MaeMat напримерd yn fyw pryd reliwl adah wrth i ddych mechanism bob mas g cru contestants. Wedi ddechrau a siatру y bwysig ffordd, am symuve gwr即au i'r morysg y sometime feddw i, mewn ambluddegon mor hyn ynusteradau o'ta ni. Felly y gweld mauckau dda iawn yn eu cyflogiant na d еслиadau neu ynocchi'r Cyflogiant i ddefnydd gyna praktät치u'r Fyr Wirail. A fyddwch ar gyflogiant online mai dwa yn cwrw iawn i certholaeth ymlaen i sythau i cofndi obiwad ei ddim ond Zeitill. The harm to Scottish businesses and communities in relation to metal theft is well documented and indeed recognised in this chamber, with 417 metal-related crimes reported between April and July this year, equating to £600,000 repair bill. However, how are Police Scotland prioritising other environmental crime, such as illegal waste sites, illegal waste exports and fly-tipping, and how are they linking with key stakeholders such as SIPA? As a member will recognise, the decision on how the police prioritise those types of issues is an operational matter for the chief constable and for local commandals. He will be aware that we have taken forward new legislation in the last parliamentary session in order to tighten regulations in the law around matters relating to metal dealers and to ensure that there is a proper regime in place to minimise the risk of metal theft finding its way into scrap metal dealers in Scotland. Those measures are starting to come into force across the country at the present moment, just in September itself. The new requirement for any payments to be made through a bank account has come into force. With regard to other specific aspects, if the member has a concern about how the police are handling any particular issue in his region or constituency area, he is at liberty to discuss that matter with the local commander if he is concerned about the way in which they are prioritising those issues. However, in large, my experience with the police service in my constituency is that where there is a concern about an environmental matter, there is a concern about some type of issue, about illegal dumping, is that the partnership between the local authority and the police is absolutely essential in being able to deal with those issues effectively. Whether it be through the different means that the council has, through covert means as well, in order to try to catch those who are dumping items illegally, there is a range of measures that can be taken forward by the local authority working in partnership with the police. There are powers out there that can be utilised, but the way in which they are handled under a localised level that the member will recognise is an operational matter for the local commander. If he does have any specific issues about how that has been taken forward in his own particular region, he should discuss that matter with the local commander and he can explain that whole issue and discuss that issue in much greater depth. Claire Baker Last week, the courier newspaper reported a police whistleblower saying that morale among officers in Fife is dreadful and that the number of staff able to respond to incidents has been decimated. It also reported concerns that the force came close to not being able to pay salaries in recent months. The attitude to concerns raids so far has not been good enough. Does the cabinet secretary recognise those claims from serving officers, officers who are dedicated to the force but are working under increasingly difficult circumstances and how will the Government respond to the continuing concerns over the police budget? Michael Matheson Let me deal with the issue of salaries because the response from Police Scotland was very clear on the issue of salaries when it stated that it was untrue, which I think is pretty unequivocal in responding to that particular suggestion. The member may choose not to accept that or not, but that is the reality of what Police Scotland said and the Scottish Police Authority said that it is simply not true. That is pretty unequivocal. On the issue of morale, the member will be aware that Police Scotland conducted their first staff survey in order to establish a baseline of a whole range of issues that were matters of concern or how the service was responding to issues of concern that were raised by officers within the service and to look at how they could improve on that. What the Scottish Police Authority stated is that what it would then do is take forward an action plan in order to address the types of issues that have been raised as matters of concern or where it saw there was room for further improvement. Over the next two years, that is what the SPA, along with Police Scotland, is going to be taking forward. What it has also said that it will do is that it will undertake some dip sampling. During the course of the year, it will then sample a number of officers to see whether, in specific areas, the measures that they are taking are addressing the concerns and issues that are being raised by them and there is on-going work to try to address those issues. What I can give the member an assurance of is that I am not disputing that there will be officers who may not be happy with how things are going within the area in which they are operating at the present time. That would be the case in any big organisation of any nature, particularly in an organisation that has gone through a significant level of change, as has been the case with the Police Service in Scotland. I can give the member an assurance of the commitment that Police Scotland and the SPA have to try to address some of those issues as and when they are raised. The way in which they are doing that is through the exercise that they have had in asking for officers and their views on how the service is performing and looking at how they can address the issues that have been highlighted as part of that staff survey. Ben Macpherson, to ask the Scottish Government what impact Police Scotland's disclosure scheme for domestic abuse, or Clare's law, is having in tackling the scourge of domestic abuse. We had a very worthwhile debate here last week on the proposed new offence for domestic abuse in Scotland. As all members, I am sure, will be knighted in recognising that there is no place for domestic abuse in Scottish society. The Police Scotland disclosure scheme for domestic abuse is one of a number of interventions that are being taken forward in order to help to eradicate domestic abuse from our society. The disclosure scheme has been ruled out now right across Scotland. Since that has happened, there have been 926 applications during the period of 1 October 2015 until 1 September this year. From those 391 applications have resulted in information being provided to a person potentially at risk of abuse. There is no doubt in my mind, Presiding Officer, that this is a very valuable scheme in which Police Scotland is operating. The figures in themselves over the past year demonstrate the value that it has in helping to prevent the possibility of individuals being exposed to domestic violence. I know that Police Scotland is committed to continuing to respond to requests that they receive for access through the scheme, and they will consider every case on an individual basis. Liam McArthur Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. The cabinet secretary will be well aware of the reports last week that eight police stations in Dumfries and Galloway are in their threat of closure, with echoes of the earlier closure of countless police counters across Scotland. Police Scotland has said that moving Dumfries and Galloway is part of a wider look at resources across Scotland. What assurances can the cabinet secretary give this Parliament that local police stations across Scotland will not face similar threats of closure? The member may be aware, unless he is not, of the more detail that Police Scotland has given regarding those proposals. What they are doing is consulting and engaging with the local community on proposed changes to the use of those police stations in the Dumfries and Galloway area. There are a number of the stations in which they have at the present moment, which are either not fit for purpose or are too large for their use, that they are looking at forming partnerships with other public bodies, whether it be local authority, health partners, housing associations, to try to identify more suitable solutions in order to continue to deliver some form of service in those particular areas. There are a number of those stations that do not presently have counter-services and have not had for some time in the first place. I recognise that it is a slight distance from his constituency in Dumfries and Galloway. What he is intending to do is to consult with the local community on proposed changes of use to those particular facilities. That could, as has happened in my