إلى configured for the 13th meeting of 2017 of the Environment, Climate, Change and Land Reform Committee. Before I move on to the first item on the agenda, I remind everyone present to switch off mobile phones and other electronic devices as they may have affected the broadcasting system. The first item on the agenda require the committee to decide whether to take Adam 3 and its consideration of the draft budget 2018-19 report are any future meetings in private. Are we all agreed? The second item of business today is to hear evidence on the Scottish Government's budget. We will hear from Rosanna Cunningham, Cabinet Secretary, Keith Connell, Deputy Director of Natural Resources, Linda Pooley, Deputy Director of the Rural and Environment Sciences and Analytical Services Division, Neil Ritchie, the branch head of the Environmental Quality Division and Graham Black of Marine Scotland. We, as you will anticipate, have a series of questions for you, and Donald Cameron is going to kick off. Thank you, convener. Good morning. Can I begin with by asking a very general question around priorities? What is the cabinet secretary's view on the relative priority given to financial support for her portfolio over recent years? Do you mean in global terms? In terms of the Government's priorities in relation to her and to your portfolio? I'm sorry, I'm not really understanding what you're looking for there. Our overall portfolio budget has gone up. There's more money in climate change. We've got to roll out the land reform actions, and that has required a further allocation because of the register of controlling interests. I'm right in saying, and I'm looking at Neil Ritchie, there's extra money going into some of the flood work that SIPA does. I think in terms of how I see the portfolio priorities, that's a reasonable approach to have taken. Climate change, obviously, is the biggest thing, or one of the biggest things, facing Government at the moment. It's not entirely embedded in my portfolio. There are actions right across portfolios. We are always conscious of the flood risk, and that is, of course, often related to climate change issues. I think that the actions that come out of the land reform legislation are an absolute requirement and are therefore required to be prioritised in the way that they have. I'm content with those things. It would be great to have more money, absolutely, but in terms of where we are, given that we've had a modest increase in the overall portfolio budget, I think that I'm fairly content. I want to come on to land reform in a moment. Is there a methodology on which decisions for spend is made? Again, you're asking me with a methodology within the portfolio. Within your portfolio, yes. To a certain extent, I suppose I've already indicated the areas where we've seen an increase. That is really in terms of how we view the current priorities and challenges. There's not a mathematical formula for this. There's a considerable part of the budget, which is an absolutely fixed budget in a sense, because if you're talking about staff across the various bodies such as SNH, SEPA and Marine Scotland, a big part of those budgets is a given. The amount that you've got—the free budget, if you like—is much smaller than the amount that is fixed. There isn't a mathematical thing that comes into play that works out across the board. I have conversations with the finance secretary about how we would manage that if he was looking for savings, but in actual fact we've had a modest increase across the portfolio. Given everything, we've done well and I don't want to poke the bear. You spoke about fixed areas and free areas. Are there any areas that you see are sacred in a way or are core areas that must be protected? I think that's a really difficult question to ask, because at any one time things will change. 15 years ago you probably wouldn't, for example, have had somebody sitting here saying that climate change is an absolute core area, but here we are and it is. Any decisions that you make in any one year or one decade even are subject to change. From my perspective, in terms of the way in which the overall portfolio works, I am absolutely of the view that protecting the money that goes to flooding is absolutely essential. We got to a pretty good place after we passed the flood legislation back in 2009. I think that we've gotten to a good place as to how the management of all of that works. I would absolutely feel that that has to be protected at all costs and I would never want to see a diminution in the amount of money that went to flooding. I think that that's really, really important. Climate change is increasing in importance, so I would only expect that to become an increasing pressure, but as I indicated, it's a pressure born right across Government, not just in my portfolio. Once we have achieved the roll-out of what the land reform legislation required, there might be an interesting discussion to be had about what I would then see as freed up money goes, but I would like to see it stay in the land sector in some way, shape or form. There are, I think, what will become increasing priorities that will make conversation going forward slightly different, but that's maybe for another evidence session in the future. Given that we've seen over the last week what might be described as a Scottish-specific approach to taxation, given the forecast of the Fiscal Commission in relation to productivity and growth over the next five years, which don't paint a particularly optimistic picture, are you going to take a different approach to managing resources in terms of contingency planning if there's less certainty around funding amounts that might be available? I think that all the different groups within the portfolio or SNHC, per the rest of them, will have their own mechanisms for thinking about contingency planning. From the point of view of climate change, I've already indicated that that will be an increasing pressure, and therefore we will always have to ensure that that's well funded. I'm not entirely sure that you're asking me about a much bigger budget issue here than I'm confident of responding. I don't know if any of the officials feel that that question is one that they think they could more usefully contribute to, but I think that it's maybe just a bit above the sense of where we would be, because that would be one for the finance secretary to really be dealing with. Do any of the officials want to ask about contingency planning within their areas? From all of our viewpoints, we're always doing contingency planning because we can always see that money could go up or down depending on priorities or particular demands. I think that we're also all looking into the longer term in terms of things like charging to try and being able to balance out some of those longer term pressures that we might face, but contingency planning is always part of what we're doing. I don't think that we're in a different position now than where we've been before. I guess that we're going to be planning exercises around Brexit at the moment. That's almost impossible contingency to plan for just right now, certainly in terms of cost. For all of us confronting various parts of this morning's evidence, this will come up, but much of what we do in this portfolio involves funding that comes from European sources. At the moment, there is no answer to the question of what happens when that funding ceases. Brexit, in detail, in a moment. I guess that that is the biggest help in the room at the moment. Yes, except at the moment that there really isn't a contingency plan that you can put in place because we don't have any certainty as to what's actually going to happen. One except that there is no contingency plan in place at the moment, have you had an indication that there will be talks and discussions around that between yourselves and the UK Government, presumably, in due course, if they're not yet in place? I'm not so sure I would go as far as to say it in those terms. There's some head nodding goes on if the issue of the funding gap appears in a conversation at the moment, but there is no certainty. I think there are one or two areas of funding whether there's been an indication that it will go a little subsist until 2020 until the actual programme budgets run out, but there's no discussion about subsequent to that. We are nowhere near being in the space where those conversations would take place, because at the moment the conversations are still not so much about money as about process. Do any of the officials have any knowledge of any contingent liabilities they might, in the course of the next financial year, have to bring to the attention of the minister and perhaps thereafter the audit committee? That's for the officials rather than the minister. Right, I'm getting shaking heads, that's fine coming up. Can you ask about the wider capital infrastructure budget? There's £4 billion getting invested in capital infrastructure, and I think it was a low-carbon infrastructure task force that did an analysis in the 2015 budget that showed that just over half of that infrastructure budget was being spent on low-carbon infrastructure. However, if you look at the same analysis for this year, it's down to about 26 per cent. Does that make the meeting of climate change targets harder or easier? I remember correctly that some of that headline figure is because of some technical changes in the way things are put in place. It could just give me a few moments just to have a look. The budget for the low-carbon economy is staying the same. On the wider capital investment in infrastructure and how that impacts on your portfolio, cabinet secretary. If we are spending a lot less on low-carbon infrastructure, my question is how will that impact on the meeting of our stretched climate change targets and what kind of input have you had into discussions around that capital infrastructure programme? I'm not conscious of there being an infrastructure issue from my perspective. Those are not generally conversations in which I would be involved. The low-carbon infrastructure, I'm assuming, will cover things like electric vehicle charging etc. I presume that's the kind of thing that is meant by low-carbon infrastructure. Obviously, there's going to be an expansion there. Is there a particular thing that is— It's the whole thing. £4,000 million is being spent on capital infrastructure. Is that capital infrastructure that's going to lock us in to higher carbon emissions going forward to 2040 and 2050 or is it going to reduce it? The analysis shows that we're not investing in low-carbon infrastructure. I'm trying to understand that. There is going to be investment in low-carbon infrastructure because we wouldn't be able to roll out the electric vehicle setup without low-carbon infrastructure. It's not that there isn't investment in low-carbon infrastructure. Presumably, you're talking about things like roads etc. What's in the carbon infrastructure investment plan in its entirety? I haven't looked at the infrastructure investment plan in its entirety to try and assess the impact on climate change. That would be a matter for Keith Brown in the economy brief. There are aspects of infrastructure that, from my perspective, are absolutely essential for what we do. Most of that is around the transport and the energy efficiency programmes, which is another big infrastructure project.  