What's up everyone? It's your girl, Kenzie here from Layton Sports Cards and I am repping 2021 Panini Limited Football Hoppy 7 Box Break number 25 random teams. Again, here's a look at the random results. You can always find these at LaytonSportsCards.com underneath the results tab and the link is also in chat for you. Best of luck. What's up all star. Thank you. All right. Really solid first half. Again, we had four out of the seven boxes had rookie quarterback RPAs. So let's see what we can get out of the second half. Got two Brandon cooks. We've got Chiefs RPA to 199 Cornell Powell, Jimmy G and Chris Godwin. Got Saquon, Nick Chubb out of 149 Browns. Got Washington Stadium stars to 49 on the three color patch. Antonio Gibson, Demi and Harris and Big Ben. He treats him Browns for you soldier. Let's see. No Mac Jones out of the first half. So let's see what we get you on. We've got Dub Bears, Limited Ink to 75 Lance Briggs, DK Metcalf and a Tom Brady. This one there bucks. Calvin Ridley, James Conner. We've got Browns, RPA to 99 Anthony Schwartz. There you go soldier. It's a 99 RPA. Josh Jacobs and Austin Eckler. Aaron Donald, Matt Ryan out of 149 Falcons. We've got Texans to 25 beautiful looking card there. Davis Mills, three colored patch. Go Braden Kaye. Nice looking car. Aaron Rodgers, Deontay Johnson, CD Lamb, Matt Stafford. We've got Cowboys. Wow. Material monikers out of 49 patch auto Michael Gallup for the Cowboys. Haven't seen very many of those inserts. Cowboys, Braden Kaye. Nice. James Robinson and Tommy Trumbull rookie. I also think it fried the TV box so we've got no TV in here anymore. Javaskelsy, Gaskin. We've got a Samuel Cosme on the rookie auto to 199 Washington. Deontay Johnson and a Justin Fields rookie. Ramsey, Noah Fance. We've got Giants, RPA to 49. Cadarius, Tony. Nice one there Giants. James Robinson and Chase Claypool. Sutton, we've got Keenan Allen out of 149. Lions, we've got Limitless patch to 75. DeAndre Swift and Aaron Rodgers. Christian McCaffrey, we've got Cole Beasley out of 49 bills. For the Cardinals, we've got Rookie Patch to 75. Rondell Moore. Brandon Iuk and Devin White. Teddy Bridgewater, Cooper Cup. We've got Washington, Rookie Auto to 199. Jared Patterson, Ryan Tannenhill and a Matt Stafford. Nice one there, Rand. Pack box four. Kyler Murray, Cole Beasley. We've got Texans on the RPA to 75. Niko Collins. Texans, CEH and Tyler Lockett. T.J. Hawkinson, Dak Prescott. Dolphins, Limited Ink to 199. Irving Friar. CEH and CD-Lam. Darnell Mooney out of 15 on the Purple Foil CD-Lam. We've got Texans, unlimited potential to 75. Davis Mills Patch. Devin White and Ryan Tannenhill. Pack box five. Deondre Hopkins, Jonathan Taylor. We've got Vikings, RPA to 299. Keeney and Wong Wu. Chase Claypool and Brandon Iuk. Stafford out of 149. DJ Moore. We've got Rams, Tutu Atwell, Rookie Patch. Terry McLauren and Nick Chubb. Dehop, Jonathan Taylor. We've got Giants, Rookie Auto to 75. Levi on Wuzerike. DJ Shark and Matt Stafford. Pack box six. Darnell Mooney. T.J. Hawkinson. We've got Panthers, one of one NFL Shield Auto Chuba Hubbard. Boom! Panthers, what a case of limited, wow. Panthers, what? Panthers on a combo spot too. Brayden Kay. Wow. Nice Chubba Hubba. We'll mag that one for you. I love the Shields, man. They're so beautiful. Cousins and Janu Smith. Last box here. It's been a fantastic case. That middle one is super sick. We'll save that for last. It might be, well no, we had Ring of Honor out of the first half, huh? I don't know, maybe that's a book. Darnell, we've got another one of one David Montgomery Bears. Wow. Vent A with the Bears. One of one David Montgomery. We'll mag that. Then we've got Eagles Limitless Patch to 99. Jalen Hertz. I think so. James Robinson and Chase Claypole, we will find out. We'll save that really thick one for last. This one's pretty thick too. Carson Wentz, Mark Andrews. We've got a, wow. 9 of 10, RPA, Kellan Mon Vikings. Wow, this box has been crazy. Brayden Kay with the Vikings, 9 of 10. Wow. We'll mag that one too. Make it, Sean, work on this last box. Brandon Ayuk in Devon White and the one of one David Montgomery is not going to fit in a mag, but we will get it protected up for you for sure. All right, last pack here. Again, super thick. It does look like we have a book, Partnership Dual Booklet. Put that down. We've got Brandon Ayuk and a rookie of Trace Sermon. Got Joe Mixon and Marvin Gordon III. Oh, come on, show me some ink on this. We've got, oh my gosh. One of one, Partnership Dual Booklet. Peyton Manning and DeMarcus Ware. Broncos, Johnny H. Wow. Manning and Ware, one of one, Dual Auto Booklet. That was an insane box of limited. Was that three one of ones in one box? Three one of ones in one box in a quarterback RPA to 10. Wow. We don't have any Booklet mags, do we? We don't have any Booklet mags, do we? I don't think we do. This is super thick anyways. Wow. What a break. What a break. I'm going to take a picture of that, so I'll put that in there. Of course, any Manning. Yeah, I agree. And it's a one of one. All right, let's do a recap. Yeah, I just think that's good. Wow. What a break. Jaylen Hertz, Tutu Atwell, Davis Mills, Rondell Moore, D-Swift, Davis Mills, Antonio Gibson, Rike, Keeney and Wang Wu, Friar, Nico Collins, Jarrett Patterson, Kedarius Tony, we've got Daniel Cosme, Michael Gallop, Anthony Schwartz, Lance Briggs, Cornell Powell. Our max cards, we had to 10 a Kellen Mann RPA Vikings, a one of one, David Montgomery for the Bears, a one of one, Shuba Hubbard, NFL Rookie Auto Shield, and then we had the Booklets. One of one partnership dual booklet, Peyton Manning and DeMarcus Ware. What a half case. Congrats, everyone. Thanks so much for the fill. We've got the 10 Boxer coming right up.


Welcome to the 25th International Relations Capsule for the Shankar IAS Academy. Today, we'll discuss the historic summit between the President of the United States Joe Biden and the President of Russia, Vladimir Putin. This was just a one-day summit after President Biden had attended the G7 meeting and also a NATO committee meeting in Europe. There was much expectation about this because this was the first meeting that was taking place between the heads of states of the United States and Russia after the election of President Biden. The relationship between the United States and Russia were taking different shapes at the time of President Trump because as against the old days of the Cold War between Soviet Union and the United States, President Trump tried to befriend Russia in order to counter China. This was a strategy he adopted but at that time there were already charges that Russia had assisted him in winning the elections in 2016. So 2016 to 2020, Russia and the United States had a peculiar relationship. On the one hand, the old rivalries remained. Both are the biggest nuclear powers. At the same time, President Trump tried to cultivate President Putin to kind of make use of him in countering China. This did not work very well because basically there is a conflict of interest between US and Russia and Russia was also increasingly becoming closer to China. So all this did not work very well but President Trump followed his own policy in international relations and so it was quite chaotic when President Biden took over. There were several diplomatic incidents. Ambassadors were withdrawn from both the countries. It was more or less proved that Russia had actually interfered in the elections of 2016. So all these are complicated matters and one of the challenges faced by President Biden was how to reset the relationship. Of course, now they are not equal. Soviet Union was supposed to be equal and a superpower but it had to be recognized that Russia was an important major country. So recognizing that President Biden decided to initiate a summit between them. This pleased Mr. Putin very much because for the first time, the United States is recognizing Russia rather than Soviet Union as an equal power, not a superpower but certainly equal to the United States in the States. So that alone was a recognition for Mr. Putin. And also he knew that the United States was on a confrontation with China and therefore they can play a role in the situation and get benefits themselves. Of course, since this was the first time they had met, Putin and Biden had met when Mr. Biden was Vice President and Mr. Putin was Prime Minister of Russia. But other than that, they had no contacts and therefore this was an opportunity for them to size up each other. And when we discussed the G7, we talked about the focus on China and the G7 meeting because the threat faced by China to the United States is getting serious and the United States is taking on China as a rival. So this is a peculiar situation where the United States has two rivals in kind of one, China, the bigger threat in terms of ideology, in terms of development, in terms of military strength etc. And Russia too, it was not possible to work on a friendly basis with Russia. But having realized the seriousness of the Chinese danger, President Biden felt that something had to be done with Russia to solve whatever problems they had with Russia by diplomatic means. So to set a stage to have a new kind of relationship with Russia that this summit was called. But there were some comments by both sides before the summit which are not very helpful, somewhat critical. At one point Biden said that Putin was a killer and Putin's answer was that he takes one killer to recognize another. So it was a kind of tense atmosphere. But both of them were pleased that this meeting was taking place. And they did not have great expectations about it. They did not expect that in one meeting much will be accomplished. But you look at this about, they met for about four hours. It was supposed to be five to six hours but the meeting ended very fast. From this one could see that they did not have the time to go into great detail of many of the issues. But at the same time, a dialogue was started on specific issues which were causing problems for both the countries. So before the summit opened, the National Security Advisor of the United States said that this was not going to be a meeting where decisions will be taken because lots of issues are there and therefore it will be an initial discussion and there will not be any immediate decisions to be taken. They were thinking in terms of the earlier meeting in 2018 there was a summit in Helsinki between President Trump and Putin. Which was quite a miserable sight because Mr. Putin acted like a low level friend of Putin. He was overwrought by Mr. Putin and was praising him and at one point Trump even said that he would rely on Putin rather than American intelligence agencies. Trump was capable of doing anything. So that Helsinki summit was a big joke because President Trump behaved in a peculiar manner, tried to please Putin and Putin was also quite surprised by the kind of atmosphere it was there. So combined with the other issues which I will come to later, the atmosphere or at least the preparation was not for any major discussion. But to bring to each other's attention what were their concerns and then start a dialogue. So the summary that President Putin made of the whole meeting was that though there was no breakthrough there was no hostility. So that is how we can summarize the whole meeting. There was no breakthrough in the sense that there are not two decisions, no strident attack against each other, no hostility and both sides were keen to build the fundamental of a good relationship. So the National Security Advisor said that the opportunity is to communicate from our president to their president what American intentions and capabilities are and to hear the same from their side. So this is why President Biden did not go beyond raising issues and for each issue that President Biden raised President Putin gave an answer, firm answer, not