 The first from Donald Cameron to ask the Scottish Government what future it sees for Scotland's fishing sector. Cabinet Secretary, Fergus Ewing. Currently the overall mood in the Scotland's fishing sector is positive as demonstrated by the new vessels on order and the value of landings during 2017 being at record highs. This is in no small part due to the efforts made by the Scottish industry to improve sustainable fishing practices, including moves to a more highly selective gears. That has contributed to a situation where the state of fish stocks shows a healthy picture. The number of stocks set in line with maximum sustainable yield continues to increase. Of the 13 stocks that the Scottish Government measures, its sustainability performance against nine stocks has been set in line with MSY. In light of his answer, does he agree with Ruth Davidson that Brexit will allow us to create a better fisheries policy by, I quote, designing a world-class management system that delivers the maximum possible sustainable yield for UK fishermen, while also protecting the marine environment and encouraging species growth? No, I certainly do not agree with Ruth Davidson. I do not agree for a number of reasons. First of all, I have repeatedly asked Mr Gove and Mr Eustace to confirm that they will not seek to trade away post-Brexit access to Scotland's waters. Answer, there has come none. Secondly, I have asked the UK Government also to confirm what their plans are to allow EU nationals to continue to do the essential work that they do both on- and off-shore in the fishing sector. Answer, there has come none. Thirdly, I have also asked the UK Government to confirm what plans it has, if any, to replace the £95 million that has been enjoyed in Scotland since 2014 under the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund, which has been so essential for the fishing sector, and answer, there has come none. Maybe Mr Cameron could use what influence he has, if any, with the UK Government to try to get a few answers, and then Scotland will, of course, be in a better position to judge whether Mr Davidson is talking nonsense or not. I encourage the cabinet secretary to agree with the Shetland Fishermen's Association, who has submitted a policy catching proposal to his office. When he gets the chance to visit Shetland, maybe he would meet with them to discuss that, particularly the proposals in relation to discarding and reducing discarding involving fishmen and scientists working together. There are some innovative ideas in there. Would he undertake to look into that and to see if such an approach could be introduced as soon as possible? That sounds like a preferable option. As the member knows, I hope to visit his constituency in the relatively near future. I have undertaken to meet representatives of Shetland fishing, and of course that is a diverse group of people, as he well knows, so I will meet various fishing interests when I am there. I am also able to say that, recently, I met a representative from the regional inshore advisory group representing Shetland and was extremely impressed by the profound and practical grasp that she had in relation to all those matters. We will most certainly take account of the experts in his constituency that really know what they are talking about. To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on the importance to the rural economy of an EU migrant workforce. It is crucial, Presiding Officer. The interim report of the National Council of Rural Advisers recommends a tailored approach to migration that supports entrepreneurship and innovation in Scotland's rural economy. We also have clear evidence submitted to the Migration Advisory Committee and in Scotland's place in Europe that the crucial role of migrants in rural Scotland is one of the key reasons why a one-size-fits-all approach to immigration is not appropriate for Scotland's needs. I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer that it is clear that he is as concerned and dismayed as I am at the reports that farmers here in Scotland are having to leave quality produce to rotten fields because they do not have enough workers to harvest everything. NFU Scotland note this year before the UK has even left the EU that there has been a shortage between 10 and 20 per cent of seasonal workers coming from the EU. I wonder if the cabinet secretary could set out why this is such an important matter for not only a rural economy in communities but Scotland as a whole. Yes, Mr Dornan is absolutely correct. To answer his question, our rural economy depends significantly on the 10,000 people from the EU countries who are estimated to work in the food and drink sector, and up to 22,000 seasonal migrant workers employed in the soft fruit and vegetable sectors. It is no hyperbole to state that food is starting to rotten fields. It is simply a fact that, increasingly, we are getting from all sectors in the farming industry, particularly where market workers are important seasonal workers' reports that they are concerned that there will simply be not enough people who used to come and who are welcome to come to Scotland to give off their labour and their effort. Most recently, I visited Glenrath farm, an extremely successful farm, and spoke to