wrs, y cyflawni hwnnw ar gyfer i d ничего y moedd, rhaid i gael ei ddweud, gan y dwyloeddfaeth yn cyd-dweud i ddweud i gael ei ddweud i gael wedi y rhaid i ddweud ei ddweud i gael ei ddweud i gyflawni i gael ei ddweud i gael ei ddweud, ac i ddweud y ddweud i gael ei ddweud i ddweud i gyflawni i ddweud i ddweud? Mae o agoredd�araith gweithiau o ddweud i gael ei ddweud iddangos ei ddweud i ddweud i in collaboration with the Department for Work and Pensions, and, as such, the Scottish Government does not retain a list of local authorities using the scheme. The Scottish Government does recognise that water direct is being used in Scotland and is working to facilitate discussions between relevant pasties to support the development of a common understanding of the appropriate use of the scheme. Colin Beattie. I thank the cabinet secretary for his response. Given the Scottish Government's commitment to poverty reduction and to alleviating the impact of changes to benefit payments brought in by the Westminster Government, has the cabinet secretary offered any guidance to local authorities regarding the need to take into account the customer's ability to pay and whether a benefits deduction for water and sewage charges or debt resulting from unpaid water and sewage charges will cause financial hardship to the customer before the local authority applies to the DWP to make deductions from the benefits payment? The member raises a good point, but he will be aware that there is a matter for local authorities to decide what tools to use to collect water charges and, in what circumstances, they should apply any particular approach. However, it is important that any debt recovery tool, including water direct, is used responsibly. A forum is being established that the Scottish Government will chair to ensure that stakeholders, including customer representatives, can discuss the implications for different groups of individuals of using water direct and other charge recovery methods, with a view to establishing a common understanding of good practice that best protects the most financially hard-pressed. It is also worth noting that water charges in Scotland are on average £39 lor than in England and Wales and have been falling in real terms in recent years. The linkage to council tax means that charges are the most progressive in the whole of the UK. 2. Christian Allan To ask the Scottish Government when it is the next review of the industry authority seafish that is scheduled to take place. 3. Aileen McLeod Following the report of the Smith commission, options for making administrative changes to seafish have been under discussion across the four UK fisheries administrations. We do not believe that the discussions address the fundamental flaws inherent in seafish as a reserved body attempting to operate in an area where policy is devolved. We have therefore asked the UK Government to support the devolution of powers to raise and administer food levies, including the seafood levy, that is currently administered by seafish via legislative change to the Scotland bill. Once such powers are devolved, we shall be in a position to undertake a proper and fundamental review of food levies in Scotland, including Scotland's place in seafish and the implications for the role of that body within the UK. Christian Allan I thank the register for the answer, but I am quite surprised because, of course, the best type of body that UK-wise has to have a regular review every three years. As I understand it, the last review was to be taking place last year in 2014. The Smith commission asked for the Scottish and UK Government to work together on this, and I will ask the minister if the discussions have been taking place and have not ended up yet as a devolution that we want to have. Even isn't it time for seafish to be reviewed out of Scotland? Christian Allan Christian Allan is absolutely right to point out that our view of seafish is overdue. Indeed, we believe that a fundamental overhaul of the arrangements for raising and administering seafood levies has been pressing for some time now. Following the report of the Smith commission, options for making administrative changes to seafish have been under discussion across the four UK fisheries administrations, but we do not believe that those discussions addressed the fundamental flaws inherent in seafish as a reserved body attempting to operate in an area where policy is devolved. That was recently demonstrated when seafish chose to use the UK Fish and Chip Shop awards, deservedly won this year by a Shetland business as a vehicle for the Norwegian Seafood Council to promote the marketing of frozen Norwegian whitefish into the UK market. While that plays to the interests of powerful importers of frozen fish elsewhere in the UK, it fails to put Scottish interests first. Therefore, we have asked the UK Government to support the devolution of powers to raise and administer food levies, including the seafood levy that is currently administered by seafish, via legislative change to the Scotland bill. Once such powers are devolved, we shall be in a position to undertake that proper and fundamental review of food levies in Scotland, including Scotland's place in seafish and the implications for the role of that body within the UK. I share the industry's concerns at any suggestion that seafish should in any way be promoting Norwegian Seafood given the quality and sustainability of our own Scottish fish. The UK Government