negative but at the same time denying whatever allegations or charges or doubts that President Biden had. So and also Biden had just before the meeting had some said some nice words about President Putin also and so there was an interest on both sides to set the ball rolling as it were and that's exactly what happened. And one of the factors in this was that the President Biden's conviction that after China Russia is going to be the rival for the United States and instead of handling them both at one time he thought as a secondary challenger he would begin a discussion with Russia and then focus more seriously on the Chinese threat. So he did not want to create any crisis in this discussion but to tell Putin about the concerns that he has for the future relations between the two countries and see whether diplomatically these could be resolved. So one outcome in this effort to work out a relationship was a decision that the ambassadors will go back to the respective capitals. The ambassadors had been withdrawn earlier because of differences of opinion and so one concrete decision just taken to show that this is going to be a continuous exercise. The American ambassador would now go to Moscow and the Russian ambassador will now come to Washington. That we can say was a concrete outcome of the of the summit. President Putin approached it very practically, pragmatically because he said we are not going to look into each other's souls and discover eternal love and friendship that is not the intention. The intention is to have a pragmatic relationship. President Putin said this very openly because President Biden has a habit of recollecting all things and family linkages and old meetings and things like that and he acknowledged it Putin acknowledged it but said that this is not the relationship where we look for personal linkages etc and this is basically a practical relationship and this was very visible in the kind of exchanges that took place. About the format there was no joint statement after the meeting. There was no joint press conference. So President Biden gave his own press conference and President Putin gave his own. So to figure out what was discussed, what was it that President Biden raised and what is it that President Putin answered had to be picked up from these two press conferences. Biden's press conference on the one hand and Putin's press conference on the other. So from there we are figuring out what are the issues that were raised. One of the major concerns that President Biden had was a new threat from Russia of cyber attacks. Cyber attacks are not so visible and identifiable like missiles or any other threat because cyber attacks only the consequences are known but the methodology used is spy wear used, ransom wear used, all these things are used in cyber attacks and the Americans has the impression that several cyber attacks are being raised against some of the very valuable establishments of the United States. So Biden opened out his list by saying this that we are aware that such things have happened in the past and this must stop. And he even made a threat that if this continues please be aware that United States has the capacity and the capability to counter attack or even inflict more damage on Russia. So the concern about what Russia was doing and the warning that this would be prevented or stopped but the answer from President Putin was straightforward. He said no, no such thing has happened. He denied it completely. He said there was no reason he did not find there was any reason for them to do that. They have not done in the past and they do not intend to do it in the future. And on top of it he also said that if you still have concerns we will be happy to look at a small group of officials can look at it. So there was particularly a case of something called a solar winds was one particular cyber attack which was suspected to be from Russian side. So anyway Putin did not accept in the responsibility for it. He denied it and also offered a study if necessary. That was the first. The second point that raised by President Biden was on human rights record of Russia. This is an old heritage from the Cold War days. One accusing the other of human rights violations. Of course naturally the accusations are more against Russia than against the United States because you know it's a democracy. While in Russia it's a different system and it's quite possible that they do not care much for human rights of even their own not to talk of anybody else interfere. So the famous case was of the leader of the opposition Alexei Navalny who was poison in a plane and then kept in prison and he is still alive but he is not been able to move around and he is sick and the Americans have been representing talking to the Russians about Navalny's condition and here again the Russians are saying no he is yes he is guilty of various violations of the law in the country and therefore we are dealing with him and there should be no concern. So he put in then strongly resisted any charge but he said that Navalny had broken the law of the country and then rather strongly he said what happens to Navalny my my citizen a leader of our opposition it is my business not yours and then he made a counter charge he said you are talking about human rights what are you doing you keep prisoners in a place called Guntanamo you may have heard about that place there is a Disney Cuba it is outside US territory where they bring the biggest criminals from Iraq various other places many countries you know presidents which are overthrown etc are brought to this Guntanamo Bay prison and if there are any you know anti-national activities serious anti-national activities they are also imprisoned in this prison so he said that you know you are talking about human rights and you are keeping your prisoners in Guntanamo and you are not observing any rules when American rules or international law and so what are you advising us about he also said I know that there are CIA prisons in Europe where they catch hold of anybody who does any kind of United States being put in jail in Europe and this was also a big violation of human rights so that was the second exchange rather more sharp and more pointed than the first one relating to cyber attacks the third charge that Biden's was against the so there's a Russian action in Ukraine actions in Ukraine which had lasted for a long time and Crimea was in fact taken over by Russia which is being challenged by the western countries and Ukraine being shifting away from the Soviet Russian influence to American influence there has been talk of Ukraine joining NATO August so what President Biden told Putin was they will continue to commit themselves US will continue to commit themselves to the integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine and they did not appreciate the kind of things that Russia was doing there so here again Putin was very dismissive he said we are not doing any of these things in any case this is not a matter of discussion between us what we do in Ukraine is our business so like in the case of human rights he denied and said that at one particular point in time Biden himself had agreed to a framework there is something called Minsk package of measures we should determine the future of Ukraine you don't want to go into those but putting said to Biden but I know that you have agreed that we should decide as to in this form from through the Minsk package of reforms we should be moving forward and therefore why are you raising this issue the next question was about Russia meddling in elections in the United States of course 2016 elections has been investigated and there was some proof that it they actually interfered but that is now a matter of history and there was nothing to be done about it there was also suspicion that even in the 2020 elections Russians tried to interfere but that did not become a serious charge so it was just a warning to Russia by the United States that you know such activities of interference in internal affairs of the United States will not be tolerated which also there was not much discussion on it because it was a historic fact and there was no point in reopening the issue at this point one positive outcome apart from the exchange of ambassadors was a discussion on strategic stability here it is a question of arms control and arms limitation you know Soviet Union and United States in the old days had some treaties relating to limitation of arms particularly nuclear arms in Europe this is because of their conviction that they have the capacity to destroy each other anytime so if you have the capacity to destroy each other why should you build so much of arms for what why should we spend so much money and effort to build arms beyond their need so there's two sides sat together and said okay we can destroy each other now 56 times so why do we need it why don't we reduce it to fewer times and countries like India and others did not take any interest in it because this is purely a cost-cutting exercise between United States and Soviet Union that time and now Russia and China it doesn't affect anybody else because they will have the capacity to destroy others in any case but still it was considered that is to have fewer nuclear arms than more nuclear arms in the world and so it was positive but not considered very important but for important those two countries themselves these are important because they can cut down their defense expenditure if the other side also cuts down the investment in building up arms and ammunition so this was suspended by President Trump at some stage but later as soon as President Biden came to power it was renewed for five years the treaty for arms control and it's called a new start treaty so they decided that we could now that has been extended up to 2024 or whatever we need to know what the future will be so an important decision was taken that the discussions on the new start treaty will be continued and it will also cover the new weapons systems etc which may have come into the arsenals of the two countries so this was a rather important decision good for both of them but not of much concern to us and one of the reasons why President Trump suspended the start treaty or the arms limitation treaty because China is not involved in that so President Trump's argument was that we limit out between each other we limit arms but what are the Chinese doing we don't even know so he said if we have to have any other any discussion on this we have to bring the Chinese in and the Chinese were not interested in going there and cutting their arsenals or nuclear weapon systems so Biden did not insist on Chinese participation and he said that this should be this should be done on the basis of which a joint statement was issued by both the presidents that recommitted themselves to arms control then there were some other issues on which some discussions took place as to what they can do for example to counter terrorism in Afghanistan to give some humanitarian assistance in Syria some understanding on Iran nuclear capability these are areas in which they can cooperate and also the development of the Arctic region so because of the melting of the ice in the Arctic region the geography of the place is changing and there is hope for developing the Arctic region for the benefit of mankind if the two countries work together so to avoid conflict and to cooperate in the Arctic region also they decided so what has really happened in Geneva during the summit is the emergence of a relationship between these two countries in the post-pandemic world because we all been concerned about the kind of world that will emerge after the pandemic and this was probably the first serious discussion between the two countries as to how you deal with it but this can not be controlled by the two because China is a major actor there so