 Felly answered the question in the Lighting. To ask the Scottish Government what processes are in place to consider a proposal for the designation of a new national park. The national park's designation is contained in sections 6, 7 and 8 of the IPCC 2000. I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer. In my constituency of Galloway and West Dumfries, there is great support for the designation of a Galloway national park. A report commissioned by Dumfries and Galloway council last year found that a Galloway national park could bring an increase in tourism, boost jobs, improve development and help to bring investment to the region. Given the wealth of opportunities that the national park offers, will the cabinet secretary show her support for the south-west of Scotland and commit to instructing her civil servants to look seriously at the designation of a Galloway national park? As I have indicated already to the member, the Government does not rule out future national parks at some point, but in this time of straight and financial circumstances we consider it better to concentrate our resources on the existing two national parks that are already in place. Affordability in the face of significant pressures on public finances and a number of competing priorities across the country make that absolutely vital. As I have done before, I would direct the member to, for example, the successful Galloway biosphere that we are supporting, and I hope that I would hear from him his support for that. Marie Todd Does the cabinet secretary agree with me that our existing parks already have to shoulder cuts in their annual budgets as a result of Westminster cuts, as with most public bodies in Scotland? We need to be focusing efforts and resources on ensuring that our two existing national parks continue their track record of success. As I indicated in my initial answer, that at the moment is the place where the Government wishes to put its financial resources. We feel that moving towards at this point, increasing the number of national parks, would not necessarily help us. We need to ensure that the two national parks that we have are adequately funded for the very good job that they do and that we support where possible some of the other very good designations that exist. I am sure that the member would join with me in recognising those good efforts as well. Claudia Beamish What consideration has the cabinet secretary given to the designation of a marine national park and the value that that would bring as a sustainable development model, in view of the fact that we only have terrestrial ones at the moment? Claudia Beamish I think that in general terms, I would say that we would always like to be able to be in a position to move in that direction, although some of the same things that I have indicated in respect of terrestrial national parks would also apply there too. The scoping out of costing for that has not actually been done. We have scoped out costing for what a likely new national park might cost now if we were to go from the start-up. I would expect marine national parks to also have a considerable cost attached. Right now, we do not think that it is the best way to spend our resources, but I would never want to rule those things out for the future, because, obviously, in general terms, they would be a very good idea. Mark Ruskell To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its discussions with the UK Government and the EU regarding the licensing of seal-killing and the fishery product import regime of the United States. The Scottish Government has already made a contribution to the UK response to the European Commission, which is co-ordinating the EU membership reply to a request for information by the US Government, and we await further developments. Mark Ruskell I thank the cabinet secretary for that response. It is very clear through answers to written questions in this Parliament and through freedom of information request releases that Scottish fisheries could lose our entire export market to the US in five years' time unless we take action. This would be a cost to the Scottish salmon farming industry of £200 million every single year. It seems clear to me that there is a choice here. You could either change the law in the next five years to ban the killing of seals in Scotland, or you could lobby Donald Trump's administration to weaken environmental protections. Which one is it going to be, cabinet secretary? Michael Russell As the member has indicated, the ruling that is under discussion has a five-year exemption period that means that it would not be coming into force until 1 January 2022. The truth is that the precise implications of the regulations remain unclear in a number of areas and for many countries. As I indicated, we intend to seek further clarification along with the UK Government and the EU through discussions with the US Government in response to their request for information. The EU is considering a number of things—a possible joint response to the US, a reversion to WTO and, potentially, requesting more time to respond to the request for information. However, it needs to be said that the situation that we have at the moment is that it is for individual companies to decide whether they are not to apply for a licence under the Marine Scotland Act 2010. Some companies already choose not to do so. 44 per cent of those who did apply for and were granted a seal licence in 2015 chose not to use it. At the moment, it continues to be a matter for individual companies to make that decision. David Stewart Will the cabinet secretary confirm whether the Scottish Government is considering further seal conservation areas and, if so, what areas have been identified? We would always want to have, under consideration, potential for any further conservation areas, regardless of the animals under question. The member will know from experience that a great deal of care and thought has to be taken about where they might be and the consultation that will be required. Those things cannot be done overnight. Right now, we are not taking forward further than those that are already in place. We are looking at it very carefully. We make sure that we have it under regard, but, as the member knows, doing so is not as easy as simply signing a bit of paper. 