has said that it is prepared to work closely with the Scottish Government on giving Scotland a greater say over how the levies are spent. Can the Cabinet Secretary update us on the minister's priorities for spending on seafood promotion in Scotland? I am very happy to write to the member with some further details around that for me to make sure that we are given as comprehensive information as possible. To ask the Scottish Government what its views are on bus re-regulation. Our position has not changed in that I have no plans for wholesale re-regulation but want to see closer partnership working between operators and transport authorities. We are shortly bringing forward legislation that makes changes to the registration of bus services and provides an opportunity for the sector to demonstrate how it can work together to better manage changes to the bus network. I thank the minister for that answer but I have to say that I find it very disappointing. I am sure that I am not the only constituency or list MSP whose communities have been blighted over the years by the relatively fast withdrawal of bus services from local communities, mostly recently the M3 bus and the 10 bus in my constituency. It seems to me that transport authorities are also hide bound in this regard because their current guidance means that they have no opportunity to intervene when there is another or a similar service operating in those areas, which is the case with those two particular instances that I mentioned. I really would ask the minister to think again, and if he is not content to have, as he described at wholesale re-regulation, perhaps he could look at another model that might give communities the opportunity to have a say in the decisions being made that so badly affect them. I think that there are proposals that I have outlined that will assist in terms of bus services across Scotland. There is also the provision already within legislation for quality contracts, which is local franchising and quality bus partnerships. In addition to that, through community planning and strengthen community planning, local transport strategies could be addressed. I would disagree with the point that there is no opportunity to intervene. Local transport authorities can intervene if there is assessed social need and implement subsidised services. The legislative change that I am proposing surrounds the ability to engage for better engagement with local authorities in assessing transport changes through bus regulation. I am sure that that will be welcomed by the whole chamber, but on the issue of wholesale re-regulation, if Patricia Ferguson is disappointed, I am sure that she should be equally disappointed in her own colleague Ian Gray, who abandoned his bill, which was apparently about re-regulation, but, like many things with the Labour Party, it was not quite what it said on the tin. David Stewart brokered a meeting between me and Ian Gray, and I was happy to be supportive to strengthen the legislation, but it was Mr Gray who withdrew his bill. I will do what I can through grant conditions, through transport strategies, through strengthening community planning and the national transport strategy to support local communities working in partnership with the bus industry, rather than bringing the kind of volatility that I think that the Labour Party would reap upon the public transport system of Scotland. Is it not the case that re-regulation would cost more than £3 quarters of a billion pounds? It is a height of cynicism for the Labour Party to suggest such a thing when they know that the comprehensive spending review is likely to have further cuts to an already diminished Scottish budget. Mr Gibson is right in the respect that wholesale re-regulation, or indeed re-nationalisation, would be incredibly expensive. However, just like on the situation with the Labour proposition on the railways, it says that it is re-nationalisation. It turns out that it is not what Labour says is not necessarily what it does. It did not deliver re-regulation administration. It is not even proposing it now in opposition, having abandoned their bill. That is why we will take the right pragmatic and practical steps to support local communities in engaging changes to bus services, while maintaining the national concessionary travel scheme, BSOG and other measures to support accessibility and connectivity right across the country. We will do so in partnership with the confederation of passenger transport. I know that that is the kind of conditions that will lead to enhanced public transport in Scotland. Thank you very much. As the minister hinted at, there are a suite of options for local authorities to improve bus services, quality partnerships, quality contracts and punctuality improvement plans. When did the Government last review the take-up of those mechanisms? Is he able to tell the chamber how many there are? Does he plan to review or refresh the bus strategy generally? The good news is that the refresh of the national transport strategy is under way as we speak. I have set a very challenging timescale for it to be concluded by Christmas. Within that, there will be the imminent legislative and regulatory changes that I have proposed and will be shared with the chamber, and with the national transport strategy review, in which we have to prioritise bus transport if we want to get the modal shift from the car into public transport. I am equally disappointed that the local authorities