Justice and the Law Officers
Police Personnel (Complaints)
To ask the Scottish Government how complaints made by serving police personnel against their police forces prior to the formation of Police Scotland are being dealt with. (S4O-03116)
Complaints made by serving police personnel against their police force prior to the formation of Police Scotland are now a matter for Police Scotland or for the Scottish Police Authority, for complaints by senior police officers. Police personnel who feel that they have been treated unfairly can raise their concerns formally through grievance procedures and can seek advice from their staff association or trade union.
Almost a year ago, I wrote to the Scottish Police Authority on behalf of a serving police officer, who is one of my constituents, about a complaint not having had a response. A year down the line, we are no further on. I say to the cabinet secretary that police officers have rights, just as the rest of us have. The kind of uncertainty that is hanging over my constituent causes stress and strain to police officers and their families.
I ask the cabinet secretary to deal with the Scottish Police Authority and to have a chat with it about complaints generally, to find out whether delay in dealing with complaints is a normal state of affairs, and to work out how to move my constituent’s case on and give serving police officers a better deal when they make complaints to their authority.
I take on board the points that Linda Fabiani has made, which are clearly of great significance to the officer concerned and his family. Such situations can affect an officer’s record and can have financial consequences. Fundamentally, though, such matters are for Police Scotland or the SPA, if a complaint leads to a formal grievance being raised. I think that the Government and Parliament would have expected when we passed the relevant legislation that such matters would be dealt with in good time.
Obviously, I am constrained by the legislation in respect of what I can do, but I advise Linda Fabiani that I meet the chief constable and the chair of the SPA regularly—in fact, I met the chief constable yesterday—and that I am happy to undertake to raise with them the timescale issue to which she has referred. Clearly, such a matter would normally be raised by the Scottish Police Federation or the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents, but I am happy to undertake to put the issue that she has raised on the agenda for discussion with Police Scotland and the SPA. It will be for them to decide and to act on the issue. However, Parliament expects—appropriately—such matters to be dealt with as expeditiously as possible.
Police Scotland (Employment of Women)
To ask the Scottish Government what measures Police Scotland is taking to ensure that women face no barriers in joining and staying in the police force. (S4O-03117)
The recruitment, selection and promotion processes for police officers and police staff are a matter for Police Scotland and the Scottish Police Authority. Police Scotland set out, in its recently published corporate strategy, plans to diversify its workforce through promotion of attractive, inclusive and responsible practices, including exploring alternative flexible recruitment options in order to build a more diverse workforce. Police Scotland has not published statistics for the first year of the new service, but figures show that the percentage of police officers who were female was 27.5 per cent in 2013, compared with 18.7 per cent in 2003. I note that in the recent superintendent promotion process, 69 per cent of female applicants were successful, compared with 55 per cent of their male colleagues being successful.
I thank the cabinet secretary for that response, but it is obvious that comparing percentages does not actually tell us the number who applied. He will be aware of fears that have been expressed by a senior police officer in The Scotsman and which have been backed by the Scottish women’s development forum that suggest that Police Scotland is in danger of creating a culture in which women are discouraged from going for promoted posts. Although the number of promoted posts has increased—which I welcome—when we consider the rank of superintendent and the ranks above that, we find that on average 12 per cent of posts are occupied by women. What action can the cabinet secretary take to encourage Police Scotland to improve matters for women officers?
I am happy to encourage Police Scotland and, indeed, the Scottish Police Authority, to do more. I do not think that I need to do much, because I am pushing at an open door and they recognise that. It has been a privilege, during my tenure in office, to have accepted the appointment of Norma Graham as the first female chief constable, and to have that followed by the appointment of Justine Curran as chief constable in Tayside.
Both Vic Emery and Sir Stephen House accept that more needs to be done. However, we see progress not only with Deputy Chief Constable Fitzpatrick but with other senior officers coming through. We have come a long way. We should welcome the fact that we are getting close to 30 per cent of police officers being female. I think that Police Scotland and the SPA recognise that there must never be a glass ceiling. I am happy to give an undertaking, as I did to Linda Fabiani, to raise the issue with Vic Emery and with Sir Stephen House to ensure that more that can be done will be done.
