 Fodd o'n ddigon ni'n gyd, wrth gwrth gwrs, yn fwyfodol y 30 ymddorol yn 2017 o'r Cymru Rural Economyau a Llyfrgedeg. Fodd i chi i ddim yn dweud bod yn fawr eu hwn ddweud bod nawetr yn ddodgol. 1. Fy publirio rhai ar y pwgoi'r最 가�dd. Dysgynnu'r ysgrifenni'n ddiwedd ar y prifyd yma o hyd yn gwneud rwyng mwy mwy athoio'r gweithgofod. On 27 November, the committee received a written update from Transport Scotland, providing details of the snagging work that will be starting this week, requiring a partial closure of the new crossing for several days. I would like to welcome from the Scottish Government Michelle Rennie, the director of major transport infrastructure projects, and Lawrence Shackman, the project manager, and from Amy Mark Ant, representing the operating company for the fourth road bridge. Lawrence, would you like to make a short opening statement? Actually, Michelle's got to do it. Michelle's got to do it. Sorry, my mistake. Michelle, would you like to make a short opening statement? Indeed. Thank you. Thank you for providing me with the opportunity to be here this morning, and please excuse my voice. To update the committee on the progress made since our last appearance on 28 June 2017, I can confirm that the project's outturn cost range remains as at 1.325 to 1.35 billion. The Queensfree crossing opened to traffic on 30 August 2017 as planned, and the four days of opening events gave nearly 70,000 people the opportunity to see the new bridge at close quarters. The Queensfree crossing experience walk across the new crossing took place on September 2 and 3, with 97 per cent of those who were successful in the ballot process actually participating on the day. This is a remarkably high participation rate for a free event of this scale. It provided a wonderful opportunity for charity fundraising, and over £100,000 was raised through the Just Giving page for the event, in addition to the money raised by charities, by individuals themselves. Participants recognised the truly historic nature of the event and people with connections to the area and particularly to the bridges travelled from far and near to be part of it. Many people used the occasion as an opportunity to recognise their own personal challenges, and I was humbled to hear so many stories of personal bravery and achievement, including those relating to marriage proposals. It all contributed to an extremely positive event, which I'm sure in time will become an important part of Scottish history. The official opening took place on the morning of 4 September and was performed by Her Majesty the Queen, accompanied by the Duke of Edinburgh. It was of particular local significance, as it was the 53rd anniversary of the opening of the 4th Road Bridge in 1964. While the weather was not all that favourable on the day, it did provide the flavour of the challenges that the men and women who worked on the project faced and overcame. Opportunities to participate in the opening events were highly sought after. The five major events, which took place in the space of just over a week, were organised to help meet unprecedented demand from the public, local MSPs and councillors international and UK media, stakeholders, schools and local communities. Due to the high public demand for tickets for the Queensferry crossing experience, over 226,000 people applied for 50,000 tickets. An additional schools and community day out was arranged for 5 September. That allowed over 6,000 pupils, teachers and parents from the 13 schools nearest to the project the chance to walk across the bridge. It also provided an opportunity for local community groups to access the crossing in the afternoon and evening that day. Face to face and social media feedback for all of these events was extremely positive. The event to light up the Queensferry crossing was organised to specifically thank the workers and to showcase them alongside the iconic bridge that they were responsible for building. The spectacular videos and images from this event gained wide international media attention, including CNN, The New York Times, Al Jazeera and the South China Morning Post, among others. The extensive media coverage promoted both Scotland and the Three Bridges as a unique visitor destination. Overall, the events showcased both the incredible achievement of the workforce and a new iconic Scottish landmark. Since August, the fourth road bridge viewing platform has welcomed over 30,000 visitors. Initial evaluation shows that print media coverage alone generated an additional advertising value equivalent coverage of worth 1.2 million. The new roads and Queensferry crossing reopened to traffic in the early hours of 7 September. In the first few days, the crossing was extremely busy. Primarily, we believed due to bridge tourists, many of whom were observed to cross the bridge several times, looping around at very tall and south Queensferry junctions. That caused some disruption to local traffic due to the unusual traffic patterns. We have been closely monitoring traffic flows through the period, and I can report that, following the first two weeks of operation, traffic has now settled down to more normal patterns, which are consistent with the patterns that existed prior to the Queensferry crossing opening. It's worth reminding the committee that the project was originally designated as the fourth replacement crossing, and it was designed to at least maintain traffic flows at 2006 levels and not to increase capacity. At that time, it was determined that any future traffic increases were to be accommodated through the use of the fourth road bridge as a public transport corridor. The project has been open to traffic in a phased manner. Following the completion of the connecting roads at the north end of the fourth road bridge, this route was reopened to schedule bus services on 13 October. The footprint of the temporary traffic management was subsequently reduced, and the speed limit increased from 40 to 50 miles an hour on the Queensferry crossing itself, and on the approach roads on the 6th of November. The installation and commissioning of the intelligent transport system is currently going through its final stages on the scheme, and following the removal of the remaining traffic management, the Queensferry crossing will have an increased speed limit of 70 miles an hour, and the fourth road bridge will be opened to other buses, taxis and certain motorcyclists in December. Works on the intelligent transport system, the structural health monitoring and mechanical and electrical works are continuing inside the bridge decks, towers and piers. Regular handover meetings are being held with AME, the fourth bridge's operating company, to prepare them for the operation and maintenance of the bridge and the approach roads. Community relations continue to be extremely good with the north and south community forums that are due to meet for the last time this evening. The schools programme at the Contact and Education Centre in South Queensferry has proved extremely popular and will continue to operate for the remainder of the academic year to June 2018, and its future use will be reviewed at that time. To date, the project has hosted over 75,000 visitors from across the globe, including 25,000 schoolchildren from right across Scotland. Thank you for the opportunity to provide an update this morning, and we would welcome any questions that you may have for Lawrence, Mark or myself. Okay. Thank you very much. Stuart, I think that you've got the first question. Thank you very much. Now that the bridge is a success, I can confess that I was responsible for the legislation as minister, apart from stage 3, which Keith Brown did, due to snow. One of the things that we are now seeing is snagging, as the convener referred to. I know that it is around the joints. Historically, joints have been the big issue on the existing bridge. Are joints going to be a big problem on this bridge? Was it expected? The issue with the snagging is that you are correct in saying that it is around the joints, but it is not due to the joints. The issue here is around the level of the surfacing immediately adjacent to the joints, and the effect that those levels have on the joints. At the moment, the surfacing has been laid marginally too high either side of the joints, and that is a workmanship issue. The joints themselves are fine, but the concern is about the impact that the use of the road at 70 miles an hour would create on the joints, should traffic be allowed to traverse at those speeds. All the costs associated with that will lie with the contractor? That is correct. There is an opportunity within the contractor for them to rectify any defective work, or any snagging issues. Snagging issues are a normal part of any major contract. People who have done up their own houses will appreciate that there are snagging issues even at that scale. All costs associated with those snagging issues and finishing works will be mourned by the contractor. Including the costs of doing the diversions and things like that? Correct. All costs. I know of quite a few questions. It seems to have come at quite short notice, and perhaps that is a bit of a surprise. Is that a fair comment? The issue about the levels on the joints was known about in August prior to opening. What we did not fully understand at that point in time was what the impact of those level differences would be. At that point, the contractor was investigating with the joint supplier. The bespoke joint for this bridge is no other, just quite the same as it is. They were investigating with the joint supplier whether there was an opportunity to undertake a less disruptive solution. The other thing about that is because, effectively, it is road surfacing—that is at fault—and road surfacing is quite a weather-sensitive operation. What we did not want to do was alert the public to potential dates and then the weather change in the intervening period. We have reasonable certainty with a five-day forecast ahead. We have more certainty about the first three days of that forecast. At this point, we are satisfied that we can get a sufficient weather window to allow us to start and complete the works within the period. However, we also have hold points within those works so that, were the weather to change during that period, we will still get the road reopened by Wednesday morning, the latest. How would you describe the potential disruption that you are planning for? We have done some work on estimating what delays are likely. We think that it is likely to be of the order of a few minutes in the morning, two to four minutes in the morning and evening peaks, because, effectively, we are providing exactly the same capacity. We are just re-routing the southbound traffic. And reducing the speed limit? Correct. We are reducing the speed limit to 40 miles an hour on both bridges for the duration of the works. Michelle, can you just clarify for me? I think that you said that it was a works defect at some stage during your answer there, and previously you said that it was a design defect. Is it a defect of the design because the joints weren't known about, or is it a defect of the actual work surfacing? Apologies if I wasn't clear about that. It's a workmanship issue. The design is correct, but the surfacing wasn't led to the tolerance that's set out in the design. That was identified before the bridge opened. That's correct. Thank you for that clarification. You knew in August that there would be a problem, but you need a window of opportunity to do the works. Why did the public only hear about this on Monday? First of all, the contractor hadn't designed the solution to this until probably a couple of weeks ago. The thing that causes the greatest disruption on the road network is driver confusion. What we didn't want to do was put out dates and then change those dates. What we wanted to do was put out dates that we had reasonable certainty about. We could only do that once we had some clarity about what the weather window would be, particularly at this time of the year, because the works are vulnerable to heavy rain and also particularly low temperatures. As you know, the diversion route is vulnerable to particularly high winds, so we wanted to be able to have quite a bit of certainty about the weather window before we put out information that otherwise might confuse drivers. Is it fair to say that there is also a problem with the wind shielding? Again, there are minor snagging issues with the wind shielding. There is nothing in comparison to what has been reported. There is a considerable amount of wind shielding on the bridge. Some aspects of that wind shielding need a bit of finishing work. We will look to do that and any other work that we can get done during these few days where we have the lane restrictions on to try to minimise any future disruption. In the event that we didn't have those days with lane closures on, we could have done those works under hard shoulder closures at night in the normal way that maintenance gets done on any structure. Who made the decision to proceed with the opening of the bridge knowing that there would be problems post-opening and that the bridge would have to be closed or partially closed at some point after opening? The issue is that there was no knowledge that the bridge would have to be partially closed post-opening. There was a view taken that there were no safety implications in opening the bridge at 40 miles an hour and indeed in increasing the speed limit to 50 miles an hour. Through the discussions that the contractor has had with the joint manufacturer, it has become clear that there are potential issues in opening the bridge to a speed limit of 70 miles an hour. What we want to do is ensure that we avoid those issues and don't do anything to impact the long-term durability of that joint. The pressure list that came out on Monday, which happened in front of me, the wording of it almost sounds like this was this partial closure, was part of the plan of achieving 70 miles per hour, whereas it sounds like from today it wasn't part of the plan. I'm a bit confused. Was there always a plan to partially close to address the surfacing issues that you knew about in August? Or is this a reactionary problem to some you've just discovered in the last few weeks? There was always a plan to get to 70 miles an hour in a phased way. We have moved from 40 to 50 and we had always intended to move to 70. We knew that there were some finishing works that would be required before we moved to 70, until recently we weren't aware of what the solution would be for those surfacing works and what sort of impacts they would have on road users or indeed what lane closures, if any, would be required. Okay, and just finally, moving forward, do you foresee any further potential closures or rerouting outside of the emergency procedures of the bridge that you are aware of now, as opposed to something you may discover in the future? I think that we've been consistently saying, I think that, since before the bridge opened, that there would be finishing and snagging works required. The contract allows for those works to happen up to next September at no additional cost. So there will be some additional works going on throughout that period and they will include the things that I mentioned earlier, the mechanical and electrical works, the intelligent transport system, the lifts to the towers and that kind of thing. But there was no reason to delay opening the bridge for those kinds of works that sort of thing is entirely normal on any infrastructure project. Okay, so just to clarify, I don't think the question was answered with great respect. If it's a very concise question because there are a lot of questions to get through. Okay, so will there be further closures between now and next September? There will be some lane restrictions happening between now and September, yes. Thank you. Sorry, just before I move on because I know Gail Ross has got a question, I remember hearing evidence before that one of the reasons why the bridge opening didn't come originally as quickly as was anticipated was that the resurfacing couldn't be done in cold weather. It appears that we're doing now resurfacing potentially the coldest time of the year. Is that right or have I misunderstood that? I mean resurfacing happens as a matter of course across the Scottish Road network whenever it's needed. Emergency repairs in particular take place all the time. This isn't a time of year that you would necessarily choose to resurface, but because we have a weather window that allows us to do that, it's okay. What we're doing is 15 metres on each side, which is relatively straightforward to do. We probably wouldn't choose to resurface the entire bridge at this time of the year because that's going to take much longer and you have less certainty about the weather window. Hi, morning panel. Michelle, I just wanted to really quickly touch on something that Jamie just said about on-going works. You mentioned different things that are going to be happening over the course of the next year or so and these are part of the course with a major structure. I wonder if