some Polish workers. What they told me was really interesting, that they themselves had been in Scotland and had planned to stay here, but the sense that their family members will not be welcome to join them here is souring their view towards a country that welcomed them with open arms. It is not just the people who are here, it is the feeling that they and theirs, their kin and their families who may need to come and live with them for various reasons, Presiding Officer, are not welcome under the Brexiteers view of Britain, that is extremely and profoundly alarming. Lewis Macdonalds Thank you very much. The cabinet secretary will be aware that the great majority of workers in the fish processing sector in the north-east of Scotland are from citizens of other European countries, and the great majority of them would like to continue to work here. Can I ask if he has engaged with the trade unions representing those workers to hear about their concerns, whether he has engaged with employers about their future plans for the sector, and if not, if he will undertake to do so? I can certainly confirm that I have engaged extensively with the fishing sector, both on and offshore and in the processing sector. It is important that Mr Macdonalds has a regional constituency. I know and I am due to visit the north-east very shortly as well and meet various stakeholders. He is absolutely right to say that the people who come from other EU countries and who work extremely hard in fish processing operations, for example, but also as crew on fishing vessels offshore as well, in various types of boats in large, medium and small, are all crucial to the operation of the fishing sector and so many other rural sectors that, without them, one wonders whether businesses will be able to operate as they do if at all. That is an extremely serious issue. We have been making our view clear that Scotland welcomes people from those countries with open arms, and we have extended that. The First Minister has since the day of the European referendum. We are now a matter of very short number of weeks before the proposed Brexit day, and we are absolutely no further forward. There is no clarity whatsoever from that party's lot. There is complete silence about this issue, which is somewhat demeaning from their point of view. It is about time that the UK Government has brought forward some proper plans on this matter. To ask the Scottish Government how it ensures that the rural economy is not adversely impacted on by large-scale developments. The Scottish Government supports sustainable growth and investment in our rural areas. Planning policy is in place to manage the impacts of development on the rural economy, environment and communities. Thank you, cabinet secretary. Research carried out by mountaineering Scotland has indicated that there is a drop in jobs related to tourism, an important part of the rural economy, when turbines are built in our most scenic places. The reverse appears to be true in other areas, though. Would the cabinet secretary agree with mountaineering Scotland that more detailed studies are needed to help to guide planners when considering new windfarm projects? Will he endeavour to speak to his colleague Kevin Stewart about that? I would have thought that the member would know that I am no longer responsible for either energy policy or tourism policy. I used to be, and that is why he asked me the supplementary question. I can absolutely assure him that tourism has been hugely successful in Scotland, and all the evidence that I am aware of suggests that it is because of the scenery that many people come to Scotland and that they continue to adjoin it. Their enjoyment is by no means hampered by wind developments. Indeed, I remember the visit of some Danish students—this is not my portfolio, but I may as well answer the question. Yes, some Danish students that I met when I was celebrating Diageau's successful Glenkinchy Distillery Visitor Centre told me, we came to Scotland specifically in order to see the windfarms. Yes, they did. So there we are. There is some real-life information for the member. I suggest that he spends less time here and goes out and finds some facts of his own. To ask the Scottish Government what support it provides to the forestry sector. The Scottish Government provides significant support to a sector that is worth nearly £1,000 million a year to the Scottish economy and supports 25,000 full-time equivalent jobs. In the current financial year, that support has included over £40 million for forestry grants, including £34 million for new woodland creation, £7.85 million to the strategic timber transport fund and nearly £1 million for Scottish specific research into timber development and tree health. In addition, our national forest estates generate over £1 million per day gross value added to the Scottish economy. Alison Harris. I thank the cabinet secretary for his answer and I am very pleased to hear everything that the Scottish Government is actually doing. However, I am concerned that the planting of new trees has fallen since 2013. What discussions have the Scottish Government had with the forestry commission regarding this decline in new planting? No, the planting is not falling, it is rising. The statistics