 Felly, mae'r next item of business today is portfolio questions, a we start with question number one from Alexander Stewart. To the Scottish Crofters Federation recent findings that many crofters believe their incomes have been significantly affected by wildlife. I recognise some wildlife species can have an economic impact on crofters. The Scottish Government works collaboratively with SNH and a range of stakeholders to manage and reduce adverse impacts of wildlife on farming and crofting in Scotland. A range of strategies and control measures are in place to help to support crofters, for example, the sea eco management scheme. Alexander Stewart. I thank the cabinet secretary for that sprawns. So can I ask what will the Scottish Government take to ensure that a balance can be reached so that wildlife does not have a detrimental impact on crofting incomes? Cabinet secretary. I think that the member raises a fair point. There does need to be a balance. I just came from a meeting with Chris Cameron from the monitor farm in Lochaber and sea eagles was mentioned as causing loss of his stock of lambs. I am aware that this is a very serious issue indeed and there are management schemes, the sea eagle management scheme in place. I think that a balance is the right measure. I am glad that the member has approached the matter in that way and I think that we need to constantly ensure that the measures are sufficient to enable farmers to be able to manage and protect their stock against what is not just a source of financial loss but also a great source of loss, personal loss of misery to farmers who really care about their livestock deep play. To ask the Scottish Government what analysis it carried out on the potential impact of sheep farming in relation to Brexit. A no-deal Brexit is by far the biggest threat to farming and to our successful food and drink sector. A wealth of government and independent research concludes that the sheep sector will be worse off in every possible alternative trade arrangement. Emma Harper. I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer. As he will be aware, the UK Government has promised and failed to publish its tariff rate to quotas. Can he therefore advise what the impact of this failure will be on our trade with EU on key food products such as Scotch lamb? It is really disgraceful. It is quite extraordinary that we are so close to 29 March and we still do not know what the tariffs will be. They were supposed to have been published for the last three weeks, as I understand it, but they have been delayed by the UK Government. That is a very serious point. The sector of farming is most at risk. Arguably, if the whole economy is sheep farming, that is because if there is no deal on 29 March, then the EU is a vital export market. We do not even have the legal right to export at all at the moment, but even if that is secured, the tariffs would be above 40 per cent. If the pound depreciates as experts in the economy believe, then the combination of the depreciation of the pound and the imposition of a tax of 40 per cent would see a massive loss of market in Europe and a loss of income to primary producers. The saddest thing of all is that Michael Gove understands and agrees with all of this, and still they will not remove the no deal from the table. It is not too late that they can do so, and I would repeat the First Minister's calls urging them to do so for the sake, not least of our hill farmers in Scotland. The cabinet secretary will be aware that the UK Government confirmed this week that because of Brexit or the uncertainty of Brexit, it is unlikely to introduce a change to sheep ageing for the purposes of TSE control. Under the new system proposed, sheep producers would have received far greater certainty on the price that they received for sheep from the abattoir. Will he take this matter up with his good friend, Mr Michael Gove, and see if the UK Government could instead go back to the previous arrangement that they had given an assurance that they would achieve? I am glad that Mr Scott has raised that. It is a very important matter. We had been working with the UK Government to remove the teathing test. I am not a farmer myself, so I have had to learn about it. However, every single lamb needs to have their mouth opened to check whether their adult teeth have come through as a proxy to sell how old they are. If you have 500 sheep scattered all over mountains and hills, that is not just the easiest thing to do. We have been working with the UK Government, and my colleague, Mary Gougeon, has been dealing with that. We have been confident that a scheme was going to be agreed to remove the need for that in a way that is perfectly practical and consistent with animal welfare standards. However, without consulting us just in the last few days, the UK Government has said that it is not going ahead with that. I find that absolutely extraordinary, and I do very much hope that the UK will reconsider the approach. In the meantime, we are having discussions with the