 Teimlo i rhywbeth i gwaethef. The member had to withdraw question number one, so we start with question number two, Monica Lennon. Thank you. To ask the Scottish Government what action SEPA has taken to seek regulatory compliance for the sites affected by the cessation of medical waste services by healthcare environmental services limited. Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport, Roseanna Cunningham. Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport, Roseanna Cunningham. SEPA has been closely monitoring and inspecting the HES sites in Dundee and Shots, including weekly inspections since December, to ensure that they comply with relevant environmental legislation. Enforcement notices were issued to HES in September and December 2018. However, further scrutiny has established that the company has not fully met the requirements of the notices. Subsequently, SEPA has commenced an investigation to establish if criminal offences have been committed. SEPA has also robustly reviewed the contingency arrangements in place at affected NHS sites to ensure that all regulatory requirements are met and that we will continue to monitor all the affected sites to ensure that the environment and local communities remain safeguarded. Monica Lennon I thank the minister for that reply. SEPA has indeed served for enforcement notices against HES, and we know that the company continues not to comply with legal requirements and that criminal proceedings may well be necessary. However, alongside the stockpiled waste, unanswered questions are mounting up. Can the minister advise how many tonnes of waste has been stockpiled, the types of material, how long it has been piling up, and what is the estimated cost of achieving compliance, what is that likely to be, and in circumstances where HES will not or cannot return to compliance? Will the Scottish Government recognise that NHS Scotland retains a legal duty of care for its healthcare waste and agree to fund a clean-up of stockpiled waste left behind by HES? The First Minister Is that a number of questions there? Monica Lennon There are a number of questions there, and some of them are not entirely within my portfolio remit, and I am sure that the member realises that. I will try to deal with as much as I can. The best available evidence suggests a backlog of somewhere between 250 and 300 tonnes of clinical waste on Scottish sites. Around 10 tonnes of anatomical waste mainly at Hasseg Riggs, specialist providers advise that a specialist team will be needed to pack and load that anatomical waste, and the loading may take something like two days. A current estimate of the total clearance and disposal costs is around £250,000, but I am conscious that those are estimates, not fixed figures, and the issue around cost. I mean that there is a contingency arrangement cost as well as a clearance and disposal cost, which somewhat complicates the answer to that question. Contingency by its very nature does tend to cost more. SEPA continues to do robust regulation and monitoring, and it has potential future action that it can take. I have indicated that there is already an investigation going on as to whether or not there are criminal activities that have taken place, and I think that we have to allow that to run its course. I ask the cabinet secretary and I realise that some of the two questions that me require her to come back and check before she can reply. I ask her first of all what the likely timescale is under those enforcement notices for the disposal of the waste in Scotland, and secondly, can she advise if the local authorities concerned—North Lanarkshire Council and Dundee City Council—have powers under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to remove the waste? Compliance with regulatory standards is mandatory and non-negotiable, whichever organisation is involved. I know that national services Scotland is working hard to ensure that all contingency measures that can be taken are being taken and to ensure that that is taken forward sensibly and properly. HES remains currently responsible for meeting their environmental obligations under their permits, and that includes the removal and treatment of waste from their sites. SEPA is monitoring that on a weekly basis and is continuing to seek compliance from the operator. The member has asked perhaps slightly more technical questions, and I think that it would be advisable for me to go back to him when there is a more detailed potential response. Fulton MacGregor Thank you, Presiding Officer. One of the affected sites that was reported in the press this week was a hill centre on Coatbridge. I understand what the cabinet secretary has said about SEPA's inspections and that they have not identified any current risk of pollution from the waste, but I wonder whether she could outline what action, if any, could be taken by SEPA if such a risk was identified at a further stage. I did indicate earlier that SEPA has continuing powers. If there is a serious risk to the environment or human health, SEPA has powers within the pollution prevention and control Scotland regulations, which would allow action to be taken to deal with it. In particular, section 57 of those regulations allow SEPA to arrange for steps to be taken to remove an imminent risk of serious pollution, should such a risk be clearly identified. Those powers also allow SEPA to recover from the operator any costs incurred in making the