 I am pleased that we convened the first meeting of this session between the conveners group and the First Minister, and I would like to welcome the First Minister and the conveners to this meeting today. I also would like to welcome everyone who has come along to watch the session today, in particular, and I welcome Essex pupils from Perth Grammar School, staff and volunteers from Rau yn Alba, the charity for helping homeless people. I understand that our Perth Grammar School contingent needs to leave early, maen nhw rychwp i ddechrau, ond mae'n gyda'n lle. Mowr rwy'n credu i allu'r cyfaniad mai gyda chi, rydw i, oherwyddwr mae'n gweithio ar ôl sydd dylunol eich ddefnyddol. Fy hoeddiwch llwyaf arno i'r hwnnw ac yn gweithio'r trwy'r cyfaniad, mae'r cyfaniad hyn sy'n ddysgu'u iawn mae finns cadddulol ar frym yn yr ystod, ac mae'n ei ch provisionig i'r chfaniad, ond rwy'n credu i chi rydyn ni dechrau ar hyn yn gweithio. That's how tight we are for time. Can I ask the First Minister if she wants to make a brief opening remark? In the interests of time, I'll be very brief. I'll simply say thank you for giving me this opportunity. As I think everybody is aware, I'm keen that these sessions become more regular. I think that they're an important part of the Government's accountability to Parliament. On the two occasions that I have previously appeared before the Committee of Conveners, I've certainly found it also a very useful experience. This is the first session since the election, obviously. The period since the election inevitably has been dominated by Brexit. That's not of our choosing or our making, but it is unavoidable, given the interests that are at stake. But notwithstanding that, we as a Government remain very focused on progressing our programme for government, and I would expect that much of our discussion today will cover the different aspects of that programme for government. With those very brief remarks, I'm happy to get on with questions. Thank you very much, and I can tell that conveners, your button will come on automatically when you're called. I'll start with James Donnell, the convener of education and skills. Thank you, convener, and good afternoon, First Minister. The Education and Skills Committee is planning to hold a session with local authorities, focusing on their role as education authorities. For example, to explore why diagnosis rates for additional support needs in different local authority areas are so notably distinct, potentially due to different approaches taken by different councils. In education more broadly, the OECD has challenged Scotland to have more collaboration in education, and that must include between councils as education authorities. Other areas where councils are crucially government policy delivery include, of course, provision of funded childcare. Now, in light of the importance of councils' roles in the education of the children and to inform the committee's planned session with councils, how is the Scottish Government working to ensure government priorities in education and beyond for children and young people can be delivered by councils? Obviously, we work very closely with local authorities on an ongoing basis, both in general terms but also around specific priorities. So childcare, for example, both in terms of the current commitment of 600 hours and in terms of planning for our transformational change to childcare, that dialogue with local authorities is very important. In terms of education more generally, councils are and will continue to be key players in the delivery of education. The Deputy First Minister has made clear in the context of the education governance review that councils will retain democratic oversight of education and that's as it should be. But the governance review, as members will be aware, is very much about making sure that responsibility and decision making in education lies at the right levels. Right now we have a system where councils very much sit at the centre, they have statutory responsibility and they will continue to be key players. But what we want to try to do is get more decision making at the level of individual schools. So the governance review is based on the presumption of decisions unless there's a good reason for it to be otherwise being taken at school level. The governance review, of course, is running until the start of January and that very much will influence the overall governance of education and the place of local councils and the relationship between local councils and central government. We're also within that governance review, of course, not just looking at how we empower schools because much of the evidence that says empowering schools is key to raising standards and tackling the attainment gap, but also we'll look at how we respond to the OACD's recommendations, for example, about strengthening the middle, which is the technical term for that, so we're looking at the concept of education regions, for example, allowing local authorities to work together where appropriate and shared best practice and some of the variation and some of what you asked me and the question there is part of what we're looking to address through that, but also enabling schools to work in clusters. So that's what the governance review is all about and that is going to obviously have an influence on how government works with local councils and how local councils work with schools, but councils are and will continue to be key players in education delivery. Thank you for that response. One of the other areas of concern, I suppose, which is touched on there, is that clearly the government gives local authorities a considerable amount of money and there are tasks that are expected to be fulfilled through that. The early years funding one was the latest example of government money not being utilised according to the figures accordingly, but I'm not sure it's the only example. What can the Government do or what does the Government intend to do to make sure that the money that local authorities are given is spent in the way that we wish it to be spent? That's part of an overall relationship that we have with local councils. Now, as people are aware, when we took office, one of the things that we did through the local government concordat was to remove much of the ring fencing around local government expenditure and that therefore leads to a different relationship of accountability in terms of spend, but there are also parts of local government spend where, if I can simplify it, the money is only received by councils if the commitments that it is intended to fund are delivered. So teacher numbers, for example, the council tax freeze over the duration of our government have been two examples of how the money is not passed over unless the commitments are delivered. Now, those arrangements can often be controversial in councils for reasons I can understand, prefer not to have those kinds of conditionality and, in some respects, sanctions applied to budgets. However, as Government, we have a responsibility to the electorate and to the taxpayer to make sure that if we are funding a particular commitment, then we can look taxpayers in the eye and say that that commitment is being delivered. You mentioned childcare, we did a financial review of the childcare commitments to date, and that found, and I'm simply stating this as a fact, as I'm sure councils would point out if they were around this table, there will be a number of factors involved in this, but the money that had been given to councils as part of their overall settlement for the expansion of funded hours to 600 had not been matched in all councils by an increase in expenditure on childcare, so that leads to a conclusion that the childcare commitment has, I suppose, to be again to simplify, been overfunded. So those are discussions that we have with councils on an on-going basis, and as First Minister, as leader of the Government, I take very seriously the accountability we have to the public, and that means that where we are funding something that is a statutory responsibility of the council, we've got to have that discussion and that relationship to make sure that that money is being spent appropriately and delivering the right outcomes. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you. I move on to Margaret Mitchell, convener of justice. Ms Mitchell, please. Good afternoon, First Minister. Committees haven't operated as they were envisaged since the inception of the Parliament. They were held as the jewel in the crown sadly, they've fallen far short of that. For example, in November 1997, the consultative steering group on the new Scottish Parliament was set up, and one of the key recommendations at that time for strong parliamentary committees was the power to introduce their own legislation, and this was heralded as a striking departure from the position at Westminster and intended to embody the principle that power should be shared between the Government and Parliament. Almost 20 years later, from setting up this consultative steering group, why do you think we seem to be so very far away from that vision of committees and government sharing the initiative of bringing forward legislation in particular? In terms of the general thrust of the question about the performance of committees, I'm sitting in front of committee conveners here, so I'm going to be quite careful about what I say about the performance of committees. I'm not sure that I would entirely agree with that. I think that we've got some fantastic examples throughout the life of this Parliament of committees, including the committee that you chaired previously, I think chaired by the Deputy Presiding Officer here, doing lots of very good, meaningful work and very powerfully and visibly holding the Government to account. I think that that's something to be proud of. I equally think that we always have to be looking at how we further strengthen those arrangements, and, of course, the Presiding Officer has established a group to look particularly at refreshing some of the arrangements that the Parliament works by so that those arrangements work well. I'm slightly hesitant, I suppose, to comment too, as a member of the Government who is here to be held to account by committees. I'm slightly hesitant to be telling committees how they should be doing their work. One of the things is government. We are mindful of and this has been raised previously. I think that it was raised by Christine Grahame in a previous session, that if the Government legislative timetable is such that committees are very tied up with that and that was an issue for a previous justice committee, then they don't have the time that they might like to do their own inquiries or to introduce legislation. So there are issues there about management of government business to try to make sure that committees do have that time. What committees choose to do in terms of what subjects the committees choose to look into and what, if any, pieces of legislation they choose to initiate is not a matter for me or for the Government. That's very much a matter for individual committees and the Government can't stand in the way of a committee that wants to do an inquiry or any other piece of work into any other particular issue. I think that the point, First Minister, is that, as you rightly said, the last justice committee in particular, in 18 months we covered something like 13 bills, which was a ridiculous amount of legislation and the scrutiny just couldn't possibly be there at stage 3. So isn't there a notice on the Government and EUers, First Minister, to look at the legislative timetable, to look at what is being passed at stage 3? Sometimes some hugely important aspects are brought up in amendment at stage 3 and discussed in a 10-minute debate in the Parliament and that surely can't be a satisfactory situation for you or for anyone else affected by this legislation. That's a very general question. That kind of thing doesn't happen in every piece of legislation. There will be particular factors and circumstances involved in some pieces of legislation where amendments are brought forward at a later stage. I have to say not always by Government, that is often by Opposition parties or other members. On the question of, I suppose, weight of legislation, I reluctantly come to the conclusion after almost 10 years in Government that Governments are damned if they do, damned if they don't. It's only a matter of weeks, I think, where the Government was being criticised, may I say it, by your party about not having brought forward enough legislation since the election. Now, actually, one of the reasons for that, not the only reason, but one of the reasons for that has been our discussions with individual committees about timetabling of legislation to allow committees to do their work. It strikes me, and I'm not complaining here, it's a feature of, I guess, the inevitable and creative and healthy tension between Governments and committees that will be criticised for bringing forward too much legislation or criticised for bringing forward too little. What I can absolutely give a commitment around is that the Minister for Parliamentary Business will always seek to work constructively with committees to make sure that we strike the right balance between the Government fulfilling its legislative commitments and committees being able to perform a good scrutiny role, which I think committees in this Parliament by and large do, but also giving committees the time and the space to initiate pieces of work in areas of interest. Sandra White, convener of Social Security, please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Good afternoon, First Minister. You mentioned legislation, and obviously Social Security Committee is looking at legislation in the Social Security Bill, which is one of the largest pieces of legislation to go through the Parliament in this particular term, and it does affect, at one point, possibly all of the population of Scotland. Can I therefore ask when you think that this Parliament will be ready or in a position to deliver these powers, which are to be devolved, and if I can put a supplementary into that, you mentioned the fact about committees being given time for scrutiny. Can you give myself and my committee assurances that our committee will have ample time to scrutinise all legislation, whether it be secondary or otherwise, going through and pertaining to the Social Security Bill? In relation to the second part of your question first, the short answer to that is yes, although behind that short answer there will require to be a lot of discussion and dialogue between the Government, Joe FitzPatrick, his officials and the committee to make sure that that is the case, you are absolutely right to highlight the Social Security Bill. Both is one of the most important pieces of legislation that this session of Parliament will pass, but also one of the most complex in terms of making sure we get the legislative underpinning for what is a massive delivery undertaking, absolutely right. Now there will be primary legislation, as you say, in the next year to do that, but there will also be a lot of secondary legislation that flows from that, so it is absolutely essential, it is in the Government's interest that there is time for the committee to perform a really good scrutiny role around that. In terms of the first part of your question, as we have said repeatedly as the Minister for Social Security set out again yesterday in Parliament, we will have a Scottish Social Security Agency with a delivery system fully up and running, delivering the range of benefits that are being devolved by the end of this parliamentary session. It has always been the case. I think it is worth, and Jean Freeman laid this out to your committee at the end of September, Angela Constance previously, and there has been a lot of discussion around this. The scale and the complexity of what we are doing here means that, yes, we want to get these powers up and running as quickly as possible, but the absolute driving priority is to deliver them safely and securely, so that every single person that is eligible for a payment in future to be delivered by the Scottish Government gets that payment exactly in the amount they should get it and at the time they should get it. In terms of the scale of that, in this statistic, I think it is one of many statistics that could illustrate the scale, when this system is fully up and running, it will deliver more payments per week than the Scottish Government currently delivers in total every year. That is the scale of it. It will deliver payments to 1.4 million people, about one in four of the Scottish population. That scale is massive. The complexity of it is also significant. We are taking responsibility for about 15 per cent of the current welfare spend, and that means extracting, extricating, rather, that 15 per cent from the remainder of the reserved responsibilities that are staying reserved. We have to do that by dealing with and interacting with DWP systems that are often pretty antiquated and a welfare system that is self-under-significant reform. Just one example of the complexity of that cold weather payments right now. The payment of cold weather payments relies on 11 different DWP IT systems. Each one of them is going to have to be amended by Scottish recipients. We also have to, as we design the system, make sure, because we are not taking counterintuitively, our task would probably be easier if we were taking over the welfare system wholesale. Because we are taking over 15 per cent of it, we have to make sure that our systems dovetail properly with the remaining reserved systems so that there are no unintended consequences. If we make a change to benefits, that does not, in an unintended way, affect other benefits that are still reserved. It is a massive task. It is a complex task. We want to get it up and running as quickly as possible, but we cannot take responsibility for delivering those systems until we have the delivery mechanism in place that we are confident can deliver. We do not want to make the mistakes of universal credit, which is overpromised and under-delivered since the very day it was announced. I would like to have a short supplementary. That is quite a full answer. A very short supplementary. You mentioned about the complexity. It is absolutely correct and also the cold weather payments. There is another issue under funeral payments, which affects a lot of people, which is at the moment paper based. I wonder if the First Minister would look into that in regards to data. Absolutely. We are having to look at all of these things. Again, this should not be taken as a criticism of the DWP. I criticize the DWP for plenty of things, but their systems have developed over many, many years. They are disjointed, some of them are automated, funeral payments are still largely paper based. We are having to understand all of that, work out how we extricate the 15 per cent from the totality and make sure we have the proper planning and design of a new system properly undertaken here in Scotland. At the moment, there will be