 The next item of business is topical questions, and we start with question number one from Alasdair Allen. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the Prime Minister's reported position that the proposed Brexit deal ensures that the UK will be an independent coastal state with full control over its waters. The withdrawal agreement reached by the UK Government risks being very damaging to Scotland's seafood interests, with an explicit linkage of trade and access to UK waters in direct contradiction to what was promised by the UK Government in its very own white paper on fisheries. Because of the UK Government's actions, we will have no ability to take part in fisheries negotiations during the transition period and risk having access to Scottish waters and quota traded away by the UK Government on a permanent basis to secure a trade deal with the EU in the long term. Under the deal, Scottish seafood exporters to the EU also face the risk of significant and devastating new trade barriers. In relation to the salmon industry alone, it is estimated that an extra—I will say that again, because of the interruptions from my left—an extra 45,000 export health certificates will need to be issued per annum as a significant cost to both businesses and public authorities. Based on that, I cannot share the Prime Minister's reported view that the UK will be an independent coastal state with full control over its waters. However, I can conclude that, in the Prime Minister's eyes, Scottish seafood interests appear to be expendable. Alasdair Allan, I thank the minister for his reply. Given the concerning information in it, will he comment further that, given that Scotland is a net exporter of seafood, unlike the rest of the UK, and with the vast majority of the UK fisheries and aquaculture sector being Scottish, can the Scottish Government confirm what role it has had in negotiations when it comes to those vitally important sectors? The UK Government has not involved us in any way whatsoever in response to Dr Allan's point. That is despite the fact, Presiding Officer, that I have myself, the Scottish Government, has taken part in the negotiations in Brussels for the last two years. I can tell you that we have kept, unlike some of the members of the Conservative Party in their own cabinet, we have respected confidentiality in those negotiations. Despite that, we have, despite asking for being fully involved in the negotiations, we have played no part, we have not been able to provide a part, we have been prevented from taking part in those negotiations, which appear to have such a disappointing and, frankly, potentially damaging outcome. Alasdair Allan I thank the minister. Given what he has indicated about the actual withdrawal agreement and what we know now about the links to access to waters with access to trade of fish and seafood exports, will he also be aware of the value of fresh seafood such as langoustines, scallops and other species, some of which are caught and landed in and around the waters of my constituency? Can I ask the cabinet secretary to explain, in more detail, the sorts of issues that this industry faces if it loses tariff and barrier-free trade with the EU and how we might take steps to prevent disruption to this lucrative export trade? Michael Matheson In answer to the questions, the shellfish sector faces particular concerns. It faces the possible imposition of tariffs and non-tariff barriers. Shellfish, priced in Europe and throughout the world, because shellfish are perishable, a delay, even of a few hours, can be fatal and can render valueless fresh produce such as shellfish. The imposition of new export certification requirements in a market that Hither 2 has been a frictionless market is also of grave concern. What can we do to ameliorate it? Of course, our own preference is to remain in the EU, to remain in the single market and to remain in the customs union. That is what we can do to solve that threat of that particular problem. We have also, because we are always constructive, proposed an alternative scenario in Scotland's Our Place in Europe, which would see us continue to seek frictionless trade while coming out of the CFP. Peter Chapman Thank you, Presiding Officer. Quite frankly, everybody needs to calm down a bit here. Nothing has been traded away on fishing. No red lines have been crossed on fishing. The Prime Minister has been very clear that nothing will be traded away. Iain Macron would like French fisherman to continue fishing in our waters. Shock horror! He was always going to say that. We have never said that no EU boats will ever be able to fish in our waters again, but if they fish, it will be under our control and under our rules. Will the minister confirm that my understanding is correct that the SNP position on fishing is to rejoin the CFP at the earliest opportunity? John Swinney It is not correct, and I disagree with everything that Mr Chapman has just said. That is an answer to his question. I have never seen the Conservative Party so divided, as it is now, with the MP for Murray castigating the plan that Mr Chapman thinks is the bee's knees. However, Mr Chapman seems to be unaware of what has happened over the past couple of weeks, in which, to the UK Government said that fisheries and trade must not be linked. Now they are umbilically linked. If the EU does not get the deal that it wants, fish and aquaculture will find themselves out of the customs union and facing tariffs and non-tariff barriers. Moreover, following the agreement of the political declaration 25 November, the European Council released a statement in which it signalled its intention, and I quote from that statement, to demonstrate particular vigilance to protecting fishing enterprises and to seek to build on inter alia existing reciprocal assets and quota shares. That implies that the position taken by the European Council is to seek even more access to our waters than they do currently at the time. The fact that Mr Chapman refuses to recognise the existence of all that over the past couple of weeks is further proof positive of the total disarray that his party is in on this matter. Can I take the cabinet secretary back to the transition agreement, where UK access and quota to UK waters will be set by the EU in consultation, but they are not bound by any obligation to get consent from the UK? Given that he has relationships with colleagues in the EU, whether he has spoken to them or had any discussions with them about how they will exercise those powers in the interim period during transition and what safeguards he could offer to our fishing communities? My officials have regular negotiations and discussions with colleagues in order precisely to get the best possible deal year on year at the fisheries negotiations, which culminate in December. Most of the work is done prior to December with EU countries and Norway and the Faroes, as the member well knows. It is abundantly clear, however, that EU countries that have a fishing interest are determined to seek to protect their interests. That is abundantly clear to everybody