I presume that those will all be part of that discussion. I'm sorry that I didn't come to this committee with a detailed understanding of the future infrastructure plans in respect to the budget. Mr Roscoe's point is that the percentage of spend that is on low-carbon projects has gone down.  I'm not conscious at the moment that any of my officials have raised a significant concern. Clearly, there are infrastructure projects that will be of huge benefit to my portfolio, but I haven't had raised by my climate change officials any major concerns in respect of potential future infrastructure projects and their impact on climate change. As I've indicated, there are infrastructure projects that are directly related to and will significantly impact in a good way our climate change targets. I need to come back to the committee on some of the others, but I'm not having that flagged up to me as a problem from within my own team of climate change officials. On one national infrastructure priority, that's investment in measures to tackle fuel poverty. There hasn't been an increase in that this year. Has there been consideration of the use of financial transactions, i.e. loans, to help incentivise— I'm sorry, I don't know that. That is not a policy which is one that I have control over. A new ministerial, cross ministerial group has been set up to discuss fuel poverty issues across a number of portfolios, and that may very well be one of the issues that get raised, but I'm not conscious of that at the moment, but I wouldn't like to say that it hasn't been raised because it's not a policy within my portfolio remit. Does that not impact on your portfolio in terms of the government to meet climate change targets? Indeed, and that's the point I made about the energy efficiency programmes precisely that. We want to press ahead with the energy efficiency programme in a way that meets both the fuel poverty targets and doesn't cut across the climate change targets. That is an active discussion, but at the level of discussing things like—what did you say? What financial transactions, loans which are available for Scottish Government to loan out to— Sure, but we're not at that. If that's going to be part of that conversation, I'm not conscious of that at the moment being part of the conversation, but we've begun to talk about this cross portfolio because clearly they drive to push down fuel poverty. If one isn't careful, it could create problems in terms of climate change targets, and the need for the two to be progressed together is really important. I've caught it very briefly. Right, thank you, convener. Just very briefly, good morning, cabinet secretary, and to your officials. I mean, I think—obviously, this is a complex area, but we have been sent the details of the funding for climate change mitigation measures across the budget as they relate to our portfolio. I think it's just helpful from the committee perspective if we can understand, if not today, but hopefully in writing from yourself or your officials about how these do interconnect, because it is so vital. That's one area that I've looked at quite closely. For instance, under services on page 11 of that document, there's low-carbon economy, and then it refers to the delivery of low-carbon infrastructure transition programme. There's a whole range of areas, unfortunately not marine, and I'm not sure why, but there is the cross-reference. From the point of view of our committee—well, if someone may want to contradict me, but I think it's important that we can try to tease these things out. That's not my portfolio, so that creates a bit of a problem for me. If we move into too much detail, I mean, I have the same paper. The low-carbon economy draft budget is the same as the previous years. I was just highlighting that as one of the areas that we might have an interest in. The energy efficiency and policy implementation looks to have increased, so I'm looking at the same numbers. The total services budget has increased, so I'm presuming that that is a positive rather than a negative. I'm not saying that it isn't, cabinet secretary. I'm just highlighting that as one of the areas where we might have an interest beyond or cross-threaded with other portfolios. Of course, there's an interest. The point that I'm making is that I can't deal with these particular issues in great detail because they are not my portfolio issues. Some of the decision-making within them—my colleagues don't come to me to clear a decision that they might make within that—is how it's happening. Each of them is charged with the responsibility to ensure that the decisions that they are making are consonant with our overall targets, and that means climate change targets. That's how that is identified. They are mindful of the requirements of the climate plan for each of the portfolios as they arrive at such decisions? They have to sign the relevant sections of them, so they are more than mindful of it. They are aware of what is expected and will have to ensure within their relevant areas that they keep that in mind. There's clearly an opportunity and a need for this committee to look at that in the context of the climate plan as it develops through to its final iteration. I think that that's a subject that we'll return to in that. It's being published in February. Yeah. I hope that we'll return to that quite soon. Let's move on to Brexit. I don't know. Sorry, my apologies. Thank you, convener. I just got a couple of final questions around land reform. Can I refer to my register of interests as the owner of a land holding in the Highlands? The land reform budget is at £17.1 million for the coming year. My questions are two-fold. First, around the Scottish land fund, am I right in thinking that the Government intends to match its commitment last year of £10 million to the Scottish land fund? In relation to that, is there money left over from last year in terms of the Scottish land fund? If money is rolled over, if it's unspent, the answer I'm afraid is no, because we're in one-year budgeting. Are you able to put a figure, and I understand if you're not, on what the Scottish land fund will sit at this year? I can't. I could make a wild guess by the end of March. I think that about 70 per cent of it will have been spent, but, as I indicated, the £10 million will be renewed. It's a demand-led budget. We rely on the applications. I totally appreciate that, and there may be a lot of reasons why there haven't been applications. Can I just be clear? Is that 70 per cent spent or committed? Excuse me, we could… Is that to be spent? We could provide detail to the committee. It's a combination of the two. There are at least two further committee rounds to be held. There are projects in the pipeline. When those decisions are taken, I think we'll be at the 70 to 80 per cent spend in terms of awards having been made. There are one or two potential awards that we haven't made a decision on yet, so it could even be fully spent, or it may be 70 to 80 per cent. It's a little difficult. For obvious reasons, because it's demand-led, you can now give pre-acquisition support as well. It's a little bit awkward. I'm really pleased that the £10 million is going to be repeated for the next year. I think that we all are given its importance to communities across Scotland. Can I just ask about the extra £3.4 million in the budget, excluding the land fund? I think that you referred to it in your opening comments. Where is that money destined? £3.5 million is going to build the register of controlling interests. That is purely for that. The Scottish Land Commission that money has been used and spent, presumably. Is there any budget that has been spent? No, it's not so significant as to the issues there. That's a continuing. The budget for the Scottish Land Commission is the same as this year, £1.4 million. The land fund stays at £10 million. There is some other money within that fund for programme and staffing costs, and then the additional £3.5 million is capital. What's move on to Brexit, David Stewart? Thank you, convener. Good morning, cabinet secretary and officials. We've obviously touched on Brexit, which is obviously the sort of ghost to every feast from our taking evidence. I'm particularly interested in looking at the impact that European funding has had. If I can give you an example from the last time we took evidence from SNH, the EU funding in global terms is around £57 million made up, as you all know, Cabinet Secretary for Life, Plasty, RDF and SRDP. That's obviously a very considerable sum of money. The overall position is obviously dependent on the negotiation, but there is a general view that funding should be repatriated back to UK and to Scottish Governments. What sort of plans have you got, what plans are involving, to make up the loss of the funding in the future when we completely withdraw from the EU? Right at the moment, it's very difficult to see how it can be replaced unless the Westminster Government is prepared to effectively continue the same level of funding that has been received previously. I would imagine that that will be challenging. Therefore, we are uncertain as to how much of it might come. One has to presume that a certain percentage will come, whether or not all of it will, is another matter entirely. There then is a question over how one makes up whatever gap there is. In different areas, there may be different opportunities, so some of the research providers might be able to look for funding sources beyond Europe and try to develop streams of funding from elsewhere. In each of the areas in the portfolio, there might be potential for making up some shortfall, but it's going to be a significant loss. At the moment, there is no immediately obvious way of understanding what will take its place. Do you have effectively a risk register about European funding? If you lose the funding, is that effectively something that is highlighted? The general answer, as you will know, is that, yes, this is an area of risk and an area of concern? I think that everybody who, whether it's within my portfolio area or