site safe. Tom Arthur To ask the Scottish Government how it promotes responsible dog ownership. The Scottish Government code of practice on the welfare of dogs, which was approved by the Scottish Parliament, provides dog owners with information on caring for and acquiring their pets. A recent awareness campaign, funded by the Scottish Government, and which was designed in partnership with the main dog welfare charities, directed potential puppy buyers to detailed advice hosted by the Scottish SEPA. As I said in the improving animal welfare statement that I made to Parliament last week, that elicited 130 per cent increase in visits to the site and calls to the Scottish SEPA helpline. We also consulted last year to inform the modern system of licensing and registration of dog, cat and rabbit breeding that we will introduce. Tom Arthur I thank the minister for that answer. I would also like to recognise the work of my colleague Emma Harper in this area with regard to livestock attack, and also the work of my colleague Christine Grahame, who is undertaking to progress a member's bill on responsible breeding and ownership for dogs. Yesterday, the British Veterinary Association reported findings from their Voice of the Veterinary Profession survey, suggesting that French bulldogs and pugs, to quote, taught the list of dog breeds most commonly suspected of being imported illegally into the UK. I should declare an interest as an owner of two pugs. Given the unscrupulous tactics employed by puppy smugglers, does the minister agree that responsible dog ownership begins prior to purchase or adoption with researching the breed, establishing whether one has the time, space and resources to offer a lifelong home to the dog and of only engaging with reputable breeders, and that it is especially important when considering the purchase of a popular breed such as pugs, which can be susceptible to particular health problems? Emma Harper They are, of course, one of my favourite breed of dogs. I happen to see a lot of photos of Mr Arthur's pugs on Instagram, so I would encourage you all to follow that. However, I would absolutely agree with what the member has just said. There are a number of people who care about issues in this area, and that is why we have so many member's bills that have come to the area of animal welfare from Emma Harper, Christine Grahame and Jeremy Balfour. However, the Scottish Government has made general information on the purchase of puppies available to the public through its code of practice for the welfare of dogs. As I said, it was approved in the Scottish Parliament in 2010. As I mentioned last week, we had the awareness campaign that we ran between November and December last year, and given the success of that and the amount of people who then approached the Scottish SPCA website as a result of that, we are looking now at doing another campaign later this year and doing everything that we can to tackle the scourge of illegal puppy dealing and the activities that can end up driving that trade. Obviously, we are looking at a number of measures as part of our licensing of dog, cat and rabbit breeding, the consultation that we had last year, and there will be a number of measures within that, which we hope will lead to responsible dog breeding and ownership. There are three more members who wish to get it, and there are two more now. Maurice Golden The Scottish Government recently confirmed that the use of electric shock collars was still permitted. Can the minister confirm when the use of these harmful devices will be effectively banned as promised? I know that this is an issue that the member has raised on a number of occasions, and I believe that there has been a drop-in session for other MSPs to attend today. It is something that members across the chamber have written to me about. It has been raised in the chamber a number of times, and it was also something that I met with the Kennel club recently, and they raised their concerns to me. However, our position on that has not changed. We introduced the guidance to Parliament, and it was agreed by a number of people at the time, and it was then agreed by the Environment, Climate Change Committee. What I would say to the member is that we are committed to reviewing that. We said that we would review that guidance within 12 months, and that is exactly what we will do to see exactly how that has operated. Has it changed behaviours and re-evaluated it at that time? Emma Harper Dogfouling is a huge concern for my south-west of Scotland constituents and community councils across the south-west region. I have been exploring innovative ways of dealing with this nuisance problem. Can I ask the minister if she is aware of projects such as ParkSpark and StreetClean, which use anaerobic digesters for dog poo to power park and street lighting, and if she is willing to look at projects such as that and potential development? I thank the member for that question, because I know that dogfouling is an issue, and it is a scourge across all of our communities, right across Scotland, and it is definitely something that is raised with me in my constituency. However, I also know that this is, as I said, an issue that affects many areas of Scotland, but it is also a view that is shared by the Minister for Community Safety, who actually has portfolio responsibility for this issue. I believe that Emma Harper raised that issue with the Minister for Community