 Does Our Business has General Questions and we start withgroup 1, by Donald Cameron. I refer members to my register of interests in crofting and farming therein, to ask the Scottish Government what plans it has to control the number of geese in the highlands and islands. Rhozan Llechegorff yng Nghwchf Fixer summit, Scottish Government spends more than £1.2 million annually on goose management schemes designed to minimise economic losses that byw gwaeth y cwmaint a'r petrwyr a'r bysigol cyfleid y gyblwyddu gyda GD ond i ddoch chi'n ddod o behog i'r ddod o'r pseudol ddod gan unrhyw bwysig a'r ddod o wneud i gyd o gyd o ddod o'r mewn ffordd. A'u hyn ar brothersio ynghylch i ddefnyddio duchio wiringol a'r ddod o gw'rbyn bwrdd y gwneudol ar gyda GD, ac mae'n rhywbeth i'ch gyd o gyfeilio gwneud a'u gwneud a'r ddod o gyd, am gyfartwyr gwyddemnid â'r lannu'n Llywodraeth i Gwelidiaeth, Llywodraeth Iosglwlad ac Orkney, ond maeth i Gwelidiaeth sefydlu gydaeth dechrau a ddod yn ddigono'r rhywun cyflwsydd sy'n ddweud i cちゃん gan Maeth Gwreilad G Pointhau. Donald Cameron. Thank you, cabinet secretary, for her answer. She will know that the G Pointhau damage to Grazing continues to be a major issue across the region, particularly in the Uists and on Isle. The Crofting Committee of the Carlin Ian Share has said that they are hugely concerned by their apparent retreat in Scottish Government support for the existing scheme. Given the deep levels of concern from crofters and farmers about their livelihoods, will the cabinet secretary today confirm if the Scottish Government has any plans to review the level of funding offered within the schemes? A review of goose policy is undertaken every five years by the Government. In effect, there is a rolling programme of review. In 2015, the Scottish Government commissioned the latest, the current review of goose policy, and that included issue around the support offered to farmers to manage geese in Scotland through goose management schemes. That review is currently being considered by an external quality assurance panel and it is due to be completed by November 2017, and I am sure that the member will be interested in those results. I should add, Presiding Officer, that SNH spends a considerable portion of its budget on goose management. It cannot just continue to rise exponentially because that is not sustainable. What we are looking to do is to try and enable farmers to be in themselves through their particular management of the solution. To ask the Scottish Government when it last met with Scottish Water. I am in regular contact with Scottish Water and I receive regular updates on the delivery of the capital programme, which I am pleased to report, is currently ahead of schedule. Further, I had the pleasure of visiting Thurso Wastewater Treatment Works and Gorthleit Water Treatment Works in August. I have several constituents experiencing problems with Scottish Water in business dream at the moment, including one who cannot take his case to the ombudsman because Scottish Water has failed to respond to him, meaning that the case cannot be taken forward. Does the cabinet secretary agree that customer service should be a priority for Scottish Water in business dream and that it is not good enough that people cannot resolve issues that they are facing due to their failure to respond? Does the cabinet secretary also agree to write to Scottish Water on behalf of my constituents to try and resolve those issues? Customer service should be a high priority for all agencies, and that would include Scottish Water, but it has very good levels of customer satisfaction. If the member would care to give me details of the case that she is concerned with and the issues raised therein, I will be happy to investigate and take that matter forward for her. The cabinet secretary is aware of the long-term flooding issues and the pressing need for that to be addressed. I note from the written answer that I recently received that the allocation of funding is by priority. Can she please assure me that the flooding and the flooding from sewers and Prestwick be addressed as an absolute priority and that a flood mitigation scheme will be drawn up as soon as possible? John Scott has been here long enough to have been involved in the flooding Scotland bill that we took through this Parliament some years ago. We now have a very carefully thought-out priority programme, which is agreed with COSLA. That informs the immediate priorities and is a rolling programme that will be constantly under review. Flood protection is an issue for local authorities to address, and I am very happy if the member wishes to raise directly with me any specific concerns that he has about a very specific programme. I would be very happy to speak to him about that. Flooding is going to be a constant and consistent problem as we move forward. I believe that, in Scotland, we have the best possible framework in which to manage the problem. To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on reorganising local government to ensure that remote and rural areas have decision-making and strategic planning located at the heart of their communities. The Scottish Government is committed to community empowerment and supporting strong local democracy. In the programme for government, we set out our plans to work with a wide range of organisations to deliver a comprehensive review of local governance ahead of a local democracy bill later this Parliament. We will ensure that listening to the voices of remote, rural and island communities is central to that review. Having had a lot of local discussion with stakeholders in my constituency, I am concerned that there appears to be a large disparity between the effectiveness and inclusiveness of community planning partnerships from area to area. Will the Scottish Government consider issuing specific guidance to make partnerships aware of their responsibilities to be open, inclusive and welcoming to all members of their community? We have recently introduced important changes to strengthen community planning. Since last December, community planning partnerships have been subject to new statutory duties introduced by the Community Empowerment Scotland Act 2015 and the supporting guidance. Those give community planning a statutory purpose focused on local public services, working together and with communities to improve outcomes and to tackle inequalities on what they agree are local priorities. The act and guidance place communities at the heart of community planning. For instance, it requires CPP partner bodies to take all reasonable steps to enable