 I welcome everyone to the fifth meeting in 2016 of the rural economy and connectivity committee. Can I remind everyone present please to switch off your mobile phones and also that no apologies have been received. Item one on the agenda the first item is the consideration of a statement of reasons in relation to the proposed seatbelts on school transport Scotland bill. Before Gautw яwn rembertory ember, heated deal- такое NZ package must first lodge a draft proposal and then, a final proposal. The draft proposal must be accompanied either by a consultation document or a statement of reasons why the MSP does not consider the consultation necessary—which is subject to the scrutiny of the committee. James Martin, members of charge of the proposed bill, has submitted a statement of reasons for the committee's consideration. Felly, y cwmdeithasol ddraff y newydd yn ei hunaindau o'r rhagleniaid. Mae'r rhagleniaid mwyaf i ddechrau ni'n meddwl i'r cymaint. Mae'n meddwl i'r cymaint i'r cymaint i'r cymaint i'r cymaint i'r cymaint i'r cymaint i gynnwys hynny a'r rhagleniaidol yn ei hunaindau i'r cymaint i'r cymaint i'r cymaint i'r cymaint. Felly, rwy'n gwybod, Gillian Martin a Brendan Rooney, gyda ei roi gyfasol o'r cymaint i'r cymaint i'r cymaint. I invite Jeremy Martin to make a brief statement on the bill and its consultation. Thank you very much. Good morning to everyone. Thank you to the committee members for this opportunity to set out my proposal to legislate for the inclusion of seat belts in all dedicated school transport. It's my firm belief that the safety of our children and young people is a responsibility that we all share. As a parent and an MSP representing a rural community, I'm acutely aware of the importance of the journey to and from school can play in those efforts. That's why I'm bringing forward this bill, which will serve to increase the safety of children across Scotland. Local authorities have certain duties to provide dedicated home to school transport for entitled pupils, and whilst it's also regularly seen in the independent school sector, this is often delivered through contracts with private bus operators. There's currently no legal obligation for seat belts to be fitted in such transport despite the well-established safety benefits that they can bring in a road traffic accident. Those legislative proposals intend to address that. Many councils in Scotland already provide dedicated school transport with seat belts and ensure that it's stipulated as a condition within contracts. I want to build on this good work, making such practice universal so that all pupils on such journeys benefit from this important safeguard. As I set out my statement of reasons before the committee, that issue is some history emanating from considerations by the Public Petitions Committee and with the evolution of power being secured by the previous Scottish Government administration last year. Additionally, an extensive consultation was carried out from March to June this year, garnering views from individuals and organisations with interests such as parents, schools, individuals, local authorities and bus companies, and with a comprehensive analysis that was published just last month. Given how fresh and current this is, it's my view that a further consultation seems unnecessary and would simply duplicate responses from the same respondents on an issue that has not moved on. However, I completely respect that this decision lies with the committee. The Scottish Government also established a working group of key stakeholders specifically on the issue, which has been meeting for the past two years. Extensive dialogue and considerations such as the practical, operational and financial implications has allowed interested parties to help to guide and influence those proposals. Indeed, such discussions led to the Scottish Government's plan for the legal duty to come into force in 2018 for vehicles transporting primary school children and 2021 for vehicles carrying secondary school pupils. That lead-in time is to give those affected, primarily local authorities and bus operators, time to allow for the changes, particularly in relation to contracts, and it would be my intention to allow for that. I resolved to continue such useful discourse and to carry forward the invaluable feedback from the recent formal consultation to shape the bill before they introduced it to Parliament. I welcome any questions from the committee. Thank you, Gillian. I see some questions lining up already. Stuart Scott has the first question. Thank you very much, convener. I hope that you will not mind, if I say it's appropriate, to thank Mike Pennan, who was a minister at Westminster, who kicked off the process of making sure that we had the powers to do that, if Parliament ultimately chooses to do so. What I specifically wanted to ask Gillian Martin was whether she has been in touch with Mike and Statue and Ron Beatty, whose efforts on school bus safety are where the genesis of that lies. I know that this is not the whole of Ron Beatty's interests, but I would certainly hope that the member digs into the collective experience and memory of Ron Beatty in taking the bill forward. I met Mr Beatty a couple of weeks ago on that issue. I have to pay tribute to Ron Beatty, because in Aberdeenshire, the local authority of Aberdeenshire Council has already got the dedicated school transport seat belts in place. Other voluntary measures that they have put school bus signage on, are largely due to the efforts of Mr Beatty campaigning for this. He is a very valuable person to speak to in this, and he absolutely welcomes this. We are using the word transport, and I am assuming that we are meaning buses and not dedicated trains, because, certainly around Glasgow, we occasionally have a dedicated train to take kids to school, and trains do not normally have seat belts. It is dedicated school bus transport, and that is the remit of the bill. Was there consultation done, or is it purely fitting the seat belts, rather