Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Thursday, February 24, 2011

Official Report 1075KB pdf

---

Scottish Executive Question Time

---

Justice and Law Officers

---

Domestic Abuse

1. To ask the Scottish Executive what action it will take to reduce the level of domestic abuse. (S3O-13076)

Domestic abuse is completely unacceptable. That is why the Government acted swiftly to legislate last year to close a gap in the criminal law so that cases of domestic abuse can continue to be prosecuted under our new offence of threatening or abusive behaviour. The Government will carry on working closely with all key partners, including the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the police and the key support agencies to ensure that perpetrators are held to account and that victims have access to appropriate support. We will continue to tackle the issue head on, with funding of more than £11 million proposed for 2011-12, which is 40 per cent higher than the budget in 2006-07.

How will the minister and the Scottish Government encourage the necessary changes in attitude as promoted by Scottish Women’s Aid’s stop campaign? How will he further support the roll-out of practices such as the toolkit for domestic abuse courts and the essential provision of specialist advocacy services?

I acknowledge Marlyn Glen’s long-standing interest in and campaigning on the issue. On her first question, the Scottish Government supports Scottish Women’s Aid’s together we can stop it campaign. My colleague the Minister for Housing and Communities signed up to that campaign at its launch. On the domestic abuse court in Glasgow, the member correctly says that we have developed from that a toolkit that we believe should be applied and available throughout Scotland so that the advantages that are gained from that successful experience in Glasgow can be felt throughout the country. We will continue to work with all our colleagues to ensure that that takes place.

I support all the work with female victims of domestic violence, but I ask the Government for reassurances that, in its efforts on the issue, it will take into account the male victims of domestic violence. The Public Petitions Committee finally closed a petition on that issue on Tuesday and acknowledged the progress that the Scottish Government has made in response to the petition. However, members pledged to continue to highlight the issue. I simply seek reassurance from the minister that the Scottish Government will recognise male victims and children in all its work on domestic abuse.

I acknowledge Anne McLaughlin’s role in campaigning on that important matter. As many members from all political parties have done, she rightly raises the issues of violence against men. She makes excellent points. We believe strongly that services should be available to meet the needs of anyone who experiences abuse—women or men. We have provided funding for the men’s advice line so that male victims can receive support and information. We are exploring with male victims and organisations that support them what the service need is, so I can give Anne McLaughlin the assurance that she seeks.

The minister will be aware of the widespread concern among support groups for the victims of domestic abuse about the lack of availability of short-term sentences, which the Government has now removed. Victims of domestic abuse are particularly concerned because short-term sentences afforded them respite. Do the Scottish Government and the minister acknowledge those concerns? How does the minister propose to address them?

As the First Minister said earlier, serious offences receive severe sentences. Any serious offence of, for example, assault will be extremely seriously dealt with by the court. It is for the court to decide the appropriate sentence under the law that the Parliament has passed. Mr Lamont will, I hope, agree that we also need to address Scotland’s problem with alcohol. Although alcohol can never be an excuse for domestic violence, it is sadly an exacerbating factor in many cases of violence against women. I hope that he, too, will therefore recognise that we need to take measures such as minimum pricing that will more effectively address the abuse of alcohol.

I welcome the increase in conviction rates, and in particular the work of Central Scotland Police. Does the minister agree that it is important that the partnership work between police and organisations such as Women’s Aid continues, and that there is sustained support for that?

It is really important that the minister and others consider proportionality in relation to violence against women, including domestic abuse. It is clear that the statistics are much higher for women, who make up more than 90 per cent of those who are reported as being subject to domestic abuse. Comparisons cannot be made when we are talking about male and female abuse.

Cathy Peattie is quite correct to say that the vast majority of victims of domestic abuse are female: that is the case, although men are also abused. I certainly agree with her, and I acknowledge that she too has campaigned on the issue for many years, as have people from all parties in the chamber.

It is essential that we work closely with the police, the Crown Office and the fiscals, as we have been doing. I take this opportunity to praise the proactive work that has been done throughout the country. For example, police officers contact and visit—especially before certain significant football matches—individuals who are known to have committed domestic abuse in the past, and point out that if they do the same thing again, there is only one place that they will end up, and that is in a cell.