parts of this that may come on stream earlier than other parts. In the fullness of time, we will be able to set out delivery dates for each of the different benefits that we are taking responsibility for. At the moment at which we switch on this system for any benefit, we have to be sure that it can deliver those benefits to everybody who is entitled to them. When I have heard over the last few days about the Scottish Government trying to delay this or delay taking responsibility, that is absolute utter nonsense. This is about working to a timescale and always set out understanding the complexity of the issues that we are dealing with. Thank you Neil Findlay. Almost every witness that comes before my committee accepts senior health board managers, civil servants and ministers and the people who we speak to in private briefings raise the issue of cuts to health and social care services that is impacting on patients. One of the doctors summed it up well when he said there appears to be a gulf between the strategies promoted by government and what actually happens in reality on the ground. Could you offer any explanation for that gulf existing? I don't accept that that is the case. I'm not sure what witness you're referring to. I absolutely do accept that. Lots of them. Let me answer your question. I absolutely do accept and this is something that I'm very conscious of when I was health secretary that often the relatively easy bit of a government's job is to come up with the strategy to come up with the document how that translates and the relationships and the discussions and the dialogue and the hard work that has to be done to translate that into practice on the front line is the difficult bit and that's where our front line health professionals deserve so much of our gratitude. There is a lot of work goes into that. I'm sitting here saying we always get that right and at a time of change for our health service which is and transition which is what we're going through right now. The challenge of that is more significant. What we are doing in terms of health firstly we're making sure that health gets record funding so the health service budget under this government is going up by £3 billion we will increase it over the life of this parliament by a further £2 billion £500 million more than the rate of inflation there are record numbers of staff working in our health service but as we all know the demand for health services largely because of changing demography arising as well. That then brings into sharp focus the need to change and reform the way we deliver services. The principle piece of work we've done around this of course so far is through the integration of health and social care and I'm very aware from my own constituency experience as well as my First Ministerial experience that the work that's been done on the ground to turn integration the legislative part of integration into reality with proper strategic plans and the delivery of services in place is a monumental undertaking but I think that is working well and those working in the front line are doing a fantastic job around that so we have to make sure that we've got the right frameworks in place the right funding in place, the right staffing numbers in place and then support our health services to make changes sometimes this will include controversial changes that get more services delivered in the community closer to home so that over time we can release some of the pressure on acute services and as I say that will involve difficult decisions at some time and as I said in the chamber a couple of weeks ago there'll be moments of truth for all of us and whether we're prepared to face up to some of those difficult decisions. From surgeons to doctors to nurses to cleaners and kitchen staff in our hospitals and in our social care field we've heard this repeated time and again is someone misleading them into believing that there are cuts to services happening? I didn't accuse anybody of misleading I understand very well the pressures that front line health care staff work under that's always been the case in the health service because of some of the issues driving increased demand that is even more the case right now so I'm not for a second denying the very real pressures that health service staff at all levels of the health service work under nor am I denying the things that they say to your committee I'm simply trying to outline the task that we all have and as First Minister that I have principal responsibility for ensuring that we undertake to make sure that we fund our health service as well as we can within the overall financial constraints we face and that we support our health service to change in ways that the changing demands on it frankly necessitate and that is about integration of health and social care getting more money out of the acute service into social care which we've started that process with the £250 million transfer this year which we want to build on in future years it's about making sure that we're building up primary care and we've already also signalled our directions travelling in terms of transferring more of the health budget into primary care it's about making sure that we invest properly in mental healthcare services all of these services that if we invest properly in them will help to relieve or at least constrain the pressure on our acute sector now as I say at times that will be difficult for staff I fully understand that at times it will be difficult for politicians but the health service in Scotland it faces challenges that are inescapable challenges it's how we respond to those challenges that will determine how well our health service copes and what I would say just in my final point here is our health service yes it faces challenges but as the Auditor General said in the recent report compared to other health services across the UK for example NHS Scotland is performing well waiting times are lower than they were when this Government took office patient safety is better infections have reduced dramatically we see hospital mortality reducing so our health service is doing great things what we've got to do is make sure we support it through the transition that lies ahead of it over the next few years to make sure it can continue to do great things a very short supplement if I may ask the First Minister a very short answer please do you accept that the evidence that we are hearing is accurate? you hear a lot of evidence and some of it I will perhaps have a different interpretation of so if you want me to say what I'm not saying is anybody's coming to a committee and saying things that are not true but you get a lot of evidence some of it I will agree with some of it I will have a different interpretation of so if you want to ask me about a particular bit of evidence if I think it's accurate or I agree with it or not I'll do that but that's a very very general question thank you very much Joan McAlpine, a convener of culture, tourism, European and external relations good afternoon First Minister the European Committee is currently doing work on the implications of the EU referendum result as you know we're looking at the single market and alternative trading relationships and this week we're taking some evidence from Norwegian experts I'm aware and you'll be aware as well of media reports on Norway as perhaps one of the alternatives that you're looking at and I wondered if you would comment on that I'm obviously aware of media reports I mean I've been very clear that the priority we've been working around just now is to look at how we maintain and protect our place in the single market and by that I mean membership of the single market not some vague access to the single market that other parties might talk about but there are different ways that that could perhaps be achieved so I've set out very clearly to stay in the single market and so to the extent that we can wield any influence UK wide we will try to help steer the UK government away from a hard Brexit towards staying in the single market and in that respect of course the outcome of the Supreme Court article 50 case will have relevance because it may well influence the extent to which the House of Commons is going to be able to influence this before the triggering of article 50 but if the UK is intent on hard Brexit and coming out of the single market I want to look at how we could and I'm not for a minute saying there wouldn't be challenges associated with this but whether we could find a way of protecting Scotland's place in the single market and of course models like Efta Norway is in Efta countries apart from Switzerland are also in the single market through the European economic area so of course these are models that we're looking at and we will as I've said previously publish some proposals and an option or perhaps different options about how this could be achieved hopefully before the end of the year right okay thank you very much for that one of the things that perhaps hasn't really looked at in a great deal of depth is that you'll be aware that the the UK government are going around the world speaking to the various governments so we've seen the Prime Minister's visit to India is globetrotting as well I'm aware that those visits have met with some degree of skepticism but there's an aspect to it that has been raised with us as a concern is that UK ministers could be going around the world promising all sorts of things in these informal discussions with other governments on future trading relationships and Scotland's not at the table in those