 Before we start the first item of business, may I advise the chamber that the Presiding Officer has selected an urgent question for answer today and that will be taken after portfolio questions. As a consequence of that, decision time will be at 10 past 5 and a revised business programme has been issued to all members. First items of business are portfolio questions and the first portfolio is finance, mewn cyllidol, yn cwestiwni i ddiddordeb amdano i swyddaeth, oedd y cymryd yn bobl yn gweithio i ddaneis. Beitoedd, amdo, oedd ganddo i ddechrau i ddoch ynieu gydig, ac mae'n ffordd i ddweud eu ddweud y cwestiwn sy'n ddigon, Oedon? 1. Bruce Crawford I welcome everyone to ask the Scottish Government what its assessment is for the future of the economy, period 6. Derek Mackay's economy has continued to grow in 2018 continuing a pattern of stronger over the past 18 months, alongside record low levels of unemployment. The Scottish Fiscal Commission forecast Scotland's GDP to grow further by in 2019 by 1.2 per cent, assuming a relatively smooth and orderly Brexit process. However, a no-deal Brexit puts future growth at risk. Analysis by the Scottish Government shows that, disorderly, no-deal Brexit has the potential to generate a significant economic shock, which could tip the Scottish economy into recession. Depending on the scenario, there is potential for GDP to contract by between 2.5 per cent and 7 per cent in 2019, and for the level of unemployment in that circumstance to increase by 100,000 people. As a responsible Government, we are also continuing and indeed intensifying our work to prepare for all possible outcomes as best we can. However, while we will do everything possible to prepare for, we will not be able to mitigate all of the impacts of the UK Government's approach to Brexit. I thank the cabinet secretary for his response. In the review of that response, the cabinet secretary agreed with me that a no-deal Brexit would be an unmitigated disaster for the Scottish economy. Does he also agree that the PM's deal would cause significant damage to businesses' jobs in the social fabric of Scotland and to my constituency? The only way to safeguard our economy and social fabric would be to remain in the single market in customs union, or much more preferably, to stay in the European Union itself, and 68 per cent of my constituents voted to do. Derek Mackay I think that that analysis is fair. The Prime Minister announced in Downing Street on occasion that the offers are the choices where her deal, no deal, or no Brexit. We would take no Brexit, thank you very much, because her deal is damaging to the Scottish economy for partly the reasons that Bruce Crawford has given, and no deal is particularly catastrophic. However, we both her deal and no deal negatively impact the economy. The only question is to what extent and to what scale. A further reminder that a no-deal Brexit would lead to recession. A UK Government has taken us into a recession with its eyes wide open of the economic consequences that that would mean for business failure, soaring unemployment, reduced support for trade and success and, equally, her deal would also be damaging in terms of not keeping us within the single market and the impact on the customs union. We are concerned by that. The Government in Scotland will do all that we can. We have offered another way through that. We will prepare for every contingency, but there is another way out of that, and it is in the hands of the UK Government. I take two supplementaries. The shorter answers will be required to get through them. Thank you very much. Last week, the cabinet secretary announced plans that Scotland's economy in the future may adopt a new Scottish currency in the event of independence. Given the potentials and significance of the proposal, I assume that the cabinet secretary has made a full assessment of the financial consequences of those plans. Can I therefore ask him to confirm the level of reserves that would be required for the establishment of a new Scottish central bank and how those reserves would be funded? Derek Mackay. I think that that question is quite fair away from the question that is posed. Of course, I am more than happy to answer it. I am just not sure that I can answer it in the timescale that I have been given by the Presiding Officer. I absolutely do know the proposition that was set out in the growth commission. I do know the proposition that I am presenting to the party conference, which I no longer chair, but I will be happy to be there in my party capacity. The SNP, considering that is what I have been asked about, potential SNP policy, is one that can show how we can use the levers of independence to make our country more prosperous and fairer with the levers and the tools that come with independence. All the small advanced economies around the globe doing better than Scotland only have one thing that Scotland does not have—independence—and we attend to get our independence. Richard Leonard. In the Scottish Government Scotland's place in Europe report, published in January 2018, it forecast that, by 2030, 60 per cent of the drop in Scotland's GDP would be accounted for not by a loss of trade per se or by a loss of in-migration but by a fall in productivity. The Fraser of Ireland Institute also wrote last year that, back in 2007, the Scottish Government set a target to rank in the top quartile for productivity amongst our key trading partners in the OECD by 2017. Can you come to your question, please? That target was missed, so what meaningful steps has the