 Felly, wedi bod yn gafod i ymddangos i'r 15th ymddangos cyfnodau a'r Cymru Cymru i 2017. Felly, dwi'n fawr i'ch ymddangos i'r ffotochau i'ch gaelio'r eu hyfforddiadau yn ysgolwyg. Yn oeddaf yn gwneud oedd y gwbliwyr i'r ysgolwg wedi eu gwblicio'r ysgolwg yw mynd i'r ysgolwg at agenda item 7 in private. Are members all agreed on that? Yes. That's agreed. The second item on the agenda is the seatbelts on school transport bill. Last week, the Minister of Transport and Islands sent correspondence to the committee detailing a technical issue with regard to seatbelts on school transport. This morning, we will receive an update on that issue. Welcome, Gillian Martin, member in charge of the bill. Welcome, Humza Yousaf, the Minister of Transport and the Islands. Welcome, Brendan Rooney, road safety policy officer and Ann Cairns, the legal adviser to the Scottish Government. Can I ask you please to make a short statement on the correspondence that you sent to the committee? Good morning, convener. Your emphasis has been noted. First, I would like to record my appreciation for the diligent work that the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee has undertaken in relation to this bill. Before you, you will be aware, of course, that the Scottish Government supports the legislative measures that Ms Martin has brought before the Parliament. We consider, of course, road safety to be an issue of utmost importance, particularly when considering children and young people. I have been following stage 1 considerations and the evidence sessions, and it is heartening to see the support around the committee table but also across the chamber. You will be aware that I wrote last week informing committee members that the Scottish Government has taken the view that the provisions within the bill should now be notified to the European Commission. That is done by the UK Government, of course, as the EU member state on behalf of the Scottish Government, rather than something that Ms Martin would take forward as the member in charge of the bill. We are conscious that this administrative process will have an impact on timetabling, and we will, of course, look to engage with the committee regarding this. However, subject to your agreement, I would contend that the timescale set out in my letter seems like a sensible way forward. Notifying after stage 2 considerations appears to have the least bearing on the committee's work plan and also mitigates the situation whereby significant amendments are taken, which could raise the issue whether or not there is a need to notify again. Previously, the Scottish Government had taken the legal view that notification was not necessary. Such matters, of course, always kept under consideration and under review as legislation passes through the process. The predominant reason for change was consideration of the European Court or the European Union's ruling of the municipality of Palmela case in February. That lowered the threshold considerably of notification and not notifying could risk the bill being unforceable. I thank you for the opportunity for an opening statement and, of course, I welcome any questions. I am going to start off, if I may. Is the minister aware of the law in Wales requiring seatbelts to be fitted on school transport? Yes. Can the minister confirm when that bill was passed? I have got it in writing. I will double check for you. Safety and school bus for safety in 2010. I think that it will be in 2011, but I will go with your figures if you think that way. Perhaps it had royal assent in a recommended commensure. Gillian, did you scrutinise that bill when you bought your bill forward? The Welsh bill is much wider than the bill that I am proposing. There are quite a lot of recommendations on that bill about other things, not just seatbelts, but CCTV bus monitors. I think that the compelling thing was that they were specifying the type and size of vehicles that were used as well, so that had quite a large bearing on that. It is important to mention that when nothing came back from the EU, when it made that submission for the European Union, there was nothing came back from the EU when it put that notification in. The Welsh aspect of things was something that we looked at in terms of the precedent for seatbelts, but we were not going down the route of all those other measures. That was one of the reasons why it was not considered necessary. It was quite clear from looking at the Welsh process that, very early on in the process, they worked out that the European Commission would be needed regarding seatbelts. I am totally confused what made the Scottish Government, and indeed you, as the member in charge of the bill, believe that it would not have to go to the European Commission. I am confused with your answer, and I am not clear why you thought that that would not be the case. As you will know, when you take a member's bill forward, you take your advice from the Scottish Government's legal department. It might be a good idea to ask and to come in to explain why they did not deem it necessary at that point for us to get that European Commission. It appears that the minister wants to jump in with some advice on that. No, I will also defer to Ann, of course, from the Scottish Government legal department, and to correct myself on the record, too. You are of course right. The notification of the bill from the Welsh Government went in 2010, but you are absolutely right in terms of the bill being 2011, so if I can just correct myself on that. Just to add weight to what the member has said, it would be wrong to think of the Welsh bill simply as a seatbelts bill. There were other things in that bill, the provision for the description of vehicles, the recording of visual images or sound, i.e. CCTV, driver training, safety risk assessments of learner transport, so the directive itself looks at whether the other requirements on a product, in this case a bus, would they significantly influence the composition or nature of the product or its marketing? The legal department of the Scottish Government did not deem that Ms Martin's bill would significantly alter the composition of the product, in this case a bus, whereas the Welsh bill, which is much wider in scope, not just seatbelts, would be incorrect to assume that it is just about seatbelts. It is also about the other things that I have mentioned and some things that I have not mentioned in the bill. Therefore, it chose to notify the narrow, singular issue scope of Ms Martin's bill. The SGLD did not feel that it needed to notify, but the game changer, a predominant reason why that changed, of course, was the municipality of Pirmellacace in February of this year. The European Union court rulings come out, and they will often have effect on legislation that is going through the legislative process. That is why it is kept under review. Perhaps the Scottish Government is not going to come in to expand in the case of... Before Ann comes in, I think that Raydon wants to ask a question. It might be appropriate to bring Ann Ann after that. I am slightly confused because when we were taking evidence on the bill, one of the things that we were looking at was whether the UK Government was going to implement the EU directive about bus safety, and that would have superseded the need for this bill. It seems to me that Europe has already put out a directive on the issue, suggesting that seat belts should be on buses. Now you are saying that we have to go back to Europe and check what we are doing is okay. It seems very circular to me. Surely if they are saying that we should be doing this, they do not need to sign off that we are actually doing it. Ann, do you want to come in at that stage? To answer your question, it is two separate directives. The directive that we were talking about on 26 April is the seat belts directive about the safety equipment that is fitted to vehicles. That is the technical standards directive. The technical standards directive is more related to the principle of the free movement of goods in the common market. Essentially what it is about is that if you are going to be imposing technical specifications that might have an impact on the free movement of goods across the EU, you are supposed to notify the European Commission, so it is two completely separate issues. Stuart, do you want to come in? I just wanted to check a couple of things. I have got the court decision in front of me here. It is clear that the decision was referred to by a Portuguese court to the technical standards in relation to a play park in Palmela. Specifically, the thing that seems to be important is that they have changed the game in their decision by broadening the reach to include technical standards. My key question is, in relation to the 18 councils that have already placed a contract requiring essentially what we are going to require other councils to, are they, if we do not refer this to Europe, now at risk of the European Union taking action against them because technical standards permission was not given because the rules have changed. I note too that Palmela will find 10,000 euros and 100 euros costs, so why not devastating it? It would have financial implications so that there is a wider advantage. It seems to me that I would seek confirmation in protecting the 18 councils if we make this reference with this significantly tighter interpretation of the 1983 regulations that the European Union has had. Do you want to go straight to it, Ann, on that? It sounds like a legal question, which Gillian, I am not sure that you want to answer, but Ann. In relation to the 18 councils, I think that the answer is no because what the technical standards directive is about is if member states are proposing new legislative measures that might introduce a new technical regulation as it is defined in the directive, they have to notify the commission. The Palmela judgment will not have an impact on our councils here because our measure is just at the notifiable stage at this moment. It is just a draft at this moment. Can I go back on that before you come in, minister? I am a little bit confused by that answer. You say that it is a draft, but the councils surely have written it into their contracts that it is a requirement. Therefore, are they breached the law? Yes or no, I think is the question. The answer to that would be no because the technical standards directive would not catch. It is not about contracts, it is about government legislative measures, the laws of the land, as it were. It can be wider than that, but it is not about private contracts. To ask about clarification from Anne, I suspect that other members will also know that local authorities would probably also engage their own legal directorates and legal departments, as well as potentially COSLA to look at such issues. One would assume. Can I bring in John and then maybe come back to you if I may? A slightly different angle if I may, convener. In one sense, the need for this bill is reducing because gradually more and more authorities are taking part anyway. We had 18 originally. We have a commitment from SPT that all the Strathclyde ones will be complying this year. We are talking about a further three-month delay because of those measures. My question would be, do we really still need to go ahead with this legislation? I would like to answer that. Originally, when we put forward the timescale for this bill, it would have been by the end of this year. We had discussions with ourselves and your clerks about your work programme. There was an agreement, if you remember, that we would bring it forward so that we would get it through earlier so that you could have time to scrutinise it before your work programme became quite onerous. I suppose that you could call it a delay. Possibly I would like to think of going back to the original timetable. I think that Mr Yousaf was right that we would be able to get through to stage 2 without any difficulty, and then there would be a break until stage 3 where we get this notification organised. I do not think that there will be any issues about the notification itself. It is important to mention that it is erring on the side of caution, and that is the advice that we have been given. It is because of the palmera ruling that it is a prudent idea for us to take that forward so that we do not get into difficulty later on. Jamie Halcro Johnston Given that the proposed bill does not include any technical specifications or parameters, I am failing to understand the link between the EU directive that is causing any hold-up and this Parliament progressing that. Secondly, does the member feel any frustration that this process has been moving positively but seems to have stalled as a result of onerous or unhelpful EU directives? Jamie Halcro Johnston I think that we will do with the first question first, if I may. Is that something that Anne or minister are you going to pick up on that? Anne Yousaf In terms of the directives of technical regulations, they are notifiable to the commission. There are basically three-year limbs to the test for what is a technical regulation. You are right that technical specifications are one of them. What is known as an other requirement is the second and the third is a prohibition of use and this would fall within the other requirement category. Jamie Halcro Johnston I bring you in on the delay. Anne Yousaf I want this legislation to be watertight. If going to the EU with a notification means that it is absolutely watertight, then I do not think that I have any frustration about