We acknowledge the work of the police and the justice authorities in that regard, and I am pleased that it has such support among members on all sides of the chamber.

---

Crime Levels (North Ayrshire)

2. To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to reduce crime levels in North Ayrshire. (S3O-13043)

The Scottish Government and local partners are working hard to reduce crime in North Ayrshire. For example, we have invested more than £150,000 in local projects throughout North Ayrshire over four rounds of the cashback initiative to provide participation and diversionary activities. In light of that, I am sure that the member will welcome, as I do, the 12 per cent reduction in total recorded crimes in North Ayrshire between 2008-09 and 2009-10.

Can the cabinet secretary confirm that the increase in community officers in North Ayrshire from 70 to 140 since 25 October is already beginning to show results? Does he share my welcome for the opening of the new custody suite in Saltcoats just this week? Does he agree that the increase in capacity from 10 to 21 will mean that fewer offenders will have to be transported to Greenock or Killie—a journey of about 50 minutes—which means that more officers can spend time on the front-line policing duties for which they are trained?

Absolutely. It was a privilege to meet last week with members of the force at Arran police station, which is part of that division. I appreciate the excellent work that they do. As Mr Gibson says, there is a clear correlation between increased police numbers and a reduction in crime—and in the fear of crime, as the First Minister mentioned at First Minister’s questions.

The changes that have been made to the cell structure will benefit the police and ultimately the communities by ensuring that officers’ time is spent in better ways than transporting prisoners around looking for an available cell.

The number of antisocial behaviour complaints in North Ayrshire rose from 661 to 724 between 2008-09 and 2009-10. That comes on the back of recent reports that half a million complaints of antisocial behaviour go unreported. Does that not lead the Government to move away from its complacent attitude to antisocial behaviour and adopt an attitude that sticks up for local communities?

We take a serious view of antisocial behaviour, but equally we recognise that it comes in a variety of forms. It can come in a form that is very serious and clearly criminal, and which should be dealt with by the police. Equally, it can appear at relatively low levels, in the form of ignorant behaviour that is unacceptable.

For example, in the city of Edinburgh—the situation is probably the same in other communities—a failure to take a turn at cleaning the stair, or a failure to take responsibility for other such matters, will quite correctly be classified as antisocial behaviour, although such behaviour is clearly not in the same category as keeping someone awake, disrupting their family life and their sleep or threatening or abusing them.

However, each and every one of those matters is significant. They are taken seriously, not only by the Government but by local authorities. That is why I welcome the activities in my constituency in Edinburgh—and, no doubt, in North Ayrshire—in which police and other partners, such as housing associations and the local authority, work in conjunction with one another to ensure that people realise that a tenant has a responsibility as well as rights and to ensure that action is taken.

---

Community Safety (Prisoner Release)

3. To ask the Scottish Government how it prioritises community safety prior to prisoners with a history of violence being released on licence. (S3O-13038)

Decisions on the release on licence of determinate sentence prisoners serving four years or more, extended sentence prisoners, where the custodial term is four years or more, and life prisoners are a matter for the Parole Board for Scotland. The board will not direct early release on licence until it is satisfied that the prisoner no longer presents an unacceptable risk to the public. The Scottish ministers are obliged by law to accept its decisions.

I thank the cabinet secretary for meeting Ewan and Margaret McGrand, whose daughter Vikki was murdered in 2008 by Gavin Boyd, who was released on a 13-year licence in 2006. I am concerned at the absence of a review process and risk assessment for prisoners who are subject to automatic release. Is the cabinet secretary satisfied that enough is done to secure early recall for prisoners freed on licence who present a continuing threat to public safety? In addition, does he agree that, to help families when things go wrong, an independent review should take place and summary findings should be published if any offender freed on licence is implicated in a murder?

I recall the meeting with Willie Coffey and the McGrand family.