Question 3, in the name of John Finnie, has not been lodged. The member has provided an explanation.
Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill
To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to address the reported criticism of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill. (S4O-03119)
The Scottish Government remains firmly committed to all aspects of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill, including our proposals to abolish the requirement for corroboration, which—as I have said time and again—is a barrier to justice for too many victims of crimes that are committed behind closed doors, such as rape and domestic abuse.
When we announced the creation of Lord Bonomy’s review group in February, there were calls—including from the Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates—for us to remove the corroboration reform from the bill and to introduce a separate bill later in the session once Lord Bonomy had reported. That was not acceptable, because it is one of the key reforms in the bill and is vital to improvement of the criminal justice system for vulnerable victims.
However, we have also made clear our willingness to listen to constructive proposals in relation to this key legislation. That is why we gave careful consideration to—and, in the spirit of co-operation, have accepted—the suggestion from Opposition members that stage 2 commence after Lord Bonomy’s review has been completed.
As the majority of the bill’s provisions were already due for implementation in 2015-2016, today’s move will have minimal impact on the overall timetable for the legislation, while allowing detailed and full scrutiny of the bill in its entirety and enabling any changes that are agreed in the light of Lord Bonomy’s recommendations to be included.
Most important, I hope that the move will allow the whole Parliament to get behind the progressive reforms in the bill, including the modernising of police powers, enhancement of the rights of people in police custody and removal of the corroboration requirement.
I do not know whether it is the spring sunshine, the Easter recess or my question, but this is certainly a very welcome change of position by the Scottish Government. It has made the right decision to allow more opportunity for informed opinion to be extended on the bill’s provisions. I thank the cabinet secretary for reflecting a degree of political courage in making that decision and for adopting that changed position.
Can I tempt the cabinet secretary further down the path of righteousness? The Scottish Government is to amend the bill at stage 2 to address the nonsense of automatic early release. We have waited seven years for that: better late than never.
However, the proposed changes will affect only a minuscule proportion of prisoners—2 per cent. That is not change—it is glacial progress. Given the manifestation of the benevolent mood that the cabinet secretary appears to be in at the moment, I ask him to consider extending abolition of automatic early release to a broader range of prisoners than just that 2 per cent.
I thank Annabel Goldie for her kind comments. I am grateful for the suggestion that came from her and other political parties regarding the innovative procedure that we are using. I very much welcome it.
On the specific matter of automatic early release, we require primary legislation to make the necessary changes. This Administration will consider whether that should be delayed or whether it can be dealt with in other legislation that is in train. With regard to the principal aspects, we believe that the changes will deal with the most serious offenders—those who are given sentences that reflect the courts’ concerns—and will take on board our concerns about automatic early release of sexual offenders being at a significantly lower level in order to ensure the protection of the public.
I am happy, given the spirit of generosity in which Miss Goldie asked her question, to reflect on her points as we consider the best method of proceeding, in order to ensure that we make long-overdue changes to automatic unconditional early release.
Given the statement that the cabinet secretary has made, and given the importance that I attach to such important statements being made first to the Parliament, I intend to allow sufficient time to call supplementary questions from each of the political parties.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Given the significance of what the cabinet secretary has said, would not it have been more relevant for him to come and make a statement to Parliament?
I have to say, Mr Findlay, that that is precisely what the cabinet secretary has done; this is one of the methods that we encourage the Scottish Government to use to make announcements to Parliament. My point is that I appreciate that an important statement has been made to Parliament and fully intend, as I said, to ensure that all the political parties have an opportunity to ask supplementary questions of the cabinet secretary.
I call Alison McInnes.
Thank you, Presiding Officer. I also thank the cabinet secretary for responding so positively to the suggestion from the Opposition business managers on a sensible way to legislate on an important part of our criminal justice system. The stage 1 debate was, to be fair, a low point for the whole Parliament, because it demonstrated that we had lost sight of how we should legislate. The appointment of Lord Bonomy’s review panel meant that the cabinet secretary knew that the bill as drafted was deficient, although at that point he was unable to say that we ought to stop and take stock, so I am grateful that he now recognises that we need to wait for Lord Bonomy to report before we consider in detail all the matters in the round.
