 Good morning and welcome to the 16th meeting of 2016 of the Environment, Climate, Change and Land Reform committee. Before we move to the first item on the agenda, I wish to remind everyone present to switch off mobile phones, etc., as it may affect the broadcasting system. Agenda item one is for the committee to consider whether to take items four and five in private. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Item 2 is a draft budget scrutiny 2017-18. We are joined today by Rossana Cunningham, Cabinet Secretary for the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform, and a variety of officials. Before we move to questions, Cabinet Secretary, can I just place on record the committee's appreciation of the liberal of detail that has been provided with ahead of this process. Previous committees have pushed to get that, and it's incredibly helpful for us in our scrutiny process of that information, so thank you to you and the officials who have been behind gathering all of that. The only downside of that, convener, is that there will be a great deal of shuffling of paper going on this morning. Absolutely, but as a price I think we'll just have to pay. We'll move straight to questions, Cabinet Secretary. Maurice Golden. Thank you, convener. Cabinet Secretary, over recent years, if funding to Scottish Water is excluded, the resources going to support areas of spend in the Eclare portfolio have not increased in line with overall budget. What are your views on the relative priority given to financial support to the environment over recent years? Scottish Water, of course, is a slightly different scenario for us because it was partly in a different portfolio. I did ask for budget lines that excluded Scottish Water for that very reason. Obviously, we're facing financial challenges and there's a lot of difficult choices that have to be made. I'm pleased with the overall priority that the Government has given to environmental outcomes over recent years, policy, funding and co-operation. There are three different issues there. Expenditure, frankly, is only one measure of the importance of outcomes. I want to say that I'm very pleased and grateful with the outcome of this year's budget, which I think has helped us by ensuring that we are still able to focus on some of the most important areas that we can be doing as a Government. If we drill down on that a little bit further, cabinet secretary, I want to explore the prioritisation of some of the budget. Some of the welcome stuff, for example, as I read it, and it will be useful to get this confirmed, we seem to have an substantial increase in the funding for peatland restoration from circa £2 million a year to £10 million for next year. Would that be right? Well, I think that there's a slight complication with the funding for peatland restoration in that most of it will come from a different budget, which is the rural economy budget. I want to be a little careful about committing somebody else's budget line on this, but we are expecting to be able to continue to do some considerable work on that this year. It does appear to suggest that last year's budget heading was actually £2 million a year over five years. The £10 million that would appear is the £2 million plus £8 million. I don't want to be putting a figure on somebody else's budget line, is all I can say, but I'm optimistic about the step change that will be in peatland restoration. There's an additional spend on woodland creation as well. That would be from the same source, again, from another budget, not my budget. I would obviously welcome any increase in spend on such things. It's not in my budget line, and therefore I want to be a bit careful what I say. Looking at the items that are in your budget line, what was the rationale behind some of the prioritisation that's going on? There are key priorities, I think. Flooding, obviously, is going to be one big priority. The budget line is preserved going forward on the basis of the completely different way that we're now doing it, which I think makes a huge difference because it provides a level of stability and certainty over a considerable period of time on the basis of that Scotland-wide risk management that is now in place. Obviously, there's a significant amount of money now going into land reform, which clearly reflects the on-going priorities of this Government in terms of land reform, but also the need to make sure that we can fund the implementation of the most recent legislation. It may have not gone unnoticed this morning that the First Land Commission jobs have actually been advertised this morning, so that clearly takes money, and I'm grateful that we've been able to preserve that. Clearly, there's money for climate change, and although the policy direction in my portfolio is where it's held, there's obviously money spent across all portfolios in respect of climate change. In terms of the land fund, there's a very welcome increase in the pot for that. How confident are you that the money allocated to that will be sufficient to meet demand? With any demand-led budget, and if we're talking about the land fund in particular, then with any demand-led budget—I was about to say certain degree of uncertainty, but I think you know what I mean—there's always a degree of uncertainty. It is one of the demand-led budgets in my portfolio. I'm absolutely certain that there will be no lack of demand. How the demand will play out and play through year by year is what's a little difficult to anticipate. Obviously, there's a process that has to be gone through. For the first time, we've got the possibility of funding almost like pre-application work, so some of that is a little difficult to anticipate. However, I don't have any doubt that the money can be spent in what fashion and over what period of time it isn't quite so easy to anticipate because it is demand-led. If you take the example of SNH and the evidence that we had suggested that it's part of the budget process, SNH had offered suggestions and options of what could and couldn't be prioritised. SNH's budget has gone down. Cabinet Secretary, how can you process that advice to come to the conclusions that you come to? We obviously have to listen very carefully to what agencies tell us. I suppose that this applies not just to SNH but to almost any agency. Decisions about priorities at my level have to be very closely informed by the work of both officials and public bodies on budget scenario planning. There is what was hitherto known as the RAFE delivery board within the civil service. Those discussions took account for the programme for government, for example, and the national performance framework specific outcomes. You've got to have those higher-level things in your mind. There is a collective decision-making process for budget that is taken across the whole of government. I have taken a strategic approach. We have worked with partners who might reasonably be asked to contribute to costs, for example with SEPA, with Scottish Water, etc. Where we have had to find savings, we are asking some of those with the broadest shoulders and the biggest capacity to absorb savings to share that greatest burden. That allows us to offer a degree of protection to the budgets of smaller bodies. When budgets come along, it is sometimes the smaller spending parts that can be the biggest hit because they have the least flexibility. There has been a degree of protection to the national parks and the Royal Botanic Garden in Edinburgh, for whom small cuts would be disproportionately disadvantageous. For example, from an SNH perspective, we take the view that expenditure and outcomes such as biodiversity do not only rely on baseline SNH figures because they coordinate activity, they report progress, they fund some activity, but SEPA is also involved in that. As are the national parks and the forestry commission, there is cap money, SRDP funding, and it is a complex picture. There are contributions by NGOs that we must not forget about, all of which have basically allowed us to continue that work and to say to SNH that it is not them alone that are doing this. In recent years, there has been additional in-year funding, for example to peatland restoration, and we have obviously had that question at the start. That supports both biodiversity and climate change outcomes. It is quite difficult to pick one thing out and just isolate it in that sort of budget. For SNH, when we are looking at what the impact on SNH is, we have got to remember that there are a huge number of partners involved and lots of different funding sources involved in the delivery of something that the headline looks like it is SNH delivery, but in reality there is a lot of contribution towards that. We will come back to SNH in detail later. Mark Ruskell. Thank you, convener. I just wanted to pick up one point and ask another question about financial budgets and uncertainty. When you mentioned, cabinet secretary, about the flood funding, the flood mitigation funding, would you characterise that as demand-led? I suppose to a certain extent that it is, but we are pretty clear that the demand, I mean, I do not tend to put it in the same category as a fund, like a land fund, or as was the land