When prisoners are freed on licence, the local authority supervising officer is required to notify the Scottish Government’s parole unit if they have any concerns about the prisoner’s conduct or behaviour, even if it does not actually constitute a breach of licence.

Various actions can be taken in the event of a breach, including immediate recall to custody if, in the view of the Scottish ministers, the person presents an unacceptable risk to the safety of the public. Those powers were exercised 44 times in 2009-10.

However, I agree that we should learn lessons from such cases. Following the meeting that I had with Willie Coffey and Mr and Mrs McGrand, I asked the Social Work Inspection Agency, which is an independent body, to examine the issues as part of its work on serious incident reporting. It has agreed to do that because, as we discussed with the McGrands, all partners take such matters seriously but improvements can be made, and we must strive to make them.

---

Community Court (Glasgow East End)

4. To ask the Scottish Executive whether it plans to reconsider establishing a community court in the east end of Glasgow. (S3O-13084)

As I said to Parliament in 2009, the Scottish Government is committed to delivering the benefits that are sought from establishing a dedicated community court in Glasgow. I also said that we would work with partners to do that more cost effectively.

By using existing staff and buildings more imaginatively, the pilot for a fast-track community service at Glasgow sheriff court that was announced last month will deliver on that commitment, and will do so within current financial constraints. The pilot will result in quicker delivery of community payback, with offenders being assessed and starting unpaid work placements within hours of being sentenced.

I note that the minister’s response is not quite what was promised and committed to in the Scottish Government’s early years. That is disappointing for my constituents in the east end, who were supportive of the establishment of a community court for Glasgow, particularly to relieve them of some of the difficulties that are related to significant antisocial behaviour.

If the minister is fortunate enough, depending on the wisdom of the electorate, to be in the same position after the election, will he endeavour to continue to take the matter forward? I know that the Labour Party would.

Absolutely. We accept the problems and I am aware of Mr McAveety’s commitment to the proposal. However, there are clearly financial pressures on the justice budget and, in particular, the courts budget. There are calls for the expansion of domestic abuse courts, drugs courts and so on. There are also pressures on providing for the improvement of the High Court—a matter that is dear to the Lord President’s heart.

The Government accepts the direction of travel. At the moment, when funds are limited, we have to ensure that we provide the service that will make Mr McAveety’s area in the east end of Glasgow—and the whole city of Glasgow—safer and ensure that those who are convicted are dealt with more speedily. When we do not have the money to spend on the buildings, we must at minimum improve the way that we operate within the current structures.

---

Scottish Police Services Authority (Staff Regrading)

5. To ask the Scottish Executive what discussions the Cabinet Secretary for Justice has had with the board of the Scottish Police Services Authority concerning staff regrading. (S3O-13086)

I regularly discuss a wide range of matters with the SPSA’s convener. I have had no discussions with the SPSA board about the recent staff regrading exercise, which is an operational matter for the SPSA’s executive team.

The cabinet secretary will recall that I raised with him recently the concern that support staff in Grampian have been regraded at a grade that is lower than that of their colleagues who do the same work elsewhere, simply because salary levels in Grampian Police were lower than those in other forces. Has he seen the response that the SPSA sent me at his request, which appears to confirm the position that is causing concern? Will he impress on the SPSA the fact that staff grades should be based on skills and experience and not on how well a previous employer paid staff?

I am happy to pass on those points to the SPSA and to ask it to give me a briefing to respond to Lewis Macdonald.

---

Voluntary Groups Funding (Crime Reduction and Prevention)

6. To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on the size of voluntary groups having access to funding to help reduce or prevent crime. (S3O-13059)

The Scottish Government recognises the important contribution that the third sector makes to supporting Scotland’s economic recovery, creating employment and skills opportunities, improving public services and supporting communities. We are committed to continuing to support the sector in whatever ways we can.

We recognise the enormous contribution that our volunteers make to the lives of individuals and communities throughout Scotland. Volunteers often play a major part in building the confidence of those who feel marginalised in our society and in helping them to realise their potential and develop their talents and skills so that they can go on to lead healthy and fulfilled lives and to become economically active.

