. The Scottish Government has been working with justice organisations to develop plans and, at an event that I attended today, we announced the publication of the justice digital strategy, which outlines our work in this area.
Eric McQueen, who is the chief executive of the Scottish Court Service, Inverness Sheriff Principal Derek Pyle, former chief inspector of prisons Brigadier Hugh Monro, Highland Council and Police Scotland all believe that a Highland justice centre is the way forward for the north. Can the cabinet secretary provide an update on the situation with regard to a Highland justice centre and, in particular, on its being linked with a new prison?
As Dave Thompson might know, the Scottish Court Service set out its long-term vision for the court service in Scotland, which included the development of justice centres in key strategic population centres, including in the Borders, Fife, Lanarkshire and the Highlands. The chief executive of the SCS has stated that it will undertake in those locations feasibility studies that will include justice partners and relevant local bodies. The first of those was undertaken in the Borders and reported earlier this year.
Dave Thompson might also be aware that last week a working group was announced to consider alternative tourism opportunities for Inverness castle, which is currently home to the sheriff court. I believe that that is a welcome move. The SCS is examining how future business accommodation needs in Inverness could be met and funded in order to allow consideration of the court’s moving to an alternative location. That will require detailed analysis and discussion with other justice organisations, the Scottish Government and Highland Council.
Court Closures (Savings)
To ask the Scottish Government how much the Scottish Court Service will save as a result of the closure of sheriff and justice of the peace courts. (S4O-03498)
The Scottish Court Service estimated the following savings from the court closure programme: the annual savings in running costs will amount to around £1 million, and there will also be one-off savings in backlog maintenance, which will now not have to be paid out of the public purse, of around £3 million.
Our justice system has already been impacted on by delays in cases being heard, and the many concerns that were expressed by campaigners about the unseen costs of the proposals to close 11 sheriff courts are now seen to be coming true. Along with that, there are issues such as lack of privacy for accused people and their lawyers in the Aberdeen court that are currently causing problems. Does the cabinet secretary feel any regret for the way in which the Scottish Government has handled the closures? Will he ask Audit Scotland to examine the closures to investigate whether Scottish taxpayers have seen the predicted level of savings?
No, I will not. I believe that the best people to account for that are in the Scottish Court Service. A few weeks ago, I was delighted to go to Aberdeen sheriff court to see the newly opened civil court buildings, which I think are outstanding. I pay tribute to Sheriff Principal Derek Pyle for his outstanding work and leadership.
There have been challenges to the court system because of an increase in some types of proceedings. The courts have to deal with that, and they are being given additional financial assistance, which I welcome. However, the Lord President has considered matters and has indicated that we require to get Scotland’s justice system into the 21st century and in a better landscape. He has my full support on that.
Rural Affairs and the Environment
Independence (European Rural Development Funding)
To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the level of pillar 2 funding for rural development that an independent Scotland could expect to receive from the European Union. (S4O-03501)
As a result of the recent agricultural allocations under the common agricultural policy, Scotland will find itself at the bottom of the league tables for both pillar 1 and pillar 2 funding. However, with a seat at the top table in Europe, an independent Scotland would have the opportunity to negotiate itself a better deal in the next common agricultural policy post-2020.
Indeed, had Scotland been independent in the recent negotiations and been able to negotiate a per-hectare deal similar to Ireland’s, it could have secured around an extra €2.5 billion in rural development funding alone. That funding could have been used to support vital capital grants for our farms and crofters, support for new entrants, agri-environment schemes, climate change projects or community initiatives in rural areas.
Does the cabinet secretary agree that it is nothing short of scandalous that, in the recent CAP negotiations, 16 member states negotiated additional uplifts for rural development while the United Kingdom Government chose not to negotiate any uplift, resulting in Scotland having the lowest funding for rural development in Europe? With Scotland languishing at €12 per hectare while the European average is €76, is it not time that we took our seats at the top table in Europe as a matter of urgency?
Colin Beattie perfectly illustrates why we should not ask other people who do not share our interests or priorities to negotiate on our behalf in international negotiations.
It is a fact that Scotland went into the recent negotiation with the lowest level of rural development funding in Europe, that 16 other countries already above Scotland in the league table negotiated an even better deal, and that, despite Scotland’s requests, the UK Government refused to lift a finger to improve Scotland’s position in the league table. Despite being a largely rural country with huge opportunities in rural communities if we could get the right investment in place, we suffered because UK ministers refused to stand up for Scotland or listen to concerns from this country.