except, apparently, the Tories. My job is to champion the interests of the fishing sector, including the farm fish sector and the aquaculture sector, which has been dragged into that at the last moment, with no discussion with the Scottish Government or, indeed, with the aquaculture sector. Of course, there is really only a Scottish aquaculture sector. As far as I am aware, there is no significant interest south of the border in aquaculture, so aquaculture has been thrown to the lions by the UK Government without so much as a buy-your-leave. However, we will seek to get the best possible outcome for Scottish fishermen, despite the complete shambles of the Brexit borough that is being perpetrated by the Conservatives. Patrick Harvie It should have been perfectly obvious all the way along that a link would be made between access to waters and access to markets. It is also equally clear that, if we want a sustainable approach to fisheries, a healthy marine environment, it cannot be done without international co-operation, so some form of common policy on fisheries is inevitable. Isn't it the case that this is simply one more example of the fundamental dishonesty of the leaf campaigners who try to pretend that we could return to some sort of isolationist approach on this issue and that neither Scottish nor British jingoism changes any of that? Patrick Harvie I do agree with very much of what Mr Harvie has said, not something that is necessarily daily occurrence, but he is right to say that the problems that have arisen are problems that are perfectly foreseeable. Indeed, I have asked, over the past two years, Mrs Leadsom, Mr Gove and Mr Eustace, to give an unequivocal assurance that they would not trade away permanent access to our waters in any part of a Brexit deal. They never provided that assurance, and it is now abundantly clear why. In reaching an agreement to agree on fishing, they have postponed that decision for purely political reasons, because they know fine well that they are not going to be able to deliver on the promises that were made in the leaf campaign. In short, the Brexit here is over-promised, and now they are ready to under-deliver. Alex Cole-Hamilton To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to reduce the incidence of neonatal abstinence syndrome. Cabinet Secretary, Jeane Freeman A new combined alcohol and drug strategy will focus on how services can adapt to meet the needs of those who are most in need, recognising that high-risk factors such as alcohol and drug use impact on health outcomes at birth, infancy and across the whole life course. In addition, our maternity services are being reshaped under the best start to ensure that all vulnerable women, including those with substance use issues, receive continuity of midwifery care from specialist midwives who will co-ordinate the team care for the women and her baby. Liberal Democrat freedom of information requests revealed the very sad statistic that 200 babies a year are born with that condition. That is a baby born every other day addicted to substances. It is the worst possible start in life, yet the draft strategy had nothing around neonatal abstinence syndrome. Will she confirm that the new strategy, which I believe will be published this week, will address that? Does she also accept that her Government's 23 per cent cut to alcohol and drug partnership services actually made this situation far worse? I am sure that Mr Cole-Hamilton knows that it would be inappropriate for me to comment on what is in the detail of what is in that drug strategy in advance of its publication. Tomorrow, what I can say is that it is a strategy that has quite rightly put that as a core health matter and a public health matter that is focused on the individual and not on any other issues. As I know from his meeting with Mr FitzPatrick in August, he took what I understand to be reassurance in terms of what would be included in that strategy, so I am sure that the points that he has made will have been taken account of. What I can say is clearly that the twin approach of that new combined alcohol and drug strategy and our work in reshaping maternity services recognise the importance of dealing with those issues in the manner that I have outlined. I should also make the point in terms of the mental health work that my colleague Ms Hockey is taking forward and was in our programme for government. The recognition of perinatal mental health, which is really important and connected to those matters, is central to that work as well. Alex Corthamoulton, I am grateful for that answer also. It is clear that being born addicted to drugs is one of the worst possible starts in life that one can experience. Yet still we do not routinely capture adverse childhood experiences as prescribed by Sir Harry Burns in his review of NHS targets. Can the cabinet secretary confirm when she will act on this recommendation, routinely capture ACEs so that we can direct support to those vulnerable children from the very beginning? I am grateful to Mr Cole-Hamilton for that further question. He is, of course, absolutely right that being born with this syndrome is indeed one of the worst starts in life. I should have said at the outset that I am grateful to him for raising this whole question at all in the manner in which he has done. He is right in terms of that recommendation from Sir Harry Burns. I am working with my colleagues now to identify exactly how we can take that forward and in what way. I am happy to commit to ensuring that Mr Cole-Hamilton is advised of that as soon as possible. Tom Arthur, to be followed by Brian Whittle. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Can the cabinet secretary set out how much the Scottish Government has invested over the past decade to tackle drug and alcohol issues on top of the financial commitments that were already made this year? Scottish Government has invested over £746 million to tackle problem alcohol and drug use since 2008. That includes £53.8 million allocated in this financial year. The majority of that funding has gone towards supporting local prevention, treatment and recovery services. In addition, we allocated a further £20 million this year and for each of the remaining years of this Parliament in order to improve the provision and quality of the services. To ask the Scottish Government what it is doing to ensure that adequate numbers of trained staff are available to help expectant mothers who recognise the dangers of alcohol during pregnancy. I am grateful to Mr Whittle for that answer, because it gives me the opportunity to remind him that, for the eighth year in a row, I recently announced a further increase in the number of student nurse and midwifery places in Scotland in order to ensure that we have the right staffing numbers in that regard. I am sure that he will recall our commitment to increase the number of health visitors and the training work that is under way in that regard. Health visitors are a very important resource in working with families and small children immediately after birth and on into those early years.