Organisations such as Crimestoppers, the Association of Scottish Neighbourhood Watches and others have all played an important role in achieving the lowest recorded crime level in 32 years.

I have seen at first hand the important work that small organisations such as Drugs Action in Aberdeen do in their communities. They worry—understandably—that, in the current financial climate, they might find themselves squeezed out of accessing funding by larger organisations. Will the minister give an assurance that all organisations, regardless of size, will have an equal opportunity to access Scottish Government funding streams?

Yes—I confirm that the Scottish Government will not deliberately favour large organisations at the expense of small ones in funding applications. I am therefore happy to reassure Maureen Watt that charities that have expressed such a concern to her will have every chance of securing funding if their bids are successful enough.

I pay tribute to the work that has been done in Aberdeen to tackle successfully the unacceptable waiting times for drug treatment and assessment that prevailed there some years ago. I discussed that with Richard Carey of NHS Grampian just last week.

What assessment has the Scottish Government made of the budget cuts that are affecting large and small voluntary sector organisations that are involved in criminal justice services across Scotland? What impact will the significant cuts to funding for organisations such as Sacro, Apex Scotland and Includem have on preventing crime and tackling reoffending?

We have directed the resources from the Scottish taxpayer not to assessing what might go wrong in the future but to funding 1,000 extra police officers, to ensure that Scotland remains the safer place that it is now.

We have supported the work of voluntary organisations in tackling crime; in particular, we have supported the work of organisations that contribute to tackling the problem of Scotland’s relationship with alcohol, which underlies a substantial proportion of the crime that is committed in the country. That work and other work of third sector bodies would have been considerably supported had we been able to add to our repertoire of measures minimum pricing for alcohol, which the Labour Party rejected.

---

Rural Affairs and the Environment

---

Large-scale Biomass Plants (Timber Industry)

1. To ask the Scottish Government what representations it has received on the impact of large-scale biomass plants on the timber industry. (S3O-13056)

The Scottish Government prefers biomass to be deployed in heat-only or combined heat and power schemes, particularly off gas grid, at a scale that is appropriate to make best use of both the available heat and local supply.

With the Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism and my officials, I have regularly met representatives of the forestry and wood processing industries to discuss their concerns. Officials held a series of meetings with those industries and biomass operators as part of the consultation on the renewables obligation Scotland at the end of last year. We received a formal response to that consultation from the Wood Panel Industries Federation as well as from some individual businesses. I have also had representations from colleagues on behalf of their constituents, to which I have responded.

The minister will be aware of recent reports from the Confederation of Forest Industries and the Wood Panel Industries Federation—the latter of which she mentioned—that flag up major concerns about the impact of large-scale biomass plants, including on the domestic timber industry. Indeed, a recent report has said:

“If new large users of British-grown wood and other wood fibre enter the market place ... it can only be at the expense of existing users, impacting negatively and disproportionately on sustainability, employment, carbon sequestration, and mitigation of climate change.”

Does she agree that large-scale biomass plants such as that which is proposed at Leith would be damaging to the environment and jobs, as well as being a blight on the community of Leith?

The member will know that I cannot make reference to specific plants, although I did speak to some of the campaigners who arrived outside the Parliament at lunchtime.

I answered in part the question in my initial response when I said how the Scottish Government prefers biomass to be deployed. Over the coming year, our review of incentives for biomass will ensure that support is aligned with Scottish Government policy. As I said, I cannot comment on individual planning applications. However, the biomass scoping guidance that we published in February last year for large-scale proposals states:

“Applicants should consider the finite domestic supply of wood fibre ... and ... produce a Sustainability Statement”.

I support the many local objections to the proposed Leith plant. As the minister with responsibility for climate change, has the minister carried out any assessment of the implications of large-scale biomass plants for our 2050 climate change targets? Does she accept that they would incur a large carbon debt, which would not be helpful for those targets? If the Scottish Government has done no such work, will she undertake to carry out research so that the Government understands fully the implications of large-scale biomass plants for climate change before making a judgment on any individual application?