whether I want the bill to go through the proper channels. The fact that it has been flagged up now quite quickly after the Palmella ruling, not frustration to me, I am glad that it has happened so that we can make sure that there is not going to be any issues later on. I am going to move to Mike. I am trying to get witnesses to give us up-to-date information on the number of councils that are moving towards contractual arrangements for this role on a legal basis. The Scottish Government has come back and said, to the points that I raised at the last meeting, that, again, 18 local authorities have stipulated their contracts on a further six, but that was the same information that we had three months ago. When we had the council officials in here, they gave us the impression that everybody, all the councils, are moving to this. Considering that the bill is not going to take effect for secondary schools until 2021, my question is a very simple one. Have we got enough information about how many councils are about to put this into their contractual arrangements? To me it fundamentally hits whether we actually need the legislation or not. What is the point of passing a legislation law if everybody is doing it anyway? Ms Martin picked up on the substance. It is her bill that she is taking forward. I suppose that I will address a couple of points. I will look again at the information that we have from councils and make sure that Mr Rumbull receives the most up-to-date. He will be aware of course of local authority elections. I do not know whether that would have any bearing, possibly not, I would think. Let's go back on the aftermath of those elections and go back round the councils and the 32 local authorities and see if there has been any change and get you the most up-to-date information. I suppose that the second point that I would make, and then of course defer over to Ms Martin if appropriate, is that although councils are doing it now, it is important to future proof as well. We know that there can be changes in administration, cost-curring exercises and whatever else. There could be 101 different reasons why. I think that it would be deeply unpopular, of course, if a council reneged on this and chose not to put it in a contract that they had in a contract previously. We do have to future proof in that. That is where the legislation can be important. I suppose that it goes back to Mr Mason's point. If it is 18, if it is 20, if it is 25 councils, however many, even if it is all 32, do we have a guarantee that that is future proof? No. This legislation hopefully gives some of that, but I am happy to pass over to Ms Martin. My concern is what I said when I came in front of the committee is that I want all children going to school in Scotland to have the same safety standards that my children have in Aberdeenshire. That is why I took this bill forward. I do not think that we can leave it to the individual timetables of any particular council. I want this to go forward. We are calling it the delay, but the commencement of this bill was always going to be in 2018. A three-month delay in taking it to stage 3 really is not going to impact that on that very much. Can I just follow that? Yes. Yes, 18 for primary but 20-21 for secondary schools, isn't it? Yes. That is what is four years away. I would imagine that you would be feeling, if I may say so, very proud of the fact that your bill has initiated action from all the 32 councils if all 32 councils are doing it. I would have thought that that would be a very good thing to have done. I am just questioning whether we actually need to follow through the legislation if they are all doing it. I am not saying what you have done so far. What I am trying to say is that what you have done so far is admirable. We are all supportive of the thrust, but I am just concerned that, if we spend time putting this into legislation, what is the point of spending time putting this into legislation if they are all going to do it? I agree with the minister that it would be ridiculous for councils to backtrack on their contracts. However, there is no guarantee that every local authority will do it if it is not putting it into law. I do not think that there are any other questions. I think that it is laudable that you will say keen on ensuring that this is 100 per cent correct. I guess that from the committee we were somewhat surprised to see that this was being referred back where belt embraces would have suggested that it should have gone straight to the EU at the outset. However, the committee will consider the evidence that it is heard today and will come back to you, Gillian, and to the minister on what it decides to do as far as taking the bill forward or waiting to the results of the EU. I would like to thank you all for coming to give evidence to the committee and I will briefly suspend the meeting while we have a moment to change witnesses. Thank you. I am now reconvening the meeting to move on to agenda item 3 on the agenda, which is an update on the common agricultural policy payments review. I would like to welcome the cabinet secretary for the rural economy and connectivity, Mr Ewing. I would also like to welcome Eleanor Mitchell, the director of agriculture and rural communities. I would like to welcome Annabelle Terpy, the chief operating officer of rural payments and I would also like to welcome Eddie Turnbull, the head of agricultural and rural communities information systems at the Scottish Government. We are limited for time and I notified the cabinet secretary's office yesterday that we would move straight on to questions. Before we do, I would like to point out that the committee have received a copy of the executive summary of a report by a third party into the CAP IT position. This is the second time the committee have received from the Scottish Government an executive summary without sight of the full report. I would like to go on record that whilst I am convener, I find that that is to be unacceptable and in future any executive summaries that are submitted must be submitted with the whole report. The report came with certain caveats which I strongly feel limit our ability to question the cabinet secretary and his team and on that basis I was minded not to accept it. However, the committee have been circulated with a copy of the papers that were released to us and as a matter of courtesy please can I ask you cabinet secretary and your officials now to summarise the contents of those papers for the official record and that is set out at the basis that the committee may question you on them. Good morning members. I am very happy to be here. I would have preferred the opportunity to make an opening statement. I think that that perhaps would have helped to set things in context. I can assure you that we have provided as much information at every point to the committee. More so than I can recall providing any other committee in any of the other ministerial responsibilities that I have had over the past 10 years. Moreover, it would have been a courteous had you alerted me two years' concerns earlier in which case I would have fully investigated them. You have chosen not to do so and mentioned them now but I am happy to pass to Eddie Turnbull who has been handling this particular matter. He can fill the committee in on the information that we have provided the committee and I believe that we did so as soon as we were able to do so. You have in front of you the executive summary the key conclusions and findings from the review. To answer your particular point about the full report not being available at this time, it is in a draft form in the sense that we still have to agree with our prime supplier a number of the details that are in the report. From our point of view, the report covers all the ground that we desired it to. It was an independent review undertaken with full sight of our prime supplier but only last night did I receive the detail of the response from the supplier that enables us to work in partnership to develop a plan around the detail of the report. The detail of the report is such that there will have to be some negotiation with the supplier in terms of the medial action that is going to be necessary and we still have to have that discussion. Until we have bottomed out a number of those issues, it would not be the right time to have released the whole report given that there was still some concern or dispute around some of the finer detail. You have not summarised the executive summary which is what I think I will say. My apologies then. I was addressing your point about release first. In terms of the summary, there are two things I should say. It addresses the platform that we now have and issues with that platform. In other words, the IT system that has been developed addresses issues that we have in terms of sustainability going forward. That is covered in the report and in the high-level summary. Secondly, it addresses some of the issues that we have to look at regarding the processes that we use to develop code that we add to the platform as well as addressing some issues that we have to look at regarding how we support the platform and make sure that it is available at the times that are required going forward. In other words, to make sure that it is resilient, reliable and flexible moving into the future. Is that an adequate summary in terms of that? I can step through if the committee would desire each of the items. I think that the committee will definitely ask you to drill down into specific areas that the executive summary outlines. I am happy to do that. I am sure that they will be asking you as well as to when the draft of the report becomes a final report and when that final report and the executive summary are made available to the general public because I think that that will be critical in how we take this forward. Maybe I could start off with three very simple questions, which, if I may, I would direct at the cabinet secretary. Do you think, cabinet secretary, that the executive summary accurately reflects the contents of the report? We have just heard that the report is in the course of being finalised, and I can also say that some of the content of the report is commercially sensitive, and to disclose details of that would risk imperiling further negotiations that are carrying on. Those are not unfamiliar matters. To answer your question directly, I am satisfied that the summary report accurately summarises the main contents and, in a broad sense, the conclusions of the report. If we want to go on to the actual facts of the matter and move away from wrangling over about procedures, particularly since I was not made aware that there was an issue about this prior to this committee meeting, because had I been made aware, convener, by you or your clerks, I would most certainly have had the opportunity and would have used that opportunity to investigate those matters myself, but I, with respect, have not been afforded that opportunity. Cabinet secretary, please. I think that it is up to the committee to decide on the questioning, and I do not think that it is helpful to anyone around this table if we try and move away from the subject area. I have asked my first question, and on the second question that I have, and I have one more after this, is on the basis of the executive summary, do you have confidence in the IT contractor and their ability to solve the problems that have been highlighted? I do have confidence that the IT contractors working with us are making significant progress to deal with what is one of the most complex operations there are, which IT is required to deploy. If we look at the executive summary findings, which I think is perhaps useful, we will see and I summarise the summary that they conclude. This is an entirely independent report from Fujitsu that the architecture is fundamentally sound. The infrastructure components are sound. There is no recommendation to replace the RPS platform. The recommendation is rather for necessary remediation action. That confirms our fundamental view that the IT is fundamentally sound, but it is the detail of application of designing coding and dealing with the various drop processes that my colleagues and my officials can describe that has caused the difficulty, which has led to the fact of the inherent complexities that the system is designed to do. I think that it is helpful to... Before we go on to that, Cabinet Secretary, I may ask a specific question. You have said that you do have confidence in the IT contractor. I would like to move on to my third question before I open it up to the committee. On the basis of the executive summary, do you have confidence in those who are managing the contract on behalf of the Scottish Government and move the contract forward to make it fit for purpose? Yes, I do. I do because we have made significant progress and I hope that we will have an opportunity to get on to the substance of that and describe that progress. The reason that I have confidence is that I have got in a boot it. I have not sat in my office waiting for things to happen. I have taken a series of steps of action since I became Cabinet Secretary. We have here, and I have not really had the opportunity to introduce them, Pachy an opening statement, Eleanor Mitchell, Annabelle Terpe and Eddie Turnbull, they have joined the team. They have strengthened the team. We have many other people at Soft and House, new people who have brought new energy and vigor. I have myself communicated directly with the heads of the RPID