any community body that can contribute to community planning to participate as far as that body wants to. I know that Gail Ross is very passionate about this issue and about empowering communities, and I am more than willing to meet her to discuss those issues further. The minister highlights the importance of local government in planning decisions. Can he then explain the utter hypocrisy in his answer as to overturning planning decisions taken at local level, such as unwanted wind farm developments and green belt developments such as Park of Kear? The question that Gail Ross posed was about community planning, and Mr Stewart has moved on to spatial planning. Is Mr Stewart well aware that there is a special place in the ministerial code for planning ministers? I would refer him to that, and he knows that I cannot talk about any specific case. I would refer him to the letters that go out that give my decisions so that he has the reasoning for those decisions. To ask the Scottish Government what it is doing to support the fish processing industry in Scotland. We are taking a number of steps to support the fish processing industry. We continue to provide vital funding through our European fisheries funds to support processors to invest in the facility since 2007, providing more than £30 million of support to support 146 businesses across Scotland. We have also published proposals for Scottish landings targets to increase landings of fish by Scottish vessels into Scotland, thus giving processors more raw material to market. We are providing £250,000 per annum to Seafood Scotland to enable them to promote the sector in Scotland and international trade shows. In addition, we are working with the industry to develop a new sector-specific action plan to exploit further growth opportunities. The reality is that, given that we expect increased tonnages of fish landings post-Brexit, it is very concerning that from 2008 to 2016, there has been a 34 per cent decline in fish processing factories and a 12 per cent decline in people employed processing fish in Scotland. Those fish are being driven to areas such as Grimsby, with significantly lower business rates and running costs. There seems to be no Government support to drive down costs for the industry, and they are facing, as processors in Scotland are struggling with the high levels of business rates, water charges and effluent charges. Will the Scottish Government commit to helping to build the industry and stop driving our fish out of Scotland? It is a remarkable question from Peter Chapman for a number of reasons, but let me try to be constructive and helpful where I can in that the Grampian Seafood Alliance recently went with my colleague the Cabinet Secretary for Finance. He wrote to Tory-led Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire Council reminding them to the community empowerment legislation that they have the powers to introduce specific rates reliefs for those industries. I am sure that Peter Chapman will join with the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, but it is quite incredible that Peter Chapman mentions the decline in employment in those industries. When I look at Grampian statistics, 70 per cent of those employed by the fish processing industry in Grampian are EU nationals. Will he not join with this Government to call on the UK Government to not push for that hard Brexit to say that EU citizens make a contribution, whether it is in fish processing, hospitality or many sectors across Scotland? Further to that, will the member not also join with the Scottish Government in saying to the UK Government that any European money for the European marine fisheries fund that comes back to the UK must come back to Scotland and be spent on our fishermen here in Scotland? I can guarantee Mr Chapman that, if he does that, he will not be receiving his P45. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to improve road safety on the north coast 500 route in light of the reported increase in accidents. I thank the member for the question that the Scottish Government welcomes the success of the north coast 500 route. It recognises the importance of the north coast 500 route to the Scottish economy. On road safety, I am directly responsible for trunk road sections of the NC500, which comprise approximately 22 per cent of the route through sections of the A35A99 and A9. The safety performance of the trunk road elements of the NC500 is reviewed annually. The figures for 2016 are lower than the average for the three years before the route was promoted in 2015. A partnership approach has been taken to improving safety across the whole NC500. The transport subgroup, which is being set up by the NC500 working group, includes officials from Highland Council, Police Scotland, Transport Scotland, Bear Scotland, NC500 and Visit Wester Ross. Options that are being considered include passing places on single track roads, road-edge strengthening, improved tours, route signing, general road safety and driver behaviour education. Those discussions are at an early stage, and I welcome contributions and input from members across the chamber. Edward Mountain I thank the minister for that answer. The north coast 500 has obviously been a tremendous boost to the Highlands. Many people who live near it believe that its combination of inexperience driving on single track roads and frustration that causes accidents. Will the Government, because the Highland Council is finding it difficult financially, help to take the lead in increasing signage on the route to mitigate those two particular problems? I will look at any proposal along with colleagues from Highland Council as part of that. I suggest that the working group that we have set up in the transport subgroup is the appropriate place to do that. Some of the interventions that we have made recently focus on signage and on single track roads in passing places. If there is a proposal that comes from Highland Council, we will look at that. I would say that Highland Council would expect local roads to be funded from that block grant that amounts to more than £400 million for Highland Council. Nonetheless, any suggestions and proposals that come forward, I will keep an open mind. David Stewart Thank you, Presiding Officer. Will the minister join with me in congratulating the North of Scotland driver awareness team, who have produced a road safety leaflet that drives on single track roads on the NC500 and beyond? Does the minister share my view that the NC500 route is a stellar success for tourism, but perhaps more work needs to be done in promoting