I am grateful for the suggestion and I welcome the input from Alison McInnes. We were not always going to wait for Lord Bonomy’s review, but what has been proposed is a welcome and innovative procedure. I thank Alison McInnes, as I did Annabel Goldie.
I express pleasure that the cabinet secretary has listened to the Opposition. We do not always expect the Government to do that, but in this case it has done so. It would have been inappropriate to pass legislation without seeing how it was to be amended, and I am pleased that we are not going to be expected to do that now. Can he give us further information about the timescale in which he expects Lord Bonomy to report to him, and therefore the timescale for the commencement of stage 2?
First, allow me to record my gratitude to Lord Bonomy. I welcome his actions in extending the membership of the review group. I will be seeking a meeting with Lord Bonomy to update him in due course. I understand that the first meeting of the group has taken place. We anticipate that Lord Bonomy will report in April next year, which he thinks is a timetable that is perfectly deliverable, based on previous discussions. As I have said, that is a matter that we will factor in with the Parliamentary Bureau and with Elaine Murray’s colleagues.
I welcome the announcement that stage 2 is to be postponed, which takes cognisance of real concerns throughout Scotland—that is not to overstate the case—about the proposal to abolish the requirement for corroboration. However, I feel that there is nothing for the Government now to fear in including in Lord Bonomy’s review consideration of whether to abolish it or not. In fact, I consider it to be crucial that that be done, so I would very much appreciate the cabinet secretary’s confirming that he is willing to include that in the Bonomy remit.
I welcomed Annabel Goldie’s comments and I am grateful that the Tories, along with Labour and the Liberal Democrats, came up with the proposal, which the Government is happy to accept. However, I have to record that there will be no change to the remit for Lord Bonomy’s review. We have met him to discuss the remit, and he has signed up to it, as has everyone who will serve with him on his group.
As far as the Government is concerned—and as Parliament made clear at stage 1—the case against the requirement for corroboration has been made. It is failing victims throughout Scotland, so it has to go. On that basis, we are prepared to allow greater scrutiny of some matters so that Parliament can have more clarity about them, but the principle of removal of the requirement for corroboration remains.
Cashback for Communities (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)
To ask the Scottish Government how much it has invested or committed to activities for children and young people in the Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley constituency under the cashback for communities programme. (S4O-03120)
We publish the breakdown of annual cashback expenditure by local authority area, and a total of £661,276 and £787,842 has been spent on projects in South Ayrshire and East Ayrshire respectively, which span the member’s constituency, between 2008-09 and 2012-13.
We will publish figures for the financial year 2013-14 once they have been validated. As we approach Scotland’s Commonwealth games this summer, we are also considering an application for up to £300,000 of cashback funding for a new state-of-the-art multi-use 3G sports facility to be built for Cumnock Juniors Youth Football Club and Cumnock Rugby Football Club.
I welcome that announcement. I would be grateful if the cabinet secretary could send me a list of the awards in my constituency, with an outcome analysis, if one has been done.
What plans does the cabinet secretary have to develop the programme further?
I announced last year that we will be extending and enhancing the cashback for communities scheme to invest a further £24 million of criminals’ money over the next three years to deliver this Government’s commitment to continue to expand the hugely successful programme.
Recently, I had the pleasure of announcing the next tranche of £2.25 million cashback funding for the Scottish Football Association at Shawlands academy, and I will be making a raft of further announcements to herald cashback funding for other individual sporting, cultural, employability and youth work projects over the coming weeks and months.
I thank the member for his interest in the cashback scheme, and I will ensure that he is provided with a list of cashback awards in the Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley constituency. They are many and multifold, so it would take too much time to go through them in precise detail today.
Trunk Road Patrol Group
To ask the Scottish Government how the trunk road patrol group has performed since it was established. (S4O-03121)
The creation of the trunk road patrol group is just one example of the benefits of a single service, with specialist resources now being deployed across Scotland, wherever and whenever they are needed.
The Scottish Government welcomes the creation of the trunk road patrol group and, in particular, the addition of a base in Fort William. The new unit has already contributed to the improvement of response times to incidents in the west of Scotland.
Tackling road safety and road crime is a key priority for Police Scotland, and that is reflected in the annual police plan.