Safety directly last year. Local authorities are responsible for tackling dogfouling in their communities, and the decisions on how best to deal with that are for local authorities to deal with. However, I am always interested if there are innovative solutions that are being developed and how we tackle issues that affect our natural environment. Of course, I am interested in that and to hear more. Of course, anaerobic digestion is an important part of our waste infrastructure for food waste, and I do not see any particular reason why other materials cannot be utilised in the same way. This Parliament should be commended for the importance that it has placed on animal welfare, and that has been my experience. However, like Maurice Golden, I believe that the practice of electric shock callers should be banned. I want to know whether that is the view of the minister. Thank you. I know that this is an issue that the member also raised as part of my statement to the Parliament on improving animal welfare last week. Again, I know that the members and many others have written to me about this issue, but I would say that we had the guidance. We said that we would review it, and we will fully evaluate it at that time. That was within 12 months of that guidance being agreed, so I give the assurance to the member that that will happen. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on progress towards its 90 per cent carbon reduction target and how district heating schemes can help to achieve that. Greenhouse gas emissions in Scotland have fallen by 49 per cent since 1990, and we are on track to meet our current statutory targets. The member knows that there is also a bill going through Parliament to increase those targets. Heat networks are one of the most cost-effective ways of reducing carbon emissions from heating, as they are able to make use of large-scale and low-cost renewables and recovered heat sources. The UK national comprehensive assessment of district heating and cooling estimates that 6.7 per cent of Scotland's total heat demand in 2025 could be met by district heating and cooling. I thank the cabinet secretary for that response on the assessment that she has made of that particular source of heat. She is aware that there is a district heating scheme operating in Lerwick and has done since 1998. Does she recognise the importance of the SAP rating system, allowing and ensuring that energy efficiency standards can expand across the country and that currently the plans are to consult on that later this year? Does she therefore ensure that the Government looks to ensure that there are no barriers to the expansion of district heating schemes, given the advantages that she has herself pointed out this afternoon? I think that all members of the Government would be able to answer yes to that. I know that the member has been in discussion with my colleague Kevin Stewart on related issues. I should also say that my colleague Paul Wheelhouse would be very anxious that I remind Tavish Scott about the commitment that he made in November to set out proposals to legislate on regulatory and licensing arrangements for district heating and to do so in the near future. I hope that the cross-portfolio nature of the response to that gives Tavish Scott some confidence that it is being seriously undertaken. I have two further supplementaries. The first is from Willie Coffey. Thank you. Cabinet secretary, is it not the case that the Government has already set a clear pathway for heat decarbonisation in its climate change plan? You can see it in section 8 of the plan in the residential sector and elsewhere. We set out clear pathways for decarbonising our heat supply. Our initial efforts are focusing on reducing demand for heat across the entire building stock and in replacing existing high-carbon forms of heating in off-gas areas with lower-carbon alternatives, as well as developing heat networks, where it makes sense to do so. That is in line with expert advice from the Committee on Climate Change. That is one that we have to go very carefully with because decarbonising heat also brings into the discussion and conversation issues around fuel poverty that we have to make sure that we understand. Members should be reminded that the issue of decarbonising the gas network is one that remains reserved to Westminster. Gas, at the moment, provides an enormous amount of domestic heating in Scotland. Alexander Burnett Thank you. I am sure that the cabinet secretary would agree that the Scottish Government should lead by example. I ask the cabinet secretary to encourage the First Minister to publish an EPC rating for Bute House and not hide behind a statutory exemption. I will refer that to the First Minister. I am not entirely sure that it is in the First Minister's remit since Bute House is not owned by the Government, so I will have to ensure that he is responded to appropriately. Andy Wills As the Scottish Government, in light of the findings of a recent survey by WWF Scotland, how will it support small businesses to prepare for the risk proposed by climate change? The Climate Ready Business Guide, published by Adaptation Scotland, Scottish Enterprise and Visit Scotland last year, was sent to more than 20,000 businesses and provides guidance for small and medium-sized enterprises, including examples of businesses responding to climate risks and opportunities. That continues to be available. Last year, Adaptation