maybe you could tell us a little bit more about those or if it's more convenient to give us a little bit more detail on whether we'll be right to the committee with a list of on-going projects and timescales, if that's okay? We'd be happy to provide more information through the committee. Rhyda. Can I ask about the 4th road bridge and when it'll be open to public transport, fully open to public transport? We intend that to be opened up before Christmas as part of the move to 70mph operation opening up the public transport corridor on the 4th road bridge that happened before Christmas. Okay. You were saying that coincides with the 70mph on the new bridge. Is the 4th road bridge going to be 70mph now? No, no. The 4th road bridge will be, as it always has been, normal 50mph speed limit on the 4th road bridge. Mark is probably better placed to tell you why it can't be increased from 50mph. It's fine, I just wanted to clarify. It'll be 50mph on the 4th road bridge, 70mph, subject to the variable mandatory speed limits on the Queensfree crossing. I thought it would be strange if it suddenly went up in speed. I use the Queensferry crossing quite often, and I'd hoped that the new crossing would mean that there would be fewer tailbacks at peak times, and that really hasn't changed. Do you see the increase in speed dealing with that, or is the tailbacks at peak times something we're just going to have to live with? I think that in some ways the increase from 40mph to 50mph has made some difference because when the vehicles are moving faster on the main carriageway, there's slightly bigger gaps between the vehicles, so it makes it easier for traffic to merge from the slip roads, and then, as you go to 70mph, the gaps between vehicles become bigger still, so there's more opportunity for people to merge. Fundamentally, there's two lanes on the Queensferry crossing in both directions, and there were two lanes, or there still are two lanes, in each direction on the 4th road bridge, so there isn't a step change in capacity as such. The thing that we keep saying to people is it's a lot more resilient. We have the hard shoulders for breakdowns, and we've already seen people who have broken down in their vehicles being able to move and use the hard shoulders, and that's helped to keep the traffic moving on the bridge, and of course we have the wind shielding, which has also provided a lot more resilience to wind-related incidents, and it will continue to do so as we go forward in time. There's a couple queuing up. Can I bring them in and then come back to you? Mike, and then John, if I may. I'm just concerned that the right lessons are learned for major projects in the future. I use that bridge regularly, and all the time, at least twice a week. It was quite clear that there was huge congestion in the early days, and I put it down to the 40mph restriction. As soon as that was lifted, and I use this regularly, as I say, it was quite obvious to me that moving to 50mph, and it's interesting to what was just being said, made a huge difference to the congestion across that bridge, a huge difference. If only we'd had the 50mph at the beginning, then I think that we would have not had all the congestion issues that people were getting anxious about. So really, I accept that in the initial few days there may have been tourism about people looking at the bridge, but once that was away and people were using it regularly, we still had the congestion, and it wasn't until the 6th of November that suddenly we managed to get that ease. In an ideal world it would have opened at 50mph, but there were other reasons. For example, finishing off some central reserve barrier works, and at either end of the bridge, as part of the transfer of traffic from the 4th row bridge to the Queensview crossing, had to be undertaken in the central reserve, and we couldn't do that work at 50mph. We had to limit the traffic to 40mph for safety reasons. Why didn't we just make sure that all the work was done before we opened it so we wouldn't have had all the congestion for those weeks in that period? Because we couldn't actually transfer the traffic over to the new bridge, we had the gaps in the central reserve to get the traffic through to the 4th row bridge. My point is, why did we open early, open on time when the work wasn't done, and we could have made sure that the work was done and then opened at 50mph, and then nobody would have had the congestion? It was physically impossible to do that, because if you remember, the traffic was orientated, so if you're coming from the north, you travel across the emergency link on the north side of the bridge, and the northbound traffic also threw the central reserve gap onto the new northbound carriageway as you come from the 4th row bridge. You've got a gap in the central reserve, and there's no way of doing that without moving the traffic around. I understand that. In terms of your wider question about learning for the future, where we can and where it's safe to do so, we incentivise contractors to run temporary traffic management schemes at 50mph. I'm pleased to hear that. We've done that on M8. I'm pleased to hear that. I have a quick question from John, and I'm back to Rhoda. You said that there was no step change in capacity, i.e., there's two lanes in each direction, so there's still four lanes, as there were before, for most traffic. However, the total capacity we now have, if you include the hard shoulder on the new bridge, we've got six lanes, on the old bridge, we've got four, so we've got a total of 10 lanes now, and we're only using four for most traffic. Will there be consideration given at some point to using more of the 10 lanes? The fourth crossing act, going back to Stuart Stevenson's earlier point, was all predicated on there not being a step change in capacity, basically 2006 levels, which is when the fourth crossing act was ostensibly based on, and that any increase in demand to cross the fourth would be met by public transport. Although there's, as you quite rightly say, a lot more capacity there, the policy is to promote public transport to fulfil the requirement to cross the fourth going forward. Now, no-one's got a crystal ball, there may be a change of policy in the future, and yes, you could change the configuration in the future, but that's the fourth crossing act. We also expect to be able to maximise the efficiency of the new infrastructure once all the intelligent transport systems are fully operational, so that we can use ramp metering and the like to control any queuing. Did you have a follow-up question before I go to Fulton? I think I'll leave it at that. Okay, thank you, Red. Thanks, convener. Thanks, panel. I've just got a wee follow-up to the earlier conversation. Was there any consideration at all at the pre-planning stage, given to the new crossing being thrilling? Yeah, there is some flexibility built into the project, looking to the future. As I say, if there was a change in policy in the future, you could convert the hard shoulders to a running line and run it as an all-line running as I phrase it elsewhere in the UK. So that possibility is there if it's wanted to be pursued in the future. Okay, thanks for that. My substantial question is relating to the Queensferry crossing experience. Michelle, in your opening statement, you've given a good overview of that. I have to say that I was one of the lucky people to be on the Queensferry crossing experience and got to take my two children across. I'd like to personally thank you for that experience and the clerks here as well for being able to set up that great day. As I said, you've already kind of covered what the main outcomes of that were, but there has been some discussion as well about the cost. Can I maybe get your view on if there's been some sort of analysis done on what that experience meant in terms of benefits for the local area in terms of maybe jobs and productivity for the area? Well, I suppose it's quite early days to understand the full impact of what that will mean. Certainly we're satisfied with the media exposure that we had Visit Scotland has given us some statistics that they believe that their social media reached 1.9 million people. And certainly the reach of the news, if you like, about the new bridge, the only one of its kind in the world has reached right across the globe. So there's no doubt that we have a level of exposure that we've never had before. The messaging around all of that was overwhelmingly positive about Scotland as a good place to live and to work, about the uniqueness of the area where you have three bridges in three centuries and we will be looking to capitalise on that working with Fife Council and their tourism strategy to identify what can happen with respect to a visitor centre in the area and that's work that's on going at the moment. I mentioned the contact and education centre and there's potential to use that area to capitalise on some of that. I did mention that since the interest in the area has peaked and there's no doubt about that in the last few months where we've had 32,000 people visit the viewing platform and there are numbers that have been unheard of up to this. I suppose the point I was trying to ascertain was if you were satisfied that the costs of putting on such an experience which will be questioned and rightly so, that's our job. If you're satisfied that that's offset by the potential benefits both at a local level to the local area and surrounding parts and the national perspective as a whole. I think that we were pretty satisfied with what we got. We looked at putting on additional events in north and south Queensferry but when we did some more analysis on that because of the road network in the area potentially adding additional traffic into those areas would have compromised the quality of the events and the ability to get to and from the events that we had on offer. As a result we wanted to keep the focus of that quite local for local people who'd witnessed the construction of the schemes. We did some animation around south Queensferry flags and bunting and the like and we kept that up until the ferry came in a couple of weeks after the cruise ship came in a couple of weeks after the events we ran some tea parties and the like and overall with the level of community engagement that we had the local community seemed to be quite happy with that. Just to confirm that you kindly sent a letter to the committee outlining all the costs at £3.5 million and one or two other points. Thank you for that letter John. Following on from Fulton MacGregor you had a number of community forums during the running of the project and Transport Scotland were providing a regular project update. Do you feel that's been successful on the whole? Yes, being part of the community forums right from the start and pre-construction I think they've been very constructive been a great opportunity for the local communities to come and ask questions for us as a project team to provide information about current events as they were at that particular time and for future events basically to embrace the local community as much as we could do and explain where there were issues why things had gone in a certain direction to take constructive criticism on board as well when that was leveled to us. We've tried to build bridges excuse the pun with the local communities I think they've been very successful The interval three month interval has been the right sort of interval as well We've also had members of the Three month interval Each of the community forums is held every three months through the course of the project and obviously in terms of the general public that's been supplemented with the community update leaflets which have also gone out and also for the general public in and around the project wider within Scotland and elsewhere around the world we've got the websites which have provided a plethora of information whether that be old documentation around the reasoning for the project to traffic management updates about current and upcoming events I think generally I'd like to think that the communication focus with the local communities and wider has been really very positive Now I understand for some of the residents of South Queensferry it now takes them longer to get to Edinburgh because they cannot get on I think off Ferrymure Road once around about Was that something that understood was going to happen beforehand? We explained that extensively to the local communities at the planning stage and it was also brought to the fourth crossing build stage so yes there are some people that have a further distance to travel but there are also a lot of people that have less distance to travel as well so there's a balance to be struck there and that really influenced the positioning of the junction back in 2009-2010 at the time of the bill there was a lot of discussion with the local community about that Finally for future projects if there's other projects happening do you think there's lessons from your consultation forums and things that other projects could learn from? I think it's definitely engaged with the community as much as you can as early as you can but when you do engage early you have to have meaningful discussions I think looking back on things sometimes members of the community may be asked those questions we didn't have the information to give them the answer it's a time where you need to go as a project team to go away and come back with high quality information it might be that you come back with two or three options around a particular question that the member of the public is asking about but it's very important to engage at an early stage so that's applicable to any size of project anywhere I think the other key thing is that using technology to help people understand what the project is going to look like so for example on our project we had a virtual reality model a model where you could actually visualise what the project was going to look like and we used that extensively in the early stages to show landscaping the distance from a person's house to the road and what kind of impacts there would be and how they could be best mitigated Across our other projects we are also learning a lot of lessons from the fourth replacement crossing we are for the A9 we intend to enhance what we've done in terms of engagement with schools and to build a programme where we start to engage with schools at the time we started to engage with 11 year olds with a view towards the fact that they would be ready to enter the market as apprentices and graduates at the time we were building the A9 we're running a programme with them that ties in with the curriculum for excellence we're working with the local universities and with the Civil Engineering Contractors Association to help develop apprentices and graduate roots and we are also looking at on some of our smaller projects identifying dedicated resources to community engagements because in the past where we've maybe got it wrong has been where people are doing this as a bolt-on part of their day job and actually communities expect a little bit more in their entitle to a little bit more nowadays John Finnie, your next question Thank you convener Good morning panel I'm grateful to Mr Shackman for outlining the purpose of the legislation and the issue of capacity in the role that public transport would play with the fourth replacement crossing public transport strategy that was initially published in 2012 and the most recent update on that seems to have been that last met in April of 2017 I wonder if you could outline what plans, if any, there are to promote cross-four bus services now that the crossing is open and how you envisage the implementation of public transport strategies you've been taking forward The most recent public transport working group meeting was on the 24th of October so it was very recently One thing I will say coming out of that meeting which is attended by all the relevant bus companies Lothian Buses Stagecoach First Bus, Confederation of Passenger Transport and the local authorities was a positive outlook from the bus operating companies in terms of patronage at Halbyth Park and Ride Fairytale Park and Ride I believe they're now over 90% full most days so that's a good positive in terms of encouraging people to use public transport so that was one of the things that was discussed at the most recent meeting The public transport strategy was published a while ago and the idea now is to reproduce the interventions table that was included in that strategy and give an update on where it is and we will publish that so that everyone is clear about how each of the interventions has progressed some of the interventions if you're not familiar were the introduction of hard shoulder running on the 5ITS project on the north side of the 4th which we actually implemented as part of the 5ITS project so that's complete and that measure which was originally intended to be a temporary measure is now a permanent measure so that's successful, it's safe and it operates well so that's just one example some of the other interventions which are a little bit more wide arranging