 Gceith 상 yn fyddbynediadol am y 13 yddynebu gwaith yn 2017 iusteru Gwnaeth Llywodraeth a Llywodraeth gweithwyrsgarn symafe 자�od. Dwiodwch ei fult prize i fod yn dostilio ar porquechau yw ei tarifod Rhag plugins eich gweld. Dyma eich staicidaeth o'r agenda wynt yn ddechgon. Fawaith sens i pursechad â'n g Berufau honno ei ddim yn gael. DUFFE I will push on. The first item is a decision on taking business in private. The committee has asked to consider taking item 4 relating to the draft budget scrutiny 2018 in private today and the report on the draft budget islands bill in private at future meetings. Are all members agreed? We are agreed. We will move on to agenda item 2, which is the committee will now take evidence from the Scottish Government on the draft budget 2018-19. I am going to invite members to declare any interest relevance to this item relating to farming and transport, and I am going to kick it off by saying that I am a member of a farming partnership and it is disclosed on my register of interest. I am a member of a business in Aberdeenshire. I am a member of a cross-party group in Wales. I am a small registered agricultural holding and I am an honorary president of the Scottish Association of passenger transport and an honorary vice president of rail future UK. I am an honorary vice president of Friends of the Far North Line and a member of several cross-party groups. I am sorry to ask you to repeat that, just in case it was not recorded. I am also an honorary vice president of Friends of the Far North Line. I would rather get this sorted out before we go into this important session. I am going to suspend the meeting briefly while we sort out the sound and system. So the meeting is now suspended. Hello, this is Joel speaking. Can you hear me? Right, okay. What to do with the problem? Where's Matt gone to? He's not here. Right, okay. Yeah. One, two, one, two. Sounds reasonably okay. One, two, one, two, one, two. Okay, I'll leave you with it in a moment and I'll see if I can find Matt. Right, thank you. I'm now going to reconvene the meeting. Although there are some problems with the sound, we are going to work through it. Now, can I just also remind everyone that this is the, trying to remember there, the 37th meeting of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee. Now, we got through item 1, and we are moving on to item 2. We are now going to take evidence from the Scottish Government on the draft budget for 2018 and 2019. We have declared interest. I'd like to welcome from the Scottish Government, Fergus Ewing, the Cabinet Secretary for the Rural Economy and Connectivity, Hamza Yousaf, the Minister of Transport and the Islands, Lee Shedden, the financial controller at Transport Scotland, George Burgess, the Deputy Director of Food and Drink and Trade, Robbie McGee, the Head of Digital Connectivity Policy and Annabelle Terpy, the Chief Operating Officer for the Rural Payments. Cabinet Secretary, I am happy to give you an opening statement, but as we have lost 16 minutes into this meeting and there are a considerable amount of questions, please could I ask you to ensure that your opening statement is no more than four minutes, short if possible. Cabinet Secretary. Helpful, I have truncated the script here. In fact, I have taken a calligraphic machete to it, you would please be here, so it is foreshortened. Our overarching aim is to grow the rural economy and to support wider connectivity through an integrated approach to inclusive economic growth, and we will do this by a large number of measures. Delivering of a reformed CAP, enabling all to access superfast broadband by 2021, enabling and encouraging sustainable development enterprise and investment in the rural economy, building on success in our world-class food, drink and forestry sectors, repopulating and empowering rural coastal and island communities, investing in low-carbon transport, promoting active travel, providing vital transport links, delivering better journey times, reducing emissions and providing greater quality and accessibility and affordability in our public transport. This is all against a backdrop of a 2 per cent reduction in the £2.8 billion REC portfolio budget of £60 million. I would highlight three areas that I believe the committee may be interested in. First, food and drink. We will continue to support the growth of our industry through funding for delivery of Ambition 230. In digital connectivity, I am delighted to reconfirm the announcement that the Scottish Government will invest £600 million to extend superfast broadband access to every home and business across Scotland by the end of 2021. I covered this yesterday, so I have eliminated the vast swath of text on that. On physical connectivity, we will improve journey times connections, cut emissions, improve quality, accessibility and affordability, and double the investment in active travel to £80 million a year. We have increased the budget from bus services and concessionary fares from £254 to £269 million, and that includes £10 million of new funding for loans to tackle bus fleet emissions to improve air quality, maintaining the budget to support bus services and encouraging green buses and continue our commitment to free bus travel. We will invest in the maintenance and operation of Scotland's trunk roads and motorways to maintain the safety and service ability of the network. We are committed to a large number of major infrastructure projects. Again, I have eliminated the detail here, and perhaps my colleague Mr Yousaf can touch on that if asked in questions. It is safe to say that I am very pleased that this year we will continue the design and development work on dualling the A9 and A96 and commence construction of dualling the A9 from Lunkrity to Burnham. We will continue to support ferry services on Clyde and Hebrides, Gwrech to Danun and Northern Owl's routes, protect the RET on the Clyde and Hebrides ferry service and reduce passenger and car fares on ferry services to Orkney and Shetland. We will continue our significant investment in railways again. I will spare the details and the interests of time. Well short of four minutes, convener. I am happy to answer questions. Thank you very much cabinet secretary. Just to remind people that the committee has conducted some pre-publication budget scrutiny on the food and drink sector, so we'll be following up that work with questions to you cabinet secretary. We'll also be discussing other areas within the budget, which is the EU support and related services, rural services, forestry commission, digital connectivity and of course transport. I'm very grateful for the minister for agreeing to forgo his opening statement to allow us to move straight on to questions. So the first question today is from Mike Rumbles. Thank you very much, convener. It's an overarching question really. Having gone through the Scottish budget draft budget 2018-19 document on page 186 under the heading Annex B portfolio spending plans on table 2, I'm looking at total managed expenditure. What puzzles me on this document is that of all of the departments of government from health, finance, education, justice economy, running them all, the only department according to this table that suffers a decrease in actual spend according to the table is the rural economy and connectivity department. I was wondering whether you could explain why it is the only department that is suffering a cash loss according to this table on page 186 of the draft budget. I thought that this question was going to be about food and drink, but it sort of veered off that. Is this question about the rural budget? I didn't understand the question. On the budget, cabinet secretary, the questions will come in in a variety of orders. If you could answer that first question. I genuinely don't understand the question, but is the question to say why the rural budget is, according to Mr Rumbles, being treated differently from other directors such as education, employment and so on? I've spent the weekend since receiving this document having looked right through it. I assume all the ministers have poured over this as well. I would hope that if you haven't got it in front of you, I'm trying to help. It's on page 186, it's AmExB, it's the portfolio spending plans of all the government departments in this table, and the only department according to this table on page 186 that has a reduction from last year of £2,866 million to £2,806 million, a reduction of £60 million, is the rural economy and connectivity. It's a genuine question. If I can answer this way, in the opening truncated opening statement, our budget has had a reduction of 2 per cent overall. The treatment of other directors is a matter for Mr Mackay. I'm responsible for my portfolio budget, and I'm here to answer questions about that. I'm asking a question about that. Obviously, this is a discussion among the cabinet ministers for their departments, but the only department that has suffered a cut is this department. I was wondering if you could explain in relative to other departments why that should be the case. Well, these are questions for Mr Mackay. I'm here to answer about the reg budget, and I will do that. Mr Rumbles, I don't think you're going to get more of an answer to that. I mean, the cabinet secretary, you will have seen, I'm sure, the spice briefing which highlights that, and maybe we can leave it there and move on to the second question. I'm sorry, Mr Rumbles. I don't think you're going to get an answer there. The second question is Peter Chapman. Welcome to the panel. My question is about the overall food and drink budget. We have a bold ambition to double the value of Scotland's food and drink to 30 billion by 2030, which is only 12 years away, so it's a very ambitious target, which I absolutely support. However, that means that year-on-year growth of 5 per cent is necessary to achieve that. Is it realistic? Is it certainly ambitious? James Withers, the CEO of Scotland Food and Drink, said that it would be helpful to have greater clarity about the areas of funding and the scale of investment. My first question is, does the cabinet secretary have a clear view of the strategic direction of the spending priorities to support Ambition 2030? Yes, we do. Our strategic vision is that we work with the private sector in order to achieve the high aspirations, as Mr Chapman has said, that are set out in Ambition 230. Of course, most of the growth will result from private sector investment. I mean, the tremendous success of our food and drink sector—for example, our whisky, our gin, our salmon, our potatoes, soft fruit, our sea fish, our shellfish—in all of those sectors, you have entrepreneurial businesses that, in most part, create their own growth. In some occasions, that helps, of course, by the public sector. However, that success will largely be delivered by the private sector with the public sector providing support. Our role is to focus on the areas in which public money and the use of public money can provide added value. I can think of five or six different ways where I can give excellent examples of how the use of taxpayers' money invested in the food and drink sector is already producing extra value. However, I think that the main answer to the question is how will this ambitious target be delivered largely by the remarkable success of our food and drink sector and individual businesses and people within it and, increasingly, related to the tourism sector as well. I thank the minister for that report. I go back to the quote from James Withers. He said that it would be helpful to have greater clarity about the areas of funding and the scale of investment. The investment comes under various headings, and it is somewhat of a minefield for the companies to find the best way forward to gain that support, to grow the business, to achieve the ambitious target. Can the cabinet secretary comment on that, the fact that it seems to be a fairly tortuous process to find your way through the various support schemes? Could it be made simpler? It is inherently complex, but I do not see it as a minefield. Rather, I see it as a successful partnership of the Scottish Government and the Scottish Food and Drink and individual companies working together. If we give some examples, some of the public money is used in marketing of Connect Local through SDI, who have 11 in-market specialists who are working in locations throughout the world, from California through to Singapore and Japan. 