than wearing the seat belts? In a car, a child would have to wear a seat belt. The reason for that is that the laws around the wearing of seat belts are still reserved. As you will know, the law stipulates that over 14 is the law to wear a seat belt, whereas our seat belt is provided. Beyond that, we cannot legislate on that. It is purely the contracting of the dedication of school buses, or buses contracted by the local authority must stipulate that they have seat belts on. I will come back to Aberdeenshire Council and how they have managed that. They have been doing this successfully for a number of years. The way in which they ensure that children wear the seat belts is down to the schools, parents, parent groups, education, and making children aware that they are there, and the safety implications. It has been a successful exercise in Aberdeenshire that we can point to. Members will also be aware that the Welsh Government has put that forward as well. It is a campaign around the safety of wearing a seat belt. Mr Mason's question was one of mine about whether the bill was to ensure that they were fitted as opposed to being worn, and how that would be enforced. My question, therefore, is around private bus companies and the feedback that they gave you in the consultation, whether they were overly positive or neutral to it, and who would bear the cost of the retrofitting of the seat belts? As I have mentioned, we have been consulting, but we also have a working group. Bus operators have been part of that working group, and they have been very positive about that. The situation is that most buses already have seat belts on them. We are really talking about the ones that are a lot older. 15 years ago, they had to have seat belts on them anyway, so we are talking about the older end of buses. You will notice that there is a leading time for that to happen, and that has come out of our consultation with local authorities and bus companies. In 2018, for primary school transport, 2021 for secondary school transport, it is not happening immediately. There will be a leading time as well, and that has come out of our consultation with bus companies and local authorities, so we have been very supportive. On the cost side of it? On the cost side of it, the costs are still being worked on. The costs will be borne by the companies themselves that bid for contracts. That was the way that it was done in Wales as well. On new contracts, any new tenders that come out for services will obviously stipulate that they have to have seat belts, and therefore bus companies will have to sink that cost to bid for it. Will there be, in this time period, any retroactive fitting where private bus companies will have to bear the cost of doing it, or will local authorities or the Scottish Government subsidise that in any way? If you look at the timescale for wind contracts, it tends to be a five-year period, and that is something that has been in the wind for quite a while. We knew that those powers were coming to Scotland, so it is not something that bus companies have not been aware of. Of course, we have been consulting with them, but the onus will be on the bus companies who are actually bidding for those contracts to fulfil the obligations of the contract. Can I follow up slightly before I go to somebody else on that? It will not stop people bidding for contracts if there are not seat belts there, but they can put the seat belts on if they are awarded the contract. Is that what you are saying? I am going to ask Brendan Rennie, because that is a very niche question that probably requires Brendan Rennie's expertise. The way that dedicated school transport is provided to local authority can vary quite considerably, so it is not a very black-and-white picture. It would depend on things like the level of competition in an area. If a local authority goes out to contract, the number of bus companies with different vehicles within their fleet will determine whether or not or how easily that can be provided within an area. It is not really that there will be one uniform situation that will be replicated across 32 local authorities. It will vary from area to area. Obviously, there are already 17 that have done that, so within the summit can be absorbed within contract costs. Summit may lead to differences within the contract costs. We have had quite a lot of dialogue with bus companies and local authorities on that. We are also doing an exercise at the moment with COSLA and the Scottish Local Government partnership to better quantify exactly what the cost implications of that will be. It is not a simple exercise in taking a bus at one cost and multiplying it by that. There are other factors within an area that will impact on that. I think what I am trying to understand, if I may, is that to put your seatbelts in buses, if you are not going to award the contract just on the chance that you can bid for the contract, I do not think it would be fair, but providing there was a stipulation that the seatbelts would have to be fitted before they could be used on the contract would give suppliers or tenderers some flexibility. I am going to leave that hanging, if I may. I think that the point is made. Can I just ask a couple of supplementaries and then ask what is a process question? I have a couple of process questions. Just a supplementary question to the questions that were being asked before, the legal situation for young children wearing seatbelts is that they also have a booster seat that is applicable to their size and weight. Would that also be part of the bill, and who would be handing out the booster seats to the right kids at the right time? As Brenda has pointed out, there are already 17 local authorities that are already doing this, so we look to the practice of those schools and bus companies that are doing that. At the moment, it is really various across those local authorities, but you are right. In some cases, there are booster seats, in some cases, there are modified seatbelts. The bill is