The Scottish Government does not monitor the performance of the trunk road patrol group. Any assessment of the performance of specialist teams and resources is an operational matter for Police Scotland.
I would always welcome any bases in the Highlands.
Can the cabinet secretary confirm that trunk road policing is sufficiently resourced in all divisions, particularly the northern division? Can he confirm whether targets were set with regard to the number of penalty notices that are issued for driving offences in the first year and future years?
Those are, fundamentally, matters for the chief constable. However, from my discussions with him, I can say that, as far as I am aware, no such targets have been set. That has been discussed on this issue and on others.
On the situation in the north of Scotland, I can say, from my engagement with the police, that the breaking down and ending of the artificial barriers that existed between constabularies that were set up in a manner that did not necessarily have any geographical logic means that matters are now better dealt with; Police Scotland can ensure that trunk road patrolling can go wherever is necessary as it is not dictated to by issues around moving from, for example, the former Northern Constabulary’s area into the former Tayside Police’s area. There is a huge improvement in the situation, and I am glad that Mary Scanlon welcomes the establishment of the unit in Fort William.
Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012
To ask the Scottish Government whether it considers that the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012 criminalises football supporters. (S4O-03122)
No. The Scottish Government does not consider that the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012 criminalises football supporters. The act is intended to tackle sectarian and other offensive behaviour that has tarnished the image of football in Scotland.
The act is clear: do not indulge in behaviour that is likely to incite public disorder and expresses hatred towards others when attending, or travelling to or from, a regulated football match. Indeed, in a poll carried out by Panelbase in mid-October 2013, 69 per cent of respondents expressed support for anti-sectarian football legislation.
As the cabinet secretary is aware, there has been severe criticism from fans groups regarding police tactics and how the legislation is being implemented. Indeed, I understand that football fans protesting against the 2012 act at the cabinet secretary’s recent party conference were issued with an order under section 12 of the Public Order Act 1986 by Police Scotland shortly after they had stepped off the bus. Is the cabinet secretary aware of that and what steps is he taking to address it?
Given that a majority of football fans, along with a number of defence lawyers and sheriffs, believe that the 2012 act is ineffective and unpopular, does the cabinet secretary agree that it is now time to axe the act?
No, I do not. As I say, there is overwhelming public support for the 2012 act. We have committed to review it and that review is under way. It has been welcomed by all right-minded people the length and breadth of the country. What was perceived as a bit of banter is actually quite offensive and threatening in many instances. Scotland is a better place, and Scottish football is better, for the actions that are being taken by police and law enforcement agencies.
Rural Affairs and the Environment
European Funding (Additional Coupled Support)
To ask the Scottish Government what recent discussions it has had with the European Union Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development regarding Scotland’s additional coupled support entitlement. (S4O-03126)
The European Commission informed me in early April that it was not possible to use the United Kingdom-wide flexibility on coupled support to enable Scotland to go beyond the 8 per cent limit, reversing the position taken by Commissioner Ciolos when I met him in February along with the UK minister.
I discussed that apparent U-turn with the Commissioner on 10 April, and my officials subsequently met Commission officials on 16 April. I am pleased to say that, following that intervention, the Commission is now engaging constructively with us to try to find a workable solution.
I hope that the matter can be resolved quickly. However, any solution has to be agreed with the UK Government and I hope to have its full support on the issue, given that it offered the concession on the limit when it rejected our legitimate calls for the full convergence money that was available to the UK.
Does the cabinet secretary agree that, thanks to the UK Government, we are being denied the full €223 million pillar 1 convergence uplift, the extra coupling support and the red meat levy for livestock killed south of the border? Is it not time for Scotland to have a seat at the top table in Europe as an independent nation before the next common agricultural policy negotiations in 2017 to ensure that we are never short changed again?
The member makes a fair point. Only because others represent us in Europe and negotiate on our behalf do we have some really tough decisions to take, given our small budgets. Indeed, we are now bottom of the funding league in Europe for pillar 1, which is direct support for agriculture, and pillar 2, which is rural development funding. There is no way whatever that, as an independent state, we would be bottom of the funding league in Europe. Scotland has had to learn that harsh lesson over the past year or two, which vindicates the case for a yes vote in September.
However, we have some tough decisions to take. We will take them in the coming weeks and, as far as we can with the limited resources available, for the benefit of Scottish agriculture.