3. John Mason To ask the Scottish Government what the impact is of water charges on smaller organisations that operate in business centres in which they do not have their own water supply but share kitchens and toilets. All businesses in Scotland that are connected to the public supply are liable for water and sewerage charges. Where a property is part of a much larger building that is connected to public water or sewerage, it might be liable for charges if it has access to services in the common parts of the building. John Mason I thank the minister for that reply. The reality is that I have a number of businesses in my constituency who are really struggling with heavy business rates, specifically from business stream. They seem to be trapped because they are not allowed to switch to another supplier because they have arrears with business stream, while the landlords are reluctant to install a meter, which would show how little water was being used. Can she suggest any way out of this? It is, of course, important for all customers to pay their fair share of services received. At the moment, there are no plans to offer alternative charging arrangements in the situation described by the member. Business stream works hard to ensure that they take as much account as possible of the circumstances facing individual customers. If there are individual businesses with very individual issues, I would recommend that the member takes the issue up directly with business stream or write to me about individual circumstances. Liam McArthur To ask the Scottish Government whether the proposed, while fisheries bill will make provision for a scheme for rod licences. I did announce on 3 February that proposals to introduce rod licences will not be taken forward. It is important that we represent the interests of all our anglers. I have listened to their concerns around increasing costs and acted on the feedback from the consultation process that a rod licence would discourage participation. I am pleased to report that that decision has been broadly welcomed. Fishpal and online booking and information system for all types of rod fishing commented, for example, that this is good news for anglers. We are receiving positive feedback across our social media channels to the news release. Thank you very much, and I thank the cabinet secretary for that response. You will be aware that in Orkney we already enjoy effective community ownership and free access to what is a renowned trout fishery. The local community takes pride in the responsibility that it has for looking after the resource in the interests of all anglers, a model for what the Government should be looking to achieve across Scotland. I think that the initial proposals within the draft bill would have undermined that legitimate access and ownership structure. Will she now, on the back of the announcement that she made in February, look to extend the model that has been working very effectively in Orkney to other parts of the country so that access to angling can be made more widely available? I will pay particular attention to the situation in Orkney. I will consider whether there are any lessons that we can learn from that that can be applied elsewhere. I am grateful for the member acknowledging that the decision not to impose rod licences was absolutely the correct one. I know that there is a great deal of interest and input from anglers across the country. I am not sure if I am right, Presiding Officer, in saying that it is one of the biggest participation sports in Scotland. I am not personally an angler, but I always feel that for the ordinary hobby angler to be subjected to rod licences would be manifestly unfair. I will have a look at the situation in Orkney, and I am happy if the member wants to talk to me more directly about that. We are still intending to take forward world fisheries legislation later in this term. I share my view that the opinions of all anglers must be taken account of when determining the best way forward around legislation, particularly those from less well-off backgrounds. I think that the member would have taken from my comments in answer to Liam McArthur that I did feel quite strongly about that when I came into this job at this time last year. Wild Fisheries reform has a group dedicated to taking the very strategy that the member effectively refers to. The promotion and development working group's aim is to develop and agree a five-year action plan for the development and promotion of angling across Scotland. As I indicated, it is one of the largest participation sports in Scotland. That group does have a diverse membership, and I think that the social benefits of angling are very well known. I am particularly keen to see it flourished. I am particularly keen to see that it is available to as many ordinary people as possible. To ask the cabinet secretary whether the proposed Wild Fisheries Bill will make any provision for the designation of half netting as a heritage fishery. I have active discussions with both the member and John McAlpine about the issue of half netting. Half netting will be part and parcel of that piece of legislation. At the moment, the absolute detail of that legislation, as the member might expect, has not been worked through. However, yes, indeed, there will be reference to half netting within it. On participation, in the early 90s, a radical young lawyer represented anglers in court who had been criminalised because of the restrictive protection order system on Scottish rivers. Isn't it ironic that that radical young lawyer is now the very cabinet secretary defending the protection order system and keeping it in place without a shred of scientific evidence to back it up? Will the Wild Fisheries Bill allow this Parliament to debate the future of these restrictive orders and the absence of an evidence base for their retention? I am flattered that the member pays such