 Y First item of business today, is consideration of business motion 8773, in the name of Jofus Patrick, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a timetable for the child poverty Scotland Bill. I would ask any member who wishes to speak against it to say so now and a call on Jofus Patrick to move motion 8733. Formally moved. Thank you very much. No one has asked to speak against the motion. The question is therefore that motion 8733��니ae, ond dnutriw ymygwlaethwyd drif bil expected еr. We'll now move on to the first substantive item of business, which is portfolio questions, when you start with question 1, from Stewart Stevenson, which is to ask the Scottish government whether it will provide an update on progress with the 2017 basic payment scheme. Through the basic payment scheme 2017 loan scheme, the majority of farmers and ac gylliannau o'r meddwl maen nhw'n mynd i gyd yn dwylo'r gwahanol yn gynhyrchu'r diwyll式. Felly, o'r cyfrifatigau ym mhiynau 292 miliwn nifer hwn yn cael fy mod i cyfrifatigau i hanes lag o dwylo 12,000 apylau i ddefnyddio gwybod i Lleinodau i ddelwydau i gyfrifatigau i ddigonfaenig o gyfrifatigau i ddigonfaenig i ddau i ddengu amhanyn. Stuart Stevenson, dda lefans ddwn i ddwylo i ddegosent ym enginefaenig i ddegosent that the money is reaching rural areas and farmers earlier than ever before, quicker than ever before. That gives much needed certainty to the rural economy as a whole business that depends on agriculture. Can he confirm that, even though the deadline may have passed, farmers and crofters can still apply for an interest-free loan if that is the decision that they wish to make? Cabinet Secretary? I do believe that the loan payments have been welcomed, and the fact that they were paid a week or so earlier than was indicated at the outset has been welcomed. Of course, I was determined that we pay out the maximum possible, so that's paid out, in most cases, at 90 per cent, not 80 per cent of entitlement. I do think that that has provided financial certainty for farmers and crofters, and that it has helped the wider economy in rural Scotland. The second question and answer is yes. Those farmers and crofters who have yet to accept their loan offer may do so. The offers are still open for acceptance and payment, and in fact the money is there for farmers and crofters. I am very keen that they receive the money because they are entitled to it. I would encourage them to send their opt-in slips in the prepaid envelopes supplied. Any business who has not received a loan offer or who has lost their original offer should not hesitate to contact their local arpid office. Edward Mountain Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I would like to declare an interest in that I am a partner in a farming business. The computer didn't work in 2016, didn't work in 2017, doesn't look like it's going to work in 2018. When will it work? Edward Mountain I must admit that the one thing that is predictable about the Conservatives is the unremitting gloom of everything that they say in this topic. I believe quite sincerely that most farmers and crofters welcome the loan scheme. Some of them have told me, some of them have thanked me, and it means that the money is now in their bank accounts at a time in the run-up to Christmas when many of them make their spending decisions on new equipment, on new feedstock, on other purchases. I think that that is to be welcomed. As far as the computer system is working, I have made it absolutely clear that it is working, and Mr Mountain has heard me say on my innumerable appearances before his committee that that is so. It is not working to the deadlines as yet, but I am confident that we will make substantial progress. I will come back to Parliament early in the new year to outline that progress. In the meantime, I think that farmers and crofters also welcome the fact that we have set out a very clear timetable for payments across the schemes. That, too, was a point that was made to me by the NFUS, whose support for the loan scheme I welcome, and by others, so that they want clarity and certainty as to when they can expect to receive the funds. That, Presiding Officer, is what I have sought to provide. Lones are welcome, but they are not substantive payments. Can I ask how much substantive payments are outstanding for each of the years of the new scheme? I have a whole series of figures here, but in respect of the basic payment scheme—I will check the record on that if I have erd inadvertently—I think that the basic payment scheme for 2016 has paid 99.7 per cent. The ELFAS payments in respect of 15 and 16 are being processed and, in respect of 15, we have paid 98.7 per cent—11,216 payments. In terms of ELFAS 16, we have processed 92.3 per cent. I will not be happy until everyone who is entitled to payment has received payment, but I think that, from those figures, the House can accept and indicate that we are making good progress, but I shall not rest until everyone has received the payment to which they are entitled. I need to declare an interest as a partner in farming business. To ask the Scottish Government what it is doing to tackle the reported falling farm incomes and rising farm debt. I answered a very similar question from Mr Chapman when I announced the CAP stabilisation plan. I will not repeat the full answer of what I gave then, except to remind Mr Chapman that there is a