 Fawr, mwy fawr yn gweithio ar y 13 yma yn y Cymru gael Gyfrifolwr Rhywun Gyfrifolwr i'w cael eu cymunedau cymwylltu cymwyllt. Mae hyn yn cyd-dillidau'u clywed ym mwy o gwbl senedd ei wneud i'w holl gael gyda sicr i gael Pheilwyr, ac mae'r ymgylchedd cymwyllt yn ddifu'r ymgylchedd cymwyllt yw ymgylchedd cymwyllt ddifu'r ymgylchedd cymwyllt, ac mae'r ymgylchedd cymwyllt yn gyfryd yna gweithio i ddechrau gyfoeth Cymysgol, RpP 3, a Gweldol 5, y gweldol dechreuadau gyda Llanfyn Cymysgol yn gweldol. Rwy'n credu'r gweithio'n gweldol. John Lylew. Gweithio'n gweldol dechreuadau gyda Llanfyn Cymysgol yn gweldol dechreuadau gyda Llanfyn Cymysgol? Rwy'n credu'n gweldol dechreuadau gyda Llanfyn Cymysgol yn gweldol, a'r grateddau iddynt o'r gwaith i ddweud i chi oedd ei gwybodaeth dros gyferitterau. Felly mae'n meddwl â'r barhau. Mae'n meddwl i ydw,"Doliad i chi, Oedden. Na yw'r newid i ddweud i ddweudio ddi passechadau a dd teachers a oedd yn digwydd. Rwy'n credu i'n ddysgu cyddiadau arall. Rwy'n credu i'n credu i'n credu i'r ddysgu, i ddysgu i't i'n credu i'ch ddysgen. Rwy'n credu i'ch ddysgu i ddysgu i dirwch o'r holl. Mae gennym yn sicr ddim yn sicrhau thati'r bautyn gweithio y ffordd iawn nifer. Mae gennym yn sicrhau ffordd iawn. Fodd y gwaith o'i cyfnod. Fodd ar gyfer y clywed o Maith honno? Diolch. Fy hwnna'r gweithio y ffordd iawn y pwg ac mae'n ffordd iawn i'w ganweithio ddochol ac maith hwnna i'r ffordd iawn i'w pwg ac mae'n gweithio ddochol i'w pwg ac maith i'w ddochol i'w pwg ac mae'n gweithio i'w pwg ac mae'n gweithio i'w pwg ac mae'n I will make a record of my observation and the committee's thoughts on it afterwards. I would rather do it that way if I may, please, John. Okay? Thank you. So, I ask, are we all agreed on that matter? Yes. Thank you. The second item on consideration is two negative instruments as detailed on the agenda. These instruments relate to agricultural holdings. The committee will consider any issues that it wishes to raise in reporting to the instrument on those issues. Members should note that no motions to a null have been received in relation to these instruments. Are there any comments from members relating to these instruments? I note that there are no comments received, so therefore, is the committee agreed that it does not wish to make any recommendation in relation to these instruments? Yes. Thank you. The third item on the agenda is the committee's invite to note the draft memorandum of understanding between the Scottish Government and the Maritime and Coast Guard Agency has outlined in paper 2. Members should be aware that, since the paper was issued, it has emerged that there would be no requirement for the committee to report the MOU to the Parliament and for the Parliament to formally approve it. The Parliamentary Bureau has therefore referred the document to the committee for note only. This is because the Scottish Parliament is not named as a party to the document. Members will note that the memorandum of understanding states that the Maritime and Coast Guard Agency accounts and annual report will be shared with Transport Scotland, enabling them to be laid before the Scottish Parliament. Also, if required to do so, the Maritime and Coast Guard Agency will submit relevant reports to and appropriate officials will appear before the committee of the Scottish Parliament regarding the exercise and functions relating to the Coast Guard and the safety of ships and seafarers in Scotland. I would invite any comments from members on the committee on the memorandum of understanding. We have more than two. Stuart, if you would like to start, please. It is just a technical point that I don't think should lead us to take any action, but it will be useful to put on the record. At 3.2, Scotland is defined as being—as defined in the Scottish Association Waters Boundaries Order of 1999, which in essence defines the seaward limits as 55 degrees, 26 minutes, 37 seconds north, 6 degrees, 34 minutes, 40 seconds west. However, that is only for certain purposes related to fisheries. The other piece of legislation that matters is the continental shelf territorial sea order of 1987, which uses a different set of coordinates to define the border. There is an area of—this is my approximation—6,000 sq miles, which for purposes of fishing is not in Scottish waters, but for the purposes of exploitation of oil and gas is in Scottish waters for the legal purposes. It is worth making the point that the excluded area related to the memorandum of understanding is not an area in relation to the oil and gas law that would be applied by Scottish law enforcement agencies and courts. It is not an area where we have legislative competence in this Parliament, and therefore it is proper that we merely note that difference. I personally would have preferred to see the memorandum of understanding, which is no legal force but represents something serious to talk about the 1987 order, but having made that point, I do not propose the committee's response to it in any way whatsoever. Your point is made. Sorry, John Mu. In light of your opening remarks, I was just to clarify that it says here in the paper of the action that the committee is invited to consider whether it is content to recommend that the Parliament approve the MOU. Is that actually correct? That has changed, because we are being asked to note it, so it is ready to say that we have seen it coming through. Thank you. That is fine. It is on record that, in fact, this was raised in the Bureau on Tuesday of this week, and it was made clear that we could, if we wished to—and I am not saying we should, I am just saying that if we wished to—we could produce a report and there could be a short debate on the floor of the chamber. Considering the memorandum itself, I do not think that there is any need to do that, but I