close attention to my previous career. It would not be the very first time that my ministerial office has resulted in me confronting some case work that I did in that earlier career. I have no difficulty if the member, either in his own regard, wants to debate such an issue or persuade his group that it is worth spending time in the chamber to do so. As I indicated, there will be a piece of legislation later in this parliamentary term. During that legislative process, I am sure that the member will want to have as many debates as he thinks is appropriate. To ask the Scottish Government what it is doing to encourage more recycling of domestic waste. The waste Scotland regulations 2012 require a separate collection of dry, recyclable materials and food waste. As well as having introduced those regulations, we are taking a range of actions to support and encourage recycling. For example, between 2011 and 2015, funding of around £25 million was made available to councils to support start-up costs of introducing food waste collections. 1.95 million households—80 per cent of total households in Scotland now have access to a food waste collection service up from 300,000 in 2010. In December 2015, we launched the household recycling charter to achieve more consistent local collection, improve quantity and quality of recycling. We believe that that will make it easier for people to recycle the right things, and we have put in place advisory and financial support to help councils with that work. As at the end of January 2017, 25 out of the 32 councils have signed that charter. I thank the cabinet secretary for that response. I note the Scottish Government's target for a maximum of 5 per cent of waste to be sent to landfill by 2025. In the Borders, where a long way off the Scottish Government's recycling targets, more than 61 per cent of domestic waste is sent to landfill up from 53 per cent in 2011. We all share the aspiration to increase recycling, but in the Borders, people are being discouraged from doing so. The green bins for garden waste have been withdrawn, and fewer than half of households have a food waste bin. Major towns such as Jebryd do not even have their own recycling centres, and the Borders has one bin for all domestic waste, whereas other council areas have multiple bins. I can ask the cabinet secretary what the Scottish Government expects to get, if the Scottish Government expects to get anywhere near its target with an approach like that. Is not it time for a single consistent, easy-to-use recycling collection system or for some serious action to be taken to tackle recycling? I note with interest the member's implicit call that this Government centralise all of the waste and recycling services, which are currently the responsibility of local authorities. I congratulate him for what is no doubt going to be turned into a local press release, which may or may not have something to do with the current elections that are on-going. The Borders Council has increased its recycling rate. Like a lot of councils, they are dealing with some significant challenges, but I believe that we are absolutely on track to make the progress that we want to make and intend to make over the next number of years. Ivan McKee The cabinet secretary will be aware that disposable nappies are the single largest item contributing to landfill in Scotland, and that £160 million is sent to landfill every year at enormous cost to local authorities and the environment. What is the Government doing to increase the use of sustainable solutions such as reusable nappies? It is certainly the case that the use of disposable nappies creates some issues for waste. However, I am also very conscious, and I want to be very careful about what I say here, because I am also very conscious that, within many families, there is going to be a considerable debate about this. I hope that the member is able to indicate that, of course, in his family he would always have been the one who would be taking care of issues such as nappy management. There is indeed an issue that we would always encourage people to use reusable items, whether that be nappies or anything else, and to deal with any consequential waste as responsibly as possible. When does the Government intend to reach a conclusion on a deposit return system for plastic bottles and, in the meantime, what works being done to look at possible exemptions for rural shops and small retail businesses? The member's question carries within it some of the answer of that. It is not perhaps just as straightforward as people imagine simply to impose a deposit return system, because there are some very particular issues that need to be looked at. That includes what the implications are for small stores, for costs to smaller retailers, interaction with local authority curbside collection as well as something that needs to be looked at and what the changes in customer behaviour might be where a deposit return scheme has been in place. We have asked industry and retailers to evidence all of their claims made around those particular sorts of areas, and it is actively under consideration at the moment. We are looking very carefully at deposit return. Views have become relatively fluid over the last wee while. It is clear that a number of companies and organisations are beginning to change their minds on this, but we need to be very careful before we move into a situation in which we inadvertently create difficulties for much smaller businesses, and that is why we are taking time to do that. 1. Iain Gray To ask the Scottish Government what the impact is on the rural economy of banking and post office closures in rural villages. 