they go down to potential bus improvements at Newbridge Junction for example some of these will either be progressed via the relevant local authority or be considered further as part of the next stage of the strategic transport projects review so there'll be a commentary on each of those interventions at the update that will be published in 2019 Thanks very much for that I previously asked questions about the subject and particularly the implications of additional public transport beyond the scope of the bridge as it were so it's interesting you mention Newbridge has there been any assessment made of that because of course we want to encourage greater use of public transport not an assessment as such working with Stagecouch who are the main operator of the fourth corridor if you like they're keen to see how the project performs once it's completely open so talking about the managed crossing strategy being fully in place so they can start to gauge where they can introduce potentially new services potentially adjust existing services to suit the demands of people crossing the fourth there is a marketing campaign which Transport Scotland and Five Council have been working on which is called Fife in the Fast Lane and that's already started and that's trying to promote the park and ride sites even further looking at not only bus travel but also looking at the train as a means of crossing the fourth because obviously that's a very valuable asset to have and also the subject of smart cards smart tickets as well trying to encourage people because it's easier to buy tickets with these smart cards and I think going forward the second phase of that campaign is to look at the interoperability of smart cards so that they can be used across several modes and the fourth corridor is the focus of that campaign so there is a lot going on already in terms of promoting public transport across the fourth That's very reassuring. We've talked a bit about the lessons learned from how we manage relationships and I want to just turn quite briefly I think to whether there are internal lessons for how you in Transport Scotland manage things when I used to lecture to postgraduate some project management I always said successful projects need an intelligent buyer are Transport Scotland learning lessons from this in procurement planning and financial planning control relationships with contractors and so on so forth that means you'll be a more intelligent buyer in the future I hope so there are quite a lot of things that have come out of this first of all our attitude to risk and about how we quantify that risk and one of the things that has been particularly successful on this contract is that we have been we've spent a lot of time identifying what the risks are and allocating sums of money towards those and we have strategies for managing those and who bears the liability for each of those risks is clearly understood between ourselves and the contractor so that avoids the need for an argument or litigation down the line so that's very important so just before we move on from that did you therefore have a risk register that was shared between yourself as purchaser and the contractor that was agreed? we have well through the construction phase each organisation has their own risk register because at that point the liabilities are already split so it was already well understood at that point but in terms of our own financial management to the construction period which after all is the most expensive time we had a very good handle on that and through our governance we were reviewing it very frequently both at a project level and as a subgroup to our project board and at our project board so it was getting a lot of scrutiny in terms of the expertise we employed people who were experienced bridge builders it's a very specialist it's a very specialist area and it's important that we employed people who clearly understood what was involved in that in terms of other other areas we have I suppose we've learned a little bit about how we communicate what the challenges of building projects are in terms of the potential impact that the weather would have we had a significant time allocation allowed for weather in this project but as you know it wasn't quite enough Can I say it's clear you've learned a lot of lessons and I know others have other questions There's time for a follow-up I'm quite happy if Michelle wants to continue I was just going to say that only last week there was an article that was produced by the World Economic Forum which did a comparison between the Queensbury Crossing and the new bay bridge in San Francisco and it basically purported to say that Scotland got it right and America didn't do so well it said in particular three good practices contributed to the high quality processes and outcomes the UK planners diagnosed the problem early took their time with careful design up front and built and sustained an inclusive coalition of stakeholders the evidence speaks for itself so really quite complimentary to everything that we've done with regards to the Queensbury Crossing's development To be honest we have a huge lessons learned log which we continue to update to reflect the final parts of the project we're just doing that at the moment and I could literally spend a day going through all of the lessons that we've learnt whether they be governance lessons risk lessons practical design lessons people lessons Let me ask one supplementary if the community allows me One of the big areas of risk in any big project is change and there is no big project where there is no change I think a project dies when there's no change In particular did you have an effective method of identifying controlling allocating responsibility for change that worked that will help you in future projects I think there's two sides to that there was during the design and development stage working with our consultants we had a change control mechanism so we had an initial plan of the work that they had to perform and for example one of the early things was that the original assumption was the forthrow bridge wasn't going to be used in the future this is way back in early 2008 but as a project team we thought it would be sensible to look at that reconsider that that particular line of thought so one of the change controls was to actually have a look in detail at what use could be made of the forthrow bridge and that work was carefully detailed and eventually formed the managed crossing strategy that we're realising so there's those early lessons and then with the contractor there's various mechanisms in the contract to vary the contract which we try are hardest not to do because we want to just keep the contract as it's defined so it's a tight contract but there's also mechanisms in there for the contractor to suggest changes and initiatives can come to the forefront which benefit both parties there's a fine line between fixing the scope and a fixed out-term cost and actually being able to take on and take advantage of good ideas and innovation as it arises and I suppose that sort of highlights the importance of the governance regime and ensuring that for our governance here we had very wide representation on our project board and we had representation from a number of stakeholders from our finance colleagues in the Scottish Government and from industry representatives so we had quite a and from people who delivered other different kinds of projects in the past so we had quite a varied sort of view on the project board which gave us quite a balanced opinion and what was particularly useful was that people who were empowered to make the decisions were independent of the project team but sufficiently close to the project to have good visibility about what was happening and what the impact of those decisions were so that the decisions could be taken quickly because sometimes even when something is a good idea if you don't act at the right time you lose the benefit, you lose the momentum so that's been very important I've just met the observation I worked of course in software projects much more complex in change terms of the option of dumping the difficult changes into phase 2 you'd know phase 2 Indeed I think I'm just going to leave that statement there and move straight on to I think it's Richard Good morning I'm going to bring Mr Mark Arndt in now, a couple of questions for you Scottish Government awarded a five-year long contact for the management maintenance operation, the 4th floor bridge and when completed the Queensway crossing to Amy on 18 December 2014 so that's going to come up 2019 for renewal but I'll part that for a minute the first question is is there a warranty period for the Queensway crossing and how will the warranty repairs be managed? I take it over the contractor who will do the warranty, not Amy Can I answer that? You do that There's a defects correction period which is the normal sort of thing that we have on projects like this it's a five-year defects correction period so in the event that any defects arise over that period of time Five years that will be the responsibility of the contractor and is contained within the costs we have already spent on this job Okay so what responsibility for the management maintenance of the Queensway crossing has been transferred to Amy to date and are there any responsibilities still to be transferred in regards to transfers has there been any 2P transfers you know what 2P is Mr Arnott wasn't there any 2P transfers when you took over the bridge and if any of your workmen were to be transferred elsewhere would Amy pay any redundancy Right, okay when Amy were awarded the contract in 2014 but the service delivery where a six month mobilisation period so it actually commenced on the first of June 2015 from that date there's a five-year initial contract period that's extendable up to ten years under our existing contract all staff that were previously with the historic transport authority did 2P transfer to Amy under the legislation at that time and indeed probably 95% of those employees are still with us through a couple of retirements and resignations and the like going forward we've no ambition to make any redundancies or the like quite the contrary we're a growth organisation and when the Queensway crossing is fully transferred to us there's additional obligations there so quite the contrary we're looking to increase employment rather than reduce it but Amy are a multinational company we do dozens of 2P transfers every year across different contracts and indeed we have specific teams that specialise in that and at the time of mobilisation or demobilisation of contracts there's a team dedicated to support the resource management at that time so if there was an occasion where Amy is quite a big company your headquarters is based in Oxford I think that's correct yep so if Amy is 2P transferring people and those people are not taken by another company would Amy pay redundancy? no we wouldn't be looking to pay it make anybody redundant the 2P employees would either have an option to retain employment with Amy and it might be in another contract or a similar role or if they have an obligation is there a specific reason why I'm asking this question? there is a specific reason why I'm asking this question and you may want to tell your fellow colleagues in North Lanarkshire to get on with sorting something out but basically I want to know does Amy pay redundancy? of course she would pay redundancy but not associated with 2P Mark, can I come in at this stage and just say if there's a specific issue in North Lanarkshire it may be appropriate for Mr Lyle to write regarding that and I think that Mark you can very much take your answers to do with the bridge and leave it at that and I think you've made quite a clear statement on that but if you want to add anything to it I'm happy to take that me personally have nothing to do with North Lanarkshire right, I'm very happy to ignore the comments about North Lanarkshire and move on to Mr Chapman with a short question a couple of short ones Amy manages the approach roads north and south of the bridge how do you intend to engage with road users and communities at either end of the bridge in the near future? as Lauren said there is a strong community engagement programme on going just now we'll be looking to continue that we currently participate in the 4th Bridges Forum and as part of that there's various community and public engagement events what we will be doing is targeting at appropriate times when there's something to tell the communities and the like but we do have a really strong community engagement presence in the 4th Bridges area we engage currently with community councils on both sides of the bridge this summer we refurbished South Queen's Ferry community centre which was free of charge every Amy employees entitled to one day's paid community service day and at 4th Bridges we employ about 100 staff so each of them is eligible to take that as I said we work with the communities to identify targeted and focused community engagement events and as Lauren said the continuation of the current successful programme something that we'll be looking to take forward we're just about to publish an updated engaging with communities document which is titled 4th Bridges operation and maintenance which outlines how you can contact any part of the project in relation to a piece of maintenance work or the bridge 4th Road bridge or Queensbury crossing and talks about how engagement will continue into the future I'll just go on about that just one small one the old bridge the 4th Road bridge can you outlight any plans for significant maintenance on that bridge and if so how will that affect the cyclist and pedestrians being able to cross if any of that work is ongoing yeah there's a huge capital investment programme currently underway and planned for the coming years pedestrian and cyclist will be largely unaffected by any of the works we always keep at least one of the cycle footways open at all times with the exception of wind closures and events like that at the moment probably familiar with the Truss End Link project that closed the bridge a couple of years ago the actual damaged link itself has been entirely replaced in a successful trial undertaken and the remaining seven links are being replaced at the moment the other big schemes that we have going forward are there's a cable investigation being undertaken the contract's been awarded for that and it'll commence in earnest in springtime when there's more favourable conditions for working at height what's obviously been previously mentioned is joints the existing joints on the 4th Road bridge are over 50 years old and probably the oldest of their kind in Europe that's due back tomorrow and similarly that will commence in the new year and at the moment we're undertaking resurfacing and waterproofing trials on the 4th Road bridge itself together with our usual routine cyclic maintenance so there's a huge investment going on there's a fair bit going on so what life spans left on the old bridge if we haven't the date for it would actually have to finally close I'm not aware of it ever having to finally close no I'm not sure that that is in the gift of anyone to say at this time but what would be very helpful Michelle and I think on the point that's been made that it would be very helpful for the committee to have a list of on-going works under the current scheme and considering the last questions it would be very helpful I believe to the committee to have a list of on-going proposed works to the original bridges it were so we have a schedule and we know what works are going to be undertaken and I'm afraid sadly we're now out of time so I'd like to thank you all for coming today and giving evidence to the committee and I'd like to briefly suspend the meeting to allow the handover of witnesses thank you I'd like to reconvene the meeting the second item on the agenda is the implications of the outcome of the EU referendum for Scotland and before we move into this session I'd like to ask members to declare any interests they have in relation to this and I would like to declare at the outset that I am a partner in a farm business would anyone else like to declare an interest? Stuart? I have a small registered agricultural hoarding Peter I'm a partner in an agricultural farming business in Aberdeenshire okay thank you so the second evidence update in 2017 from the Scottish ministers on the implications of the outcome of the EU referendum for Scotland I'd like to welcome Fergus Ewing the cabinet secretary for the rural economy and connectivity I'd also like to welcome Mike Russell the minister for UK negotiations on Scotland's place in Europe they are accompanied by David Barnes the national advisor on agricultural policy Emma, the deputy director at Marine Scotland and Ian Davidson the head of constitution in UK relations cabinet secretary would you like to make a brief opening statement followed by the minister or if you want to take the other way around I'm relaxed minister would you like to make a brief opening statement very brief you will be aware as members