other portfolio areas, is very conscious indeed of the extent to which much of the work that happens happens because of European funding. While we can continue to do the match funding part, the bit that is the European funding part at the moment, there is a big question mark around it. As I indicated, I would expect that there is going to be some kind of financial settlement post Brexit that operates on some form of allocation. I think that everybody needs to remember that Scotland has benefited disproportionately from European funding. Unless that disproportionate benefit is maintained, we will see a shortfall. As the cabinet secretary, that is part of the design of the structural funds. The old objective one funding, for example, was to bring up the regional spend to the European average above 75 per cent. That is what the European structural funds were designed to do, the lagging regions such as Marine and Highlands and Islands. It was to stimulate their GDP. Zero waste Scotland, if I recall, restructured itself a few years ago to draw down a very large proportion of European funding. Am I right in saying that, whilst the Scottish Government gives £20.5 million to Zero Waste Scotland, it gets more than that from EU sources? I am not an expert on the zero waste side of the house, but yes, through the circular economy investment fund, they draw down funding from European regional development fund. The impact on them would be even more pronounced than it would be on some of those sectors. It could vary depending on the sectors. It would not be the same in every sector, but there will be aspects of what we do both in this portfolio and specifically in the rural economy portfolio that will be significantly impacted. Can we have another area, cabinet secretary, that we do not look a bit more about? That is the European Court of Justice, as you will well know. That is the environmental court of last resort. We know that the UK Government is very clear that they wish to withdraw from that. You will know, cabinet secretary, that Michael Goldford wrote to the committee recently saying, and I am quoting, "...I set out plans to consult on a new independent and statutory body to hold governance, account and environmental commitments." He also made it quite clear that the devolved parliaments here in Northern Ireland and Wales would have to set their bodies up. Have you a plan to set up a Scottish environmental court of last resort or use existing court structure to make sure that we can enforce environmental legislation in Scotland once we withdraw from the ECJ? There is no current plan to set up a formal court. However, there are discussions beginning in respect of how we manage environmental accountability, which is the broader area in which it sits. You may be aware that there is going to be a UK Government consultation, but that is for England. It is for the devolved authorities to try and work out how best they wish to do that. We have started this conversation in Scotland as well. I will be watching with interest what the south of the border consultation looks like. I haven't seen a draft of it yet, but we are looking at the requirements of environmental governance post Brexit. To be honest, Michael Goldford's point was a good one, to consult on a body to keep the effect for the England environmental legislation to your account. Is there a scenario that you could utilise the court recession as being a court that would take the responsibilities of the ECJ once we withdraw, in the sense that that would put it on a stronger legal footing as it currently is? I think that if we could just separate out a couple of things, because environmental governance does not necessarily mean a court, and a court is not necessarily going to do all of the things that an accountability body might choose to do. It would be wrong to see the two things as being the same. Michael Goldford or Theresa Coffey used the analogy of the Committee on Climate Change for the environmental accountability body that they were talking about, which I was slightly surprised at, because I do not necessarily think that we regard the Committee on Climate Change as a body that would hold it accountable, when clearly there was a sense that that would have a more I hesitate to use the word regulatory but have a more directive function than the Committee for Climate Change. We are considering, as is Wales and I presume Northern Ireland, what will be required in terms of governance afterwards. I would not want to rule anything out, but neither would I want to say at this point specifically what we choose to do, because the court structures are very distinctive, quite separate, and allocating to them that responsibility would take quite a deal of thinking it through. Can I move on to Marine Scotland? That may be Mr Black's best-placed answer, and my next question. Can I raise the issues, Mr Black, around science, data and compliance? You will know that the European maritime fisheries fund provides over 30 million to Marine Scotland for this very important work.  My estimate at the moment is that it is about £4.5 million, in rough terms, £4.5 million, so it is about 11 per cent of the overall expenditure. It is quite a significant amount. It has to be said that a lot of our science and a lot of our compliance activity is funded via European funding at the moment, so it is something that we have highlighted to the UK Government as a key area for ourselves. That, of course, is to maintain the levels at where we are now, and until we have a full picture of exactly what the future picture on fisheries policy is going to be, we do not know exactly what our compliance activities, for example, might actually be. It is a significant problem. In simple terms, it is a huge chunk of your science budget. I mean, if you affect we got a risk register as well, if you lose that funding, alarm bells ring, basically. Yes, we have a risk register and this is high on it, and it has been one of the points that the Scottish Government has made very regularly to the UK Government. It is not just in the marine context but in other contexts as well that this would have a significant impact if there wasn't a replacement funding. On your evidence to us, you make the reasonable point that that funding from Europe gives you a cutting edge on conservation measures for fishing. What concerns do you have if you lost that funding about still being at the cutting edge in Scotland? Will we lose our place in that? Obviously, whichever funding we have, we will make best use of it as we possibly can, but you are right. We do consider ourselves right at the forefront of maintaining a cutting edge approach, which will enable us to maintain the good fishing that we have, but also make sure that it is environmentally sustainable in the long run as well. We will always try and prioritise that as far as we can, but if there is a big hole in the funding then that must have an impact. We would rather be at the cutting edge in developing things ourselves rather than following others, but that is part of the planning. I think that I mentioned where I came in before that one of the things that we are looking at and that we will be discussing with ministers is the possibility of charging, which again is one of the options available, but it is not the sole option available. What we are looking for is funding to be replaced. Is there any other funding that you do not constantly access that you may be able to use as a substitute? We are definitely going to be actively looking to see whether we can work with other bodies to make sure not only that we maximise the amount of funding, but that we get the best value for money out of the funding that we have. If we look across Scotland as a whole, it is not just Marine Scotland that is involved in investment in the science in this area. We are trying to work with others to make sure that we get the best from the whole pot of money. That is very helpful. On charging, Claudia Beamish and Stuart Stevenson. I wonder if I could ask your cabinet secretary what your view is on the possibility of Marine Scotland introducing a charging regime? If you have any comment on that. Charging is something that, to be fair, is not just Marine Scotland that is involved in this conversation. I think that CPI is also looking at the charging issue. There is some real consideration taking place. Ultimately, I think that I get the final sign-off on any potential charging regime, but it is a very early stage in terms of talking both within the organisations and to relevant stakeholders how that might best be managed. I have not seen a draft charging scheme as yet, although I would expect to see one. I do not know what the timescale is for Marine Scotland. We are certainly accelerating that timescale and trying to make it as quick as possible. I think that one of the things that we are aware of is that we have to make sure that stakeholders have involvement in all that and that we want to look across the whole piece, because if you look at charging for all the different activities that take place, you could have a cumulative impact on particular areas that you might not want, so it is quite important to look at it holistically rather than in little chunks. Can I just pick up that point before Claudia Beamish comes back, cabinet secretary? When it comes to sign-off, among the factors that you will consider, would that include the ability of a sector to carry any increase in its costs? I am thinking particularly of agriculture at the moment. SEPA is looking at abstraction licensing increases, which I suspect will come across your desk before too long, at a time when agriculture is having a pretty difficult time of it. Would consideration for you be whether a sector can bear a substantial increase in costs? I would expect that to be part of what comes to me—a clear understanding on the part of Merion Scotland and SEPA—that has to be taken as an issue. I need to be clear that, as I understand it, and I would be correct if I am wrong, the charging is about cost recovery. It is not about making money. I think that I am right in saying that it is about cost recovery, which is slightly different to charging in order to maximise the financial benefit out of it, but, clearly—and Gremm's already flagged up—I would have thought that, particularly from Merion Scotland, it would need to have a very clear conversation with SEPA at an absolute minimum about where the charges are likely to apply, and whether that will overburden some people. However, I would expect that it would not be for me to think that it should be looking at that as part of the process. If it is not already, I hope that it is listening to what I am saying, that that has got to be an issue. I will ask