constituency, where a particular police station that did not have a counter-facility that was of limited use to the police closed but moved the police service into beside the housing department within the local community. It is now providing a much better service. It now has a counter service that is delivered locally. It has actually enhanced the delivery of the service, although technically there is no longer a police station in the place where it actually was. There are a number of ways in which we can enhance the way in which the police are engaging with other public bodies within our local areas, working in partnership closely together. That can involve sharing premises, and part of the work that they are doing in Dumfries and Galloway is exploring those matters and engaging them. I have no doubt that those members who represent that area, who is here today, will seek to be involved in that process. The decisions on those matters will be taken by the local commander, so the decision on what action is taken will be a matter for the local commander within that local area following that consultation in that engagement process. I would have hoped that, given that the member has over the last couple of years called for more local decision making in those matters, we would welcome that type of approach to ensure that it is not being taken at a central level within the organisation or by the Scottish Police Authority itself, but it has been taken by local commanders following engagement with the local community. When he last met Police Scotland, did he discuss the historic undercover policing scandal? Will the Cabinet Secretary now instruct a Scottish inquiry into the whole issue of undercover policing in Scotland? Representatives from all parties in this Parliament support that call, does he? As I have said, I always discuss a range of different issues when I meet with repsenders from Police Scotland. I am well aware of the member's repeated call for the pitch for the inquiry to also apply here in Scotland. I share his disappointment that the UK Government's refusal to do so was the most effective and most reasonable way in which to deal with the concerns relating to the activities of undercover units from the Metropolitan Police Service in London. What I will now do is consider what response we will make to that here in Scotland, and I will set that out in due course. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to detect, prevent and prosecute dogfighting offences. The Scottish Government supports the vital role of the Scottish Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the Police in dealing with organised dogfighting. Scottish ministers have granted authorised inspectors from the SSPCA with the same powers as local authority inspectors in relation to animal welfare offences under the Animal Health and Welfare Scotland Act 2006. Those powers differ only from those of police constables in relation to the arrest of an offender. Dogfighting is a largely clandestine activity and detection by enforcement bodies is greatly dependent upon information supplied by concerned members of the public. The prosecution of all offences reported to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service is a matter for that agency. Can I thank the minister for that response? It is quite clear that we need to redouble efforts in Scotland. The SSPCA reported to us that, for example, the police have only successfully prosecuted one individual for dogfighting since 1991. We know that there is a particular link in Scotland to the activities of criminal gangs. Would the Scottish Government consider setting up a task force on animal fighting, to share information, track those who have been convicted of animal abuse in the past and help to bring more cases to conviction? I have listened to what the member has said. I mentioned in my first response that detection of such a highly secretive crime is largely dependent upon people coming forward. We would always encourage people with relevant information to make that known to the police and the SSPCA. In fact, in the period 2013 to 2016, there was only one case involving dogfighting dogs reported to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service that, I understand, led to successful prosecution and a conviction was forthcoming. I think that we may wait sentencing at this stage. Obviously, that is a matter for the independent judiciary. However, if the member wishes to bring to us further information of relevance, we will be very happy to look at it. To ask the minister if she will join with me in welcoming the presence of the Dogs Trust today in Parliament and set out what action the Scottish Government is taking to tackle illegal dog breeding. The minister will respond very briefly about fighting the dog breeding. I welcome all groups who come to the Parliament to seek to communicate with MSPs and I welcome the Dogs Trust in that respect. I will be meeting with my capacity as an individual MSP with the Dogs Trust during the course of the week. Obviously, I will listen to anything that they have to say on the subject that the member raised. Question 3, Maurice Corry. To ask the Scottish Government how it will fill the reported £21 million cash shortfall faced by Police Scotland. The Scottish Government is in regular contact with the Scottish Police Authority, which is taking steps to manage the in-year financial position. Thank you minister for your reply to my first question. Recently, a statement by Whistleblur from Within Police Scotland was published by the Scottish Police Federation, which said that police officers, and I quote, are being told not to be proactive and investigate drug dealers because they could cause overtime. Can the minister tell me why police officers are being stopped from incurring overtime in their fight against drug dealers? As a member may be aware, Police Scotland responded to that matter and said that there is no ban on overtime. Christine Grahame I would advise Mr Corry that, so far, the UK has kept £72 million in vat levied on Police Scotland. The only police force in the whole of the UK to have that levied. Given that the UK has now granted vat exemption to academy schools, which previously paid it, that does not seem to me to be perverse but to be punitive. The member raises a reasonable point, although he raises some murmuring from our colleagues on the Conservative benches, because it seems to be that when it comes to allowing the recovery of vat, there are double standards in the way in which her manage his treasury in London operate. He chose to change the law, the vat law, to allow academy schools that are centrally funded by the UK Government to be able to recover vat, but he has chosen not to for Police Scotland, which means that we have the only force in the UK that is unable to recover vat. Since Police Scotland has been established, that has caused the Scottish taxpayer £76.5 million, and almost between £25 and £30 million per year. In addition to that, there is also an extra £10 million, which is afforded to the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. It is perfectly reasonable that Police Scotland should be treated in an equal footing with other police services in the UK, including national forces such as the PSNI, and as a centrally funded organisation in the same way that academy schools are, and that her manage his treasury should recognise. That discriminatory approach against Police Scotland is simply unacceptable. Maybe the members on that side will stand up for Police Scotland, rather than just doing the bidding work of their colleagues at Westminster. Colin Smyth Will the justice secretary accept that the cost-cutting proposals from Police Scotland to close eight police stations in Dumfries and Galloway on the back of the closure of the police control room, the scrapping of traffic wardens, the closure of public counters and numerous police stations, the cut in opening hours and the massive cull in civilian staff posts will be a further erosion of services to the people of Dumfries and Galloway? Will he acknowledge that there are peripheral, largely rural regions in areas such as the south of Scotland that lose out most as a result of the Government's obsession with centralising police services? I mentioned to the member who asked a question earlier on about Dumfries and Galloway. The decision on any changes to the use of police stations in that particular area will be a matter for the local commander. This is a consultation exercise that is undertaken with the local community and local stakeholders, including the member, if he wishes, to participate in that process. It will take place over the next three to four months. It is an opportunity for the police service to look at where there are better ways in which they can use their resources. For example, when it