 Felly triowch Just to remind you that it is at the 26th meeting in 2017 of small spiritual immunity's and 110x, the povertybye and poverty and addiction, so that it is blamed? islwyddo sy'n gweithio'r drath perffodol gyda 2018-19. Is the committee agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Thank you. Moving on to agenda item 3, the common agricultural policy payments, before we go into welcoming the guests. In fact, no, I'm going to welcome the guests first. I'm going to welcome the Cabinet Secretary for the Rural Economy and Connectivity. I would like to welcome Douglas Petrie, the head of the air officers and the head of agricultural profession. Andrew Watson, the deputy director for agricultural policy and implementation. Annabelle Terpy, the chief operating officer in rural payments operation. Eddie Turnbull, the head of agricultural food and rural communities and information systems. Before I ask the cabinet secretary to make a two-minute opening statement, I would just like to go round the committee and ask if there are any declarations of interest. I would like to start off by saying that I declare that I have interest in a farming enterprise and that that can be seen on my register of interest. Likewise, convener, I would like to declare an interest as a farmer in Aberdeithia. Thank you. That now means cabinet secretary. I would like to give you two minutes for an opening statement. Thank you, convener. Good morning, everyone. I am grateful for the invitation to invite me and the relevant officials today to provide evidence on the specific topics of CAP payment and CAP IT. As you know following my statement to the Parliament on the 12th of this month, I announced that I was publishing the CAP plan for stabilisation. The driving aim of this plan is to improve our customer service. As part of this, I published an extensive payment schedule outlining when farmers and crofters should expect their money. This is with a view to focusing all business effort on giving customers what they need, which is certainty. I am therefore pleased to be able to say that we are doing that, convener. For example, I can confirm that the LFAS 2016 customers, 80 per cent of claims have been processed and customers will be receiving their payments this week, in line with our commitment to start payments by the end of September. It is clear that progress has been made, and we are not complacent, of course. Absolutely not, but we will continue to implement improvements in our systems that underpin this progress. Another key part of the plan is to offer loans to all eligible 2017 basic payment scheme customers. I confirm that we are on track to issue this week the first batch of letters to customers. I repeat what I urged in the chamber recently that all those receiving letters should respond by the deadline to take up the offer of the loan and receive payment in November. Get the forms back as quickly as possible if you wish to participate as the clear message. I wanted to make an announcement relating to the SUS scheme, the SHIP scheme, Scottish upland support scheme, which is irrelevant to CAP payments because it needs to be made within time limits. Having listened to farmers and being conscious of the poor weather conditions that have hampered farmers' ability to gather flocks off the hills and draw their future breeding stock, I have decided to extend the application window for applying to the Scottish upland support scheme until 30 November, subject to Parliament's approval. I hope that the committee will recognise that we are, although we are not complacent, beginning to deliver our commitments and we are taking the decisions that are necessary to improve customer service and business efficiency, and I am happy to take questions on the topics of the day. The first question is from the deputy convener, Gail Ross. Good morning, cabinet secretary. Good morning, panel. Thank you for coming in. I want to touch on the subject of disallowance. We have spoken before about the Audit Scotland assessment of up to £60 million. Can I ask if you could clarify as to how accurate the estimates of potential disallowance and penalties were? Were the Scottish Government right not to agree with the estimates? We do not recognise the figure of £60 million, which the Auditor General has come up with. Andrew Watson is the expert in disallowance, and it might be helpful if rather than I grab it on if he responds to the meat of the question, if that is permissible. However, we start off if we do not recognise the Auditor General's figure. I am conscious that both the Auditor General and Liz Ditchburn-Railer and Mitchell gave quite a bit of evidence on their subject to the Papal's committee fairly recently, so some of the background is on the record. The £60 million figure quoted by Audit Scotland reflects a combination of potential risks around late-payment penalties and wider disallowance, as I think he covered at the committee last time we were here. Effectively, that is a figure derived from looking at the interaction between the different regulatory controls that we must abide by and the levels of disallowance that can be levied under particular circumstances. It is a mathematical construct based on the regulatory guidance on penalties. What the Scottish Government has said in response to that is that, while you can use a methodological approach to derive that number, in reality and in practice, and as Audit Scotland has indicated, the actual level of disallowance in penalties paying agencies receive depends on a wide range of factors, including experience of individual audits, the evidence that paying agencies can present in response to those findings, questions of interpretation about different bits of guidance and, effectively, an overall negotiation process that can take some months. On the late-payment penalties side, again, that is a topic that I know the committee has been interested in in the past. The issue there is that those are applied retrospectively, again, after a very long process of time. To be simplistic about it, I suppose, you only know what your late-payment penalties are when you finish making the payments. Depending on how late your payments are, you have the period of time under which you calculate the sum. Overall, what we have said is that we do not expect to receive disallowance of that amount for the reasons that I have described. Do you have any idea what you expect the disallowance to be? We do not have a comparable figure, if you like, for the 60, if that is your direct question. Again, for us, it is more around the overall uncertainty in terms of the different outcomes that you can get from the process and the importance of the negotiation with the commission around the different findings. No, we do not have a comparable figure. What we have made clear in a number of occasions is known disallowance in penalties. For example, in terms of late-payment penalties, we have made clear that we expect the level of penalty for late-payments for the 2015 scheme year to be up to around £5 million and for the 2016 scheme year in the region of £5,000 to £700,000, but those are estimates until the processes that I have described have been completed. To be helpful, the history has shown that we have successfully managed the position. We aim to keep the level of disallowance below 2 per cent of total expenditure at the current time. Over the last 10 years, we are sitting at 0.99 per cent overall, and those percentages compare favourably with the UK. Some people watching this might and correctly think that £5 million is a lot of money to pay for a penalty. Where does that money come from? That would be absorbed in the overall Scottish Government budget. That is why it is so important that we pay scrupulous attention to compliance with the rules. Even if it is convenient that it does appear sometimes to us that those rules are on occasion to individual farmers and crofters disproportionately harsh, they are the rules that exist. That is why we have had a pretty good record over the years of operation, of adhering largely to the rules that are involved with the disallowance element at under 1 per cent overall on average. I would like to ask—I think that people are concerned that the loan scheme that you have announced for next year shows a lack of confidence in the system that will be operating by next year. Could you just clarify when you think that the system that we have in place will be fully operational and there will be no need for any loans or late payments? Well, the scheme is substantially operational, as I explained to Parliament, just in very simple terms. It is working. It is not working quite quickly enough. I am not a fortune teller. My job is not to make predictions about what is going to happen in future years. My job is to ensure performance now in the current year. That is with respect, convener, what I and my colleagues are absolutely focused on. I am encouraged, as I mentioned in the opening statement, that we have made good progress with, for example, the ELFAS 16 payments. We have paid 80 per cent of those. Annabelle Tuppy can provide more information if members wish. However, of course, the loans are a practical expedient to ensure that those entitled to payments will receive, in most cases, 90 per cent of their basic payment around the first half of November, if the forms are returned on time. We have also said that, if that is necessary, there will be an ELFAS loan scheme. Those are designed to provide a reasonable measure of certainty to people who are, after all, as I once was, as you yourself and other members are, in business and therefore need a degree of certainty to run their business, to pay their bills and to run their budgets. That is why it is not absolutely perfect, but it is a very pragmatic expedient. From the announcements of the stakeholders following the parliamentary statement, it has been broadly welcomed. You are suggesting that it is working. Maybe I can give you a perfect example of why there seems to be a lack of confidence. On 14 August, there were 932 payments that were outstanding. There were 53 payments on the 18th of August and 88 payments made by the 25th of August, a total of 141 payments against the 932 payments that should have been paid. That left 791 outstanding payments. Why were those not paid at that stage? I think that you are referring to the BPS greening and young farmer payments at that point. We have been balancing other work alongside. As I have said to the committee and members before, the position that we