long-term trend of rising farm debt levels across the UK for the last 23 years. In fact, as for farm incomes, the long-term trend is generally upwards with a 14 per cent increase compared to 2015. However, I am not complacent. I am determined to do all that I can to support farmers and provide security to the rural economy. I can now confirm that we have made payments to more than 12,324 farmers and crofters of £292 million. That is £46 million more than the same period last year to 360 more businesses. I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer. However, there is a bigger picture here. I am very concerned that there is still no idea of what system of support the cabinet secretary is planning to put in place to support Scottish agriculture post Brexit. Given that Westminster has guaranteed the same level of financial support to Scottish agriculture until 2022, how is the cabinet secretary going to use that money in a fair, transparent and innovative way to allow a profitable future for our farmers? I do not accept that at all. In fact, to be accurate, I do not want to be cruel to the Conservative Party, but the pledge was not to 2022. It was to the end of the current UK Government whenever that is. We will see. Even if the party managed to stumble on in chaos until 2022, it has not yet provided clarity on pillar 2 funds. Indeed, I have raised that with Mr Gove in the last two multilateral meetings, most recently on Monday of this week, with Roseanna Cunning and my colleague. Can you confirm in writing to us that there will be payment of leader, of forestry, of aches, of all the pillar 2 programmes up to 2022? No answer. Only farm support has been guaranteed. All those projects on forestry, for example, that are long-term projects, we have not got the clarity that Mr Chapman implies. As far as post Brexit is concerned, I am afraid that it gets worse for Mr Chapman, because I asked Mr Gove again. I said this. I said that Mr Gove, during the Brexit referendum, said that after Brexit, the funding from Europe, which is worth £500 million to the rural economy in Scotland, would be matched. After Brexit, that is after the end of the transition period. Mr Gove had nothing to say in that whatsoever. We are completely in the dark about the UK Government's intentions to provide as to what financial support will be provided post Brexit, despite the fact that, time and time again, since the referendum day itself, we have asked for that clarification. You know something in conclusion. Mr Gove said that he would match the money post Brexit. If a minister promises something, he has to deliver or he has to resign. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Remind, chamber, I am the PLO to the cabinet secretary. Speaking of bigger issues here, given the upcoming possibility of tariffs, loss of EU workers and the ending of EU rural support, what does the cabinet secretary currently see as the biggest threat to farm incomes? Plainly, the unanswered questions that I have just alluded to and the issues around Brexit are the single biggest challenge facing farmers for decades. The loss of access to the European single market, the possibility of substantial tariffs, the threat to Scotch lamb reliant on European markets, the threat to Scotch beef of imports from South America and other countries, flooding the market with cheaper beef, the threat to farming generally about the imposition of border inspection posts or some other procedure that would delay the process of export for perishable goods, thus rendering them potentially worthless. In none of those cases do we have any clarity whatsoever from the UK Government. Perhaps that is not surprising, because there is no Brexit plan, there is no deal, there is no plan and there is no clarity on the future of seasonal workers or EU workers. 95 per cent of workers in our slaughterhouses that work as OVs supervising the slaughter process to assure that it complies with good practice. 95 per cent come from the EU, and we have not had any clarity at all about whether they are welcome to stay in Scotland or not. What is grace? Colin Smydde. Thank you, Presiding Officer. A key impact on farmers' income is obviously the cap payment scheme. At the moment, a number of farmers cannot properly identify or account for payments that they have received. Can the cabinet secretary tell us when the reductions and exclusions letters for the cap payment schemes that set out what payments have been made for what schemes will be issued to farmers? The process of production exclusion letters is something that comes towards the end of the processing of pillar 1 payments in every year, and that process is on-going. I can write to the member with full details of that matter, because it is a technical one. I have just had the answer to my question, the previous reply, however, to ask the Scottish Government when it last met the UK Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I thank the cabinet secretary for his reply. I note that an agreement has been reached to review where we are on convergence, but as yet, there is still no sign of the £160 million owed to Scottish farmers and crofters. Now, some might say that that is downright theft, Presiding Officer. Can the cabinet secretary assure the Parliament that he will continue to press for the return of this funding and, if received, how might it benefit hill farmers and crofters