is looking at inshared services with other parts of the public sector in order to bring them closer together to make sure that they have stronger partnerships, that is one of the options that the members wish to look at. It is an opportunity to look at shaping the service to make sure that it is able to meet local demands within the Dumfries and Galloway community. I am sure that the member will welcome the fact that decisions in this matter, with the oversight of the Scottish Police Authority, will be made by a local commander. A criticism that was made in the past about changes where local commanders were not able to make those decisions was often voiced in this Parliament. This time round, Police Scotland is doing exactly that, with oversight from the Scottish Police Authority. I would have thought that the member would welcome that type of local approach. Question 4, Edward Mountain. To ask the Scottish Government whether it considers the proposed location of the new Highland prison is the most appropriate site. Cabinet Secretary. On 27 June 2016, the Scottish Prison Service announced that they were pausing the planning consultation process on the proposed site at Milton of Lees to ascertain if a viable alternative option for the location of the replacement of HMP Inverness was available elsewhere. Following discussions with the owner of the Milton of Lees site, a proposed alternative site was brought forward, which had not been previously available as a potential prison site. A full assessment is currently being undertaken and we anticipate an outcome within the next three or four months. Edward Mountain. May I firstly welcome all the work that is being done by the Governor and her team at Portfield Prison at the moment, making use of very limited and outdated facilities. Turning back to the situation, there were 12 sites originally proposed. The consultants who looked at this used a traffic light system. Seven were as classed as red, and for those that do not understand that, that is a no-go. Four as amber, which had potential but were not perfect, and one was green. Despite having made three requests to meet with the chief executive of SPS, who originally said that he would meet me and then has subsequently refused twice, why was a red site selected originally and the only green site that was considered after a local outcry on the decision that had been made? I think that the member should recognise that the Scottish Prison Service has chosen to pause the original approach that they were intending to take in the Inverness area and are presently exploring options with a site that previously was not available to them as a possible site for building a new establishment within the Inverness city area. I am sure that the member would recognise that I do not know whether he was in the recent visit to HMP Inverness to have a look at the existing conditions and would recognise that they are conditions that are unacceptable, both for staff and for prisoners, and required to be replaced. That is why we are determined to make sure that there is a new prison within the Inverness city area in order to service the Highlands and Islands. Once the assessment process has been completed on the new site that has come along as an option, we will then be in a position where we can make a final decision on what is an appropriate choice for the replacement of the existing establishment in Inverness. I apologise to members that I could not take any more supplementaries or make further progress there. We move on to culture, tourism and external affairs questions, question number one, Claire Adamson. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its participation in the Brexit negotiations. At this point, formal negotiations between the Scottish Government and the UK Government concerning Scotland's space in Europe have not yet commenced. The Prime Minister has undertaken that the Scottish Government will be fully involved in preparations for the forthcoming negotiations with the EU. Scottish Government officials have been in talks with the UK Government to establish how this commitment can be delivered in practice. To that end, I met the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union on Thursday last week for an initial discussion. Progress in establishing a formal mechanism for Scotland's proper involvement has been slow, but we hope to inform Parliament about an agreed format shortly. Of course, I will undertake to regularly update members as negotiations begin, in line with the Government's commitment to report regularly to Parliament and to its European and External Relations Committee. Can I thank the minister for his response and welcome him to his post? During the Scottish independence referendum campaign, David Cameron said, We are a family. The United Kingdom is not one nation. We are four nations in a single country. Does the minister agree that, as Scotland voted to remain within the family of European nations, that that position is legitimate and should be respected during the Brexit negotiations? I very much agree with that. Before the referendum, the Scottish Government had consistently argued for a quadruple lock for the EU referendum bill. In order to make sure that the will of all the nations of these islands was reflected, the UK Government ignored that request and has now put the people of Scotland and Northern Ireland, as well as the people of London and Gibraltar, into a position to be possibly taken out of the EU against their democratic will. The First Minister's previously outlined that it is imperative that the democratic will of the Scottish people is reflected in its future relationship with Europe. The Scottish Government will consider all options, as the chamber asked it to, to respect the vote of the Scottish people to remain part of the European Union. To that end, we will hold the UK Government to its promise. Will the Scottish Government be given a meaningful role in the UK Government negotiations with the EU in order to reflect our specific and devolved interests? The minister said that, in his meeting with the Secretary of State, progress was slow, but did he discern from that in the agreement that he hopes to reach when thereafter there might be a commencement of discussions in which the Scottish Government would participate? Will he confirm that it is the Scottish Government's intention to make every possible success of those discussions on behalf of Scotland and not to seek in any cherlish way to scupper them in an attempt to try to justify a second independence referendum? Mr Carlawd displays his obsession with independence again. I would advise the Tories to really try and get over it and to treat it in the same way as those benches are treating it, which is in a positive and engaged way. I am more than willing to say that I enter into any possible discussions wholeheartedly and with a commitment to make them succeed. I would hope that I would hear the same from the UK Government, because the UK Government will have to respect the devolved competencies that exist, the interests that exist in Scotland and the need for Scotland to be in the words of the Prime Minister fully involved and fully engaged. I will make the commitment. I expect to see it from the UK too. To ask the Scottish Government what engagement it is having with the cultural sector regarding the impact of Brexit on the arts. The Scottish Government is discussing Brexit with Scotland's key cultural bodies and engaging with sexual initiatives. I have asked the cultural and historical environment bodies, sponsored and funded by the Scottish Government, to assess the range of potential impacts in particular to be sensitive to the impact on their own employees who come from other EU member states. Freedom of movement is of key importance for the cultural sector in particular. Creative Scotland has conducted a survey open to the cultural sector seeking information on potential impacts and have submitted the results of that survey to the European External Relations Committee's call for evidence. Joan McAlpine I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer. Is the cabinet secretary aware of concerns outlined by the group culture counts that raise concerns that cultural organisations elsewhere in the EU may be reluctant to partner UK and Scottish cultural organisations in funding applications? Yes, I am. As of deep concern, clearly we haven't even started Brexit, we're examining the processes and we don't even know the form that Brexit will take. Currently there are 21 organisations involved in creative Europe projects worth £8.2 million. It's very important to remember that until the UK leaves, it's still within the EU and it's really important that those networks and relationships can continue. You can measure exports and imports. One of the areas of concern, however, is