even if they agree to have a relationship stable and steady in strategic stability etc what is known is the Chinese approach so both of them are going to deal with China United States as an adversary and Russia as a friend because as you know over these years Russia and China have become closer so they are the talk is not about US and Russia Cold War but US and China Cold War so that is going to be the main preoccupation that United States will have so in preparation for that they wanted to stabilize the relationship with Russia which is a lesser evil the lesser enemy or the lesser adversary which can be managed so that is why people are looking at these decisions some of them most of them of course denial but some of them more positive so Biden thought that if the China US China Russia relations become improving and US China relations are deteriorating then Putin also thought that it may be good for him to have some hold in Europe and also raise kind of stability of equation between Russia and the United States now how does it affect us is there anything in it that benefits India strictly speaking now we are not involved in any of this but Russia is very critical of the quadrilateral the quad because it is an American land alliance according to me and India because of China we are moving slowly into the quad alliance so Russia is very concerned about it and therefore it is possible that Russia will become more and more distant from us getting closer to China and also closer to Pakistan and it may be better that these two countries United is a Russia now that we are getting closer to United States then that the animosity or the or the enmity between these two countries has been controlled so that it does not become another threat to India because of our linkage with the United States so a thought or little benefit in the improvement in the relationship between the two countries will benefit us in a sense they will not be Russia will not be as opposed to quad as they used to because if Russia knows that this the quad does not pose a threat to it and it's only against China there may be more comfortable and they may be more comfortable with India also and you know that we have a deep involvement in Russia not only for arms supplies but also for trade as you know we have ordered a set of S-400 missiles from Russia which has run into some trouble because the US is objecting to it still and so these kind of pinpricks will be worse if there is a conflict of interest between US and Russia so probably we look at it our government may be looking at it as a matter of relief that these two nations are getting a little bit closer and therefore the aggravation of a crisis will not affect our relationship with India so the sensitivity to quad and other linkages that India has developed the US you know is a kind of relief for us because the possibility of India-Russia relations deteriorating would be avoided and also the other factor is when it comes to the arms limitation pre-t perhaps we can expect that there will be reduction of the nuclear danger because it's not only the danger from nuclear weapons comes not only by launching a nuclear it could happen by accident it could happen by some misunderstanding so the nuclear danger is always there so the few other weapons in the world the better it is for us so on the quad on the US S-400 missiles on nuclear danger etc maybe we can look at the summit positively but whether this was a successful summit or not because generally we say that you know summits of such important countries never fail even if it fails there will be enough words and body language and proposals and suggestions and some conversations etc which are considered a success so to call this a success will not be true it is excessive because there was no agreement or understanding but at the same time it was not a failure because the objectives on both sides were more or less met they got to know each other now they know what their mind is they have explored each other's mind and also the bureaucracy the diplomats etc have had this opportunity to start a discussion in all these issues whether it is cyber attacks whether it is human rights whether it is Ukraine and all these contentious issues a bit in yes we made so I would not call it an unqualified success since there was no breakthrough in any of these but since there was no hostility and the whole conversation took place in a cordial atmosphere as both of them claim we could concede that it has served its purpose to a certain extent so that is the outcome and there is nothing to be excited about nothing to be happy about nothing to write home about as they say but this was a positive development but a judgment as to whether this made an impact on these two countries or whether it has made an impact on China it is yet to be seen but the countries in Europe are happy that this dialogue has started because President Trump had moved away from his allies in Europe and was trying to you know flirt with Russia which was a great concern to European countries so now they have a predictable American president and a predictable course is being created and so they can also behave accordingly with the Russians so this has given some comfort to G7 and even NATO why NATO continues are concerned with Russia but NATO has assumed various other responsibilities you know in far off places not not entirely against communism and therefore NATO has come to stay so it also has a stake in the relationship between Russia and the United States so overall it served a positive purpose but nobody can call it a success or a breakthrough in the relationship thank you very much


In this video, we provide the solution to question number 10 for practice exam number four for Math 1030, in which case we have the following situation. There are six colors in a bag of M&Ms and these colors are red, yellow, green, blue, orange and brown. According to the company's website, the probability of picking a yellow one is 14%. The probability of a green one is likewise 14%. The probability of an orange one is 20% and the probability of a blue one is 24%. Like this is four of the probabilities. If the probability of picking a red one is equal to the probability of picking a brown one, what is the probability of picking a brown one? So notice that the sum of all these probabilities has got to be 100%. So what we've seen already is we have 14% plus 14%, plus 20%, plus 24%. So that is stuff we know so far. What we don't know is how much do we have for the red and how much do we have for the brown? We do know that it's the same probability, so we're gonna have some value, we'll call it X and there's gonna be two X's there that we need to then solve for and figure out that probability. All right, so let's see what we have so far. So we've already accounted for the following. So we got 14 plus 14 plus 20 plus 24. That accounts for 72% of the total, like so. And so if we take that away from 100, we then have that two X is equal to 28%. So if you divide that by two, so we'll divide that by two there, you get that X is gonna be 14%. So the red M&M and the brown M&M have a probability of 14%, so we see that the correct answer would then be F.


Welcome to the Justice Committee's 10th meeting of 2009. We have apologies from Jenny Gilruth and I welcome Big Kid Bill Kid, who is substituting for Jenny today, and I invite Bill to declare any relevant interests. Thank you very much, convener. I don't believe I have any relevant interests to declare at this point. Agenda item 1 is a decision on whether to take item 5, which is consideration of the draft letter in private. Are we all agreed? Yes, we are all agreed. Thank you. Agenda item 2 is an evidence session on an affirmative instrument, services of lawyers and lawyers practice, EU exit, Scotland amendment etc. Regulations 2019 draft. I welcome Ash Denham, minister for community safety and her officials Denise Swanson and Emma Stephenson, director of legal services with the Scottish Government. This item is to transfer members to seek clarification of any points on the instrument from the minister and officials before we formally dispose of it. I refer members to paper 1, which is a note by the clerk, and paper 1 also contains a written statement submission from the Law Society of Scotland on the SSI. Minister, do you wish to make a short opening statement on the instrument? I do. Thank you, convener. It might be helpful to set out the context in which the SSI has been laid. The services of lawyers and lawyers practice, amendment etc. EU exit, Scotland regulations 2019 have been developed to prepare for a no-deal Brexit. This instrument mirrors the approach that has been taken in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Currently, EU directives set out the rights of lawyers to provide legal services in EU and EFTA states. The current application of those EU directives allows specified lawyers to provide regulated services in a member state other than the one in which they qualified, and that is termed a host state, without the need to register with the host state regulator. Lawyers provide services under their existing professional title, which is otherwise termed their home state professional title. The directive clarifies the regulatory rules that are applicable and the conditions for providing those services in a host state, and those are commonly known as fly in, fly out services. The lawyer's establishment directive allows specified lawyers in one member state to practice reserved legal activities on a permanent basis in another member state under their home state professional title and the conditions for doing so. It also allows lawyers who are practising in another member state to be admitted to the profession in that member state after three years of practice in the law of that member state without having to go through the usual qualification routes. European lawyers practising in Scotland under the establishment directive must be registered with a Scottish regulator as registered European lawyers. As registered European lawyers, they have the right to own legal businesses without a UK qualified lawyer. The purpose of the instrument is to end the preferential practising rights of EU and FTA lawyers in Scotland to provide legal services on either a permanent or a temporary basis. In the event of a no deal Brexit, the reciprocal arrangements that are enjoyed by members of the EU and FTA will no longer be available to the UK. EU and FTA qualified lawyers, who have already successfully transferred into the Scottish qualification, will be able to retain their qualification and practice rights, but arrangements will be different in the future. In the event that the UK leaves the EU without a deal, our services trading relationship with the EU will be governed by world trade organisation rules. The general agreement on trade and services prohibits signatory states from giving preferential market access to any other signatory state in the absence of a comprehensive free trade or recognition agreement between them. We therefore need to fix the deficiencies in the relevant retained EU law caused by the lack of reciprocal arrangements with the EU while also meeting our international obligations. As such, we will revoke the legislation that currently implements the EU framework and EU and FTA lawyers will be treated in the same way as other third country lawyers. The draft statutory instrument will helpfully provide a transition period to allow registered European lawyers from EU and FTA states time to comply with the new regulatory position and the transition period will run from exit day until 31 December 2020. It will allow registered European lawyers and those in the process of achieving registered European lawyer status by exit day to practice in the same way as they do now, but with time to adjust. In making these