 We now make our way into next question, and in question number one is Stewart Stevenson. To ask the Scottish Government whether it provides an update on the progress that has been done in delivering the national cap loan scheme. Cabinet secretary, Fergus Ewing? I announce the national basic payment support scheme for 2016 to전에 to Parliament on 13 September, a gefnogiw sydd wedi cychwyn cynnig o'i gawr o'r angenu. Fylio cyd-gwmaint ddod, a oeddair i'r cynnig o'r ar yr adnod yn 27, a ddod a fyddai hynny fel hyn nhw i'r adnod hynny yn gweithio'r adnod y lladdad單id dyma. Rhebu, pob ddod y lladdad yn gweithio, ran gydd, rwy'n credu i'w cwrwpeth cynnwau qui'n gweithio'r pryd, yn cymaint fengynus concentriaeth. Ym hyn oes dyna'n cydweithasol a mewn gwirionedd ffordd, sef wnaeth yn cael mwylau i'w gw rankunig ddod o ddod o'r llyfrnan. Meddwl ar gyfer teimlo mae invitationid o ddod o'i eu ddefnyddio i amdahlu i'w ddod o'r ddod o'r ddod o'r ddod o'r ddod o'r ddod o'r ddod o'r ddod o'r ddod o'r ddod o'r ddod o'r ddod gyda'r nod i gael yn rhanfodd unig o'r parwyr, a'r rhanfodd unig o'r parwyr yn ei mwy yn rhanfodd unig o'r parwyr, ac yn unig o'r parwyr o'r parwyr o'r marwyr yn ei mwy yn rhanfodd unig o'r parwyr o'r parwyr, sydd wedi defnyddio'r hynny o'r perffoddiadau brydiau i ardal. Stuart Stevenson. Felly, i ddim, mae'n gwybod ynเถbddio i ddig根thfordd, ac yn eich dod yn ddig inni i gael gyda leiriaid o gael yn ddig dim o'r hyffordd ym môr yn ddig yn dweud lleio'r cyfrir. Felly, yawn i am siaradau o'i wneud, ond mae'n ei dudstaeth i'r ghail ar gael i'r pwyndio i ddig inni i'r pwyndio. Rymd yn rhanau o'r ysgolwyr ddim yn iawn i, dwi'n eu hyffordd er mwyn ar y cyfrir. of November. That is still our intention. I would not use the term closure because we have asked farmers to return the form by 12 October, and those affected by the adjustment following the undervaluation will be given a further week within which to do so. But there is no cut-off period. No one is excluded if they don't meet those deadlines. In other words, those who miss those deadlines will still receive a loan payment, but they may not receive it at the same time as everyone else whose forms are returned timeously. I am sure that the Government's flexibility will be very welcome, cabinet secretary. You previously stated in your statement to Parliament that a small number of businesses would not qualify for a loan. Can the cabinet secretary give an indication of how many might be involved, why they might not receive a loan and what help might be forthcoming for them? Well, there are some businesses, a relatively small minority of businesses, that will not receive a loan offer at this stage, and that is because of the complexity of their cases. There are a variety of cases in this category, and we are absolutely determined to work through all of those cases. As the validity of each one is resolved, where eligibility is established, loan offers will be issued on a case-by-case basis. Peter Chapman Thank you, Presiding Officer. I remind the chamber of my farming interests in the register. The shambles continues. To be frank, he could hardly make it up. But my question is, can the cabinet secretary explain why only an estimated 17,000 farmers has to be offered a loan under this scheme, rather than the 18,300 businesses that are eligible for cap payments? Are those the same businesses that are still awaiting substantial sums of money from the 2015 scheme? In other words, are they facing a double whammy? Well, we expect to issue loan offers to more than 17,000, so I do not agree with that part of the contention. I am able to provide more details in the time available tomorrow, when there will be a statement on this matter. I respectfully point out to the member that, aside from the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats, I believe that the loan scheme that I announced has been broadly welcomed by the NFU and certainly by individual farmers and crofters to whom I have spoken, not least because the loan payments, in most cases, the 80 per cent of entitlement of basic payments, will be received earlier than in normal years, considerably earlier, and that has the fortunate benefit that there will be a substantial injection into the rural economy of up to £300 million in the course of November. I am very pleased that that has been welcomed by the overwhelming majority of people, albeit outwith the chamber. Rhoda Grant The cabinet secretary said that the mistake was picked up on manual checking. Can I ask if that was another fault with the new computer system? As soon as I was alerted to the matter, I instructed an internal investigation to be conducted and that that investigation be conducted by an independent team—in other words, not people who were directly involved in the administration. Therefore, I think that it is best to wait until the results of that investigation are known. I will certainly come back to the member and other members in this chamber once that investigation has taken place and I intend to ensure that it is conducted with due expedition. Mike Rumbles On Thursday morning, Mr Ewing's officials told the Audit Committee of this Parliament that farmers had nothing to worry about and IT problems of the system were being fixed. By the afternoon, we knew that another shambles was on the offering, as hundreds of farmers were left in the dark over their loan applications. Could I ask the minister why his officials were not more forthcoming when they came to this Parliament's Audit Committee on Thursday morning? I do not accept the assertions made by Mr Rumbles. First of all, he asserts that this was a necessity and IT problem. I have just given an answer a moment ago where I have said that the precise nature of why the mistake arose while I am being barrect again by Mr Rumbles as is normally the course. However, let me repeat, a moment ago I said in answer to Rhoda Grant that we are quite appropriately carrying out an internal investigation as to precisely what went wrong. I