I will be innovative and ask a supplementary question that relates to the question lodged.
The NFU Scotland president recently held talks with Commissioner Ciolos at which he pressed the case for further coupled payments to be directed towards the sheep sector. That appears to have been sympathetically received but, when I asked the cabinet secretary about that recently in committee, he seemed to indicate that it would be extremely difficult to achieve that end. Will he now clarify how he will use any extra coupling that is negotiated?
As the member knows, we are limited to 8 per cent of our national budget being used for coupled support schemes, and we have said that would use all of that 8 per cent, as laid out in the consultation, for the beef sector. If we are able to secure flexibility beyond 8 per cent, we will clearly have the option of considering a sheep scheme as well as a beef scheme. We will discuss that with stakeholders, as we are doing at this point in time. Of course, we also have to have a plan B, in case we do not achieve the extra flexibility beyond 8 per cent.
I have just left a meeting with Owen Paterson, the UK Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I made the point to him that we need the UK Government’s support if a solution is indeed offered by the Commission to use a UK scheme to help deliver extra flexibility for Scotland, not a Scottish scheme, which is apparently not allowed under the regionalisation of the common agricultural policy. We need the UK Government’s support to make that happen, and we await that. I have asked the secretary of state to get back to me within a matter of days so that we can have the confidence that, if we find a solution with Europe, we can use it.
Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 (Targets)
To ask the Scottish Government whether it will revise the annual greenhouse gas emission reduction targets set out in the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009. (S4O-03127)
The Scottish Government remains committed to the interim target of a 42 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 and the target of an 80 per cent reduction by 2050, as set out in the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009.
However, the Scottish Government agrees with the advice of our independent advisers, the Committee on Climate Change, that revisions to the methodology for estimating emissions, which have added more than 2 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent to Scotland’s emissions in almost every year from 1990 onwards, will continue to make the achievement of fixed annual targets, as set in secondary legislation, more difficult.
The committee advises that there are two basic options for addressing that: to adjust the statutory annual targets to allow for the inventory revision; or to find additional opportunities to reduce emissions that go beyond current and proposed policies. The Scottish Government will closely examine both the options that have been identified to address the challenge that the revisions to the methodology have created.
I thank the minister for that clear answer. Does he agree with me that if more policies and actions, rather than proposals, come through the current and the next report on proposals and policies, it will still be possible to hit the remaining annual targets? That is not a simple question to answer in the chamber, I appreciate.
Could the minister also provide details of any interdepartmental discussions in recent months about transformational change and conflicting policies, and about low-carbon investment?
The question is indeed complex, but I will answer it as best I can.
On the first point, about the approach that we are taking, we are seeking to convert as many proposals to policies as we can in RPP2. The Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 sets out a requirement for the Government to produce proposals and policies. It is obviously our intention to convert proposals into policies over time. We are always looking for opportunities to strengthen our action where we can do so. I take the point and assure the member that that is constantly at the front of my mind.
On interdepartmental discussions, I can confirm that discussions are on-going about issues such as sustainable active travel with Keith Brown and colleagues and that we are also considering issues with colleagues in housing and other departments through the delivery board, which happens at Scottish Government level, and with the rest of the public sector, in particular through the public sector climate leaders forum, in which Ms Beamish participates as an observer on behalf of the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee.
I assure her that we are considering such matters and that we seek to strengthen our low-carbon action wherever we can.
Before I move to question 3, I say to members that I really do want to make progress through this set of portfolio questions. I would appreciate it very much if the questions and the answers were as brief as possible.
Agriculture (Scientific Research and Innovation)
To ask the Scottish Government how it promotes scientific research and innovation in agriculture. (S4O-03128)
I will stick to the first paragraph of my answer.
The Scottish Government provides an annual investment of around £30 million for agricultural scientific research and innovation, delivered through our world-leading research institutes, universities and Government divisions and agencies.
The cabinet secretary listened, so let us make this answer brief, too.
I will try my best, Presiding Officer, but I cannot promise.
The white paper suggests that, if there were a yes vote this September, scientists and researchers based here in Scotland would continue to benefit from United Kingdom research spending, but it does not explain how. It does not explain why the rest of the UK would continue to subsidise Scotland, and it does not set out any contingencies if the Scottish Government does not get its way.