Scotland sponsored the First Vibes Award for Business Adaptation. Annie Wills I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer. Last month, a survey by WWF revealed that five and six smaller firms in Scotland do not feel like their sector has direction from the Scottish Government about their role in tackling climate change, with 60 per cent saying that they felt underprepared. Climate change poses severe risk to our economic stability, yet it is clear from the polling that Scotland's SMEs need more support and advice to ensure that their businesses have a sustainable future. Can the cabinet secretary tell me what action will be taken to ensure that those statistics improve and that the majority of small businesses are prepared? The cabinet secretary I am conscious that reaching SMEs in respect of a range of issues can be difficult because we are dealing with often quite small businesses who are not always able to spend the time that very large businesses can do on some of those issues. We take it seriously. I am aware of the WWF research. I can advise the member that we have a range of research projects under way to better understand climate risks for business and to inform future policy. We are trying to keep on top of that, but I take on board the concern, particularly for the micro-businesses, for their ability to access some of that. I am sure that the WWF research has been of particular interest to those of my colleagues who deal more often with very small businesses than I perhaps do. Claudia Beamish Thank you, Presiding Officer. Certainly, the WWF report is very important. The cabinet secretary's answer brings some reassurance to SMEs, I am sure. I wonder if the Scottish Government has any plans to ensure that the Just Transition Commission might be guided to engage with SMEs rural and urban to ensure that its recommendations support them to take advantage of the net zero emissions economy, including possibly developing manufacturing and remanufacturing. Claudia Beamish The Just Transition Commission is going to look at the issue of Just Transition in the broadest possible sense. I think that we have had some discussions already about areas that might not have been automatically assumed to be part of that. I raised the issue of hill farmers at the committee, and that is a Just Transition issue, managing very small businesses and micro-businesses in terms of the way that they are able to cope with progress to a decarbonised economy. That is also part of the Just Transition. It is important that we see the concept of Just Transition quite widely, and the Just Transition Commission is well aware that that is something that we want to ensure takes place. James Dornan Given the last supplementary question, can the cabinet secretary confirm that an important consideration for the Government's Just Transition Commission is that no one should be left behind in our move to a carbon neutral economy? Yes, that is indeed the purpose of having the Just Transition Commission. It is a discussion that is beginning to take place in a number of other countries. It is very important that, as we move to our carbon neutral economy, we do so in a way that is fair for all, and by all I mean all, because there is a danger that we lose and forget pockets of the economy and all of this. Obviously, yesterday we had a full afternoon's debate on this, and there was a clear consensus across Parliament that no one should be left behind as we move to carbon neutrality. I hope that we can hold that consensus as we discuss Just Transition in the years to come. To ask the Scottish Government how it supports initiatives that celebrate and promote locally sourced and produced food and drink. The Scottish Government is committed to supporting the growth of local food throughout Scotland, including farmers markets, farm shops and other local food initiatives. The sourcing of local food and drink helps not just strengthen the local economy, it is vital for our rural economy and the wider economy of Scotland as a whole. Last month, we announced funding of £95,700 from the regional food fund to 21 projects across Scotland that celebrate and promote local food and drink. That fund is still open for applications, and I encourage all members across the Parliament to promote that fund within their constituencies and to encourage many to apply. I welcome the funding from the regional food fund to the food from Fife partnership. Of course, all the Government's work to promote the kingdom's fantastic food and drink sector is now threatened by the disruption of Brexit. Does the minister share my concern about the catastrophic impact that a no-deal Brexit on businesses let the award-winning Balburni house hotel in Murkynch, which has always employed 20 per cent upwards of its staff from EU countries? I absolutely share that concern. I think that Jenny Gilruth also raises an important point about the people from EU countries that currently live and work in Scotland. I attended a meeting yesterday with the cabinet secretary and representatives across the food and drink sector who told us about just how vitally important EU citizens are across the board when it comes to food and drink. Especially within my own portfolio remit, if we were to look at the vets and abattoirs, 98 per cent of the vets that are working on our abattoirs are EU citizens. That is why, to be perfectly honest, I do not think that I have the words to fully