are in is that we are asking staff to work on several years at the same time. It is an inevitable backlog from the position that we have been in. We are making payments as we go on because of the way that we handle debts in our system, then we make different payments. We have to use our payment system. Annabelle, I am going to interrupt you there because, by the payment forms that you gave us and have made available to the committee, there were no payments made for previous years in those weeks. In fact, when I did further investigation, it was quite clear that there were 129 of those 791 payments waiting for inspection, and there were 221 that were waiting for system validation. There were 582 that were ready for payment, so there were 582 ready for payment. You paid 141. Why would people feel confident that the system is working and that you are delivering payments when they are ready to go? Since then, we have now made, as of 26 September, 17,646 payments in total, which is £378 million. We have to load the debts that are against people to get them off, so sometimes it is. When a claim is ready to payment, it may take a bit of time. We do not do payment runs every week because we are scheduling our systems to maximise across all the schemes. The cabinet secretary mentioned ELFAS in terms of pillar 2 2016 payments. We have made 76.7 per cent of the land management options payments. We have made 72 per cent of rural payments. Again, we started that in August as we said we would in our schedule. We have made 26 per cent of AX payments. Again, we started that just at the end of August, as we said in our schedule. We have made 47 per cent of forestry grants scheme payments, so we are scheduling all the work across the piece. I appreciate the point that farmers want to get the money that they are entitled to in their eligible forest as quickly as possible, but we are working through it. We are getting to the point where we have now got well over 99 per cent of anticipated expenditure on BPS greening and young farmer. We have got well over 99 per cent on SUS, the sheep upland support scheme and the beef scheme paid. I always take the opportunity to recognise that that is not as quickly as farmers expect and that is what we are working to get better, but we do quite a complicated scheduling of payments across the period. I think that I am going to leave it that there were 582 payments that were ready for payment but only 141 paid two weeks after those 582 were ready for payment. Jamie, you want to come in and then I want to move on to Mr Finnie. I know that we are going to drill in some of the specific payments that we have made, but can I just ask a general question to the panel? What has gone so catastrophically wrong that we are in the situation where we are playing constant catch-up every time we have these committee sessions and we hear evidence from the panel on payments to farmers in Scotland? It is time after time that we are hearing the same thing about playing catch-up, never meeting the targets. Is it the IT system? Is it bad management? Is it bad workforce planning? Is it just bad direction? What is going on? It is well trodden ground and, to be fair to us, we have covered this before. Annabelle and Eddie Turnbull can give the technical answers. It is relevant to point out that comparing the performance of ELFAS payments for 16 and 15, in the 15 payments we were late, there is no doubt about that. I totally accept that. In fact, it took until early November 16 before even the majority were paid. I have just said that ELFAS 16, 80 per cent, has been paid by the end of September. I am just making the point, convener, that rather than just constantly paying to black, it would be good if members could recognise that I have just said that following the stabilisation plan, following the hard work over the summer months that I was engaged with with officials, we are starting to see progress made and payments made on time and most of the payments made to ELFAS farmers if the net payments are due. I think that it is important that we should not be drowned out with negativity when, in fact, we are starting to see better improvement and the improvement to which farmers and crofters are entitled. Read the technicalities. I think that that is what Mr Greene asked for, convener. Maybe Annabelle and Eddie could help out. I think that we are quite pushed for time. I would like to move on, if I may, to John Finnie, because every member of the committee has some questions that they would like to ask you and I realise the timescale. John Finnie, could I ask you to ask the next question, please? Okay. Thank you, convener. Good morning, cabinet secretary. Good morning, panel. Cabinet secretary, I had two questions about the Scottish upland support scheme. You have answered one of them very favourably and I am delighted that you have taken on the issues that have been highlighted to you with the extension of the application period. I have written to you about the other question and you have responded comprehensively, but I think that for the record it would be helpful. It relates to a proposal by the NFUS to alter the scheme. That was in relation to application periods, retention periods and the targeting of payments. Significantly, the phrase that jumped out at me prior to writing was that that proposal was budget-neutral. Are you able to explain why you have not gone with that proposal? I think that I am right in understanding that the member's question refers to the requests that are made by the NFUS and others that we make substantive changes to the scheme. Regrettably, there is no scope to make those changes because the regulations simply do not allow more fundamental adjustments to be made. That is a case that the EU regulations that apply prevent us from doing so. This is a very complex convener and there is not time to go into it. I am very happy to write to the committee and say exactly why that is, because it is very important. Mr Finlay has quite rightly raised this and the NFU has raised it. We have looked at it very seriously. However, because we think that extending the deadline is a minor change and because, of course, that the bad weather has made it very difficult for farmers to comply in practice with the dictates of a time limit set in Brussels, it is not designed for bad weather in the West Highlands and other places, we have decided to extend the deadline. We are very sympathetic to the arguments that Mr Finlay and others have raised. Mr Russell has been very active for his farmers in Argyll, I should say, but, sadly, there does not appear to be scope. However, I am happy to work with the committee and if you can find a loophole in the regulations, nobody would be happier than me. I think that it would be useful, cabinet secretary, to have a letter explaining that so that it can be published with the committee papers. That would be very helpful. Thank you. The next question is from Peter. It is about the IT system inability to change the hectorage of a new entrant farmer who has spent three years trying to get his proper area on the system, and it seems to be absolutely impossible. He has had loans, but they have always been a third less because a third of his acreage has not been on the system. It seems to be impossible to get that fixed. Why? Have you written to me about this case? I have. I am not cited today because Mr Chapman did not raise it with me. I am very happy to look again at any individual case, convener, but I do not know if one of the officials would like to talk in general about the way in which those matters are dealt with. Cabinet secretary, when they talk about it, I think that farmers expected a letter in 2015 with entitlements listed out. I think that that was a requirement of the EU legislation. A lot of farmers did receive those, but they have proved fundamentally wrong in the assessment and the payments over the period of the five years. Would it be possible to see whether those could be issued out? That might help. It is a very serious question that we take very seriously. Could Annabelle Mayber start off with answering it? We have Douglas Petrie, who is head of the area offices, who is here for the first time today and has got bags of experience. He has some practical information about how those things are dealt with by the area offices in practice that would be useful for members to hear. First of all, Annabelle. Mr Chapman, I apologise. I do not have the information in the case that you are talking about in front, so I do not feel confident in talking about that directly in the meeting, but we will pick up in terms of the entitlement letters. The entitlements are available on the screens. Any online or anybody who has not online but paper can ask the area offices to print it off and send it to them. I do not know whether Douglas wants to come in on that, but I will take that away and look at it. I know that the entitlements that are held on are available for people to see, but I will take away the point that you are raising. Douglas, I do not know if there is anything. I will make the point that, from an area office perspective and a customer service point of view, we would certainly want to try to address those issues. I do not know the farming question, but if we can address that by telephone conversation or a face-to-face meeting, we certainly would. We have done quite a few of those over the past few months and years looking at entitlements and trying to address concerns where the entitlement level does not match the farmer's expectation. Certainly, we have started to address that. It is agreed that the area office that the entitlement is wrong is on the system, and it has been stated that it could change it manually, but nobody seems to be prepared to change it manually. It would need a significant upgrade of the IT system to get properly on the system. The man is pretty desperate. He is a young lad, newly-started. He needs this money desperately. It has been on the going for three years, so we need to find a way to get that sorted. If I give the committee some assurance that we recognise the issues that are fundamental around managing the source information around land, I do not know that particular case, but we recognise the work of Douglas in the area offices. We appreciate the issues that we are having. You have heard that, as part of the programme, we are implementing a new land parcel information system. That is our current major development that is happening at the moment. The absolute focus of that is to improve the