specifically about providing seatbelts on those buses, so the other arrangements around booster seats are not included in the bill. That is just going to be a case of how the various schools and school buses provide extra safety mechanisms, but that has been working very successfully in a range of primary schools and nurseries up and down the country so far. It is not going to stipulate as such the use of booster seats, but that is something that is already done in order to make children safe. A lot of the bus companies are involved in that already, providing those extra safety mechanisms. However, ours is specifically about dedicated school transport having the seatbelts. Can I ask a couple of process questions? Given that you are using the consultation that was carried out by the Government, is there anything that you are proposing as part of your bill that has not been consulted on or something that was consulted on that you are not including in your bill? No, it is a very simple mechanism for local authorities to stipulate that buses that are used for dedicated school transport must have seatbelts. That is the premise on which we put the consultation out. That is the premise on which we are still working with the working group to take the bill forward. There is nothing being added to that. There is nothing being taken away from what was consulted on. My other question is that we are all aware that the Government can take over member's legislation. I think that this is maybe the first time that a member has taken over Government legislation. I am wondering what the process for that is and whether that will prevent another member from taking forward member's legislation. Obviously, I have time to take forward their own bills. I would not like to see a Government bill circumventing the processes in the Parliament that might stop a member from taking forward their own legislation. I will jump in slightly. I think that that is a point that you have made. I am not sure that that is a question specifically on the consultation that is fair to ask. It is something that we can take up perhaps after the committee meeting. I am sorry to curtail you on that. The only question in front of the committee today is whether we should agree that you do not need a consultation. That is the question facing us. My question really is based on that. It is a simple one—very simple. Are you aware of anybody or any organisation who feels that they have not had the opportunity to contribute to the formulation of your bill or the consultation process? Is there anybody out there who would feel aggrieved if we allowed you to just proceed? We are fairly confident that we had 76 respondents and they came from a wide range of groups. Of course, we are still working—this working group is still going on as well. There is an opportunity for anything else that comes up to be taken into account. As you will know, the consultation was only published in August this year. We have been working up until that point. We feel that it has been very wide range. I can provide the committee with a list of the people who were involved in that consultation. There are links in the statement of reasons to the results of that consultation that you can actually look for yourself. There is nobody banging on the doors that we are saying that we want to be consulted and have not been able to. No, we have consulted with local authorities, COSLA, as well as the local government partnership, school groups, parent groups, bus companies and road safety groups. We feel that it has been quite comprehensive. Thank you. Before I go on and ask whether the members are satisfied with the reason general, I think that there are some interesting points that have been brought up today in discussions with the committee. I hope that you will be in a position that, when you bring the bill forward, you can take into account some of the points that have been raised by the committee, because I think that it is done in the hope of making something worthwhile. What I need to formally do is ask the members if they are satisfied by the statement of reasons that Gillian has given. That just leaves me to thank you, Gillian, and Brendan, for coming to the meeting today. Thank you very much. I am just going to suspend the meeting briefly to allow Gillian and Brendan to leave. Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, the second agenda item is the consideration of three negative instruments as detailed on the agenda. This is a packet of instruments which will be introduced a decriminalised parking regime within the Highland Council area. At that moment, I would like to just pause and ask members of the committee if anyone has an interest to declare in relation to the matter. Yes, I have an interest. I am a Highland councillor and therefore will take no part in the discussion or in the decision. Thank you. Does anyone else have an interest to declare? The committee will consider any issues that it wishes to raise in relation to the reporting to the Parliament on those instruments. The member should note that no motions to a null have been received in relation to those instruments. I would like to invite comments from the members if there are any on those. They are queuing up, Richard. I have a particular question on section 5 on the section 74 substitute. Fixing of certain parking and other charges for parking area shall be the duty of the parking authority to set the levels of additional parking charges to apply in the parking area. Different levels may be set for different parts of the parking area. You could have that you are only paying £50 on one bit and paying £1 on the other. That is quite outrageous if that is in the different levels of parking charges that can be set in the parking area. I would like someone to explain it to me. Richard, I can always guarantee on you to ask a difficult question, but my understanding of the legislation is such that the aim is to give the councils the flexibility to charge different rates in different areas. I