NSA and others, and I will be keen to keep Mr Scott and others advised about how those discussions proceed. There may be difficulties in pursuing a Scotland alone project here, but it would be far preferable if there were a UK solution on that matter. To ask the Scottish Government what preparations it is making for business continuity for wholesale food providers in the event of a no-deal Brexit. Like all parts of the food and drink supply chain in Scotland, a no-deal Brexit is likely to have serious consequences for the wholesale sector. As it happens, I met just this morning with the wholesale federation, as the member may know. I had a very interesting discussion, and they told me specifically of disadvantages that are already being experienced because of the possibility of a no-deal. Alex Cole-Hamilton I am very grateful for that reply. BidFood is a large wholesale provider based in Newbridge in my constituency. Those are anxious times for that company. Can the Scottish Government reassure BidFood that it will get information as soon as it becomes available in terms of contingency planning and ensure that it will do what it can to ensure continuity in the supply chain to ensure that it can continue trading in the way that it does? Alex Cole-Hamilton Yes, I am happy to provide that assurance, as I did to provide to BidFood's representative who was at the meeting earlier this morning. The wholesale sector said that storage costs are rising. Already, there is hardly any, if any, chilled storage capacity. There are already price impacts. There are already some instances of stockpiling by major players. Already, there are, Presiding Officer, impacts. I agreed that we will, of course, keep the wholesale sector, a very important sector of economy in the member's constituency, and rather fully advised, as far as we are able to. However, we can only advise them of information once we have it. Sadly, there has been an information deficit from the UK Government of late. Kenneth Gibson To be followed by Rhoda Grant Thank you, Presiding Officer. The cabinet secretary will have seen reports that some overseas customers have already started buying produce from elsewhere. Does he share my concern at the impact that this could have on exporters? Also, livestock farmers, in particular, who, according to the HMRC, could face EU tariffs of 70 per cent on beef and 45 per cent on lamb post-Brexit? What is the Scottish Government doing to help our exporters of food and livestock final tender markets in this scenario? Well, we are in regular contact with them, with their representatives. I have had weekly discussions. There is a score meeting this afternoon. My colleague, Mary Gougeon, will be at that. My officials are in regular contact with companies, and we provide export assistance in a number of ways, including an element of financial support. However, there is only so much that we can do. The problems are so serious that it may be impossible, frankly, to mitigate them. The consequences of a no-deal, particularly for the red meat sector, would be extremely serious. That is why a no-deal really must be removed from the table. It can be removed, and therefore not to do so is not just to run off the mill government mistake. There is no government in the world that does not make mistakes. This is negligence, this is recklessness, this is culpability, and it needs to be sorted now. Any delay in fresh food would have a disastrous effect with whole consignments being lost. What contingencies have been put in place to protect whole sellers and producers who stand to lose those consignments? Rhoda Grant is quite right. From Highlands and Islands, and we represent Highlands and Islands constituencies and regions, the export of shellfish is subject to very tight timelines. The supply to markets in Italy and Spain, for example, have timelines, which, if delay longer than a few hours, the whole consignment becomes valueless. Therefore, we have done a power of work, both in respect of trying to ensure that drivers have permits to drive in Europe, and there is a real problem with that. Both in respect of the additional export certification, which the aquaculture sector says would rise from £50,000 to £200,000, an additional cost of £15 million—quite ridiculous. We are working with local authorities in order to have a contingency plan in order to deal with the issue of export health certificates, which are dealt with by EHOs, in order that that contingency plan can cope with a fourfold increase in the workload. We are doing various other measures to ensure that information is passed out to all processors so far as we have it. However, again, there is only so much that we can do to mitigate and to anticipate without the hard information that we need from the UK Government in relation to the impact of whatever it is that it finally decides to get around and what to do. It is impossible to fully prevent the enormous damage that will be caused, not least to our inshore fishermen and all those who rely on them. To ask the Scottish