Such a study would not come directly from my department. It is likely that it would be undertaken by a body such as the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. The Government has been clear that it sees biomass as more appropriate to small and medium-sized plants. As I have indicated, we prefer biomass to be deployed in heat-only or combined heat and power schemes. We are not in a situation in which we can rely on only one renewable source. We are also conscious of supply issues and the longer-term issues that the member raised. He can rest assured that we are taking all those matters into consideration. However, as I have indicated, I cannot comment on specific potential planning applications.

---

Wildlife Corridors

2. To ask the Scottish Government what legislation is in place to protect wildlife corridors in urban areas. (S3O-13061)

Some particularly valuable sites that form parts of urban wildlife networks will be designated as sites of special scientific interest, while other sites of local importance will be designated as local nature reserves. A few sites might be covered by a range of other designations. Most of the protection for sites of local nature importance will come through the planning system, with local nature reserves receiving a high degree of protection in the development planning system.

The planning system is governed by a range of legislation, including the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006, which put the national planning framework on a statutory footing. In 2009, the Scottish Government published the second national planning framework, which identifies the central Scotland green network as a national development. The aim is to have a strategic network of woodland and other habitats, active travel routes, green-space links, watercourses and waterways that will provide an enhanced setting for development and other land uses and improved opportunities for outdoor recreation and cultural activity.

I thank the minister for her comprehensive reply. I understand that she cannot comment on individual planning applications. However, in the north and west of Glasgow, we face two developments that will encroach on wildlife areas, in Otago Lane and on Kelvin meadow in Clouston Street. I am heartened by the minister’s comments. Does she agree that, under the consolidated Scottish planning policy that she mentioned, which refers to cities and green networks, local developers and councillors should work together with all in the community to ensure that consolidated planning policy and their aims are presented to local communities?

Sandra White may be interested to know that I spoke at a conference on urban biodiversity in Glasgow at the end of October, at which many related issues were raised. Although planning policy now gives stronger support for the promotion and protection of green networks, planning decisions must reflect the full range of considerations that are relevant to an individual decision. I hope that planning authorities will look to develop effective green networks across their area as a whole.

In 2010, the Scottish Government published the consolidated Scottish planning policy, which states:

“Development plans should identify and promote green networks”.

I know that that will be part of any discussion, debate and consideration in any local authority planning department in Scotland.

In her initial reply, the minister mentioned waterways. Does she agree that canals and river banks are often good, hidden wildlife corridors but that they tend to suffer from neglect and to be covered in rubbish and the like? Will the minister turn her attention to improving some of those wildlife areas, not only for the wildlife but for the people who can see the wildlife in them?

Jamie McGrigor should rest assured that waterways are an integral part of providing wildlife corridors, especially in urban areas. He is correct to raise the issue and to say that, for a long time, they may have been rather overlooked. As the Forth and Clyde canal is cleaned up between Edinburgh and Glasgow, we are beginning to see its entire length develop as an enormous source of increasing biodiversity. The canal is an integral part of the central Scotland green network, as are other waterways. The member may rest assured that the issue is on our radar.

During our discussions on the Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill, we talked about the development of ecologically coherent networks, which are necessary for the conservation and promotion of biodiversity, especially in cases of adaptation to climate change. If the WANE bill is not the vehicle for taking forward the issue at national level, has the minister had any more thoughts about how we can achieve that nationally, instead of relying purely on local authorities?

I was hoping that we could get through and deal with the Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill before considering some of the other things that we need to take on from it. I recall the interesting conversations that took place on the question of ecological coherence. A number of issues are tied up with that. Clearly, many interests are concerned. It is not always the case that development is completely contradictory to providing corridors for biodiversity and so on. I do not want to be in the position of saying that massive areas will be newly designated as not suitable for development. However, with that in mind, all planning authorities need to look carefully at the development proposals that are brought forward. Where possible, national Government ought, if not to dictate, at least to guide, how the issue is addressed.

---

Dairy Farmers, Retailers and Processors (Meetings)

3. To ask the Scottish Executive what recent discussions it has had with dairy farmers, retailers and processors. (S3O-13010)

I met a delegation of leading Scottish dairy farmers on 7 February 2011 to discuss what options are available to alleviate the pressures in the supply chain.