describe how absolutely outraged and disgusted I was last night. To hear the Prime Minister in response to her Government's defeat suggests that, because of that defeat, there is now no clarity for EU citizens. Clarity is something that she and her Government could have given EU citizens at the very start of the process two years ago, like many other countries across the EU did for the British citizens living there. That is the exact thing that she refused to give because she was too busy playing to the hard writer of her own party. That is why I am proud that this Government has done all it can to reassure the EU citizens living across Scotland that we will do everything within our power to help them, and it will be to the eternal shame of the UK Government that they have not seen fit to do the same. There are four members who wish to ask supplementaries in this question. Liam McArthur Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. The Minister will be aware of the importance of ornate beef and lamb, not just to the island's food and drink sector, but to Scotland's. She may also be aware of the damage that the loss of the local abattoir has had on these high-quality brands. Following the efforts of the cabinet secretary last year, for which I thank him, will the Scottish Government ministerial team re-engage with the local council, NFU, Orkney March and others to ensure that every possible option is explored in securing our long-term future for our local abattoir in Orkney? Absolutely. I know that that work is on-going at the moment, too. I would say that mobile abattoirs was raised during the improving animal welfare statement last week, and I know that there are projects being looked at and some that have been funded through risk funding, for example. I know that the work on that is on-going, and I would be happy to meet the member to discuss that further. Brian Whittle The member will be aware of the positive impact that East Asia's public food procurement policy is having on the rural economy in East Asia, not to mention the health of our school children. I wonder what the minister of the Scottish Government can do to encourage that kind of behaviour across the rest of Scotland. I absolutely welcome that work that is on-going. That is work that we are currently funding as well, because I think that there are. I visited a project just before Christmas that had seen initiatives like that. That was just in the centre of Edinburgh, and so there is work on going to try to encourage that public procurement process. I visited a primary school, for example, which was all about locally sourcing and locally produced food. That is very much a priority for us and work that we hope to continue. Colin Smyth Thank you, Presiding Officer. If Scotland's food and drink sector is to reach its potential, it needs to be supported by ambitious comprehensive legislation. Over the past year, the Government has proposed at various points a good food nations bill, a food and farming bill and a Scottish agriculture bill. Can the minister tell us which one it will be, and can she confirm whether that legislation will introduce a statutory right to food to help to put an end to the scandal of food poverty? I would just to respond to the member that we are considering all options in that regard, and that there will be a consultation on that. Julian Martin Thank you, Presiding Officer. I share my colleague Jenny Gore-Rooce's concerns that the increasing likelihood of us crashing out of the EU on 29 March. Will the minister agree with me that the absence of a trade agreement between the UK and European Union will not only cause untold damage to food and drink businesses, such as McDuff, Shellfish and my constituency, but also to the wider local economy and the prospects of future generations that rely on the industry? Absolutely. I think that nothing could probably illustrate the damage that not having that in place. If we are in a no-deal situation, then a letter that was jointly signed by Scotland Food and Drink, NFU Scotland, Quality Meet Scotland, Food and Drink Federation Scotland, the Scottish Salmon Producers Organization, Scottish Bakers and Scottish Agricultural Organization Society said that they estimate that the cost of no-deal to our industry would be at least £2 billion in lost sales annually. That is on top of the short-term chaos resulting from transport delays and labour shortages. Our businesses are already bearing the cost of no-deal, having to spend millions of pounds on time and investment to mitigate the potential disruption. There is absolutely no doubt that, if we are in that situation where there is a no-deal, that would be absolutely catastrophic for Scotland. As well as the meeting that I talked about, I referred to in an earlier answer, where we met with some of those organisations. The cabinet secretary and myself attended a meeting with Michael Gove in London on Monday, where the cabinet secretary outlined that the UK Government needs to remove no-deal as an option, because it would be absolutely catastrophic for Scotland in particular, but across the rest of the UK. I think that the UK Government needs to stop blackmailing us with that as an option and firmly remove it from the table so that there is no longer an option and to do something that will work for the hugely important food and drink sector in this country. 