To ask the Scottish Executive when it last met the National Farmers Union of Scotland and what issues were discussed. (S1O-2359)

I last met the National Farmers Union of Scotland on 26 September to discuss the new support mechanism for the less favoured areas.

Does the minister agree that one of the issues that should be discussed with the NFUS is that of health and safety on farms, particularly in relation to the practice of belly clipping animals before they go for slaughter? Does the minister agree that there are no reliable statistics on that because of the suspected underreporting of farm accidents?

I can assure Nora Radcliffe that, although we did not discuss the matter the last time I met the NFUS, it is an issue that we discuss regularly. If there is underreporting of incidents of which the Health and Safety Executive should be made aware, that is a cause for concern. The Executive and the NFUS agree that the practice of belly clipping is essential if we are to meet our standards on health and E coli. We are satisfied that, if the proper equipment is in place, that dangerous practice can be carried out with a degree of safety.

At the minister's meeting with the NFUS at which the hill farm support arrangements were discussed, did the NFUS express the concern of many farmers about what will happen to the new hill livestock compensatory allowance proposals after the three-year transitional scheme finishes and the safety net is removed? Will the minister give us some indication as to when the new proposals to be put to the European Commission are likely to be approved?

Officials from the Scottish Executive rural affairs department are returning from Brussels as we speak. I have not yet had a briefing on our current position on the matter. As Mr Johnstone will know, the European Union regrettably is not concerned about the particular circumstances of Scotland, which has 85 per cent of its land designated as less favoured areas. We need a scheme that takes account of our different circumstances. The European Union is concerned only that we move from a headage to a hectarage basis, without any consideration for the consequences. I make no apologies for attempting, at every stage, to persuade the European Union that that will not do. I share Mr Johnstone's concern that when the safety net is removed we might end up with a range of doubtful winners and very serious losers. The reason that I am pursuing the matter, keeping on at the European Union and being prepared to take it to the line, is to ensure that we have the maximum number of winners and very few losers, if any.