that I am happy to share with the member, if she wishes to seek out the information from me, will demonstrate very clearly that the planting is rising very substantially indeed. I am completely bemused as to where she is getting her figures from. She has not consulted me or about this so far as I know. She is welcome to do so if she has an interest in this topic, and I am very happy that she should do so to provide her with some actual facts. Graham Dey. I wonder if the cabinet secretary could set out how the track record of the Scottish Government on tree planting compares to that of the Tories in England and Labour in Wales? The facts are that, since 2016, Scotland has created 9,400 hectares of new woodland compared with 1,900 in England and 500 in Wales. Scotland has accounted for almost 80 per cent of new woodland creation in Great Britain during this period, with much more currently being planted or approved to be planted over the coming years. I am also able to say that our ambition is to plant 10,000 hectares a year, and I expect that we will achieve that pretty soon. The UK's ambition is to achieve the plantation of 11 million trees by the end of this decade. That translates to 4,500 hectares. The only word that I can come up with that accurately describes the limitations of England's ambition, in this respect, is not particularly parliamentary, but accurate. It is piddling. Colin Smyth Thank you, Presiding Officer. The cabinet secretary will be aware of the deep concerns of tenant farmers on the Buclew estate and Estelle, and some of the incentives for planting are actually leading to the potential loss of their tenancies due to those plans for extra planting. What does the Scottish Government intend to do to protect the interests of those tenant farmers? The funding that is available for assistance towards the cost of forestry is a contribution to cost. It is not the total cost. It is recognised across the chamber that this is a sensible way of encouraging forestry, which is a long-term business, because there is no substantial income in most cases for a minimum of 40 years other than income from thinnings, even for the species that reach maturation most rapidly. In relation to the matter that Colin Smyth raises, the Scottish Government believes that an integrated approach to policy management in rural Scotland has a place for both farming and forestry. Indeed, we go to considerable lengths in order to encourage and see the growth of forestry development within farms. There are a number of projects that I would be happy to share with the member, Mr Smyth, about that if he is interested therein. I think that both can be accommodated in Scotland. I cannot comment on the particular details of negotiations between individual parties in an estate. That would not be proper for me to do so, but I would be very happy to meet the member if he has specific concerns that he would wish to discuss with me. 5. Richard Lochhead Can I ask the Scottish Government what extent any transition period for Brexit is likely to affect Scotland's influence on future fisheries negotiations? The Scottish Government has consistently made clear its support for a transition period to avoid damaging uncertainty for individuals and businesses after Brexit. Although the EU has been clear that a steady-state transition could be agreed, the UK Government's selective definition of the parameters of such a transition has resulted in a vague and incoherent approach. We continue to make clear that, where Scottish interests such as fisheries are at stake, the UK Government must ensure that pragmatic arrangements are made that allow Scotland to continue to participate in specific EU decisions, such as annual fishing quotas during this period. Richard Lochhead People may feel that one of the few silver linings of Brexit is departing from the common fisheries policy and, of course, the leave campaign and the Conservative promise that Scottish waters will be returned to Scottish control in March 2019. Does the cabinet secretary agree that if the transition period is agreed in such a way that decisions over the fate of Scotland's fishing communities continue to be taken in the EU when the UK is not officially a member of the EU, not only would that be a breach of faith to Scotland's fishing communities from the Conservative UK Government but also the worst of all worlds, because we would not be there to influence the decisions that affect the fate of our fishing communities for the duration of that transition period. Does he therefore agree with the Scottish White Fishers Produce's Association and the Shetland's Fisheries Association that such a position would be extremely damaging and completely unacceptable? Yes, I agree with those bodies. Yes, that is a very distinct risk. Our long-standing position has been that the common fisheries policy is cumbersome. It is unduly burdensome on the Scottish fishing industry, largely because we have very limited scope to influence or shape that policy. However, to be in a situation where we have even less influence over such a key policy and have no one at the negotiating table in December during the Fisheries Talks, which the member knows more about than anyone in the chamber. He will know just how important it is