how you measure lost opportunities because of concerns about relationships. Lewis MacDonald Thank you very much. The cabinet secretary will also be aware of the importance to Scottish arts and culture of the audiovisual media services directive, which provides shared regulation not just among European Union countries but other member states of the European economic area that are out with the EU. Can she tell us whether the Scottish Government is engaging currently with the arts and cultural sector in order to identify how those advantages can be protected, particularly given that that directive is currently in the process of review? I have already spoken to the Creative Industries Federation and, precisely at that point, I have attended and led for the UK previously discussions on the digital single market and the audiovisual regulations. Clearly, the relationship will change because the UK will not be part of those discussions. Therefore, the issue will be what are the opportunities for Scotland. More importantly, the fact that the UK and Zeed Scotland would have been chief beneficiaries of such a move to the digital single market, the impact of that is not just currently of what is lost now but what might be lost in the future. John Lamont To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with Visit Northumberland, Visit Cumbria and local authorities regarding promoting cross-border tourism. There is a clear mutual interest for cross-border collaboration, as well as the long-standing informal linkages between Visit Scotland and relevant tourism bodies in the north of England. The Scottish Government understands that Carlyle, City Council, Cumbria, County Council and Northumbria, County Council, Dumfriesen Galway Council and Scottish Boarders Council continue to work together to develop cross-border tourism as they build on the Borderlands initiative. I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer. I am pleased that she made mention to the Borderlands initiative. One of the strands of the initiative is to build and promote the Borderlands as a tourist destination. After encouraging start, there is a feeling amongst some stakeholders that progress has stalled. To date, no strategy or development plan has been published. I acknowledge that to move that forward requires the co-operation of both the UK and Scottish Governments as well as local councils, and the Scotland office has confirmed with me that they share my desire to move that initiative forward. Does the cabinet secretary agree with me that the Scottish Boarders has a lot to offer as a tourist destination? Will she pledge to do more to promote cross-border co-operation and tourism? With my new responsibilities for tourism, I will take a close interest in both the borders and the south of Scotland in terms of tourism. I am also due to meet with the other tourism ministers from across the UK, and I will ensure that that is an item that we can perhaps discuss at that meeting with their agreement. 4. Mike Rumbles To ask the Scottish Government whether the Standing Council on Europe plans to publish a report on Scotland's relationship with the EU and, if so, when. Presiding Officer, the Standing Council of Europe, which has now met in plenary on two occasions, is providing on-going advice to the First Minister and other ministers. The Scottish Government is determined to protect our place in Europe and will explore all options to do so. The Standing Council is therefore undertaking work on the options available to Scotland for our future relationship with the EU. Whilst that work is informing a negotiating position, and so elements are obviously confidential, I am committed to sharing as much of that publicly as early as I can. The Standing Council is also engaging widely with a range of individuals and organisations to further develop our understanding of the detail of our relationship with the EU in a range of fields. Through this process, information is being shared and views are gathered as openly as possible across a range of topics—the environment, human rights, higher and further education, only being examples. 5. Mike Rumbles I commend the Government for its forward thinking in setting this up, especially looking at options. However, in committee this morning, I asked the Cabinet Secretary for the Rural Economy if he had set up a team of civil servants to design options for our Scottish system of farm payments for post-2020 after we have left to the EU, because that has entirely devolved. From his response, it turns out that he has done absolutely no forward thinking on this subject whatsoever. Will the minister encourage Fergus Ewing to put his thinking cap on? I would encourage everybody to put their thinking cap on, because to see a thinking cap on the Liberal Democrats if that is not something that baffles one. I would like to see a thinking cap on the ministers in the UK Government, but it is important that we all consider the range of options. I have to say that I found Fergus Ewing to be very forward thinking in these matters. The first event that I attended that organised for stakeholders was one that he has attended. He has another event this week, I think, in Moffat on Friday on the forestry sector. He is talking to the sectors, he is looking at the potential that those sectors have. He is trying to come to some conclusions. It will not all be done in an afternoon, even if the Lib Dems think that it can be. At the Standing Council, I recently considered the impact of Brexit on human rights and social protections. Does the cabinet minister agree that, as legislation in those areas is reserved, there is a very real risk that advances made in those areas could be threatened? That is a very important point, and I agree with the member. There is a risk that the social protections that we currently take for granted could be impacted by an exit from the EU. The work undertaken by the members of the Standing Council has highlighted the extent to which an exit from the EU could create a gap between the current protections that are enjoyed across a range of areas, including employment law and human rights, and any future policy making in those areas outwith the framework of the EU. The Standing Council will be undertaking further analysis, engaging widely to ensure that Scotland's interests are protected in future relations, and to ensure that there is no regression from the current range of protections enjoyed by all citizens, as well as making sure that we continue to move forward, as there is a European dynamic both in social protection and in human rights. The Standing Council benefits greatly from the input of Professor Alan Miller, who is, of course, a UN envoy on human rights. To ask the Scottish Government what plans it has to develop tourism facilities on the north coast 500 tourist route. The Scottish Government is a member of a multi-partner group, recently established by the Hamilton Islands Enterprise, to lead on the strategic delivery of the opportunities offered by the north coast 500. The main objective of the group, which includes the Highland Council, and the north coast 500 among its membership, is to ensure that economic benefits are spread across the north highlands. The Scottish Government is also a key partner in the tourist redevelopment of Inverness Castle, which acts as the start and finish point of the route, and which will, when finished, encourage tourism throughout the highlands. The cabinet secretary will be aware that the route has succeeded way beyond expectations and that has impacted on infrastructure. Will the Scottish Government help Highland Council fund essential maintenance and upgrades along the route to ensure that it is as safe as possible, given that a lot of the route is still single track road? Will she also work with HIE to ensure that there is sufficient accommodation, something that is lacking in some of the smaller villages, along the route to help cater for the increased visitor numbers? The success is a good thing to have, and I would like to congratulate everybody involved. That brings with it challenges. Some of it is about promotion, some of it is about facilities and, clearly, in relation to the transport issues that she has raised, I will bring them to the attention of the transport minister. To ask the Scottish Government what recent assessment is made of the impact of Brexit on Scotland's tourism industry. Cabinet secretary. We still do not know what form of Brexit the UK Government seeks to pursue, and so therefore any impact assessment at this stage is speculative. However, we continue to engage with the tourism sector to listen to its concerns, both for what this may mean for EU visitors to Scotland and the many EU citizens employed in the sector. Nearly 17 per cent of the total sustainable tourism workforce. I have discussed those issues with