2. Ross Greer Thank you. To ask the Scottish Government how it will engage stakeholders and the public with the Good Food Nation consultation. Cabinet Secretary, Fergus Ewing. Publication of the consultation on Good Food Nation proposals for legislation on 21 December represents an important step forward in the move towards Scotland becoming a good food nation. The Scottish Government has invited over 300 stakeholders and interested parties to respond to the consultation. Publication was accompanied by social media coverage announcing the consultation, and social media will also be used to highlight the approaching closing date and to encourage responses. I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer. The Scottish Food Coalition in preparing their report last year engaged over 800 people in 160 conversations to hear what living in a good food nation meant to them. The top two concerns were the affordability of a healthy diet and the environmental impact of our food. There is clearly strong desire for public engagement, but the open government action plan stated that there is a growing mistrust of both the process and the outcomes of consultations in Scotland. In planning and designing the Good Food Nation consultation, could the cabinet secretary confirm how the Scottish Government has taken those concerns into account and met its commitments to open government? Cabinet secretary? Well, because we welcome the responses to our consultation, we have encouraged over 300 stakeholders and interested parties to respond. I would use this opportunity to seek responses from members and perhaps political parties in this chamber. We take responses to those consultations extremely seriously. They are open, transparent and free for people to contribute towards. I very much hope and expect that the contributions that are received will be considered with due care. We all know that the main priority for people in food poverty is to feed their family and not fill in consultation forms. That becomes a secondary concern for them. Yet, for the Good Food Nation consultation, more than most, we need to get the views and thoughts of those people who are using food banks. Can I ask the cabinet secretary if he will work with food banks to engage those who suffer food poverty and facilitate their response to the consultation? That is a very fair point. I am pleased to advise the member that I already am engaging therewith. I met with the Trussell Trust chief executive just a few weeks ago. I visited very recently a food bank in Nairn in my constituency. It is a sobering and humiliating experience for people to have to go to those lands. Very often, I was advised both in Nairn and by the Trussell Trust that people leave it until after. They have been more or less starving for several days because it takes that desperation to force them to go and subject themselves to that degree of humiliation. The member makes a very good point. I would indicate, however, that we are increasing the fair food fund budget from 1.5 to 3.5 million in 2019-20, thanks to the finance secretary to enable us to continue to do our work to promote food delivery models that embrace dignified food proposals. I hope that the member agrees with that. It is chalk-and-cheese different from the austerity approach of the UK Government, which so lets people down that they are in food poverty in this country. To ask the Scottish Government what plans it has for the single farm payment scheme post-Brexit. The Scottish Government has set out clear plans in relation to farm payments after exit from the EU. I commend this document to Mr Rowley, stability and simplicity. I think that this is the fifth time that I have brandished it in this chamber, and rightly so. We will implement our proposals, which cover payments up to 2024. As in the motion agreed by everybody except the Tories in last week's parliamentary debate, rural support, we will set up a group consisting of producer, consumer and environmental organisations to inform and recommend a new bespoke long-term policy for farming and food production for Scotland. The cabinet secretary for that response, and I look forward to him sending me that document, I think that farmers are concerned about what is going to happen post-Brexit. Can he tell me when does the Scottish Government intend to introduce its agricultural bill? He specifically mentioned the group consisting of producer, consumer and environmental organisations. When does the Scottish Government intend to convene this group? What will be the process for appointing those organisations? What will be the role that has been appointed? There are several questions there. First of all, Mr Rowley refers to farmers' responses. Farmers responded to the document last year in large numbers. Overall, the responses were supportive of our approach. Our approach is to provide stability and certainty in the face of the Brexit uncertainty, which Mr Rowley rightly refers to. Those proposals in the document are, in fact, the most comprehensive set of proposals in the UK. They will last for a period of five years for Scotland. That certainty and stability welcomed by farmers is something that I believe is a very positive step forward in helping the farming sector. The member asked about what we will do about setting up the stakeholder group. The proposal came from Mr Rumbles. I was happy to agree to it. I am looking at Mr Rennie and it was not Mr Rennie, it was Mr Rumbles. Just last Thursday, we agreed to that. Obviously, we