 Bye, we have general questions. Question number one, Chick Brody. To ask the Scottish Government what contingency plans it has to support Scottish food and drink exports to Europe. Cabinet Secretary, Richard Lochhead. Following the recent disruption to the operation of the channel tunnel and the Dover Califerry, the Scottish Government has asked Scotland Food and Drink to work with industry partners i'r ddweud, y mae genganogi trwy gwrthog dros Scotland. Oed adeg yr oedd y wneud oed ddal realise i gael ein gweithgaf a gweithgei'r ddydd i gael gwaith iawn i gael yr oed peaks. Os ydym chi'n cael ei modd a ddod o'i gael gweithgaf i gael eich gweithgaf i gael ei gweithgaf i gael'r gweithgaf i gael gweithgaf i gollydd i gael ei gael gy粫 i gael gweithgaf i gael gweithgaf, i gael gennych ei gweithgaf i gael gweithgaf i gollydd gwaith i gael gir yw ddaeol. I thank the cabinet secretary for his answer and I give him our food and drink, our fantastic products. At a breakfast meeting with the Bank of Scotland Food and Drink division last week, it confirmed that there were some very, very significant opportunities for food and drink, Scots food and drink in Europe. Can the cabinet secretary confirm that contingency plans will be in place to secure those opportunities and avoid exposure to the disruption to a single artery of supply to Europe? Well, Chick Brody quite rightly highlights the latest surveys that have been taking place of food businesses, particularly those that have been taken by the Bank of Scotland, that find that most firms are planning further growth and sales investment in the food sector with over three in five businesses at 62 per cent planning to seek new international customers over the next five years, which is great news for Scotland. However, it is important that we respond to the recent disruption that many companies had exporting to the continent. That is why Scottish ministers at the time intervened and finally managed to persuade the UK Government to adopt a quick-to-market system whereby those lorries trying to get to the continent carrying perishable goods and Scottish produce would be prioritised in operation stat should that ever be reinstated. In the meantime, as I said before, longer term work has been undertaken. John Scott. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Cabinet Secretary, would the Government consider developing a website or providing information in other ways to illustrate alternative routes to market for time-sensitive goods to help all Scottish exporters to Europe in the event of future brolades of ports on either side of the channel? Cabinet Secretary. Well, I'm always open to ideas and I'll certainly consider that. Of course, it's worth bearing in mind that our food industry are very experienced in getting their goods to the European continent and elsewhere in the international markets. The very advanced complex logistics that has been built up over time are meant to deal with the demands of our industry in this country. However, if there is any way in which that can be more transparent and open via websites or any other channel, I'm very happy to consider that. John Scott. Thank you. Can the minister please give the Parliament an update on the impact of Scottish food and drink exports of Russian sanctions? What is it doing to provide alternative markets for products affected by those sanctions? Cabinet Secretary. At the time of the Russian food import ban, the sector most affected in Scotland was the seafood sector within that, the pelagic sector in terms of macro, obviously in particular. Thankfully, many of our pelagic companies in Scotland were able to find other markets. However, there is a deeper implication of the Russian food import ban on Scotland, which, of course, is the fact that other European countries who normally exported particularly agricultural produce to Russia now have that to sell elsewhere and it remains within the European market. As a result of that, the price of many products has fallen and that has an impact on Scottish agriculture as we've currently been debating in this chamber and is a big, big issue facing our primary producers in this country at the moment. Nidol Dawn. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. To ask the Scottish Government what consideration it has given to improving regulation of severance payments in the public sector. Cabinet Secretary, John Swinney. Presiding Officer, severance payments in bodies accountable to the Scottish ministers must comply with the requirements of the Scottish Public Finance Manual. The Scottish Government has considered and made improvements to the regulation of severance payments in the public sector following Audit Scotland's report on managing early departures in the public sector in May 2013, including bringing more bodies within the scope of the Scottish Public Finance Manual. The manual sets out the relevant statutory, parliamentary and administrative requirements, emphasises the need for economy, efficiency and effectiveness, and promotes good practice and high standards of propriety. Audit Scotland's report on early departures from 2013 acknowledged that voluntary exit schemes can provide significant savings and that public bodies generally follow good practice. Nigel Dawn. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I'm grateful to the Cabinet Secretary for that extensive answer. I'm wondering whether, as part of the armory on this, the Cabinet Secretary might consider the Higher Education Governance Bill, section 2 of which refers to the remuneration for chairman of governing bodies. Simply because in that statute, which is before us at the moment, we maybe have an opportunity to set up a standard clause which might then go into further statutes in order to tighten this up across the public sector. If Mr Dawn will forgive me, I won't give him a definitive answer on the amendment of the Higher Education Bill and certainly it would be difficult given the scope of that bill for there to be a provision put in it that would have any wider competence beyond provisions in the higher education sector. I understand that Mr Dawn has written to the education secretary on this point and that issue will be given consideration. I do want to assure Parliament that the terms and the requirements of the Scottish Public Finance Manual are designed