managers renewables fund. They tend to be more traditionally demand-led in the sense that we think of it. You could make an argument that says that the flood funding is demand-led, but of course the likelihood is that it is probably committed right up to the end of about 10 years because of the numbers of projects that are in play now. What we have introduced is a method of clear prioritisation based on all the work that has been done across Scotland. I tend not to put it in the category of demand-led although, in theory, I suppose you could. It does not really fully meet the demand. I feel that it is in a different category, to be honest, because I suspect that it is one where there would always be a very long list of potential projects to fund in that scenario. What we have developed is a method of prioritisation that has a really good solid working base through all the strategies that have been developed. I suppose that, on paper, it looks like it fills the same category as demand-led in practice. I am not so sure that I feel it is. Can I ask about forecasting, budget forecasting? We are obviously in a scenario now where we have tax powers in the Parliament. That could introduce some uncertainty in terms of the total amount of tax spend that we have. It could result in potentially more spend in your portfolio area or potentially less. What would you see as the priorities for increased spend? There is a bit of crystal ballgazing. It is a bit of crystal ballgazing. I am not sure that that is a very easy one to answer other than to fall back on what some of the key priorities are. At a strategic sense, I would say that the key priorities have got climate change, land reform and probably the flooding that you are talking about. At the moment, most of the flooding projects are about adaptation, some are about mitigation, some are a mixture of both. I think that I would always want to ensure that those monies are very much protected if not increased. I hesitate to say increased, because I think that the likelihood of there suddenly being a great deal of extra money around is pretty remote. I am looking at what are, for me, some of the key areas. It can be a little bit invidious to have to do that. I would think, too, that I feel that air quality is beginning to move up the agenda, so I think that there would need to be some thought around that. Of course, that goes into another budget line as well, which is transport. That would not be entirely my say. I think that it can be easy to forget that sometimes quite small amounts of spending can actually make quite a big difference. It is not all just about the very big budget lines. In terms of making cuts, if you have less money to spend? I go back to what I indicated. The core areas have to be protected. The whole natural assets and flooding, I think that you would be trying to avoid making cuts there. I would be wanting to look at how we could avoid doing less in air quality, because I think that there may be beginning to be a real demand that we do more. I would not want to be running back on land reform or climate change. In a sense, those are all just sides of the same coin for me. It is kind of invidious. There is actually quite a lot of extra money going into the marine side as well, which you will have noticed, too. In an ideal world, I would not have to be thinking about cuts, but the protection of spending in this budget has included—and we would tend to forget—marine, because there has been a big jump in the marine budget, have been clear. It has meant that some other budgets have had to be downplayed a bit. Those are all difficult choices. It is about how you make those choices and, on the basis in which you make them, inform everything else. Those are hard and difficult decisions to make. However, with the last few questions, you have probably got a pretty clear steer of where the key priorities for me lie at the moment. Angus MacDonald. That may be a bit of an unfair question given that you have only been in post for about six months, or just over. You are going to ask it anyway. I am going to ask it anyway. Given your previous post as environment minister and given that you are coming in with a fresh outlook, looking back over recent years, what programmes have you considered achieved by you for money and what programmes have been the most disappointing regard to AVI for money? From the five years ago, from what I remembered then compared to what has happened now, I think that the flood protection stuff would probably be for me if I am looking at what I could connect from five years ago to now. That piece of legislation was brought in when I was still the committee convener. I was appointed minister during the progress of that legislation and had to switch sides between stage 1 and stage 2, which was interesting. I took the legislation through Parliament. In the intervening period, we have been able to implement it in full. That was a really big, big, big change in how we were going to reduce flood risk in Scotland. It went from an approach where we just reacted to the last flood that happened towards an approach that looked forward on a strategically based flood risk assessment. The act was also making it very clear where the various different levels of responsibility lay and led to what is now a multiagency local plan approach. That was a really significantly different way of working. It has taken five years to get it all into place, to get the various strategies into place, the local plans and so on. It has taken that four five years. For me, that is the single biggest, most concrete, positive outcome of that whole period and an example of how legislation can make a difference. Some people will often say that does not happen, but I think that has been a really— The recent deal with COSLA and how funding is to be managed, that £42 million a year, how we are going to have that divvied up on the basis of the strategic priorities that have been properly assessed and worked out. That, I think, is a huge step change in how we manage things. Disappointments, I suppose—I mean, that is a very invidious thing, and I am not sure that it is budget-related disappointments. There were some things that I thought, gosh, we are still talking about this five years on, dear, one or two things like that, that we just seem to be still talking about. But then I sometimes think to myself that, possibly, we will always be talking about some issues, that there will never be—in some areas, there will never be absolutely perfect resolution, and to seek that is possibly unwise. Cabinet Secretary, you referenced about particular individuals or organisations taking ownership of delivery of things. Is that a lesson to learn if you look at what the UKCCC has said about future delivery on climate change, that they need to see a clear pattern of ownership of objectives and delivery? In some areas that will be easier to do than in other areas. The thing with flooding was that there were some clear ways in which to do that. You had SEPA, you had local authorities, there was a clear path to how to—and it really became then a sense of, well, at which layer does the ownership lie for what? I do not exclude from that the perennial issue that domestic householders have also got to take some responsibility about some level of the protection of their own households. We began to see quite a clear indication of that. With climate change, that is tougher. Obviously, Governments have to take ownership of it, but what we have not—any Government, I do not think yet—has succeeded in pushing out that understanding throughout all levels of society, including the private sector, that they need to take this incredibly seriously. They are often chivied into it or bribed into it, but that is not taking ownership of it. The chivying and bribing might involve budget lines, but taking ownership is a much less concrete thing. It cannot really be done by way of a budget. I think that there is a different set of issues going on there. Again, that ownership is not just about organisations, but it is also about individuals and, again, different sets of issues around there. Okay. Thank you. Claudia Beamish. Thank you, convener, and good morning, Cabinet Secretary, and to your officials. More broadly, could we focus briefly on the national performance framework, which, just for the record, aims to provide an outcomes-based approach to budgeting? Inevitably, it is challenging for any Government. I am wondering if you, Cabinet Secretary, can provide any examples of cases where changes to the national indicators have directly led to changes in policy and the level of resources provided by an agency or a Government programme? I am noting that, this time around, the carbon footprint is worsening, which is obviously a concern, but there is a lot of good news in terms of that. On the carbon footprint issue, we keep an eye on that, but the internationally recognised way of measuring at the moment is on the percentage reduction in emissions since 1990. That is what you use to compare with other countries and other regions, etc. The carbon footprint issue is slightly different and is not the one that is used internationally at the moment, although we are all very