think that it is better to wait for the outcome of that, frankly, before one assumes. Mr Rumbles did a moment ago that it is of necessity related to the IT problem. I am absolutely delighted that my officials corrected the error. They spotted it almost immediately and no-one, not one farmer and not one crofter, will lose a penny piece as regards this matter. I am delighted that we have taken the step of responding to the situation by providing a national payment scheme that will inject a considerable amount of money into the rural economy. I am also pleased that that seems to be a policy that has the broad support of the farming community, if not of Mr Rumbles. Thank you. I declare an interest, Presiding Officer, as a farmer. Cabinet Secretary will be very well aware of the growing clamour about the continuing failure of basic payments to be made for the 2015 year with approximately 700 recipients waiting for their payment. Peter Chapman's question remains unanswered about this group. Will it, in fact, be the same group that is suffering twice from payments? Will the loan scheme for 80 per cent of the 2016 basic payment, while, of course, that is welcome? Can the cabinet secretary tell us when the remaining 20 per cent is likely to be paid to give certainty to cash flow predictions for hard-pressed farmers? I think that that goes somewhat beyond the province of this question, if I may say so, Presiding Officer, because it relates to the loan scheme. However, I am happy to say that, in response to Mr Scott's question two things, firstly, I will provide more information about that in the time that we will have tomorrow when we have considerably more time, and secondly, I can assure Mr Scott that my officials are working extremely hard to make sure that the balance of the basic payments—the pillar 1 payments—due to farmers are paid as quickly as possible. I will come back with some more information about that for Mr Scott and other members tomorrow. Neil Findlay, since people are declaring an interest, can I declare an interest as a taxpayer? That appears to be the latest in a long line of shambolic Scottish Government IT project fiascos. If the Government cannot sort out farm payments, what chance have we got when some of the benefits system is transferred to them? However, on the farm payments, how much taxpayers' money overall and all of that has been poured down the drain? The cost to the taxpayer of the mistake, which was corrected immediately, will be the cost of posting out the letters. I would like to declare an interest in that I am a partner in a farm partnership. Can the cabinet secretary please give us an idea of how many letters were sent out and how many people were given the wrong information? I have already said that a relatively small minority of farmers were affected. I will come back to the chamber with full details on the statement, which, thanks to the Parliamentary Bureau, I am able to make tomorrow. We will move a motion to that effect later today, calling for a statement at 2.40 tomorrow, for members' interests. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. To ask the Scottish Government what environmental assessment it has made of the leak from the clear oil platform west of Shetland. Marine Scotland has been working with the Maritime and Coast Guard Agency, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee and the Operator BP to assess the environmental impact of the leak from the clear field. It is understood that the oil came from the produced water system, rather than a leak from the well. Initial aerial surveillance and modelling show that the oil is moving north-northeast from the platform. That presents a low risk to environmental sensitivities, such as seabirds and seabed features, and has informed Marine Scotland's advice that the most appropriate response is to allow the oil to disperse naturally. BP has been requested to carry out further modelling to allow a full environmental impact assessment to be undertaken. BP is also deploying a vessel to the area that will take water samples. Marine Scotland will be passed information for review. I thank the cabinet secretary for that response. Does she accept the inherent risks of oil and gas extraction in the UK continental shelf and particularly west of Shetland, both to the official workforce, who it is important not to forget on these occasions and the marine environment? Will she ensure that BP and other operators guard against those risks through robust operational procedures and measures to minimise any impact of spillages at sea? Will she be able to confirm whether BP's clear field has operated since 2005, indeed without any spill that we are aware of? As to the last point, I believe that Tavish Scott is correct that this is the first such incident since the clear field began operations. On the more general issue, all industrial activity has to have regard to the safety of its workforce, the safety of the environment, and all that is taken into account on an on-going basis. In this particular set of circumstances, the environmental risk has been assessed as low, but there will always be some potential for things like that happening in the future. However, we need to remember the importance of the oil and gas industry to the Scottish economy. I remind the chamber that, in actual fact, the regulator for the oil and gas industry is the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. They are investigating. It is they who will carry out any enforcement action if that is considered necessary. Tavish Scott. Can I again thank the cabinet secretary for those replies? Can I take it that the BP's environmental assessment has been shared with the Scottish Government? Does she understand that there is some risk of seabirds being oiled to the north-northeast as she has already outlined? Finally, has the Government been informed of what happened in respect of why this spill occurred and when they hope to find out the details of making sure that this will not