of the committee the main features in what is moving Brexit landscape briefly the first of which is a state of play in the EU-UK negotiations and the key question of whether or not the December council can assess that there has been sufficient progress to move from exit negotiations to framework negotiations the main issues at stake there are finance, the position of EU citizens the role of the European Court of Justice and of course the Northern Irish border situation I'm happy to reflect on any or all of those in London, Brussels, Dublin and Belfast so I have been briefed and have been discussing these issues the second issue is the difficulty surrounding the withdrawal bill this is about not just about devolution and devolved powers it's about the way in which the Scottish Government can approach Brexit and protect the interests of Scottish citizens and Scottish businesses particularly both the Scottish and the Welsh governments have made clear they can't accept the bill as drafted negotiations continue and indeed Green will be in Edinburgh tomorrow meeting myself and the Deputy First Minister and I'm happy to update the committee on where those discussions have got to and what the issues are including the work on frameworks and that's the third issue we are approaching the issue of frameworks pragmatically and responsibly we're trying to find a way in which frameworks would work and of course we have said from the very beginning that we understand that frameworks should exist in some areas but those frameworks have to be established in the principles of devolution and they have to be able to work they have to be able to deliver and amongst the areas that we are looking at in our so-called deep dive exercise is the area of agriculture Ian has just returned to the surface after another deep dive and I'd be happy to update people about where that is and the progress that's being made those are the key issues for me but of course I'll reflect on anything else that you ask me to but I'm sure that Mr Ewing will have the opportunity for his subject area Cabinet Secretary I'll be brief as well the Scottish Government was never in favour of Brexit as members will know but we are making the best we can out of the situation that we're in and to do so we're taking advice from a wide range of people there and then members will be aware of two recent documents relevant to today's session on 17 November the National Council of Rural Advisers published their interim document for comments by the end of the year and today the National Council of Rural Advisers has published its report on the impact of Brexit on the rural economy and I believe that efforts were made that members of this committee should receive an embargo copy yesterday so that you'd have a chance for a quick examination of their interim report and these documents tend to confirm the Government's own view of Brexit and the fact that the most of Scotland is huge that the vast majority of people are very worried because of the huge uncertainties for example we still have no information whatsoever about the content of either the UK Fisheries Bill or the UK Agriculture Bill I've been told today that the committee wants to focus on agriculture and fisheries on the rec portfolio for farming and the food supply chain there has been issues, namely future funding workforce issues and future trade agreements but I would also include forestry in this the funding uncertainty in particular is having a real life impact on the sector on fisheries including both on and offshore the key issues are the funding of the EMF workforce issues future trade arrangements for salmon and other seafood exports and sea fisheries management in the Scottish zone now if that sounds like a bit of a gloomy picture it is I believe simply a reflection of what I'm hearing, what people are saying and what people are thinking in rural Scotland in farming, fishing and other parts of the rural economy but of course I and my officials are happy to discuss all of these matters with yourself and members of the committee convener this morning thank you cabinet secretary and at the outset I would say there are a long list of questions which will not surprise either you or the minister that there are so many and therefore I would encourage everyone to give as brief and succinct answers as possible to allow me to ensure that every person in the committee gets to ask the questions that they would like to and on that note I'd like to move to the first question which will be asked by Richard Lyle You've partly covered what I was going to ask but had you been updated on Brexit during the engagement that you are having with the UK Government and are you discussing with other devolved administrations the process of leaving the EU and what plans are there for future engagement especially in respect to as you covered the agriculture and fisheries I have regular dialogue with an enormous range of people my job is essentially in three parts I undertake the negotiations within the UK I work on potential solutions to the problems that we've got and I meet with people so I meet with the widest range of people in terms of the devolved administrations I work very closely with Mark Drakeford my Welsh counterpart we had a meeting in Dublin on Friday morning we both spoke at an event in London last week I meet with the UK Government regular officials meet very regularly with UK Government officials but I last spoke to Damian Greene who chairs the GMC we had a bilateral in Jersey British Irish Council in Jersey three weeks ago and we would continue to have that the GMC has started to meet again which is very welcome and I have paid tribute to Damian Greene's role in getting the process started on a slim down basis I endeavour to have the widest contacts with people in Brussels for example European Parliament I saw Danuta Hubner one of the five members of the Brexit group in the European Parliament with her last week and I see her on a regular basis I see other members of that group and I see other MEPs I meet with commissioners, I meet with staff of the commission and the council and that is all on a regular basis and we keep close contacts with others who are involved in this clearly at British Irish Council there will be conversations with the Irish Government and with the current dependencies and in Northern Ireland which is more difficult our contacts have been built up over a long period of time I had hoped to see the DUP this weekend but it was their conference but I will see, I hope the DUP before the end of the year I did meet somebody from the UUP somebody from the SDLP in the last week or so and I would keep a dialogue going and try and understand and somebody from Sinn Fein and I would keep that dialogue going Just quickly what's your view in the hard border at Ireland? We wouldn't want to do anything that makes that more difficult but quite clearly this is a crucial issue now I mean last week this was being discussed very openly and very fully within Brussels two or three weeks ago it was hardly being mentioned it is essential that there is no hard border that is vital in terms of trade but it's also really important in terms of the stability of the Northern Irish peace process and the Good Friday agreement and our view very much is that they are required to find a solution but it's very difficult to find if they are also to be blunt because the Conservatives are in hawk to the DUP and the DUP don't want the solution that is being proposed by the Irish Government so there needs to be continued dialogue and debate but this should not be diminished as an issue and I think the language that is being used on this and the rhetoric particularly from some parts of the Brexiteer press is very damaging indeed and there needs to be a much more sober assessment of what can be taken forward there is a frustration which is very obvious in the Irish Government that they have not been listened to on these issues and that there tends to be a view that the British Government comes to the table with no solutions having created the problem so there needs to be a negotiation and needs to be a solution but there cannot be a hard border now the obvious solution to this is the solution that the Scottish Government has espoused for Scotland and indeed for the whole of the UK and the customs union and preferably the single market as well it is that context that could change this it changes negotiations because negotiations become about single market minus essentially and it changes it in terms of the dynamic in Ireland because if there is a customs union then this problem disappears but that customs union has to be more widely than Ireland if the border issue is not to be a great one so I think that is where the solution lies and I would continue to espouse it Secretary, can I bring you in because you wanted to answer that and then I would like to go to Mike Rumbles Yes, thank you, convener and in terms of engagement at the start of the year DEFRA and the devolved administrations agreed to set up five official level working groups these were food and farming marine and fisheries animal and plant health environment and legislative issues in April it was agreed to form two additional groups trade which was requested by Northern Ireland and forestry which was requested by myself and the part of the Scottish Government and it was agreed that those two additional groups working groups be set up the working groups have each made their own decisions on how often they meet and they report to a senior officials group which meets regularly most recently last Friday it was also agreed that four-way ministerial meetings would take place every month but since the start of the year in February here in Edinburgh that was with Andrea Ladsam April, September and November DEFRA did unilaterally cancel meetings in January May and June due to the UK general election and then in July the next ministerial meeting is scheduled for the 14th of December my approach to participation in the ministerial meeting is to be constructive to be cooperative to discuss, to debate but not to be dictated to not to be dictated to and thus far there is no evidence that there is a proper sharing of information for example when I asked Michael Gove would he share the agriculture and fisheries bill the answer was no abrupt short and wholly unsatisfactory but let us hope that perhaps a new year and new leaf may be turned Mike Rumbles I have been advocating for almost 18 months that Scottish ministers should have taken the initiative and designed a new bespoke system of agricultural support for when we leave the EU by getting all our stakeholders the producers, environmentalists and consumers together to agree a way forward for Scotland it now looks like this opportunity is being missed as ministers are now talking about Scottish ministers and UK ministers about working within an agreed UK framework so my question is why are Scottish ministers not working on designing a bespoke system of agricultural support for Scotland that will feed into this UK framework are we just going to implement the common agricultural policy as we inherited it why are we missing such a marvellous opportunity in some respect to design our own bespoke system for Scotland cabinet secretary I think that that falls to you not for the first time I must respectfully disagree with everything that Mike Rumbles has just said firstly we believe that it's essential that Scotland should retain in the single market secondly we think that the damage that would be reeked by ending the free movement of people in the agriculture and rural sectors is so catastrophic to see that quite frankly I'm astonished that Mike Rumbles suggests that our attention should be devoted to producing a new policy when we have no idea what the Brexit deal is going to be I would have thought that logically the thing that we should be concentrating on which my colleague Mr Russell is concentrating on is to try to snatch some crumbs of comfort from the jaws of a catastrophe and that is what we are doing to try to get the best result from Brexit but we have and Mr Rumbles knows this of course taken steps to pursue a parallel approach of getting advice from experts I already referred to the agricultural champions their interim report has been available for a while now and I commend them for it the National Council of Rural Advisers interim report is also available in pretty quick time these incidentally in the latter one was a report which Parliament asked I obtained and more quickly perhaps now these reports will inform our future progress we must get the best deal for Scotland and if we are pulled out of the single market if we can't continue to enjoy the fruits of the labourers the people who choose to work in Scotland from all over the European continent then there are very serious problems facing the sector first of all we need to ameliorate mitigate the potential disaster of Brexit and then once we see what the outcome is of course we can then focus but only then I would submit focus on how best to go forward but Mr Rumbles is completely wrong we have done exactly what even he asked for and I'm surprised that he's perhaps not showing a little bit of gratitude for that this morning now can I just say that that was a particularly long answer and I know I did make the point at the beginning that I'm having it difficult to get what cabinet secretary sorry I I don't think actually coming back with comments are helpful I'm asking everyone to keep their comments short Minister you would like to add something and then I'd like to briefly go back to Mike Rumbles before moving on to the next question to point out that item 1 on the list of 111 items which the UK government intended to reserve to themselves was agricultural support so clearly it is absolutely essential that we take part in discussions with the UK to ensure that that does not happen but if it does turn out to be in an agreed framework then it will be on the basis of co-decision making so that will be a positive step forward Mr Rumbles a short question it's full and not full as the cabinet minister knows it was my amendment in Parliament that he accepted and I knew what I meant on that amendment and I think the minister has misinterpreted it yet again this issue of the council for rural environment is not what we were calling for this is an opportunity for Scotland to have developed its own distinct individual bespoke system of agricultural support which is not just inherited a system that was designed for countries on the mainland of Europe now as far as I can see nothing is being done by Scottish ministers to design this bespoke system is that true or not well no it's not true we have obtained the advice we have in order to prepare as best we can but of course we just do not have the information now to provide a new policy because Mr Rumbles is laughing but how can you stop this now I think it's courtesy to both sides is when people are talking to listen to what's being said and you might feel frustrated Mr Rumbles but please could you keep your comments to yourself to allow the cabinet secretary to answer and please when people are talking could you not try and have the final word over what people are saying so I'm going to go back to the cabinet secretary to ask him to make a succinct answer to that before I move on to the next question cabinet secretary rural Scotland under its membership of the EU for decades enjoys relatively relative certainty about continuance of funding in programmes which lasted around 77 years currently rural Scotland enjoys financial support from Europe covering a whole range of issues totaling around £500 million a year I have repeatedly made clear that until such time as we have clarity from the UK Government as to what post Brexit that funding would be replaced with by definition to prepare the sort of plan which Mr Rumbles thinks that we should produce and I have asked Mr Gould repeatedly if he would indicate what his UK Government's plans are for funding post Brexit and I have also reminded him I hope courteously that prior to Brexit prior to the referendum he said and his colleagues on the Brexit side said that EU funding would be matched in fact some of them said that it would be at least matched implying that there would be more funding following Brexit I think it's a reasonable point to say that until we have clarity about the post Brexit funding and actually some of the pre-Brexit funding is by no means absolutely certain then it is simply impossible to produce the kind of plan that Mr Rumbles asked me to do so I hope that he's happy with that answer I want to record if I may I think people have noted that you're not happy with that answer now Mr Chapman could I ask you to ask the next question I have a very specific question to Mr Russell and in your opening statement minister you said that on issues related to UK frameworks you were negotiating pragmatically and responsibly and that was the word that you used Mr Gove told the House of Commons environmental audit committee in November that the Scottish Government had instructed its officials not to engage on issues related