another question about Merion Scotland and its budget, as we are looking at that at the moment. I would like to know from the cabinet secretary and also from Graham Black whether you both consider that the national indicator associated with Merion Scotland is perhaps unduly narrow in view of the fact that there is a lot of focus on fisheries and perhaps not as much as I would hope would be on environments. I wonder if you could say a little more about that. That is narrow, and we are looking at changing that and including a broader range of activities, because it is very singularly focused. That has not fed through yet to the national performance framework, but it will do. I will include biodiversity and also the cleanliness of our water, as well as the economic fisheries aspect. I think that it will give a much better overall picture of what we are doing around the seas of Scotland, rather than concentrating on that rather narrow one. In view of the fact that that is being reviewed, as I understand at the moment, will that be something that could be in this process rather than having to wait for the next review? To me, as soon as we have measures that we think are appropriate, we would share that more widely and again we would like some input from others outside the marine Scotland to see whether they think that it is appropriate. However, what we are doing at the moment is trying to work out exactly underpinning that, what measures would actually make sense in order to measure the health of our seas. It is not always clear cut. We do not want it overly complex, we do not want it overly simple, but we have to understand the underlying measures that will go in towards that, and we will be bringing that forward as soon as we have done a little more thinking. Can you give any timescale on that? It will certainly be next year. I think that it is a question of prioritising that in amongst all the other discussions around things like Brexit, etc. Right. If it is not ready for this iteration of the national performance framework, I would ask you if you could clarify for us if it would be possible to have that as part of your aims, even if it was not in the national performance framework, if you arrive at an alteration to the indicators? Yes, I am quite happy with that. As far as we are concerned, we have already done a lot of work, and now we need to have a wider discussion about it. It is not something that is in a very long term, but we can move quite quickly. Obviously, that has budgetary implications just to get back to the point of the session. Right, thank you. The Stuart Stevenson in Mark Ruskell. In relation to the UK Government minister's comments about a UK-wide environmental body and reference to the UK climate change committee, is that not a very useful comparison that UK Government ministers are making in that the UK climate change committee requires the agreement of all four jurisdictions to any material action in that committee, and that any of the nations can veto the decisions of the other three. Therefore, if that is the model that is being proposed for bodies that affect all four jurisdictions in the UK, it has in that particular respect some advantageous aspects. I think that that is a fair point, although that is not, as you would imagine, is not how it is being expressed currently. The reference to the UK Committee on Climate Change was about the advisory nature of it and the fact that we were all signed up to it. Of course, the UK Committee for Climate Change does not have the other additional things that the proposed environmental accountability body would, because that environmental accountability body is going to act as a conduit for complaints and compliance. That brings into play—at least that is what they are consulting on—a whole different set of questions, which I am suspecting that we might not be the only devolved authority to begin to think, well, hang on a sec, how is that going to be set up? However, it is a fair point, however, if the proposal is that there is a kind of four-way equal say, if that is built into a process, any process, then you would have to look at that and consider whether it was appropriate. I am not at the moment feeling that that is quite where this is at. I may be wrong, but that is not how it was being described. Alternatively, it might be the previous model of the British Waterways Board, where the Scottish Minister had to sign off actions that British waterways took in England. I speak from experience. Yes, I do not know that anybody would regard that as being a particularly helpful way forward for anybody, but it is indicative of where we are that this is all really a current conversation. As I indicated, once the draft consultation published for England comes out, you will see the nature of the body that is being talked about. However, the nature of the body is such that it is quite clearly intended to have a compliance role and that people would be able to make formal complaints to it. I would be a little bit uncomfortable if that was happening cross-border. Mark Ruskell, I will go back to the issue of Marine Scotland's key indicator again. I hear the comments made about potentially reforming that and broadening the range of indicators out, but, in terms of the indicator that you have at the moment, it is flatlining, despite the fact that budgets have been increased since 2014-15. What are the reasons and the challenges around that? I do not want to speak for Graham, but I would have presumed that the indicator is not directly related to the budget, because some of the decision-making around the commercial fisheries is out with our control, so we are not in control of all of that. That is a difficulty. I suppose that the lack of indicators in other areas means that we have budget and progress in other areas. That one area being the only one that is an indicator is a slightly distorted picture of what Marine Scotland is and is not doing. I do not know whether there is anyone to come in. Obviously, there are quite long time lags in terms of the indicator between what you do and having any impact on the indicator, particularly when it is as crude as it is now. The budget position is not quite as simple as it looks. There were changes in the way in which the Scottish Government dealt with central funding of services. What appears to be an increase in the budget was an increase in the budget to cover centralised costs, if you know what I mean. The budget has been more or less flat rather than increasing, so it is a slightly misleading picture when you look at the numbers. Overall, to me, the key point is having good indicators that tell us not only what is Marine Scotland doing now, but what are the long-term trends in terms of our fish stocks, of the health of our seas, of all those aspects of the biodiversity. They are not things that you can switch on and off. They take a long while. That is why we have to have something that gives us a much longer time frame so that we understand the impact of what we are doing and understand where we need to take immediate attention. It may not be three or four or five or ten years hence that we actually see the impact, but we will at least know that whatever levers we have, we are pulling our heading in the right direction. Let us move that on. Last year, the Scottish Government was praised for directing £10 million to peatland restoration, £2 million from its budget heading, and £8 million from Fergus Ewing's. Now, we move to a point where the target for peatland restoration goes from 10,000 hectares a year to 20,000 hectares, and yet we are seeing a 40 per cent cut in the budget for peatland restoration. Can you tell us what the rationale for that cut is and how we will manage to achieve those new targets with substantially less funding to support them? Peatland is one of the areas that I think will become an increasing challenge for us. It is one where I am anxious to ensure that we do not allow things to slip back. The portfolio itself continues to contribute £2 million, so that is the same as the previous year. The £8 million extra that came in last year—I remember that this was a subject of some exchanges because people were—it comes from another budget—was because SRDP money was identified. This year, we have not been able to identify £8 million, we have only been able to identify £4 million. Last year's £8 million was an allocation in-year, as opposed to part of the overall budget. This year, it does not look like £8 million is going to be possible. It will be £4 million, and it goes back to the issues that David Stewart was raising about SRDP, on how one plugs that gap as that gradually begins to tail off. There are some significant challenges around that, and we have to work very hard to ensure and make sure that all of this money gets spent. I do not think that all of last year's 17-18 budget is the same issue as the land fund, because it is demand-led and has the capacity to do the work. There are some issues around the skills and the ability to do the work. Some of the projects take a while to get going, so making sure that what money is allocated is all spent in the right way is going to become increasingly important. From your perspective, if money were to become available, would that be a priority area for you, given that the SNH chief executive indicated last week that there was a considerable pipeline of projects and that they could use the money? That would be one of those areas that I would be anxious not just to preserve where we are, but to try to increase the amount that could be spent. If there was money identified that I was able to allocate to this, that would be one of those areas where I would. It is not the only one, because there are pressures that come from other parts of the portfolio, including, for example, flooding. You would have to think about it very carefully, but that is one of the areas that, in the longer term, I have some anxiety about. Over a period of time and repeatedly we have heard that, as public money is invested in this, so it would encourage funding from other sources, not just European, but perhaps private money, pension funds, that type of thing, is there any work going on to try and identify such sources to support people in restoration? I do not think that we have been able to do that yet. Neil, are you aware of any progress on that front? Not in terms of pension funds, but some of the work that SNH has been doing through peatland action has been to look at potential synergies with the peatland code, which is a mechanism for levering investment from the private sector. That is something that we will continue to look at. There is a substantial scale of reduction in funding to support the emission reduction from the