aware that the carbon footprint of any western country is going to be considerably higher than it will be in the developing world. In terms of where changes to national indicators might have led to changes in policy, one example might be the SNH prioritisation of its own budget and SRDP resources being directed towards improving the condition of protected nature sites, because that was something that was indicated to be changed in Scotland performance. That would be one example of where an indicator changing in Scotland performance has led to an agency or part of government making a specific change in the way that it did things. I could write with more detail. That would be a very broad brush. It would be helpful if you could highlight what the hardest ones are to budge in the way of the national performance framework. I see it as a very valid structure in terms of the different budget lines of your own and, for instance, transport working together. In my experience, it is perhaps an underused tool. I do not know if you would agree with that. Of course I do not know. When it is whole government activity, that is always a little bit harder. You flagged up transport and clearly there are things that could be happening in a variety of different portfolios that might impact on that for better or worse. The joined-up-ness of the thinking is what counts. We do agree that there is a great deal of joined-up thinking. I would argue that we have been better at it than a lot of governments, but we are still not perfect. We are still working very hard at it. Clearly climate change provides us with a big challenge on that. A small thing that has not been easy to budge, which is a whole government activity indicator, is people's use of the outdoors. It goes up and down. There does not seem to be any steady sense of it increasing. That would be for me, but that would also be for health and it might also be for—Far be it for me to suggest that, as far as Scotland is concerned, it might also have to do with the weather or what has been on the telly. There are all sorts of reasons why outdoor activity might fluctuate. I cannot be the sole repository of the actions that are needed to change that, however much we try. That particular activity is something that SNH looks to do something about, Forestry Commission looks to do something about it. A number of the health boards are quite keyed into that as well. There are also community care issues around that. Local government will have a strong role to play in that. It is very difficult to get a handle, just a grip on something like that and get it all going in the right direction, at the same time, across all those different areas, with all the different variables that might be involved in its life. Jenny Goh-Ruth. Good morning, Cabinet Secretary. Just to drill down on those national indicators that Claudia Beam was talking about, we know that biodiversity has shifted from improving to maintaining, but, in evidence to the committee previously, SNH claimed that funding issues have not seemed to impact on progress with the implementation of the biodiversity route map. How, then, will the Scottish Government respond to those changes specifically with regard to that biodiversity indicator? I have to take advice from SNH. SNH is the agency whose job it is to advise me on that issue, notwithstanding that there are a number of agencies such as the Forestry Commission, et cetera, et cetera, who have also got a role to play in this. It is SNH's job to keep me across this, so I will be looking to them for advice. That will include the regular reporting that they do to me on any adjustments that might or might not be needed to maintain progress on this particular issue. In a sense, your questioning of SNH will have answered a lot of that. At that level, it is hard for me to step into SNH and start micromanaging. We do have an assessment on the issue of the Aichi targets. There is an assessment due from SNH in 2017. I think that you heard some evidence on that. Obviously, there is probably further engagement that needs to be achieved on the biodiversity reports when the assessment has been received. I have just given a note that you wrote to me on 25 November about this, which I am afraid is a month ago, and therefore I am not really able to remember that. We are in the process of drafting a response to you on that one in particular. Since we are coming down the track, Cabinet Secretary, something quite substantial. In follow-up written evidence to the committee, SNH has said that inability to access EU funding in the future will have a significant impact on the scale and scope of works in which we are able to be involved unless alternative funding streams are identified. That might very well be true, but for more than just SNH, there is a huge question mark over funding right across the board in terms of Brexit. This is in relation to biodiversity, which is what we are talking about. In that sense, it is not any different to the threat of funding for almost any other activity that we currently draw down EU funding for. There is a degree of certainty up to a certain point. It is a major source of funding for us, and over the piece from our portfolios, not just SNH, but just by diversity, it appears to add up to nearly £100 million over a five to six-year period. There is match funding required. You could argue that the match funding will remain as a possibility. The truth is, until we have some certainty about how that is all going to be managed going forward, I cannot give you hypothetical answers about what a budget might look like absent the EU component, because I just do not know. Dave Stewart will tease us out in a broader sense on EU funding. The convener has covered some of the issues that he is going to raise on Brexit. You could argue that Brexit is the ghost at every feast in every debate that we have had, and clearly there are huge elements of uncertainty. However, if I can draw you back to one question, and that is the potential loss of funding that you, at yourself, have identified of £100 million, is a phenomenal sum. Clearly, at one level, SNH has done extremely good job. The amounts of funding that they have got from Pillar 2 are on life plus, which is another important scheme. Have you set up some internal systems to look at contingencies to make up for this potentially phenomenal loss of funding in the future? We can look at what impacts we can consider what we would have to prioritise if there was no future available funding. However, the notion that the Scottish Government will be able to step in and make that up is a difficult one for me to consider realistic. At the point that we are clear about what that actually means will be the point that I suspect, which will have to be a long, hard look at some of the things that are happening. Some of that EU money will be getting spent on requirements to report back to the EU, so some of it possibly won't be needed in that sense if you are into a Brexit scenario. If you have no longer got to do the formal EU compliance part, there will be small parts of that budget that won't be required because you no longer have to do that. However, that doesn't take into account, for example, the huge amounts of money that come into research in Scotland from the EU. We, as a Government, have said that we will honour the guarantee of Westminster that funds agreed before the date we leave the EU will be supported. However, since the leaving EU isn't going to happen until 2019, you are probably talking up to about 2020. Beyond that, I don't think that I'm in a position to be able to answer that. I don't think that even the most severe critics of Government would suggest that you replace 100 million with your own funding. That wasn't the point that I was raising. I'm merely saying, have you got a strategy group within your department to look at alternatives for the loss of funding? Keith Brown reminded me that there isn't an EU team that is looking across the board, but that isn't specifically focused on this one specific issue. It will be looking at this as one of the implications of Brexit, but there are a lot more. Can that perhaps give a practical example to help the explanations that you can give? I went to a recent conference in Edinburgh, which talked about the inflation from Brexit with some think tank from Brussels. Their suggestion was—a very obvious point from the 27 negotiations with the UK—that there will be bid in the trading negotiations to have access to Scottish fishing grounds. That's a fairly obvious point, and this came from the think tank. Clearly then, thinking ahead as a Cabinet Secretary, the obvious point there is that there will be extra funding for fisheries protection in Scottish waters? You've already seen increased funding for marine issues in the budget this year, so we're already committing to extra funding there. That's what ifs piled on what ifs. At the moment, I see the debate that is going on, and I've listened to people, and I can see the uncertainties around what might or might not be the outcome of that conversation about access to fishing grounds. I don't know the answer to that. In any case, that's not an issue for me to argue. That will be for my