industry bodies, including the Scottish Tourism Alliance and the British Hospitality Association. More recently, I met EU citizens at Deanston distillery, who work in tourism. Monica Lennon. I thank the cabinet secretary for her reply. Scottish Labour would use the powers of the Scottish Parliament to give local authorities the ability to introduce a tourism tax locally should they wish to. Does the cabinet secretary agree that the devolution of power to local authorities, which would allow them to raise revenue from untapped streams, would be a welcome boost to Scotland's tourism industry following the Brexit vote? I was working out what the connection to the Brexit vote was in that question. It has been raised a number of times by a number of Monica Lennon's colleagues and previous colleagues. It is something that I know that some local authorities are keen on. I know that it is something that the Labour Party is keen on. There are issues, however. We are the highest taxed tourism country in the second highest in the whole of the EU, so one of the issues about putting additional burdens on to the tourism sector is problematic. It is possible now that you do not need Brexit for the UK Government to reduce fat on tourism. If they reduce fat on tourism, it may allow more flexibility, but at this point we have very serious concerns about the level of taxation on the tourism sector. Cabinet secretary, last year Scotland's first ever marine tourism strategy was published, and there is a heavy emphasis placed upon increasing international tourists through sail. What would the implications be for Scotland's marine as if visa controls were instated for current EU sailors and tourists arriving in Scotland? Clearly, this is one of the unknown and uncertainties of Brexit, but the suggestion of visa controls for visitors and those such as sailors who support the marine tourism industry is a serious concern indeed. Those are the practical issues that we are engaged with in identifying what the implications are and trying to persuade the UK Government to get into a position that is the least worst in relation to Brexit. Question 7, John Finnie. To ask the Scottish Government for what reason the Maeshow care net ornate UNESCO world heritage site has been closed without consultation. The Scottish Government is very concerned about the closure of Maeshow. I have expressed my concerns to the chair of Historic Environment Scotland, along with our support for an early resolution to mitigate the health and safety concerns for staff and visitors identified following a new assessment in August triggered by their own decision to put on temporary hold the proposed infrastructure project. The care and management of Maeshow is delegated by Scottish ministers to Historic Environment Scotland, and they are also responsible under health and safety legislation for taking whatever steps are necessary to manage the safety of visitors and staff and properties that they manage. Of course, that was a point that was very forcefully made to me that the Scottish Government should not interfere with direct operational decisions, but I understand that there are in urgent discussions with Orkney Islands Council about an early resolution. That is reassuring to the cabinet secretary's words. The cabinet secretary will be aware that it is number four on the HHS visitor list. She may well be aware that locals have suggested a range indeed for alternative methods that could keep the site open. I have had a number of representations and people are very concerned, not least because not only is UNESCO heritage, but of course it is a significant part of the island's heritage, not least with the winter solstice coming up. I am glad that there has been that dialogue. I ask that once again you go back and encourage a situation that will ensure that educational visits can continue to visit that site. There are alternatives, but it just needs the will of Historic Environment Scotland to do it, and your assistance would be appreciated. Historic Environment Scotland has been looking at this at some time. It is not just four options, but five options were looked at previously. It clearly involves discussion not just with Historic Environment Scotland but others, including the council. Anybody who has visited the site will know the speeds at which those cars are travelling on the neighbouring road. There have been 12 incidences since March, so I understand the seriousness of that, but we are working very constructively on that. Liam McArthur Thank you very much. I welcome the comments that the cabinet secretary has made. Does she believe that the decision to announce this closure without any prior consultation is damaged by the HES's reputation for partnership working? While efforts are on-going between the council and the HES to reach a resolution, will she ask that the proposed closure of the 25th of this month is suspended pending the outcome of those further discussions? Cabinet Secretary Clearly, a health and safety assessment was made in August and there was some time given to try and see what resolution could be done and mitigation, but I cannot interfere with their operational issues, particularly in relation to health and safety. I do think that we need to get resolution and constructive ideas about how we resolve it. It is a fantastic site. It is important that we celebrate it and we have access both for educational and visitors. I will be doing everything that I can in terms of encouraging both Orkney Islands Council and Historic Environment Scotland to seek resolution. Can I thank members and ministers? We will now move on to the next item of business, which is a debate on motion number 1554 in the name of Donald Cameron on NHS Scotland staffing crisis. I would invite all members who wish to speak in this debate to press their request to speak buttons.


I'd like to welcome these four speakers to our panel and also introduce two more panel members. Gabrielle Wong Parody is an assistant professor in the Department of Earth Systems Science and a Centra Fellow at the Woods Institute for Environment at Stanford University. Shafiq Jaffer is the vice president of Corporate Science and Technology projects in North America for Total. This morning's panel will be moderated by Arun Majumdar, a faculty member in the departments of both mechanical engineering and material science and engineering and the co-director of the Precourt Institute for Energy. So the plan is for Arun to start with a few questions for the panel and then we'll take some questions for the audience. So over to you Arun. First of all, it's been a fascinating three days of discussions and I missed the first part of the first day because of another event but I listened to the rest and just putting today's in the context of the previous two days and we heard in day one sort of the the scale of the problem and I'm going to summarize it very very briefly the scale of the problem and the opportunity that is there to make a difference or sometimes the lack of it and so Sally talked about the magnitude of the energy and the emissions related to that and we heard on land-based as well as on sea ocean-based what the capacity is and what the opportunities are. On day two we talked about and we listened to some of the how complex the system is on a macro view and you know there are lots of opportunities in using soil as a sink for carbon but there are lots of complexities in understanding and extrapolating things and over predicting and over promising and today and the previous two days were sort of macro views and today we heard sort of the bottom-up technological revolution that is happening in biotechnology with from Don and Joe and the opportunities that may be there and we like to see the connections between the two but we also heard from Larry sort of the what are the economic tools we have to to really accelerate that on carbon tax and the impact and the various implications of that and from Gretchen we heard sort of a new paradigm of valuing things that we normally don't do and it has been adopted by Costa Rica but you know could it could be used elsewhere in China and many other places of the world so that is sort of where we are today and we heard elements of the human interaction the social interaction and Gabriel this is your field of research on behavioral science and decision making so what do you make of all of this and how would you look at this bring that perspective into this very significant challenge thank you for the question I think that when we're thinking about any of these options or any of these types of projects it's really important and what the evidence has suggested that communities and various stakeholders are brought into the conversation early and often so that they feel like full participants it's not only good because of this kind of notion of