here in Scotland? Mr McDonnell is quite right to pursue the matter doggedly, as he does. To remind members, the sum of £190 million was due to Scottish farmers alone. It came from Europe for the precise purpose of removing the gap between those who received the greatest amount per hectare and those who received the least, and those were Scottish farmers and only Scottish farmers. That money—all of it—$190 million was earmarked for, intended for and designed only and exclusively for Scottish farmers. Despite that £160 million of it, the lion's share was used by the UK Government to pay farmers elsewhere in the UK. That is done. Our quarrel is not with those farmers. They have received their money. That was the decision of the UK Treasury. However, if the UK can find £1 billion for a shabby deal to secure the support of the DUP members to prop up their chaotic, shambolic administration, plainly, if they wish to, the Treasury can find £160 million to give to the Scottish show farmers the money that was there due. Yesterday, after pressure from the Government and the chamber, Mr Gove has agreed that there will be a review of the matter. I hope to revert to members to state details of an agreement that I hope will be reached with Mr Gove as to the remit, the people that carry it out, and the timescale for the conduct of that review. I sincerely hope that that process will lead to justice for Scotland's hill farmers. Richard Lyle To ask the Scottish Government what investment is planned from the strategic timber transport fund. In the current year, an additional £5 million has been allocated for timber transport by bringing the total invested through the timber transport fund to £7.85 million. The funding is supporting nearly 50 projects that are worth more than £11 million, which will take nearly a million lorry miles off the Scottish road network. Richard Lyle I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer and welcome what he has said. I ask that the cabinet secretary, since there are 50 projects, could possibly provide more detail to me relating to those projects and what that funding is supporting in the current year. I am not sure if the Presiding Officer wishes me to read out all 50 projects, perhaps not, but I can say that all over the country. In particular, rural parts, Argyll, Ayrshire, Dumfries, Highland, Murray and Perth, the borders, that roads projects are going on. That really does perform a number of useful functions. It takes a number of lorry miles off the road network, which is £1 million in total. It assists the environment, it assists the recovery of timber, often trapped timber in our woods and forests. It prevents it from becoming windblown and wasted effectively. Therefore, it is good for the economy, it is good for transport and it is good for the environment. That is why the Government has injected further resources to benefit rural Scotland in all those respects. To ask the Scottish Government what discussion it has had with Angling clubs regarding the classification of rivers for 2018. The public consultation on our proposals for river grading for the 2018 salmon fishing season closed on 13 October 2017, with over 150 written responses received. We are now considering those responses carefully. I thank the cabinet secretary for that reply. In your letter back to me on 1 November about river classification, you indicate that Marine Scotland had not to date received any submission from the Tay district salmon fisheries board when, in fact, their submission was lodged on 23 October. Could I ask the cabinet secretary if she has now had sight of that submission in which the Tay district salmon fisheries board has provided substantial evidence questioning the validity of the river categorisation model that is being used by Marine Scotland and what steps she is taking to have full engagement with the board and with Angling clubs in this important matter? As I indicated, the consultation has now closed, and Marine Scotland is considering the number of requests that it has had for meetings. In fact, one meeting has already been arranged and others are being discussed and others will be considered. That is an on-going process. I think that there is a difficulty here, Presiding Officer, because I am not a fish scientist. However, I do have people who provide scientific advice, and that scientific advice is advice that I have to listen to. We do not accept that the model that is currently being used is fundamentally flawed. However, we do accept that there are opportunities to develop it further, and those are conversations that we are continuing to have. There are further refinements that are currently being discussed for the 2019 season, so that is not an absolute fixed-in-stone position. What we do is try and continue to refine in the best possible manner, with the ultimate aim, let us remember, of ensuring that we have salmon stocks for the future anglers, as well as for current anglers. Neil Findlay. The cabinet secretary used to be an active and leading opponent of protection orders on rivers. Ironically, she is now responsible for maintaining protection orders with no end date identified for any of them. Will the cabinet secretary now commission independent research to establish whether those orders are justified, or simply arose to keep trout anglers away from high-value salmon beats? After all, is the Government not supposed