11 people are estimated as between 17 and 20 working with others to deliver an extra 50 million growth in exports from the efforts of 11 individuals whom I met recently. They have sold oat cakes to California, for example. They have sold cheese to France, not something that we would have thought was too likely, given France's preeminence in the production of high-quality cheeses. Therefore, Scottish businesses are succeeding all over the globe, and we have invested in 11 individuals, basically super salespeople, to promote Scottish produce all over the world. Getting cheese into American supermarkets has been a great example of spending to accumulate. Another one is showcasing Scotland, an event that took place just a couple of months back in Glen Eagle, which is a biennial event. That brings together buyers from around the world with two Scottish-based companies. The one that I attended recently saw 100 buyers from 17 key markets meeting 150 of our suppliers. There were over 3,000 speed-dating sessions between Scottish companies and international buyers. I spoke to about 20 or 30 of those buyers at a reception at Glen Eagle. They were all bowled over by the high quality of Scottish produce. The clean, pure atmosphere and water was a big selling point compared with other parts of the globe. The provenance of our food and drink was a huge selling point. The benefits from the event two years ago—this is just one event in one hotel—were 33 million. The benefits this year are estimated to be 50 million. I have just given two examples. I could go on to talk about procurement, the food for life programme in schools. Recently, I visited East Ayrshire and the amount of money that they spend locally procuring food from local farmers, such as Mr Chapman, except in Ayrshire, has been superb, supplying high-quality, nutritious, locally produced food to their pupils. 11 local authorities participate in that. We are investing to get the other 21 local authorities to do so as well. Overall, the food procurement has gone in Scotland in the public sector from 39 to 48 per cent over the past 10 years. I will give a few quick examples. Across the peace, we work very closely with Scotland Food and Drink. In fact, I see James Wethers more than many of the members of my own family. We could not work more closely and effectively. I do not think that it is a minefield. It is an ocean and a world of opportunity that Scottish businesses are grasping with our help. I thank the cabinet secretary for that very full answer that he has given. We are very pushed for time in this session, and we have lost time at the beginning. That, to me, was quite a long answer. Cabinet secretary, with the greatest respect when I am talking, if you could let me conclude, I would appreciate it. It was a very long answer. I would ask you please to keep the answers as short as possible. Peter Chapman will follow-up questions. Just a short one. Could and should more of the money actually be channeled through Scotland Food and Drink? Is that a way forward? We already are in partnership with Scotland Food and Drink, and I think that the plans that we have strike a good balance. The next question is from Gail Ross. Good morning, panel. Cabinet secretary, you have outlined quite succinctly how the Scottish Government works with all those different companies to promote the food and drink sector. The Scottish Fiscal Commission is forecasting economic growth to be less than 1 per cent going forward. As Peter Chapman mentioned, if we were to get to 2030 with the very ambitious plans that we have, we would need to see a growth rate of around 5 per cent per annum. Do you think that the funding that the Scottish Government is providing is enough to achieve that? Well, I think that we are playing our part with the resources that we have in the tight budget settlement, but I would also say that we are seeing remarkable progress in forestry towards meeting our targets of planting 10,000 hectares per annum. We are close to achieving our targets fairly soon on that, and the rate of increase is way over 5 per cent. I am just back from the fishing negotiations. The figures from memory, convener, of the value of the quotas, the total quotas for the fishing fleets were around £400 million. We gained about a £44 million increase in that. That is 10 per cent, is not it? In our farming sector, I am struck by the entrepreneurship of farmers, the success and efficiency of co-ops and the SOS working with them to support them, the drive particularly of the new blood, like Mr Chapman's son, if I may say so, who recently won a distinguished award in AgriScot. Good luck to him, but there is a whole cohort of new generation farmers who are doing extremely well, taking advantage of opportunities, using new technology, farming in a more green fashion and able to achieve growth at more than 5 per cent. It is primarily the businesses in the sectors that will drive the growth, not the Government. The Government is there to oil the wheels, to provide support, to provide EMF funding for our ports and harbours, to provide food and marketing grants, and all of those are predicated on the continuance of the funding that we have come to expect from the CAP. The big question mark, really, is Brexit and whether that funding will be available to Scotland, particularly rural and island Scotland, which has been perhaps the main beneficiaries in areas such as Elfass, where I was delighted to be able to maintain the support at the existing 100 per cent level rather than the 80 per cent cut. John Mason, the next question is from John Mason. Thanks, convener, and Cabinet Secretary used the phrase there, oil the wheels. When we spoke to some of the witnesses from the food and drink sector, they were talking about transport and the importance of being able to move their very high-quality products around. Now, the cabinet secretary also mentioned the A9 and the A96, which are major roads and have major investment, but I wonder if he plans to do much work on some of the more intermediate roads. I am thinking of, like the A85, Perth Crianlarach, A82, Glasgow Fort William Inverness and A30 Fort William Malleg, are those roads going to get investment? I thank the member for the question. What I would say is that, of course, working with stakeholders in the food and drink industry is usually important. Some of the roads that he mentioned are good examples. I would add to that. There have been a lot of calls for us to invest more in the A75, with a particular focus on the ports of Ken Rhine, because I have said a lot of food and drink cargo travels on those arterial routes. What I would say is that, as a Government, we listen to those stakeholders and take action where we can. A good example of that would be one of the roads that he mentioned was the A82, Tarbet and Van Arden scheme, which he might be familiar with. It was the hauliers, the freight industry that came to us and said, look, you need to make that road wider. We do not think that it is wide enough, but it might clip mirrors and there is a lot of tight spots. We took that on board and agreed to widen the road at a cost to the Government. That is an example of where we listen to the food and drink industry and other freighters and hauliers of cargo and try to act and intervene where we can. On the roads that he specifically mentioned, what I would say is that we are going through a process. We have the national transport strategy review, which he is aware of. That will then feed into the STPR, strategic transport projects review, which is really the main document when it comes to future investment into road infrastructure. On the roads that he mentioned, we will be looking at them, exploring them, whether they get future investment will, of course, depend on spending priorities, our own budget constraints and a whole range of factors. I will press with one supplementary question. Would you then emphasise roads that were particularly crucial to food and drink? We have huge ambitions that we all support for growing the exports, so something like the 82 between Tarbot North to the top of Flock Lomond would still seem to me a sticking point. If the food and drink industry was seeking priorities in these, would he be listening to them? It is certainly a factor, but you will also bear in mind that, as a Government, we have an ambition to move cargo and freight from road to rail. Cabinet Secretary is doing a power of work on that, whether it is on timber or food and drink. We are on the cusp of some exceptionally exciting gamechangers in that respect. Of course, we would take that into account, but we try to look for a holistic solution that does not just focus on the road but also perhaps on moving freight from road to rail. The next question is from Fulton MacGregor. When we took the evidence session from the two panels recently, there was a bit of discussion around devolved tax measures. Just to ask the Cabinet Secretary if there will be a full review of the business rate system if that is on the radar or an extension of the small business scheme. I get this is not my particular area, but I understand that there has recently been a review, the Barclay review, carried out by Ken Barclay, a distinguished former banker, along with, I think, Nora Senior and Professor Russell Greggs, and it brought forward a series of recommendations, the vast majority of which I think the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Derek Mackay, has announced that he is taking forward. I am very pleased that that is the case. I know that that work being taken forward, convener, involves a review of specific matters that perhaps do not hit the headlines. For example, in the renewable hydro field, a review into the way in which that is rated to avoid deterring small hydro schemes from coming on in the light of high increases in the rateable values and hydro following the revaluation. I just mentioned that as an example. I better not go on too long. I know I never do that, convener, so I will stop there. Thank you, cabinet secretary. I will mention the community empowerment act as well. Is there any thoughts, if we could do anything further, to support the roll-out of that? That is why I did not catch it. The community empowerment act, in order to look at often rates relief for local groups. It is the whole theme of my questions, cabinet secretary. I would advise the community empowerment act, with which I have no involvement, but it allows councils to create and fund their own local relief schemes to meet local needs and circumstances. I think that, to date, Aberdeen, Aberdeenshire and Perth and Kinross have utilised those powers to support local businesses. I suppose that other local authorities could look to what has been done in those three local authorities and perhaps see if there are lessons to be learned from that. I think that that is one aspect of the community empowerment act. I am afraid that, because it is not my portfolio, I am not particularly well versed in the detail of that. Thank you. Richard Lam. With the disaster that is Brexit, many thousands of overseas workers are now leaving these islands to grow our food and drink industry. We need workers. So, how can the Scottish Government support companies to have the workforce that they need? How can we support them to upskill and reskill the workforce in order to make sure that our food and drink industry does grow? There are a number of ways in which we provide support for training and education. Much of that is through the orthodox system of universities colleges and apprenticeships and our headline target for the creation of apprenticeships. There is also a lot that is done in the various sectors of the rural economy and much of it is done by my industry. In farming, for example, with co-ops such as Ringlink, I have provided excellent schemes. I have visited this particular one in providing internships and training for young people to bring them forward into farming to get new entrants—something that is very important. Mr Lyle is absolutely right to highlight a thematic problem that faces the whole rural economy, and that is the reliance on people who have chosen to make their lives in Scotland, who have come from Romania, who have come from Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania and Poland, and who are very welcome in Scotland. The First Minister has just made our position absolutely clear that we want to be a welcoming country and that we want people who have made this choice to feel welcome here. The whole Brexit experience has put a serious question mark over that. I have learned from fruit pickers—for example, convener, I met senior representatives in that sector—that already they think that they have lost perhaps 10 per cent of people who formerly would have expected to work and are not coming back. That is before the season begins. The same reliance is the case across the whole rural sector in tourism and fish processing. In abattoirs, 95 per cent of OVs come from the EU. 95 per cent. We cannot operate a quality meat sector without effective slaughterhouses. I think that within the farming sector, certainly—this is the Mood of Agri Scotland that I attended recently—the desire is to cut the politics, get answers and get clarity very quickly indeed. If not, businesses may simply be unable to operate in the rural economy and in the tourism economy. That is a very serious problem, but I sincerely hope that the Prime Minister will turn her thoughts to this and tackle it. I know from my discussions that George Eustace and Michael Gove are painfully aware of it, convener. It is a problem that everybody can see and everybody needs a solution quicker. We are talking really weeks if we are thinking ahead to the season for potato and fruit picking, for