That is indeed why we need a yes vote in four weeks’ time so that we can speak for ourselves in Europe.
Will the cabinet secretary accept that it looks somewhat strange for him to call for any increase in any aspect of EU funding when his party’s representatives at Westminster wanted an even greater reduction in the overall EU budget than was eventually achieved?
Will the cabinet secretary also accept that, whatever our constitutional situation, there will be no opportunity to renegotiate the CAP budget before 2020 and that any assertions that we would be better or worse off under different circumstances are nothing but idle speculation?
Unsurprisingly, I profoundly disagree with both points that Alex Fergusson made. Indeed, on his first point, he misleads on the facts, given that the Scottish National Party MPs at Westminster did not argue for a reduction in the CAP budget, which comprises 38 per cent of the overall European budget. Indeed, the SNP made suggestions for where some modest savings could be made in the overall EU budget and argued against David Cameron’s proposals to increase the overall EU budget.
The second fundamental point is about our share of the CAP budget. The size of the CAP budget is one debate, but Scotland’s share of it is what really matters here. We get the lowest share of that budget in the UK and the whole of Europe. A funding formula was adopted that applies to member states—all member states big and small—but that was not applied to Scotland because we are not a member state. Had it applied to Scotland, we would have qualified automatically for an extra €1 billion between 2015 and 2020.
On Alex Fergusson’s point on the next common agricultural policy, the Government is not arguing that we can reopen the CAP for the spending period up to 2020. The yes campaign argues that, had we been independent for the recent negotiation, we would have been €1 billion better off under pillar 1. We also argue that the people of Scotland have a choice about who should be in the driving seat to represent Scotland in the next CAP negotiations, which will start within a year or two of Scotland becoming independent in 2016: an uncaring, disinterested UK minister from Whitehall or Scotland’s farming minister, who will strike a much better deal for Scotland’s farmers and crofters.
Marine Protected Areas (Impact on Recreational Boating and Tourism)
To ask the Scottish Government what impact marine protected areas will have on recreational boating and marine tourism. (S4O-03502)
The 30 new marine protected areas that we recently designated should help to protect the rich waters of Scotland that so many sailors and other marine tourists enjoy.
Recreational boating and marine tourism require a healthy marine environment, and for that reason the Scottish branch of the Royal Yachting Association has thrown its support behind the MPAs, which will protect the ecosystems and waters that people come from all over the world to enjoy. I believe that MPAs will potentially boost marine tourism and the economic value that derives from the sector.
The minister will be aware of the economic benefits that the recreational boating and marine tourism sectors bring to Scotland. I know that the minister, as a former member of the cross-party group on recreational boating and marine tourism, is very much aware of the issues that have been raised in that group.
Will the Scottish Government undertake research to monitor the social and economic benefits of marine protected areas and how they impact on the marine tourism sector?
I recognise the interest that exists in the issue. During the evidence session on MPAs at last week’s Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee, one of the stakeholders suggested that the statutory review of the MPA network every six years should include a revised impact assessment of the costs and benefits of the network. I am attracted to that proposal, and I intend to look at its feasibility and at the scope for including assessment of the economic effects and benefits of marine protected areas on marine tourism, given that there is a strong interest in the issue.
As the minister knows, so-called blue carbon is captured and stored across a range of sea bed types such as seagrass. The new Scottish Natural Heritage report, “Assessment of carbon budgets and potential blue carbon stores in Scotland’s coastal and marine environment”, states that ocean acidification could affect the marine environment adversely.
In view of that, can the minister provide details on how those carbon-storing habitats could receive protection within the marine protected area network? The report came out just this morning, so if he cannot do so today, perhaps he could in the near future. Could those features be allocated before the review date of 2018?
Claudia Beamish expressed a strong interest in the issue during consideration of the second report on proposals and policies. We are committed to looking at blue carbon in RPP3. It is a developing area of policy work, as the issue of peatlands was in the previous report on proposals and policies.
I assure Claudia Beamish and other members in the chamber that we are taking a considerable interest in the issue. I will reflect on the report in order to consider the issues we can work on in relation to those habitats and see what contribution they can make to our climate change targets.
British Veterinary Association (Meetings)
To ask the Scottish Government when it last met the British Veterinary Association. (S4O-03503)
Scottish Government officials are in contact with the British Veterinary Association at least weekly on a wide range of issues across the animal health and welfare portfolio.
The chief veterinary officer for Scotland formally met the BVA on 15 May and discussed a range of issues including veterinary surveillance, non-stun slaughter, regulation of the veterinary profession, dog tail docking and compulsory microchipping of dogs. She will meet the BVA again formally on 9 September.