do not think that it is different rates within different car parks. Even the Highland Council would find that difficult. I take your point. I think that you are delving into exact spots. It can be just if it is helpful as a single example of where that is already being implemented. I speak to the Aberdeenshire Council's car park in Inverure, which is adjacent to March's and Spencer's behind the railway station. Half of the parking is free to provide overflow parking for the railway station and the other half is chargeable on the basis that people are visiting March's and Spencer's. It works perfectly well. It is a single car park with different charges and different pits. It seems to work perfectly well. I do not speak to how Highland might or might not use this power. I merely make members aware that it is working satisfactorily in at least one place in Scotland. I think that the Highland Council will be scrutinised quite heavily on that. I am trusting them absolutely on that. I should have come to Mike first, because you were. My question really is about the policy objectives and the background and the policy note that has been provided. I refer to the policy note, annex B, and page 25. It says on paragraph 4, to date, that 14 Scottish local authorities have introduced decriminalised parking enforcement. Under those arrangements, local authorities administer their own parking penalty schemes and retain the penalties, and retain the penalties collected to finance parking enforcement procedures. Then it goes on to say in paragraph 6, that any surplus is used to improve off-street parking facilities and for traffic management purposes. Therefore, the revenues effectively ring fence for traffic management measures and cannot be used by an authority for another purpose, but that does not prevent the authority from diverting funds that were to be spent on the field into something else. My question hinges on this. I would like to know, and I think that the committee should be aware of this, rather than just immediately passing this legislation, what are the consequences, what is the experience of the 14 other local authorities having gone through this process? Is there an experience of an increased number of parking charges being raised against motorists? It strikes me that giving the local authorities the power to do this is fine, but what about any unintended consequences? Are we aware of any unintended consequences about this? It is really asking for further information before we approve it, that is all. I think that that is a very fair point. I think that we should write as a committee to the Government and ask it to look into this. To undertake to do something and then not do it would be wrong, so that is a very fair point that we could raise with the Government. The committee should write with that question. Would everyone agree to that? I think that it is sensible way forward. Sorry, John. Just for information on that point, what happens in practice in Glasgow is that it puts a lot of work into the city centre where it can make a lot of money out of fines and it scarcely ever bothers about parking further away from the city centre. You can park in a double yellow line in my constituency a lot of the time and nothing will happen to you. That is a bad thing, but that is in practice what happens. As far as the charges are concerned, certainly in Glasgow, the nearer you are to the city centre, you pay a lot more. As you move further away, you pay less. Sorry, can I just come back just to clarify that? The problem is that this legislation is just to clarify that it is time limited. We are going to have to move forward. What is the important thing is to point this concern out to the Government and make sure that as the orders come through, it achieves the aim that it is meant to achieve, not just gets fritted away on other schemes. Are we just saying that we do not have an opportunity to do this or not? It is a process. There is no process to annul, so we have to take them forward, but we can raise issues with the Government. What I am flagging up is that if and when the next one comes through, it should have brought this information to us. I am absolutely convinced that there will be another one coming through in the not too distant future. We will ask the question immediately after this committee meeting. I think that paragraph that Mike rightly highlights. We have to have faith in the local authority. This has been long awaited by them. I have every confidence that Highland Council will conduct themselves appropriately. I think that we should just move to pass this legislation. John, we cannot annul it. It is going to go through as far as I see it, but it is an absolute point that we can raise to them and make points that we are concerned about. Sorry, Jamie. Yes, thank you. I refer it to much repetition. I think that rather than, given that we cannot stop these coming through, the members make a very fair point. That is around the transparency on the revenues generated on both the parking charges and the penalties. As we are adding further authorities on that, we can look back and see what has happened in the previous 14 years. There is proper transparency on where the revenue generated is being spent, that it has been spent in the right way, that any surplus has been reinvested in the right way. There does not seem to be any proper process of holding people to account in that respect. I think that it is important that we write to the Scottish Government and ask what measures they are taking to regulate and oversee that transparency before we blindly keep adding authorities on them. John... I think that we are getting a wee bit carried away with the committee. Best to look with anyone interrogating local authority accounts to that level. I do not think that that is within the remit of this committee. I absolutely think that we can rightly ask the question and there is another one that I suspect is coming very closely down the track, so we will push the Government