Government taken to close the productivity gap? Very interesting, but Richard Leonard is trying to suggest here that Brexit is not the greatest threat to Scotland's economy. I agree that productivity is a challenge and opportunity for Scotland's economy. We have made more progress on productivity over the period of devolution better than any other part of the United Kingdom. Again, since we have touched on it, thanks to the other Unionists and the Conservatives, the growth commission was able to show how, with the powers of independence, we can enhance our productivity because it also involves people, the ability to grow our population, the ability to innovate and the ability to support in our economy in the way that we cannot, as part of the straight jacket that is a union that Richard Leonard so supports. Right, a quick word. That is not First Minister's questions. That is a chance for backbenchers to have questions put and answers taken by Cabinet Secretaries and Ministers who are in the Scottish Government. Can we bear that in mind, please, for the rest of this session? I call the very sensible Mr Tavish Scott. I entirely endorse your sensible remarks. Of course, I meant your observations about the front bench. Do you ask the Scottish Government whether there are restrictions on local authorities using bond finance to support investment proposals in their areas? Derek Mackay. Oh, sorry. Kate Forbes, the very sensible Kate Forbes. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. It is a matter for each local authority to consider how they want to borrow, including the use of bond finance and on what terms local authority regulations 2016 set out the statutory arrangements for local authority borrowing, which, in line with the prudential code, should be prudent, affordable and sustainable. Tavish Scott. I thank the minister for that reply. Given Aberdeen City has successfully raised £415 million in bond finance to finance its new magnificent conference centre, would the minister encourage Shetland Council to at least explore this capital financing mechanism to pay for the fixed links that are desperately needed to join the islands in the Shetland archipelago? Not least of which, because, as with every Government, there are considerable pressures on capital finance. Kate Forbes. I thank the member for that question. As long as councils do so in a fiscally responsible manner, we are definitely willing to explore the possibilities of using bond finance. That funding mechanism has great potential for wider use in Scotland and key projects that have been funded through that in Aberdeen. It is a good example of how it can be used effectively. I remind members that questions 3 and 7 will be grouped together. Question 3 is from John McAlpine. Thank you. To ask the Scottish Government which parts of the economy and areas of employment are most at risk from a no-deal Brexit. Analysis has highlighted that all sectors and regions of the economy would be negatively affected by Brexit. However, sectors most at risk of a no-deal include agriculture, food and drink, chemicals, construction and some areas of manufacturing. Local authorities, with the highest concentration of workers in those sectors, are typically in more rural areas, reflecting the importance of sectors such as agriculture and fishing in those areas. I thank the minister for that answer. Dumfries and Galloway is among the most exposed regions of Scotland to a no-deal since between 20 and 24 per cent of workers earn a wage in the most vulnerable sectors. Does the minister agree with me that it is utterly outrageous that the UK Tory Government is threatening that on the south of Scotland? Yes, I agree with the member on that. Clare Llyw has highlighted my earlier answer. Rural areas of the country will be particularly hard hit by Brexit and a particular by a no-deal Brexit. It is completely unacceptable that the UK Government is forcing on Scotland this potential recession for no reason other than to deal with it and fighting within the Conservative Party. To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the potential impact on the economy of a no-deal Brexit. Ivan McKee The Scottish Government's chief economist published analysis on 21 February this year, setting out the immediate economic implications of a no-deal Brexit for the Scottish economy. The analysis indicated that there is a potential for the economy to contract by between 2.5 per cent and 7 per cent by the end of 2019, with the potential for the Scottish economy to be pushed into recession, depending on the way in which a no-deal Brexit evolves. Previous analysis published in Scotland's Place in Europe, people jobs and investment outlined the long-term implications of Brexit for Scotland's economy. Stewart Stevenson Is the cabinet secretary aware of concerns of fish processors in my constituency, who are worried that they will be unable to obtain the necessary export health certificates in a timely fashion for getting the fresh fish products to markets in Europe and elsewhere? Ivan McKee The impact of a no-deal Brexit will have catastrophic consequences for the seafood sector in Scotland. Our seafood sector will be severely impacted by disruption at the Port of Dover, which will jeopardise the just-in-time nature of the seafood supply chain. The sector will also be required to comply with a range of administrative burdens, in particular the requirement for export health certificates for all seafood consignments being exported to the EU. We anticipate at least a fourfold increase in the requirement