Chamber and committees

Would that provision not be relevant either?

I wish that I could ask Christine Grahame to clarify my understanding.

Does that affect the part of the bill that says that an unlicensed operator could advertise?

The reason why I highlight that is that a lot of the problem surrounds unlicensed people advertising on Facebook, for example. There was an uptick in online sales in 2019, which reflected that problem. If part 2 is not taken forward, the advertising provisions, which are included in it, will not be either.

So, the money would not have to be returned if it was not ring fenced and spent on agriculture.

It would be useful if you could come back to the committee on this, perhaps in writing, along with the definition of ring fencing. Could you also confirm that that money has not been put into plugging a black hole in finance? Is it being used to plug the £1 billion black hole in the Scottish Government’s budget?

I want to go back to the convener’s question about the Bew funding. Can you define the term “ring fenced” here? Do you expect similar funds to be taken from the agriculture budget?

Okay. Thanks.

Yes.

I suppose that what you are saying is that ring fencing does not really mean anything.