and transport partnerships have not taken up quality bus partnerships or quality contracts. If I can make it easier for them to do that, I will do it. Sometimes it is about resource, not necessarily regulation, but there are the tools to do the job at the local level, and local authorities need to seize those opportunities and make it happen to help to address need. That is why, if those kind of practical measures are not necessarily blanket wholesale re-regulation, it will make the difference, because it can be done and it can be done now. It is regrettable that this issue gets seen as just another example of Labour-SNP rivalry. Is it not clear, if we look around Europe, to the kind of countries that enjoy the excellent public transport service provision that Scotland deserves but does not have, one thing is clear. It regulates firmly, it subsidises and not just at the margins, and it recognises that the private sector alone, a free-market approach does not deliver the goods. I point out that the subsidy to the bus network was around 45 per cent of total bus incomes, about 45 per cent of public sector subsidy. I think that there is more that we can do around integrated transport. I think that there is more that we can do around smart cards and partnership and local connections, and all that work is under way. I disagree that wholesale re-regulation is the answer when there is a suite of actions that I think will improve bus patronage in Scotland. However, we should celebrate the positives and empower people at the most local level to address social need where it is established, and it is my job to ensure that the conditions are there to do that. That is exactly why we are refreshing the national transport strategy to make it clear to local authorities that they have the power to take action now to address need but in a pragmatic and positive way. Neil Bibby I have been contacted by many constituents in Renfrewshire. The minister also represents concerns about the high price of bus fares and a lack of services, particularly in the evening. I have also been contacted by bus passengers in Clydebank, where they have made that they cannot get a direct bus to the new Queen Elizabeth University hospital. Some pensioners have to get free buses to travel just seven miles for a hospital appointment. If the minister is not going to regulate the bus industry—which he is clearly not—can he tell us what is he actually going to do to address the problems that are facing bus users on a daily basis? I do not think that Neil Bibby has been listening to me. I have been outlining the actions in the national transport strategy, the ability of quality contracts or quality bus partnerships, the investments in the subsidies that we are making or the previous answers that I have given. If there is social need, how local authorities and transport partnerships can address that or wider issues around a personalised journey in the contacts that can be made through travel line to support that. In addition to all that, fantastic investment in public transport of more than £1 billion every year, including the bus industry. Neil Bibby says that he is disappointed that I am not re-regulating and that he will also be disappointed and angry that even the Labour party is no longer proposing re-regulation either by abandoning the very bill that was to do that very act. We will get on with the job of ensuring that there is satisfactory public transport and sustain the very impressive record of infrastructure investment that far surpasses anything that the previous administration was able to deliver. No 4, Richard Baker Thank you. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to promote cultural events in the north-east. Cabinet Secretary, if you want to hyslop. The national companies are supported in 2015-16 to perform 30 times in the north-east with an associated programme of over 170 workshops and events and have specifically been asked to support the north-east during the music hall revamp. Partners engaged with includes schools, family centres, the lemon tree and the Royal Aberdeens Children's hospital. In 2014, Creative Scotland invested £3.6 million in Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire local authority areas through 35 awards. Creative Scotland has provided £90,000 funding towards Granite and made it a new site-specific piece of participatory theatre made by and for the people of Aberdeen. Under 130,000 funding towards the sound festival for its work in 2015 and 2016, promoting new music through performances, installations and learning and participation activities across Aberdeenshire and beyond. Today, I can announce that Creative Scotland is providing the sound festival with an additional £140,000 to support next year's sound festival and enables sound to deliver a high-quality dynamic programme of education and performance during 2016 and 2017 in Aberdeen, Aberdeenshire and the north-east of Scotland. I thank the minister for the cabinet secretary for that answer. A recent survey by Aberdeen and Grampian Chambers of Commerce showed that seven out of ten of their member businesses believe that cultural investment has a strong role to play in making the city more attractive, place to live and work. Given that, notwithstanding what the minister said, funding for the arts in Aberdeen is specifically lower per capita than in our other cities. What further future plans does the Scottish Government have to promote arts city? I am