amendments, the instrument recognises the terms of the agreement between the UK Government and the Swiss Confederation on Citizens Rights following withdrawal of the UK from the EU. Provision is made for reciprocal rights of practice within the terms of that agreement. This is a no-deal SSI, and that is not the Scottish Government's preferred position. We regret the decision to leave the EU and wouldn't support a no-deal Brexit. However, it is incumbent upon us to prepare for all potential outcomes and we have to consider the best approach in this area should the UK leave the EU without a deal. Officials have kept in close contact with the relevant representative organisations, the Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates, who are aware of the instrument and have also contributed to the business regulatory impact assessment. It is thought that the terms of the instrument will have little impact on the current landscape for delivery of legal services. I am grateful for having the opportunity to provide some context about the SSI and I would be happy to take any questions that the committee might have on it. Thank you very much for that comprehensive statement, Liam McArthur. Thank you, minister. That was a helpful clarification of the position that we find ourselves in. I think that we have all rehearsed at various stages the arguments about not wishing to be in this position. I welcome the fact that there seems to be a sensible pay during which any reorganisation of affairs can take place. I think that that is also very sensible. Moving away from a system of mutual recognition is just a further example of how bad and unnecessarily bad the situation is. I would also like to put on record the gratitude to the Law Society for its helpful note. It is also worth reflecting that, in its submission, we fully intend whatever the future relationship with the EU after exit to keep open, accessible yet robust routes to re-qualification for lawyers from any jurisdiction that allows them to practice within Scotland, while also reassuring clients of their competence. That assurance is also very welcome indeed. As I said, it is highly regrettable that we are in this position, but the SSI appears to discharge the responsibilities that need to be discharged and therefore be supporting it. Do members have any other comments or questions? In that case, agenda item 3 is formal consideration of the motion in relation to their affirmative instrument. The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee has considered and reported on the instrument and has no comments on it. The motion will be moved with an opportunity for a formal debate if that is necessary. The motion is motion 16239 that the Justice Committee recommends that the services of lawyers and lawyers practice EU exit, Scotland, amendment etc regulations 2019 draft be approved. Minister to move. Moved. Thank you. Do members have any further comments or questions? In that case, I put the question, is motion 16239 in the name of Ash Denham approved? It is approved. Thank you. Is the committee content to delegate authority to me as convener to clear the final draft of the report? Thank you. It remains me to thank the minister and our officials for attending and suspend briefly to allow the minister to leave. Agenda item 4 is consideration of three negative instruments, police pensions, miscellaneous amendments, Scotland regulations 2019, SSI 2019 oblique 68, act of sederant, taxation of judicial expenses rules, 2019 SSI 2019 oblique 75, legal aid and advice on assistance Scotland miscellaneous amendments regulations 2019 SSI 2019 oblique 78. The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee has considered and reported on all three instruments and has no comments on any of them. I just wish to refer members to my register of interests as a recipient of a police pension in respect of the item in the agenda. Okay, Julie noted. I refer members to paper 2, which is a note by the clerk. Members, we wish to note that in relation to the SSI on legal aid SSI 2019 oblique 78, we have also received written submissions from the Law Society of Scotland and the Edinburgh Bar Association. Those submissions are attached to the paper on the SSIs. Do members have any comments on the instruments? Liam McDaniel. Questions on the first instrument and the third instrument, actually. I'll do the one on the police pensions first if I may and then come in after Daniel, perhaps. My understanding from reading this is that there will be an increase in the police employer contribution to the pension. That estimated cost is about £40 million and the UK Treasury covers that increase but there was supposed to be confirmation in the spring statement. Do we know what that confirmation was? Do we have confirmation? I don't have that information to hand but, as the committee is considering the rest of the instruments, we'll see if we can find that out for you. I'll be very grateful. Daniel? The two items that were submitted by the Edinburgh Bar Association and the Law Society regarding legal aid were quite strong submissions and I think it's particularly worth noting that it's not usual for us to get submissions for negative instruments such those. The points that they make regarding the situation of legal aid find itself are certainly worth noting and I was wondering whether or not some of the points that they raise might be worth writing to the minister asking for any comment on the Government in particular. The statement by the Edinburgh Bar Association that there's been a total reduction of 31 per cent since 2011 in the funding available to criminal legal aids list is. Likewise, the Law Society's call for a full needs-based review as part of the future structures that may come out of the legal aid review that the Scottish Government's currently conducting and I think those, among other points, are worth us noting and thinking about whether or not we might want to act on them. Thank you. Liam McArthur? Thank you very much. I entirely agree with Daniel Johnson that it is unusual for us to get submissions of this sort in relation to negative instruments although probably not only surprising in the context of the debate that's been around legal aid. I don't think it should interfere. In fact, I think the Edinburgh Bar Association was far as to say it shouldn't interfere with the passing of this SI but I think there is a bit of work to be done there partly on the point that Daniel Johnson has raised in relation to the drop in legal aid practitioners. In the chamber last week with the minister, there are parts of the country now where the accessibility of legal aid practitioners is a serious problem. In Orkney, I know many have to seek legal representation from lawyers based on the Scottish mainland which is often leading to them not actually having contact between client and lawyer until the day they appear in court which doesn't seem to be desirable at all. I think that the other point that the Edinburgh Bar Association made that lept out at me was referring to the underspend and money allocated for police station work which, you'll recall, convener, there was quite a bit of controversy around when that came through the committee. I think that there's probably a number of different issues that we can very usefully follow up with the Scottish Government and use the passing of this SI as a peg on which to hang that. I think that those are very valid and important points raised but it's also worth noting that the faculty of advocates welcomed the 3 per cent increase and that in England and Wales they've just announced a 1 per cent increase only for barristers and that Scotland's current legal aid spend per head is the third highest in the European Union and is the widest scope in eligibility so just by way of balance I wanted to get that on record. John Finnie? Thank you, convener. The facts that Rona Mackay mentions may well be the case but I think that there are genuine concerns about the wider implications of this and the much-used-phrase access to justice and the circumstances outlined by my colleague Lee McArthur. The frustration is that this falls comes not long after a significant review of the process so at the very least I would like to see us right to the cabinet secretary for justice and ask for a response to the specific points raised in the two submissions we've received which I rightly don't want the issue stopped, I want it preceded but I think the issues remain. Liam Kerr? Thank you, convener, yes. I want to specifically endorse the points that have been made. I must declare an interest of course at the outset. I have a practice certificate with the Law Society of England and Wales and of Scotland but I think it is very important some of these issues that have been raised. Particularly, I think we should find out if the Government concedes the level of hardship that the bar association have flagged up and the numbers departing particularly because it has a, or rather a, or they suggest it has a gendered nature to it. I was also quite interested, because I've only been here three years now, about this business of a promise made in 2011 to reinstate the funding which certainly the allegation seems to be that that promise has been broken and I'm quite interested to know more about that or hear the Government's view on that. No, certainly I think these are good submissions, they raise very valid points and I note Daniel Johnson's suggestion that we send the submissions with the points raised to the Cabinet Secretary and the Scottish Government for comment. Are we agreed to do that? Thank you. In response to Liam Kerr's question, initial question. Just to update the member and the committee, in a brief look that we've been able to do with the Chancellor's spring statement, there is reference to increased police funding but that's more to tackle crime in England and Wales. There is no specific reference to police pensions or the issue about funding that the member raised, so it doesn't appear to have been covered in the Chancellor's spring statement. The committee might want to be aware that that particular instrument, the police pensions regulations, comes into force on 1 April. The committee wouldn't be able to look at that one for a second time given that the committee is not meeting next week. The legal aid instrument comes into force on 26 April, so there is time for you to wish to look at that again, but that's a matter for the committee. Liam McArthur? I note that the Law Society has also made a number of technical observations in relation to the SI, and I wonder whether it's worth getting clarification. They indicate that they were due to speak directly to officials. All the technical observations that they've made are valid and the Government likely to take those on board. I'm not sure, but it would certainly be helpful to understand the extent to which there's been a kind of meeting of minds between the Law Society and officials on that. Members have raised all very valid points. I think that we're all agreed that these are all taken up with the Cabinet Secretary and the Scottish Government, and we look forward to a response. Is it the committee's position that, although it doesn't want to make any recommendations in relation to the instrument, it certainly does want to put the questions and the points that we've raised to the Cabinet Secretary and the Government? I agree. That concludes the public part of today's meeting. There will be no committee meeting next week. Members of the committee will undertake a fact-finding visit to the Scottish Crime Campus at Dirk Cosh in North Lanarkshire. Therefore, the next formal meeting of the committee will be on Tuesday 2 April, when we expect to begin the process of considering stage 2 amendments to the management of offenders' Scotland Bill. We now move into private session.