example. My first job was as a grocery manager, which I was in for roughly about 14 years. What steps can be taken to make the food and drink sector an attractive career of choice? Are you committed to supporting the work of SDS, which I am sure you are, to increase diversity of the workforce? How effective can all of this be prioritised with current funds? A wide variety of measures. Plainly, some jobs are on low pay. We have to be quite candid about it. That is precisely why the Scottish Government introduced the living wage. I am encouraged by steps that some major employers have taken. It is perhaps invidious to single out one, but I recently visited Aldeys and they told me that they have a minimum level of pay for their staff—a minimum—which they believe is quite good in relation to some others, for example. That is an example of which others can follow and then people progress from that up to the pay scale. That is one area. In order to make careers attractive, we need to raise awareness of the possibilities in the rural economy. We need to have mentoring schemes and more learning opportunities through modern apprenticeships. I know from my travels that more apprenticeships are being delivered. Henry Graham, the agricultural champion, has produced an excellent set of recommendations, which I commend to the committee in its deliberations today and subsequently. The four champions have produced practical solutions and sensible suggestions that I hope are not being neglected because they are very worthy of consideration. He has spent a lot of time looking at the area, and he has come up with a number of practical suggestions working very much with the rural economy. I certainly believe that they should be taken forward in our future plans. Good morning, panel. I wondered whether I could start by looking at the budget that is irrelevant to the cabinet secretary's brief. For the benefit of the panel, there is page 155 of the budget under the section Rural Services Spending. The rural services budget is supposed to support sustainable rural development, which deliver economic, environmental and community benefits. I see that its budget has been cut by 25 per cent, and I appreciate the comments that the cabinet secretary made in light of its overall budget reduction. However, I wondered whether someone in the panel could explain the quite drastic cut to budgets such as agriculture and horticultural advice and support, animal health and, indeed, the food industry support line has gone down as well. How does that fit in with the Government's ambitions of the 2030 ambition? Overall reductions are, as I have said. I have already made clear that the achievement of our ambitions will largely be delivered by businesses. That is how an economy works. The Government is not there to fund everything. The Government is there to assist to provide essential public services, which everybody relies upon. However, it is not there on its own to create and contribute in its entirety the economic growth. That is not the way—I was in business myself and I never got any help from the Government. I did not really expect any. The less I saw of Government, frankly, the better. Quite a lot of businesses operate in that way. They get on with their business and they are working very, very hard every day around the clock in the rural economy, long hours, to deliver success. I do not actually think that there is an equation, but as far as the technical question goes, one of my officials wants to answer this. I am not quite sure whether it is Mr Turpee or Mr Sheddon. Mr Sheddon, I think that the issue here is that there is a large degree of variability between spending plans across different years, and this budget simply reflects the reprioritisation and changing nature of those plans, particularly in one of the areas that are highlighted. One of the aspects of the food and drink cut really relates to capital, which was not being spent. There is a capital pot within the wider rec budget, which is available to support food and drink should it be needed. That was a particular reason for that cut, but there are many variations across the lines. I do not know whether Mr Turpee might want to say something about the detail. With regard to the animal health budget, work is on going to scope a replacement for the ageing IBM computer system. I apologise, but I will bespoke. You just put the animal health budget on hold at the moment, because we are going to come back to that. I would like to, if I may, just try to focus in on the food and drink aspect. All right, sorry, apologies. Jamie, can I ask you to follow up if you want to? Sure, yes. I appreciate what the cabinet secretary says, that business is quite a vital part. I guess that our job in the committee is to scrutinise the budget and the plans that have been set forward and how the Government is going to support the food and drink industry. To me, it seems like a 25 per cent cut in the rural services plan does not go any way towards supporting the industry in that respect, which is the rationale behind my question. On a similar vein, the cabinet secretary mentioned earlier the plans for exporting growth and taking brand Scotland overseas. Again, there is no real changes to the level of funding for SDI in the budget either, so I wondered if that may hinder or help the ambitions to grow the work of SDI. Cabinet secretary, SDI is not an area for which I am responsible, but I know that they are always focusing on where their expenditure can deliver the most success. The in-market specialist is demonstrably an area where 11 individuals have produced enormous results, enormously successful results for Scotland and Scottish business, but I think that George Burgess might be in a position to give further technical detail in answer to a fair question from Mr Greene. I think that the element that you have picked out within the rural services is only one small element of the wider food budget. The support through the food processing marketing incorporation grant sits elsewhere in the budget, so there is no need for capital to be allocated here when, in fact, there is adequate capital available elsewhere in the budget. In relation to SDI, as the cabinet secretary has said, the scheme within market specialists has already been very successful. That is protected. My responsibility is also to include trade and, through the enterprise budget, there is additional funding for expansion of SDI's presence in Europe. A doubling of SDI's presence and some of that will be in support of food and drink across Europe, our most critical market. Thank you very much for that. Just to clarify for the benefit of the committee, you mentioned that that particular budget is only a small part of the overall food budget. Could you give us an overview of the overall food budget and whether that has gone up or down since last year's draft budget? If you do not have that information at hand, welcome to send it to us in writing perhaps. We can certainly provide details of how those budgets are broken down and quite a number of the other budgets in the portfolio are also supporting, at least in part, food and drink industries. That would be appreciated. That can be submitted in writing, cabinet secretary. That would be very helpful. John, do you want to… Mike? Officials, because the minister was not able to elucidate on the £60 million fall in the budget. Following on from that question, if the panel is sending information to the committee on whether the food and drink industry had cuts, could we expand that to find out what has happened with the budget going from £2,866 million to £2,806 million, so where the £60 million cut in the budget is taking place? That is a fundamental question, and if they could write to us with that, that would be very helpful. I think that that is a valid point. What I would say is that considering the tight timetable, it needs to be almost an immediate response for us to be able to complete our report on time. Before we leave food and drink and move on to other areas in the budget. Some of the answers, which contribute largely to the answer to the question now, are six bullet points. I can simply read them out, if you wish. It is up to you, or I can write to you, I do not mind. Cabinet Secretary, I think that considering the timescales for not only this meeting, but also that they will be very helpful to have a written response as soon as possible, if please. Before we leave the subject, can I just ask a question is that the Scottish food and drink industry has really built on the successes of some key players, whether it be whisky, salmon production or other areas of production? There are some other areas of production where added value could lift them into the next stage. Just to ask the Cabinet Secretary within the budget where you have allowed for this and what promotion you will be carrying out to the non-key sectors to try and make them to deliver the 2030 target that we are looking for. There are two real answers to that. One is to provide assistance to small businesses who are being successful to make the step up in scale. For example, a business that is newly supplying a supermarket and gone from being a small local business to supplying a supermarket three, six, five days a year. That involves a lot of expansion of business, involves a lot of business skills, and we therefore can give details. We have a scheme that we are just introducing, which will encourage help, mentor, assist those small businesses to make that leap. Again, I have discussed that in many meetings with most of the major supermarkets. That is a form of business support in our food and drink budget that I really think will help us to see tomorrow's bars, walkers, grams and so on. Many of the food and drink businesses started off as family businesses some generations ago, and they made that step. We want others to do that. Also, I may say that supermarkets themselves are doing that. Sometimes they come in for a lot of flak, but they provide a lot of help themselves to promote their smaller suppliers to help them to grow. That is good. The second answer is that let us take one example of shellfish. Scottish shellfish's delicious products enjoyed all over the world, and exports are particularly important, particularly to Europe, but also further afield. There are constraints and growth there. I heard about it at a recent annual meeting of shellfish growers and producers. That is an area where better marketing, for example, could assist. Equally, in the pelagic sector, for example, a highly successful sector, the Norwegians have dominated certain markets, for example Japan. Although it is not part of the current year's particular spend, there are opportunities to break into and establish a presence in major international markets in a particular pelagic sector. Mr Stevenson will be well aware of that. In the drink sector, we have seen lots of artisan gin distillers, for example, come on leaps and bounds over recent years. Again, some of them want to make the next step up and, equally, in relays, beers and ciders. Lots of small businesses that are getting a presence on major retailer shelves want to make that next step up. That is a very good question, convener, if I may say so. There are many small businesses in Scotland that some of them will, if they get the right support and advice and with effort on their part, can make the next step up to become very major players indeed, and that would be a terrific thing. Thank you. I am going to move on to the next question, Peter Chapman. Yes. We have heard lots about cuts to various budgets, but there is one budget line that has increased spectacularly. That is a leader fund that is going up 127 per cent from 10.1 million to 22.9 million next year, which would appear to be great good news. I just wonder why. Is there so much extra money in the leader fund and what outcomes will we get from this extra spend? I think that Mr Chapman is quite right that the estimated spend has increased. This is really a facet of the nature of the leader programme. It has a slow start and spend peaks around years 4 and 5. Those tend to be projects to establish community facilities, for example. The first two or three years are a sort of planning stage, and then you get into the implementation stage. It is a facet of the leader programme and the previous leader programme that you have a spending peak around year 4 to 5. The uncertainty around Brexit has caused three responses to the way funding has been committed. Local action groups have accelerated spend, and they have paused spend or continued as usual. As a consequence, the spend has been realigned to reflect the differences in commitments and forecast spend, so I hope that that is an explanation of that particular matter. Do we know how that is going to impact? What can we expect the extra spend to deliver? Well, leader actions result in a number of things. We have community action and climate change, enhanced rural services, including transport initiatives, enhanced natural, cultural heritage, tourism and leisure, support for food and drink initiatives, co-operation with other