colleague Fergus Ewing to discuss. Depending on that particular outcome, it may then depend on a number of other things that we would have to deal with at that point. The problem with scenario planning at the moment is that there are so many what ifs that you would have to plan out so many different scenarios. I don't know that at this point is particularly helpful. We may be in a slightly better position if article 50 is triggered. I can't say it at this stage. It's very difficult to actually be able to anticipate, but you can see that there is more money going into marine anyway. At a point that you might be envisaging what a beefed-up fisheries protection set up if there's continued access in Scottish waters of some kind or another, I think we'd have to wait and see what it was. Leading me down a kind of blind conversation that we could probably have for quite a considerable while without really coming to the sort of conclusion that would be helpful. I mean, I totally understand the sympathise with the cabinet secretary about the uncertainty here, but what we do know is that this is going to happen. We do know that article 50 is going to be issued under the Lisbon treaty. We could argue why this happened in such a half-hearted way, but that's not for this debate today. The mere point I'm making is £100 million is a lot of money. It will happen. Some of that money will be lost. Clearly, your European team is looking at alternatives to that. I merely put on the record that there is obviously worries that the committee has about this huge chunk of money that's not going to be in your budget. I would expect the committee to go on looking at that. We ourselves will have to be thinking very carefully about how that has to be managed. That's got to be consonant with this Government's continued insistence that we won't relax standards, that the environmental standards and regulations that we both apply and comply with should be continued in reality post any Brexit scenario. I'd like to ask about how the concept of preventative spend has influenced decisions within the environment budget. I appreciate that effect as it comes from another committee's or another budget portfolio, but I'm pleased to see a significant increase in spending on fuel poverty and energy efficiency in the community's portfolio, which will obviously have a significant long-term impact on the environment budget. Can you identify any other examples of preventative spend that will be positive for the environment portfolio? Two that we've already had some conversation about. Flooding is an obvious one, because while some of the works are what you might call adaptation, there are other works that are about management, and that's a form of preventive spend. It's reducing flood risk and potential for future damage. I had mentioned a couple of times in passing air quality, because that improvement in air quality doesn't necessarily just come from actions that will reduce our emissions, because that will be one of the ways to improve the air quality. Improving the air quality will also, in my view, lead to reducing costs to the health service. I've had some conversations about the impact of poor air quality, particularly on heart and lung diseases. I think that I'm pretty convinced that that may very well become one of the next big things that we need to be really thinking about. There'll be a big gain on the health side of work that we do on the climate change environment side. Those are two areas where there's quite a clear read across. A lot of the spend that you do in environmental work is a kind of preventive spend just by its nature. Those two areas would be pretty easily focused on seeing how money that is spent now is going to make life better down the line. Cabinet Secretary, I realise that this doesn't necessarily sit in your remit, but there is an intriguing part of the budget that is public good advice, which I guess comes under preventive spend. There's a fund of £6.5 million, which we're told relates to what will be in the climate change plan. Can you shed any light on that? No. Where did you see this? Public good advice? The budget summary. That will be revealed when the climate change plan is published. We tend to be very nosy on this committee. Can you shed any further light on that? Other than that, you'll be revealed when the climate change plan is published now. In terms of managing declining budgets, if we look at S&H, for example, and they've had to do that, that has an impact on staff numbers that require prioritisation of approach. To what extent do you have any concerns, cabinet secretary, that the impact on both of these has been detrimental? I don't think that it necessarily always has to be detrimental. Unless one assumes that ever-increasing numbers of staff will always result in ever-improved outcomes. I'm not sure that that's just as easily read across from one to the other. One of the things that happens when there are budget challenges is that people begin to get quite creative and think about how better to do things. There's been a lot of work done in SIPA, particularly. That is another thing that I remember starting when I was environment minister and was last responsible for SIPA. SIPA began quite early in the process, earlier than a lot of other agencies, to begin to think very carefully about how they did things. There's been a lot of joint working with, for example, SIPA. That's led to their expertise coming into the policy teams. That then helps us again to better shape policy, better communication and to talk to other parts of Government agencies about how they might think about these things. For example, SIPA began to, quite early on in the piece—this was back five years ago—SIPA drove quite hard on things like co-location. That was a big impact. SIPA began to look very carefully about how it did things. We are currently about to consult on better regulation. There's a potential if SIPA gets better and better at recovery, then that will bring money into SIPA that doesn't have to come from Government. There are ways in which improvements can be brought about by the creative response to the challenges that they have to meet. I suppose that a test of any agency is their ability to creatively respond in that way. SIPA has been doing that for quite a few years, and the proof of the pudding is in the eating process, because it is still in the process of delivering greater efficiency in recovery, for example, of making sure that monies that should be coming to them are coming to them in a timeless fashion. SNH chief executive officer is involved in the health group, encouraging active lifestyles, so there's close engagement by SNH with officials across the office in terms of planning, etc. I don't think that challenging them in terms of money necessarily leads to bad outcomes. It can often lead to better outcomes. Claudia Beamish I just want to further explore the better regulation programme that you've just touched on. You said that there was going to be a consultation. I'm not sure if that's specifically about the programme or more broadly about better regulation, but in the national performance framework, part of the narrative does state that there's no budget figures provided for that programme. Some explanation is given about how the scheme will work, expected to lead to better outcomes, but no targets or milestones are included and no specific evidence is cited linking budget resources to expected outcomes, so it would be interesting if you were able to… Claudia Beamish The better regulation that I'm talking about is about SEPA. Claudia Beamish Yes, that's the one I'm highlighting. In fact, the consultation is actually about to start. Given SEPA's success over the last five years, we have to have some confidence that when they're talking about better regulation, they're thinking about it very carefully and they're going to work through what look like the very best options. Once we get the feedback from that, we'll be the point at which we then decide what are the actions that need to be taken and what that requires. I have a high level of confidence in SEPA in terms of this particular consultation. I mean, they're driving this forward quite hard and they've been doing that over a considerable period of time. I'm just trying to find, sorry, I'm just trying to see if I've actually got some more information about it here. What it's going to do, the expectation of it is that it will provide opportunities to rationalise the delivery of SEPA's work in terms of regulation, and that will maximise environmental outcomes. It's actually going to be launched just in the new year, so it's probably just going to be immediately after the recess that you will see that. It's technically called an integrated authorisation framework, so it doesn't sound terribly sexy, I'm afraid, but it's probably worth having a look at from this committee's perspective. Basically, we're trying to make that step change in delivering environmental regulation agenda. At one level, it's quite narrow but it has the potential to deliver quite a lot if we get it right. It was simply that my understanding is that there was no evidence cited linking any budget resources to expected outcomes. Would