Government when it last met representatives of the red meat industry and what was discussed. I regularly meet representatives. Last week, I met the National Sheep Association in Scottbeef. At the beginning of the 18 February, there was a debate between myself and Michael Gove. The NFUS, the meat wholesalers, the NSA and QMS all attended. On the 19 February, the Food Resilience Group meeting that I chaired, where I was in discussion with the industry and prior to that, I spoke at the NFUS AGM and last Saturday night had the pleasure of dinner at the Scottish Tenant Farmers Association. At lunchtime, I met several farmers from Lachabur in the meat sector. Monica Lennon. I thank the cabinet secretary for that detailed answer. Some producers have adopted alternative treatments to processed meats instead of using nitrites in light of the 2015 World Health Organization report, which concluded that nitrites can cause cancer. However, nitrites continue to be widely used and a recent investigation by the Herald on Sunday found that in Scotland, three quarters of our councils contain nitrite meats on school menus. Can the cabinet secretary advise what the Scottish Government is doing to help industry to remove nitrites from processed meats? I understand that my colleagues, Mrs Swinney and perhaps Mr Fitzpatrick, are primarily dealing with this, so it is not my portfolio area. I am advised that nitrites play an important role in food safety in helping to reduce the growth of harmful microorganisms. However, there are strict maximum permitted limits that can be used by manufacturers in ham, bacon or gamon product recipes. The European Food Safety Authority reviewed nitrites as food additives in April 2017 and concluded that there was no need to change statutory safe levels. Scottish red meat is a completely appropriate food to serve in school and does not have added nitrites. I know that those matters are under consideration by Mr Swinney following an extensive consultation that took place last August, and that we are analysing carefully the responses on those matters. I am sure that Ms Lennon will be in contact with Mr Swinney to get the up-to-date detail on that. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the rural secretary has had with the transport secretary regarding the impact on the rural economy of the proposals in the restricted rose 20-mile-an-hour speed limit bill. To date, I have not had any formal discussions with the transport secretary regarding the impact of the bill. However, the member will be aware from the evidence that my colleague Michael Matheson, the cabinet secretary responsible, gave to the rural economy committee yesterday that transport Scotland officials are working with COSLA and the Society of Chief Officers of Transport in Scotland to better understand the current barriers to implementation, including the traffic regulation order process, in order to assist and encourage more local authorities to introduce 20-mile-an-hour limits and ensure greater consistency across local authorities. I thank the cabinet secretary for that reply. Indeed, yesterday, the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee heard in evidence that the costs of the bill would impact disproportionately across rural Scotland and could lead to the expenditure of tens of millions of pounds of public money. Will the cabinet secretary, in the interests of joined up government, express those concerns about the financial impact and the disproportional impact on the rural economy to whose cabinet colleagues? I am happy to relay the comments that Mr Rumbos has made. I will study the official report of the evidence that was given yesterday so that I fully understand that I have not an opportunity so to do as yet. I am sure that Mr Matheson will want to give those matters very careful consideration indeed. Mark Ruskell to be followed by Jamie Greene. Thank you. In that discussion between the two cabinet secretaries, will the rural cabinet secretary also acknowledge that the financial modelling behind this bill was indeed developed with the Society of Chief Officers of Transportation Scotland fully acknowledging the differing characteristics of rural roads and that, in fact, we see dozens of rural community councils supporting this bill and significant numbers of councils—Highland Council, Shetland Council, Orkney Council, Angus Council, Dumfries and Galloway Council, Stirling Council and many other urban councils—as well, back this bill because they believe that it will be a cheaper and more effective way to save lives. Cabinet secretary? I have studied the modelling to which the member refers, but I am sure that very serious consideration will be given to those matters by Mr Matheson. Indeed, I heard and listened carefully to what the First Minister said in response to the member's colleague Alison Johnson at First Minister's question time today. It is quite appropriate that careful consideration is given to all those matters for which, as the member knows, I am not directly responsible. Jamie