to be led by evidence-based policy, not finger in the air stuff? This is not really a supplementary question. Do you have a very, very brief response, minister? I would like to say that we are, of course, led by evidence. I have just indicated my response to Elizabeth Smith. The entire system of fisheries management, as I suspect the member knows perfectly well, is being reconsidered. All aspects of that will be taken on board. Thanks, Presiding Officer, to ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its discussions with the UK Government regarding a fair funding deal for Scotland for railway improvements. Minister Hamza Yousaf. The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Constitution raised the issue with the chief secretary to the Treasury. In discussions on 26 October, in the meantime, my officials continued detailed discussions with the HMT counterparts. The latest offer that we received leaves a shortfall of £600 million on what the industry tells us that it needs. I can assure you that our immediate priority and focus is to press Her Majesty's Treasury to secure a fair deal for Scotland's railways. Bob Doris. Thank you, minister, for that answer. The minister will clearly recognise, then, that changes due to being introduced by the UK Government will lead to a real terms cut in funding for railway investment, do serious damage to Scotland's railways, as well as to the future enhancement projects. In particular, I ask you, for additional information, given reports that have suggested that Glasgow central station improvement works may have to be rescheduled, delayed or cancelled. The member makes a good point that this is not an abstract discussion or argument or negotiation between two Governments. It is going to have real effects if we are £600 million short, as the current offer from the UK Government stands. It will clearly have an impact on the ambitions that the industry has to improve, and to enhance, and to maintain Scotland's excellent rail network. That is a swindle, which is, frankly, railway robbery. There is not a single member or party in this chamber that has not come to this Government to ask for rail improvements in their constituency—quite right that they should. However, if the figure of £600 million short is what we have to invest in our railways, then many members right from across the political spectrum will be deeply, deeply disappointed, and their constituents will be disappointed. That is why I am still awaiting a response from some parties in this chamber to my call to unite around the Scottish Government's ask. It is not just the Scottish Government's ask, the industry's ask, because it is the industry that is saying to us that they need £4.2 billion for the next control period if we want to take Scotland's railways forward. I hope that those who have not responded to my call will do so, and that, together, we can stand up for Scotland's railways. The data published for the last 12 months shows that the Westerton to Mogailine in my and Gil Paterson's constituency was listed as the worst performer, with trains regularly using the practice of skipping stations, and only 26 per cent arriving in time. The major cause for that disruption is the single track, a twin track that formerly existed would ease disruption and allow for the possibility of a rail halt that has been proposed by Easton-Bartonshire Council. Can the minister confirm if that possibility will be investigated with Network Rail with some urgency? Yes, we will, of course, and I will explore that, but I would just like to put some context on some of what the member said. Although ScotRail report on time performance, of course, the industry standard is PPM, and that offers a more balanced approach. What I would say in terms of skip-stopping is that I absolutely understand the member's constituents' frustration at skip-stopping. We have said to ScotRail on many occasions that they should look to minimise that, and in fairness to them, during the peak time, they are looking to do that. In the last 12 months, 1 per cent of trains ran skip-stopping. That is still 1 per cent, but 1 per cent is too many. In terms of the measures that she asked us to explore, I will do that, and I will give her an update on how those discussions are going. The fact is that, in control period 6, spending will rise from £3 billion to £3.6 billion, and that spending per passenger in Scotland will be £39 compared to £25 in England and Wales. Can the minister confirm if he is now saying that it is official Scottish Government policy to reject the Barnett formula funding mechanism? What the member does not realise is that the funding for the railways was never ever based on the Barnett formula. The 2005 discussion between the Scottish Government and the UK Government before this party came into administration was based on the regulator's 11.17 per cent agreement. Now, 11.17 per cent is not what this Government demands, it is what the industry demands, it is what is based on the advice from the regulator, and the UK Government has unilaterally moved away from this without any discussion and without any engagement with the Scottish Government. They have left us £600 million short. I see in Jamie Greene's letter to me that he suggests that we will use our tax powers to raise taxes, so on the one hand, the Conservatives suggest that we falsely claim that we are the highest tax