that be as part of this budget? The consultation is being carried out in this year. We will then, having consulted, need to have a look at what would actually be required to be done. I don't know what the response to that will be. I don't know what that will look like. I don't know what that will require. Therefore, I can't really speak to what potential or not budget might be required. It's going to be about doing things better and more efficiently, though, so one has to assume that we're not really looking for it costing £10 million or £15 million. We're looking for SEPA to respond to a consultation and then begin to see what they can begin to roll out themselves. I think that we need to wait until we actually see the outcome of it. Let's go back to SNH Emma Harper. SNH published a recent report to the Government on Deer management and it recognises that there hasn't been a step change in the delivery of effective deer management, as I expected. Is the cabinet secretary content that SNH is adequately resourced to deliver the step change? I suppose that the first thing that I need to remind everybody about is that SNH isn't solely responsible to deliver the step change. The assessment was whether the sector is delivering the change. Of course, that involves the deer management groups through deer management plans and any support and or encouragement that is derived from the regulatory arrangements. I think that from the evidence that the committee got, from what I could see anyway, deer management work does remain a priority for SNH and I would expect that to continue. Conclusions from the deer review will inform future resource allocation. Details of the proposed work are still being considered. There is, in 2017-18, some prioritised spending within that reduced overall budget with a view to at least maintaining the current level and exploring the scope to allocate additional funds where necessary. There is also the possibility of bringing in money from outside as well. As I said, SNH and the public sector are not solely responsible for this. The deer management groups and that part of the equation have to share some of that. I guess that that has to take place in a managed and anticipated way. We took evidence from the DMGs that, almost out of nowhere, they were left to find £60,000 to fund a particular work stream. There appears to be a degree of disconnect there in approach. I suppose that one can characterise an expectation of money being found in many different ways. I do not want to prejudge the Scottish Government's response to the review itself, and I am conscious that the committee has been taking evidence and we will be getting slightly different takes on it depending on who they speak to. I am not sure whether the timescale of the expectation is the issue. I would have anticipated that, at some point, one might expect that the deer manages themselves to contribute to some of that, but it cannot be entirely expected that Government, whether it is central Government or through its agencies, will take the entire burden of this whole process. I think that the evidence that we had was that there was a particular work stream that they did take over and perhaps that had been expected. There was another one that they were essentially told that we cannot do this because of cuts in our budget, and they had to find £60,000. I make the point that sometimes springing something on the private sector is not always the best way to work, although I do not recognise that you do not micromanage SNH. Still on SNH and more about the operation of it rather than the actual programmes and certainly taking on board the fact that you cannot micromanage SNH, but looking at some of their figures that they have submitted in terms of whether it is contracted out services, payroll services, the internal audit budget being completely removed and legal services quadrupling over the past five years, what kind of conversations do you have with them, what scrutiny are you able to do, appreciating you can't drill down to every pandemic in the agency? What kind of conversations do you have with them and do you have confidence that they are making the right decisions of how better to do things with less? I do, and you are right. I have regular meetings with the chair and the chief executive, but they are not going to drill down at this level of decision making that you are talking about. There is an expectation that they too, along with any other of our agencies, look very carefully at how they manage their business. SNH co-locates with SEPA in Inverness, for example. That was not the case once upon a time. There is decision making that goes on to try and ensure that they can deliver, continue to deliver what they need to deliver. It would be more likely to come up to me as an issue in the context of a subject area rather than anything else. I would be inclined, so if I speak to them, for example, about deer management and the deer review, do I hear then about some of the issues that might arise out of decision making over money? Yes, I might. That would be the point at which it would tend to be part of the conversation, rather than me having quarterly budget meetings with SNH, which we do not do with any of our agencies and would not really be appropriate. Can I add to that? In terms of the sponsorship relationship that we have with bodies such as SNH, at official level we have regular liaison meetings, both on financial matters and on policy issues. We are trying to get the balance right between not micr-managing an organisation, which has a board and a chief executive and so on, but providing a strategic framework set of priorities. Of course, they discuss issues around particular funding challenges that they may have. Sometimes there are in-year budget adjustments to try and help with that. That is an on-going project throughout each year, and part of normal arrangements between the Government and its sponsored bodies. Mark Ruskell. Just to follow up on that, have those in-year discussions covered potentially more powers coming to SNH over deer management, particularly under the Land Reform Act, and what the implications might be for the organisation taking on those powers? I think that you are trying to get me to respond to the deer review, and I am going to do that formally in January, so I think that that is probably best left there. Mark Ruskell's drive is in terms of what way. I mean, surely options might have been discussed without effectively announcing the deer review today. There are options in legislation, so have those been discussed with SNH as a potential direction that the Government may go with us? SNH will know that those are all potential directions, whether I have discussed them in that level. No, because I need to take a view. I am watching with interest the work of the committee on this, and the committee's work will inform us as well. I will then take a view about what response is needed at that point. Not to put words on Mark Ruskell's mouth, and I think that that is what he is driving at. If those powers were taken on, there might be resource implications for their implementation. What scope, what rigourumers are there to fund that? Again, there might or might not be resource implications. I do not know until we actually make the kind of response. I do not want to get drawn into a set of what-if scenario planning, because once we have looked at the whole thing and all the evidence that the committee has taken and had the conversations at that point, I will come to a decision about what is needed. When I have done that, we will then look at whether or not there is a requirement for additional funding or otherwise. That is how it would normally be done. If I direct SNH to do something, we will go away and work out how they can do it. If it needs an adjustment in some way, shape or form, we will then discuss it at that point. That is dependent entirely on what it is that we choose to do. For example, if you choose to go down the road of legislation, you are some years down the line before the consequences of that legislation become concrete. I think that it is just clarity about whether it has been factored into this year's budget. It has not been at this point. 2017-18, in its specifics, no, because it has not been a Government response. 