discussions is that something that you have addressed and how do you think that we should make sure that Scotland's our public sector and our private sector is protected from anything that they may be promising in these talks I think that's a very good question and if I can just briefly unpack it a little bit I'm not sure based on anything I've heard thus far that the various discussions UK Government ministers are having overseas are shedding any great light on matters although we do sometimes hear snippets from some of those discussions that seem to tell people things that the Prime Minister's not telling the House of Commons Boris Johnson yesterday apparently saying we're going to be out of the customs union where the Prime Minister stands up in the last hour in the House of Commons and isn't prepared to shed any light whatsoever on that I keep hoping I'm wrong about this but I'm not sure I am I look at the various different things that UK Government ministers are doing around Brexit just now and I'm not sure that any of that adds up to any kind of coherent plan for what it is they're trying to achieve and that concerns me deeply but in terms of your question about if it does turn out to be the case that there are things being offered because at this stage offers can't be guaranteed because at some point there's going to be a negotiation and the UK Government is only going to be one side or Nissan for example we still don't know what has been offered to Nissan it may well turn out to be the case that there are commitments or promises being made to other Governments and there is a lack of transparency around any of this right now and that's not just the case for Scotland and it's not just a concern for our interests I think that's more generally a concern about how the Government is conducting this whole exercise just now so I think there should be a lot more negotiation and transparency in terms of our place at the table we are continuing to work very hard to try to influence the article 50 negotiating position the GMC European Negotiations which met for the first time last week is the multilateral forum for that to happen let's just stop saying the jury's out and how effective that is going to be it's been a bit of a struggle getting there's also a bilateral track of discussions that we're trying to make the most of as well but I suppose at this stage I feel frustrated at the inability to meaningfully influence things at this stage but I think that's largely because we're influencing something or trying to influence something that doesn't really exist yet that there is no real sense of what the UK Government's strategy is and perhaps even more concerning there's no real sense and I, as a point I made at the GMC meeting a couple weeks ago there's no real sense of how they get from where they are right now to having a coherent negotiating strategy so we're trying to influence a bit of a vacuum at the moment and it is extremely frustrating but we'll keep trying as best we can Thank you Bruce Crawford convener of finance and constitution Mr Crawford, please Good afternoon First Minister and committees I'm sure the First Minister is aware that I've not been slow to hold the Scottish Government to account on budgetary matters but looking to the future this year's draft budget is historical given that it will be the first time the Scottish Parliament has ever set bans for income tax I don't think yet we all appreciate just the historic nature of that that will raise around £11 billion it will dwarf previous devolved tax powers it's going to bring huge changes you'll also be aware First Minister will have established a tripartite working group to review the impact of these new powers on the budget process these will be challenging and complex issues particularly around the potential volatility of the budget moving from a comparatively relatively fixed block grant from Westminster now to tax-raising Parliament and obviously the impact of Brexit on top of that First Minister in your view what are the key principles which you think the group should be considering given that we've got to establish and design a system that won't just deal with the change in circumstances but be able to stand the test of time It's a very good question because my own view is that our budget process does have to change and probably has to change quite significantly in certain aspects in order to adapt not exclusively but principally because of our additional tax raising powers there's a number of principles that have to inform the work of the tripartite group I guess if I was to single out two it would be transparency stroke scrutiny on the one hand and flexibility on the other now there will be a tension between those two I'm very aware of that and that's why the group's got quite a difficult job of work to do flexibility first because when you have significant tax varying powers there is, as we see through UK government budget processes every year there is often a need to be able to act quickly and to reduce the opportunity for forestalling to reduce the opportunity of people changing their behaviour to forestall on tax changes that's why in a UK context tax changes are very rarely announced far in advance there's often a very short timescale between announcement and implementation so that's where the flexibility is important within that there's also the need to make sure that the budget processes align with the scrutiny that the fiscal commission has to do in terms of giving the Government and Parliament assurances around our fiscal projections but on the other side of this it's really important that Parliament still has proper scrutiny of our budget plans I think that's been a hallmark of our budget process since the Parliament was established I know there has been, believe it or not the government shares some of the frustration about the constraining of that scrutiny last year because of delays around the autumn budget statement and again this year because of Brexit and a delayed autumn budget statement that has constrained the time that Parliament's had to scrutinise the budget so I think we have to I don't think it's going to be easy to come to perfect answers around this but we've got to try and find a way of balancing the need and the absolute essential nature of Parliamentary scrutiny and the transparency that Government needs to have to enable that on the one hand but giving Government a bit more flexibility to take account of the fact that when you're responsible not just for spending a block grant but also raising a lot of that money then you just need to have a bit more flexibility and the timings around doing some of that One of the things I've been... Just bear with me, it has to be a short answer please, thank you A short as I can, forestalling the behavioural effects were obviously in the land and buildings transaction tax, everybody can see that As far as the future is concerned one of the things I've been privately thinking about and not shared this with the committee we might have to separate out the day we set the draft budget for the Government otherwise that forestalling and behavioural effect might well play What's your view on that? I think that is something that could well be considered, I'm slightly hesitant of sitting here today and giving us a set of what might appear to be preconceived answers to this because we've deliberately set up this process in order to look properly at these things but yes, I think that is something that probably should be looked at and may well be one of the ways in which we could balance often competing principles that I spoke about Thank you very much Gordon Inherst, Cymru of Economy, Jobs and Fair Work Mr Lindhurst, please Good afternoon First Minister You will be aware of recent figures which suggest the relative underperformance of the Scottish economy compared to the wider UK economy To give my question context referring to, for example the GERS figures released late August show the public spending deficit in Scotland standing at 99.5% of GDP which is more than double the UK figure of 4% The report by Pricewaterhouse Coopers published the beginning of this week which shows that growth in the UK may be slowing in 2017 but it will be even slower in Scotland than the UK as a whole The inward investment figures have been dropping in Scotland over the last few years whereas the UK for example saw an 11% rise last year, some parts of the north of England a 24% increase and the Scottish Government figures tell us that our business density is shrinking Scotland now has only 768 enterprises per 10,000 people compared to the UK figure of 1,040 The numbers of small businesses in Scotland is 210 per 10,000 at all Can I ask Mr Lindhurst the longer you speak you're only going to get one question so it's up to you on behalf of your committee What aspects of the programme for government will be changed to meet these challenges? Firstly, in the long list of figures I noticed that we didn't include the fact that registered businesses were up by 15% since 2007 Scotland's business R&D rose by 44% in real terms from 2007 Productivity is up by 4.4% in 2007 compared to no growth whatsoever in the UK This morning's unemployment figures show that unemployment is down again and the unemployment rate is below the UK unemployment rate so I put some of those stats on to rather the record to give a perhaps more balanced account of the Scottish economy All of that said I am acutely aware of the continuing fragility in our economy, UK-wide but also in Scotland and the position in Scotland by the challenges