local action groups and exchange of learning and knowledge with each other. There is a wide variety of different types of projects and, therefore, we will see achievements in all those areas. Thank you, cabinet secretary. The next question is from me, cabinet secretary. The payments and inspections administration costs have increased. Between staff and depreciation, if we could home in on the staffing costs, if I may, there is a 16.4 per cent increase. If you look at the level 4 sheets, it gives reasons for that. I would like to ask how much of that 16.4 per cent increase is due to establishing a sustainable IT support for the CAP IT system. How much of that 16.4 per cent increase is down to the CAP IT system, cabinet secretary? If I may, I will pass that question to Annabelle Torpy. I would like to write you on that or rather get Mr Turnbull to write you on that because I do not have the specific figures there, but what I can tell you is that this covers a range of things, so it is actually across SASA as well. It is about fully funding the pay bill of nearly 1,000 agricultural staff across Scotland and across Arpit in SASA. It is progressing the national development plan for crofting and the agricultural holding provisions in the land reform Scotland Act, so I know that it is not all solely related to the IT, but we will get back to you because I do not have that information in front of me. Annabelle Torpy, and just to remind you that I am particularly asking on the CAP IT, not on the other aspects that you have mentioned. Cabinet secretary, if I could follow that up by the second part of the question, is the depreciation cost of increase by a mild 78 per cent or within points of 78 per cent? Could you just explain to me how much of that 78 per cent in cash terms is relevant to writing down the IT systems, please? I think that Annabelle will answer this one as well. The difference in depreciation from 1718 to 1819 is an additional 10 million on the futures IT side depreciation. It is £10 million that is the depreciation on the CAP IT system. I am going to continue to answer the question. There is an additional 10 million from last year, which is about depreciation on the spend on the IT system, including additional spend last year and this year, as Mr Turnbull set out at previous committee hearings. I catch you waving frantically if you would like to come in now. It was just to seek a confirmation that, of course, depreciation is a non-cash item. If I could come in on that, that is absolutely right and it will not be taking money away from front-line nurses or teachers. It is a very normal accounting practice, I do not know if Mr Sheddon wants to say more on this, but it is absolutely part of the non-cash. I absolutely understand that depreciation is a non-cash item, but it is in budgets to facilitate the replacement of equipment in future years. I understand that. Can you give me an idea of the depreciation that has been set on the stud farm, which I visited and is an excellent facility? I do not have that information in front of me, but we can come back on that one. The next question is from Rhaedda Grant. Can I ask about the veterinary surveillance budget, which has fallen by 19.3 per cent? Can I ask if that is going to impact on services? Will there be services cut, and especially in rural and remote areas that have had cuts in the past? I am really sorry, I did not hear the question. I am asking about the veterinary surveillance budget, which has fallen by 19.3 per cent. I am just wondering what impact that is going to have on services. I will look for the detail, but I am in the headline answer to that. I think that we do work very closely with SRUC and Morden. I visited Morden recently and worked with SRUC and, indeed, encouraged and facilitated the increased co-operation between SRUC, who are now co-locating at Morden as a tenant of Morden, no doubt, to the financial advantage of public being able to realise savings by sharing the substantial building part of which, frankly, was empty. Therefore, by encouraging that move there, I assume that, although I have not got the figures from them yet, SRUC and Morden, in fact, will be making a substantial saving on the other options that SRUC were looking at, which I think included a new build at a university campus. However, we do work closely with SRUC and Morden to ensure that the veterinary surveillance programme is effectively delivered, and the partnership between the two organisations will deliver efficiencies, as well as improve the effectiveness of the overall programme. So there will be no cuts in service? Well, we always seek greater efficiencies in the way that we operate, particularly in these straight-in times. It doesn't really answer my question. I'm not feeling particularly reassured, but, however, spending on the public good advisory service is going to fall as well. I'm wondering, because some of the planned schemes haven't come into fruition. I'm wondering which ones haven't come into fruition, why are they being dropped? I think that there were two schemes that we were looking to consider implementing, but after reflection we decided that they wouldn't necessarily represent the best value for money. I can't remember, because we didn't decide not to pursue them. This was some time ago. I'm not quite sure if I can recall which they were, but I can certainly write to you, convener, to explain that, if you wish. That would be useful. If I may come in and say that that discussion was done with stakeholders, so it wasn't an internal decision that was taken by itself that was done in conjunction with stakeholders looking at the efficiency and effectiveness of the programmes. Cabinet Secretary, what is your view regarding the budget funding to support emission reduction from the agricultural sector? Is it sufficient, given that agriculture and related land use is the third largest source of emissions in Scotland? I think that the funding is sufficient. Again, the best way of cutting emissions is to get the buy-in of farmers. For example, nitrate vulnerable zones were introduced some particular time ago. There was a lot of controversy at the time, and more recently there was introduction in the south west, which led to teething pains. However, I think that now there is a wide buy-in that the gains to the environment were worthwhile and necessary in terms of reducing water pollution and so on. Another example is the use of soil testing and other technological advances. My goodness, are there technological advances that one sees at places such as AgriScot? The testing in itself does not really achieve anything other than an analysis of the acidic content of the soil, but it can then be used to determine how best to deploy fertilizer and to avoid the overuse of fertilizer. That is very good for the environment because you are not putting in extra fertilizer and chemicals beyond what is required. On companies, I saw a presentation from Bartlett's at an event that I attended with the Royal Bank a long ago. They demonstrated that individual fields will be analysed in terms of their soil quality in order to get the best yield of potatoes, for example. The point that I am making, convener, is that to get buy-in from farmers that what is good for the environment is good business practice. That is ideal. That is the kind of approach that we are taking, the carrot rather than the stick, if you like, although we keep that approach under review. However, the funding that we believe is sufficient to tackle water and air quality biodiversity and tackle emission reduction as well. John Finnie would like a supplementary on that particular area, before you move on to the next one. If you have finished on that particular area, Richard. I have another two questions, but I will give them to my colleague. Cabinet Secretary, I note that you concluded there by saying that you would keep this issue under review, but there is very clearly a reduction in the peatland restoration funding to support the emission budget for the emission reductions in the agricultural sector. With regard to another area that you touched on, which was the public good advisory service, again a reduction there. Were advised that it is yet to be determined what will happen about the climate change initiatives element of that. Will you be able to say when that would be made known, please? I am not trying to duck the question, but some of those areas are being dealt directly by Roseanne Cunningham, because they fall largely within a portfolio. There is good news, and I am inclined to defend farmers here. There is good news from farmers from the steps that they are taking together in partnership with Government. For example, it is worthy of note that the 2015 statistics show that agricultural emissions are down by more than 25 per cent from the 1990 baseline level. In terms of emission reductions, not only are we heading in the right direction, but Scotland does lead the way for the rest of the UK. The points that Mr Finnie raised is that I am certainly happy to pursue in a letter, because I think that repeatland reduction and environmental advice are matters that I am not dealing on a day-to-day basis. I would prefer to make sure that Ms Cunningham is cited in these to give her the highest-quality responses. Do you remember that the committee wants to implore you to plant more trees? Do you think that the increased budget for woodland grants will allow the plant targets to be met? Yes. We are moving towards achieving our target. The increase in funding to 46 million in woodland grants includes increasing the forestry grant scheme woodland creation budget to 40 million in 2018-19. We anticipate that that will be sufficient to deliver 9,500 hectares of new planting. In addition, I think that Forest Enterprise plans further hectare age as well. We are moving very substantially upward from previous years, where, sadly, we did not achieve the targets. That is as a result of increased grants. It is also a result of the McKinnon review, its result of the benefits that we are seeing in the investment, the increased investment in the timber transport fund, mostly road, but we are looking at some exciting opportunities on rail freight for timber as well. It is also a result of having galvanised the sector in forestry summits and very close engagement with Confor, the STTA, the UKFPA and other commercial players to encourage further investment in forestry. Finally, we are working with local authorities, where forestry is particularly important. I have met individual local authorities to discuss that and work together with them to work out the best place for new plantings, because it is absolutely essential that we have the right tree in the right place. Good silvicultural practice is observed both for coniferous and broadleaf both native and non-native species. Those are matters primarily for foresters to determine working with local authority partners. That partnership is being worked on directly at my behest with John Doogan of the Forestry Commission and the likes of Borders, Dumfries and Galloway and many other local authorities. Overall, there are many parts that I have not mentioned in the research, the nurseries and so on. There is a collective effort across the forestry sector, including sheep and trees, involvement of farmers and advice to farmers, which is a metrifically successful funding scheme that has been initiated and work for the SRUC is doing as well. It is a broad and detailed tapestry, but the results are that we are heading very much towards achieving our target sooner rather than later. You have actually been asked this question before in discussions regarding the forestry bill, but do you believe that the Forestry Commission Scotland can continue to deliver all its requirements and responsibilities in case of some budget reductions? Yes, I am confident in the abilities of the workforce and the Forestry Commission to achieve and fulfil all its functions. The reason that I am confident is that I have met most of them and I have spoken to them. I have visited all the Conservancies, as well as Sylvan House, and I have been struck by their commitment to what is a calling, not just the job, around the country and the complex nature and the professional nature of what they do, and that is something that we are determined to continue after devolution is complete. Thank you, Richard Peter. Cabinet Secretary, one of the biggest, if not the biggest, contributor to the new non-domestic rates on shootings and deer forests is going to be, I would guess, the Forestry Commission. Have you calculated what this rates bill will be for the Forestry Commission? Is this factor into the budget? Yes, we are working on that matter currently. From memory, convener, the estimated total liability estimate of the forest enterprise, as it will be largely, is around £1 million per annum, so that is a very substantial amount of money. We take the view that the role that the Forestry Commission does in deer management should result in it being recognised that there should not be a liability to rates. There may be a rateable value, but there