happen again? On three different areas, I think that the issue about when we find out is when the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy finalises its review and that information should be shared with us. The issue of the impact on the seabed is not a current concern, it has to be said. What we have is a situation where the oil may sink to a depth of about 25 metres, but the seabed in this particular area is at 140 metres, with the nearest marine protected area some 20 kilometres away in water depths of between 300 and 600 metres. The advice about the natural dispersal has been accepted as being the best way to proceed at present on the information that we have. As I indicated in my original answer, BP has been requested to carry out further modelling. We are looking at the potential for a full environmental impact assessment to be undertaken. They are deploying a vessel to the area and that is taking further water samples. That is information that would be passed to Marine Scotland in due course. Given that there are 571 platforms in the North Sea that, if removed via a single lift, require to be floated past Scotland, risking environmental harm to decommissioning yards big enough to handle them in England or elsewhere, what plans does the Scottish Government have to support a large-scale decommissioning port in Shetland or elsewhere in order to provide jobs and realise the true value of decommissioning for Scotland as part of our journey to a more circular economy? The minister wishes to give a short answer. It is a little beyond my own portfolio responsibilities, but the Scottish Government is always on the lookout for potential further development that may help the economy of Scotland. Cabinet Secretary for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform, environmental assessments are very important as are our marine protection areas. I am certainly concerned about a pattern of marine behaviour that places our oceans at risk. The BP spokesman said that the release was stopped within an hour. The trans-ocean winner was carrying 280 tonnes of diesel when it ran a ground off Lewis. Cromarty First Port Authority plans to transfer 8.4 million tonnes of oil between ships in the open seas of the Moray Firth. In the report that you referred to Marine Scotland in February this year, it talked about the increased area of activity being the service that it provides for ministers on emergency responses to maritime incidents. Would the Cabinet Secretary agree that the Scottish Government needs to be more robust to head off emergencies and that it can do that by formally objecting to the ship-to-ship transfer in the open seas and supporting robust action against reckless and negligent operators? Of course, if you do that, I see you shaking your head, but it is an important issue that not only protect the pod of orcas that swim between Iceland and the Moray Firth coast, but also protect wider marine life, our fishermen and our tourist industry. It is quite a broad follow-up. It also, with the greatest of respect, ranges over a number of different areas that are not covered by the question. I think that the initial comments being made by John Finnie relate to the rig that ran aground in Lewis, rather than this particular. Well, he is referring to things that do not actually relate directly to this particular incident. As I have indicated, the regulator of the oil and gas industry is the Westminster Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. Marine Scotland is a consultee in that process. We will obviously, in the Scottish Government, continue to liaise with key stakeholders such as BP and any others who are involved in any of the incidents that may or may not happen. I reiterate again that the oil and gas industry is extremely important to the Scottish economy. We are relying on a mixed energy portfolio, and it is an integral part of that. It is important that we do maximise recovery from the North Sea, but of course we have to do that in a responsible and efficient manner. A successful sector is also important to help us to transition to a low-carbon economy, where the skills and capabilities that are built up over decades will be critical. That is a constant balance of what is required to ensure that the economic interest continues and that environmental concerns do not override or that environmental incidents such as those are minimised and do not become such an issue that we begin to lose some of the economic benefit. Marine Scotland is involved in that. The regulator is a reserved matter, and we are, as always, involved in the discussions to ensure the best possible outcome for everything. My major concern is obviously the marine environment. I am assured that this particular incident has minimal risk for the marine environment. It does not impact the seabed. The seabed is too far below the surface of that. The product of what is called produced water spill is crude oil mixed with sea water. It is not a straightforward oil leak, and it was a single event that has not been a continuous leak. It is at the absolute minimum in terms of what may have happened. We have been extremely lucky, but part of the outcome of all the investigation will be to inform what future action is required and if enforcement is necessary as a result of it. I ask how long it will take for the oil to disperse naturally and whether it will be a risk to fish and sea mammals while that happens. I am not advised of any such risk. I can try and establish if there is any estimate of the time that it will take for that dispersal to occur. If that is possible to give that kind of estimate, I will ensure that the member receives that. At this point, I do not know whether it is possible to make any prediction about how long it will take that dispersal to take place. I thank the minister and members. We are now going to move to the next item of business, which is a debate on the finance committee motion. I will take a few minutes for everyone to change seats.