Greene, to be followed by... The cabinet secretary and I have heard evidence yesterday from Police Scotland that enforcing those 20-mile per zones was not necessarily a priority for them. In rural areas, it is actually country roads where drivers are travelling at high speeds where the majority of accidents are. Does he agree with me that any shift in focus from those accident hotspots would affect overall efficacy of the intended policy of the bill? I would need to think about that one if you do not mind, so I am not going to give you a direct answer. I have always thought that it is very sensible to listen carefully to what the police road traffic experts have to say about road safety. They have to deal with matters that none of us would wish, particularly the horrific consequences of road traffic incidents where there is loss of life. There is a whole raft of things that we need to do as individuals, as citizens and as representatives of people of Scotland to ensure that road safety is given the priority that it rightly deserves. On road haulage, can the cabinet secretary advise how many ECMT permits road haulers in Scotland have applied for? How many have they received back? What impact might that have on post-Brexit export and import of key foodstuffs, including wholesale providers, and seafood and fish exporters, such as the ones in north-east Scotland? We are worried about that matter. The answer is that we understand that businesses in Scotland have applied for 680 permits of individual lorries to be used, which are used for export purposes, as I understand it in most cases of the current time. Of the 680 applications, only 48 have been received, so that 632 were unsuccessful. That is just a stark illustration of the lunacy of not ruling out a no deal. Without those permits, those drivers will not be able to drive to Europe with our shellfish, our lamb or our exports. That is a ludicrous and preposterous situation. I am very grateful that the member has given me the opportunity to highlight it. I am pleased that the minister knew the answer to that question. To ask the Scottish Government what progress it is making in meeting its tree planting targets and creating 10,000 hectares of new trees in 2019. Cabinet Secretary, good progress. Jamie Greene Good but undefined, Cabinet Secretary. Perhaps I could drill a little bit further. The Parliament agreed to allow the sale of land of the national forestry state, provided that the revenues received from that would be properly reinvested. Perhaps the Cabinet Secretary would be more specific in my supplementary question. Of the 50,000 hectares of land that has been sold, how much land has been acquired in numerical terms? Secondly, of the £100 million of revenue achieved through the sale of such land, how much has been spent on acquiring land and planting trees? I gave a direct answer to the question that was asked. We are making good progress. He now raises an entirely different question. I am able to say that I have already provided this information to the committee of which Mr Greene is a member. I do not know whether the convener has passed on the letter, but it is there anyway. What I can say is that I am proud. The implicit attack on forestry commission and forest enterprise or apparent attack seems to me to be completely groundless. Obviously, they are reputable, responsible bodies that are going to be fully devolved very shortly. They do a great job. They sell and purchase land for a whole variety of purposes, but they invest money for the purposes for which they are established, promoting forestry in Scotland. If the member is suggesting that money is siphoned off for other purposes irrelevant, I am afraid that I do not really think that there is evidence to back him up. I refer him to the letter that has already answered the matter in great detail. Can the cabinet secretary advise how land coverage by forestry compares in each of the countries in the United Kingdom and how much of the UK's new planting is done in Scotland? From memory, the forestry coverage accounts for 18 to 19 per cent in Scotland. It is significantly less down south. Forestry is much more important in this country than it is proportionately for the rest of the country. I am very pleased that we are making good progress in the forestry sector. That is playing a big part in helping to provide employment in rural communities. I was very pleased to meet a series of young apprentices that are being taken on by the public sector and forestry at Baloch in my constituency just a couple of weeks ago. I think that the industry will be taking on many more young people, which is a good thing, and it is a sign of its success. Thank you very much, and that concludes portfolio questions. We are going to move on now to the next item of business, which is a debate on motion 16170, in the name of Kate Forbes, on local government to finance Scotland order 2019. Can I invite all members who wish to contribute to this debate to press their request to speak buttons as soon as possible?