The cabinet secretary will be aware of the current market failure in the dairy supply chain, which has been brought to my attention by Farmers for Action, the National Farmers Union and others. Notwithstanding the good work of the high-level expert group to address that market failure, what work is the cabinet secretary doing to ensure that the HLG’s proposals become a reality—in particular, that stronger, more transparently priced contracts are introduced to ensure that producers’ negotiating positions can be improved?

I thank the member for raising that important issue. He is right: the supply chain is not working for the primary producer. I see in today’s press that the chair of the NFU’s milk committee is saying that each dairy farmer is losing around 4p a litre, which is evidence of the difficult situation that dairy farmers face.

As the minister in Scotland, I am putting pressure on John Scott’s colleague in the United Kingdom Government in London to deliver a supermarket ombudsman—it was promised, but we are still waiting for it. That is one tool that could give more power to the primary producer in the supply chain. As soon as that is delivered, it will be a step forward. However, I appreciate that there is a lot more to do.

On what the European Union is doing, a number of proposals from the high-level expert group on dairy could help dairy farmers in Scotland.

The member raised the issue of compulsory contracts between the suppliers—the dairy producers—and the customers, which in this case are the retailers and processors. The UK Government is taking the position that there may not be compulsory contracts south of the border. If the UK Government takes what could be a weaker position, it would make it more difficult for us to take a stronger position north of the border, because the same processors and retailers operate on both sides of the border. I urge the member to speak to his colleagues at Westminster about that issue.

We very much share the desire to have a supermarket ombudsman, precisely because of the issue of transparency in contracts. Nevertheless, we have knocked the issue around Parliament for quite a few years. In practical terms, what can we do together to say to the industry that it is unacceptable that milk is cheaper than water? It makes no sense. We all know the cost in the milk supply chain. It is not about raising prices for consumers but about getting a fair price for farmers. What more can we do together, across the parties, not just in legislative terms but in terms of exerting political pressure to bring about change?

The member raises good points. Scotland is standing together on the issue, because we all want the country to be able to produce its own milk. The way things are going, that may not be the case unless we can give more profitability and power to the primary producers in the supply chain. I very much welcome all parties in Parliament continuing to work together towards that objective.

We all have to work together to put pressure on the regulatory authorities, which in this case are the UK Government and the European Union, both of which say they will take measures. However, they should recognise that there is a huge sense of urgency about the issue. With each week that passes in Scotland, it appears that more dairy farmers are leaving the sector. We cannot allow that to continue. The alarm bells should be ringing in the UK Government and at EU level.

---

Food and Drink Sector

4. To ask the Scottish Government what it is doing to support growth in the food and drink sector. (S3O-13057)

The Scottish Government and its agencies are actively supporting the food and drink sector’s growth to meet the target of £12.5 billion turnover by 2017. Since 2007, the industry has seen record figures, with turnover increasing by more than £1 billion during 2007-08 and exports increasing by 15 per cent between 2007 and 2009. It is our intention, through our national food and drink policy, to continue to help the sector to fulfil Scotland’s potential and be a world leader.

Given that sales of Scottish-branded food and drink in the United Kingdom have increased by 30 per cent under this Government, does the cabinet secretary believe that clear labelling of Scottish produce by protected geographic indication and Quality Meat Scotland and Marine Stewardship Council certification is essential if we are to continue to improve on that performance?

I agree that labelling is extremely important. We are lucky in this country in that we have a reputation for top-quality food and drink. The more we can communicate that message to the consumer—as the member indicated, not just in this country but elsewhere in these islands and overseas—the better it will be for our primary producers, processors and everyone in the food and drink sector in Scotland.

At the moment, the food regulations are making their way through the European Parliament and the European Commission. The Scottish Government is pushing for mandatory country-of-origin labelling right down to the Scottish level for all meat and dairy products, which would be a huge step forward in supporting those sectors.