the specialist and technical skills that are needed to drive on single track roads? Yes, I agree with all of what Dave Stewart has said. I also thank you to Dave Stewart for the member for giving me a copy of that leaflet. I think that it is an excellent leaflet, which many of those who drive the NC500 would do well to look at, so where we can support initiatives like that, of course, we absolutely should. Of course, as I say, what more the Government and Transport Scotland can do as part of the NC500 group on transport than, of course, we will look to do. Bruce Crawford To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to Babcock International's proposals to relocate the defence support group site from Stirling. I am very disappointed that Babcock International is considering closing the Stirling workshop, although I understand that a final decision has not yet been made. I very much hope, along with the member who has made many representations on this, that the excellent work of the highly skilled workforce is recognised as a result of the consultation and that we, in any event, stand by in the Scottish Government to provide what support we can. Bruce Crawford I thank the cabinet secretary for his reply. Is the cabinet secretary aware that the defence support group operation in Stirling is the central point for the maintenance of military equipment and the last of its kind in Scotland? Does the cabinet secretary agree with Unite the Union, who represents many of the 56 highly skilled workers on the fourth side, that the proposals from Babcock represent a potential logistics nightmare for the armed forces in Scotland? Does he further agree that there are plans to move significant parts of the service, mainly to Yorkshire and Boveding Proceed? That will also be damaging to the local Stirling economy. I certainly do not doubt the importance of the DSG's site and the skills of the people employed here. The MOD's brutal basing cuts that were announced last year have left a number of outstanding questions on the operational and economic impact of their proposals. The member might be interested to know that there have been many representations from Conservative MPs down south about closures in this area, not one representation from Conservative MSPs or MPs in relation to the basing cuts in Scotland, which is absolutely astonishing. However, those proposals further underline the importance of MOD ministers coming to Scotland to engage strategically on the impact that is resulting from decisions to close defence sites, including Stirling by 2022. They continue to refuse to do so, with one exception. Lord Duncan accepted my invitation, although we still have not managed to progress towards an actual meeting. I hope that that meeting will take place, but, in conclusion, I agree that it is very disappointing that Babcock is considering closing the facility at Stirling, and I share the concerns that he has not just about that but about the footprint of the armed forces in Scotland. Given that Stirling Council's local development plan zones the defence support group site for much-needed housing and regeneration, why is the Scottish Government once again undermining the local development plan and undermining regeneration in Stirling, with its stance? I think that we just heard from the elected constituency MSP from Stirling the views about employment currently in the area. We do very seriously employment, which is why we have one of the lowest of our employment levels in Scotland, and one of the highest of our employment levels. Jobs are extremely important. Of course we and, in this case, the MOD can look at what proposals might be able to accommodate further housing. Stirling needs further housing, but we do not want to be doing that at the expense of good, well-paid jobs for highly skilled people in the Stirling area. I would have thought that the member would have been concerned about that as well. Stirling indeed has a highly skilled workforce and superb transport links that can well support that dedicated facility. Will the cabinet secretary meet me and Bruce Crawford to discuss options on how we can address Babcock international's proposals? Of course, I am always willing to meet members and I have had discussions with my colleague Bruce Crawford. Anyone who is willing to help the campaign to make sure that we can keep those jobs here would be important. Perhaps, if Dean Locker is willing to, we can extend that conversation to future planned closures by the MOD in Stirling and the rest of Scotland, because that would allow us to address a much wider problem. Of course, I am more than happy to meet both Dean Locker and Bruce Crawford, should Bruce Crawford be willing to do so on that subject. It is very important, and we can save jobs in Stirling if we can make the right case. To ask the Scottish Government on what date it will publish its proposals for setting the level of income tax. The Scottish Government will publish its draft budget for 2018-19 on 14 December 2017. That will include proposals for setting the rates and bans for Scottish income tax. I thank the cabinet secretary for his response. The Scottish Government has written to all the opposition parties asking us to set out our plans for income tax in advance of the budget. We are quite clear on this party. We do not want to see Scottish taxes set at a higher rate than elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Given that we are showing the cabinet secretary what our plans are, why do we have to wait to hear what his are? Myrddol Fraser is right in the regard that neither the Conservative party or the Labour party has responded to the challenge on contributing to the debate on income tax. The only principle that the Tories have is to simultaneously cut taxes and spend more at the same time. That is the budget contribution from the Tories. The Scottish Government has outlined our position and principles around taxation that include certainty, collecting tax in a progressive fashion, supporting public services and not passing austerity on to those with the lowest incomes. Last year, in the budget, the opposition parties asked me to listen to them. I am listening, but you have to give a clear position where the sums actually add up. The budget negotiations will be crucial in setting out our plans for Scotland in which we will engage with other parties. I will put forward a discussion paper and I hope that the other parties engage in a mature and rational fashion to inform that debate. In that sense, the Scottish Government will show leadership but engage with other parties as we should.