democratizing science but it's also good because those projects tend to go better and when there are events where sometimes things go wrong there's already the kind of that mesh that kind of social infrastructure that's there that could be built upon so that these different options or these different types of projects can go forward and be more successful perfect so let me move on to Shafiq and in a Shafiq you have been listening to all of this discussion and you've been asking questions and we want to at some point in a coalesce all of this information into and extract out the research problems that we need to be addressing so your viewpoint on listening to the three days and how to extract and what do you take away from this well I think the key challenge that I see coming out of this is that the systems level view is critical I mean it's a very complex set of interactions we heard about a lot of the unintended a lot of the extra benefits and how do we start quantifying that I think is a big part of what is needed I think the points raised by Gretchen today I think really show kind of the complexity in trying to bring a value to something that doesn't have a dollars and cents to it how do you put that in light in front of policy makers in terms of industry leaders that here's the value perhaps that is not a direct economic number so I think this kind of systems level kind of interactions has to be much better understood where those interfaces are where the complexity lies where the uncertainties lies and I think we got a little bit of that through the day two discussions quite well on the soils and things like that where the soil water plant water interfaces coastal ecosystems things like how do you start valuing kind of the efficiencies gained in terms of the yield in crops and that that really changed the perception of how land use has to change right can you minimize land disturbances and land changes in terms of reuse and that so I think this kind of systems level is what I took away today as kind of the primary number one thing we got to really kind of put a framework around and I think we're getting close from what I see of Gretchen and some of the other discussions we've seen but I think there's a little bit more nuance that has to be brought into this so let me then flip back to Gabriel then now just looking at this the the land use issue and clearly there are social cultural aspects of decision making in terms of land use but how land is used in for example India is very different from land use could be in China so how do you bring that aspect to of land use and and social cultural aspects of behavior and and introduce that in the carbon management carbon removal problem yeah I think that's a huge challenge and so just thinking about some of the work that I've done on the Navajo Nation and this critique that's been kind of been levied in terms of the development on the nation where decisions were made from a techno economic perspective and not really taking culture into account so how do you identify what the cultural impacts or the land use impacts are going to be and and so in that particular case we ended up developing a decision support tool for the Navajo Nation that elicited those those things that that citizens cared about and integrated it in a more formal fashion a more formal matter into the modeling that's done that helps to inform where projects are cited how they're cited what the process is like and so I think kind of elevating that and and thinking through how to make some of those intangibles more tangible is really critical in terms of research that needs to be done so there is there is hope there is yes it can be done I think it can be done it just takes time and it takes an acknowledgement that it's necessary in order to have these projects move forward in an ethical way in a way that's that's more successful great let me now flip back to and bring the other panelists who've already spoken and I want to put the first two talks of Don and Joe in the context of what was presented early in the last two days I think we have seen the the Griscombe paper chart many times in terms of natural climate mitigation potential and so that of course takes a macro view of things and clearly one of the the cheapest and the in terms of scale the avoided forest conversion is a big deal and I think we we kind of realize that there are lots of co-benefits of that as as Gretchen pointed out in the bars that that are there in the left hand side of the picture so when I look at the macro picture of that and clearly when Joe and Don when you talked about the tools that we have the scientific understanding of affecting photosynthesis and using biotechnology and if you can use increase the food productivity then we can make a dent in the avoided forest conversion so that I can see one connection potential connection up there help us understand from the bottom up view of things of using the scientific understanding and the technological tools how that could be integrated into this macro picture of climate mitigation potential what are the other levers that are there from the bottom up tool based things of understanding to affect the other mac massive climate potential and mitigation potential what are you what are your thoughts on that well I guess I could I could go first I mean certainly there are people thinking about can we direct more of the biomass that we enjoy for more protective productive crops um in a way that is more stable and so um there is work going on in terms of generating deeper root rooted plants generating plants that have a large amount of of super in which is stable in the soil underground um and you know and so then there are estimates you know tied to that and um as you know I think as David LaBelle was saying they tend to be optimistic and so the less you know the more optimistic you're allowed to be and so I think the proof of concept of how important that potential technological solution of putting more of the extra biomass below ground um you know really isn't known at this point I think the other truism as well is that um if we are to believe that we do need 70 to 100 increase in overall food production over the next three or four decades then any biomass that we put below ground um is going to represent a yield drag and you know be difficult in the context of fulfilling this other goal Joe you started you created the roots program at RPE and you ran it you had a vision for this you have any thoughts on that so building on what Don was saying I think one of the challenges we have is and actually when we had workshops talking about carbon sequestration using crops um it was to say it was a heated conversation would be an understatement um you had one camp said that basically we couldn't do this that basically you would reduce productivity and you had another camp that said we've never had the appropriate genetics to actually even even test the hypothesis so there is a lot of historical thinking that actually is not necessarily tied to empirical results going forward and a big part of that is not having the tools to actually allow us to actually be able to measure some of those end points so what we've actually seen in the last several years through programs like Roots and others is we're now actually creating the tools that actually now allow the biologists to actually test those hypotheses um there's a robust field of opportunity for us to be able to discover and and breed traits that exist in natural populations the challenge that we've had in many respects is our ability to actually measure the genetic impact real time and both within the plant as well as from a carbon perspective with within the soil so I'm fairly optimistic that those tools now are starting to um evolve to the point where they can actually help us settle some of those debates on can we or can't we partition carbon effectively and at the same time not jeopardize yield Joe let me follow up with you and I'm hoping that there will be some questions and if someone could help me with that from the audience we can queue them up you know we heard also yesterday a reference to the idea that you know using technologies like impossible food or beyond meat there's a lot more going on and you're part of the Gates Foundation and you know what's going on in that that realm you know breakthrough energy is is investing in that can you talk about a that whole change that is happening and what the potential impact on carbon could be and what are the unintended consequences potentially of that when we talk about food net I mean today we've spent most of our time on the production side from an agricultural perspective but the food value chain as everyone know everyone knows is a very complex ecosystem that goes from seeds and traits all the way up through to consumer behavior and as we look across