to UK frameworks is this a correct statement and if so why no it's not so why would Mr Gove make a statement like that if there's no I couldn't possibly put myself into Mr Gove's mind nor would I wish to the reality of the situation is that we are engaged and I think the words pragmatically and responsibly were actually used by Fergus Ewing but I don't in a difficult exercise which is to build trust on both sides to try and get these frameworks to operate that is a careful and responsible activity and step by step we're doing so and we're doing so and I pay tribute to him with the assistance of Damian Greene as the First Secretary of State who's who having taken over the chair of the joint ministerial committee has been very constructive so step by step we're trying to create those frameworks what does not help is either Mr Gove or Ian Duncan who has repeated that remark making remarks about Scottish Government officials which are simply not true the reality is that they have been endless discussions Ian is just back from a discussion officials from Fergus Ewing's department are endlessly involved in discussions what we won't be is bounced into agreements that Mr Gove wishes to reach for his own purposes Mr Gove for example presented to the last meeting of the ministers what he imagined should be in the frameworks he had no responsibility for that and no authority to do so that matter was being dealt with through the joint ministerial committee quite rightly and being dealt with by the agreement both the Prime Minister and the First Minister that it should be done in that way so whatever Mr Gove's motivations or Ian Duncan's motivations are we are endeavouring to get a deal we are working hard on a deal in a professional and responsible manner and I think that should be respected by all parties just said you wanted to add a short comment to that just two points firstly Mr Gove is on record as saying on the 13th of September to the effort select committee he said I must say that the Scottish Government officials have been working very collaboratively with different officials so I just repeat that quotation secondly I do know that Mr Barnes as Mike Russell has just referred to has been taking part in numerous of these discussions with officials and he would be I'm sure happy to provide details if members wish to ask so we have been if there is time convener it's up to you but we have been discussing debating constructively but we will not be dictated to in a power grab and I hope that all members would agree that that is the correct approach I'm afraid cabinet secretary that time is limited as you pointed out I'm going to take the next question to John Mason and then come to Stuart Stevenson The European Union withdrawal bill has been mentioned already so I just wonder if you can give us an indication about what you're still concerned about within the bill have you got less concerns now because you've had some discussions and there seems to have been some movement I mean would it be the case are you wanting more detail in the bill is it that you disagree with the detail that is in the bill already or should some stuff just not be in the bill at all and left to other ways of dealing with them Minister would you like to leave? The position is very clear there are things in the bill that neither we nor the Welsh Government can accept and principally clause 11 in the bill which takes European competences and returns those to the UK Government now to be fair the Secretary of State for Scotland has already indicated that he thinks all these things should be done by agreement so that's the principle there's also the principle of UK ministers being able to alter legislation without involving the Scottish Parliament or Scottish ministers so those are two key issues so we can't accept out of those that's not to say the rest of the bill is acceptable to us but those are the issues which the two devolved administrations are taking up responsibly and that will take up which are wider issues we are in the process of trying to have clause 11 removed from the bill it's not acceptable within the bill and the amendments we've put forward would cure that problem if there are other amendments I've just been appearing this morning before the Finance and Constitution Committee glutton for punishment that I am and we've made it clear if there are alternative approaches in the UK Government we're of course willing to discuss them and officials have been meeting to look at these in the JMC very briefly convener let me just very briefly there are five stages we're going through first stage is to agree the principles on which framework should be established we've managed to do that those principles were published as an annex to the communique of the joint ministerial committee on the 16th of October second one is to start the deep dive process proposed by us to see if we could have proof of concept would these work and the examples we've used are agriculture some legal matter justice and home affairs matters and the health issues we've done that, that's gone well the third part is to see what governance and dispute resolution mechanisms could be put in place that is under way and is progressing the fourth stage is to bring that together in a political agreement that we can actually make this work at the same time to pare down the list of 111 to throw out the ones that are not necessary Adam Tomkins for example is indicated in a piece in the Scotsman some weeks ago there are those items on the list he used aircraft noise as an example which don't need to be there that can go without conceding the principle that there should be no alteration to the basics of the devolved settlement and the final item is to take all those things and put those into legislation so that we can actually change the withdrawal bill and be prepared for future legislation now we're almost three parts out of five into that we're still talking another meeting tomorrow with Damian Greene December we're making progress but nothing has agreed until everything has agreed so we have to make sure that we work our way through that and get to a conclusion and that is best done by this negotiating process rather than freelancing by Ian Duncan or Michael Gove John John I'd like you to come back in with a follow up question then I'd like to bring the cabinet secretary in My follow up may actually go to the cabinet secretary but I'll just ask it anyway and it's up to them so if we take something like agriculture policy understand we're getting 16 per cent of the UK funding at the moment would I be right in saying that if the UK is going to control more of it the hope would be that we would continue getting that 16 per cent if they just gave us 8.3 per cent in line with our population we might have complete control but we'd have less money so is there a money v control thing? this process cannot be completed without discussing and making sure that resources are secure so for example if there is to be a framework on agriculture and that's probably the most complex of the frameworks Fisheries may also be in that environment will be part of it but that money has to be part of that overall solution and if there is a quantum now then that quantum has to be included in those discussions so that's there I do this very much in co-operation with cabinet secretaries who are involved in these processes they stress with me what is important to them and I have to say that Fergus Ewing stressed to me at the very beginning that in this process the financial issue would be absolutely crucial Secretary would you? Well there's two overarching concerns firstly is freedom of policy choice I mean I think it's no secret that the main two parties in the UK have for some time been seeking to phase out direct farm payments pillar 1 support Scotland's position is entirely different 55% of our land is El Fas South of the border is 15 and they don't have El Fas scheme anymore so it's plain that what has been in our interest is most certainly not the case down south and indeed where the policy that the main parties down south appear to prefer imposed in Scotland I do believe quite profoundly it would have catastrophic consequences especially for hill farming with land abandonment with depopulation and with potential bankruptcies and with thousands of farmers going out of business so that's number one we must have the freedom of policy choice in terms of any future proposed framework and on fisheries the issue of discards is another example where there's plainly different views where Michael Gove appears to prefer restriction of effort tying up boats and we do not prefer that at all I give examples of two areas where there's different approaches different views which is why there must not be a power grab and full devolution on funding and this is a separate issue from the bill but it's absolutely key and the UK funding promises are incomplete because the guarantee up to 222 is only limited to farm support the definition of which has not been clarified and the only last until the farmers 221 SAF form so I've just finished the last sentence really is the promises that were made in the EU referendum to match funding post Brexit were made by ministers and ministers if they make promises must deliver them or cease to be ministers so I'm calling on Mr Gove to do what he said he would do during the Brexit referendum and make clear his plans for future funding on a long term basis as of course is the EU practice Stuart, yours is the next question Thank you very much I want to just develop a bit more about how we go about developing shared frameworks across the UK and the effect in particular what role there might be for our stakeholders and for the Scottish Parliament but let me start I think that Mr Russell said if alternative UK Government proposals are around I'm given to understand that officials at UK Government level have four different versions of secondary legislation they may bring forward depending on what they end up negotiating with the EU and clearly that fundamentally is important to our understanding of where we go and how we can contribute but I'm also told that officials at the UK level have been told not to share those drafts with Scottish officials so that we can't know what the policy considerations are first of all is that the correct statement and of course my information may be imperfect so I'm quite prepared to hear that I should be corrected in some parts of it Minister is that you to stop? I can't confirm whether or not that is true they don't share that information even with us there are a range of drafts at this stage one of the problems in his whole relationship has been getting early access to information Fergus Ewing referred to the agriculture bill the e-withdrawal bill I first asked to see that in January of this year at the plenary the GMC plenary in Cardiff we didn't see that bill until I think the 30th of June the 1st of July two weeks before it was due to be published immediately we knew we couldn't support it so early information sharing will be helpful the 18 papers that the UK government has published in negotiations so far we've only seen just before they were published and without any possibility of input but let's try and fair forward rather than backward our view on this is very simple if we are involved in this discussion we will endeavour to come to a conclusion we will endeavour to ensure that we get an agreement on this but it must be a comprehensive agreement and it must take account of all the parts that are involved that includes money but it also includes an agreement on future legislation if we can secure agreement on the e-withdrawal bill which is a sort of gatekeeper bill for the bills that are to come agriculture, fisheries, environment trade all those bills if we can do that then we would be in a position to have an easier process in terms of reaching legislative consent and say we'll agree with the bills but on the issue of achieving legislative consent that will be easier and that's because we make a distinction between policy we don't agree with this policy we think it's daft but and technicality and we recognise arrangements have to be put in place for the eventuality so we're trying to do that and actually on that one my colleague Mark Drakeford is always very articulate on that one to say it would be better not to have had this fight we could have agreed on how this bill should be put together which is a practice on all bills that require legislative consent up until now there would have been early negotiation discussion there wasn't, this is a consequence so the earlier discussion takes place the better that discussion is the more likely it is we can make progress on the technicality in particular where a lot of the implementation of the shared frameworks and other matters will be through secondary legislation at Westminster it appears is there a particular threat to the interests of devolved nations in the absence of a formal process of review and consideration at Westminster if it's secondary legislation no equivalent of these that creates two questions the first of which is should UK ministers be able to bring forward such legislation without consultation with the Scottish Parliament so it's no, that is first for example should not be permitted to be exercised in ways country to the interests of this Parliament I think there are many MPs at Westminster believe that Lib Dems have been involved in attempting to amend the bill he'll be support those amendments because of the right thing to do the second question just in terms of the complexity of that secondary legislation is should there be a process here that would look at that type of scrutiny and legislative consent process of secondary legislation that the Secretary of State for Scotland has indicated that that process should exist it exists in Wales of course given the difference of their devolved settlement so it may well be that one of the changes to devolution that this process produces would be a legislative consent process for secondary legislation minister just briefly can I just take you back though we are now deep diving into the technicalities of this no but there are some important things derived from technicalities and the process at Westminster for parliamentary scrutiny of much of the secondary legislation unlike in the devolved administrations so are there particular threats if Westminster uses secondary legislation to put frameworks into effect even without Westminster parliamentary scrutiny absolutely there are particular threats in the secondary legislation process even without Brexit I should say even without Brexit there are inadequacies Brexit emphasised it's a magnifying glass on those weaknesses and inadequacies but it also produces additional ones as a point I'm making in terms of the Henry VIII powers and in terms of the issue of legislative consent to secondary legislation both of which are under discussion and both of which I think will need to be resolved Cabinet Secretary I'm just mindful of the time in the sense that we've got 24 questions and we're on number four really it's just to repeat what I've said to many key stakeholders including obviously the NFUS and others with whom we work very closely that these seven working groups to which are referred are considering their issues and I would exhort all the main stakeholders in Scotland to contribute to the work of those committees because if they make written submissions for example we will guarantee that their views are fully considered okay thank you the next question is Jamie Greene thank you and good morning panel it's likely that after March 2019 we will move into some form of implementation or transition period I just want to know what the Scottish Government's view on whether the UK should remain part of CFP or indeed CAP during that transition period or indeed the expectation is as some have said that we should leave on the day of exit Minister do you want I wonder if I could answer that because I've recently been discussing transition with a range of people I think that the question is a false premise if transition is to take place there is no doubt in the minds of the EU 27 that transition means a continuation there isn't any other option in those circumstances it is not possible to say we will leave this part but not that part it is like the discussion that the UK cabinet had last week about tapering off the jurisdiction of the UCJ jurisdiction is a light bulb it's on or off you can't taper it off so it is not possible if there is to be transition on the basis of continuation that there would be a leaving 29 March but it is obvious that in areas such as agriculture and fisheries where there are annual negotiations that it would be difficult if there was no annual negotiation so I think that there is a recognition that I hear from other countries that there would need to be some arrangements made but to assert that we will leave these things on the 29 March would jeopardise the Prime Minister's stated intention because it's not pick and mix and indeed this was being said I heard this being said in April in Brussels that if there