agricultural sector. Given that the agricultural sector is so problematic, what is the justification for that? Just give me a second if you have the kind of irrelevant stuff. Are you taking this from the… There are two figures, essentially. There is a reduction in funding to support emissions reductions from £8.3 million in 2017-18 to £4.6 million in the draft budget. The budget attached to public good advisory service is set to reduce from £6.5 million to £3.2 million. I think that there was a reason for some of the public good reduction. If you just give me two sex, will I try to find my section that is related to agriculture? Sorry, I thought I had it better labelled. Is that where it is? Sorry. Too well organized. I've got too many bits of paper, I'm afraid. Right, okay, yeah. There's been some part of it is to avoid double counting. There's been an issue around support for the… This is the overall agricultural budget. The support for peatland restoration through the land managers renewable fund has been classified under land use. There's a bit of changing around in technical terms. Some of the other work was deemed to be a high cost, but was delivering low mitigation potential and not felt to be as great a value as was originally thought. There was, for example, an expensive proposal put forward, which had a potential abatement of just 19,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent. So the sum of it has been pulled back because what was being looked at wasn't actually going to deliver what we thought. I thought I saw something separate about the public good issue. I know that there were two or three things that were creating… The public goods budget has gone down from 6.5 million to 3.2 million. I think that we'll be seeking an explanation of that as well. Maybe that's what you're coming to. I've got it here somewhere and I can't find the explanation, so I'll need to come back on that. If you could come back on it because it's a fairly substantial budget reduction. I know that I have it here. There were some very significant reasons. It wasn't just that we're slashing the budget. There was some actual concrete decision making behind it. I shall probably find it a completely inappropriate moment in the middle of another question. Can I just expand this a little into the SRDP, which you've already mentioned, cabinet secretary? I'm just wondering what your level of influence is on the SRDP budget, because we've seen 42 million cuts from the agri-environment climate scheme. On face value, that's something that clearly may impact on policies to reduce carbon emissions across the board. I'm wondering how that works in terms of budget setting and choices in terms of the cabinet and, in particular, the SRDP budget, which has seen a number of cuts that are relevant to the achievement of objectives in your portfolio. There have been some significant issues with some of the particular schemes in the last year, and I think IX was one of them, so that wasn't really a cut in the... I mean, it was a difficulty with the programme there. I mean, I'm responsible for my portfolio budget. There are some conversations that are being had across portfolios about the interaction between portfolios, but at the end of the day it's not for me to step into somebody else's portfolio and direct them as to how they make their decisions or otherwise. There is a process by which we do some negotiating, but that was in forwards. I'm trying to think if it was IX or one of the other ones, where the money that was then available was allocated to other programmes, a number of which did help us, so they weren't badged under, and that was part of the conversation. They weren't badged under, for example, IX any longer, but there was still money being directed towards the appropriate end from our perspective. I think I'll need to ask Fergus Ewing to write to you with the detail about that. I think that that would be a fairer way to do it because it's at the end of the day a decision making that he has to make and he has as many challenges and pressures on his budget as we all do. That would be of interest if you could get him to write to us on that. John Scott. Just declaring an interest on that subject particularly, I mean there has been difficulties accessing, as you said, that IX budget right across Scotland, huge difficulties of complexity and I think funding as well, and if the cabinet secretary yourself in that joint response, if you could address those difficulties, be very grateful and a hope for improvement. I mean I'm conscious that there were some very particular issues over a couple of the badged funding mechanisms and the decisions that were then made after that were to redirect what was available to different schemes and we were involved in the conversation about where that would go. It was understanding that some of them were causing such difficulties as they really couldn't any longer be used. Okay, thank you. Finlay Carson. Goofyne, I'd like to move on to SNH. The relevant national indicators that SNH work with are to improve access to local green space, increase pupils' use of Scotland's outdoors, improve the condition of protected nature sites, and increase the abundance of terrestrial breeding birds. A previous evidence session SNH has said that the re-prioritising to meet the new ambition of the corporate plan through greater emphasis on making places more available to disadvantaged communities. Can I ask the cabinet secretary whether she's content with the shift in SNH's approach and whether those improvements or changes will improve the indicators for access to local green space? At the same time, could you give us an indication whether you think that this change will have implications towards existing priorities, for example, deer and beaver management? The answer to the last part of the question is no, it won't, because I will be absolutely clear with SNH that these are pretty fundamental things that have to be continued. I think that what committee members need to remember is that there's a relatively new chair and a new chief executive. I think that they're keen to re-profile the SNH. Part of what you're hearing is that desire to have SNH understood better by the public, and it's translating through into the language that you're talking about, but I would not want that in any way to diminish the work that they need to do on what might be called the more nuts and bolts part of their job. I've made it pretty clear to them that things like deer management, et cetera, are fundamental. What you're seeing is the desire of a new management to perhaps have SNH understood better by the public. There's a feeling that most people don't really know what SNH does or what it's about. Some of this is about that aspect. Given that, are you content that the national indicators relating to the condition of protected nature sites and the abundance of terrestrial breeding birds, which are currently flatlining, do you think that their new approach will start to show improvements in those indicators? I hope so. Part of the SNH issue is not really having a particularly strong profile and understanding among members of the public. A better engagement with the public is going to have really good spin-off for a number of those things, because people will have a better and clearer understanding of what it is that is being done and why. I would see those two things as potentially having a positive dynamic. I don't think that there's any desire in the part of anybody in SNH to make things worse. What they want to do is achieve better than they've been achieving, and I would very much want to encourage them in that. That will include across those indicators that are, you could say, flatlining. We might just say that they remain at a stable level, but they're not going down, but there will be some indicators where we might seem to be falling back, in which case I would want those turned around. Those are all things that we expect SNH to do, but perhaps better engagement. We've seen a 13 per cent reduction in funding since 1415. Do you think that that's contributed to those national indicators? As I described on flatlining, you're discriminant staying the same. I suppose it's the same thing, really. Do you think that we need further investment to start to show an improvement? I don't think that the status quo is really what we're looking for. We want to see improvements in habitats. Absolutely. If I could identify an easy source of further money, I would very much want to do so. If, during the committee's deliberations, you can identify within my broad portfolio budget a place from which to shift money into SNH, then I'd be interested to hear it. I'm not myself able to see it very easily. Like everybody else, SNH, CPAR, Marine Scotland, they all have to learn to live within the budget that they have. I don't think that there is a direct relationship between the budget and the performance indicators. I think that there is still some work that needs to be done in places like CPAR to ensure that the money is being spent properly and wisely. I'm concerned that the new approach by SNH will tick the boxes of getting more children into the countryside or whatever, but I'm not convinced that it will return improvements in those indicators. Are you confident that those changes will achieve that in light of the funding cuts? It's not the changes on their own. It's what that means in terms of engagement. It's what it means in terms of SNH taking a much more outward face. After all, they will be judged by the indicators by the very people that they are trying to further engage. I do think that those two things will help one another. Will they achieve that overnight? I wouldn't have thought so because those things take time, particularly when we are dealing with nature—which SNH is, of course—so you don't get overnight success, but I think that that will help to turn it round. Do you want to come in? Keith Brown looks like he wants to come in. If I could just add a brief comment. I think that you heard from Mrs Seuska last week when you challenged her on is this a fundamental shift in priorities, and her answer was that they would continue to do the other things as well. So there's a bit of a change in emphasis, but not a fundamental switching off of some work to be replaced with other. The chief exec said that she would continue to do the other work as well. Let's move this on briefly to look at SEPA. I think that we began to touch on this as well, because SEPA has also had a reduction in funding, which I'm sure you would say hasn't contributed to lack of progress in their relevant national indicators. However, I would ask the question in a slightly different way. Would there not need or might there need to