2. Bank branch closures, although commercial decisions have an adverse impact on some local communities, as well as, obviously, affecting employees, remains a need for face-to-face provision of banking as digital access will not be available to or suitable for everyone. Banks must consider branch closures only as a last resort. The Scottish Government continues to support Scotland's post office network, with more than two thirds of post offices benefitting from 100 per cent rates relief that the Scottish Government has funded. Thanks to the cabinet secretary for that response. I raise with him the specific example of Gullin, a community that currently has no post office since the previous postmaster gave up, and is now to lose its only bank thanks to Bank of Scotland closures, Bank of Scotland, who blithly wrote to local customers, suggesting the bank instead at the post office. Will the cabinet secretary please contact Bank of Scotland and the post office limited to raise the case of Gullin specifically and directly with them? I thank Mr Gray for that question and I think that he does raise a valid point. We have made it clear in the great many debates, as Ian Gray knows, that closure should be considered only as a last resort and that there should be the most detailed consideration of views of local communities and individuals involved. I know also that Mr Wheelhouse, who is sitting here in the chamber with me, is dealing with that matter primarily in his portfolio area. I am sure that he has heard what Mr Gray has to say, and he has, as I read in preparation for that question in a most recent debate in March, stressed the fact that he has regular dialogue with the retail banks, as indeed I do, and we will continue to use those opportunities to re-emphasise our approach, as I have described. Lastly, if he wishes to write to Mr Wheelhouse and myself, I am sure that we will give the matter further consideration because it is a serious one. The cabinet secretary may be aware that Murray has been disproportionately hit by the decision by the major banks in Scotland to withdraw from Scotland's high streets, and indeed the whole of space-side in my constituency will shortly not have one high street bank left. Many constituents have contacted me to say that they will now not be able to access banking services, particularly more vulnerable customers. Would the cabinet secretary speak first and foremost to his UK colleagues who, after all, regulate the banking sector as well as post offices, and indeed directly to the banks to ensure that they can deliver a minimum standard of banking services in rural communities, and also to understand the very serious impact that withdrawing high street banks is having on the more vulnerable members of our society? Yes. I think that Mr Lockhead raises a very important point that is particularly relevant for constituencies such as Murray, which he represents, but many other rural constituencies that have many towns increasingly are seeing the loss of access to any bank or post office. That is a very serious matter. I mentioned that the Scottish Government has provided rates relief to small businesses, and I can confirm that two thirds of all post offices receive business rates relief, and that we increase the threshold under which businesses are entitled to total relief from £10,000 to £15,000. I mention that because that is the most concrete help that is provided to small businesses by any Government in these islands, and it really helps to avoid even more losses. However, Mr Lockhead raises a point that the UK Government is responsible for banking. It is a reserved issue, and I think that it is right that all members, whatever their political persuasion, should encourage the UK Government to consider the approach along the lines that Mr Lockhead and other members across the chamber have suggested. Cabinet Secretary will be aware that Royal Bank of Scotland intends to close their branches in Prestwick and Trun, and they propose that post offices will provide alternative services, and therefore they do not intend to provide mobile banking services in Prestwick and Trun while providing mobile banking services elsewhere in rural communities served by post offices. Can the cabinet secretary therefore encourage RBS to provide mobile banking services in Prestwick and Trun, as well as other communities in South Ayrshire, as that action will leave only one Royal Bank branch open in my constituency? Mr Scott raises again a very fair point, and if he wishes to write to me with the details, I will give further consideration to that, and with Mr Wheelhouse's co-operation and joint work. Not everyone accesses digital banking services. People over a certain age perhaps either choose not to use that internet at all, prefer not to do so, or perhaps find difficulty in adapting to it. I mean no disrespect to anybody, I think that that is something of which we are all aware. Therefore, not much older than me, I suppose, I should say, but therefore there are people who cannot access internet banking, and there is a responsibility on the retail banks to take that account. Therefore, I think that I would be happy to consider adopting the approach that Mr Scott has suggested. I would also just in conclusion say that I do hope that the Royal Bank are listening to this, and I do hope that they take heed of the fact that its members across the chamber who are raising these points on behalf of their constituents. Question 2, Alexander Stewart. To ask the Scottish Government what reassurances it can give and by what date all outstanding 2015 pillar 2 common agricultural policy payments will be completed in full. Pillar 2 payments have no payment windows, the member will probably be aware. We have paid over 97 per cent of all rural priorities claims for 215, along with 93 per cent of payments under land managers options scheme. We have processed 85 per cent of ELFAS 215 claims. Furthermore, for pillar 1 we completed 99.9 per cent of payments by the EU deadline of 15 October. I am very aware and take very seriously the potential impact of continued delays in completing some payments to farmers and crofters. I regret the situation, but I can assure the member that everyone within the Scottish Government and CGI, our IT development partner, is striving hard to deliver the complex IT functionality and other steps necessary to complete ELFAS and other 2015 pillar 2 payments as soon as possible. Alexander Stewart. I thank the cabinet secretary for the answer. The Scottish Government's latest update to the