Is it not clear that only devolution can guarantee Scotland the best of both worlds, with the power to grow our agriculture sector without putting UK research funding at risk?
When Scotland votes yes—I must correct Margaret McCulloch on that—we will pursue the solution of a common research area. At present, research contracts in Scotland are won on merit not only from the rest of the UK but from Europe, which provides an increasing number of research grants to our fantastic research institutions in Scotland.
If Scotland were to remain part of the UK and the UK were to leave Europe, our research institutes would potentially lose those European research contracts. That would be bad news and is—I would argue—the biggest threat to research institutions in this country.
We have common research projects across these islands even on devolved matters, and I have no doubts whatever that that situation will continue under independence.
Nigel Don has a supplementary.
I will try to make it a supplementary to the previous three questions—
We need it to be brief, Mr Don.
Will the cabinet secretary tell us a bit more about the green cow project, which is looking at ways to reduce the amount of methane from our livestock?
To answer very briefly, I was involved in launching the excellent green cow project in March 2011. The idea behind it is to reduce the carbon footprint of livestock production in this country, particularly in the beef sector. Our environmental footprint from cattle farming is already much smaller than that of other countries, but nevertheless we must continue to look at how we can reduce our carbon footprint even further. The project is a great and world-leading facility, and I am sure that it will pay dividends for Scotland’s green and clean image in food production in the future.
Flooding (Assistance to Farmers)
To ask the Scottish Government what assistance it is providing to farmers adversely affected by severe flooding. (S4O-03129)
I will stick to the first paragraph of my notes, Presiding Officer.
I recently met the president of the National Farmers Union Scotland, along with Scottish Government and Scottish Environment Protection Agency officials, to discuss a number of issues around flood risk management. In addition to hearing how a number of individual farm businesses were affected by the severe weather, I heard about the practical benefits of the changes that were made to SEPA’s river engineering regulatory controls last year in allowing farmers to undertake appropriate repairs to their properties.
I thank the minister for his response, but it does not sound as if a lot of practical assistance is being offered. I remind him that, in response to severe flooding incidents south of the border, the Westminster Government has established a farming recovery fund with grants of up to £35,000 per affected farmer. Will the Scottish Government consider doing something similar?
I kept my first answer brief, Presiding Officer, but we are offering a number of measures through which we are helping farmers in a practical way to understand what provision exists in Scotland. We updated our procedures last year, before the recent flooding events, to make it easier for farmers to address dredging and river management issues.
We gave practical support and advice to NFUS delegates who attended the meeting, which will help by impacting positively on the farms that have recently been affected in Dumfries and Galloway and in Ayrshire. I am happy to provide further information about what we said to NFUS at the meeting.
Common Agricultural Policy Payments (Orkney)
To ask the Scottish Government what steps it will take to mitigate the impact on Orkney of the move from a historic to an area basis for payments under the reformed common agricultural policy. (S4O-03130)
Common agricultural policy reform represents a significant change as we move from historic to area-based payments and, inevitably, the changes will affect our agriculture sector in different ways. I am aware of the concerns expressed by some areas, and my officials have been working closely with local farmers in Orkney to help them understand more fully the potential impact of CAP reform. I look forward to meeting representatives from Liam McArthur’s constituency in the coming days.
I thank the cabinet secretary for that response, for the help from his officials and for the offer of a meeting later this month. As he said, the move to area-based payments looks likely to trigger a reduction in economic activity on Orkney farms. That will have a serious knock-on effect on the wider economy—not just on the agricultural supply sector, which includes veterinary services and construction businesses, but on local shops and schools and possibly on transport links. What measures can the cabinet secretary put in place to ensure that support is targeted at active island farmers, including those who are not currently eligible for support?
On my visits to Orkney I cannot help noticing that livestock production in particular plays a very important part in the local economy, and I know that Orkney’s beef sector is renowned. For those reasons, I am taking very seriously the concerns that Mr McArthur’s constituents have expressed, and I am paying close attention to the issue. Of course, some of the initial projections suggest that there are potential increases for some of the islands. However, the situation is complex and I am keen to meet local representatives to hear their concerns and ideas directly.