quality of the land information that we have. It is not to say that we are working from a bad base, but there are instances where the information that we have is not as good as it should be. Clearly, that is a key point of interest for us at the moment. Mr Petrie would have some other useful information to clarify. With respect, if members want to tell me about a case that they want to raise here and give me notice, we can look into it, but we have not been afforded that opportunity. Mr Petrie has an interesting point to make that needs to correct the picture that is being portrayed here. I am delighted to bring Douglas in. We need to be careful to look at the overarching aspects of this, rather than trying to drill down into individual cases. We would have to drill down, because we have not had the individual case. I think that it is unfair to ask you to do so, but if Douglas would like to bring in an overarching response to that, I am very happy to bring him in. I would like to move on to Rhoda, if I may, please. I think that it was just to put it into context that, certainly from any of her point of view, I am not aware of a huge number of calls on and questions from farmers who are questioning their entitlements. Questioning entitlements and getting an explanation, which is that we then come to a certain position, is certainly happening, but not to the point where there is a huge number that I say that entitlements are simply wrong, but I accept that there will be individual cases. We will leave the individual constituency and move to Rhoda, if I may, please. Can I ask about SRDP payments? You answered a question to my colleague John Mason some time ago about changes from 2014 to the 2017 scheme. There is a degree of concern because there have been cuts in those payments, especially in the less favoured area support scheme, which has fallen considerably. Obviously, that deals with some of the worst areas in Scotland. Why is that? Why are those areas suffering more? As far as ELFAS goes, I assume that the member is aware that, under the EU rules, the EU specified that ELFAS payments must be reduced by 20 per cent to 80 per cent of the former entitlement. I am very pleased that the European Parliament is looking again at that, and we will see if the commission acts upon what I understand has been a recommendation from the European Parliament to look at responding to the introduction of that. The decision to reduce the ELFAS payment was not made by us, it was made by the EU. Moreover, I think that I am right in saying that, down south, the ELFAS was eliminated seven years ago, so we have maintained payments to hill farmers. Of course, I am very worried about what Brexit holds, because hill farmers are awaiting absolute clarity about whether ELFAS will continue to be paid. We have not had confirmation in writing from Mr Gove, although I question him very closely on this and pressed very hard for Scottish hill farmers on Monday. Will ELFAS, which is a pillar 2 scheme, be continued to be met in the event that Britain leaves the EU, as is intended, in just 18 months' time? We do not absolutely know. I hope that Mr Gove, who seems to be saying that it would, will put that in writing to us very soon. You mentioned ELFAS. The decision to reduce ELFAS to 80 per cent was not taken by us, Ms Grant. It was taken by the EU. Was the reason for that decision not that you had not brought forward a new scheme under the areas of natural constraint, which would have given people in my area in the Highlands and Islands, who faced the greatest natural constraint, more funding and continued with ELFAS that pays out throughout the whole of Scotland? It seems to me a missed opportunity to rebalance the amount of funding that is going to those who are farming in the worst possible areas. We also provide as much other support as we can to those areas, including Crofters grants, for example, and other aspects of the finance available. However, it is not true to say that we chose to cut money to hill farmers. It is not true at all. The area of natural constraints was an alternative approach, but it would not have increased the available budgetary amount and would have been immensely complex. There was no agreed scheme that would have done what Ms Grant said at all, so I do not accept that that is an argument. Moreover, I am arguing very strongly that ELFAS should be reinstated to 100 per cent. That is our preference. I am extremely worried that the real questions that are hanging over hill farmers at the moment are to do with Brexit. Even 18 months after the referendum, my lack of assurance from the UK Government that hill farmers will be valued not only for livestock production but also as the custodians of the countryside and at the centre of the communities in many rural and island parts of Scotland. Standing that you missed an opportunity maybe to support better those areas, you said in defence that you were giving more money to Crofters, but the CAG scheme has fallen by £2 million. Why is that? I am very pleased that we have increased substantially the amount of money for Crofters. For example, in the 10 years in government, we have said 800 crofting grants, 800 families getting a house in their own part of Scotland, and I chose deliberately to increase the amount of money available to help individual families to get their own house in their own part of Scotland. Moreover, we have maintained the bull hire scheme, we have maintained crofting grants. I should say, and Ms Grant is presumably aware of that, that general austerity has meant that we have had to make reductions in the budgeting. In many cases, that was achieved because the level of demand in those areas that were affected was not sufficiently high, so we chose areas where there would be the minimum impact. However, because of the austerity reductions by the UK on our Dell budget, we had to take difficult decisions like that, but frankly that is what it is like to be in government. You have cut the CAGs grant, but that is clear. I will come back to the member with individual figures on the CAGs grants and crofting in general. I think that it would be useful to demonstrate that we have provided additional support in many parts of the funding available, but I will provide the money figures and the respective CAGs grants to the committee if that would assist. Cabinet Secretary, can I just ask a question on the beef efficiency scheme? It appears that you have cut the money that is put aside to that. Is the entrance and the application still declining and are the withdrawals increasing, or have you managed to stabilise the beef efficiency scheme? The general position is that those who have applied to the beef efficiency scheme and have relevant applications will benefit from the scheme that funds direct payments to farmers participating therein. As to the detail of the number of withdrawals, those are not figures that I have to hand. Again, I can write to the committee about that, but it is very important that those who applied to the scheme and wanted to go with the scheme and there are great many who saw the potential benefits, very substantial benefits according to some farmers to whom I have spoken and have participated are benefiting from the scheme. There was other criticism from some farmers and they are absolutely entitled to their view, but those who wanted and applied, as I understand it, have participated successfully in the scheme. I do not know if officials can add anything to answer the other questions that you put. Of people that have pulled out, maybe Annabelle, do you have the figures? I do not have those to hand, but as we will update the committee following this session. I think that the next question is Richard. Good morning, cabinet secretary. First of all, before I go on to my question, can I thank you, in particular Douglas Petrie, for an excellent visit to the Hamilton area office where I saw for myself exactly the problem that you have where we have a computer system where people are walking around fields to the last inch and basically counting up and going over a roadway and going to the very edge of the field. No wonder that the system is trying to catch up. I know that there was a comment about how it will load in. Can I thank your staff for a very worthwhile visit to Hamilton area office to see for myself exactly the problem that you have and why we are in this situation? I will basically find out how we are resolving it, but to see the actual technicality of how things have to be loaded on computer, it is like space age for the final frontier. Basically, you may want to give us a few updates in regard to that. When we talk about it, I thank you. I see exactly the problem that you have and why we have comments from people about how that can't be loaded. I would prefer if people would take that up with them privately rather than in public. Basically, can I ask you about the Scottish Rural Payments and the schedule of dates? You have published and said that these are going to be paid out in certain dates. Like anyone, you are waiting for money to get into your bank account, so I am sure that many of our excellent farmers are waiting on money coming into their bank account. Can you assure me of that? Can I ask about those payment dates and the schemes and the schedules and will those dates be met? Thank you very much indeed, Mr Lyle, for your gracious comments about the area staff. It is very heartening to hear a member of the committee acknowledging that good work, and it will be greatly appreciated by the staff concerned. I also know that others, I think that Mr Mason, has visited an office as well. I know that the committee decided not to take up the suggestion that they visit an office as far as I am aware, but I hope that they might reconsider that, because there is a lot to be gained from a closer understanding of how things actually work out in practice. The task is absolutely enormous, and the physical nature of the task of carrying this quite heavy tablet around sometimes walking from one individual that I spoke to in the Perth Office over the summer—16km would not be unusual—was a very, very heavy pack. That is hard work, and we have, I think, 4 million hectares, 55,000 holdings. The data has to be taken to the accuracy of a goldmouth, so Mr Lyle's question is absolutely spot-on. It can be refreshing to hear that approach. As far as the payment schedule goes, we have delivered the payment schedule. You have it in front of you. It has been welcomed, I think, by the NFUS and other stakeholders. It