are in the early stages of looking at answering those questions, but I intend to make rapid progress, as rapid progress as I can, to bring forward a distinguished group representing all relevant stakeholder interests in accordance with Parliament's wishes as passed by substantial majority, except, of course, the Tories last week. Gail Ross Can the cabinet secretary advise what guarantees have been put in place to ensure funding for forestry, woodland creation and tree planting in the future? Cabinet secretary? Well, funding in forestry is provided by the Scottish Government in partnership with the EU. We have come to rely on that EU funding, which is vital for the continuing success of forestry. On Monday of this week, I sought from Michael Gove better assurances about the future of forestry, and I did so following the submission to Mr Gove of a letter by Confor in Scotland. In that letter, he pointed out that, whereas some assurances have been received for funding for farmers until 2022, funding for forestry is subject only to assurances that apply to funding for contracts entered into up to 2020. So, not unreasonably, he said, well, can we have assurances for the same length as farmers? I asked Mr Gove that question. It came from industry. I thought that it was a very reasonable question. I pointed out that forestry is a long-term venture. It takes three years, for example, three years ahead that nurseries plan an 18 months for an average substantial woodland proposal. The lack of assurances is already impairing investment in forestry in Scotland, but despite that, Mr Gove completely failed even to recognise that there is a problem. That is completely unacceptable from Mr Gove. I deeply regret it, but we will continue to persevere. I hope that all colleagues, including even the Conservatives, will support the efforts to ensure that there is proper, structured, guaranteed, long-term, clear funding for forestry, which is, of course, a long-term sector. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to Scottish Environment links 10 principles for future land management support in Scotland. The Scottish Government welcomes Scottish Environment links 10 principles for future land management support in Scotland. The proposals broadly reflect what other stakeholders and the agricultural champions, the National Council of Rural Advisers and the CAP Greening Group have already recommended, and the key principles set out in the motion that agreed in last week's parliamentary debate on future rural support. The link principles will be considered more fully as part of the wider process for future policy, and I particularly welcome the call for accountability on definable outcomes. That is why I have already signalled my intention to put a cap on the level of maximum payments in future. I thank the cabinet secretary for that response and I welcome the plans for stakeholder engagement that were discussed and announced last week. However, since 2016, the cabinet secretary has convened no less than five stakeholder groups to advise on food and farming policy, and in the most part, those groups have met behind closed doors, worked on short-term remits and reported only to the cabinet secretary, not to Parliament. How will the cabinet secretary ensure that this new group is transparent and that the Parliament and the wider public can be involved in its work? I think that the public can also be involved at any time in writing to myself, to other MSPs, and of course their representations are quite properly considered. They can also contribute to the work of those groups by making their views known. The groups have published their reports and have been made available to the public. I am afraid that I do not really accept the principle that, in some way, the work has been other than welcome, positive and constructive contribution to the debate overall. I think that I am right in saying that although Mr Ruskell will no doubt correct me if I am wrong, last week the Greens supported the proposal to set up the group, but I hope that that support is still forthcoming. I refer to farming in my register of interest. Scottish Environment Link also calls for opportunities for young people to work and manage the land, and they hope that new entrants to traditional sectors are encouraged and supported. How can the Government realistically achieve this when it has decided to close its new entrants capital grant scheme and then fail to replace it? I was proud that we had in Scotland a contrast with other parts of the UK very substantial support for new entrants, and that helped to great many new entrants into farming and support that was not available in other parts of the UK. Something that Mr Cameron and his colleagues have never mentioned. Of course, there is still continuing the farming opportunities for new entrants initiative that Henry Graham is developing with our full support, and that too is helping new entrants into farming. The stability and simplicity paper of this one is out of very clear proposals as to the desirability of looking to develop new proposals, which will help further new entrants into Scottish farming. Thank you very much, and that concludes portfolio questions. We are going to move on shortly to the next item of business, which is a debate on motion 15390 in the name of Richard Leonard on Scotland's future economy. We will just take a few seconds for ministers and the member to change seats.