offices. I have met the staff. I have met several occasions and this is extremely important, convener, Steve Thorne, the chief executive of CGI. I did so most recently a couple of weeks ago and I asked him point blank, are you putting your best people on this? He said, yes, we are. This is a priority for us. Now, I am working in collaboration with our contractor CGI on what is a very difficult task and we are making significant progress. We are making significant progress in the application of the technology to the basic application process. SAF 17 is much better than SAF 16. I hope to have the opportunity to describe the progress we are making with the basic payments. Just this morning, Annabelle Terpe will be able to give details about further progress, about further payments that are getting out the door in the course of the next few days and weeks. The answer is yes. In my position, I fully accept responsibility, the buck stops with me and that is why I have gotten about it, I have dealt with the company, I have confidence in the ability of the company. The difficulty here, if we wish to be dispassionate about this, is that this is quite simply one of the most complex tasks there has been with 4 million hectares, several hundred thousand fields, a far more complex system under the new cap reform and, of course, incorporating many things which industry wanted, including the regionalisation of land. We have also added welcome additions, such as provision for new entrants, which was not there in the past. All of those things add to the complexity and I hope that we can get into the nitty gritty of the significant progress that we have been making whilst challenges remain. My opening statement in another means, is that we have not hesitated under my leadership to devise payment schemes called loan schemes, although there is no interest unless there is a default in repayment of any surplus that does not arise except in very few cases. We have paid those schemes last year, we are paying one this year and, of course, if we require to do that in future, if that proves to be necessary, then I will not hesitate to go to Cabinet and seek payment. The priority for me is that farmers and crofters get their money, that is the task that I am doing. Okay, thank you Cabinet Secretary. I have to say that having had sight of the executive summary, I have to say that as a businessman and as a farmer, which everyone on this committee knows that I have an interest in farming and I am formally declaring it now, and I would ask if anyone else who has an interest declared before they asked a question that I would struggle to understand how what is described in that report will become fit for purpose. The first question is going to come from Mr Finnie, and then we are going to move on. Thank you, convener. Good morning, Cabinet Secretary. In part it has been touched on, perhaps I could get the Cabinet Secretary to expand. The committee has been sent this executive summary of the findings of the technical assessment review and we have been requested not to make this public as it is commercially sensitive. Can you expand on why the Scottish Government felt that it was necessary to make that specific request, please? I am certainly very happy to do so. The report, including the summary report, is commercially sensitive, since it has sensitive commercial data related to current live contracts and describes in detail a series of areas to address and associated improvement actions that will require to be agreed and negotiated with the main supplier. Those negotiations have only just started and could be prejudiced by wider circulation at this point in time. This is a fairly routine matter and I know that members of this committee are aware of that. Perhaps I could ask Eleanor Mitchell if she wants to add anything to that. The only other thing I would add to that to the commercial sensitivity point is that this was an independent technical assessment of an IT system and it is identified, firstly, that the underlying architecture is sound, but there are a number of defects in the system, which they call the level of technical debt in the system. One of the things that I would worry about in terms of making the information more public at this stage, possibly over a longer period, but certainly at this stage, is that they do reveal some vulnerabilities in the IT system, which could potentially mean that it would be vulnerable to cyberattack and that would be completely, obviously, unacceptable. Two very small supplementaries, one to the cabinet secretary. Cabinet secretary, you know our function here is to scrutinise and grateful for your assistance in us doing that. Would you understand that, given that people around the table are aware of the content of this, the sensitivity stamp that is on it inhibits our ability to scrutinise? Well, I accept that, as the convener has indicated, you prefer the complete report and we would prefer to provide a complete report, but I hope that I have given very straightforward and candid reasons as to why we cannot do it. So I would accept that if you do not receive all the documents, it does prevent you from seeing their whole contents. I am not actually convinced that it would make a great deal of difference because the Executive Summary does really share the main conclusions, convener, with respect, but I think that, in principle, Mr Finnie makes a perfectly reasonable point and one where I and his shoes I would probably be making myself. OK, thank you very much. Finally, to Mr Turnbull. If I noted you correctly, Mr Turnbull used the term the reports in draft form. Without playing in words then, so this is a summary of something that is in draft or is this a draft Executive Summary? Right. This report has been accepted in terms of deliverable by the review team, by Fujitsu. In that sense, the governance that sits within our organisation recognised that they had completed their work. It was then shared with the supplier in its form in that form as being the basis for us to move forward in partnership with them to make the improvements. They have raised some issues with not the overall findings of the reports. That stands. The conclusions and recommendations absolutely stand. When Cabinet Secretary met Steve Thorne, he was forceful in getting that assurance from CGI that they recognised the conclusions within the report, but they have raised some points of detail in the report, and some of those points of detail will necessarily need us to debate as to who should take on the responsibility of taking some remedial action. I hope that that is a point of negotiation. John, do you want to come back on that? It is fundamentally to understand the customer-client relationship here, because I do not know if I get a tradesman in to do something in my house. I am in charge. The public sector has always had challenges. I am told that even the commercial sector has challenges with IT contracts given the nature. Are you content that the Scottish Government is in charge of this situation? Yes, absolutely. The report was commissioned jointly by me and by the office of the CIO within the Scottish Government. It is a report delivered to us that enables us to take decisions on how we move forward with the platform that is being delivered and us to take decisions on how we work with that contractor in order to take the remedial action that is necessary to ensure that we have a sustainable system going forward. As the cabinet secretary has mentioned we have a system that is making payments at the moment. The fundamental finding from this is that the platform is sound but what needs to be undertaken to fix points. John, if it is a yes or no answer I am very happy to allow it. It is a yes. Are there any contractual penalties that are associated with the situation that we are in at the moment? The contract has provisions within it on that basis but other than that it is all commercially sensitive. Many thanks for your help. Richard. Before I ask you my main question I can ask you a couple of questions in regard to company confidentiality. Now I used to work for the Royal Bank of Scotland. People sitting around this table work for companies. Why was not this report marked not for publication top secret or not to be because some people are getting upset because it came to us only in part form and are upset that it has not been put down whilst you are saying that it is confidential there is nothing on that paper that says that it is confidential. We consider the security marking in the document. It remains commercial in confidence but I will take the report. I will take advice from our chief information officer. Officially, with a great respect Ms Mitchell, official sensitive commercial is not good enough. I could scam over that quite easily if there was a big stamp up there that said not for publication. Richard, please do not hold your hand up to me. I am very happy that you have made your point there. Could I ask you please to move on? I think that we are all getting upset this morning and I am feeling very upset with some of the way this committee is going. Anyway, Cabinet Secretary, can you provide me with an overview of the types of issues you have said some points but raising the review types of issues, raising the review and say what has been done to addresses? The fundamental duty Mr Lyle is to ensure that farmers and crofters are in receipt of the payments that they are due under pillar 1 and pillar 2 and the completion of this function remains the top priority for me as Cabinet Secretary. The basic payments have to be made in a window which opens in December and shuts in the 30th of June. It is my belief that the vast majority of those basic payments will be made within that window. I am happy that McAnabelle-Turpee is armed with details of that although we have on a weekly basis supplied the committee with this information. My job essentially is to ensure that the difficulty is the challenges with the IT system are overcome and overcome with the vigor of a new team with the full co-operation of excellent staff at the arpit offices throughout the country and the contractor with whom I work in collaboration and very closely indeed. That is kind of an overview and the other main aspect is as well as ensuring that significant progress is made and it is being made because the system is operating and there are fewer IT fixes for example required and my officials can go into the technicalities as well as that because we are aware that these difficulties have caused actual prejudice to farmers and crofters we have instituted loan schemes and I was pleased that that was done by my predecessor last year and done by myself this year particularly pleased that the efficient dispatch of the loan scheme in the first fortnight of November allowed the majority of payments to farmers under pillar 1 to be made to the majority of farmers earlier than historically would have been made i.e. in the first part of November as opposed to December and I reiterate that should it prove necessary to use these schemes again in future in order to ensure that the vast majority of money due to our farms and crofters into the rural economy played it's absolutely vital then that's something that I shall go to cabinet to seek approval for without hesitation and I have to say that I've enjoyed the total co-operation and support of both the First Minister, the finance secretary and every single one of my cabinet colleagues so we are acutely conscious this is a real problem but the overview I'm giving is that we are devoting resources to it and I do have faith in the bona fides and skills of the people that are working both for us and for the company and I think it's good that I have an opportunity to say so and to thank people like Lindsay McGranigan for example who has provided excellent support I think it's really worthwhile to give a praise to people who are doing a good job not just to castigate people thank you very much for your comments on the payments and we'll be coming into those in the second session I think we're trying to concentrate specifically on the report and I'd like to come back to Richard to try and drill down into that before I bring other members of the committee in you know at the end of the day we're seeing we're fixing it it's going to be fixed so really from now on with the greatest respect to you you shouldn't need to go back to the cabinet a standby system if it ever is needed but basically if we're fixing this now we should be able to press a button the next time that people are entitled to a payment and everything should go swimmingly out the door people should get their checks and everybody should be satisfied yes or no well of course that's the optimal that is what we aim for but if we are not able to provide that to 100% then it is sensible to take the prudent and practical measures of loan schemes and that is the approach that the time taking Eleanor did you want to add to that? I want to make a few points if that's all right to the committee I'm very happy to take the points on the payments later if I may this is specifically on the computer but the overriding point I wanted to make is that the system of delivering payments to farmers and crofters isn't just about IT the degree to which we have we make manual interventions and make manual payments in some schemes is significant and I suppose I just wanted to put in some context I mean I've been in post for seven months now and the work I've been doing over the last seven months with the team has been focused on