be greater investment to ensure that those indicators start to show improvement? I think that I've indicated with response to the question about SNH that if I lived in the world where one could simply increase investment across the board, then of course I would want to do so. There are probably many, many areas where that would be an ideal scenario, but we're not in that scenario. We're in a scenario where we have to think very carefully about how the money is being spent and how best we achieve what we want to achieve from it, and of course SEPA is one of the bodies that's also looking at potential charging issues. They will be hoping to find some other ways to offset what might be perceived as a cut, but I can't see where to take that from if I'm to substantially increase SNH and SEPA budgets, how I do that without substantially decreasing other parts of the portfolio budget. That's as well in fairness. There are issues around indicators being impacted by circumstances outwith the Government's control. For example, around waste, where heavily dependent and local authorities are to deliver in that area, and that performance hasn't been what you would have wanted. Around renewable electricity generation, we've had the unhelpful intervention on offshore wind. A legal challenge at today's area? Sorry, yes. All indicators are national performance indicators, and they will each of them be impacted by a number of things. I think that Graham referred to the indicator that currently exists effectively from Marine Scotland, which is impacted by decisions made about total allowable catch, which are not decisions that we are making. That applies to all indicators. Climate change itself will impact on some of the indicators. We need to understand that. Some of the indicators will be—unless climate change is thrown into reverse, we're going to see some impacts and those impacts will play through into indicators. We've already covered the Brexit subject quite extensively, but just in relation to the circular economy investment funding from ERDF, what discussions have you had around that issue? I've not had specific discussions about that. I know that there are some conversations taking place. I think that the reference in the earlier part of the evidence in respect of zero waste and where they get much of their money from. The decisions about that are also decisions that will be impacted by decisions made at the Westminster level. I've had a difficult time trying to get environment pushed further up the agenda in relation to those talks. We've now got it on to the agenda, but there are a number of aspects there that still have to be thought through. The circular economy side of things is definitely one that will be part of that conversation. I'm hopeful that some of the things that Michael Gove has said around some aspects of that. I'm hopeful that there will be a productive conversation when we can get to it. I think that we've covered the particular aspect. I have another question about which I'll come in at this stage on. It was to refer back to a previous piece of evidence that we had from Marine Scotland, where there was a discussion about the roll-out of a future for MPAs to complete the network that was suggested by SNH three years ago. I think that we had evidence that suggested that there could be a resourcing issue there in terms of working on the management measures for existing MPAs but also rolling out new MPAs. I think that a figure was put on it that it might require an extra one to two members of staff. I think that Marine Scotland is going to come back to some more detail. I wonder if there was more reflection on that today and whether it's possible for us to do two things that once support the existing management of MPAs while working on completing the network. Yes. I think that my colleague was maybe a little on the cautious side when he said it would be one or two members of staff. I think that we're absolutely keen to press ahead as quickly as we can, but, as has been said before, we're balancing this along all the other priorities that we have to manage. I don't think that we're talking about something that's knocking it into the long grass. We're just talking about how much resource we can release over a busy period. For example, over the next six months, we know Brexit is going to take up a lot of our time and attention as well. We will put as much resource as we can into MPAs. We want to extend the network and make sure that it's working the right way, and we've got the existing MPA network working to the best effect. I don't think that we're talking about anything fundamental. It's just a question that I think we just wanted to recognise the fact that there are resource pressures that stop everything going as fast as we would ideally like, but it's still very high on our agenda. If you've got timescales for that, then? No, I wouldn't say that. If you're happy, I'm happy to write with a little bit more detail over what our plans are around that, if that would help the committee. Let's develop the MPA theme, Angus MacDonald. Good morning to the cabinet secretary and the officials. Clearly, Mr Black just stated that Marine Scotland can always use more resources to ensure compliance, particularly with regard to MPAs. In the meantime, it would seem that we are relying on and promoting a culture of compliance. We're aware of an FOI, which was reported in the Times that there's been 78 reports of suspected incursions inside MPA boundaries between 2015 and May 2017, but only one conviction secured. Do you consider that the promotion of a culture of compliance is adequate to monitor and police MPAs? I think at the moment, yes. I'm aware of the FOI, and I would say that that's a very raw data to extrapolate from, because there are just reports, and there can be multiple reports about a single incident. That wouldn't necessarily show, because each one of those multiple reports would be loved as a report. The 78 reports aren't necessarily 78 incidents, so I think that that's something that needs to be thought about. As far as I understand it, there is, for example, one vessel that gives rise to 25 per cent of the reports. I don't know the name of the vessel, and I'm not sure if it's appropriate to say it, but that's the kind of thing that that very raw data, when you look behind it—and I haven't looked at all of that. I'm just aware of that total, but they don't all relate to 78—it's not 78 separate incidents. Graham will know more about this than I do. There was one incident where there were 19 reports about a single vessel, and there are several others where there were a number of reports. Of course, the fact that there was a report doesn't necessarily mean that something has necessarily been done wrong. Somebody thinks there might be something going wrong. It slightly overstates it, and we did explain it to the people who were put in the FOI exactly what lay behind it, but I think that they prefer the sort of high-level figure than the underlying reality. However, that doesn't mean to say that we're complacent. It does rely—we do rely on people reporting what they see, and I think that that's a good thing, because I think it's a responsibility for everyone involved in coastal communities to try and support the MPA network. That's a good thing, but there are gaps. We don't have monitoring of smaller vessels in the way that we do for larger vessels. We've currently got an experiment looking to see if all that might be something that we could extend and we've got some smaller vessels that we are trying to monitor in that way. There are gaps that we will try and fill, but overall, I have to say that the feedback that we've been getting is that most people are supportive of MPAs, most people are compliant, most people are trying to make sure that they actually do work. We have to just make sure that we have the resources in place to deal with the rogues. There will always be a small number of people who decide that the rules are not for them, but they're just for everyone else. I think that we will continue to rely on getting reports from people and reacting to them as quickly as we can. The most spectacular case over the last year of an issue was the Loch Kerrin issue, and that arose because that was reported, that people flagged that up. I think that people are watching what happens. I think that we are reliant on reports. We know that, increasingly, we are reliant on NGOs to monitor the coastal environment. Would you say that NGOs and the fishermen themselves are adequately trained and equipped to monitor MPAs, and what procedures should they be following if they suspect that legal activity is taking place? I'm not sure it's our job to be training NGOs or anybody else in terms of what they're doing. I presume that they undertake their own training and work. I don't know if Graham wants to come in on some of the interactions that he has with ENGOs. I mean, fishermen are also part of this process in fairness. It's not just— There is guidance available on our website. There is a telephone number for people to report what they see, but I suppose that perhaps the point being made is would people be able to recognise when there was something that needed being reported in the first place. We have guidance out there, but that doesn't mean to say that that's all we can do. We can't train everyone in the world, but we can try and support organisations or large groups where they want to know what they should be looking for, and we will certainly—we're always happy to talk to groups to see how we can support that. Obviously, people have to know what it is they're seeing in order to report it in the first place. If there are ways in which we can work with other bodies to improve that, we will certainly continue to do so. We already do quite a lot of that. Clearly, the introduction of new technology is going to help significantly with regard to compliance. Do you regularly consider and test the new technology that's coming in, and is there enough flexibility in Marine Scotland's budget to allow for capital spending on new technology? I'm thinking, for example—it got quite a bit of coverage in the fisheries debate last week or the week before—the remote electronic monitoring, which has been introduced to the whole fleet in New Zealand. Is there much thought given to that? I think that we're always looking at new technology. At the moment, we're looking at a range of that. We already are using drones. We use satellite technology. We will certainly use monitoring devices. At the moment, we're probably looking more towards larger boats, but we could look beyond that. We could look to camera technology. All of that is the picture of where we're going to go in the future. As to what