that entire food value chain there are multiple opportunities for us to actually affect change one of the comments I think it was I'm not sure whether it was Monday or Tuesday where we talked about just the amount of food actually gets diverted into protein production that's actually a social opportunity but it's also a production opportunity in the context of how can we actually lower that particular impact the sheer magnitude of the fact that 30 percent of our food is actually waste how do we actually harness that particular component when you look at the entire food supply chain the total greenhouse gas impact is between 20 and 30 percent now we actually have those are those are large enough targets for us to actually think about what innovations we could be occurring not just on the farm but also as we think about transportation refrigeration and ultimately food waste let me take that and go over to Gretchen Gretchen you're on my left of my screen out here and both you and Larry on the left of the screen so if I take that line of you know we talked about food and agriculture other biotech tools increasing photosynthetic efficiency using biotechnology and you know if you're seeing a paradigm shift in terms of impossible foods and others have have have you looked at that in your your global ecosystem of productivity or in other framework to evaluating the impacts of agriculture or changes in food habits into the ecosystem understanding this is a great conversation and yeah you're teeing up a frontier basically we've certainly looked at it in China there's been a lot of concern over an ability to maintain domestic food production especially with questions about international trade and concern over zoning a lot of the rural parts of the country the so-called western China for provision of this much broader array of benefits inclusive of food but often in place of food in place of growing say dryland rice or corn on a very steep slope that for societal purposes in a collectivistic framework would be better purpose towards flood control you know there is a pretty dramatic shift underway and China has the highest absolute reforestation rate in the world and that forest and some natural grassland is coming in in ag lands so it's a a key place where this kind of analysis comes to the fore and they are you know it the trade-off has made sense at different levels and it's been a very very high priority of the government I think there are probably thousands of papers there are hundreds in English written just about that trade-off there so it's it's crucial and I want to drive home a point that Gabrielle is making in this interplay that talking with people and developing a participatory approach as opposed to what's also obviously useful as a sort of macro approach just sort of tallying up in a spreadsheet type way with interactions in many you know what the possibilities are but coming at it from a participatory way is absolutely crucial Gabrielle's very eloquently emphasizing both the ethical and the success rate dimensions thereof and I'd say there's also relatedly to unpack success a bit there's a lot of innovation involved in in the participatory process so I would say that most of the demonstrations I've seen including in China where we tend to think of the government as very top down and all that you get nothing done if you didn't do it in a participatory way and there's a heavy emphasis on that there and then certainly in all these other parts of the world we were rapidly referencing and I think we need to go a lot further in the realm you're opening up around now and that the conversation this morning and the past couple days keeps touching on namely like what where might there be a real shift with some innovations coming along like in Impossible Foods and Beyond Meat but also in private sector engagement and financing of which there's a great need for much more so anyhow I don't have a direct answer just to say that that is a key frontier and the different approaches that we're talking about are all really essential to making the most of it. Gabrielle do you have a quick follow-up on that? Oh it's just what Gresham was saying was making me think of some of the work that we've done around shale gas siting in China and yeah completely I think if the communities that felt like they had some sort of engagement were much more supportive of the projects and also I think the projects benefited from the local knowledges and which I think Gresham was alluding to a little bit sometimes the projects are better designed because local communities know their area better and have suggestions for how to improve things. Let's go on to an audience question I think the first question is from Kedar. Hey it was a very interesting presentation and carbon pricing is I think a very interesting topic and a very controversial one as well if you if you will so I believe some of these some of the existing instruments were touched upon as well voluntary offsets, cap and trade, carbon tax however I believe that there are quite a few regions in the world where you know no notion or no form of carbon tax exists till date and I mean the the problem of carbon leakage is pretty well known right I mean companies move their carbon intensive operations to other regions where the carbon tax doesn't exist or is very low. I was I mean I think this problem possibly has very strong social socio-political implications and whatnot but I was just wondering just curious if this problem can be addressed if this problem can be addressed scientifically and how. A great question important problem it is absolutely it is true that there are many parts of the world where the effective carbon price is zero and as a result when countries that do have carbon prices have those prices or even increase them there is the phenomenon of leakage that you refer to where industries can move to where the regulations are softer where the prices are zero or moreover they can also consumers can shift production away from domestic use or it imports coming from countries without with with low or zero carbon prices and that would contravene the purpose of the regulations in the countries that have the carbon prices because what happens as a result of those demand side shifts is that emissions increase outside of the more regulated areas to those areas that are less regulated and globally you don't get much or any reduction so you've articulated an important problem the ultimate solution of course would be to have a global carbon price with the kinds of compensation schemes that I referred to earlier where you take the revenue to offset unevenness in the in the burdens especially for low-income countries however we're not there yet what do you do in the meantime and that gets to your question is there a scientific is there an option there is and that is the countries that are concerned about leakage can introduce border adjustments so as to prevent shifts toward imports from countries that otherwise would have a have an advantage on international markets by virtue of the fact that they have lower prices and lower regulation there's also something which is called output based regulation output based allocation under cap and trade and without going into the details it basically helps energy intensive trade exposed sectors and helps avoid leakage by keeping despite the higher regulation in the countries with the higher carbon prices by keeping things more unequitable or even basis internationally that is a second best solution it is less efficient globally and more costly than would be the case if you could have broad coverage but it's the kind of thing that maybe it is being used and is a kind of stopgap I would hope that ultimately we can move toward a much more broader based internationally carbon price which would take which would to a large extent deal with the leakage problem and I think that can still be done in a way that's equitable provided you make sagacious use of the revenues right thank you so much Shafiq do you want to take a shot I mean you have global operations uh a total and how do you view this uh you know it's it's not a flat word as far as social cultural issues a concern so how would you look at your global carbon management scheme uh given the heterogeneity I think you're seeing that amongst all the major companies where they're trying to address it from a global standpoint things like net zero and trying to say we are focused on scope one two and then ultimately three emissions by a given time frame and when you start putting that into your corporate social responsibility or into your annual reporting you know that makes you accountable and I think this is being done by individual companies because they see the the need to be acceptable in 20 30 40 years right and I think this is going to be what drives it amongst the private