for an answer. We can but report back. I think that it is important that the committee gets an answer on that. I do forgive me, convener. I just wanted committee members to be quite clean. Perhaps our clerk can advise us on that. This order was signed on 31 August and the parliamentary process is unless a motion to annul. It does not have to be at this committee. It can be at any point in the parliamentary process. It is passed before the expiry. I do forgive me. I cannot remember whether it is 40 or 42 days. The clerk might remind us of that. He is open to any member and continues, regardless of our deliberations today, to be open to any member. It is just important for future reference. I recognise many of our colleagues and you. Would the clerk confirm that it is 40 or 42 days? It is 40 days. Right. I just wanted colleagues to be aware of that. It would be a member of the committee that would lay that order. I just want to make the Government quite clear that I would not want to do this unless I had, but I am prepared to do this if we do not get the information. I think that it is very important that we have the information. I have given you an undertaking that we are going to write. There is not an ability to annul this. We can just take that forward. There is not an ability to annul this. There is a process for members to bring forward the motion to annul, but no motions have been made. I am told that there is a process for bringing a motion forward, but no member has brought a motion forward. We are not in a position to annul this one. Is my understanding. There has been some comments and there has been a recommendation which we have said that we will take out. I suggest that the committee therefore agrees that it does not waste to make any recommendations in relation to these instruments. We will move on to agenda item 3, which is that the committee is invited to consider the draft memorandum of understanding between OFCOM and the UK Government, Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament as outlined in paper 3. I would again invite comments on this. John, you said that you would like to raise some comments. Yes, I think that probably this is quite a standard format and I am guessing that the wording is standard and so on and so forth. I think that some of the words that we are being used in OFCOM will be… Can you just refer to the… Yes, while I am looking at the covering paper, so that is actually the second page of the covering paper, but I think that it is quoting from the actual memorandum, which I am struggling. It is paragraph 4. Is that actually quoting from the memorandum? I am not quite sure. It is the memorandum that is critical. I realise that. Those three bullet points, OFCOM will consult, OFCOM will consider and OFCOM will send. I just feel that that does not give a lot of power. Okay. That is the briefing paper, John. Yes, I accept that. I am just trying to look at the specific bit in the memorandum that is causing concerns. Page 5. Paragraph 5.12. Paragraph 8. Yes, that is the correct place. Sorry about that. The same wording. It does not give the Scottish Parliament or the Scottish Government a lot of powers if all OFCOM have to do is consult, consider and then send the plan. I accept that that is the case. I just wanted to point that out and highlight it that we are not in a terribly strong position. I also wondered in the previous page, page 4, paragraph 6, bullet point 2, exactly what is meant. It says, prior to any appointment, the Scottish Government will be required to consult with the Secretary of State. That will enable the Secretary of State to ensure that the board will function effectively. However, if the Secretary of State is only being consulted, then I do not think that the Secretary of State can ensure anything that I would have thought. I think that the Government signed the memorandum off, so they seem to be happy with it and have less concerns than you. That is the point that jumped out at me. Perhaps on a positive note, and also referring to paragraph 6, the first bullet point, I certainly welcome the responsibility for the approval of members of the board of MGM, being the sole responsibility of the Scottish ministers. I think that that is a very positive step. Sorry to be processed about, but I am obviously having one of these days. I gather that this is a courtesy that we are being invited to approve as a committee, rather than a legal necessity. It being that this is a memorandum of understanding between four parties of which the Scottish Parliament is one. Therefore, our deliberations will merely form part of the consideration, rather than binding on anybody. My understanding is that we will produce a short report on this, and then it will go to Parliament to be approved by Parliament. There is an approval process that we have contributed. Sorry, John. I did not formally welcome your welcoming bit on the thing, but thank you. First of all, I see that this is quite a positive move. I think that the Smith commission has rightfully recommended this. I do notice, though, that in terms of parties involved, it is DCMS, ofcom itself, the Scottish Government and then the Scottish Parliament. I guess that it is the Scottish Parliament bit that I am unsure of. If we are party to this MOU, how the Parliament itself bodies it through the committees, through the chambers, through members individually, how do we participate in this MOU as opposed to the Scottish Government ministers in Ofcom? It is part of the process for it to go in front of the Parliament, so it will go in front of the Parliament to be agreed once it is completed. In terms of the on-going relationship with Ofcom, we, for example, as a committee, will have the ability to invite Ofcom to present evidence. There is no mandate for them to attend. My understanding on that is absolutely right for the committee, and it will be this committee to ask Ofcom to come to the committee and explain how it is going. We can actually call them in here and question them