is designed to provide clarity and certainty to famine-crofting businesses. Our job is substantially to adhere to that schedule. It was prepared after a painstaking set of work with my officials, principally Annabelle in this regard and CGI. I met the vice-president over the summer numerous times in the past as well. We have been aware of what we need to do for our customers. We have set out the payment schedule. That seeks to provide the certainty of businesses that they want. It is our job now to implement that. Can Mr Petrie, as I said, put on the equipment and have a photograph of me standing in the Hammock office with that equipment, which he was quite heavy. Is it a fact that staff have to physically walk around every field that a farmer has and take in every inch of land that the farmer has in order to ensure that they get the correct payment? Mr Petrie, I would be delighted for you to answer that question. Can I just correct something before we go any further? A lot of committee members have visited their own area or offices rather than taking up a central visit. A lot of committee members have a huge knowledge, but if you could answer the question very briefly, Mr Petrie, because there are a lot of questions. Yes, you are correct. Those carrying out land-based inspections are carrying the equipment just as you describe, and they have to walk every field boundary and view every parcel of land to determine any eligible features—the crop and the ground. You mentioned roads, buildings, bracken—there is a whole range of things. I cannot deny the complexity, but I am certainly committed to getting it done. Thank you, cabinet secretary and panel, for your attendance. I was going to come back to something that you mentioned earlier about the basic payment loan scheme and the possible additional loan scheme. What conversations did you have with the very stakeholders and what concerns did they raise to establish that plan? We are really more or less in constant dialogue with the key stakeholders. The NFUS, obviously, but also the Crofters Federation, the National Sheep Association and the Scottish Beef Association, we really do meet them about all sorts of matters that you would expect on a virtually constant basis. I met the NFUS just recently to discuss its future plans, for example. It is fair to say that all of them have advocated that, in the absence of being able to predict and guarantee perfection in meeting the expected payment profiles, we provide a loan scheme precisely because it gives farming businesses with the certainty that they know that most of their income—in fact, the vast majority of their income from the particular schemes where there are loans—will be paid at a certain time. The provision of increasing the amount of the payment in the basic payment loan scheme from 80 per cent last year to 90 per cent this year has been specifically welcomed by stakeholders. If we are required to have it, convener, there will be an LFAS scheme so that LFAS recipients know that they will get their money next year around the period of April-May. Again, it is welcomed. The stakeholders are espoused, obviously, wanting the IT problems all to be sorted out as we all do. They all welcome the pragmatic approach that we have taken last year and the improved version of it that we are taking this year. I was keen, convener, to make those announcements in September at the earliest opportunity of this parliamentary session. At June, we decided among us that we would have several meetings, a whole workload, a range of discussions with CGI, that we would come back to Parliament in the first available opportunity, namely the second week back. That is exactly what we did on the Tuesday of the second week back, so that those businesses around Scotland get the maximum notice of when they can expect to receive the majority of their funds. I just wanted to ask a bit about Brexit, because you mentioned Brexit previously. Was that a factor in creating the plan? I suppose that, just in the interests of time, you have not already answered that. I do not think that you are going to be able to give a definitive answer, but do you know when you would be able to say for definite whether the additional loan scheme for LFAS would be used? I am taking into account already your previous answer. I have alluded to the concerns that are manifest in rural Scotland, particularly amongst hill farmers, but not only amongst hill farmers, particularly among now pillar 2 recipients, because the written assurance that we have, which we welcome from Mr Gove, applies only to in-farm support on pillar 1. We are told that there is an assurance for pillar 2, but we have not yet received that in writing. I think that some member of the House of Lords may have received something, but we are not the House of Lords, we are elected people here. It would be quite nice to get the courtesy as elected people to be told things, but there we are. I will not dwell on that. It is not like me to labour the point that you know, convener. Is that the point that you have made? I will remind me what the second question is, Mr MacGregor. Good question. We have not fixed a precise date. What we have done is to reassure LFAS recipients that they will get their money around a window in April, Cynon, May and probably May next year, rather than September and October. That is the key thing, but we will come back to Parliament, this committee, probably convener, as we do, to provide full information as soon as we are available. However, that decision will be informed by how well we process everything else and the timing of inspections. Inspections have to be completed, we believe, prior to payments being made. Mr Lyle has very helpfully cast some light on the hugely onerous nature of the inspection work that we have to complete. I am anticipating that it will be sometime early next year to answer the question that we will come back and say whether an LFAS loan scheme is needed or not. If there is needs, there will be one. I remind everyone that I am pleased to keep the questions as short and focused as possible, just because of timings. There are quite a few questions to get through. I would like to bring Mike in with one question and then move on to Jamie. It is my understanding that a large minority of farmers did not take up the loans last year, so could the minister tell me what that percentage is? We are now going into a new loan scheme, so what assessment has he undertaken to see why there has not been a better uptake of those loans? It is unusual for farmers not to take, I would have thought, the loan system schemes that have been on offer. What proportion has not taken them up and why? I can pass two specific stats to Andrew. We have a whole array of them there, but you are absolutely right. I think that we have been over the ground, if I may say so, before. A number of farmers decided not to take up the loan scheme. What assessment did we do? We immediately carried out an assessment by contacting the farmers to say that they can take out the loan and there is no interest. The only circumstances in which there would be any interest would be if the loan was in excess of your entitlement and there was a repayment of that excess and that excess was not repaid within the agreed time, which is 30 days. We absolutely wanted and want farmers and crofters to take the loans. I think that there were some individual farmers who may have thought that they do not like to have a loan, so we took the opportunity to communicate individually with them to say, look, it is effectively an advanced payment. We have to call it a loan, but it operates as an advanced payment to most intense and purposes. It was the individual decision convener. People are free to make their own decisions in life. The Government is not responsible to overturn, nor should we. People who perhaps for moral reasons decide that they do not want to take up a facility that is available. However, I did stress in Parliament that the money is for farmers and crofters. It is for you that it is not being taken away from the NHS or any other Government service. I am very pleased that Mr Rumbles has chosen to raise this again today because it has given me the opportunity to repeat that plea to farmers. I do not know if you want the stats then— Why do they not take it up? You do not know why, though. Sorry. You would have to ask individual farmers, but I have given an explanation in the chamber and now again, and I am happy to put in writing if that would help. I am loath to actually bring in Andrew or Annabelle, just purely on time. I think that you have answered the question as best you can, Cabinet Secretary, so I would like to move on. Let us know what proportion of people have not taken up the loan. It would be helpful if you could give us those figures. I am afraid I need to move on with the questions, Cabinet Secretary. Jamie Greene, yours is the next question. I ask which course of action has been decided on in relation to remediation plans for the IT system. Obviously, you presented a number of options available with various costs and pros and cons associated with it. What was decided and what is the estimated cost of going down that particular route? As we know, the Fujitsu report to primary finding was that the system was fundamentally sound, but it needed to be remediated. You are absolutely right, Mr Greene, to say that that meant that, after we had carefully analysed the Fujitsu report, after we discussed it with Mr Thorne and CGI and had an interchange at some length, I think, as a recall with this committee, we decided what to do. I think that Mr Turnbull is best equipped to provide the answers to those questions, if you may. In terms of the 23 points that were raised in the Fujitsu report, and we have been working to those, clearly there are subordinate actions under each one of those key recommendations, so we have prioritised those. A restate to the committee that the Fujitsu report was not just focused on the CGI element of it that was focused across the whole of the IT organisation within ISD, so we have an arrangement now with CGI around what they are responsible for correcting when we set out a work order, when we set out what we are intending to produce in the next release of the system, so we discussed that in advance and we agree a cost around what that is. If you are asking me, do I know the cost of the full remediation as laid out in the Fujitsu plan, the answer to that is no, because we are working through pieces at a time depending on the impact that