industry even though a lot of the political side is an action there isn't this action at the global level so I think the major multinationals you know for the most part are moving this way and I think they they see that kind of moving operations like this carbon leakage is just not going to be acceptable there's just too much visibility globally on this right and you can hide it you can say oh I'm going to go put it somewhere nobody sees it so so I think this pressure on the big companies for acceptability in the future especially shareholders let's say activity shareholder pressure is driving a lot of this today so I see there's a lot of self-correction for the big companies the issue is for more the mid-sized small companies and kind of how they behave right so I know Jenny has a question herself Jenny you want to ask yeah thank you and we did have one come in from the audience but I've been sitting on a couple all day so this is kind of complex it covers a lot of things but I'm particularly interested in the agricultural sector and this is probably directed to Joe and Dawn to some degree so you know I was interested in trying to figure out what the incentives would be for farmers to employ sensor techniques and other things to to manage or increase carbon sequestration I'm trying to get a handle on that whole that whole sector and who has the main impacts is it the government is it farmers decide themselves to do something to you know employ new technologies and the other thing is thinking about the future and the technologies that Don talked about and biochemical modification of plants to increase photosynthesis now obviously that's some years off let's suppose that it gets into a crop that's useful whether that's a food crop or a crop that's good for carbon sequestration just in itself how do we manage to do it in a way that doesn't end in some of the the things we've seen already with companies deploying modified crops so you know what's what's the way to do that that involves many players in a way that has the carbon sequestration the incentives in a way that's not harmful either to farmers or to the environment Don started last time so I'll take this I'll go first as well from an agricultural standpoint that there's it's really interesting when you watch farmers actually commingle from around the world you can take a you can take a farmer from from country a and put them in a room with a farmer from country b and they're immediately they're like siblings because they're they're actually facing the same challenges and those challenges are around the vulnerability that they have being exposed to the environment matter of fact a very common saying among farmers is that it's the only business where they actually buy retail and sell wholesale and at the end of the day what every farmer is trying to do is optimize their productivity because ultimately that's what their family and everything else actually ultimately survive on so as we think about these incentives carbon is particularly interesting because for farmers the single most important phenotype is yield because that's the way that we reward them and in the absence of having other other policies to reward them for other behaviors their their natural inclination is to do whatever it takes to actually drive that even if it means a pine three x the amount of fertilizer you need at the end of the day that's cheap insurance relative to being able to maximize yield so one of the things that we need to look at is how we actually help them supplement the decisions that they're making in order to optimize that return the other is and that's really addressing short-term return long-term return actually is in the land and land prices are directly correlated to yield and yield is directly correlated to soil organic matter so when we start thinking about soil carbon in the soil it has so many benefits to the farmer whether it's nutrient cycling, water holding capacity, friability of the soil there's a reason why soils in in Don's neck of the woods of Illinois are so much more valuable than they are in other parts of the country so there actually is a number of different ways that we can think about incentivizing farmers in addition to what their natural inclination is yeah I mean I would just amplify on that a little bit and this is this is somewhat anecdotal but you know in lots of years even some of the big family farms and industrial farms they're so close to the margin that the only thing that they can do is try to get through to the next year get enough capital to put seed in the ground and fertilizer and this is the anecdotal part however and that was you know some years ago you know shortly after they started corn ethanol and you know in maize went to six dollars a bushel and when that happened you know particularly the people that own these big family farms you know then they started doing things that were for the long term as you know as Joe said they know it's all about the soil and they want the family farm to stand the farm and so they spent big money putting in you know new drainage you know to prevent erosion and you know a lot of them went to more you know were able to buy new equipment that that was had a lower footprint from the standpoint of soil compaction and and you know were more efficient to operate and so I do believe that particularly the family farms really want to be stewards of the land and when they have the economic opportunity to do it they will do it and so one of the ways I think to incentivize farmers to do that is to get them more years away from the margin so they can do these things and I suppose that brings us back you know to this notion of you know can we put a price on carbon and you know can we prevent carbon leakage and things like that that you know that make that difficult. So the next question I think this will probably be the last question from the audience from Jagavondu Hazra you want to unmute yourself and ask the question and I think this is for Larry. Hi so I have a follow-up question Kedar's part. Emissions could be direct and indirect right so for example we talked about leakage where you are doing indirect emissions even that is part of your supply chain you are doing some emissions indirectly as per the GHG protocol there are scope one scope two and scope three emissions right so in carbon tax system do you only consider direct emissions or it also consider indirect emissions? Let me make sure I understand your question by indirect emissions do you mean process emissions or do you mean something else? When I say indirect emission this is beyond my organizational boundary for example let's say I'm running a company so what is the emission happening within my organization that is direct and anything beyond my organizational boundary is indirect? Well let me say this the fundamental problem here is that there is an externality there's a cost to society associated with any company's emissions it is not usually born at least in the absence of some pricing or direct regulation by the decision makers and as was stated by Don earlier and also by Joe the old the bottom line for farmers is profitability and pricing is one way of making the pursuit of profit consistent with the production of the environment in a more industrial context the facility is going to be in the absence of pricing only thinking about the direct cost to it of changing its production process and emissions those damages won't be taken into account at all in the presence of carbon pricing and this might get to your question do they then consider emissions beyond themselves? I would say generally not although there are PR issues that I think Joe referred to by the way where they may be issues of bad behavior that go beyond but otherwise you just think you know okay here's the carbon price changing my benefits and costs from different production options let me maximize my profit subject to that so let me say that in general I think if to extent that the firm is really trying to maximize value and satisfy its own stockholders the effects outside of the boundary are not being taken into account the good news though is I can't resist another plug for carbon pricing is that a carbon price will affect costs or prices all the way down the supply chain not only where it's implemented but also downstream like if it's on oil it'll affect gasoline prices and that'll affect consumer behavior that'll affect prices uh elsewhere all the way to the end use but it means that it's going to give incentives beyond the particular firm that's being targeted target is a bad word but it's also going to affect things all the way through the economy so you get good incentives in principle of broadly speaking and so I think that in a way it makes the concern that firms are mainly concerned with their own outputs and their own emissions less uh on us