to provide effective scrutiny and regulation of severance payments, which, as I indicated in my earlier answer, can have a role as acknowledged by Audit Scotland in delivering savings, but they must be calculated and formulated on a basis that is acceptable to the public purse and the Public Finance Manual. Question 3, Bob Dorris. To ask the Scottish Government how it is encouraging young people in Glasgow from disadvantaged backgrounds to participate in physical activity and sports. Minister, Jamie Hepburn. We are committed to ensuring that young people from all backgrounds across Scotland have equal opportunities to participate in physical activity and sports. For example, almost £700,000 was awarded to 16 projects in Glasgow from the Legacy 2014 Active Places Fund. Mr Dorris will be aware of the Glasgow City Wakeboard cable park, which received over £50,000 through this fund. Glasgow has also seen the creation of 11 community sports hubs and, in 2014-15, our active schools programme provided just over 600,000 participant sessions enabling pathways to over 190 sports clubs. Bob Dorris. I thank the minister for that answer. The minister will be aware that almost £25,000 from the Commonwealth Games Legacy Fund has been given to Royston Youth Action to explore how best to do with sports and physical activity opportunities in the local area. They work closely with Royston strategy group, and I am sure that money can help to drive both healthier lifestyles as well as urban regeneration. Can I invite the Sports Minister to visit Royston Youth Action to witness first hand to see how those funds are intended to be used to improve health and wellbeing in one of our most deprived communities, but also to see what opportunities are presented to boost not just sport and physical activity but drive community regeneration also? Minister. Yes, I am aware of this investment, Presiding Officer, which has been taken forward by the Legacy 2014 Sustainable Sport for Communities Fund. It is an excellent fund that is at a value of £1 million supporting 33 projects across Scotland, supporting social enterprises who wish to develop facilities for the local community. Others in Glasgow are very happy to visit one of the beneficiaries in Castlemore who are investigating the creation of a new community centre, linked to Catherine Brays, which was a Commonwealth Games venue. I am delighted that Royston Youth Action is benefiting and delighted to visit the M2 just as I am delighted to visit A&M training with Mr Doris tomorrow. Question 4, Clare Baker. To ask the Scottish Government when the Cabinet Secretary for Fair Work, Skills and Training will meet the UK Skills Minister. Cabinet Secretary, Roseanna Cymru. I have a scheduled teleconference with Nick Balles for the 8th of October at which we will discuss a range of issues. Clare Baker. I trust that the Cabinet Secretary will raise the proposed trade union bill. There is widespread resistance to the bill and the impact it will have on public sector workers in particular. Are the Scottish Government having intentions of issuing guidance to NHS boards to protect their staff? Will they follow the lead of local authorities and commit to resisting the implementation of the bill? Will she make the case with the Minister that there is a need for a legislative consent motion given the impact this bill will have on devolved matters? I can advise the member that, at present, our understanding is that there will be no requirement for an LCM or, indeed, no expectation of an LCM simply because this is a matter relating entirely to reserved issues. Of course, we will keep that under advisement and, if we feel that the position changes, there may be a change to that, but at present our advice is that there will be no LCM. In respect of the issue of non-compliance, I do not think that I can do any better than to simply repeat the words of the First Minister from just a few weeks ago that there will be no co-operation from this Government in imposing draconian trade union legislation. That is because we feel the bill has the potential to destabilise the progressive approach that we are taking in Scotland. One of the difficulties that we have with this bill, Presiding Officer, that at present is very difficult to tell from the face of the bill what the actual impact is going to be. Until we know what the outcome of the legislative process is, it would be hard to issue guidance at this stage to any public sector bodies in respect of how to manage the process, but we are looking at that very carefully. I hope that the members on the Labour bench and the members on this bench will be able to find common ground in this as has happened already in Westminster because we both agree that this is a bill that was completely unnecessary. Presiding Officer, to ask the Scottish Government what recent discussions it has had with the UK Government on the restoration of opencast coal sites. Minister, Fergus Ewing. Representatives of the Scottish Coal Industry Task Force and key industry representatives met with the UK Government on 27 August to discuss the carbon price support exemption proposal. As the member knows, this proposal was brought forward by industry and has the potential greatly to increase restoration activity and also protect Scottish jobs. On 8 September we received a letter from the UK Government effectively ruling out the possibility of implementing the proposal in its present form. The Scottish Government is deeply disappointed with the UK Government's response to this innovative scheme and that will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Coal Industry Task Force on 28 October. Adam Ingram. I think that the minister for response but does he agree with me that the lack of action by the UK Government, both in relation to return of coal authority levies, which was an earlier proposal and in relation to proper consideration of the restoration coal proposals, shows that the UK Government has turned its back on coalfield communities, including in the Scottish Secretary's own constituency. Minister. I'm afraid that the facts make it very difficult to reach any other conclusion than the one that the member has just set out in his campaigning on this issue over a long period. This is an outstanding proposal from industry which would allow restoration to take place