on the memorandum of understanding, which I think is quite a thing that we should welcome as part of the committee. Can I echo that welcome, but point to bullet point four in paragraph six, we have the power to require that Ofcom appear. We can invite anybody, but now we will be able to require Ofcom to appear. I think that is a very welcome change, albeit in practice, I am sure that they would have been willing to come and see us anyway. I take your play on words. I always think that it is nice to invite them, even if they are required, to attend. Are there any other comments? Are members content, then, to recommend that the Parliament approves the memorandum of understanding? Thank you. That concludes consideration. We will report on the outcome of the consideration to the Parliament. A gender item four is that the committee is invited to appoint a member to serve as an EU reporter. Paragraph four of the paper outlines the role of the EU reporter. In addition, paragraph five outlines a specific role for the reporter in relation to reporting to the committee on issues that arise from the UK's exit of the EU, which are relevant to the committee's remit. I would just like to ask, because I think that it is an important role for nominations from members of anyone they think that would be appropriate to take on this role. Yes. How much support is there for someone in this role, because they cannot possibly do it themselves? No, it is absolutely important that the clerks will support the role, because it is not something that a member can take on and do themselves. They will have clerical support, and they will also have access to me at any time to help as well and to work together on it. So, yes, there is clerical support. It is my recollection that some committees actually have appointed two, possibly if you so wish. We are minded. I am quite happy with one, and I do not intend to be seeking the nomination either. I am EU reporter for the health committee. I understand your point, and let us see if there is anyone—well, is there anyone like to nominate somebody? Before we nominate, yes. In terms of the way in which this individual liaises with the European External Relations Committee, is that the primary function is to attend sessions of their committee and feedback issues that are relevant to this committee, and vice versa, or is it just the wider? Is it to work with the Brexit minister, for example, or is it quite unclear? The role is to work on issues that relate to the activities that this committee is undertaking. So, there will be specific areas that the committee undertake that that reporter will be asked to look at. It is not just to go off and do whatever they want. It is to actually work and look at things that the committee want looked at in relation to the work that they have got to undertake. So, it is a very specific role. Sorry, this is before we go to nominations. Is it any other comments before I invite nominations? I have tried it twice now. Let's see if we can get it right on the third time. Peter, would you like to nominate somebody? Yes, I would. I think that make rombos would be excellent for this role, and I would like to make Dixiton. Are there any other nominations? I haven't spoken to her, but I don't know her response. I would like to nominate Mary Evans, who has been a member of the committee of the regions and has been involved in European affairs for some time. She needs to indicate whether she is willing to accept it, which I simply don't know. I have to say that, even if this is unanimous, I don't wish to see it. At the moment, we are just... Mary, do you have a comment on that? Yes, I don't mind, because I had been thinking about it for another committee, and then I was another person to get into that. I do have an interest in Europe, and as Stewart said, I sat on the Council of Europe and have been appointed to the committee of the regions as well. I would consider it if there was support there, but I am not. I want to pet myself up against your mic. I would only want to move forward if it was unanimous. If there are people who don't have confidence in my nomination... Hold on. We're not talking about lack of confidence here. We're just looking at... There is quite a lot of work involved here, and my question to you is... I believe that the person needs to be wholeheartedly committed to it. My question is, would you be wholeheartedly committed to it? I was appointed to it. Of course I would be. I made the point earlier, and no disrespect to anyone. At the end of the day, if two people can work together in order to go forward with... I, in the health committee, am a joint EU reporter with a Tory member, so with the greatest respect, Mr Rumble, don't take it personal, and don't think that we're trying to vote you down or anything because you see a conspiracy around every corner with the greatest respect. I'm going to come straight in that. I'm sorry. I don't want those sort of conversations across the table. What I would say to you is I'm going to bring this back at the next meeting when we discuss our work programme, and I will discuss and talk to each member of the committee prior to them to identify a way forward. I please don't think that it's helpful at the moment to continue this conversation, so I'd like to suspend that item. The next item, therefore, I'm going to move on the agenda, is the decision to take business in private. That's the... Asking the committee if they'll decide to take into consideration the draft work programme and our approach to scrutiny of the draft budget of 2017-18, and it's to approach to review the legislative process for crofting in its private at its next meeting. Are we all agreed to that? Thank you. That concludes, then, today, the committee's business, and we'll meet in private to discuss the draft programme, its approach to scrutiny in the draft budget at the next meeting. I'd like to close that meeting now and take a short break before we move on to the informal briefing on digital connectivity.