Y First item of business today, is consideration of business motion 8773, in the name of Jofus Patrick, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a timetable for the child poverty Scotland Bill. I would ask any member who wishes to speak against it to say so now and a call on Jofus Patrick to move motion 8733. Formally moved. Thank you very much. No one has asked to speak against the motion. The question is therefore that motion 8733��니ae, ond dnutriw ymygwlaethwyd drif bil expected еr. We'll now move on to the first substantive item of business, which is portfolio questions, when you start with question 1, from Stewart Stevenson, which is to ask the Scottish government whether it will provide an update on progress with the 2017 basic payment scheme. Through the basic payment scheme 2017 loan scheme, the majority of farmers and ac gylliannau o'r meddwl maen nhw'n mynd i gyd yn dwylo'r gwahanol yn gynhyrchu'r diwyll式. Felly, o'r cyfrifatigau ym mhiynau 292 miliwn nifer hwn yn cael fy mod i cyfrifatigau i hanes lag o dwylo 12,000 apylau i ddefnyddio gwybod i Lleinodau i ddelwydau i gyfrifatigau i ddigonfaenig o gyfrifatigau i ddigonfaenig i ddau i ddengu amhanyn. Stuart Stevenson, dda lefans ddwn i ddwylo i ddegosent ym enginefaenig i ddegosent that the money is reaching rural areas and farmers earlier than ever before, quicker than ever before. That gives much needed certainty to the rural economy as a whole business that depends on agriculture. Can he confirm that, even though the deadline may have passed, farmers and crofters can still apply for an interest-free loan if that is the decision that they wish to make? Cabinet Secretary? I do believe that the loan payments have been welcomed, and the fact that they were paid a week or so earlier than was indicated at the outset has been welcomed. Of course, I was determined that we pay out the maximum possible, so that's paid out, in most cases, at 90 per cent, not 80 per cent of entitlement. I do think that that has provided financial certainty for farmers and crofters, and that it has helped the wider economy in rural Scotland. The second question and answer is yes. Those farmers and crofters who have yet to accept their loan offer may do so. The offers are still open for acceptance and payment, and in fact the money is there for farmers and crofters. I am very keen that they receive the money because they are entitled to it. I would encourage them to send their opt-in slips in the prepaid envelopes supplied. Any business who has not received a loan offer or who has lost their original offer should not hesitate to contact their local arpid office. Edward Mountain Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I would like to declare an interest in that I am a partner in a farming business. The computer didn't work in 2016, didn't work in 2017, doesn't look like it's going to work in 2018. When will it work? Edward Mountain I must admit that the one thing that is predictable about the Conservatives is the unremitting gloom of everything that they say in this topic. I believe quite sincerely that most farmers and crofters welcome the loan scheme. Some of them have told me, some of them have thanked me, and it means that the money is now in their bank accounts at a time in the run-up to Christmas when many of them make their spending decisions on new equipment, on new feedstock, on other purchases. I think that that is to be welcomed. As far as the computer system is working, I have made it absolutely clear that it is working, and Mr Mountain has heard me say on my innumerable appearances before his committee that that is so. It is not working to the deadlines as yet, but I am confident that we will make substantial progress. I will come back to Parliament early in the new year to outline that progress. In the meantime, I think that farmers and crofters also welcome the fact that we have set out a very clear timetable for payments across the schemes. That, too, was a point that was made to me by the NFUS, whose support for the loan scheme I welcome, and by others, so that they want clarity and certainty as to when they can expect to receive the funds. That, Presiding Officer, is what I have sought to provide. Lones are welcome, but they are not substantive payments. Can I ask how much substantive payments are outstanding for each of the years of the new scheme? I have a whole series of figures here, but in respect of the basic payment scheme—I will check the record on that if I have erd inadvertently—I think that the basic payment scheme for 2016 has paid 99.7 per cent. The ELFAS payments in respect of 15 and 16 are being processed and, in respect of 15, we have paid 98.7 per cent—11,216 payments. In terms of ELFAS 16, we have processed 92.3 per cent. I will not be happy until everyone who is entitled to payment has received payment, but I think that, from those figures, the House can accept and indicate that we are making good progress, but I shall not rest until everyone has received the payment to which they are entitled. I need to declare an interest as a partner in farming business. To ask the Scottish Government what it is doing to tackle the reported falling farm incomes and rising farm debt. I answered a very similar question from Mr Chapman when I announced the CAP stabilisation plan. I will not repeat the full answer of what I gave then, except to remind Mr Chapman that there is a long-term trend of rising farm debt levels across the UK for the last 23 years. In fact, as for farm incomes, the long-term trend is generally upwards with a 14 per cent increase compared to 2015. However, I am not complacent. I am determined to do all that I can to support farmers and provide security to the rural economy. I can now confirm that we have made payments to more than 12,324 farmers and crofters of £292 million. That is £46 million more than the same period last year to 360 more businesses. I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer. However, there is a bigger picture here. I am very concerned that there is still no idea of what system of support the cabinet secretary is planning to put in place to support Scottish agriculture post Brexit. Given that Westminster has guaranteed the same level of financial support to Scottish agriculture until 2022, how is the cabinet secretary going to use that money in a fair, transparent and innovative way to allow a profitable future for our farmers? I do not accept that at all. In fact, to be accurate, I do not want to be cruel to the Conservative Party, but the pledge was not to 2022. It was to the end of the current UK Government whenever that is. We will see. Even if the party managed to stumble on in chaos until 2022, it has not yet provided clarity on pillar 2 funds. Indeed, I have raised that with Mr Gove in the last two multilateral meetings, most recently on Monday of this week, with Roseanna Cunning and my colleague. Can you confirm in writing to us that there will be payment of leader, of forestry, of aches, of all the pillar 2 programmes up to 2022? No answer. Only farm support has been guaranteed. All those projects on forestry, for example, that are long-term projects, we have not got the clarity that Mr Chapman implies. As far as post Brexit is concerned, I am afraid that it gets worse for Mr Chapman, because I asked Mr Gove again. I said this. I said that Mr Gove, during the Brexit referendum, said that after Brexit, the funding from Europe, which is worth £500 million to the rural economy in Scotland, would be matched. After Brexit, that is after the end of the transition period. Mr Gove had nothing to say in that whatsoever. We are completely in the dark about the UK Government's intentions to provide as to what financial support will be provided post Brexit, despite the fact that, time and time again, since the referendum day itself, we have asked for that clarification. You know something in conclusion. Mr Gove said that he would match the money post Brexit. If a minister promises something, he has to deliver or he has to resign. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Remind, chamber, I am the PLO to the cabinet secretary. Speaking of bigger issues here, given the upcoming possibility of tariffs, loss of EU workers and the ending of EU rural support, what does the cabinet secretary currently see as the biggest threat to farm incomes? Plainly, the unanswered questions that I have just alluded to and the issues around Brexit are the single biggest challenge facing farmers for decades. The loss of access to the European single market, the possibility of substantial tariffs, the threat to Scotch lamb reliant on European markets, the threat to Scotch beef of imports from South America and other countries, flooding the market with cheaper beef, the threat to farming generally about the imposition of border inspection posts or some other procedure that would delay the process of export for perishable goods, thus rendering them potentially worthless. In none of those cases do we have any clarity whatsoever from the UK Government. Perhaps that is not surprising, because there is no Brexit plan, there is no deal, there is no plan and there is no clarity on the future of seasonal workers or EU workers. 95 per cent of workers in our slaughterhouses that work as OVs supervising the slaughter process to assure that it complies with good practice. 95 per cent come from the EU, and we have not had any clarity at all about whether they are welcome to stay in Scotland or not. What is grace? Colin Smydde. Thank you, Presiding Officer. A key impact on farmers' income is obviously the cap payment scheme. At the moment, a number of farmers cannot properly identify or account for payments that they have received. Can the cabinet secretary tell us when the reductions and exclusions letters for the cap payment schemes that set out what payments have been made for what schemes will be issued to farmers? The process of production exclusion letters is something that comes towards the end of the processing of pillar 1 payments in every year, and that process is on-going. I can write to the member with full details of that matter, because it is a technical one. I have just had the answer to my question, the previous reply, however, to ask the Scottish Government when it last met the UK Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I thank the cabinet secretary for his reply. I note that an agreement has been reached to review where we are on convergence, but as yet, there is still no sign of the £160 million owed to Scottish farmers and crofters. Now, some might say that that is downright theft, Presiding Officer. Can the cabinet secretary assure the Parliament that he will continue to press for the return of this funding and, if received, how might it benefit hill farmers and crofters here in Scotland? Mr McDonnell is quite right to pursue the matter doggedly, as he does. To remind members, the sum of £190 million was due to Scottish farmers alone. It came from Europe for the precise purpose of removing the gap between those who received the greatest amount per hectare and those who received the least, and those were Scottish farmers and only Scottish farmers. That money—all of it—$190 million was earmarked for, intended for and designed only and exclusively for Scottish farmers. Despite that £160 million of it, the lion's share was used by the UK Government to pay farmers elsewhere in the UK. That is done. Our quarrel is not with those farmers. They have received their money. That was the decision of the UK Treasury. However, if the UK can find £1 billion for a shabby deal to secure the support of the DUP members to prop up their chaotic, shambolic administration, plainly, if they wish to, the Treasury can find £160 million to give to the Scottish show farmers the money that was there due. Yesterday, after pressure from the Government and the chamber, Mr Gove has agreed that there will be a review of the matter. I hope to revert to members to state details of an agreement that I hope will be reached with Mr Gove as to the remit, the people that carry it out, and the timescale for the conduct of that review. I sincerely hope that that process will lead to justice for Scotland's hill farmers. Richard Lyle To ask the Scottish Government what investment is planned from the strategic timber transport fund. In the current year, an additional £5 million has been allocated for timber transport by bringing the total invested through the timber transport fund to £7.85 million. The funding is supporting nearly 50 projects that are worth more than £11 million, which will take