in the oil and gas sector which we are all aware of In terms of the changes we will make in the specific initiatives that we will take My programme for government at the start of September announced for example the new growth scheme which we are currently working to implement a £500 million scheme over the next three years specifically geared to help small and medium-sized businesses often guarantees to help them with access to finance to help them to expand or move into new export markets We have also already in this financial year announced some capital acceleration to try to give some support particularly around the construction industry The enterprise and skills review is about making sure that we are targeting all of the effort of our enterprise and other employment skills related agencies absolutely on delivering our economic strategy We will continue to make sure that the economic strategy all aspects of that particularly given post Brexit the internationalisation aspects of that You mentioned inward investment We remain, as we have been for the last number of years the best performing part of the UK outside of London for inward investment but post Brexit we need to work even harder at that which is why we have announced plans to set up innovation and investment hubs in Dublin, Brussels and London I recently announced that we would also do that in Berlin set up a new trade board within the Scottish Government to focus particularly on increasing international trade with an emphasis on export so I could go on and on and on but the convener will stop me We are absolutely focused on making sure that we are making the right interventions to support our economy Obviously we have a very hard focus on fair work as well but let's be under no illusions The Brexit vote the sheer recklessness of what the UK Government is currently trying to inflict on is a real and present risk not just to the Scottish economy but to the economy across the UK which is why I think politicians that have put us into this position should be rather ashamed of themselves at the moment I'm afraid there's no time for a supplementary we'll cut other conveners out of their time I'll call Jenny Marra convener of public audit and post-legislative scrutiny Ms Marra, please First Minister, as you know the public audit committee is responsible for scrutinising audit of the whole public sector across all portfolio areas In my short time as convener since the election the committee has already seen recurring themes across all areas for example Government struggling with major IT projects how funding decisions contribute to the delivery of outcomes governance issues and structural and organisational reform With 17 years now of Audit Scotland reports and many many conclusions being repeated year after year is Government learning the lessons from Audit Scotland's conclusions? Yes, I think we are obviously that is also a very general question Yes, we work very hard to not only learn the lessons but apply the lessons of Audit Scotland reports some Audit Scotland reports by their very nature that will be an on-going task in some respects The themes you talk about very aware of particularly around IT we have significant lessons to learn from the experience of the CAP system obviously and NHS 24 system would be the two IT projects and actually there's a relationship between that to Sandra White in terms of the responsibility we have to put a delivery system in place for social security payments so there is a monumental amount of work going on in the Scottish Government just now to make sure that those lessons are learned and applied for the future similarly with governance and around performance yes, we work hard with Audit Scotland as well as within government to make sure that lessons are learned and applied in that aspect if you want but that's the answer in general terms I suppose if I may the committee is looking for some reassurance that when we're looking at an education report or when we're looking at a health Audit Scotland report that these lessons aren't just being learned in that particular department but the lessons about say for instance the IT projects you mentioned are actually there's work going on across government because many of the problems with these IT projects are have very common themes so is there work across cutting going on? Absolutely and that will be the case across very many different themes of Audit Scotland reports where it's not just some Audit Scotland reports and some recommendations will be very specific to a particular portfolio area but where there are cross cutting themes in IT is an obvious example of that but so too will other governance issues then yes there is an approach that is taken in Governments to make sure that that cuts across different policy and portfolio boundaries and IT about to repeat what I said a moment ago but it is the the pertinent example at the moment of lessons that we have painfully had to learn around CAP and NHS 24 and are still learning in respect of both of these systems already being applied in terms of other IT responsibilities we've got principally on the social security what we're doing just now which is part of the reason why we are being so adamant about taking the time and going through the right processes to make sure we get that right at every step of the way Thank you Christina McKelvie convener of equality and human rights Mrs McKelvie please Thank you very much You'll know that the equality and human rights committee is a former equal opportunities committee with some new and additional remit points given the division of equality duties to this place and that gives us lots of really good opportunities and I know from your personal commitment to many of the expansion and equality policy across lots of areas in Scotland, especially across many of our protected characteristics is something that you've been very vocal on but could you maybe give us some idea and I know that there's a the gender balance of public boards bill is in your legislative programme you can maybe tell us a wee bit about this but is there anything else either through policy or legislation where you would see Scotland expanding and taking much further actually than maybe other legislatures where we really underpin but entrench and make equalities intrinsic to everything that this place does? I think well firstly I don't think we should ever tell ourselves that we've got it all right we can learn from elsewhere we look all the time at lessons we can learn from other parliaments in other countries and there are some great examples of where we have looked at other countries and decided to learn the baby box that we're about to introduce for example is one relatively small but quite important example of a policy we've taken from Finland which the evidence says has been instrumental in reducing infant mortality and improving the health of children and mothers so the introduction of that and not just the physical box but all that will go around that is going to be an important aspect there gender balance I think is another area which I think you mentioned where I think we are going further than other governments certainly in the UK in terms of well we're about to legislate for gender balance on public boards we don't have the power to do it for private companies but the 5050 by 2020 campaign that I started is about encouraging private sector boards to sign up to gender equality I think we can also look with some pride at our fair work agenda the fair work convention where certain other parts of the UK seem to see trade unions as enemies and opponents we see trade unions very much as our partners in trying to build a stronger more productive more sustainable economy and that's encapsulated in the fair work convention but underpinning that is the work we're doing around the living wage the business pledge making progressive workplace practices not just policies that are socially good but policies that are understood to be economically advantageous as well so there's a whole range of things childcare is another one the report early on the week that said the single most important policy in terms of improving equality in Scotland is expanding childcare which underlines our determination to make the transformational change that we have said will make throughout this parliament so I think there's a lot of good work we're doing in Scotland and there's a lot of international interest in some of the work we're doing around these agendas but we should always be alert to examples from elsewhere that we can apply here I think you're absolutely right about learning from others as well and there's lots of things that you've mentioned there that will take forward the equality's agenda there's also things that we need to do a few weeks ago from Tobias Lock from Edinburgh University about not being complacent about the things that we already have and some of that being the very good record we have on welcoming people on our anti-discriminatory practice and policies that we have I wonder if you give us some of your insight and the backdrop to Brexit the backdrop to a possible repeal of the human rights act and a possible then withdrawal from the ECHR how you would see this Government not even just this Parliament advancing the causes of ensuring that we don't have racism we don't have homophobic bullying that we don't have some of the pretty nasty stuff that we've seen has went on in the past few months that we ensure that we don't become complacent and push all of that forward and we become a bit of a beacon in that respect