Has the cabinet secretary or his officials had specific talks regarding concerns about ritual slaughter? As a result, does he intend to bring forward any proposals to include labelling information on Scottish meat on whether stunning took place prior to slaughter?
We have been looking at the issue in recent weeks and months. The religious slaughter of animals for food is a difficult, sensitive and complex issue. We must be very careful with regard to any debate about labelling and take on board the view of Scotland’s faith communities.
It is widely accepted that animals should be stunned before slaughter to properly safeguard their welfare, but we must recognise the importance that Jewish and Muslim communities in particular attach to being supplied with meat from animals that are slaughtered in accordance with their religious beliefs.
I understand that the European Union is contemplating looking at the issue, and I will ensure that Scotland has a voice in those discussions.
Independence (Rural Development Funding)
As I explained in response to Colin Beattie’s question, independence will give a positive boost to communities across Scotland in many ways. Our rural communities in particular would stand to gain from potentially significantly increased budgets that would be brought by having our own voice in Europe in negotiating for Scottish priorities.
The cabinet secretary will be aware that, just as Scotland received the lowest level of rural development funding in the European Union, Dumfries and Galloway has a disproportionately high reliance on agriculture and related rural-based industry for employment and the lowest full-time wages in Scotland. What opportunities would an independent Scottish Government have to address that situation?
Aileen McLeod has quite rightly raised the fact that Dumfries and Galloway, like the rest of Scotland, lost out significantly from Scotland not having her own voice in the recent negotiations on the common agricultural policy and the budgets that flow through pillar 1, which is direct farm payments, and those that flow through pillar 2, which is rural development funds.
In Dumfries and Galloway, it is not just the primary producers or farmers who have lost out; rural businesses, village hall committees, renewable energy projects and agri-environment projects—the list goes on—have all lost out, because we do not have our fair share of EU rural budgets.
Scotland can put that right in four weeks’ time. We can get a fair share. The only way in which we will get a fair share of those budgets is by someone who represents Scotland’s priorities and interests going to the negotiations and not negotiating against them.
To ask the Scottish Government how independence would support rural development funding in rural communities such as in Dumfries and Galloway. (S4O-03504)
Independence (European Funding for Farmers and Crofters)
To ask the Scottish Government what benefit farmers and crofters would have through pillar 1 funding in an independent Scotland. (S4O-03505)
I can detect an emerging theme in question time today.
An independent Scotland with a seat at the top table in Europe will have the opportunity to influence the next common agricultural policy negotiations and lift us off the bottom of the league tables for both pillars of the common agricultural policy budgets, as I have said. Had Scotland been independent during the recent negotiations, we would have benefited from the European Union minimum rate of €196 per hectare, which, as I have said, would have meant about an extra €1 billion of support over the next CAP period up to 2020.
Does the cabinet secretary agree that those are the reasons why no fewer than four former NFU Scotland presidents are publicly supporting the yes campaign?
It is very significant that four former NFUS presidents declared for yes last week. [Interruption.]
Order.
Those four former NFUS presidents are still active in farming affairs in this country and they still have their fingers on the pulse of the mood of farmers and crofters and the impact of public policy on these vital industries.
The fact that a formula was agreed by Europe that would have delivered an uplift to Scotland had we been a member state of the EU is surely very pertinent to the future of our rural communities, farmers and crofters, and of food production in this country. To rub salt into the wound, even though we lost out on our share of the budget, the United Kingdom was given £190 million because of Scotland’s low payments to get the rate for the whole of the UK above the qualifying threshold for those funds. Despite the fact that Scotland already has the lowest level of funds in the whole of Europe and it was only because of Scotland that the UK got that cash, the UK Government then took the decision to deny Scotland the £190 million. That is scandalous, and that is why the four former NFUS presidents will be followed by thousands of farmers who will vote yes in the referendum in four weeks’ time.
I simply have to ask the cabinet secretary this question on the back of that reply: if four former NFUS presidents are a resounding endorsement for voting yes, are not 16 people—former NFUS presidents and vice-presidents and the former chair of Quality Meat Scotland—a four times more important and resounding backing for the no campaign?