think that it should be noted, certainly for the public, that we have that power if we wish to do it. Thank you. Jamie, do you want to— The first question, I think that John Mason asked, which is just to clarify, would be a nice to consider rather than approve or give consent to, that is fine. Therefore, for any questions that we have, who are they directed to or any points of clarification that we have? Are they directed to the transport of Scotland or the Scottish Government? We could write to Transport Scotland if there are specific points that you would like. So, may I, for the purpose of the record, then ask that on the section 4 of the operation of the MOU, which is page 3 of the body of the appendix, it says that Scottish Government ministers may appoint a name to the individual to the MCA advisory board. My question would be who would make that decision and by what process they would follow. There is no requirement to answer that question here or now, but that is just for the record. It would be interesting to know. As a result of that question, then ask what the process will be just for that question. I just didn't make sure that we do—that we encourage the Government to make full use of the MOU by actually appointing someone, sending somebody or a deputy to those meetings that the board has so that we know what's happening at that agency. The only other point I had was just a general point on these MOUs in that—again, for the purpose of the public record—is that they seem to be following a slightly different format in terms of the role of the committee and the Parliament in each of the MOUs. Perhaps the clerks may take that up later. That is definitely noted, Rhoda. On the appointment of the person to the board, I'm wondering if that person is going to be the route for consultation with the Scottish Government or is there another route for consultation? If there's someone on the board, what is their role? Are they going to be feeding back information or is there a separate, another kind of working in tandem consultation process? The committee's content, what we'll do, is we'll write and ask about the process of selection of that person and how the Scottish Government feeds into it. We could definitely do that. Sorry, John. You wanted to— It was more a comment. It might be opportunities further down the line for this committee to take evidence from someone who is appointed and, of course, where they are in place would be able to do that in relation to the shocking situation in the Murray Firth regarding ship-to-ship transfer of oil, where there's a dearth of interest, apparently, from the Scottish Government on this. This is a dearer-reserve matter, but the communities, as you'll be fully aware, convener, are deeply concerned and I hope you would join in that concern that there is about the potential environmental disaster that this could bring about. If we did have someone in the air, we'd have an opportunity to discuss that. Thank you, John, for that very good constituency point that you raised. I will try, if I may, to say that it's not for me to answer that here, but I think the process and how the Coast Guard Agency feeds back to the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government is a thing that we can raise with the Government. If you look at Paragraph 3.5, pollution response operations are not part of this memorandum of understanding, so it's not with the competence of this. It's a licence grant and not a pollution response, though. Right. I'm just reading that again just to remind myself. It might be useful to look at section 4.6. If required to do so, the MCA would submit relevant reports to, and appropriate officials would appear before the committees of the Scottish Parliament regarding the exercise of functions related to the Coast Guard. That seems all-encompassing and the safety of ships and seafarers in Scotland. That ultimately would be quite a useful thing for us to bear in mind here forth. I think that the point is that, once that person is appointed, it is very clear that we can ask them to come to the committee, and if it's the committee's wish to ask them to come, I will make every steps to ensure that that happens. Sorry, John. It was just to pick up on Mike's point. Of course, there will be consultation and strategic priorities in what would be more strategic than protecting the Highlands and Islands main industry, which is tourism and our environment. I would suggest that we need to be ambitious. John, you've made it twice, if I may, on that particular issue, and Richard, I'm going to let you come in there. Thank you. Based on the fact that we could ask the official to come along, we could also ask the maritime to come along too at agency to come along too, because it would be possibly interesting to, based on the point that my colleague has made just a minute ago about the ship-to-ship transfer of oil, it could be a subject of something that we want to get into. I absolutely believe that that's right, and we can ask the committee—the committee can ask if they so want that the Coast Guard Agency come along and also the person appointed by the Scottish Minister. So, rather than delay this as we're being asked to note it, is the committee happy that we write and ask for the process for selecting the person to go on to the agency or represent the agency? Fiona, that we've been notified of who is appointed in due course. Okay, and that we've been notified, and at the appropriate time, we look for somebody to come to the committee to explain the work that's going on. Is everyone content with that? Can I ask that you, therefore, as a committee, we are happy that we've noted the memorandum of Amazon. Right, that concludes the public part of the meeting, and I'd now like to spend briefly to allow us to move into private session.