very welcome to the announcement on the sound festival, but does the minister believe that Creative Scotland should consider awarding the sound festival funding from its core funding stream to secure its long-term future beyond next year? I am very much welcome the survey that he has highlighted. Businesses in Aberdeen recognising the culture offer has been very important to economic growth. I am delighted to hear that. On what we can do for investment, I would point out that the statistics that he sites in relation to perhead a population are from where the applicant resides as opposed to where the arts activity takes place. Obviously, the infrastructure of having more organisations that can apply for regular funded activity from Aberdeen particularly would be helpful, bearing in mind that 100 per cent of those that apply for regular funding from Aberdeen itself did achieve regular funding. The sound festival is delighted that it welcomes our announcement today, but over the period since 2012, the sound festival has almost £0.5 million of investment, recognising the quality of what it produces. Clearly, we want to ensure that not just the central but every part of Scotland can enjoy the great cultural performances that this country has to offer. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide a progress report on how the Borders rail link is operating. Minister Derek Mackay Patronage on the Borders Railway has been exceptional since its opening, with nearly 200,000 journeys being made in the first six weeks. Some performance issues have resulted from the business services that ScotRail are mitigating through additional carriages and some affected services. The performance of the Borders Railway has been closely monitored alongside the rest of the Scottish rail network. Jim Hewn. I thank the minister for his answer. The minister will be aware that some of the services have been cancelled because of overcrowding. Does the minister think that it is acceptable for ScotRail to advise passengers which trains are busier than others so that customers can make alternative options? The minister tells the passengers what he is doing in conjunction with ScotRail to increase capacity on a longer-term basis. Would he give a clear commitment today that he will initiate talks with stakeholders to get a feasibility study under way into extending the line to Carlyle so that even more communities can reap the benefits? We have made it clear that we would judge the performance of the Borders Railway and talk with the regional transport partnership in terms of a future feasibility study. Yes, it will engage with stakeholders. I think that it is helpful to advise passengers when the busiest trains are because some are leisure passengers who might want to avoid the busier times. I think that that is helpful advice. Most importantly, what has the Government and ScotRail done to address the huge success that is Borders Rail? That has meant adding extra carriages and, in some cases, doubling the capacity at certain times to try to address that success story. There has been immense positive economic impact as a consequence of the Borders Rail. We will look further at improving the capacity and the rolling stock that has been used to the maximum within Scotland to address the now fantastic demand levels for the success story, which is Borders Rail. In due course, we will have new trains, 70 new high-touch electric trains coming to Scotland, and that allows us to cascade existing rolling stock across the country. I hear Jim Hume saying that it is not happening quickly enough. You cannot magic up new trains, but we have ordered them through the franchise. If the Liberal Democrats were in power, they would indeed be no overcrowding on the Borders Railway, because there would be no Borders Railway. It has been delivered by this Government, providing a fantastic service. To ask the Scottish Government how it can encourage library usage by children. The Scottish Government places great importance on public libraries and everyone should have access. With our work with the Scottish Library and Information Council, we are providing support for many public library projects that can encourage use by children. In August, the First Minister launched the Every Child a Library Member Pilot, which the Scottish Government has funded from the culture portfolio. That will work with key stages in primary 1, with a number of different programmes to improve literacy and provide access to libraries for our children. Cabinet Secretary may be aware that 4,000 primary 4 children in Scotland were provided with a superstar reader card, encouraging them to take part in the sixth visit challenge to libraries. Does she agree that children can only take part in those initiatives if there is adequate access to libraries and that closing libraries will be likely to have an adverse effect on the number of children who visit them? I commend the programme that he talks about. Clearly, libraries have a central role in our communities. We have published our national library strategy, the strategy for public libraries. Any closure has to be considered very carefully. We need libraries at the heart of our communities. Thank you. Before we move to the next side of business, members will wish to join me and welcome to the gallery Her Excellency Alicia Castro, the ambassador of the Argentine Republic to the United Kingdom. We now move to First Minister's Questions. Question number one.