to be there at the table in the discussions involving deals, sorting things out and getting the best deal for Scottish fishermen. If there is nobody actually there, how in goodness sake can we expect anything other than a very disappointing and possibly even extremely bad outcome to those negotiations? That shows the utter incoherence of the UK Government's position on the matter, if indeed it has a position, as I perhaps might be giving it too much credit. We will turn now to Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Questions. Question 1, Mike Rumbles. To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on the potential environmental impact of developing on the green belt around Aberdeen. It is for the relevant planning authority to consider the impact of any proposals for development on the green belt around Aberdeen. Mike Rumbles. I am sure that the cabinet secretary will be aware of the public concerns with the proposed Kingsford stadium, causing issues with environmental impact on the green belt and, of course, traffic congestion. Since Aberdeenshire council objected to this development and the city approved it, can the cabinet secretary explain who two sets of planning officials recommended taking opposite positions on the protection of the green belt? Given the split decision, does she know if Scottish ministers will call it in to allow the independent reporter to look at it? I think that the member must be very well aware that this is not a question for this particular portfolio. I can advise him that it is local authorities who are responsible for both the designation and the protection of green belts to help direct developments to the right locations. They do that as part of a local development plan process. I do not think that it is appropriate for me, or indeed any minister, to comment on the merits of any application. I am, of course, aware of the debate around Aberdeen football stadium. It was notified to Scottish ministers on 2 February, and it is currently being assessed. I cannot, in all conscience, say anything more about it. 2. Michelle Ballantyne To ask the Scottish Government how it supports environmental protection in the Scottish borders. The Scottish Government is committed to protecting and improving Scotland's environment, and that is achieved through the setting of policy frameworks and funding of public bodies, such as the Scottish Natural Heritage and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, and that applies in the Scottish borders as elsewhere in the country. 2. Michelle Ballantyne Thank you. Statistics from Scottish Natural Heritage reveal that 23.7 per cent of protected nature sites in the Scottish borders are classified as being in unfavourable condition, with a further 10.6 recovering from such a state. That includes famous spots such as the Moorfoot Hills and locations along the River Tweed. Those figures remain far too high, particularly for a region of such natural beauty. The Scottish Government's national indicator to improve the condition of protected nature sites states that 80.3 per cent of protected nature sites are in a favourable condition, placing the borders below the national average. What steps will the Government take to remedy that position? 2. Michelle Ballantyne Both myself and the member would look to Scottish Natural Heritage directly as the body responsible for considering the protection of sites. SNH has a great responsibility for that, and, in my view, it does exceptionally well. If there are very particular issues that the member wants to raise in respect of particular sites in the border area, I would strongly advise her to raise them either directly through SNH, or if she wishes to come via me, I can do so as well. 3. Emma Harper Thank you. Does the cabinet secretary agree that one of the biggest threats to the environmental protection across Scotland and the UK as a whole is Brexit and the failure of the UK Government to meet the ambition of the Scottish Government and other EU member states? I can hear that it is considerably a matter of great boredom to the Conservatives when anybody mentions the word Brexit. It might be of interest to them to know that I will be going to Cardiff on Monday to discuss a number of Brexit-related issues that relate directly to my portfolio. Emma Harper is absolutely correct to raise the concerns about the impact of Brexit on the environment. Membership of the EU has driven significant progress in environmental protection against Scotland across Scotland and the UK, as well as funding and collective initiatives that have allowed us to make a very good impact and, indeed, across a range of issues to do better than the UK as a whole. The withdrawal bill threatens our ability to deliver Scotland's environment and climate ambitions. Devolution has allowed us to be more ambitious, and it is my view that we should continue to be so. It is essential that no constraints are placed on Scotland's ability to mirror EU environmental protections and to adopt higher environmental standards in the UK Government. I do not want Scotland to be held back. 3. Elaine Smith To ask the Scottish Government what importance it gives to the environmental protection of greenbelt land in the central Scotland region. I indicated at