remediation will take. I think that that is a simple answer. Can I ask the cabinet secretary? You published a stabilisation plan with six headings and 31 action points therein, which contained a number of improvements that you are looking to make across the board in terms of how you work. One of the things that was missing from the plan in front of me is dates, deadlines or review points. In the future it has the commitment and action, but there is no real understanding of how you will feedback progress on those action points or any deadlines that you have tagged on to those action plans. That would be quite helpful. To be fair to ourselves, convener, the key dates are the dates and the schedule of payments. The key dates that our customers and families are interested in is when they are going to get paid. We have provided with respect to green dates, as members know those key dates. That is the whole point. We have provided a schedule within each case indicative dates. Those are the dates that our customers are interested in, and I would respectfully suggest that we have done that. However, it would surprise me greatly when I was not invited to come back to the committee and in the event that that occurs, I am happy to keep the committee, as always, fully updated on all germane matters. Cabinet Secretary, I am sure that the committee will take you up on that opportunity and at that stage to see the dates and probably a review of costings of what it costs. On that note, I am going to move on to John Mason with his answer. Thank you for the visit that I had to the Air Office. Convergence money, £160 million, is Michael Gove going to give us it? I took the opportunity of my initial meeting with Mr Gove in June at the Royal Highland Show and on Monday of this week to reiterate what I believe is an unchallengeable claim that Scottish farmers, in particular our whole farmers, have been shortchanged to the tune of £160 million. That is very simple because Europe decided that, some years ago, there would be funding for those farmers in the toughest areas who received the least payment. In Scotland, our farmers fell into that category. That money, £190 million, was paid to the UK, as the member stated, only because of Scotland. In other words, had Scotland not existed, the UK would have got zero. That is because the farmers in other parts of the UK's average payment exceeded the minimum threshold of €90 per hectare. We were about half of that. That was money that was intended by the EU solely to benefit those who received the least per hectare. That was the purpose of the money. Therefore, a reasonable person would conclude that that money should have come to Scotland for our hill farmers' worth for each farmer over the six-year period £14,000. My point to Mr Gove is that that money was appropriated by the Treasury because it can. Ever since then, repeated ministers in the UK have promised that they would look into this and have a review. Sadly, and it is a matter of record, and it gives me no pleasure to say so, of course, every single minister has breached that pledge, including Mr Gove and Mrs Leadsom. However, Mr Gove agreed in Monday to have discussions, and I look forward to taking part in those discussions in a constructive manner, as always. If it is a very quick yes or no question, I will write it down. Okay. I will question him well with his discussions. If that money comes to Scotland, will he guarantee that it goes to those who are paid least, which is in his gift? It will not be him guaranteeing it if it comes to Scotland, so it will be me. That is what I am saying. Will you guarantee that? That is a fair question, and I will guarantee that that money must come to rural Scotland. I mean, it would be absolutely disingenuous. I would not be part of a Government where, if we get this money back, it goes to anyone other than the people in rural Scotland who deserve it. I am not sure that that was the answer to the question. No, that was not the answer. I was looking at it. No, because it was a category assurance. Maybe you weren't expecting that, but I want this money for hill farmers because they have been shortchanged by the UK Government. This money has been snaffled by the UK. It is an outrage, and I am determined that this will be put right. I am delighted to have the opportunity, thanks to Ms Grant, to raise this point here. I would like to ask the minister what work the national council for rural advisers is undertaking. What the outputs will be and if and when the outputs that the council is doing will be made available to the public so that we can see what advice they are giving you. I was delighted to attend the first formal meeting of the national council just last week. Their role is to provide advice and recommendations on future rural policy and support to help to create a vibrant, rural, sustainable economy. That includes agriculture, but it includes tourism, renewable energy, community developments and a whole range of other things, not only farming, forestry, fishing and so on. It is to provide advice on the implications of where Brexit plans to proceed. The group met informally in August, and it includes four agricultural champions who cross-cut across rural issues as a whole and have been appointed in January. Where appointed might by me not because of Brexit, but because of the vision that we published in the summer of 2016 at the Royal Highland show, which vision was the result of a detailed consultation that my predecessor initiated and set out a vision for the future rural economy in Scotland. I am delighted with the work. When will they have their outputs to answer that question? We have asked for an initial interim set of recommendations before the turn of the year and a final report in the spring to summer next year. I am delighted that so many independent people, of course, as Parliament's motion required, not group of stakeholders, but people who are independent. I am delighted that they have offered voluntarily of their time and expertise and knowledge to help inform our future rural policy with a view to maximising sustainable development in our in rural Scotland. I can just say at this stage to the committee that there were quite a lot of questions on Brexit and we are not going to get to those questions today. We are going to be asking the cabinet secretary and I hope that in November he will be coming back to the committee where he weakened more into Brexit and the effects for agriculture. So I am afraid that committee members are not going to get to those questions. There are three questions that I would like to take. There is a follow-up from Mike, John Finnie and Peter Chapman. Those would be the last three questions that I can take. Mike, a brief follow-up followed by John Finnie. I am sure what the minister has just said. If I am got this right, the minister appointed this national council of rural advisers back on 22 June, but they only had their first formal meeting last week. What I am asking is whether they have been at work for the last three months or have they just started to work last week. It is a matter of urgency for this issue. Have they actually started to work yet? I think that I have answered that already. To restate, they met informally in August with the Government officials. They were briefed fully about the remit, about the scope, about how they would work. They would have access to assistance in terms of information and advice from officials. That was during, of course, the summer, and people do have summer holidays. Members would accept that it is not customary to have businesses usual during the summer, when many people are away. Therefore, we had the first formal meeting just last week, and I can assure you that they are working hard. Mr Rumbles also overlooks the fact that there are four very senior people, Archie Gibson, Henry Graham, Johnnie Kinaird and Marion McCormick, very, very senior people that will be known to members, who have been working hard since January in all aspects of the rural economy. The aim, convener, was to have those four individuals to sit in the national council with the legacy, the bequest of the work that they have been doing. My goodness me, have they been working hard and they have had subgroups? If it is hard work that Mr Rumbles wants, then I am not disappointing him. I have written you on this as well, but I appreciate you having a heavy workload. I do not doubt the quality of people involved or their endeavours to date or in the future. Fallen the cross-party group in crofting, there was a concern that the crofting communities were not directly represented. Is that something that you will consider, please? I have written, as I think I said to Parliament recently, to over 200 stakeholders. At the meeting of the national council of rural advisers, they decided that they wished to engage with the crofter's union and the NFUS and others, so we have already involved stakeholders, which Parliament asked us to do and we have done, or required us to do and we have done. They will engage with crofters, absolutely. I am very happy to give that undertaking to Mr Finnie, and I will make sure that it is followed through. It is absolutely essential to me that their voice is heard. Of course, we are working separately in a crofting development plan, which I think we will hope to encapsulate some of the aspirations that people will have in the crofting communities. It is one question to Peter Chapman. It is about the SRDB funding. Why was the agri-environment climate scheme funding cut from £350 million to £308 million? As I think I did explain earlier, across the board of SRDP schemes, the need to make savings, the need was brought about because of an overall reduction to the Scottish Dell budget available as a result of the UK budget set. Of course, our budget is dependent upon that, and that meant that we had to take decisions. Those decisions were made in order to avoid the scenario in which we received less money available from Europe, so we sought to do that to maintain the maximum amount of money available from Europe. Sadly, of course, the UK Government cut our budget, so running a budget, as I do, you have to manage things accordingly, and that is what we had to do. Therefore, if you look at the many of the components of the SRDP budget, and one or two of them have been alluded to, we had to make some adjustments to them, but that was really why we have taken that step. The overall discretionary budget in Scotland is expected to be 9.2 per cent lower in real terms in 2019-20 