nearly a million lorry miles off the Scottish road network. Richard Lyle I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer and welcome what he has said. I ask that the cabinet secretary, since there are 50 projects, could possibly provide more detail to me relating to those projects and what that funding is supporting in the current year. I am not sure if the Presiding Officer wishes me to read out all 50 projects, perhaps not, but I can say that all over the country. In particular, rural parts, Argyll, Ayrshire, Dumfries, Highland, Murray and Perth, the borders, that roads projects are going on. That really does perform a number of useful functions. It takes a number of lorry miles off the road network, which is £1 million in total. It assists the environment, it assists the recovery of timber, often trapped timber in our woods and forests. It prevents it from becoming windblown and wasted effectively. Therefore, it is good for the economy, it is good for transport and it is good for the environment. That is why the Government has injected further resources to benefit rural Scotland in all those respects. To ask the Scottish Government what discussion it has had with Angling clubs regarding the classification of rivers for 2018. The public consultation on our proposals for river grading for the 2018 salmon fishing season closed on 13 October 2017, with over 150 written responses received. We are now considering those responses carefully. I thank the cabinet secretary for that reply. In your letter back to me on 1 November about river classification, you indicate that Marine Scotland had not to date received any submission from the Tay district salmon fisheries board when, in fact, their submission was lodged on 23 October. Could I ask the cabinet secretary if she has now had sight of that submission in which the Tay district salmon fisheries board has provided substantial evidence questioning the validity of the river categorisation model that is being used by Marine Scotland and what steps she is taking to have full engagement with the board and with Angling clubs in this important matter? As I indicated, the consultation has now closed, and Marine Scotland is considering the number of requests that it has had for meetings. In fact, one meeting has already been arranged and others are being discussed and others will be considered. That is an on-going process. I think that there is a difficulty here, Presiding Officer, because I am not a fish scientist. However, I do have people who provide scientific advice, and that scientific advice is advice that I have to listen to. We do not accept that the model that is currently being used is fundamentally flawed. However, we do accept that there are opportunities to develop it further, and those are conversations that we are continuing to have. There are further refinements that are currently being discussed for the 2019 season, so that is not an absolute fixed-in-stone position. What we do is try and continue to refine in the best possible manner, with the ultimate aim, let us remember, of ensuring that we have salmon stocks for the future anglers, as well as for current anglers. Neil Findlay. The cabinet secretary used to be an active and leading opponent of protection orders on rivers. Ironically, she is now responsible for maintaining protection orders with no end date identified for any of them. Will the cabinet secretary now commission independent research to establish whether those orders are justified, or simply arose to keep trout anglers away from high-value salmon beats? After all, is the Government not supposed to be led by evidence-based policy, not finger in the air stuff? This is not really a supplementary question. Do you have a very, very brief response, minister? I would like to say that we are, of course, led by evidence. I have just indicated my response to Elizabeth Smith. The entire system of fisheries management, as I suspect the member knows perfectly well, is being reconsidered. All aspects of that will be taken on board. Thanks, Presiding Officer, to ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its discussions with the UK Government regarding a fair funding deal for Scotland for railway improvements. Minister Hamza Yousaf. The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Constitution raised the issue with the chief secretary to the Treasury. In discussions on 26 October, in the meantime, my officials continued detailed discussions with the HMT counterparts. The latest offer that we received leaves a shortfall of £600 million on what the industry tells us that it needs. I can assure you that our immediate priority and focus is to press Her Majesty's Treasury to secure a fair deal for Scotland's railways. Bob Doris. Thank you, minister, for that answer. The minister will clearly recognise, then, that changes due to being introduced by the UK Government will lead to a real terms cut in funding for railway investment, do serious damage to Scotland's railways, as well as to the future enhancement projects. In particular, I ask you, for additional information, given reports that have suggested that Glasgow central station improvement works may have to be rescheduled, delayed or cancelled. The member makes a good point that this is not an abstract discussion or argument or negotiation between two Governments. It is going to have real effects if we are £600 million short, as the current offer from the UK Government stands. It will clearly have an impact on the ambitions that the industry has to improve, and to enhance, and to maintain Scotland's excellent rail network. That is a swindle, which is, frankly, railway robbery. There is not a single member or party in this chamber that has not come to this Government to ask for rail improvements in their constituency—quite right that they should. However, if the figure of £600 million short is what we have to invest in our railways, then many members right from across the political spectrum will be deeply, deeply disappointed, and their constituents will be disappointed. That is why I am still awaiting a response from some parties in this chamber to my call to unite around the Scottish Government's ask. It is not just the Scottish Government's ask, the industry's ask, because it is the industry that is saying to us that they need £4.2 billion for the next control period if we want to take Scotland's railways forward. I hope that those who have not responded to my call will do so, and that, together, we can stand up for Scotland's railways. The data published for the last 12 months shows that the Westerton to Mogailine in my and Gil Paterson's constituency was listed as the worst performer, with trains regularly using the practice of skipping stations, and only 26 per cent arriving in time. The major cause for that disruption is the single track, a twin track that formerly existed would ease disruption and allow for the possibility of a rail halt that has been proposed by Easton-Bartonshire Council. Can the minister confirm if that possibility will be investigated with Network Rail with some urgency? Yes, we will, of course, and I will explore that, but I would just like to put some context on some of what the member said. Although ScotRail report on time performance, of course, the industry standard is PPM, and that offers a more balanced approach. What I would say in terms of skip-stopping is that I absolutely understand the member's constituents' frustration at skip-stopping. We have said to ScotRail on many occasions that they should look to minimise that, and in fairness to them, during the peak time, they are looking to do that. In the last 12 months, 1 per cent of trains ran skip-stopping. That is still 1 per cent, but 1 per cent is too many. In terms of the measures that she asked us to explore, I will do that, and I will give her an update on how those discussions are going. The fact is that, in control period 6, spending will rise from £3 billion to £3.6 billion, and that spending per passenger in Scotland will be £39 compared to £25 in England and Wales. Can the minister confirm if he is now saying that it is official Scottish Government policy to reject the Barnett formula funding mechanism? What the member does not realise is that the funding for the railways was never ever based on the Barnett formula. The 2005 discussion between the Scottish Government and the UK Government before this party came into administration was based on the regulator's 11.17 per cent agreement. Now, 11.17 per cent is not what this Government demands, it is what the industry demands, it is what is based on the advice from the regulator, and the UK Government has unilaterally moved away from this without any discussion and without any engagement with the Scottish Government. They have left us £600 million short. I see in Jamie Greene's letter to me that he suggests that we will use our tax powers to raise taxes, so on the one hand, the Conservatives suggest that we falsely claim that we are the highest tax part of the UK, and on the other hand, Jamie Greene suggests that, in his letter, we have additional powers over tax and borrowing that we could use to invest in our railways. Perhaps he should get his own house in order before he comes to this chamber. A brief point of order, Mr Greene. It is brief, Presiding Officer, and it is around the minister purporting facts. He has expressed in his statement just there that I said that we should increase taxes in Scotland. That is not what the letter says, and I hope that he is willing to put the matter right. Thank you. That is not a point of order, but it is a point that has been noted. We are now going to move on to questions on environment, climate change and land reform, and we will start with question number one from Kate Forbes. To ask the Scottish Government how it is assisting remote and rural communities with community land buy-outs. The Scottish Government has committed £10 million annually to the Scottish Land Fund, which supports communities to purchase land and assets. The fund can provide support to community bodies for preparatory work, such as undertaking feasibility studies and writing business plans, as well as making awards to help to fund land purchases. Since April 2016, the fund has supported 78 groups, and there is the potential for a further 25 projects to receive funding this year. I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer. Can she advise me on how completed and potential community buy-outs in Skyl, Lachaber and Bannoch, which includes Dingwell and the Black Isle, are helping to achieve the Scottish Government's target of 1 million acres of community ownership by 2020? The information is collated under council areas rather than parliamentary constituencies. In the course of the previous Scottish Land Fund, which ran from 2012 to 2016, nine groups within the Highland Council area received a total of £1.6 million. Last year, 16 groups within the Highland Council area received awards totaling almost £200,000. This year, up to the end of September, four groups in the area have received a total of £265,000. In total, those community buy-outs have contributed just over 4,000 acres towards the target. Can I add that I would encourage all communities to consider whether there are local community right to buy opportunities? I would also ask colleagues in the chamber to promote that as well and, crucially, not have communities wait till land is being marketed to put their applications in. Finlay Carson, what resources, financial or otherwise, can the Government offer Kirkmaiden community harbour trust in Galloway and West Dumfries to assist in them purchasing or transferring Dremor harbour from QLTR, which is the Queensland Lord Treasurer's Remembrance? In the specifics of transferring from Queensland Lord Treasurer's Remembrance, it may very well be that the arrangement falls under the community asset transfer rather than the community right to buy arrangement. That has slightly different rules and regulations around it, and it will depend entirely on what the agreement is with the transferring body. If the member wishes to write to me very specifically about that one, which does not sound like it falls under the normal community right to buy land fund proposals, I would be happy to look further into it for him. Many remote and rural communities aiming for community land buy-outs will also seek to use the water exemption scheme to help pay water and waste bills. Can the cabinet secretary confirm that it is her intention to continue with the scheme for the duration of this Parliament? Is that the