was to be transition or as the Prime Minister chooses to call it implementation then that is a continuation because there is no third state that you can move to so I think the question is a false premise in terms of remaining in things I'm keen that we remain in the EU and therefore there needs to be a discussion about how those affect things now, the common agricultural policy can be developed and changed I haven't made no secret as many have of the fact that we don't think the CFP works for anybody and therefore there need to be major changes to the CFP but let's understand what transition is and what it isn't Jeremy, do you want to follow that up or the Cabinet Secretary do you want to add anything further Do you want to add anything? Mr Russell has given a pretty copper plate answer you can't be in and out of a club at the same time What would be to the comment around participation in the CFP is that whilst there may be views on whether the current status quo works or doesn't wanting it to change is not the same as participating in the status quo so do you see any benefits in exiting the CFP as it currently stands notwithstanding any changes you would want to see in the future I don't actually see any benefits in exiting the EU there may be sectors and fishing is a very rare sector where there are people who believe there are enormous benefits they don't all believe there are enormous benefits of course you know in my own constituency the shellfish sector you know has separated itself from the SFF because of streaming concerns about the way in which the interests of shellfish exporting have been ignored so I think there are disputes on these issues but you know baby and bathwater spring to mind in these circumstances we need to be very careful about where we are but I think the important point I just stress this Mr Greene it's very important it is a false prospectus to say that in a period of transition or implementation you can pick and choose what you are doing that will not be possible and if that is what the UK Government seek it will not happen okay thank you briefly it's an important point as far as fishing is concerned you know when we come out of EU in March 2019 we will then have control of our 200 mile limit I mean international law tells us that that is absolutely the consequence of becoming an independence fishery state as we will then be so there will be huge changes for the fishing industry we can still live through some sort of a period but you know we will then take control out of 200 miles and that is indisputable I would argue well it is not indisputable in terms of the Prime Minister's own statement so I think Mr Chapman might want to take it up with the Prime Minister you cannot have transition so what will happen and it's axiomatic as you will continue there not as a member but observing the ackee in every regard now there may be special arrangements made for negotiation on quota and a whole range of issues but I think it's selling a false prospectus to say that a bright new dawn will break on the 30th of March in which everything will be changed there will be major disadvantages to every sector and no doubt about that Mr Chapman I will disagree on that no doubt but there is no doubt also that transition means the status quo for a period of time if it does not mean that there will not be transition so I agree with Mr Chapman to the extent that if the UK Government does not accept that does not understand that then something dramatic will happen at 11pm on the 29th of March dramatic in the sense of disastrous the next question is from Gail Ross I want to concentrate on the UK Agricultural Bill and the 25-year environmental plan two parts to this first question I think I probably know the answer to the first part but I will ask you anyway has the Scottish Government been involved at all in the development of the 25-year environmental plan the agricultural command paper and the UK agricultural bill Minister you said that you were at the finance and constitution committee just this morning and we know that they are considering a legislative consent memorandum on the EU withdrawal bill do we know yet whether a similar procedure will be used for the agriculture and fisheries bill at all Can I deal with the first part and whilst Roseanna Cunningham is dealing with the environment matter I understand that there is no consultation none with the devolved administration in respect of the 25-year plans for the environment and food and farming recently Mr Gove seems to have indicated that there will not in fact be a 25-year plan for food and farming so we are I am afraid in the dark in relation to their plans and I would give Mr Gove 100% for personal courtesy but 0% for outcomes we've had a sprinkling of platitudes we've had fine sentiments being expressed and we've even had several quotations from fine English poetry but none of that pays the bills Minister did you want to add something to that? Certainly to say in terms of legislative consent motions our assumption is that there will require to be legislative consent motions on all bills that have a devolved element and clearly agriculture will have a devolved element so for example the trade bill we already know will require legislative consent motion which of course we will not be willing to grant unless we can resolve the issues within that bill which are broadly the same as the issues within the withdrawal bill that is why I'm indicating the withdrawal bill and success in those negotiations is the gatekeeper to actually a process of consent elsewhere and might allow it within the agricultural bill it's impossible to say because we haven't seen the bill Do you know timescales for either of the bills? Everything at Westminster keeps slipping even though the clock is ticking I think they're now talking about the agricultural bill in the spring which was being talked about at some stage at the turn of the year but it's not going to be fisheries bill roughly on the same timescale the EU withdrawal bill will not go to the lords until late January probably February so everything is slipping Fisheries bill was supposed to be October but it's now going to be consultation was supposed to be October so we are in the dark about that as well because it hasn't been issued So when it does happen what plans have you got to engage with the UK Government on both of these? We automatically engage on any such legislation the best way to draw this legislation up and I really want to stress this because I'm sure Fergus Ewing will agree is to make sure there's early contact on the details of the bill that's true of fisheries, it's true of agriculture, it's true of trade so when the bill is developed we are able to spot the difficulties and to say that won't work but this will work if they won't share legislation which has always been the practice throughout devolution, not simply when there were administrations of the same political hue but in the last 10 years officials will share the legislation in a draft form that will be a discussion about how it should proceed that gets rid of the difficulties but if they won't share this until they publish it then quite clearly there will be problems Cabinet Secretary, do you want to add to that or are you... Well I'm just absolutely sure it really is very frustrating and if relationships, good relationships are based on trust and trust implies a willingness to share under the usual rules of confidentiality documents which are in draft form whether they be bills or consultation papers so that we can have a say so that we can have an input you know, if the UK maintains the position as it appears to be adopting convener in this matter that they will not share consultation documents they will not share the agriculture bill they will not share the fisheries bill I'm afraid that's not consistent with the relationship based on trust and I think that the farmers, fishermen out there want us to make progress and want us to have a kind of trusting relationship in the forestry bill which we consider next week we're working quite well with the UK Government so it's very frustrating because of that that they don't apply the same kind of approach towards the Brexit documents Ryder, yours is the next question Thank you, convener Can I ask about the principles of agricultural policy going forward rather than the detail Michael Gove had agreed three principles for the future of agriculture provision of public goods incentivising innovation and helping with volatility do you agree with those principles Secretary, I think that's you I don't think that I would express them quite in that way I mean, I think that that farmers should be my own view which I've expressed several times this committee the role farmers play should be respected and acknowledged better in producing high quality food but also as the custodians of the landscape and they also have responsibilities to ensure diversity and quality of water in terms of the environment so I would put things quite a bit differently and I would incidentally really commend the committee members to the national council adviser's recommendations they really do repay a close reading and to the agricultural champions who touch on all of this and set out potential approaches that we could take a harking back to Mr Rumble's question but the problem is that until we have a reasonable clarity about what future funding arrangements and what the powers we're going to have it's not possible to embark upon the exercise of architecture of redesign because we won't know what we have and we have no idea absolutely none whatsoever about funding so fine sentiments are okay but without funding clarity without clarity about this Parliament continuing to enjoy full power over agriculture and fisheries it's really a bit of a theoretical exercise to set out a perfect set of principles Cabinet secretary I think it was clear at the start I wasn't looking for detail I was looking for the principles to pin your policy going forward what are they? I've already said it's not possible to set out principles until we know what powers we will have whether we will continue to enjoy all powers over agriculture and fisheries that we currently have interesting Leon that Mr Barnes shared this information with me in the work that he has done with DEFRA officials with his counterparts is that there has not been identified in those discussions any matter in respect of agriculture which would require to be reserved in other words it appears and I don't want to speak for the DEFRA officials but what I'm being advised is that there's nothing to prevent the UK Government from confirming right now that we will continue to enjoy in future all powers over agriculture including those which have rested with the EU so it would be extremely helpful because I'd be delighted and keen indeed to look at the way forward it would be very helpful though to enable me to do that if Mr Gove can provide the clarity which his officials appear to be providing to ours Can I just say I just want to reiterate this we're less than halfway through on the questions and we're more than halfway through on the time so the shorter you could make your answers and I would urge not only members of the committee but also those people giving evidence to look occasionally at me I will try and give you the nod if I think you're moving to wind up so I don't have to cut you off which I think would be rude and I will try and avoid doing that but Rhoda could I ask you to continue the question and I want to bring in Mr Rumbles I'm quite concerned because I've said twice I'm not looking for the detail I'm looking for the vision and you can't answer that so that's worrying to me it worries me especially because of the area of the country I cover the highlands and islands which have done badly out of agricultural support in the past and I would have hoped today that I could have gone away with some comfort for them that their needs would not be overlooked going forward but actually I have no comfort for anybody With respect I do disagree with that characterisation of my views I mean I've time and again set out principles you've asked me to brief I can't go over the whole of the principles that we've set out in numerous documents I mean for example I would refer members back to the vision for agriculture which we set out in 2015 which encompassed sustainability education, food and drink and public value I would refer members to the to the two really useful pieces of work from the champions and the national council these all help us to work together to formulate that vision across Parliament and I think that's the best approach and I will continue to follow it Mike, you want to come in and then I'm going to bring in Peter I'm trying to be constructive and helpful as ever so what I was trying to say and I wonder if the ministers could respond to this whatever happens either in the future we're going to have a continuation of some degree of the system that we have got for Scotland or we have an opportunity to design a new system and feed that up to the UK Government if we don't feed what we want in Scotland up to the UK Government we are likely to get into a situation where the UK Government says this is what we've designed and negotiated with you is it not so much better to turn round and say look this is what we want to do and this is what we want to have in agricultural support and everybody around that in a very positive way Don't we already taking that approach in the discussions that officials are having as I say we are having discussions and debate but we believe we should not be dictated to and clarity around powers and funding I think our cynic one owns in a sense convener I'm quite sure there will be a time for this discussion but that time for this discussion about the way ahead is only after the basics have been clarified and the trouble is they haven't and I have to say that the alarm, the anxiety amongst the farming community and I've recently visited a monitor farm last week and I spoke in AgriScot as well last week that the anxiety about farming about just basically being able to get labour getting Scotch lamb into the European markets having enough people to pick the tatties or the berries the fish sector over half the people that work in the farming sector are EU nationals and I mean until the UK provides clarity a response for example to the NFU about seasonal workers scheme we are flying blind, we are in the dark and we can come forward with perfect policy but quite frankly it wouldn't really be relevant until such time as we get answers on the basics Mr Chapman I need to come back to you cabinet secretary but you've continually been saying all forenoon that you have no idea on funding you have no idea on power you know I would argue that's not correct, there's still a debate to be had I accept but nevertheless the message from Westminster there will be no domination of powers in this hollywood parliament and on funding Mr Goff has said there will be the same level of funding going forward until 2022 so how can you possibly say that you have no idea on either of these things I know there's bits to be argued about but you can't sit there and say well I've said quite clearly there's by definition no idea whatsoever post Brexit about what the funding will be and the promises were made that after Brexit the funding would be at least the same so there's been no opinion whatsoever expressed about post Brexit at all despite the fact that it's pretty close upon us so far as the interim steps go and the assurances that have been given and such assurances that have been given are welcome obviously they only apply to farm support and they apply to those two aspects of funding that do not fall within the definition of farm support that's a technicality but it's a very very important one for Horizon for Leader for the regional fund for the social fund for research for community development for a whole host of things so there hasn't been up to Brexit and post Brexit we're completely flying blind the next question cabinet secretary comes from me first of all I think that all of parliament will have welcomed the review that was announced of the convergence payments could I just ask you what timescale and what process you believe should form part of that review and a short answer would be appreciated the review that was promised was promised some years ago so I'm pleased that belatedly the UK Government has now recognised that their previous promise must now be implemented I discussed this with Mr Gove at a meeting a few weeks back and we agreed between us that prior to Christmas we should settle the remit we should settle the identity of the person of people who conduct the review and also I think we wish to set the timescale within which the review should be should be completed and I have put forward proposals to Mr Gove which I believe are sensible and reasonable and I was very pleased that he said that he would work with us in order to settle this matter by Christmas Cabinet Secretary if there is a good result which one hopes for Scottish farming there is that the convergent payments are made available