Chamber and committees

I thank all the witnesses for their evidence, which has been really interesting. Questions of reliability, punctuality, cost effectiveness and a connected service with local input have all been at the forefront of everyone’s contributions. It has been very helpful to us, and I thank you for taking part.

I was going to suspend the meeting, but I am conscious of time, so I would be grateful if the witnesses could leave quietly, as we push on with our agenda.

That concludes the public part of our meeting.

I missed the critical figure that you gave—the one that you did on the back of your bit of paper—for the cost of the fixed link. I think that the feed cut out, or else I just did not hear it. What was the estimated figure for the cost of the fixed link?

Thank you for clarity on that.

There are questions from the committee.

Thank you. I will keep to myself my views about Government IT schemes, having seen them in operation in the six years that I have been in Parliament.

Before I bring in Mark Ruskell, I have to ask you a question, minister. When SEPA came to the committee the other day, we talked to it about its role and responsibilities. It is clear to me and, I guess, to many other people that, after the data hack that SEPA suffered, it has never really got back on its feet and is struggling to regulate various parts of the industry and to retain and use its data, because it cannot access that data.

Are you happy giving SEPA a bit more power to do something else? Are you happy that it has the resources to do that, given that its budget has not gone up? I ask that, because it seems that there is no more money and that SEPA is under pressure and cannot do the job that it is doing at the moment, yet you are giving it something else to do. Will that work?

I have some comments to make. I am deeply concerned that we are asking SEPA to take on further responsibilities when it does not have the resource and the staffing to do so. We are also asking it to take on the responsibilities of, in the minister’s words, funding its operations from within the scheme and of becoming the judge, jury and, as it were, implementer of the fine when it is put in place. I have problems with Government agencies being asked to take on all those responsibilities, especially in relation to a criminal offence.

On the regulations, the minister made it clear that the offences will be known and that it is up to producers to work out what to do to avoid them but that there is a regulation to punish them if they do not do so. To me, that is putting the cart before the horse, and I struggle with that. I have real problems understanding how it will work, so trying to legislate on a small part of it is really difficult for me. It puts me in a corner in which I would rather not be.

Those are my comments. If any other members want to make a contribution, I am very happy to take it.

I guess the question then is how to appeal it, but that will come out, probably, in further legislation.

Let us move on to agenda item 3, which is the formal consideration of motion—

The question is, that motion S6M-07583 in the name of Lorna Slater be agreed to. Are we all agreed?

Members: No.

The committee will need to report on the outcome of this instrument in due course. I invite the committee to delegate authority to me, as convener, to finalise the report for publication. Are you all happy with that?