should be a relief. Indeed, in the legislation that was passed, there is a specific clause that refers to deer management. I think that it was envisaged that the imposition of rates would be on actual sporting use of land in Scotland, not on forestry. That is the view that we take in the forestry, and therefore we are having discussions with relevant parties there and then. I would also add that one of the recommendations in the Barclay review was not that farmers be rated, but that farming be assessed for rating. We rejected that recommendation. We did not think that that was appropriate, and therefore we did not go ahead with that. I think that it is important to mention that. Can I just follow up slightly on that, cabinet secretary? At the moment, I am aware that the Forestry Commission has various deer ladders around Scotland that are used in conjunction with deer management, which are all subject to rating and which they pay rates on, on the basis that you are suggesting that they may be getting rates relief on the stalking. Will you be applying for rates relief on the deer ladders, which they have accepted in the past? I think that what I am saying is that there is a distinction between forestry land, which is used for shooting, and which should be subject to the law, and on one hand, forestry land, which is not used for shooting on the other hand. The broad point is that land, which is a forestry land, where there is no shooting conducted and no shooting let, because they let out some of their estate for sporting use. Forestry land, where there is deer management, should not be subject to rates. That is our view, and that is a view and a discussion that we are taking forward with the relevant authorities. You are raising the deer ladder aspect, and that is slightly different. Obviously, where there is a liability to rates, then public bodies must pay them. The argument that I am making is that, at the moment, it appears to me that there is a very strong argument that the approach that the assessors are taking is one that we need to probe and question, and there are meetings being conducted in order to finalise those discussions. Of course, the assessors are entirely independent of the Scottish Government, and it may well be that the normal way of things is that appeals have to be entered against the proposed valuations, rateable values, as entered in the valuation role. I am quite confused by that answer, because farming businesses right up and down the length and breadth of Scotland have had their businesses assessed for rates for shooting, whether they shoot on that land or not. Why should it be different for a forested area, because they do not actually shoot on it, because, as I say, farmers, horrible farmers and other farmers who do not shoot and get no shooting income have been assessed for these rates? Those are fair questions for the assessors in Scotland, and I would recommend that the committee pursue them with the assessors. The point that I was making, convener, earlier was that there was a recommendation in the Barclay view that farming land, as farming land, should be rated, and we rejected that, but I do appreciate that the assessors have taken the view that there needs to have been an assessment for the purposes of computing a rateable value of some agricultural land that could be used for shooting. That was a decision, as I understand it, and I hope that I am not misrepresenting anybody, was taken by the assessors who are independent of Government, so, out of fairness to them, I do think that Mr Chapman's question is one that should be addressed to them. Thank you, cabinet secretary. Can I take you back to trees, if I may? I think that the committee has always expressed an opinion that the increased planting of trees is good and that it is being encouraged. The planting targets that you aspire to, and I think that the committee's support, would suggest that the draft budget for next year and the year after to reach those planting targets would have to be considerably higher than it is. Are you concerned that it is not higher and that you are still going to be able to, just like it is recorded, meet your planting targets? Next year and the year after? We are moving towards achieving the target. I think that I have given the estimate of 9,500 hectares next year, on top of which I believe that Forest Enterprise expects to, if you like, bridge the gap to the 10,000 target. Again, I can provide more detail with that, with some supplementary information from Simon Hodge of Forest Enterprise. A point I am making was that, sadly, we fell very far shorter from reaching our targets in the past. I have been quite candid about that. I think that good progress has been made across the board and we are very close to achieving our target. I hope that we reach it. I am not going to say that we will at the moment, convener, but I am confident that we will. Of course, it is a matter of the real constraint—I think that, if Jo O'Hara were here, she would say, as she said to me—that the real constraint is not the availability of investment, it is the availability of land that is suitable for forestry. That has been the practical constraint. That is precisely why I have invested quite a lot of time and energy in reaching out to all involved to work in partnership, particularly local authorities, who have a big role to play. Local authorities in areas such as South of Scotland, where forestry is so important, encourage that we work far more closely together than before in coming to a workable plan that is suitable for local authorities and communities affected, too. After all, local authorities and councillors represent their local areas and know it perhaps better than, arguably better than, anybody. The approach that we are taking is designed to meet the targets. I am fairly confident that we are just about to do so. I fully intend to drive forward the good measures that we have introduced—the increase in grant money, the increase in timber transport fund, the streamlining of the procedures through the McKinnon report, the growth of restocking by nurseries, and also the importance of research and the excellent research that was done at Roslyn, which I visited last week and which will continue as a separate agency of the Forestry Commission in the UK. As you know, convener, it is a big picture. There are lots of pieces in this jigsaw, but I am reasonably confident that we will achieve our targets, that the funding is sufficient to enable us to do so. We are driving forward across the board with the sector to reach our objectives. Cabinet Secretary, I have a question without meaning to prejudge what the Parliament decides on the forestry bill. I believe that there is a financial implication cost of about £8 million in the forestry bill. You indicated to the committee that one of the first things that would need to happen with the new organisation would be a new computer system. Can you just enlighten me to how much that computer system is going to cost and where it appears in the budget if that is going to happen in the short term and where the £8 million will be in the budget for the rebranding and the reorganisation of the Forestry Commission? Right. Those were figures in the financial memorandum of the bill. Those figures have not been finalised, so the work that I explained to the committee in a previous occasion is being examined at the moment in relation to the rebranding costs and the IT costs. You remember, convener, that the computer system in the Forestry Commission as a whole needed to be replaced anyway, so that was work that I was advised that needed to be done anyway as part of the replacement of outmoded equipment. However, we have increased the overall Forestry Commission budget by £2.4 million. I am confident that, with the prudent stewardship of Simon Hodge and Joe O'Hara working closely with Scottish Government officials, we will manage to live within our means. Cabinet Secretary, I am not quite sure how to answer that in the sense that you are suggesting that £8 million, which is for the rebranding and whatever the computer system costs are, which you have not worked out yet, will be covered by a £2.4 million increase in the Forestry Commission budget. I am sorry, I do not see how that works. Perhaps you could, if you are unable to tie those figures down, we are very happy to receive that in writing posts at the committee. I will certainly do that, but just to complete the explanation that the costs that we require on IT and rebranding have not yet and cannot yet be fully estimated. We are not at the stage where we can do that. As I have said before, I want to make sure that those costs are kept to a minimum. I want the money to go in planting trees, putting it crudely. I do not want more money that is necessary going on rebranding, for example. That clear instruction has been given, but we are not yet at the stage of getting actual estimates. We are still ascertaining. After all, the law has not been passed by the Scottish Parliament yet. It would be rather surprising if a perfect 100 per cent plan were formulated before the legislation is even through. This is something that we are dealing with in relation to the forestry bill, rather than the budget. For that reason, we are not yet at the stage of moving to the accounting phase, if you like. We are still at the planning stage of these measures. However, having had detailed discussions in meetings with the leaders of both commission and forest enterprise, I am confident that they will keep within their budget. My only comment of that would be prudence. It would suggest that you have an allowance in there, even if you do not use it or stir it. The next question is yours. I want to ask a number of questions in areas that are related to connecting Scotland. The focusing on perhaps areas is not fully covered by yesterday's statement. One of the great successes of the digital Scotland superfast broadband programme has been the higher-than-expected take-up of commercial services, which has led to an increase in the amount that will be available through gain share. Of course, in the coming year, gain share will be an increasing proportion of the expenditure that is continuing to roll out the DSSB programme. Does the cabinet secretary have anything to say about how much we might see from gain share? We can see in the budget, obviously, about the Government spending, but as more of it will be from gain share in the coming year, do we know what that might be? I can say that, thus far, £17.9 million of gain share funding has been generated across both contracts—that is the one in the Highlands and Islands, which went first and the one in the rest of Scotland—and that will enable delivery of fibre access to around 23,000 additional premises across Scotland during 2018. As I said in the chamber yesterday, every local authority in Scotland will see a benefit from this. Gain share as a concept was created in the contracts by reference to the anticipated additional custom that would be gained by BT, the contractor under the contract. I think that the assumption was that 20 per cent of people who had access as a result of the contract would sign up with BT, but, in fact, the number of signing up exceeded that. Therefore, BT gained commercially from it. Planning ahead in the contract, there was a mechanism called gain share, which meant that BT would pay back an additional amount for the additional customers that they got beyond the 20 per cent—I think it was 20 per cent—assumption. I think that it was a well-planned contract. It was thought through. It was one where we had extra relations with BT and it was one where we worked closely with local authorities. If I may say so, the way in which we procured this, as opposed to elsewhere in the UK, gained benefits of scale by having two contracts, not contracts for every local authority, which was the approach that was taken by Mr Hancock in England. Therefore, the performance of DSSB in delivering over 800,000 homes and businesses that are now able to access superfast broadband has been a good example of public procurement, working in practice and delivering more benefits than planned. I am grateful to have an opportunity to comment on that. The 23,000 connections that will be funded by game share is that contributing to the reduction that has led to the 285,000 figure, which I think applies to the R100 programme—the remaining 5 per cent, in other words—or is that simply that BT will be paying through game share for 23,000 in the existing programme? That is a very good question. The answer is yes. The more successful DSSB contracts were, the ones that were implemented were, the less there is to do. By definition, R100 is to reach 100. That is 100 per cent. The closer you get to 100 per cent, the less there is to do. Therefore, the benefits of DSSB are being manifest. It also makes the point that it is only possible now to move to R100 because, in defining the scope of that contract, one has to identify which homes and businesses in Scotland do not have access. That means analysing data on a humongous scale. Analyzing not only