for export health certificates, with a potential additional cost to the industry of more than £15 million per year. The Scottish Government continues to press defra on our proposals for controlling imports and exports to the UK. supplementary Willie Rennie I agree with the minister's remarks about a no-deal Brexit. Has the minister conducted any research to compare the negative economic impacts of a no-deal Brexit scenario with a no-deal independent scenario? Ivan McKee Willie Rennie would be aware, if he read the growth commission report, the potential for an independent Scotland standing alongside other nations across Europe, small to medium-sized nations, would lead to significant increases in the growth rate within Scotland's economy. If you look across those nations and how they have grown over the last decades compared to Scotland, the difference is not in the resources that they have. We have more resources in this country, but it is not in the people that they have. We have better trained and skilled individuals in this country. The only difference is that those countries are able to pursue their own economic policies because they are independent. Question 4 was not lodged. Question 5, Fulton MacGregor. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with businesses regarding the potential economic impact of Brexit. Ivan McKee The Scottish Government engages extensively with individual businesses and their representative bodies. Those discussions routinely confirm that, although Scotland did not vote for Brexit, that is the biggest and most immediate economic challenge that businesses face. Raising awareness in and action by businesses is vital. Last year, we launched prepare for Brexit, offering readiness, self-assessment tools and expert advice, as well as access to learning and networking events and grants for Brexit planning support. That campaign can help many more businesses to take steps to enhance resilience despite the on-going uncertainty of Brexit. Fulton MacGregor I thank the minister for that response. Businesses that I have spoken to in my constituency have been quite disappointed with the lack of engagement from the UK Government. Can I ask the minister if he can tell me if there is any evidence that the views of Scotland's businesses have been heeded by the UK Government or, as with most things relating to Brexit, that they have been run roughshod over by the Tories in favour of keeping their party together? Ivan McKee There is clear evidence of the UK Government ignoring the views and interests of Scottish business. Let me focus on immigration policy, which is a very significant factor in ensuring that businesses have the skilled workforce that they and we need to grow and prosper. That is clear from two business quotes from the SPICE report that was published in January on immigration policy, The Countdown to Brexit. That is the voice of business in Scotland. The FSB Scotland policy chair Andrew McCraith said that the UK Government's obstinate approach to immigration is a clear threat to many of Scotland's businesses and local communities. Those proposals will make it nigh impossible for the vast majority of Scottish firms to access any known UK labour and the skills that they need to grow and sustain their operations. Scottish tourism alliance chief executive Mark Cothrull said that the UK Government's measures on immigration could have potentially devastating effects on Scotland's tourism industry, in particular the £30,000 minimum salary threshold. There is no doubt that the Government's plans will exacerbate the existing recruitment crisis considerably, placing our tourism industry in what is one of the most important economic drivers for Scotland in severe jeopardy. The UK Government is not listening on immigration or on a range of other issues relating to Brexit and the economy. A very quick supplementary answer, please, Rhoda Grant. It is estimated that an employment will rise up to almost 8 per cent with a no-deal Brexit. What plans has the Scottish Government to deal with this and also to mitigate the impact of that? As a member of all, the Scottish Government's score committee is meeting on a weekly basis to evaluate and bring forward steps to mitigate the worst impacts of Brexit. The extension of range of measures that is laid out in the economic action plan, published earlier by my colleague the cabinet secretary, lays out many, many steps that have been taken by the Scottish Government across the whole range of aspects of the economy to mitigate against the worst aspects of a no-deal Brexit. To ask the Scottish Government how its budget will impact on Orkney and Shetland. Kate Forbes. The budget invests in our local authorities, including Orkney and Shetland, to enable them to deliver services to the people who live there from education and social care to transport and planning. The budget delivers a fair financial settlement for local government by providing funding of £11.2 billion, which is a real-terms increase of almost £300 million in Orkney Islands Council, and Shetland Islands Council will both receive their fair formula share of that total funding. Jamie Halcro Johnston. I thank the minister for that answer. Ahead of the conclusion of the budget process, Cabinet Secretary Mike Russell came to Orkney. While he was there, he spoke about the funding of internal ferries in Orkney and Shetland and the shortfall between what is given to the council and the cost of maintaining the services. Mike Russell said that it was a big issue. He said that it was an issue that obviously