compared to 2010-11 as a result of UK austerity cuts. Of course, that is on top of the £160 million, which I hope all members of all parties will agree should be paid to Scotland for rural communities, as it was intended. The £160 million was never in the budget in the first place, so that is a complete lead herring to mention the £160 million. It was never in there in the first place. I hope that you will support. As former members of the Conservative Party did the moves to get this money for Scotland, I wait and see what the Tory Party says about it. I do not know, but that is obviously for the Conservative Party to make. However, the budget cuts were, of course, imposed by a UK Conservative Government, so I think that there is no hiding place so far as that is concerned. That, probably, Cabinet Secretary, is allowing you to have the last word on that, and that is where I would like to suspend the meeting. Before I do so, I would like to thank you and your team, Cabinet Secretary, for coming in this morning and to say that we would welcome the bits of written evidence that you said you would give us, and also that we will be taking you up on your kind offer to re-attend the committee to discuss Brexit and also subjects to doing with cap IT at the relevant moment. Cabinet Secretary and your team, thank you very much. I now suspend the meeting. I would like to reconvene this meeting of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee and move on to agenda item 4, which is the Island Scotland Bill. This is the third session on the island's bill that we have had. This session is specifically on part 4 of the bill and the financial memorandum. I would like to welcome from the local government boundary commission Ronnie Hines, who is the chair, and Isabel Drummond Murray, who is the secretary. I would also like to welcome from the Western Isles Roddy Mackay, who is the leader, and Derek Mackay, who is the deputy returning officer. There are questions for each of you. If I could ask you to indicate when you would like to respond and try to pick, you will not necessarily all get a chance to answer every question, so if you would like to pick the ones that you would like to come in on, and if you indicate to me, I will call you in. You do not need just to remind you that I have not given evidence before, touch any of the buttons in front of you, that will all happen automatically. I would like to move on to the first question, which is from Rhoda. Historically, Orkney and Shetland have had protected boundaries for election purposes. Why was that not the case for the Western Isles? It seems anonymy that people have said in the past that it was just forgotten, given some administrative hiccups, but you are quite correct in saying that Orkney and Shetland were specified in the Scotland Act 1998. The council is pleased that this opportunity has been presented to addresses anomaly. We think that this will allow the Western Isles to be treated consistently with the other island areas, and we should also point out the largest in terms of populations. It just ensures that we, as an island, are represented at a parliamentary level, and we are very pleased to have the opportunity. Ronni, do you want to come back or do you have that summarised? Given that the bill is taking that forward, will that have any implications or give confidence going forward, or do you expect just because that will be the status quo that that will work quite well? Is there any unforeseen consequences of that, really? No, none whatsoever. Everyone's happy? Okay. Do you want to ask the Boundary Commission any specific questions? That was my question to the Boundary Commission. You know what will be the implications of this change? In the legislation, I see no implications of an adverse nature from the proposal for the Western Isles to become a single constituency. It will be straightforward, I think. You do not think that it would open the floodgates for other requests? From other islands? Or from other parts of Scotland? We do not anticipate that. Richard, I think that you have got the next question. Yeah, good morning. Hello, Mr Hines. How are you? It's been a long time since you and I have seen each other. As you know, I was previously a councillor in North Lanarkshire Council and the new system came in in 2000, the change in the law 2004 brought in the new multi-member ward. How does the Boundary Commission and also the council look at the situation about the practical issues that the current three, four member ward system creates and what impact of switching to a one or two member ward for a particular island or islands would have the effect of the number of councillors covering island areas? I will first go with that, as Bill may want to contribute as well. On the three and four member ward situation, one of the things that we said in our submission to you is that in the course of carrying out the last or fifth reviews of local governance as a whole, we were given notice by a number of councils that would have been helpful if we had more than a three or four member ward option to work with. That was throughout Scotland, not just on the island areas. From that point of view, the commission welcomes the proposal in the legislation that there could be occasions when one or two member wards could be applied in the designated island areas. We think that it just gives us additional flexibility, and that's always welcome when you're trying to draw boundaries, particularly in island areas. We think that that's a good thing. Do you want to add anything to that in principle? No, I think that it is about the greater flexibility that it offers us. As far as the Western Isles concerns, would that have an impact on you as well? Is there something that we need to consider there or what are your views on that? We agree that our aim is that if we can get more flexibility as a general picture for the Boundary Commission around this aspect of one or two, as opposed to three and four, that would be an achievement for us, we have to say today. We strongly support the provision because it provides an opportunity for us to address concerns in some island areas where a council is too remote from the island communities there. We have found that there are anomalies within our own system where we feel that if the regions, if the natural townships, natural communities within our island areas are the drivers for the ward and then the board membership is built on that, rather than sometimes we feel that because they do not have the flexibility that the Boundary Commission is driven solely by numbers on the ratios, and it has led to some unnatural combinations in the sense of one village or one township being much less represented than another. We just feel that if they have the flexibility to do this in the island context, it would mean that island communities and natural communities are better represented and actually enhance the democratic representation and the process, so it would be good in our context, we feel. Take my board at the Boundary Commission and councils in the past, looked at the sizes of a particular ward and tried to even it out in different, even went down certain streets that people like me said, no, we shouldn't go there, but we did. How would it be with an island where there will be a lower proportion of electors compared to the three or four member ward that straddles into it? What would your view be on creating smaller one-two member wards where the electorate may be 50 per cent less than the three or four member ward that it previously was? Well, it wouldn't matter if the electorate was smaller because it's the ratio of the electors to the representatives that really matters, but I think I get the thrust of the question. Given that we're focusing on island and, in large respects, rural communities, it does raise the possibility, particularly if you've got more strings to your bow, i.e. one and two as well as three and four member wards, that you could have quite different ratios within a given council area, so we think we just have to go into that with an open mind. We haven't yet sat down and deliberated on what our strategy and our approach and methodology would be, but I think that we recognise the spirit of that legislation. Although we continue to have to work under the roles that apply for all local government reviews, namely that parity remains paramount, we've been able to use special geographical circumstances in the past as a way of leavening that out, and we see that we'd probably have to do that to a greater extent if we're looking at island communities, so part of our approach will be to talk to the councils and to talk to the communities and take their reviews very carefully into account when we decide how to strike the right balance between parity and closer community representation on the other hand. Thank you. Fulson, do you want to come in? Yeah, thanks. It's kind of following up from Richard's point panel. You're talking there about you know perhaps different types of representation, you know, councils in different places and whether they've maybe not been or wards sizes in numbers, but what do you think about overall council numbers? Is that something that you can see changing, you know, firstly from all the island communities and then I suppose secondly for the western isles? Is that something you see changing or would it be going with the current number of councils that you've got after the last review and then distributing them about so, you know, or do you see an actual increase or decrease, you know, possibility? Okay, well I'll try and pick it apart a little. We don't go into it with a preset notion that the existing number of counsellors either in the island areas or for Scotland as a whole is a limit on the work that we're about to take on. If you look at the way we went about our business in the last reviews, you can find just about as many examples of areas where the number of counsellors in a council went down as went up. And that wasn't just because there was an overall total we were trying to work to, it was a reflection of the work that we had done and the same would apply if we're looking at the island areas. So we don't go into it with the idea that if there's currently 22 on Orkney, there will always be 22 on Orkney, that's not our approach to this. This seems to me to be in spirit quite a different kind of recognition of the nature of island communities and I think it would be tying our own hands if we went into the business saying the number of counsellors you've