Public Audit Committee showed that 1,700 less favoured area support scheme payments are outstanding in 2015 and that the delays continue to cause financial hardship and that the further IT functionality is required to make those payments. When will the Scottish Government's cap IT system be fit for purpose for those long overdue payments? We have processed 9,667 ELFAS claims worth £52.9 million and have approximately 1,700 more payments to make. However, we have also paid £54 million of national loans available to address the known challenges in the system. The outstanding payments are therefore £3 million out of more than £60 million. The member is not deliberately omitting the fact that there has been a substantial loan payments system so that those entitled to payment have in most cases received a loan payment. In addition to that, as the member I am sure will be aware, I recently announced that there will be payments made by or around the end of May in respect of 2016 ELFAS payments. Precisely because ELFAS recipients, by and large, will tend to be hill farmers and therefore very dependent on those payments. That is a very serious matter. I take it thus and we are working extremely hard to resolve the IT difficulties that we have had. Angus MacDonald Can the cabinet secretary inform the chamber whether or not the Scottish Government has received assurances over the future of agricultural payments after the UK leaves the EU and that powers over those fully devolved issues were returned to the Scottish Parliament and not to Westminster? Angus MacDonald I am relieved that we have received assurances that payments will be made up to Brexit, but that would not be, per the UK Government's plans, not very long away, two years away. We have asked, Presiding Officer, but received no response to the question, what would happen after Brexit, which would occur if the UK Government's plans go ahead in April 2019, just two years away? I have asked on several occasions this question and suggested that a transitional arrangement should be made over a period of, say, five years to allow clarity and certainty to those in the rural economy. I have received no answer as yet. I am planning to meet my UK counterparts in London tomorrow and Mr MacDonald can be assured that I will be asking the same questions again. I hope that, this time, there will be a clear answer. Monica Lennon To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to improve rail services in central Scotland. Services in central Scotland will enjoy new, faster electric and high-speed trains, improve journey times and frequencies across most routes. New stations have been and will be delivered along with station improvements at others. Investment in Scotland's railways is, of course, a national priority for this Government. That is why we have committed to a £5 billion programme of railway investment in 2019 in control period 5, including a transformative programme of £3 billion worth of capital investment in rail infrastructure. Those levels of financial support, hopefully, will reflect to members the Scottish Government's commitment to invest in rail infrastructure and services to better connect communities and, indeed, to transport freight and help us to achieve sustainable economic growth and jobs, not just in central Scotland but, hopefully, across the entire country. Monica Lennon I thank the minister for that answer. Recent figures from Transport Scotland revealed that trains in East Kilbride are among the worst in the country, with three of the top 10 most overcrowded trains found on the East Kilbride to Glasgow line in the last year. With one train journey experiencing a huge overcapacity of 135 per cent, those revelations strengthen the case with the need to invest in upgrades to the East Kilbride line, a proposal that has already been put on the table by Network Rail. Can the minister confirm if he will agree to Labour's call for the enhancement and electrification of the East Kilbride line to be fully supported and funded by the Scottish Government? I say to Monica Lennon that she is absolutely right that overcrowding is an issue that we recognise across the United Kingdom. In fact, in railways across Europe and beyond, overcrowding is an issue here in Scotland that we are keen to tackle. When it comes to overcrowding, it would be worth saying that, through the popularity of our railways, we have added 140 carriages since 2007. We will add 200 more carriages over the next 30 months. That is 50 per cent extra carriages, £475 million going into rolling stock and refurbishing and new rolling stock, which will increase seating capacity by 23 per cent, notwithstanding all of that in terms of the issues around East Kilbride, which my colleague Linda Fabiani has raised on many occasions with me. What I have said is that there is an opportunity. We are going to be moving into control period 6, which is in 2019. It will then be for local authorities, for political parties, regional transport partnerships and SPT in that case, to put forward proposals of infrastructure improvements, for example, such as the electrification of certain lines for them to put that into control period 6. It would be worth saying that we have many projects under way or a flagship Egypt project for this control period that we are currently in. No proposals are off the table. I would certainly be happy to look and examine and explore that with Labour, with its transport spokespeople, but there is an opportunity for the next control period, control period 6. Can I ask a minister what his reaction is to the announcement last week about that ScotRail has achieved a sixth consecutive period of year-on-year train service performance improvement and is now on a par with the best operators across Europe? I am, of course, delighted at the improvement of ScotRail. Opposition members, of course, are coming to this chamber every day and every week. Of course, rightly, asking when performance was not at the levels that it should be, why it was not at those levels, and it is a shame that we have heard barely anything from those across the chamber. To