minister's brief? That applies to the contrary. Again, I can double-check that, but I have seen no suggestion that anything other than that would be the case. To ask the Scottish Government what the impact could be on Scotland of reported proposals in the EU withdrawal bill to abandon the principles that the polluter pays and that preventative action should be taken to avert environmental damage? As I indicated when I spoke to the European Environmental Bureau on Monday morning, my ambition is to ensure that the principles of precaution, prevention and rectifying pollution at source, as well as the polluter pays principle, sit at the heart of Scotland's approach to environmental policy in the future, because without them we risk lagging behind and diverging from the ambitions of our European allies. I welcomed Mr Gove's acknowledgement last week that areas of environmental policy in Scotland have, and I quote, set the standard in the UK, unquote, and admitted that again I quote, there are things that both the Scottish and Welsh administrations have done that have been admirable and in advance of what has been done in England. So on Monday I pressed Mr Gove to ensure that once again the UK Government does follow Scotland's lead, clearly commits to the EU environmental principles and provides clarity on how the principles will continue to shape the UK Government's approach to future environmental policies and practices. Scottish Environment Link has warned that there is a risk that withdrawal from the EU will mean a rapid decrease in environmental standards. Even if EU legislations incorporated international law, there would be no legal recourse to the European Court of Justice to ensure their proper implementation. Does the cabinet secretary share my concerns that future environmental policy, imposed by a Westminster Tory Government, is likely to fall short of EU standards and to protect those high standards, power over environmental policy, should remain with this Scottish Parliament, as laid down in the Scotland Act 1997? I would always want powers to remain with this Scottish Parliament. Indeed, I would want considerably more powers to be coming to this Scottish Parliament. However, I share the member's concern. It is a key reason why I believe that the best way to protect our environmental ambition in Scotland is to ensure that the principles that I spoke about in the earlier question continue to be respected and the powers of the Scottish Parliament continue to be respected. That has to be our first priority. Devolution has been vital to Scotland's environment. As part of our preparations for the UK's exit from the EU, we are carefully considering whether any gaps could arise in existing domestic monitoring and enforcement powers that would need to be addressed to ensure that Scotland maintains high standards of environmental protection. I welcome the cabinet secretary's commitment to the important environmental principles that he has highlighted on Monday. My UK Labour colleague Kerry McCarthy MP has already in the summer submitted amendments that would ensure that the EU withdrawal bill would maintain the environmental principles. Is the cabinet secretary able to clarify whether the Scottish Government supports those amendments and does he urge all Scottish MPs to support Kerry McCarthy's amendments? I think that I need to be a little careful here, since I have not seen the detail of those amendments. I will undertake to ensure that I do, and I will get back to the member with a response to her. However, if they are in general terms along the lines that I have been speaking about this afternoon, I really do not see that there would be any difficulty. To ask the Scottish Government how it works with wildlife organisations to ensure that environmental protections are adhered to. The Scottish Government works with wildlife organisations in a number of different ways on a broad range of topics, and I meet regularly with their representatives. We do value their advice and the important work that they do. I thank the cabinet secretary for that reply. He attended the European Environmental Bureau conference the other day, and his comments about the emphasis Scotland places on environmental commitments and EU protections being instrumental for safeguarding were warmly welcomed. There is a proposal at coole links that would affect that. I appreciate that you cannot comment on a live application. However, and regardless of Brexit, if a site was subject to special scientific interest categorisation, special protection area in respects of the birds directive and a UNESCO Ramsar site, do you believe that it should continue to be respected and protected in full, please? I think that the member knows that I cannot be drawn into comments that may impact on what is currently a live application, and it would not be proper for me to do so. In general terms, the procedure for major developments is that prospective applicants are required to consult communities before any application is made. Anyone can comment, planning authorities have to take account of a full range of views, and it all is set within the context of Scotland's planning system, which does balance a variety of different interests to ensure that land use and development creates high-quality, sustainable places. In light of reports of damage to and interference with legal traps by activists and members of the public, has the cabinet secretary met the Scottish Gamekeepers Association to discuss the matter and seek a resolution to the problem, and if she has not met them yet, will she consider doing so? I meet the Scottish Gamekeepers Association both officially as an organisation and often individually with members of the SGA. Indeed, their concerns are one of the things that they raise with me. Their concerns are fairly well known, and all I would do is urge the Scottish Gamekeepers Association to keep bringing forward appropriate evidence. In cases where what looks like a legal interference has taken place is to take that evidence to the police. To ask the Scottish Government, in light of its strategy to tackle climate change, what action it is taking to reduce vehicle emissions. In the programme for government, we will increase our efforts to support electric vehicles, so that by 2032 we will have phased out the need to buy petrol or diesel cars and vans. We are also taking the lead by creating Scotland's first low-missions zone by 2018 and doubling the active travel budget with further measures outlined in the draft climate change plan. I thank the minister for that answer. The minister will be aware that Edinburgh Council is currently consulting on a diesel surcharge for parking permits, which could see up to 8,000 motorists being charged around £40 extra to park their cars. Does the minister agree that any such measures adopted across the country should be targeted at older cars that are worse for the environment rather than an indiscriminate charging scheme that fails to focus on the most polluting cars? Edinburgh City Council, whether it is the current administration or the previous administration, has a good record in tackling vehicle emissions. I will leave it for the local authority to come up with the design, the logistics of any scheme that will look to reduce vehicle emissions. Whether it is low-emissions zones or whether it is the scheme that is pronounced by Edinburgh City Council, we all have a shared objective in making our urban areas and, of course, our rural areas less reduction in carbon emissions. We have to give local authorities the autonomy to do that in the way that they see fit, but he makes a very valid point that it seems logical to tackle the worst emitters and worst polluters first. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to improve air quality in central Scotland. Clader Air for Scotland's first separate air quality strategy sets out a comprehensive range of local and national measures to improve air quality. Those measures include development of a national low-emission framework through which the 2017 programme for government has committed to introducing low-emissions zones in all local air quality management areas by 2023, where evidence supports such interventions. The Scottish Government also continues to provide practical and financial assistance to local authorities to support air quality monitoring and the development and implementation of action plans. Monica Lennon I thank the cabinet secretary for her reply. Last month, a Sunday herald investigation into the proliferation of super incinerators across Scotland brought concerns about pollution and public health into sharp focus. Dr Richard Dixon of Friend of the Earth Scotland has warned it, whilst the Scottish Government has found plans. I quote, "...these will come to not unless they stop this rush to incineration before it is too late." Despite cross-party and community campaigns, the Scottish Government has already allowed an appeal for one such incinerator in Hamilton, in the region that I represent. Can the cabinet secretary tell me how the Scottish Government policy on incineration is consistent with the Cleaner Air for Scotland strategy? Dr Richard Dixon Well, every decision that will be made in respect of individual applications will take all matters into consideration. Although I do not know the details of the particular one that Monica Lennon is discussing here, I would presume that to be the case. We have seen in Scotland significant reductions in pollution emissions over recent decades through tighter industrial regulation, which suggests that it is working, improved fuel quality, cleaner vehicles and an increased focus on sustainable transport. We have a good record, and we are meeting domestic and European air quality targets across much of Scotland, albeit that there might still be hot spots of poorer air quality in a number of urban areas. Tom Arthur To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with the UK Government regarding the impact that Brexit could have on climate change policy in Scotland. Scottish ministers have had no formal discussions with UK ministers to date on the impact of Brexit on climate change policy, nor have we seen UK Government reports or impact assessments in spite of repeated requests. In May 2017, I wrote to Nick Herd, the UK's former climate change minister, asking for formal involvement in negotiations on the UK's future participation in the EU emissions trading system, given how central that is to us meeting our climate change targets. We had no response to that letter. On 31 October, I wrote jointly with the Minister for UK Negotiations on Scotland's Place in Europe to Greg Clark, Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, to request immediate discussions on future EU ETS membership. Claire Perry, the Minister of State for Climate Change, has replied, offering a discussion. However, formal engagement on future participation in the scheme should involve all four administrations, and I made that point in my response. If the UK Government has an assessment of the impact of Brexit on climate change in the UK, including Scotland, it would be in the national interest to make it public immediately. It is vital that the UK Government provides clarity and certainty to people, businesses and communities in Scotland. Given that 64 per cent of the UK's imports and low-carbon equipment comes from the European Union, does the cabinet secretary share my concern? Should the UK leave the EU without a deal, the subsequent loss of free trade would make reducing carbon emissions more expensive, consequently making climate mitigation more difficult for Scotland and the UK as a whole? Walking away from the EU with no trade deal would be a disaster for the Scottish and UK economies. The renewable energy sector, which now supports 26,000 jobs in Scotland, with a turnover of £5 billion annually, has been a major driver of Scotland's economy in recent years. We will play an important role in helping us to deal with climate change in the future. The member is right that the sector relies on the EU for low-carbon equipment. That is why the negotiations to determine the future relationship with Europe will need to consider the important area of policy in detail, with a view to safeguarding Scotland's key interests and maintaining our place as a progressive leader on climate action. It really is not good enough that we have absolutely no answers and no information at this stage in the game to allow us to plan for the future. I thank you, cabinet secretary and members. That concludes portfolio questions.