resourcing the cabinet secretary mentioned that Annabelle and Eddie are new the majority of the senior management team are now new we have in place a resourcing plan the organisation of where we have skills gaps in Audit and Finance in some IT areas so we have a clear resourcing plan to make sure that we've got the people in place that we need to do the job in hand I've focused time and attention on working in a relationship with our delivery partners alongside the cabinet secretary I meet with colleagues I meet with people in CGI regularly we now have a changed and enhanced a significant enhanced management team in Sortun House on a daily basis working on the system, working with us and making sure that we can get payments out in time we've been working on knowledge transfer the CAP IT futures programme closed as planned at the end of March we have a detailed Eddie has a detailed transition plan in place to make sure that we can make the transition from having a system that is largely developed by an IT contractor to one that is maintained in house we've been working on disaster recovery at a technical level and also on a business level we've been working on the governance of the organisation to make sure that the decisions about when the system is what we need to do to the system how we governance arrangements around that they've been overhauled and we've been looking at our overall approach to delivery recognising that the delivery system is much more than just an IT system so we're looking at how we get the system to work the way we want it to work looking at what matters to us in terms of the delivery to deliver the CAP and in the future Annabelle in particular has been making huge strides in making sure that we absolutely understand the end-to-end processing from the moment the payments come through the door to the moment the payments can be made we understand what needs to be done and I couldn't stress enough like the cabinet secretary I've been out and about around the area offices the amount of time that staff in area offices spend with farmers, with applicants with the applications looking at applications sorting out issues real manual processes so I couldn't stress enough the importance of looking at the business looking at the business process not just the IT system because if we just look at the IT system we will fundamentally fail in our task of making sure we're delivering a comprehensive support system to farmers Can I just remind everyone please at the moment we're trying to focus in on this before we get into the second area of payments so I'm going to move on if I may to Peter wants to come in on specifically on the executive summary of the report please Thank you convener and I obviously have to declare an interest as being a partner in a farming business in Aberdeenshire I mean this is difficult for the committee to deal with because we are told that we can't quote directly from this survey but it is our duty to scrutinise the cabinet secretary and that is exactly what I intend to do and no matter how he tries to spin it this is a highly critical report and it's obvious to the most casual observer that this system is a long way off being fit for purpose and needs a lot of work and needs quite a bit of money to get anywhere near to being compliant and that's no surprise to me because we know that it can't get the money out in time you know we wouldn't have had to have an elfast loan scheme in place if this system was working and it has to be said that this debacle is on the back of profit figures in agriculture that are the worst for years profit figures down 48% in one year and down 75% in five years to unsustainable levels cabinet secretary you came into this job a year ago and said that you were going to fix this system a year on it's quite plain you have failed my question is when will this system be compliant which money will it take to get it to be compliant the system is being fixed last year it has delivered 99.9% of the pillar one payments 99.9% is not a fail it is a pass 99.9% is the proportion of the payments made last year the difficulty with the system convener is ensuring that it operates in compliance with the timelines and the exacting requirements of the EU disallowance and penalty system coupled with the fact that we are dealing with 4 million hectares of land classified into three areas and we have a plethora of schemes under the reform CAP now if Mr Chapman we had been at 70% of the pillar one payments last year we would be with you but we are not and I think it would help if we could just look at some of the the actual performance that we have achieved and I fully accept that there is more work to be done to be fixed but we're not dealing with a washing machine here we're not dealing with a car we're dealing with one of the most complex IT systems there is and therefore comparisons of that of that nature I think it would be helpful if we could have a little more information perhaps from Ms Tuppy about the actual performance and the actual facts that we have achieved using the system if I may because that goes directly to the point that answering Mr Chapman's point I'd ask you all just to wait please I'm trying deliberately to keep this very focused if I may on the executive summary of the report there are lots of questions coming up on payments and the payments so I'm trying to work out I want to keep if I may this focused on the report so if we can keep it to the report I'm very happy to try to assist the committee that's why I'm accommodating the committee in the request that we deal with this matter here now rather than later what I'm not quite sure maybe we can just clarify is that my understanding was 38 so I'm wondering how we're going to complete the business in the time that I was told was allocated to it but there does seem to be a communication problem between my office and yours in this regard Cabinet Secretary the timing and the way the committee works and the time management of the committee rests with me, not with you I will do my utmost it is very important that the most as you know as a well-experienced parliamentarian that the committee holds the government and people to account and take evidence so that it is put on the public record that is one of the most important roles and if the committee needs time to do that I'm afraid the committee must have time to do that I'm just asking for clarity as a matter of fact because I was told that I'm entirely excited what you say can mean I'm not in any way challenging it but I was told that we were to deal with small land holdings issues at 11 o'clock and it's now 10.39 that's my only point or has there been some other plan communicated of which I'm unaware the times are indicative I would ask if we could Annabelle if you could move on please and try to answer specifically within the report that would be for Mr Turnbull to address the point and restate the system has made payments it has made payments as described for 2015 by the time required the system is currently making payments and Annabelle can give you the most up-to-date information on that what the report says and let me restate what I think I said at the last meeting that I now own this system so I can give you every assurance that if I didn't think it was going to make the journey I wouldn't get in the car truly or I would insist on a different car but what we have is a vehicle is a system that we are saying is fundamentally sound but to be sustainable and to make that journey that we need to make over the next not just this year but future years I have to ensure that remedial action is taken to ensure that it's sustainable that it's flexible and it can meet the needs of the rural community for whatever schemes that we think are devised to make improvements for that community so that's been my the ask of me and that's why I have commissioned this report it has brought out areas of remedial action but fundamentally the report has given me some assurance personally that what we have invested in is not to be thrown away but is worth further a very short follow-up from Peter before we move on to Mike and then Jamie it's basically the same questions you've given us a long answer and you haven't answered but I asked when will the system be compliant because it isn't at the moment and when and how much money do you reckon it will need to get there that was my two questions you haven't answered either of them in my opinion the question on compliance I would argue that the system isn't delivering a cap compliance system but we have the most recent audit we had on the certified body as Scotland is a paying agency the accounts were agreed and signed off and went forward with the rest of the UK member states account there was some comments made on the management statement that I provided on areas that they wanted us to tighten up but that says to me that the system in processing we use and it isn't just about the IT as I said before it's about the whole system that we have is currently cap compliant because it wasn't we were being told you're saying it is compliant then even though this is a critical report saying there's many many problems still in there but you're saying it's compliant I don't buy that to be honest what I'm saying is we have delivered a cap compliant system and it's a mix of that's why it's important for me to look not just at the IT elements of it but at the whole system, the business processing including what we have delivered 2015 we delivered a cap compliant system clearly there will be other we continue in an audit process but we are I am sure that what we have done is delivered cap compliance okay thank you Peter I'm going to have to move on to Mike it might be a cap compliant system but the IT system is what we're looking at is not and I find it astonishing that the minister should say that it isn't a failed IT system that has passed Audit Scotland and was mentioning £178 million so my question is this on the report that we have got before us which we cannot specifically refer to because I think it's a devastating report my question is how many deliberate shortcuts in quality assurance and governance practices were taken by this failed computer delivery programme of the cap payments so how many deliberate shortcuts were there and what were the main ones is that a question to Eddie or is yeah it's for me so in terms of enumerating every single shortcut I think that that would be difficult what was the main ones the main issue has been in terms of and I wouldn't say it's shortcut it's probably better referred to no give me a chance to reply it's better referred to not following industry best practice and that is what the report calls out for example it notes that code was developed to meet functionality but it was not documented in the way that one would expect it to be documented for future sustainability so there's something that is highlighted in the report so we have codified lines of code in there that are therefore difficult to interpret for someone that has to come along afterwards and enhance that piece of functionality so that's an obvious call out secondly in terms of the architectural design of the system it was moved ahead based on decisions at the time without again bringing the architectural documentation again up to date with it which again gives you the legacy problem of when we come to enhance the system to add functionality we are not referring to the most up-to-date architectural description so that gives you some examples in other words not following industry best practice at the time to create something that would be sustainable going forward Mike I'm going to allow you one follow back and I'm sure it will be on numbers Mr Turnbull said that I was wrong to use the term shortcuts I'm trying to use a term that many quality assurance and government practices have been knowingly sacrificed would you agree with that? The report calls that out in both we and the contractor agree with the assessment but there is degrees in this and I've tried to describe what the report also says and I hope you have picked that up is that there has been improvement we are suffering from I guess the not falling industry standard perhaps at the beginning but over the last period let's say the last 68 months that we have been adopting best practice in the work that we've been doing since then I think I'm going to leave that there if I may and move on to Jamie because I've got a question after that from the deputy convener let's see how we go for time Thank you convener I think just moving things forward before I turn this into a full blown audit of the IT system we could be here all day given that there were shortcuts taken will the IT system be able to cope with future changes to payment systems for example in a post-Brexit environment or any other changes that the government makes is there a capability to do that and will it be expensive? If I can pick that up to start and then pass on to Eddie notwithstanding what is in the Fujitsu report which talks about a sound underlying architecture with a number of issues system defects that need to be fixed we have undertaken a piece of work we believe we've built something that is we've created a set of assets in the future there is a set of rules in there which are currently set to the EU rules around the cap but those rules could be changed relatively simply but they could be changed we have a map of Scotland the mapping of Scotland that we have undertaken which will be part of the Lippus which will be part of the Futures programme is a