needs a resolution. Yet a month later we hear that there is no resolution. Why has the Scottish Government yet again failed to meet its own pledge to provide fair ferry funding for Orkney and Shetland? It is a decision that is described by one local councillor as Donald Trump's politics. When will Mr Russell pledge to go back and raise this big issue with cabinet colleagues? Did he do so? If so, was he simply ignored? I would ask Jamie Halcro Johnston why he voted against £10.5 million for ferries in the budget this year and last year. Shetland and Orkney Islands Council's remain responsible for the delivery of the internal ferry services. We recognise the challenges that that presents. This year's budget has made available that £10.5 million this year, as well as last year, for local authority ferry services. We have also ensured that, with the local government settlement, the Orkney Islands and Shetland councils have their money to deliver services, and we have given more flexibility around council tax. My question to Jamie Halcro Johnston is how much more difficult would it be to fund local services in Orkney if we had to follow his tax plans and find an additional £500 million for those services? Very quick supplementary, please, Liam McArthur. Thank you. I am delighted to see the minister have such a positive visit to Orkney earlier this week, but she will be informed that Orkney has received £200,000 less for internal ferry funding this year, leaving a shortfall of well over £1 million. How does that square with the Government's commitment to the principle of fair funding for our lifeline internal ferry services? Kate Forbes. I have a thoroughly enjoyable two days in Orkney, and I am most jealous of Liam McArthur's opportunities to go back there on a weekly basis. We recognise, as I said in my first answer, the challenges around local ferry services. I had that discussion with the local council. What we have been clear about in our budget is to ensure that we provide adequate funding and that we have given local authorities who are responsible for the ferry service the funding that they need to deliver the services. Question 8, Edward Mountain. To ask the Scottish Government what recent meetings the finance secretary has had with ministerial colleagues regarding local government finance. As part of the annual budget process, I met all relevant ministerial colleagues regarding local government finance, both individually and collectively. Finance was also discussed at meetings of the cabinet and they lead up to the announcement of the 2019-20 Scottish budget. Edward Mountain. I would like to thank the cabinet secretary for that answer. When I last raised the issue of £5 million of funding required to remove overhanging rocks at Stromfaring, the Minister of Energy, Connectivity and the Islands on 15 November, he confirmed that he would raise this matter with the cabinet secretary. Therefore, can he confirm when he last met the minister what additional funds he requested for Stromfaring and what funds he will get to make available? As far as I understand, the issue of principal responsibility for Highland Council, the member will be aware that we increased financial support to local government in both revenue and capital, specifically an uplift on capital that would be particularly relevant here. I have done some research on what Tory tax cuts would mean for individual local authorities and for what pays for public services, the raising of revenue, what do the Tories want to do, cut tax for the richest in society to reduce the amount of revenue to Scotland's public services. The cut to Highland Council, if we followed Tory tax policy, would be £23.5 million, just to that settlement, just to that council, when, in fact, this Government is allocating more and resourcing capital to Scotland's local authorities to get on with such infrastructure matters in the face of Tory opposition, which is reckless and irresponsible. We shall move on to the portfolio for environment and climate change, and something else that I forgot to put in my script, what is it? Land reform. Question number one, Stuart McMillan. Thank you for sending us out to ask the Scottish Government for an update on its plans to introduce a charge on disposable drinks cups. As we indicated in the budget statement, the Scottish Government agrees, in principle, to introducing a charge for disposable drinks cups, but in deciding how to proceed with that, we will consider the recommendations of the expert panel on environmental charging and other measures, which is due to report later this year. The panel is taking an evidence-based approach and considering a range of measures to address this issue. Stuart McMillan. I thank the minister for that reply, and I generally very much welcome the Scottish Government's action on this matter at something that has arisen in the chamber before and also at the SNP conference. Does the minister give me, however, that, for this to be successful work, it needs to be done with retailers so that they can change their way of working, such as signing up for some of the various club exchange schemes, helping to improve any infrastructure-ish challenges that may exist, particularly for independent retailers? Can the minister provide any information as to what the levy would be invested into? I absolutely agree with the member that we have to work with retailers if we have a chance of tackling that. I do not know whether the member will be aware of the Glasgow cup movement, which was launched by the cabinet secretary just recently. It was a Keep Scotland beautiful hub that designed that movement. It is a campaign to ensure that single-use cups do not end up in landfill or litter that is far more recycled, and to encourage people to move to reusable cups instead of disposable. That has involved working with a range of partners, such as Starbucks, Caffe Nero, Costa, Greggs, McDonalds, Bewyllys, as well as the cup manufacturers themselves. In Scotland, we use 500 million single-use cups a year. In the greater Glasgow area, it is 95 million. That is a massive problem that we have to try to tackle. We will be interested and monitoring the project closely to see how that goes and to see if that is something that we could potentially roll out across the rest of Scotland. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. It has emerged that 1.5 million disposable cups were bought in the last three years through this SNP Government's official catering contract, equivalent to one cup every minute. What assurance can the minister provide that this situation will not continue? I thank the member for raising that question. That is an issue that I would be more than happy to look at. As the Scottish Government, it is important for us to take a lead. That is why in the Government buildings, for example, we removed the single-use plastics and have to use reusable cups. I will look into that issue and get back to the member with a response. Question 2 is not lodged. Question 3, Annabelle Ewing. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the SEPA health and safety executive report regarding the Musmorran petrochemical plant. Mary Gougeon. The Scottish Government understands that the regulators have completed their investigations at the plant. SEPA published an update setting out the action taken today in relation to the repeated unplanned flaring at the plant, which is effective and appropriate. Nevertheless, SEPA has not ruled out future enforcement action if that is deemed necessary. Annabelle Ewing. I thank the minister for her answer. I am in fact aware that SEPA did publish its investigative update last week. One of the action points was a forward programme for environmental monitoring. Can the minister provide any clarity as to what that environmental monitoring will in fact entail on the ground? Mary Gougeon. SEPA recently announced enhanced air quality monitoring at the Musmorran complex, which will include monitoring of the relevant pollutants in order to provide up-to-date monitoring data and comparison with the previous monitoring and modelling studies that have been undertaken. That monitoring commenced in January of this year, and it is expected to run until April with the results being published later this year. The location of that monitoring equipment was determined following liaison with community representatives, and the monitoring programme is in addition to the substantial work that has already been undertaken by Musmorran and Brifute Bay independent air quality monitoring review group, which advises Fife Council regarding the quality of the ambient air associated with air emissions at Musmorran. Question 4, Willie Rennie. To ask the Scottish Government what action it has taken to reduce the amount of plastic nerddles on beaches. Mary Gougeon. Marine plastics are a global problem, and we are taking actions to prevent and reduce nerddle pollution. We are working with the plastics industry to expand on their successful operation clean sweep guidance. We are engaging with all sectors handling pre-production plastics and exploring the feasibility of a move towards a system that is auditable to allow for traceability and accreditation. On 22 February at the Marine litter symposium, the Scottish Government committed to co-operative working with the other British Irish council administrations to further reduce the loss of pre-production plastics across the supply chain. Willie Rennie. I wish I was at the Marine litter symposium. There is a particular concern on the beaches, on the fourth estuary in my constituency, particularly Ruby Bay, where there are millions of those nerddles. I respect the minister and thank her for the answer that she has given, but what timescale is there for implementing the measures that the minister has set out? How will it be monitored? If it does not work, will the minister consider legislation? Mairi Gougeon. It is vitally important that we try to work with industry as far as we can on that, because it is not just for the plastic industries themselves. The supply chains around this are very complex, and that is why we have to work right across that to make sure that we tackle this in the best of ways possible. I would rather look at and exhaust all of those options before we consider taking any further action. I already mentioned operation clean sweep, which is a plastic industry-led initiative that is rapidly being adopted by industry members, but we also have a pre-production plastic pellet steering group, which includes Ineos, Plastics Europe, British Plastics Federation, Holleyers Association, British Plastic and Rubber Association. Having the steering group in all the work that that would undertake, we can really start to try to have an impact on that problem. However, I would also like to mention all the fantastic work that FEDRA has done, and also the Marine Conservation Society, with its great nerdle hunts, and in really raising awareness of this vitally important issue. Short supplementaries, please, from Gail Ross and then John Scott. Can the minister outline what else the Scottish Government is doing