part of the UK, and on the other hand, Jamie Greene suggests that, in his letter, we have additional powers over tax and borrowing that we could use to invest in our railways. Perhaps he should get his own house in order before he comes to this chamber. A brief point of order, Mr Greene. It is brief, Presiding Officer, and it is around the minister purporting facts. He has expressed in his statement just there that I said that we should increase taxes in Scotland. That is not what the letter says, and I hope that he is willing to put the matter right. Thank you. That is not a point of order, but it is a point that has been noted. We are now going to move on to questions on environment, climate change and land reform, and we will start with question number one from Kate Forbes. To ask the Scottish Government how it is assisting remote and rural communities with community land buy-outs. The Scottish Government has committed £10 million annually to the Scottish Land Fund, which supports communities to purchase land and assets. The fund can provide support to community bodies for preparatory work, such as undertaking feasibility studies and writing business plans, as well as making awards to help to fund land purchases. Since April 2016, the fund has supported 78 groups, and there is the potential for a further 25 projects to receive funding this year. I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer. Can she advise me on how completed and potential community buy-outs in Skyl, Lachaber and Bannoch, which includes Dingwell and the Black Isle, are helping to achieve the Scottish Government's target of 1 million acres of community ownership by 2020? The information is collated under council areas rather than parliamentary constituencies. In the course of the previous Scottish Land Fund, which ran from 2012 to 2016, nine groups within the Highland Council area received a total of £1.6 million. Last year, 16 groups within the Highland Council area received awards totaling almost £200,000. This year, up to the end of September, four groups in the area have received a total of £265,000. In total, those community buy-outs have contributed just over 4,000 acres towards the target. Can I add that I would encourage all communities to consider whether there are local community right to buy opportunities? I would also ask colleagues in the chamber to promote that as well and, crucially, not have communities wait till land is being marketed to put their applications in. Finlay Carson, what resources, financial or otherwise, can the Government offer Kirkmaiden community harbour trust in Galloway and West Dumfries to assist in them purchasing or transferring Dremor harbour from QLTR, which is the Queensland Lord Treasurer's Remembrance? In the specifics of transferring from Queensland Lord Treasurer's Remembrance, it may very well be that the arrangement falls under the community asset transfer rather than the community right to buy arrangement. That has slightly different rules and regulations around it, and it will depend entirely on what the agreement is with the transferring body. If the member wishes to write to me very specifically about that one, which does not sound like it falls under the normal community right to buy land fund proposals, I would be happy to look further into it for him. Many remote and rural communities aiming for community land buy-outs will also seek to use the water exemption scheme to help pay water and waste bills. Can the cabinet secretary confirm that it is her intention to continue with the scheme for the duration of this Parliament? Is that the minister's brief? That applies to the contrary. Again, I can double-check that, but I have seen no suggestion that anything other than that would be the case. To ask the Scottish Government what the impact could be on Scotland of reported proposals in the EU withdrawal bill to abandon the principles that the polluter pays and that preventative action should be taken to avert environmental damage? As I indicated when I spoke to the European Environmental Bureau on Monday morning, my ambition is to ensure that the principles of precaution, prevention and rectifying pollution at source, as well as the polluter pays principle, sit at the heart of Scotland's approach to environmental policy in the future, because without them we risk lagging behind and diverging from the ambitions of our European allies. I welcomed Mr Gove's acknowledgement last week that areas of environmental policy in Scotland have, and I quote, set the standard in the UK, unquote, and admitted that again I quote, there are things that both the Scottish and Welsh administrations have done that have been admirable and in advance of what has been done in England. So on Monday I pressed Mr Gove to ensure that once again the UK Government does follow Scotland's lead, clearly commits to the EU environmental principles and provides clarity on how the principles will continue to shape the UK Government's approach to future environmental policies and practices. Scottish Environment Link has warned that there is a risk that withdrawal from the EU will mean a rapid decrease in environmental standards. Even if EU legislations incorporated international law, there would be no legal recourse to the European Court of Justice to ensure their proper implementation. Does the cabinet secretary share my concerns that future environmental policy, imposed