degree of accuracy that is actually unprecedented in terms of the land mapping that we have done so I think what we have built is the foundations and it needs a lot of work and everyone is recognising that but we have built the foundations of a system that will allow us gives us a capacity to do with significant potential policy change in the future and will it be expensive as a second part we would have to scope that out okay I'll move on Jenny everyone else had the chance to ask questions I'm trying to manage time witnesses repeatedly used the phrase the architectures fundamentally sound we can't quote from this report it's a seven page report those are the only positive words in the report to be frank it's an absolute damning indictment of this entire IT system what confidence can Scottish farmers have that this system will be fit for purpose at a time when it was meant to be delivered because I have absolutely no confidence in it right now I don't think that that reflects the contents of the report I mean the first summary finding is as Mr Greene says is the architectures fundamentally sound and he says that's the only positive thing it says however the next sentence says there's no pressing need to replace core components sorry I'm struck hold on sorry I'm trying to answer the question I'm absolutely going to give you the chance to ask I'm absolutely going to give you the chance to answer the question I'm just concerned considering the highlighting on the front of this that people are beginning to quote the report which we were specifically not asked to do Cabinet Secretary please go ahead but I'm just trying to remind committee members that we were told not to quote from the report that's up to the Cabinet Secretary Cabinet Secretary please continue I think the report finds that the architecture is fundamentally sound but also states that the components are fundamentally sound and that it does not recommend that the system be replaced and I accept of course there are matters that require to be remediated of course there are if there weren't we wouldn't be having the difficulties that we are having but bear in mind that this report was commissioned by us from a firm of independent experts in the industry to ascertain whether or not we did require to think again with an entirely new approach that was the fundamental reason why I commissioned this report with colleagues in government and it's entirely up to Fujitsu I had no discussion with Fujitsu about how to go about their work as Mr Turnbull said it was entirely independent and their fundamental conclusion is that yes the system is sound but a lot of remediation work is required so as Cabinet Secretary what do I do about that is not go to a plan B when none is required when independent experts have said that the system is fundamentally sound but to deal with remediation which is what we're doing in any event and therefore this report which is essentially of a technical nature has been useful to us to help us identify what further areas we need to focus on and therefore I think represents value for money and where we to stay in cap and I hope we stay in the EU then this system does provide us with a digitised map of the Scotland land holdings for agriculture which can be used for many many years to come and would therefore prove to be as it was intended to be an investment to administer rural payments not just until April 219 the date of Brexit the UK wish but for many years thereafter and that was the basis and the IT system was made Right, I'd like I know Jamie you don't feel that you've had a satisfactory answer but I'd like to get Radar in and then very briefly Gail at the end if I may please Radar a very short question I've cut it down as short as I can the system is not resilient or reliable that's what we've been told and one of the reasons for that is that the coding wasn't mapped of the original system therefore changes are being made on top of coding and is totally unaware of can you go back and map the original coding so that everyone knows what is in the system and if not can you ever guarantee it's going to be resilient and reliable Eddie and if I could ask you please to be as brief as possible I'd appreciate it I can assure you that is exactly the root cause analysis that we're doing around the code the proposed approach to this release we will go right down to the detail of the code that supports it we will document it we will make sure that that is resilient and that that is constructed in a way that serves the future needs and we will do that on the basis of prioritising what areas we look at with regard to the code some code is used very very infrequently some of the rule sets are highly complicated and are fundamental to the way that the platform makes decisions basically around claims so we will focus on the priority areas and work has been on-going on that actually since I arrived in the office thank you Gail you have a question I do yes just quickly the executive summary is commercially sensitive and you can see from this morning the difficulties of not being selective quoting people taking their own opinions from the executive summary itself you say that the reports in draft form when will it be made publicly available we have to work with the supplier as I said earlier if you recall we only got the response the detail response back from the supplier last night I'll need to consider that with the supplier but my intention would be to work through this as a matter of priority and therefore be in a position to share more fully the findings after we've had that discussion I don't want to put an absolute time on it because it depends where those discussions take us I appreciate that this is frustrating for members and I want to make it clear that it was my decision that the committee be provided with this executive summary today precisely because I felt that if I did not do so then I could be accused perhaps with some fairness of withholding information from the committee at a sensitive time it was my decision explained fully to Mr Thorne at the meeting a couple of weeks ago that it was the right thing to do to share this information with the committee because I never want to be stand accused of withholding information from the Scottish Parliament thank you that concludes our questions on the executive summary part of the payments side and the first question is coming from Rhoda thank you you did talk about payments in the previous session but can I ask what payments have been made of basic payments, rural priorities, land management, LFAS and other pillar 2 schemes how much of that has been loaned how much of that has been substantive and how much remains unpaid for 2015 those are all absolutely fair questions but extremely important we provide this information to the committee on a weekly basis and we are making progress in payments particularly the pillar 1 payments for 16 Annabelle Terpe has the detail of this I think to hand so perhaps Annabelle you can try to answer as many of the questions as several questions as possible which may take some time thank you Annabelle okay thank you very much so in terms of the rural priorities and land manager options payment scheme we have got 67 left to pay in 2015 and we have paid out 25.8 million with the claims 98% of claims paid and if I put that into numbers that means that we have paid out 3438 out of estimated eligible of 3505 for land manager options we have made 2668 payments out of an estimated eligible in money of course just how much is loan how much is substantive and how much remains unpaid okay apologies so rural priorities is 25.81 million pounds and that is substantive land managers option is I think the figure I have in here point in the decimal place cos it says we've paid out 1.16 million pounds and I know that is not correct so if you will forgive me I will give you the right number of apologies for that unless favoured area support we have paid out 52.9 million pounds and that's substantive and we have got we paid out apologies apologies and the the loans we have paid out were 54 million pounds for 2015 that's on elfast so 54 million 54 million pounds in loan 52.9 million pounds paid out so half of it has been paid out has anybody had 54 million pounds were paid out total in elfast loans 52.9 million pounds has been paid out in substantive payments combined total of 106 million elfast is worth 65.5 million pounds per year we paid out 54 million pounds in march 2015 and we have paid out substantially 52.925 million pounds but it's not as light for light so there are some people who have had loans who have not had payments and there are some people who did not take up the loan offer who have also not had payment I believe that's circa 1,000 people who did not take up the loan offer who have not received payment sorry just to help the committee so that means did I get the impression that that was suggesting there was 8 million pounds roughly that was still outstanding yes so we've got if we've paid 52.9 million is it possible and I don't want to take time but maybe to get those figures for each of the schemes basic payments, rural priorities just in that way how much has been loan how much has been totally paid out and how much is outstanding for each scheme okay I think that was in the last papels update so I'm very happy to you know sort of I think I hope members have that information but let me go through it now so I've just done less favoured area rural priorities and land manager options in terms of 2015 bps greening and young farmer we have paid out 343 million and that is 99.9% and in terms of the loan still to come on on 2015 alphas I believe we have 1 million pounds loan still outstanding beef and sheep we have paid out 36.7 million and that's 99.9% of the estimated numbers eligible so I think I've given you bps greening beef and sheep less favoured area sorry rural priorities and land manager options it's not clear how much money is still outstanding okay so for I mean I'm happy to get in writing sorry there's a difference between loans and total money so there is on bps greening and young farmer we have still got we've got 100,000 pounds still outstanding in terms of payments but we have 1 million pounds in terms of loans and that will be because some people's entitlements have changed and so the amount that we loaned them on was different to the amount that they actually received that's normal practice could I say that the figure's been very helpful it's been very difficult to keep in place but it's helpful cabinet secretary if those figures could be made available to the committee afterwards in writing just clarified well we've sought to provide to the public audit committee all the information on a weekly basis so I'm pretty sure most of this information has been provided but of course if there's more information that we haven't yet provided and members wish it then we're happy to seek to do so I think the point that Annabelle's making is that I mean for example that we do regret the delay in finishing we have only 25 basic payment claims out of 18,300 still to pay and I would point out in fairness to the officials work here that in every year there are always some very difficult claims that for one reason or another perhaps non-compliance non-entitlement are not able to be settled until sometime after the end of the year that's not to excuse any of the difficulties that we've encountered but there is always a tail this year sadly it's in a slightly bushier tail than in previous years but there is always a tail of very difficult cases and we're looking very closely in the ELFAS loan schemes loan payments which are due to go out this month convener in most cases for those who 8,000 I think who returned the loan documentation in the timescale that we initially saw it they will receive their payments we trust this month and that is precisely because we take these things of course very seriously and we're looking specifically to see if there are other ELFAS claimants that can receive a loan in other words we're doing everything we possibly can to ensure that all ELFAS claimants hill farmers who really are in many cases pretty reliant on this money are able to access this scheme and that's very important to me and in fact I've discussed it frequently with people at this table and others because I know that Gil Ross's constituents and others are very dependent upon this money it's very important to me that we do all we can to get that out so I'm very pleased indeed that this loan scheme is going ahead this month convener and I hope to be able to give a further detailed statement about that in the next couple of days The next question is from Fulton The whole area I have to admit is very new to me coming from an urban constituency and being a new member on this committee so I've been trying to take it in and listen to what the cabinet secretary and other members are saying in terms of the ELFAS payments cabinet secretary I know that the letter dated 3 May said that the functionality wasn't still not in place can you explain why that was and when it will be in place and working? I think that Annabelle Terpy knows dealing with this Annabelle Terpy So we have been working very hard in addressing the ELFAS defects ELFAS is complicated and it is complicated in terms of being over two system RP&S which is the main SAF system and SAIACS so we have been clearing defects in the functionality however we still are looking at we are addressing through a dedicated team land changes so land changes are what is holding up