to tackle marine litter, given that approximately 20 per cent of it originates from the marine sector itself? Mairi Gougeon. I am really sorry, Presiding Officer. I will try to keep this short, but there is an awful lot of work that has been going on at the moment, because letting it see by the shipping industry is already prohibited under the international convention for the prevention of pollution from ships, but there are a whole number of initiatives that we are currently supporting. We have supported Kemos fishing for litter schemes since 2005, and in that time 300 Scottish vessels have removed over 1,220 tonnes of waste from our seas. We have helped fund the scrapbook project, which is helping to map the marine litter sinks, which are right along our coastlines. We had the marine litter confidence. I detected a wee hint of sarcasm when Willie Rennie's voice, or I don't know if he was being serious about the confidence that we had, but that was vital to bring. It was an international confidence which brought lots of people together so that we could hear ideas on what is happening in other countries elsewhere and to see where that collaborative work can take place. We have also—there is a £1 million innovation fund for plastics capture, collection and recovery. The First Minister, at that confidence, announced a £175,000 campaign to promote reusable sanitary products to reduce the £100 billion pieces of sanitary waste that are disposed of each year. John Scott The question might have been answered already. I am not certain that there was so much there, which was wonderful. Could the harvesting of nerddles on an industrial scale from our beaches and oceans provide a resource for recycling generally, such as the building of roads that is detailed in the press this week? What is the Scottish Government doing to encourage the development of such a recycling industry in Scotland, in addition to what she might have already said? We are always looking happy to look at all those different, if there are innovative ways that we can work with those materials. We are always happy to look at that as well, but just to make sure that there is not a knock-on impact and that we do not then see more nerddles or more plastic pollution as a result, because all of these, of course, have to be carefully considered. It is also vitally important to talk about some of the vital important work that is happening across our universities right now. Some of the Scottish work that has been done at our universities is at the forefront. I visited Stirling University recently, where they are undertaking two important pieces of work in relation to microplastics and mapping them across the ocean. They are really at the forefront of work in that area. I think that we are lucky to have people working on that and being leaders in this field, so that we can take strong, positive action in Scotland. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the environment secretary has had with the transport secretary regarding the environmental implications of the proposed personal rapid transport system for Glasgow airport. The cabinet secretary has not held any meetings with Michael Matheson in his role as cabinet secretary for transport, infrastructure and connectivity regarding the environmental implications of the proposed personal rapid transport system for Glasgow airport. The projects within the Glasgow city region deal are for the relevant local partners to develop and deliver, and the Glasgow airport access project is being taken forward by Glasgow city and Renfrewshire councils. Can I just say that I am utterly astonished at that response? The cabinet secretary must be aware and the minister must be aware that the Glasgow airport rail link was seen to have social, economic and critically environmental benefits. Are you confirming that, given the decision to scrap this plan, there was no environmental impact assessment of the people pod option as compared to the airport rail link option before that decision was made? Will she reflect on the fact that it is essential that the environmental issues around the airport link are properly addressed and that it is a failure of government for the environmental secretary not to be discussing this critical matter ahead of a decision that will have direct consequences across the west of Scotland? I certainly would not be confirming that an environmental impact assessment on taking place was about whether the cabinet secretary had met the cabinet secretary for transport, and that did not happen, so that is what I was talking about in my initial response to the member. I would say that, if there are any significant concerns, those are issues that need to be raised with the relevant councils and with the city region deal cabinet. Can I ask the minister what the impact on Ayrshire commuters in the Ayrshire economy would be should the airport rail link, as proposed by Labour, be implemented? If there are any dark consequences, from what we have been told, it is going to be on the Ayrshire and Verklyde economies. As I know, the members around the chamber will be aware that the cabinet secretary for transport, infrastructure and connectivity was clear in the statement that he made to the Parliament on 7 January that there would be impact on rail users should the tram train service between Glasgow airport and Glasgow central station, as proposed by the city region deal project, be delivered. The analysis has shown that, while it might be possible to introduce a tram train service to Glasgow airport, that would have a detrimental effect on performance and require the deduction of current rail services, the deferral of future service enhancements and significant and high-cost infrastructure enhancement at Glasgow central, which are currently not funded. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the Environment Secretary has had with the energy minister regarding the environmental impact of the proposed decommissioning of oil rigs at Hunterston. As a major infrastructure project, plans for Hunterston span several ministerial portfolios, including that of the energy minister. The Scottish Government is committed to environmental protection and working with the relevant consenting authorities to ensure that statutory environmental processes are undertaken in order to protect the environment, while promoting Scottish opportunities within an emerging industry, estimated to be worth £15 billion to 2025. I thank the minister for that answer. As a result of freedom of information requests by local residents, it was discovered that two Scottish Government agencies, Marine Scotland and Scottish Natural Heritage, both encouraged North Ayrshire Council to conduct a full environmental impact assessment, which they did not. I requested that the Scottish Government call that in and require a full environmental impact assessment, and they declined to do so. Could the minister please explain why, despite two Government agencies recommending an EIA on what she herself has conceded is a major project involving half a million tonnes of dredging that the Government declined to require an environmental impact assessment? From what I understand, since the time that the proposal was initially introduced, at that time in June 2017, Marine Scotland had determined at that time that an environmental impact assessment was not needed. I believe that, since that time, the proposals that have come forward since then have substantially changed. I believe that officials are considering whether revised plans that have come forward now require an environmental impact assessment, but I would be happy to please, with the member of the cabinet secretary, contact the member if he wishes to discuss that further as that progresses. The minister did not agree that, in fact, it was agreed cross-party that there should be no environmental impact assessment, because all the information was that there would, in fact, be no damage to the SSHI at Hunterston. However, what, in fact, that project will deliver hundreds of jobs for an area that requires it much. The Scottish Government, through Scottish Enterprise, has ordered a £10 million grant to Hunterston on condition that those jobs are delivered and that there is no damage to the environment. If there is any damage to the environment, that money can in fact be clawed back in part or in whole. I would say that the decisions that were taken at that time about the not required environmental impact assessment were based on the proposals at that time, but, as I have just intimated to Ross Greer, the plans that have now come forward are substantially different to those that were first submitted, so officials are considering whether or not an environmental impact assessment would then be required. To ask the Scottish Government what the timeline is for the ban on municipal waste going to landfill. Mary Gougeon. The ban on biodegradable municipal waste going to landfill in Scotland will apply from 1 January 2021. Much progress has already been made and a significant number of local authorities and commercial operators have long-term or interim solutions already in place. However, we are aware of the significant challenges that some local authorities are facing and are working with public and private sector partners to address those, and our focus is on identifying ways in which they can comply with the ban as soon as possible. I appreciate that Falkirk Council is currently on target to meet the deadline, because its current contract lasts until 2022, taking them over the 2021 deadline. Whilst that is in the short to medium term, what are the longer-term plans and solutions? As I said in my initial answer to the member, we are working with COSLA, Zero Waste Scotland, SEPA and the Scottish Environmental Services Association. I am really trying to work with councils that have not identified any solutions. We have that target in place because I think that when that target was set in 2012, because I believe that we have to be ambitious and we need to set ambitious targets, especially when it comes to issues that are vitally important and environmental issues such as that. Our priority right now is, as I said, 14 councils already have a solution in place. Other councils have interim solutions, but the priority for us right now is working with those local authorities to make sure that we can, if we can, meet the timescale that we do, but we just really try to implement that ban as soon as possible. With the up-coming ban on by a degradable municipal waste and landfill, it is important to have viable alternative solutions. However, does the minister agree that that should not include private companies imposing unwanted and potentially dangerous incinerators in our communities? Could she possibly tell us when the environmental impact assessment into the proposed incinerator in Canbro-Cote bridge may be available? I am afraid for that specific element of the question. I do not have a response to that here, but I would be happy to take that back to the cabinet secretary for the environment so that she can get that information to the member.