question 1 that local authorities are responsible for both designating and protecting greenbelts to help direct development to the right locations and that they do that as part of the local development plan process. Elaine Smith I thank the minister for that response. However, the question was deemed to be suitable for the portfolio. I could also ask the minister if she agrees that, since time spent in the natural environment, it helps to reduce levels of anxiety, stress and depression, developing on greenbelt land at Woodhall and Fask in between Ayrgyn Cope Ridge, which have some of the most deprived areas in Scotland in those towns, would be contrary to the valuable contribution that greenbelt environment land makes to the mental and physical health of people in built-up x-industrial areas? Will the minister support the campaigners who are trying to stop this development and instead have this land designated as a park and nature reserve? The member will know perfectly well that that is an improper question to ask a minister to intervene in any way in a planning application. I am absolutely of the view that time outside is incredibly important for people's health and wellbeing, which is why we do a great deal of work across Government in order to achieve that. I am happy to make that statement, but what I cannot do is make statements about individual planning applications. Ivan McKee Does the cabinet secretary share my view that the Scottish Government's support for the central Scotland green network is helping to deliver important environmental benefits right across the central belt? That would indeed be one of the areas of good investment that delivers on some of the issues that were raised by Elaine Smith in terms of health and wellbeing. As the minister for the environment when CSGN first began to be put in place, I very much agree with that. It not only delivers important environmental outcomes but also the social and economic benefits that I know that many members in the chamber would want to see. It focuses on improving green spaces in the most deprived communities in the central belt and it benefits both wildlife and people. That is why it is highlighted as a priority in the programme for government and national planning framework 3 and why we continue to provide financial support to the CSGN trust. Following on from that, would the cabinet secretary agree that the central Scotland green network perhaps should be beefed up, have more powers and should be a statutory consultee when it comes to planning matters? I know that planning is not her brief, but it would give CSGN more of a say. If the member wishes me to, I will have a conversation with my colleague, the planning minister, about that. I am not entirely certain whether the way that the CSGN is constituted would allow that to happen, but he is absolutely right in making the comment that it would not be a matter for me in any case. To ask the Scottish Government what actions it is taking to protect mobile marine species. Scotland has an MPA network to be proud of, covering approximately 20 per cent of our seas and comprising 168 sites. Current actions are progressing protected areas for marine bird species and development of a dolphin and porpoise conservation strategy. In addition, Marine Scotland and Scottish natural heritage have begun preparation for public consultation on four marine protected area proposals, three of which are principally for marine mobile species. I am sure that the cabinet secretary will be aware that, by moving ahead, WWF believes that we will be creating the world's first protected areas for basking sharks, minky whales and risoes dolphins. Can the cabinet secretary commit to ensuring that all those with an interest will have the opportunity to input into this consultation on designation and management measures, including marine tourism operators, local communities, fishers and environmental organisations? Cabinet secretary? I was not, in fact, aware of the WWF belief, but if it is indeed true, it is great news for Scotland. Members can be absolutely sure that I will be making mention of it frequently. Of course, the extensive consultation that we undertake in these matters is one of the reasons that those things take time. Sometimes people become impatient with the time that it takes, but all the work that goes into the kind of consultation that the member asks about is incredibly important to improve the status of marine environments underpinned by good scientific evidence and that invaluable stakeholder engagement. There will be a formal consultation on the four NPAs, as well as other opportunities to engage with local interests in regional consultation events. Edward Mountain Given the serious damage that is caused to the reef in Loch Karen and the seabird in the Firth of Lawn, due to illegal dredging, can the cabinet secretary provide assurances that Marine Scotland has the resources that they need to effectively safeguard all marine species in marine protected areas? I think that Marine Scotland does an extremely good job in this regard. It is involved very closely in the work. I think that the work that is done in Scotland is not just of national significance but of global significance as well. To ask the Scottish Government