Food and Drink Industries (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley)
To ask the Scottish Government how it supports the food and drink industries in Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley. (S4O-03131)
The Scottish Government recognises that Scotland’s food and drink businesses, both large and small, are a key part of our economy and the Government is doing all it can to make sure that they continue to make that contribution. I believe that our food policy benefits Ayrshire, which already makes a substantial contribution, as well as many other parts of the country.
The cabinet secretary will of course be aware of local companies such as the five-star-rated Cook School Scotland; the makers of the award-winning Dunlop cheese; and Varani’s, the ice cream maker, which has been in Kilmarnock since the 1930s. Recently, Brownings the Bakers won awards for its world-famous Killie pies. Will the cabinet secretary agree to visit my constituency in the near future to meet local food producers and taste for himself the fine products that make a great contribution to Scotland’s larder?
I will go anywhere for a Killie pie, so I will happily get my office to contact Willie Coffey as soon as possible to set up a visit. I had the privilege of visiting Braehead Foods in Kilmarnock a while back, which is a great, growing business and is a sign of Willie Coffey’s constituency’s fantastic food and drink credentials. That particular business is driven by Craig Stevenson, who is a big character and does a great deal for the local economy. I will be happy to visit that area.
We now know who ate all the pies.
Sea Eagles (Impact on Crofting)
To ask the Scottish Government what the impact is on crofting of the reintroduction of sea eagles. (S4O-03132)
There has been no specific study of the impact of reintroduced sea eagles—or white-tailed eagles—on crofting, although the Scottish Government has funded two research exercises to examine the feeding patterns of sea eagles. We accept that sea eagles may sometimes take lambs, which may have a financial impact on crofters. However, the evidence from the research that has been carried out in studies in Mull and Gairloch points to sea eagles taking very few lambs, and it is not always clear whether those lambs are alive and well, or sickly, or even dead, at the time they are taken.
Scottish Natural Heritage has run a sea eagle management scheme for a number of years. The scheme is operated in conjunction with NFU Scotland, the Scottish Crofting Federation and RSPB Scotland. The scheme is currently under review, with a view to providing better and more targeted support and practical advice to crofters and farmers.
It is also worth pointing out that sea eagles have a positive economic impact on crofting communities. An independent study in 2011 concluded that resident sea eagles bring in £5 million to the Mull economy each year and support up to 110 jobs in the tourism sector.
At the last meeting of the cross-party group on crofting, we heard from Willie Fraser, a crofter from Gairloch who loses an average of 20 lambs a year to sea eagles, which has an obvious adverse impact on his livelihood. Does the minister believe that the Scottish Crofting Federation’s recent suggestion of following the Spanish example of leaving dead livestock out for predators could help to mitigate such losses?
I am not familiar with the Spanish example, but I am happy to look at it on behalf of Jean Urquhart. I am aware of a number of cases in which diversionary feeding tactics are used to limit the impact on livestock of different raptor species. I am happy to look at that issue and correspond with Jean Urquhart on it.
Working Dogs (Tail Docking)
To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to calls to allow the docking of tails of working dogs. (S4O-03133)
We are currently considering the University of Glasgow’s recently published research and we need to gain a clear understanding of how that has altered the views of interested parties in Scotland before we take any decision about how to move forward. We have therefore invited the key veterinary, welfare and countryside organisations to offer their views on the research and say whether it supports a change to the legislation on tail docking by 23 May.
As someone who represents a rural constituency, I very much welcome the Government’s consultation on this issue. Does the cabinet secretary agree that, as he seeks the views of interested parties, considered, evidence-based input from the gamekeeping fraternity will be particularly welcome, in light of gamekeepers’ coalface understanding of the subject?
I recently met gamekeepers outside Parliament to collect a petition and speak to them about their concerns about tail docking legislation. I promised that I would consult them once the research was available, which it now is. I certainly agree that evidence from gamekeepers and others who regularly use working dogs is crucial to inform our consideration of this issue. We ensured that the Scottish Gamekeepers Association, the Scottish Countryside Alliance and the British Association for Shooting and Conservation were all represented on the steering group of the University of Glasgow’s research project and we will listen closely to their views in the weeks ahead.
Next
Fuel Poverty