to Scotland is the Scottish Government in a position to ensure that all those people who should have received convergence payments receive the money including those if it's backdated that's the first question I very much hope that the review will find that money that was intended for Scottish farmers should go to those communities that is the clear objective that the Scottish Government has and I hope we are in the position to implement that plainly that money was intended to be paid in annual payments in respect of the whole of the period from 214 to I think to 21 that was the plan originally the fact that that plan was subverted by the UK Government in my view wrongfully appropriating that money for other purposes may cause difficulties in terms of technicalities and these are matters that will require to be looked to but as Cabinet Secretary in conclusion you know I'm determined to make sure that those who are entitled to the money get the money I think farmers would welcome the fact that there being no intention to siphon any money off for other purposes and my final comment on it is or question on it is do you think that review of the convergence payments will affect the agricultural support budgets past Brexit? I think that it's agreed that the review should have two components one the what's happened in the past and two looking to the future so yes I think that the review should look at the fundamental issues about the way in which funding is distributed in the UK and reflecting the fact that Scottish farmers as I understand it in 219 will actually receive the lowest payments per hectare of any of the EU states or just about that case so Scottish farmers have been receiving less per hectare than elsewhere in the UK and therefore the review I think should look at that aspect as well and I believe that in principle that's accepted by Mr Gove and as soon as we have clarity on these matters I will come back to this committee and undertake that John Finnie, the next question shows Thank you Cymru Good morning panel The Scottish Government's commissioned research on EU workers in the various sectors are you able to outline what that research has shown please and what the Scottish Government can do for those who rely on seasonal non-UK workers post Brexit please Yes, a research project entitled Farm Workers and Scottish Agriculture is currently being undertaken by a team of researchers at SRUC I can promise to Finnie that field work has been completed and analysis of the data is on-going and findings will be presented by the research team at the rural cross-party meeting on the Tuesday 5 December and final publication of that SRUC report is expected early next year I expect that it will echo the concerns that's been expressed to me recently in a meeting with fruit farmers for example with those who work in abattoirs where 95% of the veterinary, the OVs the veterinary supervising officers highly qualified people come from EU states and as I say in fish processing and tourism I think there is a serious concern that many businesses in rural Scotland would be unviable without the continued work of people from the EU who choose to come and work here and that choice is one that we should be grateful for and thank and appreciate and welcome so I think that the SRUC report will play a useful role in forming the debate going forward Thank you Fulton, the next question is yours Thanks convener and thanks panel this committee and other committees across the Parliament as a whole have heard evidence after evidence about various industries and sectors who are very worried about Brexit and the impact on EU Labour have you had any idea how the various sectors might retain access to this Labour after Brexit? Well Free movement I'll be brief on that Mr Russell but plainly one of the benefits of the EU has been free movement of people it's been great for people who can choose which country to work in personal freedom and to enjoy that it's something that we perhaps don't recognise enough and it's been great for Scotland to have the benefit of that work here and I don't really think that there's any parts of the rural economy that would be unaffected by this and therefore I do hope and I think this is a hope really shared by everybody of whatever political persuasion I do hope that we can get some early UK Government's recommendations have been put forward by the NFUS of a seasonal workers scheme certainly worthy of consideration but I do hope above all that an early decision is made by the UK on this because these people are absolutely essential to the economy and the communities in rural Scotland I would refer the member particularly to the evidence that the Scottish Government made to the Migration Advisory Committee two and a half weeks ago my colleague Dr Alice Rowland has been leading on that that shows the dependence of the Scottish economy on inward migration which is pretty substantial Scotland there's no regeneration natural regeneration of population in Scotland unlike south of the border where about 40 per cent of population growth comes from regeneration it doesn't happen here so unless we have people coming in then the population becomes static and begins to decline and then it is quite stark in rural areas I think that Rhoda Grant will know that at the last Highlands and Islands convention the leader of Highland Council and I think that Gil Ross will know this too presented some evidence that showed that about 20 per cent of the Highlands and Islands workforce was due to retire over the next period and that's about 80,000 people and actually finding those 80,000 from regeneration of population is literally impossible so we are looking at a continuing decline in the Highlands and Islands population now somebody like myself represents an extreme rural constituency in Argyll and Bute that means continuation and accelerating de-population particularly in the most rural parts of the constituency and that will have a huge effect on agriculture, on aquaculture on a whole range of activities so we have to find a way to resolve that and the only way to resolve it is free movement because migration policies set up in a way even the seasonal agricultural scheme will not do that there will be inhibitions to it the British Irish Chambers of Commerce published a report on Monday which would also people would benefit from reading it where they indicate very sensible very sane organisation huge amount of work being done by them on a huge trade customs union and a single market arrangements will produce the conditions that will allow that trade to continue and these are not, you know, I mean I'm quite sure there are people in this committee who will dismiss things that the Scottish Government says as the raving of mad gnats these people are not mad gnats in any sense these people are very sensible sober businessmen looking at it and coming to the inevitable conclusion that exits in the EU are particularly damaged in terms of the accessibility of labour and almost every sector in Scotland is now saying the same thing it needs to be listened to Fulton, do you want to follow? The minister touched on what my follow-up point was going to ask as I thought about agriculture and the agricultural workers the seasonal worker scheme would you introduce your views on that? The seasonal worker scheme was much criticised while it was in operation it produced a result that was often focused on student labour it was a short term that the actual short term nature of those who were coming was difficult Agriculture and particularly horticulture has changed substantially since then there is an almost a year round activity the volumes are substantially greater and it is unlikely to attract the type of people who presently come now one of the reasons for that of course is a shortage of agricultural labour across Europe Germany has recently licensed for I think up to 10,000 Ukrainians to come into work in agriculture because there is a shortage of agricultural labour and what Scotland has particularly been able to attract is people who come for the longer term and quite often they may go home regularly but they have other activities in Angus for example people who work in soft fruits may also work in fish factories and fish processing so there is a dynamic and a pattern of activity which the removal of free movement will remove and it is not at all clear that people will be substituted from there aren't people in Scotland to substitute from that nothing like as many this is a dynamic labour force how you get that from elsewhere becomes a moot point and of course they fall in the value of the currency just to make this point convener quite important has also meant that many people are not willing to come they just say to themselves this is no longer as worth it as it has been so this is bad news for rural Scotland cabinet secretary before you bring you in I know the deputy convener has got a question which you may like to answer as well just to touch on the interim report that was published this morning from the national council of rural advisers it comes with a number of recommendations and the very first one on page 3 is how we attract and retain homegrown talent and you touched on that just now minister other things such as base more businesses in rural areas I mean I would support that Brexit build on talent attraction work how do you propose to take forward the recommendations in this paper well I was about to actually to quote from this particular section in response to the previous question and the national council of rural advisers it makes quite interesting points that I don't think we've heard the debate before and I just wanted to share a couple of them briefly with you convener so that people will increase competition and result in increased costs to business as wages rise and micro or family owned businesses that are so dominant in rural areas could find it difficult to compete with larger counterparts where there is a smaller pool of labour now as Gail Ross says the national council have produced a whole series of recommended approaches under labour and skills trade funding and legislation and standards and they are all worthy of consideration but this is an interim report as is that of the champions what we have said and I repeat today is that we will consider their advice as we consider advice from all sources including stakeholders with whom we work closely and in the spring we hope to come to a view as to the best approaches to be followed but to inform that approach by listening carefully to the advice that we've had and certainly we should consider how we can attract and retain homegrown talent we should promote rural areas as centres of excellence for non-traditional rural sectors we should overcome connectivity barriers whether they be physical or virtual we should promote opportunities for people to work remotely in rural areas we should introduce greater flexibility in immigration rules to recognise self-employed businesses in rural areas operated by non-UK nationals provide essential services and generally how we can ensure the necessary talent exists to continue the vibrancy of the rural economy in Scotland Thank you cabinet secretary The next question is Richard Lyle Yes I'm sure that the question was promised We'll take back control the seas will come back to UK and I don't know if they'll be Rosie in the garden or in the sea I believe they'll be sold out again Michael Gaw in a reply to Barnas Wilcox said in the first of November it will probably not change dramatically the day after Brexit So what's your view how do you see the relationship between the UK and the European Union for fishes post Brexit what would you like to see in the UK fishes bill when do you expect the bill and do you think that fishermen will be sold out again I think cabinet secretary the minister is indicating that for you to answer that Well upon leaving the EU the UK will assume full control of the exclusive economic zone as a coastal state that's in line with international law with the rights and responsibilities and I think it's fair to say that across both governments there is an acceptance that fishing needs to be sustainable it needs to be sustainable and there's a sense that stocks need to be measured by science and then there must be an approach of conservation of those stocks and not overfishing and the total allowable catch method of the EU I think is not only a sensible way to deal with that but is also recognised as such I think by almost everybody that's involved so I think it's important to make that point to start off with there's no reason why future coastal status negotiations should be carried out exclusively by the UK government in future Scotland is the lead in fishing in terms of the value the contribution to the economy the wealth of our fishing grounds and therefore we could and should I think be offered the opportunity to play the lead role in negotiations within a UK coastal state model after Brexit after all we should have that voice where our interests are at stake and lastly you know I am looking forward to but have not yet had an answer to the question that I put to Mr Gauford and his ministerial team which is this you know can you confirm that there will not be bartered away to achieve other things in the EU Brexit negotiations access to our exclusive economic zone there has been no answer to that question and I think there should be one as before I bring you back in I am going to bring Stuart in briefly and then come to you so Stuart cabinet secretary you mentioned conservation the need to manage stocks given that the UK has been a signatory a part of ISIS in 1902 is it your expectation that the scientific environment which will lead to policy in this will remain unchanged whatever the future in relationship with the EU might be well you know I cannot really speak for the UK Government nor I suspect would they wish me to so I cannot say what their plans are what's in their mind what their views may be but I did I think set out briefly the principled approach that we should take we will continue in ISIS we expect that is the right approach and you know I hope and expect that the UK would generally speaking follow follow that approach as in the interests of the environment and the long-term interests of the fishing sector too do you like to come in? Fishermen's representative bodies seem to have a high expectation that access to UK waters will be managed in a radically different way post Brexit what's your view on this and what's your view on Scotland's own? Obviously we wish to see Scottish fishing succeed as best it can and indeed I was pleased to play a part in the December negotiations last year which achieved a very successful outcome for the fishing sector something that was very much welcomed by the fishing representatives with whom I worked in Brussels last December the same approach will be applied again in this December and indeed we have the opportunity to debate that in Parliament traditionally before the Brexit negotiations to inform our approach to those negotiations but you know the guiding principles will be sustainability in the setting of quotas in line with scientific advice and whilst our relationship with the EU may change our commitment to working with other European nations to achieve the best outcomes will not Thank you Just a follow-up on that Just a follow-up on that the Festerish Bell will allow us to control fishing within our 200 mile EEZ and the fishing community see great opportunities in there and given that we only catch 40 per cent of the fishing our EEZ at the moment by UK Scottish boats compared to 85 per cent that the Norwegians catch within their EEZ do you agree that there is a free of opportunity in there for our fishermen Mr Chapman mentioned the relationship with Norway and it's fair to say that the outcome of the negotiations with Norway have been deeply concerning in many respects to our fishing sector so it's not just about the EU it's a very complex pattern but I understand that it's a matter of practice the question arises what happens when Brexit occurs in March 2019 because that would be in the middle of a year for the purposes of the CFP so recognising the calendar year basis of fishing negotiations it would seem sensible to agree a rolling over of arrangements agreed at December Council in 2018 including the existing access arrangements for the remainder of the 2019 calendar year assuming that the final package is acceptable to us and whilst as much we disagree with Mr Gove about his indication is he would be supportive of that position and that was indicated on the 6th of November so I think the sea of opportunity is something that fishermen wish to see we are concerned that it may be traded away bartered for other EU negotiations we've asked for clarification that that won't happen but we are seeking as we always do and I work very closely with the SFF and all fishing organisations including those that are not aligned to the SFF to get the best possible outcome for all of our fishing okay given that scientific data is always going to be very important as far as fishing and fisheries is concerned