First Minister, the same applies to Ms Michele's applies to Mr Lindhurst very locked through into a question very short time to answer all lessons of the last few months with that going into too much detail is that that there's no room for complacency we should never and can never take for granted that progress in any area is irreversible and some of what we saw in the aftermath of Brexit some of what I read perhaps has been seen in certain parts of America in the last week in terms of racist and anti-Semitic attacks or abuse that should never be tolerated and I think it is a reminder that we've always got to work on those values and we've always got to work to not just protect but continue to make progress on some of these issues and just last sentence getting rid of the human rights act or coming out of the ECHR in any way would be a huge backward step as far as all of this is concerned which is why I will do everything I can to oppose that Graeme Dey, convener of environment climate change in the land before Mr Dey, please First Minister, evidence received by the committee over recent weeks has identified what it would consider as a potential gap in data-gathering and the evidence base in relation to flooding it appears that where SIPA as a statutory consultee objects to a plan an application because of flooding concerns and consent is nevertheless granted no one has responsibility for monitoring whether if the development goes ahead any issues arise. Now to give an idea the numbers involved annually in 2015 of 22 applications SIPA opposed nine were granted of course it doesn't automatically follow that such developments go ahead or go ahead without mitigation conditions attached nonetheless it does strike the committee that someone be at SIPA local authorities should have responsibility for assessing what consequences of any arise to improve the understanding of flooding situations that might reasonably have been avoided and for example the advisability of building on known floodplains I wonder what your views are on that It's an important issue I think the concern you're expressing is that there is a gap in terms of how the evidence is gathered where SIPA has objected to something but it's gone ahead anyway and the evidence is not gathered about whether SIPA's concerns were founded or not I'm certainly happy to ask the chief planner to give some consideration to how the process can look at that and see whether there is a particular gap that needs to be filled there I'm just sounding as if I don't think it's an issue because it clearly is an issue that we should address we probably on the other hand should be certainly cautious about overstating the scale of that problem I mean there'd be two points that might be worth making here that in terms of planning applications just now planning policy in Scotland already ensures that those making the decisions take a precautionary approach to flood risk and they've got to apply the flood risk framework when they arrive at decisions so the risk of flooding is an inherent part of planning decision making the second point which is perhaps of relevance is that if a planning application receives an approval while there is a SIPA objection remaining in place then that's got to be referred to minister so there's a kind of built in braces approach there and as far as I'm aware I can double check these figures but there's only a small number of such applications I think this might actually I think you said nine or something but my information here is that there's only in the last four years it's been about seven and nine of those kind of applications have come to ministers a year so I would suggest that the system probably overall works well but as we saw at the turn of this year the impact of flooding is so severe that we've got to make sure that we are properly learning all of these lessons without going into more detail of the gap that your concern might exist I will ask the chief planner to look at that and report back to your committee thank you very much, second question sign officer, thank you throughout the work that's been done by the committee thus far which has largely covered climate change and biodiversity one theme keeps cropping up and that's the importance of implementing the updated land use strategy stakeholders as well as the committee members see a fully functioning strategy being integral to climate change adaptation and mitigation and meeting the challenges facing Scotland's biodiversity I wonder whether that's a view you share First Minister and if you would outline how the Scottish Government intends to deliver on the promise of the revised strategy well the new land use strategy which runs from this year to 2021 was published in March there's obviously a reporting framework around that strategy and I think we're due to publish before the end of the year how we plan to report on progress so that will be central to that the strategy itself obviously has got specific climate change commitments in it, package of measures around farming and crofting what to consider how the Scottish uplands can contribute to climate change targets and material around forestry I think it's also important the land use strategy because I think it does have a really important part to play in tackling climate change is how communities are involved in decisions that affect land and as you know the strategy encourages the formation of regional land use partnerships so I think the framework that's been put in place there is important to the question that you're asking but absolutely the land use strategy is a vital tool if we're going to meet the challenges posed by climate change mitigation and adaptation thank you Edwin Mountain, computer of rural economy and connectivity. Mr Mountain, please Good afternoon First Minister the rural economy and connectivity committee has already taken evidence from the cabinet secretary Fergus Ewing quite a few times during this session regarding farm payments the committee still remain concerned about the issue especially in light of the fact that a loan is going to have to be made to cover the 2016 payments and that the wrong area of calculations was made to some farmers relating this loan we therefore would like some indication from you that you are satisfied that all is being done and specifically to resolve the issues relating to the explanation for the 2015 payments and also the timescale as went to the final 20% of the 2016 payments are going to be made. Okay, obviously Fergus Ewing has previously and I, it's worth putting on the record again that we deeply regret the problems around the payment system and the anxiety that that has caused our farming community and we are determined that we will do what needs to be done to put it right and to get the system on to a sound footing for next year just in terms of where we are with the 2015 payments Fergus Ewing has updated Parliament already but 99.9% of payments have now been made to over 18,000 businesses more than £300 million there are some claims outstanding but the tale of remaining payments now is on a similar scale to what we would be dealing with in a normal year in terms of some of the which undoubtedly will be some of the more complex payments. There are still challenges that are cropping up for example there have been a small number of over payments made in 2015 which work has been done to rectify that so there are still challenges there but 99.9% of those payments for 2015 have been made and we met the extended EU deadline for payments of the 15th of October before we know whether or not there will be any penalties we need to know whether the UK as a whole met that deadline and we are waiting for confirmation from the UK Government about whether there is member state compliance as a whole in terms of the future obviously we are determined to learn the lessons of this year to get the system on to the footing that would be expected for next year we've got assurances from the contractor that the IT system functionality for 2016 will be delivered early next year the final processing of applications for payment will be undertaken thereafter and we anticipate that 2016 payments will be made and substantially completed between then and by the end of the payment period of course been June 2017 we have of course put in place the loan scheme for 2016 and a significant amount of money to I think around about 12,000 farmers have already been made through that loan scheme and that work continues so I don't underestimate the difficulties and the anxiety this has caused our farming community but equally I hope members don't underestimate the amount of work that rightly the Government is doing to do thank you First Minister I think the committee would also like to know how it can scrutinise the issues here because one of the fundamental issues is understanding all the problems and as yet we haven't had sight of what all the problems are or an explanation of them could the committee have an undertaking from the First Minister that once all the problems have been identified we can then scrutinise the solutions to make sure that this doesn't happen again in short yes obviously there's a lot of work what we've focused on and I hope members will think this is the right focus particularly around the 2015 scheme it's been to get the payments to farmers obviously as we go along we are learning lessons there will no doubt be further reviews that we choose to do internally in Government to make sure that all those lessons have been learned and applied it's obviously entirely open to your committee