and also project jobs over the next five years. We will continue to pursue our endeavours to persuade the UK Government to change course. But if we don't, I fear that there will be very severe consequences for Ayrshire, for Fife, for Lanarkshire and for the communities affected and involved. I do hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland will stand by his apparent views prior to his re-election. Alex Rowley. I also share the disappointment that the minister expressed with the letter from the UK Government. Given that we have that letter, will he agree that we should unite in this Parliament to make the case further? Given the levels of their election in Fife and Ayrshire and elsewhere in Scotland, what can we do to start to put a programme in place that will address their election? I am in broad agreement with Alex Rowley who sits on the task force. It is a cross-party group. It is not a political grouping at all. I do hope that, working together, we can make progress. I pay tribute to the officials in each of the local authorities involved, including Fife and Rowley's own region, because they have done sterling work and limited resources, as has the Scottish Mines Restoration Trust. Unless we can persuade the UK Government to change tack, I fear that we may prematurely lose and forfeit another vital industry to Scotland that could easily be averted if the action is taken in accordance with the excellent proposal put forward by the industry. Question 6. Colin Beattie. To ask the Scottish Government what changes it expects to make to personal independence payments following their devolution. Minister, Margaret Burgess. We are currently consulting with stakeholders and users about how we deliver the new social security powers, including disability payments. We have made clear that we want to adopt an accessible and fairer system that is underpinned by respect for the dignity of individuals. Will therefore look for opportunities informed by those who have experience to ensure that we have a Scottish social security system that is suited to the needs of our people and our country. Such opportunities include improvements to the assessment process, including reducing the need for unnecessary face-to-face assessments. However, the changes that will be available for Scottish ministers to pursue will be largely dependent on a fair deal as part of the fiscal negotiations that are currently on-going between this Government and the UK Government. Colin Beattie. The minister will be aware that there have been major delays at UK level in the processing of PIP applications. Can the minister outline what steps the Scottish Government might take to minimise such delays and ensure all potential applicants are aware of the new procedures once this benefit is devolved? Minister. The delays experienced by those applying for personal independence payment are unacceptable to address the issue and we will continue to monitor it. We have made it clear that we will ensure that people are treated with respect and dignity during their time of applying for, being assessed for and receiving disability-related benefits and that appropriate advice and support is available as they go through the process. The Scottish Government is committed to ensuring that we provide people with relevant information so they are aware of how a Scottish security system will work for them at each and every stage of the process and this will include how long each stage including decisions will take. Question 7, George Adam. Thank you, Presiding Officer. To ask the Scottish Government how the plan changes to subsidies for onshore wind farms will affect developments in Scotland. Minister. The UK Government have carried out what can only be described as an assault on renewables by the early closure of the renewables obligation. This decision has sent shockwaves through the renewables industry and a recent Ernst and Young report shows investment in onshore wind is already being hit. I held a summit for onshore wind developers on 9 July. Their concerns have been relayed to the Secretary of State Amber Rudd and we and they await a decision on the future of renewables for the UK. We expect the delay by the UK Government to make a clear policy and plan for renewables beyond 220 to continue further threatening investment both on and off shore in Scotland. George Adam. I thank the minister for his answer. The Presiding Officer will be aware that this was a matter of debate at a recent Parliament day in Paisley. Does the minister agree with me that Scotland is ideally placed to make use of this form of renewable energy and with 70 per cent of planned wind farms being in Scotland, what type of environmental effects will those changes have on reaching our renewable targets? Minister. I am aware, Presiding Officer, that Paisley is a hotbed of debate. Especially when Mr Adam is about. Seriously, this is a very grave decision that the UK has taken. A perverse and irrational decision. To illustrate just how broad-based the campaign is against it, I can indicate that the WWF Scotland and the CBI have united in combination to express their opposition. Now you would think that the WWF and the CBI are not the most likely campaigning pairing, but the UK Government has managed even to unite the voice of industry and the voice of the environment in condemning this as a retrograde and extremely damaging step for Scotland and the whole of the UK. The minister will know that the UK Government plans to reduce wind subsidies have been warmly welcomed by many affected communities across Scotland. The minister has held a summit for wind power developers. Why is he refusing the requests to hold a similar summit for affected communities? Why is he only listening to one side of the debate? Minister? Well, I regularly meet campaigners from communities both those who are against and those who support renewables of whom there are a huge number. The Conservative supported rocks at point nine as recently as 2013. What has changed since then, Presiding Officer? I'm bound to reflect that although Mr Fraser is an ardent and somewhat extreme opponent onshore wind, which is now cheaper incidentally than nuclear energy, some of his colleagues differ because not only are they not against when farms have some of their own. That ends General Questions. We now move to