most of the issues and this is where land changes either the farmer, the crofter, the business have identified to us or land updates from aerial photography or mapping so to our base layer they pretty much always apply in retrospect so there's actually quite a deal of work to do to meet land changes right in the system we also have had errors that should only trigger on submission have triggered incorrectly when we revalidated claims that's an error we know what the fix is that is going in this week alongside this we have additional information that we're still waiting for from farmers now some of that information is information that we've asked for relatively recently as we've gone through the processing so that is absolutely not to have a dig at any farmer has not sent that information in to be very clear but there are some bits of information that actually we have to regularly look for and get from farmers so again that is a reason not an excuse and I would also like to take this opportunity to apologise that we're not further on on paying the LFAS 15 claims and I think from the people who were here from the January I absolutely reaffirm the commitment to how hard we're working to clear this so I am not going to give a specific date by which we are looking to fix the LFAS 15 because these are issues that need real IT focus on them that team is in place, they are a very experienced and dedicated team and they will be working on that but as soon as I have more information I'm very happy to update the committee separately on that I think we'll leave that there if I may and move on to the next question from Peter Yes I would like to go to 2016 payments the basic payment scheme the figures we have here is something like £140 million has been paid out in a scheme out of something like £380 million that needs to go out so in my reckoning that's less than 40% of these monies have been paid this is partly because not everybody took up the offer of a loan but since then 10% an additional 10% of money has been going out to some payments to some claimants as far as I'm aware nobody has received 100% of this money and which happened to the folks that didn't take up the loan have some of them still not received any monies under the basic payment scheme I think that Annabelle Tuppley can give committee the up-to-date figures on the payment thus far of the pillar 1 payments in respect of 216 and we can try and answer all the questions that have been asked as the weekly update that we published and sent a link to we did have 8,384 payment claims paid we have initiated payment runs this week and we are expecting to have another circa 1100 that will be confirmed this week but that would take us up to 9,484 and I expect that figure in terms of millions to go to 150 million so that is 51% of people paid and I think that's just 40% as your calculations were on the total amount received in terms of the two instalment payment strategy we did this last year we did it at 80% and the reason we've done this and I want to say that we will do this in future years as well although our aim is obviously to strive not to is because of the entitlements and the changes entitlements and convergence to 2020 if we went to 100% right now then that may need to be recalculated it may take us over our ceiling breach because the entitlements change over the course of the year it might take us over our ceiling breach which would get us into issues with the EU that we may make overpayments so that is why we've done a 90% this year so that we can make sure that once we are in the process what will be happening is happening now once we have got a clear view of all the entitlements that will be eligible this year because claims go in and out of eligibility throughout the year we can then set the 100% rate and be confident that we're not making overpayments to farmers as I say if we're certain to be out of entitlements and the convergence then this is something that we'd be looking to not do in future but I cannot guarantee that so what about the folks that didn't apply for a loan are they still some of them sitting with no money at all some of them will be sitting with no money at all I don't have that information to hand to give you precise numbers but yes some of them will be and given the rate that you're progressing now you're confident that you will get everybody paid by the end of June so the rate that's coming out at the moment you're nowhere near it yes I am and I want to explain why I am if that would be Peter, I'm finished Yes, fantastic, great, thank you very much so the reason I am is because and this picks up the points that Mr Turnbull was making earlier is we've got a detailed plan we're following industry best practice around getting all the releases of functionality so that we know what we're doing we have a daily plan, it is reported to both myself and Mr Turnbull in fact I'm meeting, apologies being inaccurate, I'm missing the meeting because I'm here today and so we have and we communicate that plan out to area offices so area offices are absolutely clear about what they can do and what we're still waiting for functionality on so we're not being inefficient in terms of using our resources we have a small number of known issues that are stopping processing claims with the functionality we have at the moment and these include applications where I mentioned land changes earlier and land updates where we've received a land changer update to the land parcel or where we have to allocate regions because of course we have to allocate regions coming in or maintain regions if people have changed the shape or the features on their land addressing these issues will move most of the remaining cases to payments we then have specific groups like cross-border where we have got a dedicated team on we have 88 cross-border cases in Scotland, 52 of them the processing has been completed on they are subject to rigorous checks absolutely rigorous checks because the way that the system works with England, Wales and Northern Ireland, these are payments that are made off systems so we have an extra level of checking that have to be done we have got I believe 43 of the payment statements from England at Northern Ireland, we obviously don't have cross-border with Wales, apologies 43 of those statements in so again we will be putting them and making payments on them so we have dedicated teams in place we are anticipating starting making balance payments by the beginning of June last year we started on the 22nd of June we have got very clear processes and checks in place so that we have a very streamlined efficient and safe payment strategy so that we can make payments right up until the end of June we've got a lot to do the next two months are going to be absolutely full on everybody is very aware of that but we've got a plan we've got experience resources we've got people who know the system better we have guidance on every single error that's being done and I feel that we are in a better position to last year do I wish that I was not saying we're in a better position to last year and I could tell you that all the payments were done at this point in the payment cycle of course I do but we have taken action and we've been asked very specifically whether we can see ect. Can I just say that your passion to get the delivery done on time is evident because I know there's a follow up from Mike maybe before I bring Alan there in could I see if I could tie a question that will do the two together I hear what you're saying in the design rule that if we get these payments out within seven weeks that's what we're talking about 95% of farmers then we won't face infraction proceedings but on the latest information that you gave us the weekly update at the 5th of May I'm a bit slightly confused with the figures because it says those payments that have been processed this week is it 436 or 4,360 because if you're only processing 436 a week then you're not going to meet the 9,000 farmers out so this is what I was saying about there are a small number of known issues last year there were a lot of issues over a lot of cases whereas there are a small number of known issues mainly related to land and payment regions that are holding up the bulk of the other payments and that's what the dedicated team is working on and is reporting daily to Mr Turnbull I don't know if you want to say a bit more Eddie Sorry can I clarify that on the payment thing I think might you're misreading it my understanding is it's a track change document so it's 436 payments the week before and it was 0 last week is that right? Sorry is that right? Yes of course So that's what I'm alarmed at Sorry hold on Can I pick up a couple of points first just as a matter of information it's not in fraction proceedings we would face if we didn't make the 9 to 5.24% at the end of June it would be issues related to penalties so it's not that we're breaking the rules which is a penalty issue The reason Eddie will come in no doubt and correct me from not getting this quite right but we've taken the IT system down in terms of making 2016 payments for the last two weeks because we want to make some further payments in 2015 we can't run 2015 and 2016 at the same time because of the dynamic nature of the systems that we have and because we have got loans on the system based on 2015 and 2016 and because we handle them separately we were required by the law by the rules of the loan schemes to handle them separately therefore we have to handle the loan schemes and the year schemes very differently so we can't run them concurrently so that's why we haven't seen the flow of payments on 2016 over the last few weeks that we would want A couple of other points I wanted to make in relation to that was I explained earlier about the slightly different approach we took this year we got the functionality to make 26 payments on 27 February certainly towards the end of February in the five weeks we had from then until the end of March which was when we focused on loan recovery payments the team made a considerable progress a very fast rate of progress we've paused for a while making 2015 and we will step up again next week and we will continue to make payments on that basis in terms of the overarching question whether we're going to make it by the end of June Annabelle gave you a very different account of what she and the team were doing in order to make that happen I asked myself the same questions over the last few weeks and months and to give some more detail to that I've asked Annabelle in particular to look at what more we can do in the manualisation of the processes to make sure that we're doing absolutely everything we can to get payments out of the door using the system and using the staff to make processing payments I've also asked Eddie to look at alternative solutions and options including IT environments and other things we might look at in terms of different development environments in areas so that we can give ourselves the very very best chance we have of getting to the end of June deadline and not just making the 95.24% but actually making as many payments to as many farmers and crofters as we absolutely possibly can and I maintain that the system and process we have in place is what is going to give us a chance this year of getting over the line OK, sorry Eddie, did you want to come in on that award? To be honest, I don't think so I think that both Annabelle and the Eleanor have covered that Stuart, do you want to ask the next question, please? Thank you, convener There's a third of May letter that says we're working towards functionality to bring payments for Scottish sector of beef Scottish upland sheep scheme to the priorities land management beef efficiency, AECS and forestry grant schemes I take it to that referring to the processing that's necessary to be done in the department I do know that Gerald Banks at a meeting that Peter Chapman and I were at said delightfully that the system that the farmers interact with is all but working as they would expect it to Is it really the back-end stuff that we're now basically focusing on and in these particular schemes will we be in a position that the IT is in place to make 2016 payments or we're still doing largely manual interventions to make all that work properly? Eddie, is that you? In your right, the experience we've had at the application end at the customer end has been positive I think as we've SAF 17 has had very few issues with it as I say at the customer end and you're absolutely right, our issue is around the complexity at the back-end and working our way through that so yes, we do have a plan that addresses the future payments and we are working to finalise that plan and ensure that any remedial action that needs to be taken will be taken our priority just to restate that is removing any blockages to making the basic payments by June Okay, thank you Mike, I think yours is the next question, question 6 Right In January Annabelle said that payment letters went out for the beef premium greening and young farmer schemes however the reductions and exclusions letter which explains exactly what makes up the payment letter has not yet gone out so my question is really how does the delay in receiving the reductions and exclusion letters have that been affecting farmers and have they been sent out or when do you expect the reductions and exclusions letters to be sent out If I may take that one so yes I feel very acutely the importance of getting the R&E letters out the R&E letters again I'm going to say what I said