congratulate the hard-working railway staff, 7,500 of them have helped to achieve that improved performance over the last six months, but there is still work to be done. I think that that is important to say that there is still work to be done. I was looking at the performance figures today, and they are sitting at about 97 per cent. That is an extraordinary level, and I want to thank all railway staff for everything and all the hard work that they do. However, there is still work to do, and the performance improvement plan will stay until I am satisfied that performance and the moving annual average are at the levels that are set in the contract. To ask the Scottish Government what steps it has taken to ensure that CCTV is being installed in slaughterhouses to assist in animal welfare scrutiny. The Scottish Government has already recommended the installation of CCTV as best practice in the monitoring of the welfare of animals at the time of killing. The Scottish Government does not, however, consider that CCTV by itself prevents welfare failures or secures welfare compliance. We will continue to monitor animal welfare at the time of slaughter through Food Standards Scotland staff present in all approved slaughterhouses and consider whether there is a role for the Scottish Government to help industry to produce a set of good practice protocols for the review, evaluation and use of CCTV. I share my concerns about the recent data released under freedom of information law by Food Standards Scotland, which lists 706 breaches of animal welfare regulations at Scotland's 35 abattoirs on certain farms during transportation between 1 May 2015 and 31 January 2017. Can he tell me what actions are being taken by the Scottish Government to bring to justice those involved? Are there any plans to strengthen regulation and enforcement to ensure that those horrible instances of animal cruelty do not happen again? Obviously, we take all the issues regarding animal welfare seriously. Food Standards Scotland takes proportionate action in relation to breaches. That ranges from verbal advice, enforcement letters, welfare and enforcement notice to investigations with the view to providing reports to Procurator Fiscal. It is fair to point out that the majority, almost 70 per cent—almost seven out of 10 of those reported breaches—did not take place in slaughterhouses but were related to on-farm or transportation issues and were discovered by Food Standards officers when the animals arrived at the place of slaughter. Scotland has high welfare standards at slaughter and high enforcement and regulatory standards. We should recognise that our abattoirs seek to comply with those high standards and should receive credit for that because they themselves, from meetings that I have had with them, are as concerned as everyone to ensure that the high standards are observed. Can I just say that there is absolutely no excuse to mistreat animals at any point, whether it is slaughter at any other time? Does the cabinet secretary know how many slaughterhouses in the north-east are equipped with CCTV cameras at this time? I can advise Mr Chapman that an estimated 95 per cent—most animals, overwhelming majority—are slaughtered in plants where CCTV has already been installed voluntarily. I do not have a breakdown into the provision in the north-east, but I think that it is apparent that in most abattoirs there is CCTV in place, but it is not CCTV itself. That obviously is filming what happens. It is the good practice employed with respect by the managers, the workforce and by the Food Standards officers and veterinary practitioners who are all playing a role here collectively as a team that ensures that we continue to observe the highest animal welfare standards in Scotland. Thank you very much. To ask the Scottish Government for what reason the Digital Scotland Superfast Broadband programme has replaced all copper wire networks in some rural areas, but not another. The Digital Scotland Superfast Broadband programme is currently deploying fibre broadband networks across the country, in many cases replacing copper networks. Fibre is being deployed in one of two ways—fibre to the cabinet, which replaces part of the copper network or fibre to the premise, which replaces all of the copper network. Fibre to the cabinet has been deployed most widely through the Digital Scotland Superfast Broadband programme, as a high number of premises can be connected to fibre infrastructure via a single cabinet. That is a more cost-effective solution as it utilises part of the existing copper network. It may indeed be more cost-effective, but I am sure that the cabinet secretary will be aware that it is not effective in achieving its purpose. There was a recent survey and control of which he may be aware, which found that broadband speeds outwith the town centre were up to 140 times slower than those within a mile of the exchange and that residents of new leads in Bucking also have no access to Superfast Broadband for the same reason of being too far from the exchange and reliant on all copper wire networks. Given the clear relationship between what he has said as a cost-saving measure and the impact on homes and businesses, what does he intend to do to address the digital disadvantage in so many rural communities? In the north-east of Scotland, 114,727 premises are capable of accessing fibre broadband. 99,321 are capable of receiving superfast speeds. That has taken place because of the investment by the Scottish Government of around £400 million, despite the fact that responsibility under schedule 5 of the Scotland Act for providing internet and mobile rests with the UK Government. We did not wait. We were not prepared to wait for the time when the UK Government would get around to a programme that we acted and, furthermore, to conclude, by the end of this session of the Scottish Parliament 2021, our further programme, R100, which is directed towards the individuals that Mr MacDonald referred to, will aim to provide universal access to all businesses and premises in Scotland. Thank you. That concludes our questions.