the data under the two DSSB contracts but also the planned commercial interventions. Not only do we have to, as a specification for the R100 contract, look at what we have done in the public sector but also what is planned to be done in the private sector. Mr Stevens is absolutely right. It may be about as interesting as watching paint dry, but, nonetheless, in terms of successful public procurement, it has been pretty successful. As someone who, individually, looks to benefit from the R100 programme, that is much more exciting than watching paint dry, cabinet secretary. A quick calculation suggests that the game share programme is contributing about one percentage point in moving us towards the targets that we are seeking. That is terribly encouraging. On the game share, do we have a view as to how that money is going to be distributed among the various local authorities, or is that a subject that we have not yet made decisions on? In principle, the game share investment will be deployed in those local authority areas where there is the lowest level of coverage. In principle, that is the approach that we are taking. The lowest speed coverage includes Aberdeenshire, Angusdom, Frees, Galloway, Perth and Kinross, Scottish Borders, Stirling as well as the Highlands and Islands. The rural areas, by and large, will benefit most. As they will do under R100, the preponderance of spend is for the north and the south rather than the centre in the three regional lots in which they will be in R100. No doubt I will be grilled on that several times in my frequent appearances before this committee. Perhaps finally, do we have a profile for what the expenditure might be over the next four financial years up to the point where we have completed the R100 programme in 2021? We do not yet, and we cannot yet. We cannot yet because we are going to procurement and we have not got the bids. Until we know what the bids are, we cannot plan the spend. We are not actually at that stage. We do not have the figures yet. What I would say, though, and this is absolutely crucial, is that the R100 procurement has been planned, designed to maximise the chance of competition. Had we gone too early, we would only have got BT. Why would anyone bid when BT were in control of the specification under the DSSB contract? If we had lotted Scotland as one unit, perhaps only one company would have been able to supply a bid. That is why we have divided into three lots. The evidence from down south suggests that, where there is competition in procurement, where there is more than one bidder, bidders tend to show on the pencil and the taxpayer tends to get the best value. A lot of thought has been gone into this by experts to ensure that we get competitive bids. Logically, only when we get the bids in can we deal with the profile of the spending because we do not at the moment know what the bids will be. We have created an allowance for each area, but we cannot predict what the outcome of the tender process will be. As I explained yesterday, we hope that that process will be completed by early 2019. It is an extremely complicated process. Competitive dialogue is necessary to avoid non-compliant bids being received. That all means that it is absolutely essential to get procurement process right, as those who remember the procurement of this building will remember it only too well. Can I seek a point of clarification? I think that the question that Stuart asked you on the game share was how will this money be assigned to local authorities? Your point was that it will be deployed in the following areas. Does that mean that you will be deploying it or it will be assigned to the local authorities in those areas? Could you just clarify that for me, please? I think that I said that the principle would be to focus investment in maximising superfast coverage in areas with the lowest speed coverage. That is the principle, but maybe Robbie will provide more detail. In effect, the game share funding will be deployed through existing contractual mechanisms. The prioritisation that the cabinet secretary has spoken about has been agreed with all the contributing partners, including local authorities. It is focused on BTs modelling in particular areas, but there is not a case of the funding that will go to local authorities for them to then deploy it. It is just reinvested through existing contractual mechanisms. Thank you, Robbie. That clarifies that point. I think that you have a question, and then we are going to move on to Jamie Greene. Yes. Just to quickly go back on to Stuart Stevenson's question, he asked how much we would receive in game share, and you did not give him that figure. You gave him how many properties would benefit from it, but not actually the monetary figure. Maybe you could provide how that has worked out and the figure to committee in writing, if that is possible? I think that 17.9 million has been generated so far across the contracts. I do not know whether, and 23,000 additional premises across Scotland during 2018. Is there any more information that we have got to Robbie to answer the question? That is the amount of game share funding that has been generated thus far. There are trigger points in the contract that we will see further game share released, but that is the two figures that the Cabinet Secretary of Education quoted that reflect the initial activity in 2018 funded by game share. We do not have a figure that will go alongside the budget figure that was released in the budget. There is not an additional figure that will... Can I also ask and maybe get this in writing as well about the voucher system that was announced yesterday in the statement? Again, it is probably lower down in the figures of the budget, but it would be interesting to know how much has been allocated to that and what will be the value of the voucher system and indeed whether or not that fulfills the Government's responsibility and there are 100 to those who it is available to. If I can answer generally and pass to Robbie for any details that I have omitted, but the first answer and the most important answer is that our aim is to reach as many as possible if they are 100 by fibre. That is the aim and therefore our aim in processing the competitive dialogue with bidders is to encourage that the absolute maximum number of homes and businesses are covered with access to fibre by provision of backhaul rather than other methods. Therefore, by definition, convener, only once we see what the outcome of the procurement process is, will we be able to ascertain what the remainder of the residue is to put it that way of those who are left who are not going to be able to access through fibre means. The first objective is to maximise those who can access by fibre and only once that process is completed early in 2019 can we make a definitive plan for the rest, but we can and we did briefly set out in outline the components of that plan. Does that cover it, Rob? Yes, it does. I think that from our point of view clearly we expect that that £600 million that has been announced will drive coverage really extensively, fibre coverage into rural areas extensively. We would hope that that would minimise the need for any kind of subsequent phases and I think that if we can achieve competition through the procurement that that just increases that chance. Obviously what we are doing at the moment is scoping out what a voucher scheme would look like, how it would best be operated, how it could be made most user friendly and accessible for the general public, how they could aggregate vouchers, that kind of thing. So we are working through all of that just now, but it is very much with the hope that it may not need to be utilised as fully as you might imagine, given the scale of the investment that is going through the initial procurement. Jamie. Thank you, convener. Can I ask just to follow on from the point that Mr McGee has just made, can I ask what liaison you are going through with DCMS at the moment? There already is a UK-wide voucher scheme for people who are unable to access fibre cabinets. Is this an additional voucher scheme in addition to the UK one, the DCMS-led scheme, or is this a part of that scheme? It would be. We obviously administer the better broadband scheme, which is a scheme that you refer to on behalf of the UK Government, so that has recently been extended until the end of 2018. So we are obviously part of the work that we are doing around the voucher scheme, is working with DCMS to obviously learn from the kind of experience that they have had and to plan on that basis and I guess ideally we would be looking to get to a point where if the better broadband scheme is extended beyond the end of 2018, then it is a kind of single access point for people so that it is co-ordinated, so we have got engagement on going with DCMS in that regard. Okay, so the announcement for a voucher scheme is based on extension of an existing scheme? No, no, so it would be a standalone scheme that would be needed in Scotland, it would be funded by the Scottish Government, but as I say we are just likely to make sure that it is as seamless as possible in terms of people's experience of accessing vouchers. Moving on to the budget, if I could ask the cabinet secretary if he could explain the reduction in the digital strategy capital budget as a reduction of around £80 million, there's 34 million in there for next year, could he explain what that 34 million is going to be spent on and why the reduction? Well, this relates to the profile of spend and the reduction reflects the updated delivery timelines for the R100 programme. The procurement began earlier this month with the old you notice that it's expected to last one year, so obviously at one level, the high level, the major spend follows the procurement completion. The procurement process itself involves an element of professional cost, not inconsiderable, but the actual spend on laying fibre in the ground happens after the procurement is over, and that would commence in early 2019. Gainshare, and I want to stress this, will see new deployment in every local authority area in Scotland across 2018, avoiding any significant gap between DSSB and R100 deployment. It's also relevant to say that, in addition to that, there will be spend on a mobile infill programme and we will invest up to £25 million, including £10 million of ERDF, to deliver the 4G infill programme. That will help to deliver a number of masts across rural Scotland to deal with non-spots in areas where we would not expect the markets to provide the answer, in other words areas where, unless there is public sector intervention convener, nothing will happen. Therefore, the 4G infill programme was launched in August. The procurement will start in January. A supplier is expected to be in place by May, and I would expect that there will be mass being delivered or the preparatory work being delivered by Q4 this year. I please have an opportunity to say that it's not all about broadband, it's also about mobile, because there's far too many areas of Scotland where too many people are suffering from non-spots. Our mobile action plan, the first in the UK, has helped by streamlining planning permissions to enable the swifter processing of applications for the erection of new mobile masts. If I may clarify, £34 million in the draft budget is that funding DSSB, mobile or R100? I'm a bit confused by that answer. It enables all three to proceed in the course of the year. As the cabinet secretary has outlined, there is an actual ebb and flow around capital. In 1718, the DSSB programme has maximised spend, as has already been outlined in this financial year. It's moving more towards deployment through a gainshare. In the course of 1819, the capital budget covers the 4G infill programme that's been mentioned, but there will be minimal costs of R100 deployment in 1819, just given the length of the procurement process that's just been involved. I think it's very important to bear in mind, convener, that there's also lots of commercial activity. I mentioned in the chamber yesterday that the company is involved in providing commercial provision for broadband, so that is going ahead as well in 218. It's going ahead at pace, actually, according to many of the main players all the whom I've met. I'm pleased to hear that. If we could then move on to R100, the figure of £600 million was mentioned in the comprehensive statement made by the cabinet secretary yesterday. Could you just clarify that £579 million of that, as confirmed in the chamber yesterday, is coming directly from the Scottish Government's capital investment budgets? Yes, all of the funding is coming from the Scottish Government, that's broadly £579 million and £21 million is coming from the UK Government, that's 3.5%. I should say that I have invited Matt Hancock to my UK counterpart on several occasions, most recently at a meeting in Edinburgh, to increase this somewhat measly contribution, particularly since broadband is a reserve matter, something that has been confirmed recently in the UK industrial strategy, where that is a, I think, a verbatim quote. The UK