will Marine Scotland continue to collect and share scientific data post Brexit and how will that be funded yes Marine Scotland will continue the good work that they do in that respect I mean as to the overall funding issues one of the uncertainties many uncertainties about Brexit and I raised this specifically Mr Gove is the future of the MFF which I think from memory is accounted for about 80 million pounds of benefits over the period of the existing programme so this is of immense benefit for practical things like upgrading ports harbours provision of facilities such as ice making and factory equipment helping fish processors to update and improve their profitability and efficiency but also in relation to areas of research in future and covering the aquaculture sector as well into things like better tackling fish disease which is so important in the aquaculture sector so in short I've asked Mr Gove what post Brexit will replace the MFF and again I'd be very keen to hear what the answer is OK the next question is John Finne It's about holding Governments to account and we know that in evidence to the environmental audit committee on 1 November Michael Gove talked about the creation of a commission that would do that job and indeed he said that has the power potentially to find or otherwise hold Government to account public bodies other than Government to account went on to talk about an example with the Commons fishes policy but he also said that he hoped but couldn't guarantee that a body would be in place on Brexit day what's your view on what should replace the European Commission and the European Court of Justice in holding the UK Government and indeed devolved administrations to account Minister I'm always slightly worried about the interpretation that is put on the European Court of Justice particularly by UK ministers let's be clear about what we're talking about the role of the European Court of Justice is not simply to hold to account national governments the role of the European Court of Justice is very often to answer inquiries about the law and to protect citizens who come demanding a redress famous European cases have indicated that it is this ability to the European Court of Justice that there is a right there is a legislative right which is not being fulfilled which should be fulfilled I mean I fail to understand the obsession with the ECJ from certain ranks of the Tory party the ECJ has performed a positive role in ensuring that citizens can be defended and I think the attempt to recreate it in watered down form for a few of its functions in an unspecified way is unsatisfactory my own view is that the role of the ECJ has been vital for example in our environmental matters and should continue to be recognised in that way and that is part of the folly of Brexit that in actual fact in throwing that out you're throwing out opportunities for citizens to be protected to get what they are doing and to ensure there is action that provides that and I don't honestly believe that Michael Gove wishes that to happen and therefore these things being talked about are window dressing Minister if no organisation was set up and indeed this is a term I think you used earlier in your evidence about a governance gap and whether that was part of your deep dive I'm not quite sure I know what a deep dive is but if that featured in your diving it would have been down and seen the seabed in that regard The issue of how for instance the Scottish Government would be held to count over matters in that area for instance farm payments, future farm payments how would you see that being addressed please Continuing membership of the single market particularly in the customs union possibly through the EEA route creates opportunities under the EFTACourt for decisions to be reached The EFTACourt recognises judgments of the European Court so there is an interrelationship so I think there are structures there are structures that work well comprehensive and I'd much rather see us accepting that than attempting to invent things which will be inevitably watered down in the UK Government's view it will not be possible for us to create those specifically in Scotland so you know the best solution is not to be involved in this process which is a wrong process the next best solution not as good but the next best solution is to say let's remain within the single market and the customs union and in those circumstances those structures exist and things can be enforced and they can be enforced in a way that benefits the individual citizen Were we to accept that neither of these options will... I don't accept that either of those options are impossible I'm sorry I don't just accept that I think that the evidence of the last year is that there is a growing realisation that the route that abandons the single market and the customs union is the wrong route we have gone from a situation in 12 months where the UK Government was determined to have no transition or implementation through that route to a position where they are now accepting that we see a gradual progress towards that and we need to argue for that I mean you know we've already had raised the issue of the Irish border in those circumstances you know the only feasible solution is the one that the Irish Government is talking about on this in which we are talking about this so I don't accept a thesis that would say these are not possible if they are not possible in the protection that will be afforded to people individual citizens on a whole range of ways not simply in ensuring that the Government is held to account but in actual fact defending basic rights which have been defended by the fact that we are part of the EU and will be put at risk and will be eroded I have no doubt of that I think it's fair as it was a question slightly on farm payments if the Cabinet Secretary would like to come in and then come back to Mr Finnie well in the scenario that Brexit occurs in March 2019 then the first question is will we be in the CAP or out of the CAP we're unclear about that because of Mr Duncan's remarks which we discussed earlier and Mr Gove's lack of clarification but in the event and I don't know it's really for them to say what their proposals are following the Prime Minister's Florence speech when she said there would be this transition but I mean if there were to be out if we were to be out at the beginning of the transition period then the question arises that who would be responsible for oversight and implementation of the compliance and disallowance provisions of the CAP and the answer to that is the UK Government haven't said anything about that whatsoever so that's another area where I'm afraid we're completely convener in the dark so far as I know John, you've got to fill up and then there's a few more Very briefly please Are you able to suggest and I know I alluded to Mr Gove's evidence that he gave there able to indicate to what extent scrutiny of any future arrangements has featured in discussions between the Governments please I have to say in a very limited way because there is no detail no flesh put on the bones of any proposals essentially and we are aware of that very briefly to the issue of the withdrawal bill we are the ones who have said there needs to be further scrutiny of the decisions of ministers and as you know I have offered negotiations taking place with the Parliament about how we would put that in place that is being resisted by the UK Government at Westminster so we are conscious of these issues and the issue of accountability to say it doesn't appear to be avoiding accountability even to the House of Commons Thank you There are three questions that I remember within the timescale so I would urge short answers it's going to be Gail Ross, Mike Rumbles and then Jamie Greene, say Gail We've heard over the last few weeks from certain quarters that no deal is better than a bad deal in your opinion what are the implications of no deal No deal is a deal sorry to be sort of theological in the complexity of this but no deal is a deal it is accepting the worst of all possible deals which is that everything just stops there's actually a step beyond that which is nobody knows whether there's a deal or not which is a potential outcome where the talks stall and nothing takes place and we amble towards at the end of March 2019 with no idea what's going to happen but no deal is in a sense unthinkable because it's impossible to work out what happens if you look at the border situation in Ireland automatically there is the hardest of borders because there are two different customs regimes if you look at the airline issue those arrangements lapse and you would have to deliberately back into them and there's such a complexity in this over the last 45 years the EU law regulation all those things have emeshed themselves together and the idea that then at a particular moment that is just broken the EU can sail on it continues to place particularly for example if the withdrawal bill was not through what would happen in those circumstances obviously we don't know now of course we prepare ourselves in a sense by trying to think the unthinkable but it's an incredibly difficult thing to do because you're looking at the circumstances where you say a lot of the basic underpinning regulatory structures would simply no longer have effect now we could pass emergency legislation and put some back into effect but that would be tricky to do so no deal is in unsensical proposition the fact that the UK Government is talking about it and there are those within the UK Government who want it I regard it very scary indeed Mike Mike Russell because of the time I'll ask only one of you to answer each question so Mike my question is for one of the witnesses Mike Russell particularly if I may say so I come across very constructively in all your dealings across portfolios with the other UK Governments and other areas and like yourself we don't want to be where we are but we are where we are what I would like to ask you is dealing with cross portfolios in general principle is it not much better in the different Government departments across the Scottish Government that we actually rather than wait and find out what the UK Government wants is it not better philosophically, politically, practically to design our own systems right across the board and then put that up for them I can see where you're coming from Mr Robbles simply to say the portfolio cabinet secretaries have the responsibility of taking forward their issues I can simply advise them and work with them and I deal with my interface with the UK Government in this particular instance the lack of information and the way in which we have the likelihood, the strong likelihood of having a common framework and I refer you to the list of 111 powers means that we are endeavouring to construct that framework and that's the right way forward it may well be that as that framework if it takes place does take place we will be able to accelerate the process of developing those parts of the framework that are not to be dealt with by the... within the framework there will be things that can be dealt with that with it what the framework looks like first thank you thank you convener much has been said today about the retention of responsibilities and powers to devolve administrations on the assumption that the Scottish Government will be responsible in the future for delivery of some form of agricultural subsidy or payment what commitment can the cabinet secretary give Scottish farmers that all payments in the future will be made on time and in full well I've discussed this many many times in this room with you all and I can assure you that my top priority remains the proper administration of the CAP payments system, pillars 1 and pillar 2 and I'm very pleased that we have convener over the last couple of months made considerable progress by paying out two Scottish farming community loans at the rate of 90% and I was very pleased that we were able to do so slightly earlier than I had set out and I also have set out a clear schedule setting out when farmers, crofters and others should be able to expect to receive various payments and I think that has been welcomed across the sector but we are not complacent and just this morning I had a weekly conference call with the officials so I want to assure Mr Greene that I'm doing my best to make sure that the payments are made in accordance with the scheme rules and that loans will be used as if necessary in respect of LFAS next year and I'm quite sure I will be sitting in this seat and discussing this topic again before too many weeks elaps. Thank you cabinet secretary and thank you minister, thank you Ian, thank you David and Mike and thank you for the evidence session this morning I'm now briefly going to suspend the meeting I would ask committee members to stay in place just while we change witnesses I suspend the meeting Okay, thank you We now move on to agenda item 3 which is subordinate legislation and this is consideration of one affirmative instrument as detailed on the agenda The committee will take evidence from the cabinet secretary for the rural economy and connectivity, the motion seeking the approval of the affirmative instrument will be considered at item 4 Members should note there have been no representations to the committee on this instrument I'd like to welcome back Fergus Ewing, the cabinet secretary for the rural economy and connectivity I'd like to welcome Greg Chalmers the team leader and Fiona McLean the solicitor Cabinet secretary, would you like to make a brief opening statement? Thank you, convener The statutory instrument revokes six grant schemes that are redundant and have been superseded The proposed revocations are therefore technical in nature removing expired instruments from the books Equivalent instruments have already been revoked in the rest of the UK The Scottish Government does not anticipate any negative impact on business or the voluntary sector should this instrument come into force Current grant funding for the maritime sector is delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund, the EMFF The fund is used along with the Scottish Government funding to co-finance projects and provides support for sustainable development within the fishing and aquaculture sectors and conservation of the marine environment helping to deliver growth and jobs in coastal communities Since its opening in January 2015 the EMF scheme has awarded over £46 million to eligible project proposals Therefore, I hope that the committee is content to support the motion that I move in my name Thank you, cabinet secretary Are there any questions from the members on this instrument? John Yes, I'm more than happy to support this Is there a lot of redundant secondary legislation still lying around that needs to be cleared up or is this the clearing up process? Is that the general question for the whole Government? No, what's thinking? Or is it just about this? Well, I think that all of the listed schemes are spent There's six, I mean I could read them out if you want No, don't get them read out, cabinet secretary I think that if there's no more in relation to this particular area that would be confirmation I think enough for Mr Winston If it were just about fishing, for example it would be better than none Richard I'll just pick one out Fishing vessels, temporary financial assistance One of the conditions for receiving the grant was that 75 per cent of the crew of the vessel were ordinarily resident in the UK in the last day of the relevant qualified period of 1982 In the number of years that have passed I'm sure many of those people are now retired for instance so that's another reason why you get ready to ask it That's a useful observation I'm not sure it's necessarily requires an answer If there are no other questions cabinet secretary I am allowed to offer you closing remarks I assume that your opening remarks will have covered most of what you've said so unless you want to make a closing statement I suggest that we move on to item 4 which is the formal consideration of motion 08383 in the name of the cabinet secretary asking the rural economy and connectivity committee to recommend that the fishing vessels and fish farming miscellaneous revocation Scotland scheme 2017 be approved cabinet secretary can I ask you to move the motion and ask if you have any comments you wish to make So moved and no further comments Are there any comments from the members The question therefore is that is motion S5M08383 be agreed Are we all agreed We are agreed That concludes our consideration of item 4 and I am again going to briefly suspend the meeting to allow the witnesses to depart We're now going to move on to agenda item 5 which is subordinate legislation The agenda item is a consideration of two negative instruments as detailed on the agenda No motions to annul have been received in relation to these instruments Is the committee agreed that it does not wish to make any recommendation in relation to any of the instruments That is agreed Thank you ladies and gentlemen That concludes today's committee business We are formally closed to meeting