to undertake whatever review it wants to take co-operate with any review the Cabinet Secretary is and will continue to keep Parliament updated on progress and I'm very happy to ask the Cabinet Secretary to have a direct discussion with you about how the committee can be fully fully appraised of so that it can perform adequate scrutiny of all of the issues that have been identified how they're being or have been resolved so that there can be the fullest possible transparency and scrutiny around that Thank you Thank you very much I have to confess that given the eclectic nature of the Public Petitions Committee I was rather tempted to test the depth and breadth of your briefing but you're not going to I resisted the temptation to allow you to show just how much you knew about sea lies Well actually and that was why I was going to resist I guess that you probably knew too much was wholly healthy for you and really I suppose first of all just to say that the Public Petitions Committee is clearly public driven and they're there for by its very nature is revealing the passions and interests of people right across our communities and I know that the Scottish Government takes the role seriously in terms of responding to that one of the issues that does come up fairly regularly is around the question of health and how change is made and one of the things that I think comes up quite often in petitions is what is the role and responsibilities of Scottish ministers in making those changes what are minor changes and what is a major change and maybe we're not surprised since all of us as politicians are very good at turning up at the opening of things but tend to disappear when things are being closed but I wonder whether you recognise that in communities and changing services there is an issue with people understanding specifically what the role of Scottish ministers are and are you looking at perhaps finding ways of improving guidance or public information about the actual way responsibility lies? Well firstly yes I do recognise it and I've got a lot of I suppose personal experience of that as health secretary of over a number of years on a number of different issues appreciating how difficult local health service changes can be and how understandably confusing it can be at times for the public and patients affected to understand how the system works and who takes what decisions and what level of decision making is appropriate in their particular case we have done a lot of work in terms of the role of the Scottish health council trying to simplify some of the guidance that has been an issue of debate in the Parliament recently about the process that local changes go through from the point at which they are first discussed by a health board through initial public consultation to formal consultation to a decision which the Scottish health council is involved in about whether something is major service change in which case it has to come to a minister or not so on paper that looks like quite a straightforward process obviously in practice it can be anything but because this is the difficult bit of it but I entirely understand this is if you're a patient and a service you value and rely on is being proposed for change of any nature the system might not deem it major change but to you it's major change because it's a service you rely on so I guess what I'm saying is that I don't know that we'll always have a perfect way of dealing with some of those difficult changes but we've got a responsibility to try to make that system as open, as accessible and as understandable to people as possible and we try to do that on an on-going basis as there was a number of changes to those systems made from memory when I was health secretary I think there have been changes made since no doubt some of the debates that we're having in Parliament just now around some of this will lead to further reflection and possibly further changes in the future I wonder if you recognise the fear that people have the temptation to deem something to be minor a minor change and therefore it's not going to have the level of scrutiny that would be otherwise associated in people we want to resist and also how do you understandably things have to change and evolve but there are also pressures and budgets and there are cuts how do you find an honesty around which is which because clearly it may be necessary but if you're doing it in the context of cuts to budgets at the same time you can justify somebody or explain away something to somebody in terms of the service they've got because it's service change as opposed to actually pressures on the service The challenge for us is to try to make sure that if changes have been made to services they've been made not for cost reasons but for clinical reasons and that's why again it's not popular it can be very difficult for those but we do have an efficiency requirement on health boards because we need to make sure public money is being used efficiently so that we do have a situation where we're reforming the health service in a way that is right for the clinical needs of the service I do accept there are a whole range of issues it's why I think the role of the Scottish Health Council in this whole process is so important because you know they should be free to comment on the reasons perceived or otherwise for changes there is maybe an issue around terminology major or minor that perhaps doesn't quite sum up because major and minor doesn't mean important and unimportant it obviously has a different meaning to that so there's maybe issues around there so I recognise the responsibilities for government here and they're not easy and they'll never be easy with the health service don't think any government in history and no doubt no government in the future will find these things easy and reasonably gently given that I'm at your mercy but there is a responsibility on opposition there is a responsibility on opposition as well and that yeah if there is a perception that cuts are cuts and changes are being made for purely financial reasons opposition have got a role to play in saying that's wrong but equally I think there's a responsibility in opposition not always to say that that's the case but to recognise that some changes are about the evolution the correct evolution of the health service and that's going to be a challenge for all of us over the next few years I'll leave the sea lice for later I'm disappointed the officials that prepared my sea lice if only we had time we're all intrigued it was a lie are we getting on to beaver so that's what I want to know and I'll move on to Bob Doris convener of local government communities Mr Doris please the question is referred to sea lice no they don't good afternoon First Minister the local government communities committee has been scrutinising Scottish government budgets and funds across local authority areas we're finding it fragmented and we're finding it more complex to scrutinise and I'll give two brief examples but important ones the £250 million health and social care integration fund that comes through a health origin but find its way to local authority priorities and its education attainment fund which is going to be rolled out in the next financial year so there's been a challenge to local authority areas but they don't show up on their revenue support grant for local authorities but they have to be scrutinised and scrutinised appropriately can I ask what impact do you think this fragmentation has on the statutory duties of social work and education within local authority areas does it tackle some of the cost pressures on the totality of spend in a local authority area because our committee is determined to do that irrespective of how the funds are channeled into local authorities yes we do look at the totality of spend not just in terms of local government but across other areas and I'm happy if a discussion with officials to look at how that's done in government would help your committee's consideration I'm happy to facilitate that I do think you raised an issue here though it's quite an important but inevitable issues as we reform public services and the £250 million that you talk about going from health to social care is not a financial transaction in isolation it's the financial part of quite a significant reform to how health and social care services are being delivered and that budget transfer is trying to support that reform similarly with education as we have developed our plans around attainment and tackling the attainment gap we've developed funding streams to support that so as we reform public services there will be a sort of inevitable perhaps change in the budget streams that support that what we've got to work with committees to do and I know the finance committee in year after year after year explores and interrogates the comparability of budget numbers and the ability to scrutinise them and the ability to know the impact of that spend is there for committees so that's probably an area where there is some further discussion that we need to have and in terms of health and social care obviously a lot of the impact of that is going to be in the work that's being done by joint integration boards and in terms of how the Government scrutinises that performance as well as the Parliament we need to make sure that we get those systems right very briefly 72 per cent of all social work budgets will now sit with integrated health and social care funds going forward and you put into the mix the £250 million how do we know that £250 million will not be used to mitigate