the costs might be and where those might lie, that is probably the question after we decide what the best technology is. I'm sure that if we were able to come up with a good case to put to ministers that said—I'll say that now if I've got a captive audience—some of that might well be that it means that we can make efficiencies elsewhere by not having to use other bits of compliance activity in order to free up resource to fund something that's more effective. At the moment, we're not in a position where we're looking for anything that we've been unable to deliver, but the technology is moving on very quickly and we're trying to make sure that we're absolutely on top of it. The use of drones is one of—there are limitations on drones. They can't replace everything that we do, but we have found them useful in some circumstances. The only other thing that I've mentioned is, of course, whenever you introduce a compliance measure, that's fine for everyone who's compliant, but those who want to not comply will try to find a way of getting around that. You introduce drones and people will introduce something to try and combat drones as well. It is an on-going process. I don't think that there's a silver bullet around that. Acknowledging the cabinet secretary's earlier remarks regarding the charging regime and how it's at a very early stage, could costs—in a position to say whether, for example, costs for cameras could fall on the fishermen themselves? I don't think that we're at a position where we could say that. I don't think that we've got to that level. We've certainly had no discussions with the cabinet secretary about that. It is also a very broad industry. You have some very large fleets and very wealthy fishing fleets, and you have some very small boats that are in a very different situation. I think that all of those factors—I'm pretty sure that the cabinet secretary would want to know and consider it before thinking about that aspect. I got for the fisheries debate the REM monitoring costs about £4,000 per vessel, so it's not excessive. It might not be excessive for one of the big guys, but for the smaller fishing boats, it might be pretty significant. There's a huge variability in the income and what have you and the fishermen—they're not all fishing the same way—or making as much money as each other. Just to get a feel for the kind of numbers here, because the cabinet secretary has effectively thrown a challenge down to those of us who have pointed to areas of the budget where we think there could be more money spent, and rightly so about identifying where it would come from. Looking at the new technologies, which costs are you looking at? Are we talking here about millions of pounds, tens of millions of pounds? What sort of figures if you were to get what you wanted to really make this work? I would hesitate to put an estimate on that. Because of the range of technologies that we might be talking about—we could be talking about—we have aircraft at the moment that we use. It could be additional, quite expensive equipment for that, or it could be quite low-tech equipment around individual boats. I'm quite happy to have a think about it, and I'll probably speak to you again and see whether we can narrow it down. However, at the moment, we don't have a plan. One of the things—I think that I mentioned it when I met you before—is that we are looking at our overall compliance activity and our strategy to try and work out how we can best encourage people to comply and catch those who decide not to comply. That will be part of that. At that stage, I think that we would probably be in a better position. I'm asking the shopping list, but the price hasn't worked out. I'm hoping that, when any organisation is amassing their shopping list—which is a perfectly understandable thing for them to want to do—that they speak to their colleagues, so it occurs to me that, if we're talking about drone technology, there's more than one SNHC Marine Scotland. It doesn't all necessarily have to be everybody setting up their own drone fleet or whatever you call a collection of drones, but there may be abilities there to share some of that cost. I would very much hope that that's a conversation that's being had, she said, looking around at the table. It is a conversation that we are talking about, for example, our naval vessels as to how we can best use them, but how we can work with other people such as CEPA and SNH to get the best for the Scottish Government and the Scottish people out there. The panel will know that the international council for the exploration of the seas is the world's oldest intergovernmental organisation, founded in 1902 in Copenhagen. Of course, very much at the initiative of fishermen and scientists working together even then. Looking at the most widely available technology, the Mark 1 eyeball, do fishermen and anyone else who becomes aware of potential transgressions of the rules in relation to NPAs and other environmental issues in fishing, do they know who to call? Or is it time to crank up the knowledge of the telephone number and where to report such possible infractions? I'm absolutely sure that most people will know where to get the telephone number. I think that we actually have it in front of us somewhere, but I'll probably give it to you today. You're right, we need to make that more explicit. It is very obvious. 0131 271 9700 is the UK Fisheries Monitoring Centre. It's a UK monitoring centre, but it's run here in Scotland, and it's 24-7. I do take the point that having a number is not enough. We have to be able to publicise it and make sure that people know. I think that you will find if you go around the Marine Scotland offices around the country that it is available there. If there's more, we can certainly do that. Avid readers of the OR are catered for. I think that you have a wider audience to reach. That's another first for this committee, giving out hotline numbers. Before I come to the question about research, I'm just wanting to make a suggestion and ask you to agree with it or disagree with it, cabinet secretary. I noticed that the marked increase in the capital budget at level 4 for sustainable and active travel from £20 million to £65 million in the draft budget. One could argue, if one chose to comment on it, that the basics of environmental enhancement, SEPA, SNH and even research are possibly being neglected. Flatlining is the word that we are using and staying the same. Is it at the expense of sustainable and active travel? No. I did indicate right at the start of this overall, but the overall budget hasn't gone down overall. Some decisions had to be made within the budget, but that's within my budget, and my budget is not spending on this. This comes out of the rural economy and transport budget. As I said earlier, I didn't want to poke the bear, given that I have a small increase in the overall budget. That big increase there would perhaps have to be asked within that portfolio on how that was achieved, but I'm not going to look at gift horse in the mouth, because that has a big knock-on effect for everybody—a very positive one. Are you aware of the green bus fund that sits within that and the new fund for retrofitting? It's just that the wording is a bit ambiguous. It might suggest that it does sit there. I realise that it's not your portfolio. I wouldn't want to mislead by saying off the top of my head where the green bus fund sits, perhaps Nils. The work being done to establish an engine retrofitting centre in Scotland is in the law emission zone, rather than the active transport section, but we'll check on the green bus fund, because I can't immediately say— Okay, that would be helpful. Thank you for that. John Scott. Thank you. I'm returning now to your budget area of responsibility, cabinet secretary. The committee has been told that budget reductions have impacted on long-term research and datasets. How can such long-term and valuable datasets and research be protected in the current climate, noting the reduction in the research budgets? Well, I think that the long-term research—I think that the majority of what the research providers do is long-term research. About 90 per cent of what they do is long-term research. I'm not quite sure what they might have been trying to express there, because most of the research programme would be regarded as long-term research. We regard that as absolutely fundamental and it has an enormous knock-on effect. The research is one of the—well, I gather—to be a unsung hero in this portfolio. I think that they do incredibly well and I've worked very hard to make sure that they were protected as much as possible in terms of this year's budget round, for that reason. There is some tightening. We know that they can manage that. The Robertannic Garden is getting some capital spend to do some of the work that they needed to do, which I think they were delighted to get. I think that they were concerned that that wasn't going to happen and that they are happy that it is happening now. I am very much of the view that the research programme that is jointly delivered by all of these research providers is incredibly important. It delivers an enormous benefit to the economy, not to mention jobs. Although things get squeezed a little, they have to work hard to continue to ensure that they have funding for research, not just from the Scottish Government but from other sources, that they are still in a pretty good place. I am notwithstanding that, although I do not have the figures exactly to hand, there has been quite a drop in the research budget, as I understand it, this year. It is a matter of great concern. Now that I look at the figures and read them, it is from 2014 through to now, it is from £76 million to the projected budget of down to £64 million. That is a drop of over £12 million in the past four years. I know that there is a huge amount of worry in the research institutes about that reduction in funding and the fact that it is year to year to year funding in terms of staff and evidence that we have heard of having to be fired before the budget actually comes out in terms of their ability to meet employment regulations. They have to be given notice—what is the correct term—notice to leave, as it were, and they have to be re-engaged in terms of the 1990s, in terms of redundancy law. That is the difficulty of year-on-year funding, because it cannot guarantee that staff will be jobless. I am slightly confused about that, because all the research providers operate on the basis of no compulsory redundancies. What you must be talking about is staff who are employed for a year or a time-limited period. The research providers comply with the no compulsory redundancy policy. If there are people who are perhaps