currently got is some kind of ceiling. Bear in mind in the western isles what we'll give testimony to this, that sometimes when you ask councils themselves what is the answer to the question, the right number of counsellors, you can be surprised. They told us on previous occasions that they had too many. So some councils said we'd rather have fewer and some councils wanted more counsellors. So we'll be going into it with an open mind and we take their views into account. I wouldn't assume that because we're working to a different set of legislation here it would necessarily result in more counsellors overall, but it could do. Rodi, I'm going to let you come in. You don't specifically have to answer whether there's too many counsellors or too few. I think I'm quite happy to see that the main aim today is to allow us to see an amendment to schedule seeks to allow the Boundary Commission to set different ratios for individual islands or groups of islands which differ from mainland areas and that's the focus we have today in terms of the one, two members, supposed to three, four member. We didn't think that we would be talking or focusing on the actual numbers, total numbers, but just to give you an example we have 31 members at the minute. I think earlier in earlier days the Boundary Commission suggested a review around 28 I think and at Turkey's and Christmas we suggested 26 ourselves. So we're quite flexible around the total number, we're realistic about it and that is not our driver today, our driver today is get more appropriate and flexible representation for the islands in this context. Does anyone want to come back on that old folding? Do you want to choose? No, I'm happy with that. Jamie, the next question. Thank you, convener. Good morning, panel. North Ayrshire Council said that the bill made provisions for adjustment towards sizes but not the electric to councillor ratio. Obviously it's far easier to service a few thousand voters in an urban area than it is to spread over multiple islands for example. Do you think that those provisions should be made in the islands bill or the ability to change indeed? I think to do that would be tent amount to saying that parity was no longer paramount because that remains the position under the main legislation within which we work. Our feeling is that in the spirit of what this legislation is seeking to achieve, the ability to have choices between one, two and three and four member wards in the island areas would probably get us to a position that was comparable to that. If you take Aaron as an example, you could construe quite readily a means by which you would change the current representation on Aaron. That might mean that there was a different ratio applying in Aaron to the rest of North Ayrshire. You wouldn't have to have a provision in the legislation to achieve that end. You could do it by means of what's being offered in the legislation. I think that as a commission we would advocate not having different ratios within councillories because the rock on which we found really has to be parity. We can work around it as we have done in the past and we would seek to do again here but not to have it doesn't give us a strong enough framework within which to work. I would come back to the point that the main objective of what we do is to make sure that democratic representation in this country is as fair as it can be and comparable ratios within our council is an important part of that, we think. We're not advocating a move away from parity, just that the Bounder Commission has a flexibility to take account of geographical circumstances in an island area. We don't actually see a great move from parity, but sometimes it may be more than a 10 per cent change to take account of those circumstances, but parity would remain. Rodi, do you want to add to that? No, I think we're thinking the same thing. I wouldn't like us to go back to saying that parity, I know that the Bounder Commission considers it to be paramed. I think that if I could find a word a wee bit below paramed and might go for that, but parity is important and it's crucial, but I don't think it should be the sole driver of how we calculate these things and I think that the flexibility that I think we both agree that would be good in this context, in the island context and something that we should work on and I think might inform and feed into different ways of doing things in other areas in the future. Jeremy, do you want to follow that up? Thank you. I guess that leads me nicely into the next section. Is there any proposed changes that are coming about? I think that you mentioned that you would, as a commission, deliberate internally, but what sort of external consultation process might you participate in in an official fashion? How do you think that consultation might play out? Which stakeholders might be involved in that and the sort of timescale involved in that consultation to make sure that everyone's opinions and voices are heard? I think that we recognise consultations as a very important part of our work always, but with the islands in particular for taking forward the legislation. I'm still struggling a little bit. So yes, we recognise consultations as very important. The commission hasn't yet met to discuss how it will go about it, but I know there will be an absolute commitment to engaging not just with councils but with communities on the islands as well, so taking that forward will be a priority. In terms of timing, there is I suppose a question of the timing of the legislation and not pre-empting any changes that might occur during its passage, but we would be looking to take forward review in time for the next local government elections, and that does point probably to beginning consultation early next summer. A question I've just thought of, and I don't think that it's ever been asked yet. Anyone can stand for anywhere in the particular area that they live in. I stay in North Lanarkshire, so I can stand, and I previously could stand it anywhere. When we go to a two-member island ward, should we stipulate the person who must live in the island, or can we? Or encourage political parties. I know that you don't want to get into that vein, but encourage political parties to ensure that the candidates they select for island seats live on the island. I'm sure that you won't want to answer that one, Ronnie, but a general point on it, I think. My general point is probably a better question for the Electoral Commission and the Boundary Commission, but I can see that, and the Western Islands might want to comment on this, you could make that so restrictive that it was very difficult to get representatives or candidates to come forward. The other point that I would make is that, particularly when we're considering the possibility of going down to a single member ward, as provided for in the bill, there is the question about proportionality that's quite important here. I think that as you draw the boundaries in more narrowly, and that's where your question is tending, you've got an issue straight away about where proportionality stands when one part of the council might be represented by a single member, other parts by two, three or four, and I think that to compound that by putting a territorial stipulation on it would make life quite difficult to manage. Just before I bring you in, Ronnie, one of the issues that we heard when we went to Marl was the whole issue of where the council was set up and where it was working from and the travel that the member had to do in some cases round more than one area, and just the difficulties of that. Ronnie, perhaps you could sort of work that into your answer, because I think that it seemed to be a genuine concern. It is a genuine concern. If I can just build on what Richard was saying there, yeah, I would agree with what Ronnie is saying there in terms of stipulate, too many stipulations in terms of who you are, cannot, cannot stand, and I think it would be probably a can of worms, and I don't think it's something that would particularly work. But, funnily enough, we think that by going down this one or two member ward and having a flexibility, we think that because we have more natural community representation, we think that that will happen anyway. We just feel that more people will stand in their area because they know their area well, and I think that one of all our aims is to get the representation of the people as close to the people as can be possible. I think that this will happen. What you are aiming for may be in your question in terms of one way, I think it will happen through this process. That will address the issues around travel. I suppose that if you were talking about money, just to continue on that, there may well be savings in terms of the fact that people don't have to travel for two or four hours to serve their community. They can attend their community councils, etc., with a much lower cost, and we release member expenses—not that's something that I'm sure you want to vote for, but we can release member expenses for front-line services, so I think that there's a win there, too. That is a very clever lead-in. You must have seen the next question because John John's got a question. On finances and the financial memorandum, you'll not be surprised. If I can start with the boundary commission, it's part of your work normally anyway to be looking at boundaries, and routinely you're doing a lot of work anyway. How much extra work is there involved in that? I suppose that the question is the kind of finances that they're talking about and the financial memorandum realistic. Some people would say that it's part of your normal work, but others might say that there's a lot of extra work involved in that. In terms of local government, the way that the boundary commission works is cyclical, so the fifth reviews that are referred to that we just completed have to be done every eight to twelve years. For a large part of a decade, the boundary commission is dormant, and lots of people think that that's a good state for the boundary commission to be in. However, I think that we should be doing our work on more of a continual basis. I think that it works better. I think that it's less surprising to people when you don't appear once every 10 years and say, we're going to have a look at your boundaries again because collective memory and organisational memory, in many cases, has been lost. In relation to this piece of work, you'll know that for the three island councils in the conventional understanding of it, the decision