existing pressures within the system and will give additional value cos that's something our committee would be keen to tease out that's a good point and last year when that decision was made of the £250 million there was a discussion with COSLA about the extent to which that money could help deal with with pressures from rising demand which needs to be done but also how it could genuinely be building capacity and social care and from memory I may be getting this wrong I'm pretty sure that it's correspondence that is available to the committee that was split 125 around that particular budget provision made there to support the living wage for social care workers commitment so there was a lot of detail around exactly how that budget was going to work similarly with the attainment fund there's agreements effectively between the Government and local authorities about what's going to be supported through the attainment fund that allow us to ensure that that money is additional spend and isn't just substitute and spend elsewhere so the Government does a lot of work around that I'm pretty sure that most of it will be available to your committee but I'm more than happy to ask officials to have a discussion with the committee officials just to make sure that we're providing as much information as possible around it Claire Adamson, convener, standards procedures and public appointments Miss Adamson please Thank you Deputy Presiding Officer and good afternoon First Minister I guess it's been second last to ask the question today both of the questions that I have If I could ask you my colleague Christina McKelvie mentioned the gender balance and public boards bill and given the SPPA's committee's role in scrutinising public appointments I was wondering if you could give us any time scales for the introduction of that bill and what discussions if any have taken place with the commissioner of ethical standards in public life regarding it The gender balance and public boards is a year 1 as you know so we are consulting on the draft bill later this autumn and the bill is scheduled to be introduced formally to Parliament before the summer recess I think it's a really important bill it is narrow in the sense that it only deals with public boards but the message it sends and the symbolism in terms of wider society I think is an important one There will be discussions in terms of the development of the consultation and the bill with the commissioner I'm happy to get officials to write to your committee to detail exactly what those discussions are or are intended to be and how they will influence the final contents of the bill Thank you very much First Minister There has been a bit of discussion about the role of committees and differing views I would say about the effectiveness of the committees at the moment Presiding Officer has announced his independent commission on parliamentary reform with a remit that the commission is looking at how the Parliament can be assured that it's the right checks and balances in place for effective conduct of parliamentary business in case its engagement with wider society in the public and clarifies its identity as distinct from the Scottish Government I just wondered if you could give as already mentioned just an indication of how the Government will be engaging with that commission process as closely as the commission wants us to engage with it I mean, I've got lots of views on how all of that can be achieved and the first thing I would say is I think we've got to be careful and I know the Presiding Officer is conscious of this in having a commission like this which I think is absolutely the right thing for him to have done but not somehow given a suggestion that the Parliament's not working because I think the Parliament is working and I think it works very well I can tell you as First Minister that there are areas in which that can be improved so we will engage constructively I'm also conscious of the fact though that almost by definition a Government shouldn't overly influence how a Parliament decides to conduct itself because that's where Parliament to decide I've been immediately after the election I made two particular suggestions about how I thought the accountability of Government could be improved one of which of course which I'm not sure yet whether I regret or not was the lengthening of First Minister's questions which is now a formal change to standing orders and the second was to appear before this forum more regularly so these are just two ways in which as Government we've made suggestions there'll be other suggestions no doubt we will make but I think it's right that Parliament as a whole comes to these conclusions without a new influence of Government Thank you very much I'd like to call John Scott last but not least Mr Scott convener of delegated powers and law reform Thank you Deputy Presiding Officer and good afternoon First Minister In its legacy report on the session 4 delegated powers and law reform committee expressed concern about the increasing number of so-called framework bills which were brought forward between 2011 and 2016 these as you know are bills which confer a wide-ranging power on ministers with little information as to how these powers are to be exercised and include few details on the face of the bill Session 4 DPLR committee expressed its dissatisfaction with this approach because it means Parliament is being asked to delegate powers to Scottish ministers without knowing how those powers are to be exercised Can you give some assurance please that this approach to legislating will not be one that will become common practice in this session? I know there was a concern expressed previously what I can say and this may be a matter of opinion here but it's certainly my opinion but it's also an assurance about the future is there's no trend towards an increased use of framework bills they continue to have a place they provide the ability for a bill to provide a broad legislative framework with some finer detail to be filled in later on and that will often be appropriate where flexibility to change procedures and processes is required and where if those changes required for the primary legislation that would be disproportionate and would unfairly impact on the time of Parliament two points I would make for framework bills they provide the broad framework and then further detail is done through secondary legislation secondary subordinate legislation also has to be approved by Parliament so it doesn't give carte blanche to ministers to fill in the detail there is a parliamentary process that has to be gone through I don't think we should I tell you my experience of the legislative process over 10 years primary legislative process no doubt because of the scrutiny that your predecessor committees have applied so it's not about giving ministers carte blanche providing the detail through a different parliamentary process and the second point I would make is we will not overuse framework legislation if you or your committee or indeed any committee has concerns about particular bills I know in the last session the concerns were around the land reform community empowerment bills if there are particular bills coming up where there's a concern that they go too much to the framework side of things we will be happy to discuss that with the relevant committees I thank you for your answer and you're absolutely right in saying that the land reform community empowerment burial and cremation and the regular reform bills were all bills that gave our committee grounds for concern but I thank you for your answer you mentioned specifically land reform you will be aware that there are 47 pieces of subordinate legislation to be brought forward regard to the land reform bill with policy development still on going in some areas and notwithstanding your answer will you personally ensure that in future better developed policy intentions will be on the face of the bill in this session and will you ask your cabinet colleagues to ensure that this happens in short yes I mean there will not be framework legislation I mean you say there's 47 I will take your word that it's 47 pieces of subordinate legislation I suppose just to flip this to the other side if the content of all 47 pieces of subordinate legislation had been on the face of that bill we'd probably still be debating it on the floor of parliament so this is about a balance between Gouge's parliamentary time but also making sure appropriate scrutiny so it will always be a balance because just before I came down I read something and I only read it briefly so I don't know if it's true that there has been a suggestion today that the great repeal bill for Brexit will involve 2,000 pieces of subordinate legislation so if that's true it suggests that no matter how bad you think this government might be at these matters it is as nothing compared to what might be facing the House of Commons but seriously it is a serious point and I will give you the undertaking feedback to officials that it should always be mindful of trying their best to strike that balance in the right place and as ministers we will always be mindful about trying to strike that balance in the right place as well Thank you, that concludes questions I don't know if First Minister wants to make any brief closing remarks I was just going to read out my briefing on sea lice if that was okay for the remaining few minutes Thank you very much for attending and I thank the conveners who have kept your time which is absolutely wonderful Thank you very much, I'll close the meeting