---

Common Agricultural Policy

5. To ask the Scottish Government when it last discussed the common agricultural policy with the United Kingdom Government. (S3O-13058)

Specific elements of the common agricultural policy have been discussed at meetings of the UK delegation ahead of agriculture and fisheries council meetings in Brussels, most recently on Monday of this week. There was a general discussion on the CAP at ministerial level during a breakfast meeting in London on 19 November last year, which was also attended by ministers from the other devolved Administrations.

The UK agriculture minister, Caroline Spelman, recently told the Oxford Farming Conference that she supported ending direct farm support. In addition, she completely ignored the submissions from the Governments of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in her submission to Europe on CAP reform. Does the cabinet secretary agree that the Liberal-Conservative coalition policy of ending direct farm support would be absolutely disastrous for Scotland, especially for areas such as Ross-shire, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch?

I certainly agree that the UK Government’s policy on the future of the CAP poses a massive threat to Scotland’s farmers and crofters and, indeed, the wider food and drink sector, which we have just discussed. The UK Government is pushing a policy that may be appropriate for the home counties in the south of England but which is certainly not appropriate for Scotland’s needs and circumstances. If that policy takes hold here, it could be disastrous for Scotland.

The member referred to the UK Government’s recent submission to the European Commission on the future of the CAP, in which it said:

“There must therefore be a very substantial cut to the CAP Budget”.

That is the last thing that Scotland’s farmers and crofters need in the current circumstances. We should resist such a measure, because it could lose Scotland hundreds of millions of pounds. As the member said, the people who would suffer the most are farmers and crofters in the more outlying areas of Scotland.

---

Common Agricultural Policy

7. To ask the Scottish Government what it considers the effects would be on agriculture in Scotland of the recommendations made by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to the consultation on reform of the common agricultural policy. (S3O-13044)

As we have just discussed, the effects of DEFRA’s recommendations could be disastrous for Scottish agriculture. The Pack inquiry highlighted the need for direct payments and limited coupled payments to continue, and the Scottish Government supports that. Research suggests that removing pillar 1 direct payments from the CAP would cause significant declines in livestock numbers throughout Scotland.

Are there other countries in Europe that have similar problems with climate and distance, that get less favoured area support payments, and which can be allies of ours? Does LFAS enforce the Scottish Government’s belief that agriculture should be practised in every part of our country, where possible?

As the member highlights, additional support for farmers and crofters in the more remote areas of Scotland in what are known as less favoured areas is essential. It is extremely important that we continue to provide such support, and that is certainly the Scottish Government’s policy.

As the member identifies, there are countries such as Scotland that have specific needs and circumstances that must be met by the new common agricultural policy. For instance, in Scotland, unlike England, 85 per cent of land has less favoured area status and two thirds of it is suitable only for rough grazing. South of the border, only 15 per cent of land has LFA status. That indicates the difference in the scale of the challenges that are faced north and south of the border. Getting the CAP and future support mechanisms right is very important to sustaining agriculture in rural Scotland.

---

Flooding (Moray)

8. To ask the Scottish Executive what progress has been made to alleviate flooding in Moray. (S3O-13099)

Flood protection is a matter for individual local authorities, as the member knows. Since 2007, support from this Government has enabled Moray Council to take forward flood protection schemes at Rothes, the Burn of Mosset in Forres and, most recently, Elgin.

I welcome the news that the Elgin flood alleviation scheme has begun, as it will protect local residents against the trauma of flood damage. The minister will be well aware of the serious financial concerns that Moray Council has raised. Will she clarify when the Forres scheme is due to begin? Will she review again the funding of such schemes in the future?

A number of discussions have been held with Moray Council about funding. A special meeting was called to discuss the issues. The fact that it has been provided with assurances has allowed it to sign off on the Elgin scheme, which will proceed accordingly.

As regards the other aspect that the member raises, the flooding situation in Scotland has never been better provided for than since 2007. Prior to then, only £5.5 million per annum was allocated to dealing with flooding in Scotland. Subsequently, spending on the issue has been of a hugely higher order—£42 million has been allocated to it in each year between 2008 and 2012. The member should compare that with what happened before.