I respect the views of all farming leaders and former farming leaders in the debate, irrespective of which generation they represent or when they were vice-president or president of the NFUS. The decisions and views that people have to adopt and take in relation to Scotland’s future are very serious. However, if someone had said several years ago that four former NFUS presidents were going to declare for yes in a Scottish independence referendum, I would have been pleasantly surprised. Here we are, and that is actually the case. More important, when I travel around the agricultural shows, as I have done throughout the summer, I have met hundreds—if not thousands—of farmers who have told me that they will vote yes in four weeks’ time. It is one vote per farmer, and that is what matters for Scotland’s future.
Agriculture (Regulation)
To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to reduce red tape for agricultural industries. (S4O-03506)
In 2012, I commissioned Brian Pack to undertake an independent report into how best to reduce red tape for farmers and land managers. Following extensive consultation with the industry and stakeholders the report was presented to me at the Turriff show a few weeks ago.
The report contains 61 recommendations aimed at reducing red tape, and I immediately accepted one of the main ones, which was to establish an overarching advisory board to improve the strategic and operational alignment of our delivery bodies in Scotland. I will make announcements about the other recommendations in due course.
I am pleased that the cabinet secretary is considering setting up an advisory board to cut farming red tape, which will free up more time for farmers to farm by reducing on-farm inspections and bureaucracy. I am sure that that is welcome news. When will the advisory board be up and running?
We have started to look at how the advisory board should be comprised and I hope to make announcements in the coming weeks.
It is worth saying that the recommendation is important because farmers, crofters and land managers have to deal with many agencies and bodies operating in rural Scotland. It makes perfect sense that the more aligned those agencies and bodies are, the better. Whatever steps are taken—whether it is that they use the same systems or perhaps have one point of contact—reducing bureaucracy and red tape can only benefit and free up time for our hard-working primary producers in rural Scotland.
European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
Next Jamie McGrigor will accuse independence of not delivering a television service for Scotland. The claims get more preposterous by the day.
There are some issues on which I welcome the work that we do with the UK Government on fisheries negotiations. We succeed in getting support from the UK in European negotiations when Scotland’s interests coincide with those of the rest of the UK. The difficulty arises when Scotland’s interests do not coincide with those of the rest of the UK; that is when we need our own voice in the negotiations. At the moment, when we get concessions from the UK Government, they happen to be on issues on which our interests coincide. In other words, they would be negotiated for in any case.
An independent Scottish voice can add weight when we agree, but when we have different priorities and disagree, we will have our own voice and the ability to secure a good deal for Scotland’s fishermen.
To ask the Scottish Government whether an independent Scotland would see an increase in funding from the European Union European maritime and fisheries fund and, if so, by how much. (S4O-03507)
Oh dear.
Angus MacDonald asks a very good question and I detect that the Opposition MSPs do not like it. However, it is important to relay the truth to all parties in the chamber.
Scotland will receive the third lowest level of funding in the whole of Europe as part of the new European maritime and fisheries fund, which was recently negotiated by member states. We receive just 1.9 per cent of the EMFF budget, despite our fleet landing 8 per cent—I repeat, 8 per cent—of fish caught in EU waters.
Once again, the United Kingdom Government has let Scotland down by not fighting for a fairer share of important budgets. As a member state in our own right, we would be able to negotiate a far better deal to help our fishermen, processors and aquaculture sector. Fishing is many times more important to Scotland than it is to the UK as whole, which is why with independence it will be treated with respect and as a much greater priority than it ever would be by a distant and uninterested UK Government.
It is clear that Scotland’s fishing industry has been just as poorly served by successive UK Governments as our agricultural industry has. As the cabinet secretary said, fish landings in Scotland account for 8 per cent of the EU’s total landings—
Can we have a question?
—and 12 per cent of EU aquaculture production, but we receive only 1.4 per cent of the EMFF allocation. Does the cabinet secretary think that that is fair?
I will put the question into context. Scotland represents the fourth largest sea area in Europe—just think about that for a second. Another fascinating statistic is that 20 per cent of fish taken from European waters comes from Scottish waters. The fishing industry is many times more important to Scotland than it is to the UK as a whole. Despite that, we receive 1.9 per cent of the European maritime and fisheries fund.
For those who say that independence will not make things better, all I say is that independence could not make anything worse. We are in the worst possible position when it comes to sharing out the funding. We can only do better in getting a fair share of those vital funds by having our own voice in the negotiations.
It is interesting that the cabinet secretary told the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee that the UK Government and the Scottish Government work very well together on fisheries matters.
Can the minister enlighten Parliament about the implications for Scottish fishermen that would arise if the fisheries fund support were to be lost, especially as the majority of experts on the EU and EU officials have concluded that an independent Scotland would not automatically be admitted to the EU.
Next
Point of Order