before which is we have been working very very hard on it there is a difference between the R&E system and the R&E in the system which worked correctly and is working correctly and the payments made last year were correct and the code for the R&E letters is different I'm not a technical expert and I have asked the question which I would imagine you want to ask which is why are they different and that's why I wanted to explain that although the R&E letters have gone out of the R&E assessments made last year we have been in terms of R&E letters I cannot confirm when they are going to go out yet what I would like to confirm though is that the information is available online and farmers can get it can speak to people in area offices about it in terms of the impact to the farmers it doesn't I know that there has been I think when we are talking before about the terms is I have looked into this and the advice that I've been given is that the actual payment amount is what is necessary for the tax returns what R&E letters will do one is obviously it will give farmers the information two it kicks off the formal appeal and I know that that then is being pushed back and that will affect tax but that would affect tax retrospectively rather than affect the tax returns just now so I would and I do try and do this very frequently I feel very frustrated I do not understand why I can't get it and I think well actually my experience with letters over 2015 is not good I want to see it's improved we are working on improving the functionality we have got less defects they are being fixed but there is still a bit of work to do so I cannot give at this stage a firm date because I do not want to give the committee and indeed farmers full certainty that it will be done by a certain date can I just ask if the information is on the computer now that they can log into I do not quite understand why the letters can't go out then if they've already got the information so can I come back to you on that Mr Rumbles is that? okay thank you the next question is from John concerning the environmental co-operation action fund I understand there were some changes made to that and the focus of the money I think it's 1.8 million is different and I just wondered if you could explain perhaps why the previous scheme was withdrawn and if there's any plans for further changes in the future Q2 audit risk from the current scheme approach I and Ms Cunningham agreed on the 10th of January not to award contracts the scheme will be redesigned and relaunched later this year 14 organisations had previously been issued with approval letters for projects amounting to approximately £880,000 applicants were informed on the 26th of January by telephone and they were of course disappointed Mr Mason but they were accepting of the situation the fund is originally designed couldn't have been taken forward and applicant organisations were contacted to inform them of the decision and to encourage them to reapply when the scheme is relaunched so was this because the previous idea didn't fit in with what the European rules or guidance were the details were dealt with by my colleague Ms Cunningham and not by myself I don't know if officials can answer that particular question my understanding was that the issues were related to audit requirements rather than policy issues so there was a concern that we wouldn't be able to meet the stringent audit requirements required and rather than put any payment funding at risk we decided to withdraw the scheme we consider and launch it later okay, thanks so much just before we move on to the next question can I just say that considering the length of the questioning on the executive summary of the report and the questioning on this we are pushed together and we are going to struggle to get through the small holdings legislation mindful that the cabinet secretary has other engagements I am going to at this stage formally notify the committee that I am going to pull the small holdings legislation and make a new date with the cabinet secretary which we've agreed to do to sort out when we can take the small holdings evidence before the committee I think that is the best way to move forward and thank the cabinet secretary for agreeing with my proposal to do that the next question comes from Jamie Greene in the interest of time I'll keep it brief Audit Scotland is due to report in June 2017 on the cap futures programme does the panel believe that the cap futures programme has delivered value for money who's going to answer that one? I think the answer is that it was intended as an investment to administer the very substantial rural payments in excess I think of 4 billion euros over the six year period and therefore in that sense that investment was to achieve a specific purpose it was also to achieve the purpose of administering future payments under the EU when the investment decision was taken certainly no one in this place anticipated Brexit or that despite Scotland voting to stay in the EU we would be in a position where the UK Government says that we have to come out of the EU so this was an investment it has been very problematic but I think in respect of that it has delivered value for money but of course it is still not working as it should despite the significant progress there remain significant challenges but I do hope that members have got the flavour of the determination of the officials as exemplified by Annabelle Tupe not just passion but actually competence and attention to the detail and that gives me confidence as the cabinet secretary that we will be able to make continued progress and that for as long as we're in the EU it will be a tool that we can use to administer the schemes in conjunction with the loans tool which we have used as appropriate and will continue to do so as necessary, as required Jimmy, do you want to follow up on that? I think you were going to ask about whether it was going to be fit for 2017, was that... Sorry, I was trying to keep it brief but I thought we were cutting questions. No, I think that's an important question. In effect you've asked the question but 2017 is obviously close upon us I have a concern that we may incur penalties by breaching EU recommendations on this it falls on from what Mike said on the scale of the payments being made at the moment and the speed in which they're being made how confident are we that we will not incur penalties? We're working flat out to make all payments by the end of June and I'm confident that the overwhelming majority, the vast majority of farmers will receive their payments by the end of June. The system is working better this year than last year, it is, convener, it's more stable. It's working in a different way we have taken a different approach and Mr tumble perhaps will be better to describe this but in terms of the IT approach we have made a number of changes and although you're perfectly correct to say Mr Greene and Mr Rumbles as well that as yet we're around I think about half of the total payments by value the remaining processes that are being worked on at the moment particularly in regard of inspections issues will enable us to with reasonable confidence meet the target that is certainly the aim of working flat out to achieve that I don't know if there's anything of a technical nature else that Eleanor would like to add because it's a very important question that's one that we take very seriously I've spoken before about my confidence by the end of June deadline you mentioned Audit Scotland and the draft they are preparing their final draft on the cap futures programme clearly we're in discussion with them at the moment in terms of a cleaning draft it would be inappropriate for me to comment on that at the moment they will brief you in their own time but we absolutely value the support that we get from our auditors on all of this we looked at the recommendations from the last reports as I reported last time we have worked through them methodically we have an action plan in place and we have actioned almost all of the recommendations that they made some of them are taking a little longer those relating to knowledge transfer for example but we take it very seriously and we are working through it in a methodical way to make sure to give ourselves the best chance can I ask a question to the cabinet secretary you made a call I think in the press recently in the last couple of days to ask farmers not to leave submitting their 2017 claims till the last moment which is I think always wise advice I think they would be helpful for some guidance from you and your officials on whether the 2017 payments when you would expect to be making payments and I think Annabelle suggested be the same percentage payments being made next year as this year as 80% could you just talk farmers through that as they are sitting filling in their forms I'm sorry I didn't quite understand well in 2017 submissions have to be in shortly and you made that claim and farmers will be wanting to understand when those payments for the 2017 claims are going to be made and whether it's going to be on a percentage figure and I'm just asking if you could enlarge on that and enlighten farmers well this year we decided I think Annabelle Goldie Annabelle I'm displaying my age I'm not sure that's correct but the cabinet secretary while you just recover lady I'm mixing up my anger there's another one as well but I think Annabelle Terpy has described that last year the basic payments were made at 80% this year at 90% and the reason for that was we wanted to pay out as much as we could possibly could without risking possibility of moving into overpayments because if you make an overpayment then you're obliged to ask the recipient to repay that that's not something that we feel is sensible and we also have to take two cognisans of the law and the EU system very demanding though it is so we haven't yet made a decision about the percentage next year but that's it's a perfectly fair question and that's something that we along with various other matters shall hope to announce as soon as we reasonably can do that the deadline for 17 is 15 that's Monday it's a well known deadline I believe in the you and others will be familiar with that so it's a familiar deadline to which all the agents and all the farmers are working hard and I have received indeed reports as you would expect about the numbers and the process of the IT dealing with this system and might be useful if somebody a Eleanor could describe how that is going at the moment to give members confidence that it's going reasonably well I'm pleased to report that the SAF 17 window has been available for over 98.9% of the time it should have been up so that's to give it some context, losing about 6 minutes every 24 hours for a variety of reasons so 98.9% is a good percentage uptime as of last night there were 9231 and Annabelle can update me no doubt on the mornings position so including 4,800 or thereabouts on draft we're expecting a further 3,800 approximately on paper given the numbers that we sent out on paper so it means in the last five days we're expecting additional 2,000 applications so that seems perfectly reasonable to us but Annabelle may want to give you the she's talking to the cabinet secretary she may want to give the mornings position so that the committee will be happy that there seems to be a percentage payment coming in cabinet secretary when you last came to the committee you said there'd been no loan scheme in the future past this year could you just confirm that that's still the case I can't recall exactly what I said but certainly if we require to have a loan scheme in order to ensure that payments are made to farmers and troffters then that's something that as I've said I think repeatedly in this committee that we would wish to do obviously we only do it if it's required and I can go back and look at the record but I'm a pragmatist I want farmers and troffters to get the money out I was very pleased the decisions that we took enabled that to happen so that the substantial payment of money due to farmers was paid in the early part of November last year earlier than historically would have been paid so it's not ideal but from the point of view of many farmers if we require to do that in the future we will do that subject to the appropriate procedures regarding finance and cabinet approval which one should not presume but the will of the Scottish Government to get those payments out to our farmers and troffters is iron hard and that is what will happen if it is required and we need a loan scheme my advice and recommendation approach will be to ensure that that happens and by saying that and by stressing that despite the requirements of the EU financial regime we have up the payment from 80 to 90 per cent I hope and would expect in relation to your previous question that that's an approach that we would emulate i.e. 90 or 80 for 217 but we will come back and clarify that as soon as possible because I'm also acutely aware that lots of farmers want when payments will be in future not just this year but next year and that's why I'm grateful for the opportunity today to re-emphasise the Scottish Government's very very clear crystal clear approach about our determination to get that money out as quickly as we can subject to a requirement to observance of the law and process okay PZ you've got the next question yeah there's still bits and pieces that the thing doesn't deliver as we know so when do you expect the other major features to be in use and I've got three here that I