2017-18 will be a year in which there may or may not then require to be some kind of financial response. To more than just this, any number of things that might arise that you may want to have some thought given to. That happens in any single year of budget. There are what are known as in-year transfers. That is not an unusual thing to happen. That kind of thing is what they might be about. I would not anticipate anything, even if there were a requirement for it. I do not anticipate it being a massive amount of money. Claudia Beamish Thank you, convener. Without in any way looking to future possibilities for dear management, which obviously respect what you have said, cabinet secretary, there would not be any concerns. Could I rather just seek reassurance about there is no concern about SNH's ability to go towards a section 8, if that was necessary, in terms of funding, as things stand at the moment with legislation? Claudia Beamish I do not think that that is a funding issue. Claudia Beamish Thank you. Claudia Beamish Okay? Claudia Beamish Right. That is very helpful. So, as you will know, we are looking at some, particularly at SEPA and SNH and Marine Scotland in our budget deliberations. They are not exclusive. Claudia Beamish I am getting to feel like I have got a nest here. Claudia Beamish Which one are we going to do first? Claudia Beamish I am moving on to Marine Scotland. Claudia Beamish And it has already been touched on this morning that there is a significant increase in Marine Scotland, which of course in that budget, which is very welcome. Claudia Beamish And in the level 3 funding comment, it does say that the budget increase incorporates funding to support salmon conservation compensation measures, allocations for corporate recharge, which I take it does not mean anything to do with a holiday break for us all, but I am not quite sure what it does mean, so that would be helpful to know. Claudia Beamish The Ellis building recommend, sorry, the prince for a small remedial actions. Claudia Beamish So, where are you reading this from? Claudia Beamish Just from the, we are looking, I am looking at the level 3 information that we were given yesterday on Marine Scotland, which gives more of a breakdown of what Claudia Beamish It is also more of a breakdown than I have got in front of me, which is what I have just no, no, because I have got. Claudia Beamish It would be helpful, maybe if you wanted to write to the committee about that. Claudia Beamish Sorry. Just you will appreciate the kind of late notice that you got is also late notice for me. Claudia Beamish Could we just leave it to be helpful just to have something written about that? Jamie Halcro-Hamilton We do not have time for that. Jamie Halcro-Hamilton Right, is this the same text as the other time? Claudia Beamish Right, I know, so I was getting there in a couple of minutes. Jamie Halcro-Hamilton And then just related to that. Jamie Halcro-Hamilton Sorry, what I meant was for writing back to the committee, we have a very tight process. Any way you could shed Cabinet Secretary Day would do well. Claudia Beamish It is also just related to the fact that in that level 3 it does not highlight anything about the marine, national marine plan and regional plans, which obviously are not going to be completely funded through Marine Scotland, but which Marine Scotland will be making a contribution to and just to highlight that to you as well. Jamie Halcro-Hamilton Yeah, but this text is just the changes in the budget, it's not really what it does. And my level 4 isn't set out in that way either. Claudia Beamish My level 4 is set out in Capital Expenditure, Income, EC Current Receipts, which are another form of income, monthly pay depreciation. For Marine Scotland, the agency, I think that there may be, remember that SNH does quite a lot of marine environment work as well. Jamie Halcro-Hamilton So it's about Marine Scotland as opposed to— Jamie Halcro-Hamilton What was the justification for the increase to Marine Scotland? Where do you anticipate that increase is going to deliver what justified it? Claudia Beamish Well, I know that some of it is technical, right? What we're hoping for, I suppose, is that it will prioritise its broad remit. We need to get a clearer sense of what the priorities are. There will be efficiency savings. We'll need to go in and we want to make sure that they're in the right place in terms of income generation as well. So some of the same issues applied to SIPA, and that SIPA have been working on for some considerable time. We want Marine Scotland to do. So, you know, there are someone off pressures that have been involved as well. There are about building repairs, et cetera. So it isn't necessarily anything different to the same strategic direction that we would be looking for for others, but there's been— Jamie Halcro-Hamilton Is it to any degree an increasing workload that's a factor in that? Claudia Beamish No, no. I mean, there's a 6.5 million resource increase to manage one-off pressures. So I don't know, and I don't want to get into what ifs, but it might not look like this next year, if you see what I mean. So the eldest building has needed a lot of repair. Jamie Halcro-Hamilton Thank you. That helps. I was just trying to clarify really that, in what I have in front of me, it's very encouraging to see that the budget also supports, to state the obvious, but just to read it out, the work of the management measures for the network of marine protected areas, which is something new and very important for our rural, remote coastal communities. The point I really wanted to highlight was just some reassurance that the national marine plan and the regional marine plans, which the committee's heard quite a lot of concern about in relation to taking those forward beyond the two pilot schemes at the moment, that there'll be support for that. There's room for support for that. Okay, thank you. Mark Ruskell Thanks, convener. I'd like to turn to research. There are a few figures in here, particularly in level 4, which are a bit concerning. We've got a 6% reduction in the programs of research in terms of resource funding, and then on contract research funding, it's going to go down by almost a quarter in the next year. It does seem to be, cabinet secretary, part of a trend of gradually reducing budgets for research. We've seen a 13% reduction over the last four years, for example. I appreciate the points that you've made about better regulation and moved towards doing things differently. How do you intend to mitigate some of the effects of those declining resource budgets for research? Or do you not see that being an impact? I need to take you back to the earlier conversations about priorities as well, and some of the bits of the budget that I've had to protect and wanted to protect. That means that there are consequences, and decisions have to be made elsewhere, because there isn't extra money to go to everybody. The majority of the research money goes to the Morden, to James Hutton, to the SRUC, and the Riot. They use that money to leave it in the additional funding from the research councils, from the UK Government, from other public and private funders, and they also operate successful commercial subsidiaries. I think that there is more work that can be done in there, and I have been meeting the research providers quite consistently over the last wee while because of the big threat that comes from withdrawal of EU funding down the line. There is a big conversation to be had with them about perhaps some of the focus and some of the decision making that they have and the potential ways that they can begin to realise some efficiencies out of their work. That will continue, and the potential commercial subsidiaries are very important to all of that. I think that I don't want to step too much into the university side because that doesn't really sit with me, it's the research providers that sit with me. There is research done by Marine Scotland as well as CEPA SNH, so it isn't just the key research providers. Again, we are looking to try and ensure that, where possible, we can leave it in money from other places. There are other potential funders out there, and there needs to be just a bit of work done into how we can begin to access that. The interesting conversation that I had with the research providers recently said that they are, understandably, because one of the main sources of funding has come from the EU. They are very focused on that, and they need to start thinking about beyond the EU for other sources of research funding, and I am talking to them and encouraging them along these lines. What we are hoping for is a bit of a step change in that, to help mitigate some of the decisions that we have had to make and some of the other likely impacts of the Brexit scenario that we have talked about earlier. Can I just push you on a couple of examples in terms of the need for independent research as it relates to enforcement? You mentioned earlier on about enforcement of section 8 agreements. Some of the evidence that we had in this committee from SNH suggests that data and independent research is extremely important in terms of securing a robust section 8 agreement. That has been a concern, so there is an area where we need perhaps more research. We also heard in earlier evidence about SEPA and SEPA's reliance on commercial data, data coming from the agriculture industry, to inform its own decisions around enforcement and licensing. Is there not a concern around the independence of research data if the Government is increasingly in a position where it is unable to fund that? There is also an issue for SNH and SEPA to prioritise and make decisions about the research that they are conducting. There are prioritisation hierarchies wherever you look and at whichever level, so I would expect them to look carefully at what they do and how they do it and decide which has to be prioritised. If that kind of data collection and research is considered to be the highest priority, I would anticipate that they will take the resources that they have and apply them on that basis. That will have to be a decision