employed in a different category for a time-limited period or for the duration of a specific project, that is a slightly different category. I am not sure that that is different to a lot of other organisations. It is one of the downsides of single-year budgeting. That is the point that I am making. Our budget is a single-year budget from Westminster, so the day Westminster decides to multiply the number of years that it is giving us budget for, we will then be able to look again at some of that. We are trapped all of us in that single-year budgeting. I am reverting back to the point of a reduction of £12.5 million in the last four years in the research analysis budget. Can you justify that if you choose to? As I indicated, yes, there are some squeezes in some parts of the portfolio. As far as possible, I have tried to ensure that no area, including the research providers, is going to be put into a position in which they are not able to continue to do their job. We are not the sole provider of research funding. We provide a significant amount of research funding, but research providers have got to and do lever in funding from other sources, so we are encouraging them to continue to do that, and that will become a more acute issue once we have to deal with the fallout from Brexit. I have also had a number of meetings with the research providers jointly. We need them to find ways of maximising efficiencies across the board. There are six research providers. Every single one of them is working very well, but I think that there are some savings that can be made by them working with each other, perhaps more than has been the case in the past. I am trying to encourage them to do that. That is one of the reasons why you have seen the advent of Safari, the joint organisation of research providers. We were told last week that there had been no real duplication of research identified, so I take it that the kind of thing that you are getting at is perhaps two HR departments. That is exactly the kind of thing. I am trying to encourage them to think into the longer term about some of that aspect of what they do. The research work that they all do is quite specific to each of them, but there are aspects of their organisations that I think they need to think about and maintain their individual identities, but to think about whether or not they can maximise benefit from some of those areas that they are not directly able to do with their research. That is a conversation that is a longer term conversation, and I regard the advent of Safari as a really good signal that they are beginning to think along those lines. I think that we would all welcome the advent of Safari. I must say, certainly speaking personally, that I do, but I am confident that the balance is right between the Scottish Government funding of research to address immediate challenges and the longer term strategic. If there was more money that I could give them, I would be giving them more money. That balance is the best that we can manage in the current circumstances, yes. Having heard what you have just said and the point that you made about world-renowned research institutions being able to secure funding from other sources for their research, there is, of course, the issue of maintaining buildings, campuses and so on. You referenced the early additional money, the very welcome additional money that has gone to the botanics, but that is £2.6 million when they estimate that they have a backlog of £15 million. I think that we were giving evidence as well from the James Hutton Institute that, in one year, their support for capital had gone down from £3 million to a fraction of that. I think that I am right in saying that the Scottish Government owns their in-vergaury campus. How mindful are you, cabinet secretary, of the pressures on our research institutes around capital matters? Very much so. I meet them regularly, so I am conscious of the challenges that they face. We have, for some considerable time now, been encouraging the bidding of research grants to be done on a full economic cost basis, which would wrap into it the issues around maintenance and repair. Scottish Government funding, as I understand it, is made at a 100 per cent full economic cost basis. We are doing what we can. We do understand those challenges. That deals with the maintenance and repair that does not deal with significant capital spend, such as the Robert Anick gardens. Again, if I could identify the sort of significant sums of money in the budget to allocate to them, I would be only too happy to do so. Something else in the portfolio budget would have to suffer. It is not immediately obvious whether I am to increase funding to SNH, increase funding to SIPA, increase funding to all the research providers, including capital spend, where that increase in funding is to come from. Accepting those points, if you take the example of the botanics, the contribution that they make to tackling species loss is absolutely colossal. I am looking at whether you have any other questions. Mark Ruskell. Cabinet Secretary, I want to go back to the discussion that we had as part of the air quality inquiry. I asked you about the consequential monies that are due to come to Scotland as a result of increased spend on air quality in England and Wales. At the time, you could not answer that, because it was pre-the budget. However, can you answer that question now? How much additional money has Scotland got as a result of that additional spend in England and Wales? Has that money been ring-fenced for air quality work in the £20 million? Has that money been ring-fenced for air quality work in Scotland? How does that translate into the budget that is before us? The £20 million was factored into the decisions that the Cabinet took in terms of the allocations. It is worth highlighting that, in terms of the number of actions that will support air quality, they are not just limited to what is in the Eclare Portfolio, but the issue of the low-emission zone funding. The £10 million allocated to the low-emission zone capital. The act has travelled. We have already referred to it. I think that it would be useful if we could see how that additional money has been spent in relation to the budget that you are already predicting for the next year, and perhaps break that down. I would certainly find that useful, convener, if we could get that information so that we can track where the money is going and where it is going. Finlay Carson? I think that we did touch on the single-year budgets. What I would like to look at again is that you are ruling out moving away from single-year budgets, because we have heard evidence from the likes of climate exchange and the James Hutton Institutes, which have both stated that they could be far more ambitious and that they would be in a better position moving forward to increase excellence if they moved away from a single-year budget. You would imagine that you would get more bang for your buck. Are you ruling out? I think that that is a question that you need to speak to the finance secretary about. There are a very small number of things that we do commit ourselves—it is not multi-year budgeting, but we commit ourselves into the future. For example, the £42 million a year that goes to flooding, we have committed to finding that, regardless of any other budget issues. I think that the £10 million land fund was in that category as well, but that is not multi-year budgeting as such. That is basically being able to say upfront that that is what the allocation will be, notwithstanding the rest of it. The difficulty I have—I am not the finance secretary—is that, as I understand it, the Westminster budget this year was effectively a one-year budget. The grant that we have got from Westminster is a single-year grant. Whether or not the advent of the various tax powers allows there to be some element of multi-year thinking entering into what we do, I am not technically able to answer that. Most of us would prefer if we could think. It is not that long ago that there were three-year budgets. We are in the place that we are at at the moment because we are not getting multi-year budgets from Westminster. If we do not get multi-year budgets from Westminster, it is extremely hard for us to be able to deliver a multi-year budget in the way that we would understand it. There will be the small number of things that one is prepared to commit to in absolute terms, but that is not multi-year budgeting as such. It just gives a certain consistency and predictability about things in some small areas. However, you could not do that across the board because without the certainty of what your budget in total was going to be, how could you manage a multi-year budget? I think that that is a much more fundamental point. I do not think that any of us thinks that one-year budgeting is ideal for all the reasons that people have spoken about. I appreciate that the budget for flooding or whatever is important not to be a single year, but it is particularly apparent to research that they are not just looking at one-year in advance. Is it something that you will look into how you could potentially provide more than a one-year budget for the research side of the budget? Is it something that you would look into in more detail? We can look at it, but for all of these research providers, we are only providing about half the research funding, sometimes less than half the research funding. We are not the sole provider, so they would still be required to be looking at others. We can look at doing the promise on the flood funding. You could look to do the equivalent, but, arguably, everybody across the board would want you to be doing the equivalent, and then we would not really be any further forward. Until we see what the post-Brexit landscape looks like, it is impossible to contemplate these. I do not even want to think about what next year's budget is going to have, because we will be right in the middle of that period of total uncertainty that it is going to be extremely difficult. Did you find the information on the emissions reductions in the agriculture sector, or did you want to write to us? I said some of it already without actually finding it. I will perhaps add that for the cabinet secretary for a rural economy to perhaps clarify if he thinks it is a better way to express it. You will take those things back to one of your behalf. I thank you for your time in that of your officials today. I wish all of you a very good Christmas when it comes. At its next meeting on 9 January, the committee will consider its support on the draft budget. In the meantime, we will now move into private session and I ask that the public gallery be cleared as the public part of the meeting is closed.