should be paying for this, but they refuse to do so. I don't know whether the report may change this morning, since I believe in the news this morning, it emerged that the UK's plan to reach a contract, voluntary contract with BP has, well, fallen apart. I think that they are going back to the drawing board, convener, and I hope that they will revisit their plan to limit the aspirations of the connections in England to 10 megabits per second instead of 30 megabits per second, since their primary plan has fallen apart. If I could bring us back to Scotland, if I may. I'm a generalist, so I want to ask you a question. Given that there's no R100 money in this year's draft budget, does that therefore mean that the £579 million will be spread across the next three years budgets, given the reduction in the overall— So what will be spread? The £579 million. Will that appear in the next three years budgets, or it seems to be the only way it will appear if it's not in this year's budget? Well, as I say, you know, we are doing various things this year, and that's been explained, but the R100 spend will be concentrated largely following 2019, in 2019 to 2020 and 2021, with the aim of completing the procurement project by the end of 2021. That is the aim, so the mass majority of the £600 million will be spread across those three financial years. Thank you for clarifying. Thank you, cabinet secretary. Minister, I think that your time is now upon you, and the first question is from John Finnie. Minister, it's about active travel, and it's about words. Words are very important even on budget sheets. The programme for government was very clear. It talked about doubling the investment in walking and cycling to £80 million, and that was very welcome. Cabinet secretary's budget statement referred to active and sustainable travel. Can you clarify if there is any difference to be read into that, or what other modes of transport are going to be covered by that £80 million, and how the funds will be distributed, please? Yes, thank you. I had some social media contributions from active travel stakeholders on this, and I think that there may be some confusion, so I welcome the member's question to be able to clarify. It's probably worth separating active travel and sustainable travel, so I can talk about them individually. Active travel is what he and I would generally call cycling and walking. Sustainable travel generally is those things that make our travel more sustainable. Without necessarily being active travel, the most obvious example would be for talking, say, electric vehicles and funding for electric vehicles. On the active travel side, I was just looking at the tables, just as he was speaking. They are generally funded from a number of different funds in the budget. Support for sustainable and active travel is the big part of that. However, if he looks at the budget, he will see cycling, walking and safer streets budget as well. Then there is the future transport fund as well. The £80 million absolutely will be for active travel. For point of clarification, the £80 million, the additional spend, the additional funding— No charging points in the £80 million. That will be in the sustainable travel, and that will largely come out of the future transport fund, which has seen a more than 100 per cent increase as well. I hope that that gives an element of clarification on that point. The method of distributing that money, Minister, is able to— I can give you some. Clearly, we are working with stakeholders around the best way to distribute those funds. We have had the infamous Mike Rumble's amendment around increasing training rates for children, which is a one that we welcome and voted for. We are taking all that into account. It would be fair to say to answer the member's question that a large proportion of that will be on capital, so segregated cycling infrastructure, footpaths and so on. We will also continue to use some of the existing mechanisms that we have—Community of Links, Community of Links Plus, which are 50 per cent match-funded with local authorities, as well as some of the other mechanisms that we have, but we will clearly give more detail in due course. I move on to a couple of questions on rail. The draft budget shows a significant shift in funding from rail franchise payments to rail infrastructure payments. Can you explain the reasons for that change and any implications that it has for future rail service provision? Yes. We are obviously very alert that that might come up as a question, because it is a very distinct and obvious difference. The reason for that is that most of that change comes from fixed track access charges. The member may already be aware, but it is worth putting in the record that fixed track access charges are determined by the ORR. Over a control period, they will look at network rails' income and other revenue streams, and then they will determine what the fixed track access charge will be. That is generally—if it has come from the franchise—again, fixed track access charges are complicated, but if they come from the franchise, they come in from resource. If they are paid directly to network rail, they come in as capital. That can be difficult, because fixed track access charges can vary year on year, and therefore there is variability in the resource and capital budgets. In order to try to remove some of that instability or inconsistency, essentially all that we are doing is paying those fixed track access charges from capital, as opposed to resource, so that there is some consistency, there is less variability year on year. To answer the member's question, what will have any effect on rail provision, the answer would be no, because you are still paying those fixed track access charges, whether you are paying them from resource or capital. Essentially, you are paying them to network rail for future rail provision sources. We will check that with officials, but that would be technical more than anything else. The answer to the question would be no, because it would not affect rail provision. You mentioned network rail. The draft budget highlights significant changes to the funding and accounting of network rail projects that will come into effect in 2019-20. What impact might that have on future financing of Scottish rail projects and the role of Scottish ministers in financing network rail operations in Scotland? The member will probably be aware that we have been in quite robust discussions with the UK Government and Her Majesty's Treasury on funding for control period 6 2019-2024. I know he has commented on this, which I thank him for. There are a couple of elements to that discussion. One is the level of funding, which is a disagreement, and that has been well versed. I will not go into that other than to put on record once again how disappointed we are at the level of that cut, but that discussion is on going. I will park that to one side. The other side of it is on how that funding will be distributed. Again, he will be aware that, in previous control periods, network rails have been funded through its borrowing capacity. That is being shifted to grant funding, so we will then have a direct control over the release of those funds. That is something that I am welcome to have more flexibility in that funding, which I think is very helpful. That will then be put in place—arrangements will have to be put in place—to manage this change, and that has to be very much in line with the public finance manual. It is assured that it is appropriate accountability and governance by network rail and of network rail. How much that funding is and what level that funding is, is still a matter of discussion. However, there is a difference between the borrowing capacity, which is how network rail was originally funded, and now that is being replaced by grant funding. There is some benefits to that, but there is still a disagreement around the level of that fund. With regard to the specific difference in the anticipated level of funding, are you able to say what potential implications that could have? Is there something that was going to happen that, as things stand at the moment, and hopefully they can be resolved, will not go ahead? Is often that can focus minds if you can say that we are going to do this, we are no longer able to? We have a flexible pipeline approach to control period six, which means that we do not have a prescriptive list of things that we will do. However, there are some things that we absolutely have to do in control period six. For example, the east coast mainline needs some considerable investments already, very much at capacity. Part of that was the stations at East Linton and Reston, and we have committed to bringing them forward in control period six. We absolutely are determined to do that, but does that make the job more challenging? If you have a £600 million cut already cut, then of course it does. Every single project in control period six that we have determined that we will be doing, or that is in the pipeline, all of those are potentially under threat, and that is a very dangerous position to be in. I have given as much reassurance to members, as I can, who have an interest in stations or particular lines, and I will continue to give that reassurance. However, I cannot magic money out of thin air, if £600 million has been taken out of what the industry tells us it needs for maintenance, operations, renewals and enhancements, then clearly that is going to have an impact. You cannot absorb that £600 million without any impact at all. John Lennon, there is a brief question from Rich Lawn. The concessory affairs and bus services, there was a lot of misinformation during the last year about going to be cut, I want to lose my ticket. Can you give us an assurance and I know that the budget is back up and can you confirm that? At the start of the meeting it was said that the budget in the Iraqis is down, is it not the case because it is mainly down that motorways and trump budget line from £9.6 million to £8.9 million, a fall of £147 million, because Queensferry crossing has been completed, Aberdeen Western periphery routes has been nearly completed and Cincreig and Dowradi section of the A9 dweyling project has been completed. Does that know why the Iraqi committee budget is felt because of realignment? To answer the last question first, yes, you would be right, that is part of the reason why the budget line has fallen, because projects get complete, you obviously don't have to spend so much on the crossing or AWPR as it gets to the end of its life. In terms of his question about concessionary travel, he will be aware that there is a consultation that was on-going that closed recently a number of responses, a very well-responded consultation that it was when we were analysing that, but he is absolutely right to say that he will have seen an increase in the budget towards buses. That makes up concessionary travel, it makes up the besaw grant and it also makes up, as was mentioned by the cabinet secretary in his opening statement, additional money to help with green the fleet to help to meet our low emission targets. So, good news for everybody. Good news, of course, for everyone and particularly just on his point that if you have a concessionary card you will absolutely be keeping that concessionary card, no ifs, no buss. I maybe should say that I do actually have one so, which are very seldom news. I wasn't going to suggest that you should register an interest in that particular question, but I'm pleased that you've clarified one less. I think we'll leave that bus pass there. John, you've got a question now. Thank you, convener. Presswick airport, I wanted to ask about, I mean, there has been some speculation that it might be getting near a sale and I just wondered if you could give us any update or if we're going to continue having to meet their losses out of our budget? I can't give an update for, you know, it's my colleague Keith Brown who leads on that, but at the last time I was asked this question I mentioned that, you know, those discussions are very much on and going. You know, we recognise, of course, that Presswick is a non-typical airport. We're continuing to look at all business opportunities that there are, how do we maximise the assets that exist, but it's also very much been the Government's intention straight from when we took over Presswick airport to ensure that we were able to pass it on back into private hands and we're working on that. So, you know, there's a senior management team of the airport which has been tasked to take that forward, so I'm sorry, I don't have an update necessarily. I could ask my colleague Keith Brown who leads on this on the Presswick airport side for further information, or the committee could ask, obviously, for further information. Well, I mean, if there is any information that you could give us in writing, or he could give us in writing through yourself or whatever, that would be great, I'm sure, appreciated. I mean, if I could just ask then the, I think, I understand the retained losses are now 26.5 million in the last accounts, are we still