think aren't working such as the land partial information component the customer account management component and the transfer of entitlements which is another huge issue out there I'll pass to Eddie in a minute I think that these are all matters that we don't discuss as much as the main issues but they're nonetheless extremely important I visited the open office a few weeks ago which together with the storm away office that I visited last summer are handling entitlements and I must pay tribute to the great work that they're doing there Eleanor referred to manual work a lot of the preparatory work has been done manually re-entitlements but of course another point I would make convener which was made to me very clearly by the staff that are actually doing the work is that in some cases entitlement where there's for example a sale of a farm or other transfer details about dispositions legal deeds, executive information confirmation documents all of these require to be submitted to the arped office in order to evidence to prove entitlement and therefore entitlement process is not simply a matter of cap and cap IT application it's also a common sense approach where obviously the claimant the onus isn't the claimant to prove that they are the new owner or tenant the entitled recipient and it was pointed out to me that in some cases not I'm not overregging this but in some cases there are delays in that process too lawyers delays, I mean I'm a lawyer lawyers are not unknown to cause delays as well but so entitlements is a particular concern and I perhaps I could ask Mr Turnbull to refer to the answer the other two points if he may of course so the other two the land parcel information system and the accounts management system both projects are underway in terms of development so the first implementation that's a staged implementation around the SACAMS solution in the summer with a further implementation in December following that one in March of next year so again our intention is to complete that within the financial year and within the financial envelope that we set within the £178 million so that's the first point to make and the land parcel information system at the moment we have a schedule go live day of a turn of the year January 2018 I should say that absolutely particularly the land parcel information system is vitally important because some of the issues are a good number of the issues that we're experiencing at the moment are down to our dependency on the legacy system for land so we have quite a convoluted routine that takes the information out the legacy system and then puts it into the main platform for claims and payments so clearly I see the lipis piece as being very much on the critical path and will bring improvements I just wanted to finish off and transfer of entitlements Can you try bringing in customer accounts because that was one of the questions Sorry if I wasn't explicit enough on the accounts system will be in three parts will be put in place so we've got a release in the summer of this year we have a second release in December which is scheduled to align I have here December will align with a starting payments for the SAF 2017 round further peace around the reconciliation of that which is into March next year In entitlements Transfer entitlements will be within this payment period so it will be by the end of May that it will be in and working and what is happening is we've got the entitlements transfer unit we've taken the operational decision to that's run out of store in a way that has been becula and we have moved staff around the country so that we are backfilling from offices that have more straightforward claims so they are further ahead so we take operational decisions the whole time they are working the system working the cases through on the system and they are doing the transfer of entitlements by hand so that when the functionality is in that will then take it through to payment if I can give you some numbers we had 485 transfer entitlements received the applications were rejected because they were late 19 were withdrawn 58 were rejected so we have 398 eligible applications approved cases as of yesterday 0905, 370 of which 350 of letters of comfort and therefore have been offered loans on those entitlement top ups we're still waiting for information from 48 and when we get the information and we are in the process of writing out giving them the final 10 days we have been in communication with them for months looking for information but again if he's busy people will be frustrated I understand people are frustrated because they haven't got what they consider to be there so again I'm not trying to anyway say anything other than we are absolutely working on this we have taken decisions and this functionality will be the functionality that will be in place going forward very good thank you John Mason Thanks convener generally there's the Scottish European Agriculture Fund which I think was being audited a report by Audit Scotland and I think you'd previously written to the committee summarising different reports and when they'd be available I'm not sure we've had anything back about that particular one and I just wondered if you could give us an update on that Cabinet Secretary I'm sorry I didn't quite hear all the the Scottish European Agriculture Fund the report by Audit Scotland which I think we had expected before now I thought we had we had included information on that I think that's the Audit Scotland report on the certifying audit I think so yeah I think I mean if there's something we can come back to us on I'm sure I'm absolutely certain in the 5th of May letter that went to Papall's copy to Wreck so the audit there was a number of issues raised as I mentioned the accounts were not qualified the management statement I did was qualified in relation to some of the controls so we have now a scores working group put in place and that group is looking at all the issues that were raised by the audit to make sure that the paying agency status remains for future years they are developing a plan that will last over the next two years because some of these things are quite fundamental things in terms of Eurostat controls are quite difficult things to fix and we have a plan in place to make sure that we improve our performance over the next two years as I mentioned earlier one of the issues I've identified is that we don't have enough audit resource within the team so we are actually recruiting now for audit resource and capacity to make sure that we are in a better place for some of the issues that have been raised right okay well I mean if you have sent us stuff then we'll check it out and I mean it maybe just hasn't kind of worked its way through the system more than had to provide any and all information about the audits that have been and that would have some of the key points within it that you've sent okay thanks very much I think also that there was some recommendations we'd like to see the recommendations I think just to clarify that I think you had usefully provided this but not the recommendations of course well we can provide then John would you like to come in indeed not in any way dissimilar to what Mr Mason's just asked there in a letter to the committee on 1 March cabinet secretary outlined and I counted them as a dozen audits that were due for the cap payments and it would be possible to provide the committee with reports of these audits maybe outline what the most significant findings are what happens as a result of the audits and significantly is any expectation of penalties as a result the audit process is with Europe I think as I've mentioned at committee 4 take a long time so there have been a number of audits we have the main aid audit starting in June but typically there is an audit process and then there's a process of negotiation that goes on and then there is discussion as to interpretation of the regulations made by the policy teams that we have and the European auditors there's a discussion and agreement about that and then only after a number of months do you then find out the results of the audit and whether or not there's to be any penalty or disillusion payments made I am more than happy to provide the committee with the final reports it wouldn't be appropriate to send the interim findings because these often change between when they are written, drafted and when they are concluded OK, and are you able to comment on any expectation of fines or are we too early for that? I think that the information we provided about audits much of it is of a somewhat historical nature going back to April 2014 and you know plainly these are not matters that I'm focusing on because there's no particular reason for me to to do so lessons having been learned from the previous reports as far as fines and penalties go plainly we are all our efforts are designed to ensure that we perform the functions using the cap IT system so that we avoid penalties and fines and therefore it is too early to state whether we will totally avoid penalties and fines I mean penalties and fines have been paid by us and I think certainly by the UK Government over the years I'm sure if the committee wanted to look into the quantum of those if it feels it's important to get an historical picture then that would throw up some interesting statistics particularly from down south but my that's in the past my responsibility is the here and now and the future and I was very pleased last year that we significantly improved the position to the expectation of the audit report which I will remember because it came out in the day of my appointment and it's suggested that we might face fines in excess of 100 million quid we will not suffer anything like that if there are to be any fines or penalties but of course these things as I think Eleanor said do take a long time to resolve audit is retrospective it's post auditors come in after the books are completed the books aren't completed it's work in progress we're the work in progress team and we will work very hard to make sure that the progress mitigates the fines so far as we possibly can or eliminates them if I could just add so auditing of the new cap is only just beginning there is historical information so we won't know the results of any of the new cap auditing until well later in 2017 and of course as the cabinet secretary said the result was always a degree of disalience even with stable IT and the policies under the old cap we incurred disaliances of just over 1 per cent per year but we won't know about any disalience relation to current cap until much later this year okay thank you very much okay cabinet secretary I have one final question based on a comment that Eleanor made in January I think it was when you said that by cap 2018 you would probably be running the system on a normal cycle I think that's word for word what you said can you reassure farmers that this will be the case cabinet secretary or would Eleanor like to answer that I think the main thing is that we achieve what I've set out that we achieve that either the payments are made at or around the time that farmers came to expect under the older simple regime or that we use other means of ensuring that that money gets into the rural community but if I can just say this in response to question read 218 219 I have sought but obtained absolutely no clarity whatsoever from the UK Government as to whether there will be any funding coming post Brexit from the UK Government to replace the £500 million that we've come to rely on from the EU and that's probably the best place to leave that comment there so I'd like to briefly suspend the meeting but before I'd like to do that I'd like to thank the cabinet secretary Fergus Ewing, I'd like to thank Eleanor Annabelle and Eddie for the evidence that you've given to the committee and the committee now will be suspended for five minutes until we move on to the next subject sorry, before I do that I'm being reminded that I should also point out that we have agreed for those people that were waiting for small holdings legislation that that has been agreed to take that as a further session so now I really do suspend the meeting for five minutes, thank you thank you, I'd like to now reconvene the meeting I would just like to remind everyone that agenda item 4 which was to do with small holdings and evidence being given by the cabinet secretary Mr Ewing has been deferred to a later date due to the length of questioning that went on on previous agenda items so we are now going to move on to agenda item 5 which is the subordinate legislation it's the consideration of two negative instruments as detailed on the agenda the committee should now consider any wishes that it wants to raise in reporting to Parliament on these instruments sorry, members should note that no motions to annull have been received in relation to these instruments and there have been no representations to the committee on them either so are there any comments that committee members wish to make just a brief comment on the blue badge motion I think it's very welcome that it's if I understand it correctly it's being extended to cover the temporary issue of blue badges to people for example with mental health issues and I think that's something that I feel myself instinctively quite in favour of are there any other comments that would like to be made so can I take it that the committee does not wish to make any specific recommendations in relation to these instruments that's agreed the committee will now move into private session