that they make. Are you confident, cabinet secretary, that the capacity will be there? Because in relation to SEPA, we know that they have shut a number of laboratories in recent years. Is your view that, with the better regulation agenda, the data that SEPA will have will be robust? I am absolutely confident. The laboratory programme was about maximising what they had. There were eight different labs across Scotland, and they have consolidated into two. I doubt whether they would have seen any depreciation in the ability of their work to deliver what it needs to deliver. It has been done in a better way, managed more efficiently, and that is part and parcel of what I pointed to as SEPA's way of responding sensibly and creatively to the challenges that are put to them. At the end of the day, within any budget, there have to be decisions made about where money comes from and what it is applied to. That kind of decision making process will then apply at every level. All of the organisations need to have their own thing, because they will get a sum of money that they then have to look at and consider from their working priorities how they are going to make sure that that is applied to deliver the best results. Within the budget that we have at the moment, if I reinstate the money for research, you would have to tell me where and what other budget I took it from. Do I take it away from flooding? Do I take it away from—I mean, because those are the real decisions that have to be made in all of this. In terms of explaining other changes in the budget, is the reduction in the land manager's renewables fund driven simply by that priorities argument, valid as it is, or does it reflect demand? No, that is because in that particular one that demand fell off substantially when the Westminster Government changed the way it decided to deal with renewables. We argued against the changes, but they came down the road anyway. We will continue to use the scheme to do what we can to increase renewables use on farms, but demand did fall off substantially. There is little point maintaining a budget line if you know that it is not going to be taken up in that same way. All that happens at the end of the year is you either scrabble about trying to hold on to it when there are pressures coming from every direction, or somebody else hopefully points out where it could get sent to. That is the reality of budgeting. We have taken our best estimate given the demand fall off of what is actually going to be needed in that fund, and that explains the reduction in that one, but that was an externally driven decision. To get that on the record, Finlay Carson. Just on the back of the questions that I have already gone ahead, surely the scientific evidence base should be critical to all the investment that is put into the budget thereafter. We are looking at the marine budget, looking at the sustainable growth of sea fisheries, river assessments done, or salmon conservation done, on an individual river assessment to continue to support the sustainable growth of aquaculture, marine national, marine plans and so on. Surely we need the research there to inform how we then spend that budget. Are we not potentially spending money in areas that we shouldn't be because the baseline research is not there to show that it is being spent efficiently? If you have examples of that, please let me know what you think those examples are. The fact is that there is research spending going on across a whole range of, just in my portfolio, whole range of issues. The things that you are talking about, Marine Scotland will be involved in that, SEPA, SNH. It is not just one bit of the pot and the research providers, so it is not one bit of the pot. What we have had to do overall is make a decision about where we could trim a bit. Our view is that on research that can be done, but there will have to be, as I have already said, some prioritisation taken by those fund holders to consider what the most effective way to use what those funds are in terms of research. There will have to be some clear lines drawn between the research that is instructed and the practical outcome that you are talking about. They will need to know that they are spending their money as wisely as possible to get the result that they need. I am looking at the conflicts that there have been within the well fisheries, where there are disputes about whether the scientific evidence that has been used to set the river catch and release and so on. The conflict that has existed in the marine areas where different factions have different ideas could be taken away if there was more independent research. I am concerned that we still get conflict because there is a perception that the independent research is not being done. Is the conflict not that some people disagree with the research that is being done and that that may continue to be the case regardless of who does the research? In my experience, people take from research what suits their own arguments and then the bits that they do not like decide that they are going to argue against regardless of how independent the research was. I am not sure that that particular area is going to be any different to any other area in that regard. We could have spent 10 times as much on research and ended up with the same controversy. Do you want to continue on with aquaculture? As I suppose it is, we are back looking at SEPA. Is there a risk that we might have additional cost recovery putting extra burden on industry because of the reduced funding that SEPA may have? For example, we have water extraction costs for the trout fishing industry. Could we see potentially more cost put against industry because of the cuts potentially to the SEPA budget? SEPA works very closely with the sector to raise a level of compliance. Five years ago, when I was Minister for Environment, one of my responsibilities was aquaculture. My experience with the industry was that they are as keen as anybody else to raise environmental standards because, effectively, it is the health of their product that suffers if the environmental standards are not kept as high as possible. It is a direct benefit to their own industry and an investment in their own industry if they are also taking on some of the cost. Industries of all kinds in all sectors, the length and breadth of the UK, will also be doing something similar in their areas. I am not sure whether it is or should be different when it comes to aquaculture, but SEPA is working very much in partnership with SEPA at the moment. The regulatory costs that SEPA has are principally paid for by regulated businesses. That, of course, is aquaculture. There is a strong incentive for the aquaculture companies to comply with the regulation, because, as I indicated, it is the health of their product. I would have anticipated that any private company would want to invest in their product. That is a way of investing in their product. I am just going to push that point a bit further. In that context, it is disappointing, cabinet secretary, that SEPA has shown that the pollution from aquaculture has actually worsened in the last tranche of reports. I think that that is something that, in terms of budgets, it is important to be aware of. That is why there is currently a big discussion on why SEPA and the industry are having to work together, because it does not help the industry any more than it helps the environment. I suppose that my example or where my question was coming from, we can see, again, Scottish trout fishing, fish farms, where there are levels to come to and they get tested five times a year or 10 times a year. If there is a plane of improvement, the charges are no less. I am concerned that, even though there is a desire in the industry to improve, the costs that SEPA applies to them do not decrease. I am concerned that those costs continue to rise to the detriment of the industry. Do you still want to improve? Well, I am sure that SEPA will listen to that and consider the position. However, remember that, if we reduce income for SEPA from one direction, that will exacerbate the concerns that the committee is expressing about how they are going to manage in terms of future financial resources. At the moment, that is factored into their budget, they will need to make a decision about how they manage that. That will be perhaps one of the conversations that they will have as a result of the consultation, but I cannot speak for SEPA in that regard. Angus MacDonald Just to seek further clarification on SEPA, when we took evidence from SEPA a number of weeks ago, maybe a couple of months ago, they told us that the proceeds from fines through the new regulatory format were not ring-fenced. Now, that does not tie in with what you said a short while ago in answer to an earlier question. I had certainly been under the impression that, when the bill was going through Parliament, SEPA would have the full proceeds from the fines that were imposed. Can we get some clarification on that? SEPA did tell us that the fines were going straight into the overall port rather than ring-fenced for SEPA. Fines are a different thing entirely. That is an enforcement penalty, and that is a different order of