by a Westminster Tory Government, is likely to fall short of EU standards and to protect those high standards, power over environmental policy, should remain with this Scottish Parliament, as laid down in the Scotland Act 1997? I would always want powers to remain with this Scottish Parliament. Indeed, I would want considerably more powers to be coming to this Scottish Parliament. However, I share the member's concern. It is a key reason why I believe that the best way to protect our environmental ambition in Scotland is to ensure that the principles that I spoke about in the earlier question continue to be respected and the powers of the Scottish Parliament continue to be respected. That has to be our first priority. Devolution has been vital to Scotland's environment. As part of our preparations for the UK's exit from the EU, we are carefully considering whether any gaps could arise in existing domestic monitoring and enforcement powers that would need to be addressed to ensure that Scotland maintains high standards of environmental protection. I welcome the cabinet secretary's commitment to the important environmental principles that he has highlighted on Monday. My UK Labour colleague Kerry McCarthy MP has already in the summer submitted amendments that would ensure that the EU withdrawal bill would maintain the environmental principles. Is the cabinet secretary able to clarify whether the Scottish Government supports those amendments and does he urge all Scottish MPs to support Kerry McCarthy's amendments? I think that I need to be a little careful here, since I have not seen the detail of those amendments. I will undertake to ensure that I do, and I will get back to the member with a response to her. However, if they are in general terms along the lines that I have been speaking about this afternoon, I really do not see that there would be any difficulty. To ask the Scottish Government how it works with wildlife organisations to ensure that environmental protections are adhered to. The Scottish Government works with wildlife organisations in a number of different ways on a broad range of topics, and I meet regularly with their representatives. We do value their advice and the important work that they do. I thank the cabinet secretary for that reply. He attended the European Environmental Bureau conference the other day, and his comments about the emphasis Scotland places on environmental commitments and EU protections being instrumental for safeguarding were warmly welcomed. There is a proposal at coole links that would affect that. I appreciate that you cannot comment on a live application. However, and regardless of Brexit, if a site was subject to special scientific interest categorisation, special protection area in respects of the birds directive and a UNESCO Ramsar site, do you believe that it should continue to be respected and protected in full, please? I think that the member knows that I cannot be drawn into comments that may impact on what is currently a live application, and it would not be proper for me to do so. In general terms, the procedure for major developments is that prospective applicants are required to consult communities before any application is made. Anyone can comment, planning authorities have to take account of a full range of views, and it all is set within the context of Scotland's planning system, which does balance a variety of different interests to ensure that land use and development creates high-quality, sustainable places. In light of reports of damage to and interference with legal traps by activists and members of the public, has the cabinet secretary met the Scottish Gamekeepers Association to discuss the matter and seek a resolution to the problem, and if she has not met them yet, will she consider doing so? I meet the Scottish Gamekeepers Association both officially as an organisation and often individually with members of the SGA. Indeed, their concerns are one of the things that they raise with me. Their concerns are fairly well known, and all I would do is urge the Scottish Gamekeepers Association to keep bringing forward appropriate evidence. In cases where what looks like a legal interference has taken place is to take that evidence to the police. To ask the Scottish Government, in light of its strategy to tackle climate change, what action it is taking to reduce vehicle emissions. In the programme for government, we will increase our efforts to support electric vehicles, so that by 2032 we will have phased out the need to buy petrol or diesel cars and vans. We are also taking the lead by creating Scotland's first low-missions zone by 2018 and doubling the active travel budget with further measures outlined in the draft climate change plan. I thank the minister for that answer. The minister will be aware that Edinburgh Council is currently consulting on a diesel surcharge for parking permits, which could see up to 8,000 motorists being charged around £40 extra to park their cars. Does the minister agree that any such measures adopted across the country should be targeted at older cars that are worse for the environment rather than an indiscriminate charging scheme that fails to focus on the most polluting cars? Edinburgh City Council, whether it is the current administration or the previous administration, has a good record in tackling vehicle emissions. I will leave it for the local authority to come up with the design, the logistics of any scheme that will look to reduce vehicle emissions. Whether it is low-emissions zones or whether it is the scheme that is pronounced by Edinburgh City Council, we all have a shared objective in making our urban areas and, of course, our rural areas less reduction in carbon emissions. We have to give local authorities the autonomy to do that in the way that they see fit, but he makes a very valid point that it seems logical to tackle the worst emitters and worst polluters first. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to improve air quality in central Scotland. Clader Air for Scotland's first separate air quality strategy sets out a comprehensive range of local and national measures to improve air quality. Those measures include development of a national low-emission framework through which the 2017 programme for government has committed to introducing low-emissions zones in all local air quality management areas by 2023, where evidence supports such interventions. The Scottish Government also continues to provide practical and financial assistance to local authorities to support air quality monitoring and the development and implementation of action plans. Monica Lennon I thank the cabinet secretary for her reply. Last month, a Sunday herald investigation into the proliferation of super incinerators across Scotland brought concerns about pollution and public health into sharp focus. Dr Richard Dixon of Friend of the Earth Scotland has warned it, whilst the Scottish Government has found plans. I quote, "...these will come to not unless they stop this rush to incineration before it is too late." Despite cross-party and community campaigns, the Scottish Government has already allowed an appeal for one such incinerator in Hamilton, in the region that I represent. Can the cabinet secretary tell me how the Scottish Government policy on incineration is consistent with the Cleaner Air for Scotland strategy? Dr Richard Dixon Well, every decision that will be made in respect of individual applications will take all matters into consideration. Although I do not know the details of the particular one that Monica Lennon is discussing here, I would presume that to be the case. We have seen in Scotland significant reductions in pollution emissions over recent decades through tighter industrial regulation, which suggests that it is working, improved fuel quality, cleaner vehicles and an increased focus on sustainable transport. We have a good record, and we are meeting domestic and European air quality targets across much of Scotland, albeit that there might still be hot spots of poorer air quality in a number of urban areas. Tom Arthur To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with the UK Government regarding the impact that Brexit could have on climate change policy in Scotland. Scottish ministers have had no formal discussions with UK ministers to date on the impact of Brexit on climate change policy, nor have we seen UK Government reports or impact assessments in spite of repeated requests. In May 2017, I wrote to Nick Herd, the UK's former climate change minister, asking for formal involvement in negotiations on the UK's future participation in the EU emissions trading system, given how central that is to us meeting our climate change targets. We had no response to that letter. On 31 October, I wrote jointly with the Minister for UK Negotiations on Scotland's Place in Europe to Greg Clark, Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, to request immediate discussions on future EU ETS membership. Claire Perry, the Minister of State for Climate Change, has replied, offering a discussion. However, formal engagement on future participation in the scheme should involve all four administrations, and I made that point in my response. If the UK Government has an assessment of the impact of Brexit on climate change in the UK, including Scotland, it would be in the national interest to make it public immediately. It is vital that the UK Government provides clarity and certainty to people, businesses and communities in Scotland. Given that 64 per cent of the UK's imports and low-carbon equipment comes from the European Union, does the cabinet secretary share my concern? Should the UK leave the EU without a deal, the subsequent loss of free trade would make reducing carbon emissions more expensive, consequently making climate mitigation more difficult for Scotland and the UK as a whole? Walking away from the EU with no trade deal would be a disaster for the Scottish and UK economies. The renewable energy sector, which now supports 26,000 jobs in Scotland, with a turnover of £5 billion annually, has been a major driver of Scotland's economy in recent years. We will play an important role in helping us to deal with climate change in the future. The member is right that the sector relies on the EU for low-carbon equipment. That is why the negotiations to determine the future relationship with Europe will need to consider the important area of policy in detail, with a view to safeguarding Scotland's key interests and maintaining our place as a progressive leader on climate action. It really is not good enough that we have absolutely no answers and no information at this stage in the game to allow us to plan for the future. I thank you, cabinet secretary and members. That concludes portfolio questions.