was taken by the minister not to go ahead with the proposals that we produced, so that work had already been done. From that baseline, you'd have to say that for us now to do this again is additional work, but we think that it's the right thing to do. We don't have any difficulty at all with the minister's decision. I think that it's part and parcel of what I'd like to see as a more continuous approach to our work. In any case, it would be a better way of using the scarce resources that we have, and it would be a better way of managing the business. It would always be somewhere in the background of the reviews that we're going on, and I think that the island reviews are a step in that direction. You said earlier on that you would be talking to both councils and communities, and the councils are sick, so that's not too bad, but the communities have quite a lot more. Are the costs in the financial memorandum realistic? I'm thinking that you could visit all the islands, but that might be expecting a bit much. There will presumably be an impact on mainland communities, which currently are sharing a ward with islands, so I don't know if you've got to speak to them as well. Strikes me, there could be a considerable amount of work in there. Have you really thought through yet how you will go about it in practice? It was obviously an initial estimate. I think that you're right that we recognise the scale of challenge, but it's difficult to pre-empt commission consideration about how it wants to go about that, whether all commissioners will visit all islands or if the work will be divided up. Similarly for the team, I manage how we will address engaging. We want to do it positively, and we're happy to take advice. I know that the committee has been out visiting, and other people have been consulting in the islands. We were talking before we came in about the challenges of visiting a lot of the islands, but it's something that we'll want to do. It's a ballpark figure. It may well go up. There's costs for travel promotion, and there's a consultation of £160,000, so I think that's feasible. The largest part of that is a consultation portal. Up until now, we've used an externally hosted one. We are exploring trying to do it in-house, which will bring that cost down significantly, and therefore free up within the overall budget set more money for doing things like travelling. An additional staff, £35,000 to £70,000 as well? Again, the challenge for me is making sure that we have the resources to service both commissions, because we also work for the Boundary Commission for Scotland, so there will be questions about finishing the 2018 Westminster review. Of course, the responsibility of Scottish Parliament has transferred between the two commissions back in May, so pending decisions about timescales of that review. There's a bit of a juggling, but if we estimate, yes, maybe one, possibly two more members of staff to help with the review, and I think that that's broadly realistic. I can also ask the council, because there's a cost in here suggesting £30,000 per local authority, which I guess is to do with consultation on that side of things as well, so that you get the view of your communities. It just seems a little bit odd to me that it's £30,000 per authority, and that's times six, so that's £180,000, where North Ayrshire, frankly, as far as I know, has two islands to talk to, and Argyll and Bute, and yourselves, have quite a lot of islands to talk to. Are you comfortable with those kind of figures? Comfortable with ours. You'd have to ask Argyll about theirs, but I am comfortable with it. I think that one thing that when you're living and working and moving about on an island, I think that a lot of the consultation that we do is probably more real and more on-going than in a lot of other areas, because we're so close to the people and their communities. We're garnering information. This issue around one or two member wards, for example, has been on our agenda for about five years. There's been lots of consultations about different aspects of island life and different Government initiatives, but often a by-product or one of the questions or one of the issues that arises in those consultations is this issue of one or two member wards. We've got a lot of information and a lot of feedback around this from our community consultations. We use a whole range of community consultation tools, so we think that 30,000 is more than adequate. Anticipate that, in some areas, it's going to be very simple, straightforward, everyone's going to agree. Other areas are going to be more challenging, and you might need to do more work in that area. I think that, in our area, in the western islands, I don't think that we have these challenges. I don't think that I would pre-empt it and say that everyone is going to agree, but I think that every consultation that we've had to date around and that has included this subject, people like the idea and I think that it would be more realistic and a more appropriate representation on the islands to have this flexibility of one or two member wards. Now, I can't speak for— To Paul, but that doesn't mean that they're agreeing on where the line is. Yeah, absolutely. We haven't gone into the detail of where the line is. But again, I think that we would be putting lines where we know already, in Italy, where people would like these lines to be as long as they stack up with the Boundary Commission requirements. Okay, thanks so much. I don't normally do this, but I'm very conscious that you've travelled a long way, and Ronnie's comment that he was dormant for 10 years, is there anything on the basis that we've got you in front of the committee that you feel that we've missed in our questioning that you'd like to bring our attention to before I close off this part of the meeting? Rodi, would you like to lead on that? Well, yeah, I mean, we are gracious. We do recognise that Ronnie has been dormant and we are offering—we are offering the potential here for him to get out and about and meet and see our lovely islands, and I know that Isabella's already requested that she doesn't attend in the winter, just in the summer. But to be serious, no, I think because of the whole our islands, our future initiative, and the last five years we've been working very well with particularly in the Shetland and Orkney relationship, and I think a lot of ideas have come up through that, which is great, and this is one area that has come up via the islands pool, and we've worked on the opportunity to come along here and say what we have to say about it. I think we would say that we've been realistic. We're offering an alternative that will bring people closer to decision making. We're following the community engagement and community empowerment agenda that we're constantly hearing about, and I think this fits in very well with that. In terms of island proofing, which has become an inphrase at the minute, it does give a different slant on how we do things in Ireland around the wards, so I think it's a welcome opportunity, and it's a good place to test it out. Thank you very much, Roddy. I nearly excuse my flippant remark, and if there's anything Roddy, you'd like to add, we'd welcome to hear it. Well, just to respond in kind, I'm turning this into a mutual admiration society, but I've formed memories of the visits that we paid to the islands in the course of doing the fifth reviews, and I anticipate the same when we repeat them. I think Mr Finnie's question is quite a good one about the bill. It's not clear to me whether the 30,000 per council is supposed to be an allocated sum for each of the six, or whether it's a pot from what she would draw, and I think it might be worth getting some clarity on that, because I wouldn't want to think that some of the work that we have to do with the councils would be constrained by the sense that 30,000 wasn't enough to cover their expenses. I don't think that that would happen, but I think it's worth getting some clarity on that. In addition to that, there's maybe one or two points that we'd want to emphasise in the light of the overall comment that we're seeking to make here about the need for flexibility and the fact that we welcome the additional flexibility that the bill proposes. The wording in the bill in relation to the islands talks when we're discussing the possibility of one or two member words about islands holier partly within a ward, and we're thinking that it might be more flexible to talk about—sorry, it talks about holier mainly, and we think that it would be more flexible to talk about holier partly. If you just think about that, because there could be examples where an island could be a minority part of a ward and it wouldn't necessarily fall within the ambit, of what the bill is currently discussing, but we think that that's equally valid for consideration if you're looking at one or two member word possibilities. So we think that holier or partly would be better wording than holier or mainly, and I think that that's something we'd want to leave with you. The other thing in a similar vein, I suppose, all in the context of more flexibility is that where we are looking in an island context, particularly for the islands where there's a mainland component like, say, North Ayrshire, the bill doesn't currently provide for us to look at one or two member words on the mainland part, but only on the island part, and it would be helpful in terms of flexibility if there was a possibility that we could look at one or two member words on the mainland too, just to avoid clunky knock-on consequences of the fact that we've said in relation to Arran or Bute or whatever. One or two might be the right solution there, but now we have to see their ramifications for our droslin in the surrounding area and so on. I think that we'd be happier dealing with those if we had the option of going for one or two in those surrounding areas too, and again, I think that that would be within the spirit of what the legislation is trying to achieve. Okay, thank you very much. Just before I suspend, I would just like to point out that the committee is looking forward to its trip to Orkney at the end of this week and to the Western Isles in the middle of October, where we'll be taking evidence on the island bill. I'd like specifically to thank the panel in front of us today for attending the meeting. Thank you very much, and I'd now like to suspend the meeting. Ertno, to close the meeting because we're going to move into private session. Thank you for your attendance.