money. That does go into what is called the consolidated fund. There will be other such penalties that will all get paid into that central fund. I think that, to go back to what Finlay was saying, that was very much welcomed by stakeholders because it meant that there was not an incentive for SEPA to start imposing fines over and above what was absolutely necessary. If the fines became income, you can see how that would become an issue. I have to say that this is normal practice with fines. Whether you are talking about the Scottish Courts or Revenue Scotland or anything else, this is not any different to the way that that is managed. The penalties are dealt with quite differently to the cost of regulation. They are not seen as a cost of regulation because there would be a bit of an in-built hazard in all of that if they were. I appreciate the clarification. How many staff will the Scottish Land Commission have? We said that we expected about 20 in total, approximately up to 20. That is the kind of ballpark figure, but that is all not going to happen all at once. I think that there were three adverts this morning for staff, so it will come in slowly over the period. What will the budget be for staff and what budget heading will it be under? The relevant budget is under land reform itself and it is in environmental services. I think that if I am right, which I do not have, that would be there, right? That is land reform under environmental services. It is table 10.04 in the published budget under environmental services. That land reform budget is where it will come from. 1.4 million is to establish and run the Scottish Land Commission from 1 April, out of the global total. I am grateful for the committee's work with the Land Commissioners and the tenant family commissioner. That will now roll itself out. And when all 20 staff are appointed or around about 20, will they all be located in Longwood House in Venice or would it be a different location? I do not know. I am not sure that it is budget related. We have said that the Land Commission will be based in Venice. I would have anticipated that the staff will be based in Venice as well, but I am a bit wary about making presumptions about that. I do not know. There may be some peripatetic staff. Who knows? I do not know. I do not want to step in. It is not my job now to manage the Land Commission. It is the Land Commissioners job to do that. Does the committee intend to engage directly with the Land Commission on an on-going basis, and we will certainly be exploring that? I mean, I am assuming that you welcome the fact that it is going to be an end for next. I have got the press release ready. I hope that I am invited to the opening, but there may be some room to come in. Thank you, Mark Ruskell. Just in terms of the Land Commission, does that anticipate the need for detailed legal advice on the budget? Again, that was something that I think we uncovered. Yes. That is the budget for the Land Commission. That will need to cover everything. That will obviously be looked at each year as the work progresses. This is an early stage, so the principal cost will be staffing and getting it up and running. I would have anticipated further down the line that there might be questions about things like in-house versus externally commissioned work or whatever. Can I wrap this up by looking at impact to the budget? Earlier on, cabinet secretary, you did not want to get into the detail of the people and restoration funding. I understand the reasons behind that, but the predecessor committee called for increased spend in that area. It would appear that call has been heeded, which is very welcome. I want to tease out the implications of such a spend in 2017-18. If one accepts an average cost of £815 per hectare for peatland restoration, which I am told is roughly what it is, I would have the potential to deliver a restoration of an excess of 12,000 hectares, which is about three times the current rate, with all the implications, positive implications for carbon sequestration and biodiversity. Would you accept those figures and agree that that would be a very welcome step forward in those terms? We want to be ambitious about this. We are re-energising the whole initiative. I hope that that is reflected in the funding that is brought forward for it, but we see it as a key component that covers a number of the issues that have been raised already by members here, both by diversity and climate change. I am as optimistic as I can be consistent with not stepping on anybody else's toes. Thank you for this morning, the time that you have given us and the officials. Can I wish all of you a merry Christmas when it comes? Do I get a mince pie now? We have other business to move on to, so I will just allow a short time. Thank you. To consider two negative instruments, those are the tweed regulation salmon conservation number two order 2016, SSI 2016 slash 391 and the conservation of salmon Scotland amendment regulations 2016, SSI 2016 forward slash 392. Full details of these negative instruments can be found in paper three to which I refer. Members, can I invite any comments from members on these? Claudia Beamish Thank you, convener. I would like to make brief comments and ask some questions which the committee might consider writing, I believe, to the cabinet secretary to seek clarification on. That is not on the tweed SSI and I welcome the positive conservation which is happening there. It is on the conservation of salmon amendments, the second one that you highlighted. I would very much like to seek some sort of clarification on where we are with the EU possible infraction proceedings that came up previously in committee, in the rural affairs committee in the last session, because that is a matter of concern. Just to highlight as well that there is still a Scotland-wide decline in salmon numbers. While I welcome the more localised focus of the science and the data which has enabled some movement on the gradeings, it still needs to be highlighted that there are concerns. For instance, although the Loch Lomond Association is pleased that theirs has been moved from three to two, it is still highlighting that there can be improvements made to the methodology and that there are concerns about fish predation by birds and wonder if that has been considered by Marine Scotland. The impact of salmon farms has also been highlighted to me. Finally, convener, I would just like to raise the issue that came up a lot in the previous evidence that we took over the previous SSI, which is about the half netters in the Solway. I would like to mark the fact that there is now a scientific pilot there, which enables the continuation of the half netters traditions. They would like to highlight that it would be helpful if we could write to the cabinet secretary and ask if, in the coming season, the scientific evidence gathering could start on 1 May, rather than later on, without criticising Marine Scotland and others for what happened before. There were quite a lot of arrangements to make before, so they wanted to highlight that issue. Generally, a more positive result, but a lot more local data gathering should be highlighted to the cabinet secretary. I have had quite a lot of information sent back to me on that issue. I think that there are two aspects from what you said. One is the bigger picture and where are we at with that. If we were to write to the cabinet secretary, I would perhaps want to add in to that, seeking an update on the way of science, on the sea of predation of salmon numbers, which is something that came up in the last session of Parliament, and there are the localised matters that you have highlighted. Does anybody else wish to make a comment? Finlay Carson? I do not know whether it is appropriate at this point, but what compensation is there for businesses? Can that be reviewed with regard to the banning of killing wild salmon, both in the estuary areas as well as the rivers? Is that something that— I think that it is noted that it is not in the briefing papers that there is compensation being paid to netting interests, for example. Do you want some detail around what is being— Yes, because it would appear that it is based on weight of fish that is caught, not the potential return on processing that fish, so that the real compensation does not match what the loss there is to those businesses that are having their livelihood taken away? Perhaps for perfectly valid conservation reasons, it has to be said. Any other comments? I agree with Finlay Carson, because we have all been speaking to the same people, because of the processing issue of compensation. Are we agreed to take those points forward on a letter to the cabinet secretary? That being the case, do we also agree that the committee wishes to make no recommendations in relation to the instruments? We are agreed. The next meeting of the committee on January 10, the committee will take evidence from stakeholders on the Scottish Government's wildlife crime in Scotland annual report 2015 and consider a draft report on the draft budget 2017-18. As agreed earlier, we will now move into private session. I ask that the public gallery be cleared as the public part of the meeting is now closed.