Ie ddweud, ac rwy'n ddweud i ni ddweud o'r ffordd a'i ddweud o'r gwaith. Rwy'n ddweud i chi'n cael ei gydag o gyllid fel philiotau yma, i'n ddweud o meddwl Lundinol sy'n gweithio a'r gwaith arweinio cymdeithasol, ond ond yn y cyffredin o'r propoes bwysig, yw'r gwaith yma yn y gweithiau yn ymddangos i gydag i'r gwaith ar gyfer cymdeithio gvelio'r gwaith. Roedd yn gwneud yn ystod o'r cymdeithas hynny, yn ddod o'r hunain oedd cyfans, ac mae'n gwneud i'r cyfansol i'r 3.5 o'r cyfansol arweinig gwahanol.  Mae'n edrych i ddweud ar yr ysgolion ar y Llywodraeth a'r llwygon drafod oed fel y gallwch chi'r anodd. Gallwch chi'n ei gefnodd fel y Llywodraeth Cymru. Rydych chi'n ei fod yn chi'n ganddo i ganddofyn ffrindio, i dduoddo unig ar gynnigio ar ganddofyn i Llywodraeth Cymru, ar lyfan 80% a rhai 2050. Mae'n dweud iulaenau cyngoron gyda Llywodraeth Cymru yn ei archifigodd, ond mae'r oedd yn ganddofyn eu gweld yn unig yr Unade. a gennych ddweud o'r ddweud o'r cyfnodd hwnnw o'r ddweud deunydd yn flynyddu gondol. Mae'n ddweud gondol yng Nghymru ddod o'r cyfnodd mawr fel gynllun ar y cyfnodd ei wneud o'r mawr. Rydyn ni'n gofio ar y bwrdd mawr sgwpall hwnnw, yw ddweud o'r 7.6 miliwn. Rwy'n cael ei gynnig yr anhygoel o'r cyfrannwy ffordd, wedi golygu ar y Cymru i ddigwyddog wedi gwnaeth y gwerthyn o'n yr ystodol. Fy fidelity pointed out that this exclude aviationism. If we included aviation there it would be the single biggest component but putting that to one side actually energy use by London next in the homes is the biggest contributor in London 38% of emissions 33 percent from the conversion into public sector for the smaller proportion provinces 22% o'r cyd-wch erbyn ystod o bach honi yna, sy'n gwneud y cydwch gyda'ch bod hen oedd i amser a 22% o hyd o gweithio cyd-wch gyrsbeth oherwydd o'r cyd-wch cyd-wch cyd-wch cyd-wch, ac mi-i ei adrwyddo i'r cyd-wch cyd-wch cyd-wch cyd-wch cyd-wch cyd-wch cyd-wch cyd-wch yn y sector cyfnod, ychydig ar y ffordd ar y rai cyddwch. I chyd-wch chi'n gan ymddarrwch i allan, o ran 10 o'r 11 oed yn ôl i chwarae allan i Llywodraeth, han hiddengo leolol mewn blwysig i'w cael ei canifer os o'r mwr o'r trefanaeth, ac yn yn oed yn ymwneud y gwahanol a chanwyllau o'r ymddangol yn Llywodraeth. Rwy'n gofyn o'r ysgrifion bwysig o'n mynd i'r chanwyllio cyffredig yn y prifloed yw 35% i'w amser gan unrhyw bwysig i'w chanwyll… 35% i'w mwysig i'w amser gweithloi amelach o'r plan ŷn yng Nghyrchan 13 billion pounds investment programme concentrated initially on the bus system because that's the quickest and most efficient way to increase public transport provision and where we achieved a 40% increase in bus passengers over a period of four or five years. But also with significant increased investment in the softer transport modes, particularly cycling where there's been an 80% increase in cycling in the city, albeit from a low base. And with the combination of those policies has enabled London to achieve a 5% shift away from private car transport to public transport primarily but also cycling and walking in the city, relatively unprecedented for a city of London scale. And while there were the primary motivation in the climate change action plan is obviously reducing carbon emissions, there are multiple benefits of this sort of approach, including big reductions in the number of people killed on London's roads down 35%. Major improvements in air quality and noise also. And indeed the primary motivation for the congestion charge initially was to tackle congestion which was a major electoral issue, not as an environmental measure. Moving on to the emissions in the commercial and public sector, an area where the mayor has significantly less powers than in the transport arena and where the majority of emissions come from energy use in buildings. Half of which are still going to be standing in 2050, still going to be in use in 2050, the point by which we're told we have to reduce emissions by 80%. And therefore our programme focus very much on what we could do to change the way those buildings are used and change the physical nature of those buildings with a major building retrofit programme which has only really just got underway and was derived from interaction with other cities in the C40. And this programme, we've offered up 40 major buildings in London including police and fire stations as well as large office buildings to the private sector to ask them to come forward with proposals to reduce emissions 25% over a seven or eight-year period. But with the private sector putting up the investment to make those changes, which will then be paid for out of the financial savings that the city gains through the energy savings. And I think interestingly in the current economic climate this is a policy that the new mayor of London, someone without a tremendous track record on the environment has chosen to keep because of the significant financial benefits to the city, a saving of £1 million a year estimated for those initial buildings alone as well as the environmental savings. But the whole of London's climate change approach relies ultimately on changing the way that energy is supplied and distributed in the city, an area where the mayor has no formal powers whatsoever, no control formally over the energy utilities and also where there's incredible inherent waste in the system. The national grid and power supply system in the United Kingdom wastes two-thirds of the energy that it creates in the form of lost heat. And therefore there are huge opportunities for improved deficiencies, but in London at least very limited opportunities for moving to large-scale renewable energy generation because of the density of the built infrastructure in the city. London's plans therefore focus very much on moving to a more decentralised energy supply, focusing on combined heat power and cooling systems and moving towards using energy from waste with a target of moving a quarter of all of London's energy supply to be produced within the boundaries of the city by 2025, a hugely ambitious target, but one which is thought to be possible through the use of the mayor's planning powers over new developments, but also using the Economic Development Agency, which has set up an energy services company of its own to catalyse the market for decentralised energy. But looking now as an outside observer on London government, I think actually the most interesting thing about London's climate change programme is the fact that all of its policies were underpinned by a conscious effort to seek out best practice internationally and learn from it and copy it in London. And that ultimately ended up with the establishment of a group of cities called the C40, the 40 of the largest cities in the world working together and competing to tackle climate change and really accepting that whilst we rely on national and international legislation and regulation to implement many of our policies in our cities, there's a huge amount that we can do together, but also that to some extent we can, as big cities working together, we can force the national agenda to move more quickly and there's no need to wait for international intervention. And so to conclude, thinking about where next for cities as we move into what one might term the ecological age, moving from the carbon age to the ecological age, I take a very positive view, much the same as set out by Philip of the role that cities can play and perhaps to pick up on the comment made by David Sathaway in the Urban Age newspaper produced for this conference, I don't think that to say that the battle to prevent catastrophic climate change will be won or lost in cities is to put the blame on cities. On the contrary, I think that it's to take a very positive view that identifying that urban living provides the potential for sustainable ecological age models of living, not to say that that's easy if one looks at the latest views from the Tyndall Climate Change Centre in the UK, we have to emissions, global emissions have to peak in 2015 and then reduce six to 8% year on year from 2020 through to 2050. That is an extraordinary task that has never been achieved previously in history. But, and I'll conclude with this, taking a statement often repeated by my former boss, Ken Livingston, the Mayor of London, we don't have to reduce our quality of life to tackle climate change, but we do have to change the way that we live. And there are now attractive visions, the image on the slide is that of the proposed Dong Tan Eco City, attractive visions of how we can build new cities that will fit the paradigm of the ecological age. But the real challenge is to work out how we can reprogram and retrofit the cities that we already inhabit. Thank you very much.


So, I'm Tim Hewitt and I'm the Director of Biomechanics and of Sports Medicine Research at Mayo Clinic in both Rochester and Minneapolis, Minnesota. And the reason I came to this injury prevention symposium is to present our latest findings on both primary and secondary prevention. But I also would like to point out that maybe that prevention is a bit of a misnomer. Basically it's injury reduction. So what we're trying to do is reduce the relative risk of injury in a population. So if you could actually prevent an injury, you'd actually have to be able to predict the injury was going to happen, which we can't really do. Basically what we do is test athletes and we risk stratify athletes. We put them in high, moderate, low risk strata categories. And then from there we can design interventions that are geared toward their relative risk level. So I think risk reduction rather than prevention and risk stratification rather than prediction are more scientifically valid terms. So we've been the last 25 years studying the anterior cruciate ligament, trying to figure out what puts that ligament at risk. And basically we've found four modifiable neuromuscular imbalances that are ligament dominance, quadriceps dominance, leg dominance, and trunk dominance. And basically what we've done is put interventions that target those specific neuromuscular imbalances in individuals. So for example, if an individual has all those imbalances, they're going to be a high risk individual. They're going to target an intervention toward all the imbalances that they demonstrate, show that we can alter their risk profile, change their risk stratification level, and increase their neuromuscular control and decrease their relative risk of a future injury. And we've done this over multiple trials over many years, and we're just putting out in the Journal of Orthopedic Research, it's supposed to come out any day. We did a meta-analysis of meta-analyses, which we call an umbrella analysis, where we show there's been over 15 randomized controlled trials now, and there have been over eight meta-analyses. And what we demonstrate is we can reduce the risk of an ACL injury, any ACL injury, or any lower extremity injury by 50% with targeted neuromuscular training, and we can reduce the risk of those non-contact ACL injuries, which are, again, neuromuscular and modifiable in nature by two-thirds. And we actually published a study back in 1999 where we showed the exact same numbers. This was the first randomized controlled trial where we looked at the efficacy of targeted neuromuscular training and demonstrated we could reduce the risk of any ACL injury or any lower extremity injury by half and any non-contact ACL injury by two-thirds. So what we do know is this risk reduction is possible, it's highly efficacious. You can't necessarily risk stratify, you can't do this testing at home. We have, like you all have here, we have at Mayo Clinic, a biomechanics lab, where we test for these relative neuromuscular imbalances of ligament dominance, quadriceps dominance, leg dominance, and trunk dominance, and then can develop a risk stratification profile and then develop a targeted intervention to reduce relative risk of an ACL injury.  For example, an athlete that has a lot of valgus or inward hip and knee collapse is at greater risk. We know that. So if you have a valgus landing profile, you're at greater risk. If you are more asymmetric, if you really load one side or really favor one side relative to another, you're at relative risk. If you have underdeveloped posterior chain, your glutes, your hamstrings, you're at relative risk. So firing up that posterior chain with exercises like Russian hamstring curls reduces your risk. And again, just overall using your musculature to absorb these high-ground reaction forces because landing a ski jump can be 20 times your body weight when only three to four times your body weight can tear your ACL. So you really have to use that musculature to absorb and dissipate those forces and don't allow them to go to the joint or to the ligament and end up in a rupture. No, there is really no perfect athlete. What you have to think about is years and years of training in elite athletes actually creates neuromuscular imbalance because you're developing your body to perform specific athletic tasks in an optimal way. Obviously, all you have to do is look at an elite tennis player. They're actually quite asymmetric. That increases their risk of injury, and that's why you see an elite athlete some of the highest risk of injury. And that's why it's important that they work with their physicians, their athletic trainers, their physical therapists to rehab to develop greater balance along with that great elite performance level.