whether wetland sites in Scotland that are covered by the Ramsar convention are given the same level of protection as those in the rest of the UK. I cannot speak for the rest of the UK but, as is stated in Scottish planning policy, protection for Ramsar sites in Scotland is achieved through such sites being either Natura 2000 sites or sites of special scientific interest. That means that they are protected by the relevant statutory regimes associated with those types of designation that are entirely compatible with the requirements of the Ramsar convention on wetlands. Claudia Beamish I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer. For a development proposal likely to have a significant effect in a Ramsar site, how would the Scottish Government expect the impacts of the planning application on such a site to be assessed either by themselves or by the local authority? I think that we have had quite a few references to planning process in this question time this afternoon. The local authority is the principle planning authority. We will look for advice at SNH and SEPA will be involved in any such consultation. In those circumstances, all I can say is that, as far as I am aware, the planning process works remarkably well. In those areas where there may be some major national issues that need to be dealt with, a particular planning application might end up being called in, but that is not something that I can talk about in terms of generalities, because it will depend entirely on the specifics of an individual planning application. Maurice Corry To ask the Scottish Government whether it will set a target date for phasing out the use of peat-based products in horticulture. The use of peat in horticulture is a global challenge. The horticulture industry has committed itself to work to support making retail supplies peat-free by 2020 and for commercial horticulture to end peat-use by 2030. I have asked the SNH-led national peatland group to consider how it can further support those efforts to end such use. Maurice Corry I thank the cabinet secretary for her answer. The cabinet secretary will note that, deaf for his 25-year plan, a commitment was made to ending peat-use in horticultural products by 2030. Why has the cabinet secretary not committed to this in Scotland, given that Scotland's peatlands are a vital part of carbon sequestration, and when will she come up with a target? The 25-year plan commits to phasing out the use of peat by the following mechanisms, by continuing to jointly fund research with the industry to overcome the barriers to peat replacement in commercial horticulture. That will report in 2020 and by continuing to support the industry as it puts the responsible sourcing scheme for growing media into practice. The text in that plan was essentially a restatement of the position that DEFRA set out in 2013. There has been a pre-existing task force, which we were written to about from DEFRA in 2010, and they were advising us that they were planning to do so on an England-only basis. We asked to be involved in that, and we have been involved in that. The work was completed and, in response, above commitments were made. We have continued to offer support towards the phasing out of peat, but we are limited in the hard actions that we can take. For example, product standards and taxation are reserved. If Maurice Corry is a convert to product standards and taxation being devolved in order for us to be able to take those decisions, I would welcome him to the cause. Gillian Martin I remind the chamber that I am the PLO to the cabinet secretary. She has answered my question, but I was going to ask if she believes that the Scottish Government has sufficient powers to do what Mr Corry is asking. As I indicated, to deliver a legislative-based approach to ending the use of peat, we would have to have powers that we currently do not have. However, I support the UK Government's commitment towards phasing out the use of peat, and I would be perfectly happy to work with the UK Government and others to end the use as quickly as possible if there is an intention to take concrete action. The point of order is that questions that appear on the order paper have been deemed admissible for the particular portfolio in question. Originally, I was quite keen to ask about tree preservation orders at Faskin and Woodhall, but I was told that trees were rural, which I must say probably comes as a surprise to some of the trees in Coatbridge, however. Therefore, I had to couch my question to the minister rather differently, but what I did want to ask about was the minister's opinion on environmental protection and also on issues around land being designated as park and nature reserves. If you could confirm that, when questions appear on the order paper, they have been deemed admissible? Indeed, I thank the member for a point of order. Yes, all questions that have been selected have been deemed admissible. If the member will also know that the chamber desk and the Government work together as closely as possible to try to make sure that the questions are allocated to the correct brief, sometimes that is not always possible, but we always try to answer our responsibility of the minister. I hope that that deals with the point of order.