expecting the purchaser eventually to pay us back that 26, or whatever the cumulative losses are, or would that be written off, because that does affect the budget? Of course it does affect the budget, but you know, he's absolutely right, he'd want to try to get the best deal possible for the taxpayer and therefore writing off the losses would be the preferred way forward. But clearly, of course, if we're entering into commercial negotiation with a private sector company, we'll need to have the space to have that discussion and no doubt they'll be towing and froing, but yes, it would be the preferred position of the Government without a shadow of a doubt, it would be. But again, I can maybe perhaps ask my colleague to provide more information on my officials to provide more information on Prestwick Airport. Just clarify just on that as well, I think what would be helpful from the committee's point of view is when you're answering that question to see what moneys have been put aside for investment in Prestwick Airport during the forthcoming year from the current budget. My always concern is with Prestwick Airport is on the accounts for Prestwick Airport, there's an open valuation and a closing valuation and the closing valuation doesn't reflect the investment in the airport during the course of the year, so maybe if that could be clarified from an accountancy point of view, I think John would appreciate that in the committee. Can I move on to the next question, if I may, which is Jamie Greene. Thank you, convener. Can I move on to ferries briefly? Can the minister explain why loans to CMAL have increased 400 per cent to £59 million? The loans to CMAL are a large part of the increases because he may be aware that we're in negotiations with RBS who own three vessels that operate on the north link route. In order to spend to save, as it was over the term of the lease, we're in entering negotiations to buy and purchase those three vessels. As I said, that is a spend to save measure that will save us money over what would be the leasing period, so the vast majority of that loan to CMAL is for that. There's also some money in there, which is about future vessel procurement as well as he'd expect, but as I said, the vast majority of that I couldn't come into the exact figure because those negotiations are live with RBS as we speak, and again they're subject of to and fro negotiations at the moment, but the vast majority of that money is for the procurement, sorry, the purchase of the three RBS vessels. On ferries, can the minister explain why decision was taken in the budget not to include any funding for Orkney and Shetland internal ferries, therefore not meeting the commitment of his coleg, Mr Keith Brown, on the fair funding settlement for ferries in that part of the world, notwithstanding the situation with local authorities? There's two things that I would correct in his statement. One, it wasn't Keith Brown that made the statement. Derek Mackay is talking about when it comes to fair funding, but secondly, the commitment was to enter into constructive dialogue and to continue dialogue on fair funding for ferries. There was never ever in any documentation, and I would challenge the member, if he wants to present it right here right now, to ever automatically assume responsibility for internal ferries, which continue to be the responsibility of Orkney, Llywodraeth, and Shetland, Llywodraeth, and so on. The commitment has always been to enter into constructive dialogue. In the last meeting that myself, Derek Mackay and the leaders of Orkney and Shetland sat in, it was the leaders of Orkney and Shetland who went to the local press to say that those meetings were incredibly constructive. In fact, the leader of Shetland Island Council, by paraffly slightly and only slightly, he said that it was the most optimistic he's ever been on this issue. Now, of course, I understand that he'll be disappointed that there's no inclusion for internal ferry services within the budget, but what I would say is for those who care so passionately about this issue, that there is a window of opportunity. I wonder whether the member himself would vote for a budget that would have additional resource or indeed capital for internal ferries for Orkney and Shetland. Further, I think that Mike wants to follow up to that. Can I just be absolutely clear in that case? The motion that was passed on 6 December said quite unanimously that calls on the Scottish Government to set out to Parliament how it intends to honour its commitment in relation to Orkney and Shetland internal ferry services. I spent some time going through the budget and obviously it was a waste of time because you've just confirmed to my colleague Jamie Greene that there isn't anything in this budget for internal ferry services for Orkney and Shetland, so really there is nothing in the budget whatsoever for that. Can I just tell you what you've just said? Yes, I can clarify that there's no budget provision for internal ferries for Orkney and Shetland, which of course remains the responsibility for Orkney and Shetland. However, there is a window of opportunity and again I would ask the member the same question. If that money is in the final budget in February, will he and his members support that budget? Well Minister, to be fair, we are asking you the questions and the question I'm asking you. You can refuse to answer the question, but I'm asking you. I think in fairness rather than the witnesses coming here asking the committee questions, I think. Minister, could you have a go at answering that question? Can I just… I already answered the question. I said there's no budgetary provision. Can I ask a follow-up question, which it basically is, what does the minister consider that Parliament voted for unanimously on 6 December? The budget is not for this. The motion is there for… The motion that Liam McArthur put down? Sorry? The motion on 6 December that Liam McArthur put down, which was voted on unanimously… And we also supported it. The question I'm asking you now is because it's rather a fundamental point. I think everybody else was considering that this was a commitment by the Scottish Government to layout its plans for the internal ferries. What you're saying now is you don't intend to do that. No, I think the motion… Sorry, sorry, hold on. There's a lot of chat coming round the room. Could I ask if we try and limit this just so I can hear the minister's answer? Minister, sorry. Sure. The motion is on the record for people to see and be actually supported, of course, the motion as well. So we are now, as the Parliament has asked, the minister myself and indeed the cabinet secretary to layout how we'll meet the fair funding principle. That is a commitment to the dialogue of fair funding. That is set out and has a number of principles, which include, for example, getting the true value and the true cost of ferry services. That is something that we're committed to doing. That constructive dialogue is something that we're absolutely committed to doing and is on-going, and the leaders of the council have said that that is going well. What I would say is that never has there been a commitment to automatically assume responsibility, and neither has either council approached us to automatically assume responsibility of their ferry services. That would be my interpretation of the motion that was passed. I'm sorry, but I don't think that you're going to get more of an answer. I want to go back to Jamie Greene and then I'm going to come to Richard Lyle. Thank you, convener. Without laboring the motions historic that were passed, isn't this primarily, though, around funding for ferries? The problem is that the councils have issued a statement saying that they simply don't have enough money to operate those services. Given that both of those councils had their budget cut in the budget or in the proposed budget, how does that marry up with fair funding? It's not true that they have. The local government has been treated well out of the draft budget. On top of that, of course, Orkney and Shetland have received special islands need allowance on top of what they receive in terms of a local government block grant. I would continue to say to the member that they are not the only local authorities that continue to pay for internal ferry services, as are a number of other local authorities. They also pay for internal ferry services as well. I'm more than happy to continue the dialogue with both James Stockin from Orkney and Cecil Smith, leader of Shetland Island Council. We'll do that constructively. However, I would continue to say to the member that there is a window of opportunity between the draft budget and the finalising of the budget. If that money is put in the budget, will members vote for it? Neither member that I've asked the question to thus far has said that they would. That question is the next question, actually, as Richards. No, basically. I see that there is a window of opportunity for people to come along to you and sit and, given that commitment, people can sit down with you. Given that firm commitment, if people come and chap your door—you always tell us that your door is always open—you come and chap your door for additional funding for this ferry, which I believe are quite high quality ferries, you would look at that and, if people give that commitment, you would possibly be able to sustain that money. Ultimately, a decision would be for the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, but he has said very clearly that if members want to engage positively and constructively on this issue, if they will vote for the budget, if they come to put that on the table, then he will certainly consider that. He's not ruled that out. That's an open invitation for members to constructively engage with Derek Mackay on this issue, but they haven't done so far. Nobody has said yet that they would vote for a budget that had internal ferry funding to it, so there is still a window of opportunity, and I hope that members will seize it. Thank you very much. That neatly brings us to the end of the questions. There are a number of questions that have come out of today's meeting, which will need to be dealt with very promptly in order to allow the committee to consider the report. Can I also say that the clerks will be contacting your offices verbally today in writing very shortly thereafter to confirm the list of questions, and can I employ you please to make sure that they're responded to over the recess period so that we can work on the report that the Parliament has set us? I'd like to thank the witnesses and their assistants for giving evidence today, and I'd now like to suspend the meeting briefly to allow the witnesses to part. I'd like to reconvene the meeting and move to item 3 on the agenda, which is subordinate legislation. This is the consideration of a negative instrument concerning the fishing and landing of razor clams. Rhoda Grant and myself have asked the Scottish Government for further information, which has been provided and indeed published. Separately, the Scottish Government has also provided further information on the related scientific trial. No motions to annull have been received in relation to this instrument, but I believe that Mr Finnie would like to make a comment. Consistent with the position of the Scottish Green Party in April this year, where we were critical of the Scottish Government's decision to launch a trial of electrofishing for razor clams, we don't support that, but you're right to say we can do the arithmetic and we won't be taking the issue further. Concerns about this method can leave other marine life vulnerable to predators, and it won't allow, although treading causes difficulties, so does this mode. I think that I've certainly alerted to the comments that the measures that the Government introduced to limit this unlicensed activity have had limited success, I quote from the document here, because enforcement is very difficult and the vessels need to be caught with gear deployed, so I'm grateful for you giving me the opportunity to put that on the record. In light of what John Finnie said, and I would also make the comment that on the information that the Government has provided that this very much is a pilot project, and therefore can I make the recommendation that on this SSI that we don't make any comments on it but would write separately to the Cabinet Secretary to ask the Cabinet Secretary to give us further information on the matter and report back to the committee when the trial has been completed after the first year anyway and then possibly after the second year to look back to see on the results to work out whether this instrument was indeed the way to go forward. So that would be my recommendation and I would hope that the committee would agree with me, and if you would agree with me, I would put the question to you, is the committee agreed that we don't want to make a recommendation but we would write to the Cabinet Secretary. Okay, so that's agreed. So the committee will now move into private session, so I'm now going to close the meeting. Thank you.